For the record, Pastoral Relations forms are not to be altered.  To do so would call into question the pastoral relationship...It says the forms are not to be altered On The Forms, actually.

Hi Folks,

The United Church of Canada is sending out this message to all our networks and encouraging others to do the same:

Why NOT ask Bev Oda - why did you cut KAIROS funding? And "because you could" is NOT a good enough answer!  http://bevoda.ca/contact/

Please help spread the word.

Thanks,
Aaron

Hi AaronMcGallegos,

Technically, it is a good enough answer.

Just as "because its there" is a good answer when asked "Why climb Mt. Everest?"

We might like to know why Minister Oda cut the funding.  Minister Oda is not obligated to tell us why.

We might want to know why supporting Kairos is apparently contrary to what the Federal Government intends CIDA to do.  It would be nice if they could give a clear answer.  I do not think that they are so obligated.

If they felt that cutting funding to Kairos would hurt them politically I'm sure they wouldn't have done it.

Business as usual only works when people are happy with the business you are running.

When people who wouldn't ordinarily support your brand threaten a boycott it is a meaningless and toothless threat.  When people who would support your brand start talking boycott then you have a problem.

If card carrying conservatives thought that cutting Kairos funding was wrong then we'd see some action towards restoration.

Interestingly I recieved a call from a Conservative party pollster the other night and after I explained that I was waiting for a response from my MP regarding the altered document she was optimistic enough to suggest I was undecided.  I respended that writing me down as undecided was probably not in the Conservative Party's self interest because the longer it took my MP to respond (even by acknowledging receipt of my correspondance) the more closer I was coming to be decidedly against.  She thought that response was amusing which tells me what the Conservative Party actually places the value of my vote at.

Grace and peace to you.

John

LOL!!! The form actually says "This form is not valid if altered." Which only means that there are a lot of invalid pastoral relations forms around. I've seen some that - by the time everybody's finished with it - look like a Scrabble game. Presbyteries - even if they don't change the form itself - regularly change the terms of call, especially if one of the terms is below minimum requirements, or if the pro-rated salary for a part-time appointment is worked out incorrectly. (So, if the form says Con Ed Allowance is $1000 the Presbytery will simply put the term at $1250 in its motion of approval.)

I'm SO glad we found out how Kairos didn't get their funding.

I pray the funding comes through after all.

I think it might be a good idea to research who Bev Oda is and what she stands for especially if this is the only knowledge that one has of her.

Is this something that is consistent with how she has acted in the past?

watefall, there have been a couple of incidents involving Oda in the past. A fund-raising conflict of issue that I think revolved around broadcasters while she was the Heritage MInister and I think there was an expense issue a couple of years ago.

This issue, though, to me is pretty clear. The Liberals and NDP for perhaps the first time since Harper's been in office managed to spin an issue to their advantage. The funding decision about Kairos (as passionately as some of us here may feel about it) would have inspired a gigantic yawn in the media and the public. So the Opposition makes hay about a "doctored" document which from what I know of the process (and they know this - but this is politics) isn't "doctored" but has just gone through the normal processes. The Conservatives are unprepared for the fuss over the document because they assume this is just a standard Cabinet document (which it is) and when the Oppostion cries foul about it and the media picks it up the Conservatives (who are usually the spin masters) get flustered because the "doctored" document story makes them look bad - and they lie about it, because they're not used to the spin being made by someone else. The lie makes it worse and the whole thing snowballs so that now the Opposition are on the offensive and the Conservatives are on the defensive, which is the reverse of how it's usually been for the last 5 years.

You have to give credit to the Liberals especially for making this about the document rather than the policy. Has anyone even noticed if the Liberals - who are the only potential alternative government - have actually taken a position on Kairos funding? If they have it certainly hasn't been central to any story I've read - because they're all about the document. So they're getting lots of good media coverage right now without boxing themselves into a policy corner. Great politics!

I agree Stephen, as it stands right now, I'm lost as to who actually supports the funding of Kairos and who doesn't. It is about the document being altered.

Is it true that Kairos has been attacked for it's alleged anti Israel stance?

You cannot find anything on the Kairos website, but this is interesting.

http://ezralevant.com/2009/12/if-kairos-arent-a-bunch-of-ant.html

I was looking at this:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/741315--dimanno-agency-s-anti...

But I'm not bringing this point up to condone or condemn, rather to figure out what could have brought about the issue or the reason for this "doctored document".

Rightly or wrongly Kairos has been accused of being anti-Israel in its actions, and the Conservative Party - which has given Canada its most pro-Israel foreign policy ever - was undoubtedly influenced by that perception in the funding decision.

