Liberals want Ottawa to cough up cash for Coptic churches

[scribblet]

Should we help pay for security and are these churches facing the same dangers and terrorist attacks in Canada? I tend to think not, but it wouldn't amount to a whole lot of money, but giving to one group means we should give to another doesn't it. I have to wonder if there isn't some other motive behind the suggestion

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-want-ottawa-to-cough-up-cash-for-coptic-churches/article1861411/

The federal Liberals are urging Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to give Coptic churches in this country the money they need to install security cameras and alarm systems to prevent deadly terrorist attacks like the one rocked Egypt last week.

MP Mark Holland, the public safety critic, said in a release on Friday that high-alert warnings from the RCMP about potential attacks on Coptic churches in Canada should prompt the Conservative government to dip into the fund it created in 2007 to protect communities at risk from hate crimes.

ETA further reading

http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/general/3931/

Just hours after filing a story on the lengths that Ottawa Police and the RCMP went to to apologize and allay fears of Ottawa Muslims, comes a disturbing story that appears to say those same police services are telling Christians they won’t protect them from an Islamic threat.

Edited January 8, 2011 by scribblet

[Shwa]

Should we help pay for security and are these churches facing the same dangers and terrorist attacks in Canada? I tend to think not, but it wouldn't amount to a whole lot of money, but giving to one group means we should give to another doesn't it. I have to wonder if there isn't some other motive behind the suggestion

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-want-ottawa-to-cough-up-cash-for-coptic-churches/article1861411/

ETA further reading

http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/general/3931/

Gawd, Mark Holland, shut up.

Let's pay for security cameras for banks first because we know at least one of them has been bombed already this year. Oh wait, the bank already has security cameras that they paid for.

If those churches collect dues, tithes, etc., they can pay for their own damned cameras. A thought that the churches themselves are considering.

[msj]

Not sure why Holland would want to attract this type of attention to this program.

Just look at some of the rules:

Why a pilot program?

to respond to security concerns raised by communities

to provide a better understanding of the links between security measures and the prevention of hate-motivated crime

Eligible applicants

Funding is available to three types of not-for-profit organizations linked to a community with a demonstrated history of being victimized by hate-motivated crime, to help defray the costs of security infrastructure for a site at risk of being targeted by hate-motivated crime:

places of worship: a place of worship or house of worship is a building or other location where a group of people comes to perform acts of religious praise, honour, or devotion - such as temples, mosques, synagogues and churches.

provincially recognized educational institutions: including primary and secondary schools and early childhood education centres.

community centres: a centre where members of a community can gather year-round for social or cultural activities - such as community drop-in centres, and aboriginal friendship centres.

Applicants not eligible for funding include public institutions, Crown Corporations and for-profit organizations, and individuals.

Funding criteria

Approved projects may receive up to 50% of total project costs with a maximum funding contribution from the Program of $100,000 per project. This means that applicants must demonstrate that the project has at least 50% of the project costs funded by other non-governmental sources when the application is submitted.

In-kind contributions can constitute part of an organization's funding commitment to the project, but must be detailed in the project proposal. In-kind contributions include labour, equipment and expertise.

All projects and related activities must be completed by March 31, 2010. Projects will not be eligible for support through the SIP Program if funding is available though other municipal, provincial, or federal government sources.

Eligible costs

security assessments by private security firms (not to exceed 25% of total project costs). Please note that most security assessments fall into a range of $500-$5000 depending on the size of the project. Security assessments, and their associated costs, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the Project Review Committee. Please also note that many police services offer security assessments free of charge.

security equipment and hardware, such as alarm systems, closed-circuit televisions, digital video recorders, fences, gates, lighting, intercom systems

minor construction costs related to the project (contractor fees, labour, equipment rental, installation fees)

training costs directly related to the new security infrastructure

All applicants are strongly encouraged to consult the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategy so that, if appropriate, some of these elements can be incorporated into the project application.

Ineligible costs include capital costs, travel, hospitality, profit, core or on-going operating expenses, administrative and project management costs (including evaluation and monitoring).

IOW: it was a stupid program in the first place.

For the Liberals to come out like this, they are basically agreeing to the implementation and, now, continuation of a program that was/is a waste of money.

[eyeball]

For the Liberals to come out like this, they are basically agreeing to the implementation and, now, continuation of a program that was/is a waste of money.

