What I hear repeatedly is that this program helps the poor impoverished individuals who are just unable to get any money anywhere. First of all, it's not true, because the plaintiff we're supporting, Chief Mountain, has been litigating with voluntary supporters. I think that's something that a lot of people miss. There's a difference in voluntarily contributing to a cause you believe in. The money that our foundation has received to support the equality rights of Chief Mountain has come from people who agree with that cause. The money that the court challenges program hands out is taken from people who agree and also from people who disagree. You only get money from the court challenges program if you agree with their particular vision of justice. If you don't agree with it, you're not going to get the money. It's wrong to force taxpayers to advocate only one side.
For example, regarding the list of cases that Mr. Williamson mentioned, the court challenges program will fund you if you go into court to argue to change the traditional definition of marriage, but if you want to go into court to argue to preserve that definition, you're not going to get money. The court challenges program will fund you if you subscribe to their particular brand of feminism, but if you're with REAL Women of Canada and have a different idea about women's rights, you're not going to get the money.
I think it's dishonest to suggest that people have no other recourse, because they do. They can raise money from other people, as we have done to keep our litigation alive in support of equality rights.