Now does anyone know if Bev Oda was personally " pro Israel" ?

What scares me & ticks me off -- is the overriding of beauracrat / departmental decisions without consultation or provision of reasoning.

Here is why.

The structure has the detailed analysis.  They know the in's/out's and can identify what is or what is not real.

When that communication path is broken, then it opens the door for manipulation by lobbyists at the top end.

I have seen it in our organization as well.  A good VP or CIO always has key individuals which they can validate stories with.....they then use their awareness of all the factors at play to make the decision; however, they do not make a decision such as the Kairos one, without validating back down the chain.

regarding what caused it.  I am more suspicious that it was the Kairos trip to the TarSands.  It got press.  I can imagine Harper, the PMO or Conservative Party saying....hmmm...who funds them.....cut them at their knees.

Hi waterfall,

She may be taking the hit for changing the document, but you can be sure it was not just something she felt like doing one morning.

Oda admitted (and was recorded doing so on air) that she added the "not", and that she added it after the others had signed it.)  I listened to the interview yesterday - and to her comments in the House.

Clearly, she lied to parliament,and she lied to a committee of the House. Once upon a time, we had enough integrity to demand a resignation for lying. Like manyy other areas of our democracy, that has vanished. We now permit a government to commit us to war without bothering  even to consult the mps - let alone the people.

In this case, it is clear that the prime minister lied to the house, as well.

In fact, I cannot imagine Oda did this on her own. This is a tight government. The order to cut Kairos almost certainly came from Harper. That's why Oda inserted the "not"

For Pete's sake, to claim the form was not properly worded, so she had to insert the not isnt' only a lie. It's also nonsense. The same computer that (or any other computer) could have issued a new form with the "not" in place within seconds.

UnitedChurchCda :

-------------------------

In a letter to Minister of International Cooperation Beverley Oda, Moderator Mardi Tindal calls on the government to act now to restore KAIROS funding.

Dear Minister Oda:

As Moderator of The United Church of Canada, I am dismayed by the removal of funding from KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, of which the United Church is a member.

Funding was removed despite CIDA's very positive evaluation of KAIROS and its work, and no credible reasons for this action have been provided.

KAIROS partners, who work on human rights and sustainability in the global south are suffering because of your decision. Canadians are deprived of the excellent educational work that KAIROS carries out in this country. Beyond these losses, KAIROS has also had its good name attacked --again with no credible explanation.

As yet there has been no response to KAIROS' second CIDA funding application.We believe that it is now time for you to act.

We expect you to restore CIDA funding for KAIROS at the level previously recommended, because nothing less will restore the damage that has been done to the good name KAIROS has earned and the good work it carries on.

We ask this in good faith and in partnership with the people of Canada.

Respectfully,
Moderator Mardi Tindal
The United Church of Canada/L Église Unie du Canada

CC: The Right Hon. Stephen Harper, The Hon. Michael Ignatieff, The Hon. Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe

Hi Saul_now_Paul,

Nope.

An imaginary one perhaps.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Nope

 Gotta say no, Saul_now_Paul.

You guys are not too up on your parables, I guess. 

But I can guarantee Kairos is not getting a cent from this govt  (Just like somebody else) until they repent and turn from their ways.

Hi Saul_now_Paul,

Don't be modest.  You aren't guessing.

You know we aren't anywhere near as bible believing or reading as you are.

Enlighten us, O wise one, which parable would we see if your spirit had given us eyes to see.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Personally, if we are going to go all biblical, I think a parable about lying would be more appropriate...

Ephesians 4:25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus 20:16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus 23:1 "Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 24:28 Do not testify against your neighbor without cause, or use your lips to deceive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah 9:3 "They make ready their tongue like a bow, to shoot lies; it is not by truth that they triumph in the land. They go from one sin to another; they do not acknowledge me," declares the LORD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zechariah 5:3 And he said to me, "This is the curse that is going out over the whole land; for according to what it says on one side, every thief will be banished, and according to what it says on the other, everyone who swears falsely will be banished.
 

LOL~ Nicely Played! LBMuskoka, well done indeed.

Here is some fun from Mcleans

Liberalism made easy

Seems to me the Liberals will have a very easy time making money off this Oda affair.

1. They declare: Either Oda goes or we go to the polls. If Oda goes, then they get a scalp.

2. If Oda stays, they declare they will vote non-confidence in the government at every opportunity from now on.

This will lead to four possible scenarios:

3. Scenario one: NDP and Bloc support the government — then the government becomes, for the remainder of the term, a “coalition of socialists and separatists” — that’s the end of that Conservative talking point.