Kinda like the Conservatives carrying on with the War on Drugs isn't it? But I do agree churches should pay their own way in the world.

[msj]

Kinda like the Conservatives carrying on with the War on Drugs isn't it? But I do agree churches should pay their own way in the world.

Agreed.

But I'd go further and take away their tax exemptions and not allow donors tax receipts.

Then they truly would be paying their own way in the world.

[Scotty]

Agreed.

But I'd go further and take away their tax exemptions and not allow donors tax receipts.

Then they truly would be paying their own way in the world.

Would you say the same about political parties? I.E., should no public money go to political parties?

[msj]

Would you say the same about political parties? I.E., should no public money go to political parties?

Nope, political parties serve a valuable function in a democracy and that requires some kind of public money (although the degree of public money is altogether another question).

The charity arms of churches should be allowed Not-for-profit status and allowed to issue charitable receipts.

The religious arms of the church, however, should not get such treatment because it is arguable as to if they provide any valuable function in a secular democracy.

But, this is getting off topic.

[Saipan]

They should get no more tax money than hockey, curling, golf and Olympics.

And then comes the Church of Scientology

[Scotty]

Nope, political parties serve a valuable function in a democracy and that requires some kind of public money (although the degree of public money is altogether another question)

Religious Canadians, and there are millions of them, would argue that religious institutions also serve valuable functions in society, guiding and attending to the moral conscience of society.

The charity arms of churches should be allowed Not-for-profit status and allowed to issue charitable receipts.

The religious arms of the church, however, should not get such treatment because it is arguable as to if they provide any valuable function in a secular democracy.

I don't believe you can separate church functions like that. For example, many churches operate food banks, and also throw open their doors to the homeles, and shelter them in their basements on cold winter nights. You would allow tax writeoffs for the food bank, but nothing for the church to help it provide cots and other things to the homeless it allows to use its basement.

[msj]

Religious Canadians, and there are millions of them, would argue that religious institutions also serve valuable functions in society, guiding and attending to the moral conscience of society.

Sure, and they are wrong.

One does not need to go to a tax exempt organization using tax free donations to be guided by a moral conscience.

I don't believe you can separate church functions like that. For example, many churches operate food banks, and also throw open their doors to the homeles, and shelter them in their basements on cold winter nights. You would allow tax writeoffs for the food bank, but nothing for the church to help it provide cots and other things to the homeless it allows to use its basement.

Of course you can separate these functions.

Often they are separated themselves to some extent by the church themselves so they can monitor the accounting between the various functions.

If they don't want to do that then it's as simple as operating the food bank arm as a NFP charity and the church charging it rent to use the basement as a shelter.

BFD.

Alternatively, the rules could allow the church to "donate" the rental value to the food bank/homeless shelter which would reduce any taxes the church itself would pay on its own operations (IOW - the church still recognizes the revenue from the rental but this would be mostly offset by a donor tax credit for tax purposes).

The rules already contemplate this - where they fail is that churches are allowed to be charities and NFP organizations (not necessarily the same thing in some circumstances) and, therefore, not pay any income tax on their net earnings.

[Saipan]

Should junior hockey donations be taxed same way?

[eyeball]

Religious Canadians, and there are millions of them, would argue that religious institutions also serve valuable functions in society, guiding and attending to the moral conscience of society.

But if you fund even one, no matter how mainstream it is, you have to fund them all no matter how fringe. As a non-religious person there is no way I can ethically or in good conscience say that one is more deserving than the other since they're all fundamentally the same.

[Saipan]

Do you believe in Hockey or Olympics?

[kimmy]

Should we help pay for security and are these churches facing the same dangers and terrorist attacks in Canada? I tend to think not, but it wouldn't amount to a whole lot of money, but giving to one group means we should give to another doesn't it. I have to wonder if there isn't some other motive behind the suggestion

Why Coptic churches and not everybody else?

Because Coptic churches are the target of specific threats by terrorists.

Read

Here

and

Here

for more information about that.

I can't really guess at how real the danger might be. Our security people believe they have the situation in hand, and maybe they do, or maybe the Liberals are correct in saying that more should be done.

However, clearly what makes the Coptic churches different from others is that Islamists have singled out the Coptic church for violence right now.

-k

[Saipan]

And synagogues too.