4. Scenario two: the NDP supports the government. Then the Libs have a great attack on the NDP in the next election (“they supported contempt for parliament and the defunding of Kairos”)

5. Scenario three: the Bloc supports the government. Then the Liberal attack becomes “this government survives only through the support of separatists”. So much for that Conservative talking point.

6. Scenario four: Election

I can’t see how any one of these scenarios is tactically any worse than where the Liberals are now. Also, it gives them the advantage of being on the right side of truth, accountability, parliament, and democracy. It’s very rare that these line up so nicely with partisan advantage. Be a shame to waste it; it certainly beats riding around in a bus shaking hands.

Things are tippy enough so that this one could be the final push.

Sadly, we are facing in an election in which there is little else to vote one. The idea of Canada as a unque place with a unique character and a purpose  has all but disappeared.

In my early days, I read Arthur Lower's text, "Colony to Nation". Now, it looks almost comical. The only sense of nation I can recall recently was is in half-wit hockey commentaries, and in the sappy TV ads by Tim Horton's.

Absolutely, Pan. Exactly why I said above: "Great politics" (from the Liberal perspective.) They get great publicity, a variety of no-lose scenarios and get stuck with absolutely no policy baggage because they haven't actually taken a policy stand on anything.

The only potential monkey wrench for them is that - notwithstanding the media frenzy the Liberals have managed to generate - this may not shift votes, and if the Conservatives stay nudging the 40% mark, well, certainly your scenario 4 wouldn't be good news for the Liberals. They'd sure like to make some "coalition" charges though - a "socialist-separatist-Conservative" or a "socialist-Conservative" or a "separatist-Conservative" coalition charge would also put the Cons a bit on the defensive. The Libs are acting (politically at least) very skillfully right now.

I finally got a response from my Member of Parliament, Denise Savoie (NDP) today.

Here is some of what she said in the email she sent me:

What do you think?

Having now read over the page you linked to, plus a couple of newspaper articles online, it seems to me that we should just move on. The minister had intended to deny funding to KAIROS, it appears she simply didn't have that on the document at first, and then backtracked to make sure it said what she wanted to have it say. She has apologized for the way this all went down, and so I think it's best if we all just carry forth into the future.

 MorningCalm, the issue is she lied to parliament, and more importantly, that the conservtive party that was elected based on accountability is not holding her acountable

Yes, thank you Pinga, I know, she spoke lesser than the truth. Still she apologized and the Prime Minister said it's time to move on. Let's forgive, that's the Christian way.

no. that is not the Christian way. If you can say that, you have a pretty shallow idea of the meaning of forgiveness. And she's still lying.

This is a government department at the highest level. It is not a rinky dink family store. If a document is wrong, you simply tell the secretary to print a fresh one before signatures are added.  If she was too lazy or too stupid to know that, then the procedure would be to have all three of them initial the change.

There is no excuse for what she did. Obviously, she change that note after the signatures were obtained. And anyone with any knowledge of politics - particularly of this government -  would know she did not make that decision on her own. The orders came from Harper - and he was catering to mining companies and zionists, among others.

Even looking at this is gaga innocence of real life, she lied to parliament - which means to all of us -  something contrary to both Christianity and our parliamentary traditions.i Her Chrisian response should have been to apologize to the house of commons and to the Canadian people - and then to resign.

Harper says we should move on? I'll bet he does. This is HIS cabinet minister. Even if he didn't give the order to cut the programme (and I'm quite sure he did give it), he must have occasionally looked at a newspaper or caught TV news on the subject. And he didn't ask her about her cutting a programme for a major church in Canada?

Absurd.

Harper's as big a liar as Oda is. The Christian thing, out of concern for the rights off all Canadians is to demand she resign.

Don't get the "Christian" thing confused with the "goody-goody tip-toe" thing.

What is surely obvious by now is that Harper, too, has lied to the house in his pretended ignorance of the whole affair.

Some interesting comments and perceptions in this article re: Oda, Kairos, etc.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/gerald-capla...

Gecko46, excellent article!  Thank you.

 One day a florist went to a barber for a  haircut. After the cut,
> he  asked  about his bill, and the barber  replied, 'I cannot accept
> money from you, I'm doing community service this week.' The florist
> was pleased and left the shop.
>
>
> When the barber went to open his shop the next  morning, there was
> a  'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
>
>
> Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he  tries to pay his
> bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept  money from you,
> I'm doing community service this week.' The cop was  happy and left the shop.
>
>
> The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank
> you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for  him at his door.
>
>
> Then the local MP came in for a haircut,  and when he went to pay
> his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you.
> I'm doing community service this  week.' The MP was very happy and
> left  the shop.
>
>
> The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a
> dozen  MP'S lined up waiting for a free haircut.
>
>
> And that, my friends, illustrates the  fundamental difference
> between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.
>
>
> BOTH POLITICIANS AND DIAPERS NEED TO BE  CHANGED OFTEN
> AND FOR THE SAME REASON!
 

She forgot the first cardinal rule: Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.  No wonder I can't get a government job.  i can't lie and keep a straight face.

come on... this woman has admitted to altering a document AFTER it was signed by two other people.  now, i don't watch any canadian courtroom dramas, but i would guess that doing something like that is illegal, isn't it??

and then lying about it?? 

this article pretty much sums up my problems with bev and stephens actions on this...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tabatha-southey/hey-bev-oda...

It's not illegal!! It's normal procedure!!

It's how a minister overrides a recommendation from the bureaucracy!! The bureaucrats sign it to say they recommend this course of action. The minister adds a "NOT" as a way of saying "my decision on your recommendation is NO" and then signs it and either sends it back or sends it to Cabinet.  

... but you can't alter something AFTER IT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY OTHERS.

come on, if i sign off on a document, and then someone else inserts a 'not', changing the entire meaning of the document i just signed, and then submits that document as if i was in agreement with what the ALTERED document says?!?!?

thats illegal.

and bev oda knew it, too... when she was asked about who altered the document, she origionally said she didn't have any idea.  she suddenly remembered that it was HER only after the sh!# hit the fan. 

what is funny about all of this is how it really shows you why harper has such a tight gag order on all his MP's and cabinet ministers... between oda and cheryl gallants burst of brilliance there in newfoundland, i can't believe that anyone still thinks that the conservative party is competent to run a two car parade, let alone a country.

Oda doesn't have to worry about illegality. This is the same government that let Mulroney off wihtout even a slap on the wrist.

And this was not just Oda's decision. The idea that a member of a Harper cabinet would make such a decision on her own and without even letting Harper know is unthinkable. Harper knew. It also appeared in the press months ago. It is not possible that Harper did not know the whole story. So he has lied to the House, too.

One more time.

She inserted the "NOT" because that's the accepted way Cabinet documents and bureaucratic recommendations are handled. The bureaucracy makes a recommendation; the minister decides. The inserted "NOT" says that the minister rejected the advice given by the bureaucrats. In the case of this type of document, the "NOT" doesn't imply that the bureaucrats who signed the original recommendation agree with the "NOT." The "NOT" says explicitly that there's a DISAGREEMENT between the bureaucrats and the minister. The bureaucrats are responsible for the document as originally written; the minister is responsible for whatever gets inserted, and for the final decision. That's the process. The irony is that the Liberals know this for sure. There's a lot of MPs on the Liberal benches who've served in Cabinets in the past and who've inserted the "NOT" (or its equivalent) many times. But this is all about politics. The Liberals are getting great play out of the document issue. And I repeat what I said above - the issue is supposed to be funding for Kairos, and have the Liberals actually said that they disagree with the decision to de-fund Kairos? No, they're too busy scoring political points to actually tell us where they stand on this issue.

Oda's failure was in lying about this when questioned about it. All she had to do was say "I overturned the CIDA recommendation." Case closed. Instead, she lied to the public and she lied to Parliament. That's why she needs to go. But she didn't falsify a document. She overturned a bureaucratic recommendation. She's allowed to do that. She's the minister.

One more time.

She inserted the "NOT" because that's the accepted way Cabinet documents and bureaucratic recommendations are handled. The bureaucracy makes a recommendation; the minister decides. The inserted "NOT" says that the minister rejected the advice given by the bureaucrats. In the case of this type of document, the "NOT" doesn't imply that the bureaucrats who signed the original recommendation agree with the "NOT." The "NOT" says explicitly that there's a DISAGREEMENT between the bureaucrats and the minister. The bureaucrats are responsible for the document as originally written; the minister is responsible for whatever gets inserted, and for the final decision. That's the process. The irony is that the Liberals know this for sure. There's a lot of MPs on the Liberal benches who've served in Cabinets in the past and who've inserted the "NOT" (or its equivalent) many times. But this is all about politics. The Liberals are getting great play out of the document issue. And I repeat what I said above - the issue is supposed to be funding for Kairos, and have the Liberals actually said that they disagree with the decision to de-fund Kairos? No, they're too busy scoring political points to actually tell us where they stand on this issue.

Oda's failure was in lying about this when questioned about it. All she had to do was say "I overturned the CIDA recommendation." Case closed. Instead, she lied to the public and she lied to Parliament and tried to make it seem after the fact as if the bureaucrats agreed. That's why she needs to go. Because she lied. But she didn't falsify a document. She overturned a bureaucratic recommendation. She's allowed to do that. She's the minister.