But that should be paid by Moslems.

[Keepitsimple]

There's an important context that is missing from the recent stories about attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt. The word "Coptic" makes it sound quaint - even mysterious......but in fact almost all Christians in Egypt are Coptic Christians - a branch of Christianity that was established by the the Apostle Saint Mark. So lets dispense with the work Coptic.....the attacks in Egypt were against Christians and further demonstrate the total intolerance by Extreme Islam to any faith other than their own. As such, trying to draw any parallel between Egypt and Canada would not be limited to just Coptic Christians - but a danger to ALL Christians. Should we worry? Sure.....but we're adressing it already. Being vigilant in terms of routing out extremists and throwing the full weight of the law at them.

[Shwa]

Why Coptic churches and not everybody else?

Because Coptic churches are the target of specific threats by terrorists.

Read

Here

and

Here

for more information about that.

I can't really guess at how real the danger might be. Our security people believe they have the situation in hand, and maybe they do, or maybe the Liberals are correct in saying that more should be done.

However, clearly what makes the Coptic churches different from others is that Islamists have singled out the Coptic church for violence right now.

-k

One would think that for practically every community in Canada (I know this is true of the cities in the Durham Region) persons with suspicious ties to anything related to terrorism are already known and monitored to one dgree or another. They likely know they are being monitored too. There could be unknowns of course, but I am trusing our detection agencies to be pretty good about it. And, so far, so good.

So if anyone is going to bomb Coptic Churches, in this country, a stinking security system isn't going to stop them.

[msj]

Should junior hockey donations be taxed same way?

Amateur sports are usually run on a not-for-profit basis so it wouldn't really matter if they were taxed or not.

Amateur sports (with some exceptions) also don't get too much in government funding and are not charitable organizations so do not issue tax receipts.

[William Ashley]

Should we help pay for security

Priests can get guns and body armour just like everyone else. The fact is police are suppose to protect churches too if there is credible reason to believe of such an ongoing threat. Terrorism is secondary to domestic security.

and are these churches facing the same dangers and terrorist attacks in Canada? I tend to think not, but it wouldn't amount to a whole lot of money, but giving to one group means we should give to another doesn't it. I have to wonder if there isn't some other motive behind the suggestion

Paying for a private organizations security with tax payer funds. This is not good. Let them use public security mechanisms just like everyone else. Let them contact the police if there is evidence of a threat against them.

[Saipan]

Amateur sports are usually run on a not-for-profit basis so it wouldn't really matter if they were taxed or not.

Amateur sports (with some exceptions) also don't get too much in government funding and are not charitable organizations so do not issue tax receipts.

They get my tax money on all three levels of government. 'Specially municipal. And I intend to get it one day back.

[Saipan]

Priests can get guns and body armour just like everyone else.

Your ignorance shines through again. You should know it's ILLEGAL in Canada.

The fact is police are suppose to protect churches too

The fact is there's no LEGAL obligation for police to protect anyone. How many victims were protected so far? Any?

Police carry guns to protect themself.

[Shwa]

They get my tax money on all three levels of government. 'Specially municipal. And I intend to get it one day back.

Really? They "get" tax money - from the province and federal governments even?? I volunteer with several sporting organizations. Please tell me where we can "get" some of this tax money.

In other words, back up your remark with some credible proof.

[Saipan]

Really? They "get" tax money - from the province and federal governments even?? I volunteer with several sporting organizations. Please tell me where we can "get" some of this tax money.

In other words, back up your remark with some credible proof.

Name one golf course, hockey rink, curling alley..... built and maintained by users. At least in small towns.

[Shwa]

Name one golf course, hockey rink, curling alley..... built and maintained by users. At least in small towns.

In other words, you have no proof is that what you are saying?

Because now you have gone from "all three levels of government" to asking me to prove your point for you ... about "small towns."

[Saipan]

In other words, you have no proof is that what you are saying?

Because now you have gone from "all three levels of government" to asking me to prove your point for you ... about "small towns."

It's still ALL THREE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-politics-of-sports-funding-weigh-heavy-for-harper-government/article1812752/

http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Federal+government+should+contribute+over+100M+towards+Regina+stadium+Liberal+Ralph+Goodale/3497233/story.html

http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/infoCntr/cdm-mc/index-eng.cfm?action=doc&DocIDCd=The%20Governme