One more time.

She inserted the "NOT" because that's the accepted way Cabinet documents and bureaucratic recommendations are handled. The bureaucracy makes a recommendation; the minister decides. The inserted "NOT" says that the minister rejected the advice given by the bureaucrats. In the case of this type of document, the "NOT" doesn't imply that the bureaucrats who signed the original recommendation agree with the "NOT." The "NOT" says explicitly that there's a DISAGREEMENT between the bureaucrats and the minister. The bureaucrats are responsible for the document as originally written; the minister is responsible for whatever gets inserted, and for the final decision. That's the process. The irony is that the Liberals know this for sure. There's a lot of MPs on the Liberal benches who've served in Cabinets in the past and who've inserted the "NOT" (or its equivalent) many times. But this is all about politics. The Liberals are getting great play out of the document issue. And I repeat what I said above - the issue is supposed to be funding for Kairos, and have the Liberals actually said that they disagree with the decision to de-fund Kairos? No, they're too busy scoring political points to actually tell us where they stand on this issue.

Oda's failure was in lying about this when questioned about it. All she had to do was say "I overturned the CIDA recommendation." Case closed. Instead, she lied to the public and she lied to Parliament and tried to make it seem after the fact as if the bureaucrats agreed. That's why she needs to go. Because she lied. But she didn't falsify a document. She overturned a bureaucratic recommendation. She's allowed to do that. She's the minister.

[/quote]

One more time.

She inserted the "NOT" because that's the accepted way Cabinet documents and bureaucratic recommendations are handled. The bureaucracy makes a recommendation; the minister decides. The inserted "NOT" says that the minister rejected the advice given by the bureaucrats. In the case of this type of document, the "NOT" doesn't imply that the bureaucrats who signed the original recommendation agree with the "NOT." The "NOT" says explicitly that there's a DISAGREEMENT between the bureaucrats and the minister. The bureaucrats are responsible for the document as originally written; the minister is responsible for whatever gets inserted, and for the final decision. That's the process. The irony is that the Liberals know this for sure. There's a lot of MPs on the Liberal benches who've served in Cabinets in the past and who've inserted the "NOT" (or its equivalent) many times. But this is all about politics. The Liberals are getting great play out of the document issue. And I repeat what I said above - the issue is supposed to be funding for Kairos, and have the Liberals actually said that they disagree with the decision to de-fund Kairos? No, they're too busy scoring political points to actually tell us where they stand on this issue.

Oda's failure was in lying about this when questioned about it. All she had to do was say "I overturned the CIDA recommendation." Case closed. Instead, she lied to the public and she lied to Parliament and tried to make it seem after the fact as if the bureaucrats agreed. That's why she needs to go. Because she lied. But she didn't falsify a document. She overturned a bureaucratic recommendation. She's allowed to do that. She's the minister.

Does anybody hear an echo?

Whatever the case, the problem is that she lied - and that Harper lied. That's a resigning offence.

You have to ask yourself - Would Harper have done such a thing to a large, fundamentalist church? Would he have done it to a Zionist group? There's a message in there about government contempt for the United Church as any sort of political or social force.

thats not one more time, rev. steve... thats like four.  i don't know if you are being snarky or if your computer is acting up...

she certainly has the right to overturn the decision of CIDA.  i recall when it happened, i was thinking how it was a stupid decision, but not a heckuva lot different from most of the other stupid decisions that the harper government has thrown out there.  however, i've heard people comment that what you have stated here is not exactly the case.  i know a few people who work with the federal government, and they don't agree with your assesment... my husband laughed when i mentioned what you said here.  and from what i've seen in the globe and mail, i'd say that they aren't thinking that either.

i dunno... it just sounds pretty bizarre to me that its okay in the government to change stuff that someone has already signed their name too... if i were to do that on my bank loan documents, for example, i'd be charged. 

Apology accepted Rev. Davis.  However, notwithstanding your excellent apologia on behalf of Mr. Harper and Mrs. Oda, please remember that you are still only allowed to vote once for your Conservative candidate in the next election.  Not four times!

 Here is what one intelligence agency wrote in its report about the person who is often credited with the invention of the "the big lie" as a political technique.

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty Four refers to the Big Lie theory on several occasions. For example:

• “The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts.”
• “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed....

Richard Belzer defines The Big Lie, in his book UFOs, JFK, and Elvis: Conspiracies You Don't Have To Be Crazy To Believe, this way: "If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap."