Work Based Learning Application Form: Fill & Download for Free

Commerce opens up many career avenues. Globalization, foreign insurance and foreign banks has created enormous job opportunities for commerce students. Chartered Accountant (CA) is still a coveted career. On successful completion of B Com, students get jobs relating business and finance. Professionals can apply for employment in finance sector like banking, company secretary ship, chartered accountancy, Cost and works accountancy jobs, etc. Commerce students get jobs in non-finance sector in the fields like mass communication, law, hotel management, etc. Page on b.com degree also serves as the stepping stone for MBA (finance). Commerce students can take a route of teaching after graduation and post graduation. Commerce students find career opportunities even in public services viz. Civil Services, Indian Economic Service, Indian Statistical Services, etc. Commerce graduates have a very exciting career option such as e-commerce. This career is well-suited to commerce students because of their sound understanding of business transactions.TopRemunerationIt mainly depends on academic qualifications, training, experience, location, responsibility and employer. Private sector especially foreign companies provide attractive pay packages. The salaries in this sector ranges from Rs.10,000-1,50,0000 per month. Professional like MBAs, CAs and CFAs get high pay packages.Foreign banks and insurance companies give good packages.TopEligibilityGraduation and post-graduation is desirable for the higher posts. It mainly based on the type of career to be pursued. The certications and liscencing from professional bodies is required for CA, CS, CFA, etc. MBA (finance) is also preferred in many foreign banks.TopEmployabilty SkillsGenuine interest in working with numbers and better computing skills.Ability for analyzing numerical data.Good communication skill.Ability to work with team and lead the team.Ability to take smart decisions.Organizational and administrative abilities.Logical thinking.Accuracy and neatness.Creativity and high intellectual capability.Ability to work hard and readiness to work for long hours.Flexibility and willingness to learn new things, technologies and adaptation of new methodologies at work.TopCareer testIf you record “Yes” for maximum questions then it indicates that you have potential for perusing career in the field of Commerce.Do I like to play with numbers?Do I have better computing skills?Do I have ability for analysing numerical data?Do I have analytical skills?Do I have practical business sense?Do I have good decision making power?Do I have good knowledge of economics and investments?Do I have sound knowledge of management and general marketing?Do I give utmost imporant to precision and accuracy at work?Do I enjoy office environment?Do I like to work for several hours (8-12hrs or more) per day in an office?Do I have ability to work with a team?Do I have computing and interpreting skills?Do I have organizational and administrative skills?Do I read budgets, business news and economic reviews?Do I have computer skills?Am I ready to learn and adopt new methodologies?TopCareer opportunitiesHigher education: Page on b.com students can go for higher education (MBA, Page on m.com, MCA, Ph.D, ) or immedate jobs. There are some prestigious certification courses in Commerce viz. Chartered Accountancy (CA), Certified Financial Analyst (CFA), ICWA, CFP and Company Secretary Ship (CS).Banking: Career is chosen due to fair salaries, job security and high social acceptance. Many local/national/foreign banks provide good job opportunities.Investments: One can get job as equity research analyst, investment banker, mutual fund executive, capital market manager, asset manager, venture capitalist and real estate.Insurance: It is showing exponential growth due to liberalization policy in India. The public and private insurance companies in life and non-life insurance providing enormous career opportunities. It also offer jobs in actuary and risk management.Capital market: Liberalized Indian economy has opened up capital market for foreign investors along with domestic investors. The heavy flow of capital into the capital markets has generated many employment opportunities. .Management: Page on b.com and BBA courses provide good background for MBA course. MBA (Finance) requires sound back ground of commerce field.Accounting: Demand for skilled accountants has increased considerably in the domestic and international job market.KPO and BPO: Enormous opportunities for commerce students in this emerging field.Taxation: Many jobs related to taxation has been created in recent years.TopJob optionsAccountant/Costs and works accountantAuditorBook KeeperBusiness analyst/Market analystCFOControllerFinance managerInternet Marketing Executive (E-commerce)Stock brokerSelf-employment:Business firmStock brokerTrade consultantManagement consultantEntrepreneurCorporate lawyerFinancial analystsTax consultantsSome popular careers options in Commerce:Chartered Accountant (CA): He/She is specialized in accounting, auditing and taxation. CA serves as a corporate caretaker and occupies respectable position in corporate world. The demand of CA has increased. Salaries of C.A. depends upon academic qualification and experience. Average salaries 25,000-1,50,000 per month. Abroad, salaries may go up to Rs. 5,00000 per month. CA who does consultancy earns good money. Eligibility: Admission is open to 10 + 2 pass or equivalent examination. CA Program has three sections viz. Common Proficiency Test (CPT), Professional Competence Course (PCC or PCE) and Final examination. Institute: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an examining and a licensing body.www.icai.org,Company Secretary (CS): He/She co-ordinates various departments, ensures compliance of company legislations and advises directors on statutory requirements of the company. Apart from this, CS also looks after finance, accounts, legal, personnel and administrative functions. CS is a well remunerated career option because of its multifaceted nature. Eligibility: The Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) offers a three-stage course to qualify as Company Secretary. Foundation course is of 8 months that can be joined after 10+2 exam. Institute: The Institute of Company Secretary of India conduct and regulate the course of Company Secretary.http://www.icsi.edu.Cost and Work Accountant (CWA): Certified CWAs maintain cost accounting records, do cost auditing for companies, certify import and export documents under the Exim Policy, serve as executor, administrator, receiver and valuer. CWA facilitates strategic decisions in respect of diverse economic activities of the organization.Eligibility: The ICWAI examinations are held in three stages: Foundation, Intermediate and Final. A candidate may appear for the Foundation examination after passing 10+2 examination. Graduates in any discipline are eligible for direct admission to Intermediate course. Candidates passed in final examination with a minimum work experience of three years are eligible to become members of ICWAI. Institute: Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India (ICWAI) conducts and regulate course. Further details: www.icwai.orgChartered Financial Analyst : Chartered Financial Analysts (CFA®) utilize their skills in the core areas of financial and hedge fund research, portfolio management, investment consulting, investment banking, investment management, international finance and research. Career opportunities for CFAs with IT skills (trained in high-end packages like SAP, Oracle application and Baan) have increase manifold.CFA regarded as the key position by financial professionals. CFA gets good salary. Eligibility: To be a CFA, a graduate requires clearing three levels of examination. A minimum of three years of investment/financial experience is essential. Institutes: ICFAI conducts CFA programme in India. This course is offered through class room as well as distance learning packages. Further details: www.icfai.orgBanking: For a career in banking, one can start off by maintaining accounts. Now a day’s banking sector recruits MBA graduates, CAs and CFAs to enhance the efficiency of banks. Now banks are in the mutual funds, securitization business, credit cards, consumer loans, housing loans, etc this open up many career avenues.Eligibility: Public sector Banks recruit mainly graduates for Clerical and Probationary Officer posts on the basis of All India Level examination. Graduates with commerce/economics are desirable candidates but any one from any stream can enter into this service by qualifying the exams conducted by banks. Foreign Banks prefer take MBAs, CAs, CFAs, etc.Investments: One can job opportunity as equity research analyst, investment banker, mutual fund executive, capital market manager, financial planner/asset manager, venture capitalist and real estate.Insurance: Insurance field offers jobs in actuary, risk management manager, insurance surveyor, underwriter, etc. The key factor for success in this field is experience. In private sector, the salary is more attractive. In private sector generally management graduates are inducted in the areas of marketing and sales gets salary ranging from Rs 15,000 to Rs 50,000 per month. The Commissions are the most common form of compensation for insurance agents and the amount depends on the type and amount of insurance sold. Eligibility: To pursue a career one has to pass the entrance examination conducted by the Actuarial Society of India, Mumbai. Students who have passed 10 + 2 or equivalent exam are eligible. License is needed to work in this field which can be achieved through a training programme.TopEmployersCompanies.BanksFinancial institutions.Insurance companiesCommercial firmsBusiness houses.

My goals here are three-fold:To give non-Canadian readers a window into the story that’s going to determine whether Trudeau gets re-elected this year.To give Canadian readers a clearer and more complete sense of what’s happened than is easily found in any other single source.To make a few arguments re: what does and doesn’t matter here, and why. (And in the case of what doesn’t matter, outlining a theory on why some are pretending otherwise.)By necessity, what follows isn’t exactly short. But I’ve done my best to keep it as interesting and concise as possible while still hitting the above goals.For those unfamiliar with my writing, two quick notes: (1) My only interest in the partisan side of politics is deconstructing it. I have no team or tribe. (2) To ensure the most accurate takes possible, I offer rewards for all corrections.Ok, enough housekeeping.[EDIT: My original answer here was written March 1st. I returned on March 13th to make a few minor corrections and to address some common questions / objections. Where it made sense, I added edit snippets throughout the main text. Where I felt additions would be too distracting, I saved new commentary for the end. You can track all changes via the answer’s edit log.]Background ContextHere’s what brought us to today, in six bullet points:SNC-Lavalin is an EPC firm, which is to say that they’re the folks governments turn to when they want to contract out large infrastructure projects. SNC has roughly 50k employees globally, including 9k or so in Canada, with some 700 of those Canadian jobs being in the Montreal area (where SNC is currently headquartered). As recently as last October, SNC was worth about $9bn CAD, which is a fair amount for a Canadian company. If not quite a crown jewel, they were right at the top of the next tier down.SNC engaged in some shady stuff between 2001 and 2011, leading to a mire of lawsuits and investigations. As evidence of their misdeeds mounted, thousands of employees left, the board was made over, and a host of new compliance procedures were put in place to ensure that The Bad Times were behind them.In July 2012, the Harper government (the Conservative majority that preceded Trudeau’s Liberal majority) had Canada’s national contracting office revise their anti-corruption rules, with the net effect being that any vendor found guilty of certain crimes would be “rendered ineligible” for future federal contracts for a period of 10 years (reducible to 5 with good behavior). The Conservatives also made further amendments over the following years to reduce options for leniency, largely (it’s assumed) to position themselves against the Liberals, who had a party history of bedfellowing with shady corporations.For obvious reasons, SNC didn’t care much for this. They began lobbying for Canada to adopt what many other countries call deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), which are something like plea deals, where a corporation can admit wrongdoing and submit to certain penalties and government-supervised renovations without bearing the full weight of a potentially crippling criminal conviction. (The logic here being that it’s not generally fair or useful to punish an entire enterprise for the sins of a few, especially if those few are no longer there.)The Trudeau government, which came to power in late 2015, ultimately did move forward with creating a DPA regime this past September. Unsurprisingly, SNC was quick to request an invitation for entry, arguing that they’d already done all the sorts of penance and reform that a DPA would require, and that further punishment was basically just value-destruction with no upside.The person responsible to decide on SNC’s request said no, setting off a chain of dramanoes just now reaching their crescendo.Now, before we can unpack the decision itself, we have to make a quick detour into the structure of the Canadian government — which I promise isn’t (quite) as boring as it sounds!Super Fun Learning Time!Trudeau, in addition to being Prime Minister (PM), is a Member of Parliament (MP) representing a riding in Montreal. That’s because in Canada the PM is always head of the executive branch and a sitting member of the legislature, with those two branches of government being heavily intertwined.[EDIT: Mike Hewson pointed out that all ministerial roles, including PM, can legally be filled by Senators and/or credentialed professionals, though this is only applicable in fringe cases where no suitable MP is found for a given role, which almost certainly would never be the case for PM — though this did happen twice in Canada’s early days when the sitting PM died in office.](I’m going to skip over the roles of the Queen, her Governor General, her Privy Council, and the Canadian Senate — mostly because those are all legacy institutions that hold marginal effective power today. If a PM has the backing, or “confidence”, of a majority of individual MPs, the PM effectively is the government. They own nearly all executive powers, and have enormous influence over legislation. Individual MPs have latitude to vote as they will, but those in the PM’s party will generally support the PM on all but rare “vote your conscience” items. The only part of the federal government that a majority-party PM has no real influence over is the judicial branch.)Anyway, there’s this other thing that the Harper government did (again, presumably) to brand themselves in distinction to the scandal-ridden Liberal Party of the early 2000s.In brief:The Conservatives instituted the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which was to be subordinate to (but somehow independent of) the Department of Justice.The Department of Justice is headed by the Attorney General (AG), who is almost always a sitting MP selected for said purpose by the PM. In this new arrangement, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) would be a civilian appointed by the sitting Attorney General.The idea here is that the DPP would be two steps removed from the PM, which would theoretically protect the former from undue political influence from the latter as far as deciding whom to prosecute.(Oh, and by the way, the Attorney General is also the Minister of Justice, which is a totally different hat that the same person always wears. It’s a confusing duality not worth getting into here, outside the basic idea that the same person is to be considered independent or not-so-independent depending on the hat they’re wearing in a given instant, which often leads to all the obvious complexities that one would expect.)Now, if you’re wondering what the division of power is between the AG and DPP on a practical level, there’s a handy guide for that very thing: Relationship between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.In a way, it’s the most “Canadian Politics in a Nutshell” thing you could ever read — almost 4,000 words of high-sounding rhetoric (“independence!”, “justice!”, “accountability!”) that accomplishes basically nothing outside of making the system even more convoluted and bureaucratic.Two reasons I say that:The DPP serves at the pleasure of the AG, who serves at the pleasure of the PM. While this gap between the DPP and PM probably does make it slightly harder for an otherwise good PM to improperly influence an otherwise good DPP, it doesn’t at all solve the problem that a bad PM would appoint a complicit AG, who would hire a complicit DPP.The AG can overrule and/or sideline the DPP at their own discretion, making the whole thing kinda pointless. (The AG would have to publish a memo of sorts explaining why, but that’s about it.)The obvious (if uncharitable) reading here is that Harper wasn’t all that interested in changing anything, so much as he was very interested in the optics of being seen to change things. That this chess move would also make it near impossible for his successor to reverse the changes without massive blowback (despite the changes being largely symbolic) was just an added bonus.[EDIT: For more on Harper’s presumed insincerity, see this combined with this. Also note that the current chair of SNC’s board was a key figure in Harper’s government for three years, as he’d been in several governments prior. He was expecting his calls to be answered, regardless of who was PM at the time. The idea of a Conservative government handling the SNC case any differently on a practical level seems like bad fiction to me, and I’m not sure on which grounds someone could even argue otherwise. I suspect Harper was unsurprised to hear that his trap had worked, if also a bit surprised to learn it was the SNC deferral that sprang it.]This all in mind, let’s get back to the current narrative.A Series of Unfortunate DecisionsBefore the new law even came into effect, the SNC began pushing hard for their chance at a deferral. But Canada’s current DPP, Kathleen Roussel, for reasons still unknown, decided that she was going to tell SNC “no deal”, leading her to issue an internal memo to this effect on September 4th of last year. The contents of said memo aren’t public at this point, having been private to the AG. But the fact of the decision was communicated to the PM’s office, which Trudeau and co. were, well, not entirely satisfied with. This set off a chain of contacts over the next three months or so, which broadly consisted of the PM’s office looking for the AG to either reconsider or allow an outside legal opinion.As to Trudeau’s motivations here, we can make some reasonable guesses:SNC is headquartered in Trudeau’s home city.Trudeau has an election coming up, and Quebec often plays the deciding role. SNC is a big deal to Quebec, and a conviction could cause deep harm to SNC. (At the least, the conviction would play poorly, whatever the ultimate economic consequences.)The Liberal Party has always been corporate-friendly (in ways both good and bad). In particular, they’ve largely been against value-destruction as a general principle. And Trudeau almost certainly sees refusing SNC’s request to be textbook value-destruction.Anyway, whatever his motivations or their relative weighting, Trudeau’s entreaties to Wilson-Raybould to intervene didn’t change her mind. But they did cause significant friction between them, which Trudeau was unable to keep entirely private. This was a gift that Andrew Scheer feasted upon. (Scheer is the current leader of the Conservatives, and Trudeau’s chief competition in this year’s election.)As a further gift to Scheer, Trudeau initiated a cabinet shuffle in January, which included the reassignment of Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs (with additional responsibilities in National Defence). While this was met with some suspicion, the real drama began on February 7th when The Globe and Mail published a rundown of the spreading rumors. This in turn led to someone asking Trudeau a few days later if he and Wilson-Raybould were still on good terms. His answer was to the effect of “well, she’s still here working for me, which should be its own answer” — which, uh, backfired spectacularly in that she resigned a few hours later.[EDIT: The timing of an ethics probe may have also played into her timing. Also, it isn’t clear how aware Trudeau was of how Wilson-Raybould felt until the shuffle. She says it should have been obvious. He says it wasn’t. As of this time, no documentary evidence has come out proving either right or wrong.]Her resignation obviously raised even more questions, which ultimately led to her appearing before the House Justice Committee to address concerns over whether Trudeau and co. had crossed any legal lines in their lobbying.The FalloutYou can read Wilson-Raybould’s opening remarks here.Being as objective as able, I’d summarize them as follows:Trudeau and team lobbied aggressively on SNC’s behalf, and he made it clear that he was displeased with her and Roussel for being inflexible.While she didn’t accuse them of breaking any hard laws, she feels they did cross well into “inappropriate” territory, both in tone and frequency of approach, including after she’d basically said “no means no”.She feels that she was “demoted” because of her stand.All said, she seemed entirely credible. Her notes were thorough and it’s hard to imagine her having lied on any point. Even so, there’s the open question of interpretation, especially as it concerns that last bullet point.While there’s much that’s still unclear, we do know that, as far as immediate causes go, she was reassigned as part of a larger cabinet shuffle triggered by someone else’s resignation. This in mind, Trudeau’s official position has been “had Scott Brison not stepped down, Jody Wilson-Raybould would still be minister of justice and attorney general of Canada.”Now, Scheer is obviously hoping for a smoking gun that will prove this statement false. But we don’t have one yet, and it doesn’t seem all that likely to me that one exists. Could Trudeau have opportunistically used the shuffle to punish her? It’s possible. But it’s also possible that he was simply annoyed at how she handled the whole affair, leading him to decide that he’d prefer her elsewhere. I can see how either scenario could be viewed as objectionable, but I’m less sure that even the former rises to the level of criminal obstruction. Whatever Trudeau’s motivations in shuffling her, his replacement AG has so far left the existing DPP in place, which means nothing involving SNC-Lavalin has actually changed. I suppose you could still argue pettiness, but pettiness isn’t quite a crime.[EDIT: There’s also the possibility that there was no pettiness at all and that the shuffle was exactly and only for the reasons that Trudeau’s former top aide suggested. I found his testimony compelling in its own right, and I’m not sure how to adjudicate between the two accounts outside further evidence. My lean is that it feels a little unlikely for there not to have been some secondary motive, however small. But YMMV. I get into this a bit more in the edits at the end.]Anyway, all those arguments are meaningless to Scheer, mostly because it’s very convenient for him to not consider them.(Note: As I don’t want to give anyone cause to believe that I’m meaningfully biased, I’ll point out before continuing that one of the last two votes I cast was for a Conservative. And I’m fine with throwing more votes in their direction — just as soon as they stop nominating feckless lizardpeople like Andrew Scheer.)A Study in InsincerityWhile I wasn’t much of a Harper fan, my dislike for him was mostly benign. Had he won against Trudeau in 2015, I’d have made a vaguely disappointed clicking noise and then gone back to whatever I was doing. I ultimately voted against him because I was displeased with how he seemed to court the alt-right as it became clear he was going to lose — but his work as PM was largely … fine?Andrew Scheer, however, is a different category of conservative. Andrew Scheer, in a nutshell, is the kind of person you’d get if you isolated all the unhealthy impulses that Harper struggled with and then doused them with growth hormones (and then also stripped most of Harper’s policy/strategy IQ).He made a speech yesterday in response to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, of which I’ll share just one excerpt:The testimony Canadians have just heard from the former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould tells the story of a Prime Minister who has lost the moral authority to govern. A Prime Minister who allows his partisan political motivations to overrule his duty to uphold the rule of law. A Prime Minister who doesn’t know where the Liberal Party ends and where the Government of Canada begins. And a Prime Minister who has allowed a systemic culture of corruption to take root in his office and those of his most senior cabinet and public service colleagues.Now, much of this is just your run-of-the-mill disingenuous nonsense. But even in that ignoble context, I still find this one line incredible:a Prime Minister who doesn’t know where the Liberal Party ends and where the Government of Canada begins.Scheer seems to be making one of two absurd arguments here: (1) that “the government” is somehow separable from the declared values/views/proposals of those specifically elected to form said government; (2) that a majority government should set the values/views/proposals they were elected on aside so as to privilege the values/views/proposals which voters judged less attractive.I honestly don’t know which one of those ideas is less preposterous, but that Scheer would employ that kind of cutesy phrase despite it not actually meaning anything is one of many reasons I hope he’s never allowed to run anything more important than a blender. (Like, is it better if he just didn’t think through how dumb the sentence was, or if he did and said it anyway? And in the case of the latter, what does it say about the state of things if he judged this a viable tactic?)[EDIT: I don’t know how I forgot this, but by far the funniest thing here is that Harper had literally renamed the Government of Canada as “The Harper Government” in 2011! And guess who worked for Harper at the time? I wonder if he was this passionate about the distinction then?]Anyway, let’s shift from the statement to the motivation behind the statement. Who benefits from the SNC being prosecuted? Scheer! Who benefits from Trudeau being perceived as trying to interfere with this prosecution? Scheer! He wins either way. The only way he doesn’t win is if he’s forced to actually give his own opinion on why SNC does or doesn’t deserve a deferral.Lucky for him, no one is going to force him to do that — which I’d argue is symptomatic of the defining problem in this whole mess.About That DeferralBefore we move on to why Scheer is able to get away with all this, a few final words about SNC.What Scheer would prefer lost in the hubbub is that a deferral is not an exoneration. It’s a decision to choose a scalpel over a sledgehammer. While there may be times when the latter is the more appropriate tool, Scheer hasn’t really made any argument to that end (nor will he on this side of the election). His argument is simply “the DPP said sledgehammer, so Trudeau has to use the sledgehammer, which I don’t otherwise have an opinion on, but hey it does win me a lot of votes! — and PS, if Trudeau argues against the sledgehammer, it’s because he’s a coward/crook who hates Canada!”Trudeau’s response hasn’t been “c’mon, let’s let them off lightly because they’re my yacht buddies and besides I need their votes!” but rather “let’s pursue a form of justice which doesn’t introduce unnecessary collateral damage — and PS, I’d rather keep those votes thank you very much”.All else being even, it isn’t unreasonable for politicians to lean towards decisions that benefit them in the polls. But all else isn’t even here. One of these decisions is better for Canada, and one is worse.Now, is it possible that the DPP and AG actually had good reasons to stick it to SNC? Could be. The problem is that neither explained their reasons, both citing that it would be inappropriate to comment while SNC is pursuing their appeal of said decision in the courts. (This is probably a reasonable position now, though I’m less sure it’s a good reason for not having explained the decision at the time.)[EDIT: Just to be super clear on this point: the DPP’s Section 13 memo was read by the AG and no one else that we know of. The AG’s deputy didn’t read it. No one in the PM’s office read it (though Wilson-Raybould says a copy was forwarded, and then re-sent again after her conversion with Wernick on Dec 18th). SNC was never told why they were rejected. It’s all a mystery. And despite this being the first decision on this law, the AG refused to solicit an external opinion from a former Chief Justice of Canada. The AG had the right to make this set of decisions, but it’s hard to understand the logic here.]While their silence keeps us from perfect clarity, there are two dominant theories for why the DPP and AG decided against SNC’s plea:They agreed on the technical argument that SNC is legally ineligible for deferral on the explicit grounds of national economic interests (which is to say that Canada can’t use that as a factor in its judgment).They found compelling evidence that SNC hasn’t reformed and/or wouldn’t offer good faith cooperation in context of a plea.In the first case, it’s hard to argue against this reading of the law being facially correct. Even so, there are non-trivial counter-arguments: (i) Governments make this kind of self-benefiting decision all the time. The game is that you simply list reasons other than “national economic interest” when filling out the paperwork, regardless of how important said interests actually were. Now, maybe countries shouldn’t do this. But they do. And while I personally see the appeal of “let’s go by the book, even if mostly alone, even if that’s a net tax”, I don’t think people who take the other side are necessarily bad. (ii) If you have enough other reasons outside the national economic interest, it isn’t clear to me that it being helpful to the national economic interest is bad. (iii) Pragmatic flexibility is half the Liberal Party’s platform. Most voters who had an informed opinion here would have expected Trudeau to take precisely the stance he has. As such, you could argue that this is a form of mandate that he’s actually responsible to uphold.In the second case, the counter-argument is simply that over-ruling the PM’s judgment shouldn’t actually be their call, regardless of what the current letter of the law may say. Remember that this whole new structure was a Harper innovation, and arguably just a symbolic one. And while the AG has always theoretically been independent from the PM’s office, there are realist arguments for why this distinction has always been something of a legal fiction.(To be clear, we don’t know which — if either — of these arguments Trudeau is leaning on, largely because we don’t know what Roussel’s thinking was.)Formalist v. Realist(As preface for what follows, I’m not trying to convince anyone that one particular school of thought here is better or more right than the other. My point is that both are valid, in as much as they’re both logically robust frameworks that you could believe and defend without being inherently bad or crazy.)As to what I mean by the realist school, there’s a significant parallel here (in a narrow way) to the current situation in the US with Trump. When his new AG (who at the time wasn’t yet his AG, but who had been an AG before under Bush Sr.) issued an unsolicited memo outlining an argument that Trump was constitutionally OK to reassign and fire his way to outcomes he wanted without this implying actual obstruction of justice, this was widely met with cries of “treason!” — despite (a) that not being what treason means, and (b) it being a coherent and well-argued theory of law.Now, sure, you or I may disagree with this philosophically. And we may be right! But the idea that the chief executive has extraordinary and unilateral powers over nearly all executive affairs isn’t necessarily as dangerous as it may seem at first blush.Over-simplifying this a bit, imagine two competing scenarios:You restrain the executive’s powers with a complicated set of rules which are really hard to enforce with any consistency and which involve endless subjective judgment calls and which can easily be misused by a belligerent opposition to thwart the executive doing its job and which really don’t offer much effective restraint anyway.You restrain the executive’s powers with two simple levers: (a) in the case of gross judgment, you vote the executive out next election; (b) in the case of gross judgment that will cause more harm if left that long, you vote them out by pressuring your reps for impeachment / a no-confidence vote.Now, yes, there are real objections to this second system, which we’ll get to in a second. But just keep this idea of two approaches in mind as we consider a statement from Wilson-Raybould’s remarks yesterday:We either have a system that is based on the rule of law, the independence of prosecutorial functions and respect for those charged to use their discretion and powers in a particular way, or we do not.This is basically an argument for that first system — which, on its face, seems entirely reasonable. The rule of law is obviously good! And independence sure sounds like something we’d want! But step back for a minute. Let’s recall that the AG is a member of the executive (not the judiciary). They serve at the pleasure of the PM. And while we’d want the AG to have their own personal philosophy and set of legal interpretations, they weren’t elected to enact those. (In the US, the AG isn’t even an elected official at all!) And if the PM/President happens to have a different philosophy and set of legal interpretations (which they, in effect, were elected to enact), it isn’t at all obvious why they must lose in the event of a tie.By way of analogy, imagine that I’m a hiring manager working directly under the CEO in a public company. She’s the one hired by the shareholders (via the board), not me. She’s hired me to be an extension of her vision. To the degree that I do this well, all is well. But if she and I disagree on whether to hire a given candidate, my objection of “well, our bylaws say this is my call” isn’t itself all that compelling. I can go to the board and say “hey, she overruled me and our bylaws say she can’t do that”, but for the board to be fully interested they’d want me to also add “and her judgment was dangerously flawed for x reason”, else the board would just say “yes, well, we hired her and not you, so if she thinks your judgment is wrong, you’re not really fulfilling the function you were hired to fulfill, so I’m not sure why you’re still here”. What they care about most is whether the CEO displayed poor judgment relative to the standard they were hired to uphold. Whether or not bylaws were broken along the way is somewhat incidental. (While some board members care a lot about bylaws, that concern is more often about organizational dynamics than any higher theory of justice. If they like the CEO’s vision and you were hired to execute that vision and the CEO no longer feels like you are executing that vision, arguing “but the bylaws!” is probably not going to save your job.)To be ultra clear, this isn’t to say that a CEO or PM or President should be allowed to “get away” with whatever they want. There are many occasions where a PM will want something that’s not actually consistent with the platform on which they were elected (or that’s just generally bad in some moral or ethical sense) — in which case we would want the AG to object, and object strongly. But in cases where the AG loses this argument, we’d also expect them to no longer be AG thereafter, which is itself fully consistent with a healthy system provided that their exit triggers a thorough review.To use an extreme example, imagine that Trudeau tells his AG to tell her DPP to bring a Biblical flood of lawsuits against his next-door neighbor because they objected to his backyard Nickelback concert. In the realist view, it doesn’t necessarily matter if the AG says yes or no, or even whether they have the latitude to make that decision. What matters is that the public is informed so that we can all decide whether this is something we object to or not. And if we do, enough of us will call up our local MP and say “if you don’t stop this guy immediately, we’ll vote in your opponent next year”, which they’ll take as impetus to go vote the PM out. It’s no less an effective check against the PM’s abuse of power than the AG having theoretical independence. It’s just a different mechanism. Sure, there are plenty of people who prefer one mechanism over the other (which is the kind of viewpoint diversity that’s good and healthy!), but it’s hard to argue that this realist view is essentially wrong. Having an independent AG is not as structurally important as having an independent judiciary — provided that the actions of the executive are regularly and efficiently reported back to a voting public interested in holding leaders to account.And it’s exactly with this last bit that things get thorny.A RequiemThe phrase “constitutional crisis” has been bandied about a lot in both Canada and the US in recent days. Yet few of the underlying situations really seem to fit the bill, at least relative to a much deeper constitutional crisis that’s been growing unchecked for decades now.The constitution (both in the US and Canada, and in nearly every developed democracy) depends upon an engaged citizenry willing to demand and do, and a press capable of giving said citizenry the data on which they can fairly decide.The problem is that none of this works if we don’t share common ideas of which bad things are especially bad, or if we don’t all trust that at least a few impartial and talented journalists will always ask the right questions to empower useful explanations of what the executive did so that we can vote and/or pressure our reps accordingly.The challenge as I see it is that Canadians have long been remarkably ill-served by their press.Huge chunks of the country only have a Postmedia outlet as their local paper. (Postmedia being the antithesis of unbiased.)There are less sensational papers, including some large national ones. But none are especially good at what we need them to be good at. (If you can find me an explainer from a major outlet that’s anywhere near as thorough or clear as this one, I’ll send you $25. And I really don’t mean this to my own aggrandizement. I just don’t think one exists.) [EDIT: I’m happy to 10x this offer to $250 CAD just in case $25 isn’t enough of an incentive.]Most papers have dedicated an increasing amount of space to opinion pieces, which are quite good for clicks and quite bad for reader education. (They’re too short, too slanted, and they mostly use the little space they have to tell rather than show.)Most opinion columnists sell a partisan spin, which only serves to divide people into camps that inevitably grow further and further apart, thus making voter coordination across party lines difficult to impossible, all while also reducing common ideas of which things are worth coordinating on.No outlets have shown a willingness or ability to force Trudeau or Scheer to answer hard questions. (Hard to say if they’re too worried about losing access, too self-focused to coordinate, or too distracted to see the civic necessity of getting those answers.)I’ve polled a bunch of my Canadian friends — all bright young people who regularly vote and try to do so intelligently. None could really explain what happened with Trudeau and SNC, nor were they sure where to turn to rectify the gap. Plenty of stories were a search away. But which would give my friends the context required to understand Trudeau’s decisions for what they were?(That’s a non-rhetorical question, by the way. My wallet is open if I’ve misspoken here.)Why This MattersConsider this current case. It’s fine for someone to say “hey, I believe in closely following the letter of the law in all cases” and for them to thus side against Trudeau here (assuming he did in fact inappropriately pressure Wilson-Raybould). Like, I may not personally find this to be the world’s most sophisticated ideology, but the point is that we all tend to think our own judgment best, which is exactly why we do things like vote in free multi-party elections. Lots of people probably believe that an AG should be 100% independent in every way, and these voters should be welcome to form a party around that belief! But that party wouldn’t quite be today’s Liberal Party (or the Conservatives), which is something that’s been poorly explained to voters.The resulting issue is that I don’t think most people will go to the polls this October with optimal clarity in mind. While some are only ever going to vote against the candidate they hate more, many with less tribal feelings are going to be swayed by a faulty assumption that Trudeau committed some especially heinous crime here, where the reality (to the current public evidence) is more that, at worst, he and his AG were approaching from two different angles, with one of them ultimately having the trump-card of being the elected PM.There are all sorts of valid reasons why someone might vote for or against Trudeau. But I think it’s important that those votes are cast in light of what actually happened here and what it actually implies — which Scheer is actively trying to muddy and misrepresent, which the media is largely unwilling to combat, which I think is probably a bad thing?EDITS: ROUND #1Original answer written March 1st. Coming back on the 13th to get around to some needful updates/corrections/addendums.Some I’ve made above; others I’ll list here in no particular order:Trudeau and Butts have been arguing that they do believe in full prosecutorial independence. But I almost wish they wouldn’t. It’s hard to believe that they (or any PM team) totally believes it to be the best possible mechanism. I get that it’s scary to say anything else (imagine the headlines!), but this feels like a good opportunity to maybe start talking about all the stuff I’ve outlined here. (I suppose there’s a world in which they could totally believe in the idea. Butts certainly sounded sincere when he talked about it. But I just can’t get there as it concerns a PM. The sorts of people who win national elections aren’t generally the sorts to take being overruled by an underling all that well. I only leave this door open because of how authentic Butts seemed on the point.)My original piece included this note: “In the interests of precision, the most recent source I could find said that SNC has 3,400 employees in Quebec (vs. just Montreal). But as their headquarters are in Montreal, I’m assuming the bulk are there. I could be wrong.” As an update, this authoritative-seeming Globe & Mail article puts the number in Quebec at 2,500 and the number in Montreal at 700.Lots of commentary out there about just how at risk those 9,000 Canadian jobs were (and about how a federal debarment wouldn’t necessarily influence bidding on provincial/municipal projects). Though I’ve made a few edits to account for these arguments, they all seem peripheral to me for two reasons: (i) if SNC was found guilty, this would almost certainly impact their employee retention and bidding prospects in a general downstream way (we have evidence of recent press impacting them already); (ii) while most displaced workers would find new jobs, there’s no obvious replacement within Canada for SNC in terms of EPC firms. (For more, I thought this take was balanced and thorough — though I did find the final four sentences wildly upsetting.)I found this personal testimony from a current SNC exec (who lives and works in Saskatchewan) worth reading. His main point is that those trying to politicize this as some Liberal gambit to exclusively favor Quebec are overlooking that some 2/3rds of SNC’s Canadian workforce don’t live or work in Quebec. (On a political level, an SNC conviction would definitely hurt Liberals more. But his point that Trudeau is fighting for jobs that are mostly not in Quebec is certainly valid.)It still isn’t clear to me which laws/precedents are shielding the DPP’s SNC-related memo(s) from public review. The court has since ruled against SNC’s appeal, and it really feels like this whole debate would be much simpler if we all knew exactly why Roussel and Wilson-Raybould felt so strongly against SNC being eligible for a deferral. (FWIW, you can read the full text of the deferral-related legislation here.)For those asking, I’m 100% behind a thorough investigation. Let’s get lots of uninhibited testimony, and let’s subpoena relevant emails/texts, etc. Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant. But let’s also report those findings in a cautious and contextual and non-sensational way.There’s a representative thread here on why the AG's independence is somehow sacrosanct. All such threads/articles I've come across share the same hallmarks: (i) they ignore/discount that individuals serving at the pleasure of the PM can never be truly independent; (ii) they make a weird assumption that independence is a required pre-condition to keeping a PM from interfering with prosecutions in a gross way (when a non-independent prosecutor could just as easily report the PM for gross judgment). I don’t know who is debating that bad judgment is anything other than bad, or who is suggesting we shouldn’t deter/punish it. The question is whether a certain old and imported legal doctrine is the most effective mechanism to ensure an end we all agree is important.The way most journalists use the word “political” in the phrase “political interference” is also weird! Whether interference is “political” has nothing to do with whether it’s good or bad. Take the case of weed-related prosecutions. Most would say that more political interference would have been good (in terms of directing prosecutors to not prosecute any more pot cases while new legislation was framed). The fact that Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould didn’t interfere with those prosecutions is a widespread criticism. That resources were spent fining and jailing people for trivial amounts of pot possession after Trudeau’s majority election on a “legalize pot” platform is, to many, a symptom of a flawed system, not proof of some sacred pillar doing its job. The public will was pretty clear about this (and had been for some time). Following the existing law to the letter led to an outcome that most consider bad. Governments semi-regularly opt to not prosecute existing laws for various political reasons (most of them positive/healthy). This isn’t necessarily a meaningful threat to the rule of law. (This is doubly true when it’s a new law with no prosecutorial precedent either way.)On a related note, I think “rule of law” is one of those phrases where everyone has some idea of what they mean by it, but where few actually have a robust conception that could survive a hard cross-examination. By any conception, sure, inconsistent and partial rulings are generally to be avoided. But the idea that prosecutorial independence (which just shifts who gets to make the decisions which some will find inconsistent and/or partial) has some necessary role in supporting the rule of law is curious. Taking up the example of pot again, look how many Americans were angry at Jeff Sessions for increasing the number of pot prosecutions given that this was contrary to Trump’s platform. Sessions’ decision caused all sorts of confusion/chaos, and it clearly favored one demographic of voters at the expense of another. No one is questioning that he was legally allowed to make said decision (the federal law was clear, and the restrictions placed upon on it by the previous AG were non-binding), but I’m not sure how any could argue that his decision reflects the rule of law working in a positive way either.A few good write-ups about the Shawcross doctrine (the basis in Canadian legal theory for prosecutorial independence) here, here and here. The last link (about the UK implementation) is interesting in that it describes a “Shawcross letter” (i.e., a letter sent by the AG to their ministerial colleagues to solicit their input). This was, in effect, what Wilson-Raybould didn’t do. She made up her mind independently, then dismissed those who expressed contrary views. Had she gathered up all available views to inform her decision (rather than decide based exclusively on her and her DPP’s legal judgment), one imagines that others would have found less cause to ensure their views were being heard/considered. (She had the legal right to make up her mind independently, but that hardly means she was right in doing so.)I’ll have to write a separate answer about Butts’ testimony at some point, but the big things for me were: (i) it gave a pretty good explanation for why Wilson-Raybould was shuffled; (ii) Butts made an extraordinary and easily-falsified set of claims about her interactions with him about the SNC file, which, if true, are enormously problematic for her case.The other thing that came out of Butts’ testimony was that Trudeau really dropped the ball in offering Wilson-Raybould (who is Indigenous) the Indigenous Services portfolio as opposed to the Crown-Indigenous Relations portfolio, with that difference being, roughly, the difference between being in charge of restructuring relations (the latter) and being in charge of administering welfare (the former). She was never going to accept the former, and he and Butts have no real excuse for not foreseeing this.The real crisis here (if we must use the term crisis) seems to be that Trudeau was so out of tune with two of his ministers, and that he was unable to keep them in the fold after they raised their objections (even if the way they raised them was less than ideal).On the subject of raising objections, Scott Welch wrote a great companion answer here about the various opportunities (if not obligations) that Wilson-Raybould had to report any inappropriate or unethical behavior on the part of Trudeau or his staff. She, to our current knowledge, made use of none of them. Prior to her being shuffled, her only vocalized discontent came in the form of telling some people (paraphrasing) “stop lobbying already!”, which is not at all the same thing as raising a formal concern/complaint about misconduct. (And again we have Butts’ testimony that his sole one-on-one conversation with her about SNC came at the end of a friendly two-hour dinner which she initiated, with no other text or email ever being sent to him on the subject. Per his testimony, she was the one who brought it up then, and her after-dinner text said nothing further about it. He claims she never laid out her concerns until during one of their “four or five” “long” and “personal” conversations they had after she was transferred, and that he was dumbfounded when she mentioned her suspicion on why she had been moved.)While she isn’t a disinterested party (and while I think some of her criticisms are overly strong), I thought Sheila Copps’ interview with CBC contained some solid points, namely: (i) that saying “I’ve made up my mind, now go away” is not exactly consistent with the role of an AG/MOJ when your colleagues don’t feel heard, (ii) that it’s kinda weird to quit a cabinet without also quitting caucus, (iii) that the number of meetings which Wilson-Raybould took on this file was not especially high, (iv) that the original decision to not prosecute was split. (As an aside, I really dislike that interviewer. He’s part of the problem.)EDITS: ROUND 2So, the Conservatives have started a “Let Her Speak” campaign pushing for a second (at least) round of testimony from Wilson-Raybould. While I’m broadly supportive of this, it’s worth noting that Trudeau has a rational case for saying “no” that isn’t solely rooted in being afraid of some harmful truth being revealed. From his perspective, Wilson-Raybould is on a mission to take him down. Let’s assume that every word she said in the first testimony was true. There was nothing particularly damning in it from a legal context, but it played very poorly for Trudeau all the same. He’s now facing a decision between: (i) allowing her to speak again and the same thing happening again and it hurting him more in the polls, (ii) not allowing her to speak again, which will hurt him in the polls now, but which may also cap the damage. Were I his advisor, I’d push him toward letting her speak and then prepping a killer set of rebuttals (assuming the facts are indeed on his side). More downside, but more upside. That said, it would seem that he’s being pushed in a different direction. While I’m not so much a fan of this, I wouldn’t infer from it (as many are) that it’s necessarily a sign of guilt.Ok, a bit more about Scheer. I keep getting comments wondering why I dislike him so much. First, I should point out that most Conservatives never cared much for him either until he was their sole hope against Trudeau. He didn’t crack 20% in opinion polls until after Kevin O’Leary dropped out (and that’s among Conservative Party members). He won the nomination on the 13th ballot, having trailed on all 12 ballots prior. The fact that he won (which was contested due to significant inconsistencies) was largely viewed as a frantic rejection of Maxime Bernier (who had led on all of the first 12 ballots), not an endorsement of Scheer. From his first speech post-nomination, he’s relied on red meat, generalities, and strawmen. That’s not what we need from the Leader of the Opposition. We need someone able to carefully and accurately deconstruct the PM’s decisions, showing voters a detailed vision of some plausibly better way. Jack Layton was that guy. Harper, in his own way, was that guy. Scheer is not that guy. He once wrote an op-ed in support of Brexit — aka, arguably the most ill-conceived set of decisions in modern political history. (He was still in support of it as recently as this past November, which is just wild given how things have unfolded. It’s one thing to be theoretically in favor of sovereignty. It’s quite another to be in favor of a nation jumping off a cliff to get it.) Scheer’s campaign chair, Hamish Marshall, is also a former director of Rebel Media, which is morally inexcusable in itself. (Marshall says he had nothing to do with editorial there and that he eventually did resign. But this rundown of all the content they published before he quit is deeply disturbing — not to mention that we have no reason to believe that he quit for moral reasons.)I’d been waiting for a transcript of Nathalie Drouin’s (Wilson-Raybould’s former deputy) testimony before the House Justice Committee (which it seems doesn’t exist anywhere, maybe due to some rule). But snippets were reported by the CBC. A few interesting takeaways: (i) JWR had given Drouin an instruction not to talk about the SNC case by September 17th, which was super early into the process; (ii) JWR forbade Drouin from answering a question from the PCO (civil service) about the potential impact of SNC failing to get a deferral; (iii) Drouin was never told what the evidence against SNC’s case was. This is all very odd.An important open question: where did the original leak to the Globe & Mail come from? And why was a leak made to the press before internal remedies were exhausted (or even attempted)?An interesting tidbit from Butts’ testimony that I missed the first time around: Wilson-Raybould was the second minister that Trudeau attempted to move from a dream portfolio to Indigenous Services using the same logic. The difference is that the first person said yes. (Incidentally, this was the other minister that later quit in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould.) While it was still an unwise move, this does lend credence to the argument that Trudeau was doing it to signal continued support for his Indigenous reconciliation efforts, which is to say it could have been a bad decision made with positive intent. (Logically, though, this same move having been made before might have been a really convenient cover. I don’t know how we’d know for sure unless we’re just taking someone’s word.)Echoing what Copps said about the insubstantial meeting count, Butts estimated the number of meetings on the TMX pipeline deal as being around 100. By comparison, the SNC file ended up drawing 10 meetings and 20 contacts over a little more than three months. While the context is a bit different with an AG vs. other ministerial roles, this number still doesn’t seem outlying.Lots of people have been mentioning how prosecutorial independence is “constitutionally guaranteed” (or other wording to that effect). This is true in a sense, but that sense is mostly misleading. Canada is unlike the US in that we have no single document called The Constitution. What we have is a messy patchwork of acts, statutes, orders, and precedents. Prosecutorial independence is a “constitutional convention”, meaning that it’s an unwritten rule with no binding power over Parliament. In the absence of contrary legislation, conventions are the best practices which all are generally expected to follow. But not only have conventions been broken from time to time with little consequence, the House is free to pass new laws to make written what is unwritten, and the courts (explicitly) have no power to overrule. So if Trudeau were to decide tomorrow “hey, let’s do away with this thing” and if enough MPs were to say “yeah, let’s do that”, then the bill would be passed. (There are more steps, but the gist is that there’s no way to stop a majority-supported bill without sparking an actual constitutional crisis likely to resolve in the House’s favour.) While I can’t imagine that any PM would try this in the current climate, there’s nothing actually legally stopping them.

The positive cultural influence of the Christian Church is too vast to enumerate in detail in less than a series of books. Its influence is not limited to the West, as it spread beyond the Western Empire in the days of Rome, in its first centuries, and has continued to spread around the world in the centuries since. For the most part, its influence has been more good than not wherever it has gone, and attempting to even list it all would be a very long list indeed.However, in answer to this question, I have chosen to limit a sampling of examples to the West, and to the limited time period of Early Christianity up to the Middle Ages. I have picked a few examples of influence I see as the paradigm altering, watershed, kind.The Christian church has continued, to this day, to be a cultural influence for good all around the world, but the history from the 1400s on is even more extensive—and complex—than what preceded it, so please accept—these limitations I have imposed are my limitations—and not the limitations of the church.Christianity altered the paradigm concerning:SexWomenCharityPreservation of literacyMonks and NunsBenedict’s RuleSkills and EducationSocial StructureCharles Martel Stopped IslamScienceArts and HumanitiesPainting, sculpture and architectureMusicLawHuman ValueHuman RightsSlaveryDemocracyFirst to Fourth Century (30–500)Sex — Let’s talk about sex—not just because it’s fun—but because changes here are among the most powerful, yet most overlooked, of all the many positive changes Christianity brought.“The gradual transformation of the Roman world from polytheistic to Christian marks one of the most sweeping ideological changes of premodern history. At the center of it all was sex.”[1]Historian Kyle Harper says:"...the triumph of Christianity not only drove profound cultural change, it created a new relationship between sexual morality and society...The legacy of Christianity lies in the dissolution of an ancient system where social and political status, power, and social reproduction (passing on social inequality to the next generation) scripted the terms of sexual morality."That ancient system was built on status and used shame to enforce itself. Shame was not personal guilt so much as a social concept: breaking the rules had profound and far-reaching social consequences. Aristocratic men had status; women had little, and slaves had no status at all, therefore, as far as the Romans were concerned, slaves had no internal ethical life and were incapable of shame. This permitted Roman society to find both a husband's control of a wife's sexual behavior as a matter of intense importance, and at the same time, see his live-in mistress and sex with young slave boys as of little concern.Paul wrote that the body was a consecrated space, a point of mediation between the individual and the divine. His over-riding sense that gender—rather than status or power or wealth or position—was the prime determinant in the propriety of the sex act was momentous. It was a transformation in the deep logic of sexual morality.The Greeks and Romans said our morality depends upon our social position which is given to us by fate; that there is inequity in that is not a moral issue that concerned them. Christianity "preached a liberating message of freedom.” It was a revolution in the very image of the human being as a sexual being, free to choose, and personally responsible for that choice to God alone. It created a revolution between society and the individual, limiting society’s rights and claims on the individual as a moral agent.Whether or not Paul’s particular teaching on gender is still agreed with or not, the historical facts show that the Christian view that the powerful should be held to the same standards of sexual accountability as those without power has since become the norm of a just society.Appearance of Jesus Christ to Maria Magdalena (1835) by Alexander Andreyevich Ivanov.Women [2]Early Christianity — Some historians hold that the Church played a considerable part in fostering the inferior status of women by providing a "moral justification" for male superiority. However, the Church has also made enough positive contributions toward women that, on balance, I am going to say the overall impact has been more positive than negative.Understanding that involves understanding context—what was there before, and without, Christianity.In antiquity, there were no Near Eastern societies that were not patriarchal, so patriarchalism and male superiority were not unique to the Old Testament. All around the Mediterranean, patriarchy was established as the norm in all of the multiple different societies before 3000 BC and they did not change for millennia—until Christianity.[3]Women were seen as intellectually and physically inferior to men and as "naturally dependent" by Sumerians, and Babylonians, by the Hittites, the Greeks and the Romans—all of them. Some philosophers speculated that women were a different race not fully human like men. Athenian women were legally classified as children regardless of age and were the "legal property of a man at all stages in her life." Women everywhere, including the Roman Empire, had limited legal rights and could not enter professions.It was common in the Greco-Roman world to expose female infants because of the low status of women in society. Many exposed children died, but many were taken by speculators who raised them to be slaves or prostitutes. Female infanticide and abortion were practiced by all classes. The church forbade these practices to its members.Christians did not believe in cohabitation, so if a Christian man wanted to live with a woman, the church required marriage; the pagan double standard of allowing married men to have extramarital sex and mistresses was forbidden. This gave women far greater security.It was not rare for pagan women to be married before the age of puberty and then forced to consummate the marriage with her often much older husband. Christianity established a minimum age for marriage.Husbands could divorce their wives at any time simply by telling the wife to leave; wives could not. In the code of Hammurabi, a woman could sue for divorce, but if she couldn’t prove she had been an exemplary wife, she was drowned for making the request.Roman law required a widow to remarry; 1 Timothy says a woman is better off if she remains unmarried. Widows in Greco-Roman society could not inherit their husband's estate and could find themselves in desperate circumstances, but almost from the beginning the church offered widows support.Women were an important part of Jesus’ inner circle, and there is no record of him ever treating a woman with less than respect. He spoke to women in public, assumed they had responsibility for their own choices, taught Mary of Bethany, admired, forgave, accepted and approved them. Christianity never fully lost sight of this as a fulfillment of God creating humans in His image as both “male and female.” Along with Paul declaring a Christian is a Christian, male or female, in Galatians 3:28, this produced a kind of “metaphysical” equality found only in Christianity at this point in history. [4]The church started out trying to practice this at first. The extra-biblical evidence is strong that women played vital roles in Christianity’s beginnings. Many women began choosing to stay single and celibate, and they spread the word, but this “female initiative” stirred up vehement opposition from the Romans.According to Margaret MacDonald, accusations that Christianity undermined the Roman family, which was built upon male authority, were used to stir up hatred of Christianity. Along with many other rumors and accusations, this led to the persecution of the early church.[5]Some of the later New Testament texts reasserting traditional roles for women are seen by many scholars as an accommodation to the danger involved with this Roman response.Within the church of the second and third century, tensions between the existing fact of women's leadership in Christian communities, and traditional Greco-Roman and patriarchal biblical views about gender roles, combined with persecution, produced controversy and challenges to women’s roles within the new church. Several apocryphal and gnostic texts provide evidence of such a controversy.Middle Ages — Once the early days of Christianity were past, the status of women declined. Women were routinely excluded from scholastic, political and mercantile life in society, however, women were not fully excluded from service in the church. [6]Medieval abbesses and female superiors of female monastic houses were powerful figures whose influence could rival that of male bishops and abbots: “They treated with kings, bishops, and the greatest lords on terms of perfect equality;... they were present at all great religious and national solemnities, at the dedication of churches, and even, like the queens, took part in the deliberation of the national assemblies...” Such powers had never been, as a rule, available to ordinary women in previous Roman or Germanic societies.[7]There was a rite for the ordination of women deacons in the Roman Pontifical, (a liturgical book), up through the 12th century. (But by the 13th-century Roman Pontifical, the prayer for ordaining women was removed, and ordination was redefined as applicable only to male Priests.) [8]The popularity of the Virgin Mary secured maternal virtue as a central cultural theme of Europe in the middle ages and helped form the concept of chivalry. Kenneth Clarke wrote that the 'Cult of the Virgin' in the early 12th century "taught a race of tough and ruthless barbarians the virtues of tenderness and compassion".Woman-as-witch became a stereotype in the 1400s until it was codified in 1487 by Pope Innocent VIII who declared "most witches are female."The European witch stereotype embodies two apparent paradoxes: first, it was not produced by the "barbaric Dark Ages," but during the progressive Renaissance and the early modern period; secondly, Western Christianity did not recognize the reality of witches for centuries, or criminalize them until around 1400. Sociologist Don Swenson says the explanation for this may lay in the nature of Medieval society as heirocratic which led to violence and the use of coercion to force conformity."There has been much debate ...as to how many women were executed...[and estimates vary wildly, but numbers] small and large do little to portray the horror and dishonor inflicted upon these women. This treatment provides [dramatic] contrast to the respect given to women during the early era of Christianity..."Women under the Law —Church teaching heavily influenced the legal concept of marriage. In a departure from societal norms, Church law required the consent of both parties before a marriage could be performed. No more kidnapping and forced marriages.The elevation of marriage to a sacrament made the union a binding contract. The Church abandoned established tradition by allowing women the same rights as men to dissolve a marriage. (However, in practice, men have been granted dissolutions more frequently than women.)Women, in Conclusion[9]The church’s behavior toward women has been both positive and negative, but all in all, Christianity’s contribution has been more positive than negative.If nothing else could ever be said, Christianity’s treatment of women was a big improvement over what existed before it, and its belief in the spiritual equality of both genders before God, altered the paradigm for women forever.Historian of hospitals Guenter Risse says the Church spearheaded the development of a hospital system geared towards the marginalized.Charity/Hospitals — Prior to Christianity, there is little to no trace of any organized charitable effort anywhere in the ancient world. After centuries of Christian influence, charity has become a universal practice.[10]Albert Jonsen, historian of medicine, says:“the second great sweep of medical history begins at the end of the fourth century, with the founding of the first hospital at Caesarea in Cappadocia, and concludes at the end of the fourteenth century, with medicine well ensconced in the universities and in the public life of the emerging nations of Europe.” [11]That hospital was founded by Basil, Bishop of Caesarea. He established the first formal soup kitchen, hospital, homeless shelter, hospice, poorhouse, orphanage, reform center for thieves, women’s center for those leaving prostitution, and many other ministries. He was personally involved in the projects and process, and gave all his personal wealth to fund the ministries.Basil himself would put on an apron and work in the soup kitchen. These ministries were given freely regardless of religious affiliation. Basil refused to make any discrimination when it came to people who needed help saying that “the digestive systems of the Jew and the Christian are indistinguishable.”His example spread throughout Christianity continuing to the modern day.In the modern day, across the world, various Christian denominations are still the ones largely responsible for the establishment of medical clinics, hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, and schools of all kinds.The Catholic Church maintains a massive network of health care providers. In 2009, Catholic hospitals in the USA received approximately one of every six patients. Catholic Health Australia is the largest non-government provider of group-health, community care, and aged-care services, representing about 10% of the health sector.Women have played a vital role in running and staffing these Christian care institutions. In Methodist hospitals, deaconnesses who trained as nurses staffed the hospitals, and in Catholic hospitals, religious like the Sisters of Mercy, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the Sisters of St.Mary kept their hospitals focused on serving the needy. The New York Times noted that nuns were trained to "see Jesus in the face of every patient."In the West, these institutions are increasingly run by lay-people after centuries of being run by priests, nuns and brothers, and while the profit motive has stepped in, it does mean more people are taking responsibility for caring for the poor than ever before. In Western nations, governments have increasingly taken up funding and organization of health services for the poor. In 1968, nuns or priests were the chief executives of 770 of America's 796 Catholic hospitals. By 2011, they presided over 8 of 636 hospitals.[12]All over the West, charity is now a societal standard that simply didn’t exist prior to Christianity’s existence.[13]"After the Battle of Gravelotte. The French Sisters of Mercy of St. Borromeo arriving on the battle field to succor the wounded." Unsigned lithograph, 1870 or 1871.Dark Ages and the Early Middle Ages (500–800) [14]Preservation of Literacy — After the Fall of Rome, culture in the west returned to a subsistence agrarian form of life. Church scholars preserved literacy in Western Europe at this time, saving and copying Greek and Roman texts in their scriptoriums. For centuries following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, small monastic communities were practically the only outposts of literacy in all of Western Europe.…all through Europe, matted, unwashed, barbarians descended on the Roman cities, looting artifacts and burning books, when the Irish, who were just learning to read and write, took up the great labor of copying all western literature – everything they could lay their hands on. These scribes then served as conduits through which the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian cultures were transmitted to the tribes of Europe, newly settled amid the rubble and ruined vineyards of the civilization they had overwhelmed. Without this Service of the Scribes, everything that happened subsequently would be unthinkable.[15]Monks and Nuns [16]Benedict’s Rule — The period between 500 and 700, often referred to as the "Dark Ages," could also be designated the "Age of the Monk." Christian aesthetes, like St.Benedict (480–543) vowed a life of chastity, obedience, and poverty, and after rigorous intellectual training and self-denial, lived by the principles ‘work and pray’ following the “Rule of Benedict.” This “Rule” became the foundation of thousands of monasteries that spread across what is modern day Europe; "...certainly there will be no demur in recognizing that St.Benedict's Rule has been one of the great facts in the history of western Europe, and that its influence and effects are with us to this day."[17]Spread Skills and Provided Education— Monasteries were self-supporting models of productivity and economic resourcefulness teaching their local communities animal husbandry, cheese making, wine making and various other skills. They were havens for the poor, hospitals, hospices for the dying, and schools. Medical practice was highly important in medieval monasteries, and they are best known for their contributions to medical tradition, but they also made some advances in other sciences such as astronomy. These monks had impact on every level of society both directly and indirectly since all leaders of this period were educated by monks.[18]Changed Social Structure — The monastic movement also changed our social structure in ways that continue to affect us today. The formation of these organized bodies of believers, free from the political authority and familial authority that normally had the power to control an individual’s choices, gradually carved out a series of social spaces with some amount of independence and autonomy, thereby revolutionizing social history.Charles Martel Stopped Islam — (c. 457-751 CE) and his family played a crucial role in Western Europe’s transition from “ancient” to “medieval.”[19]By 727, Charles — “the Hammer”—has become King of what will one day become the nation of France. Charles wages long campaigns against the pagan Germanic tribes who constantly raid his northern and eastern borders - Frisians, Saxons and Bavarians. He also lends strong support to the missionary activities of St. Boniface hoping that conversion to Christianity will tame the heathens enough to stop this raiding. It is not fully effective, but it sets the stage for his grandson’s actions that do change the landscape of Europe.The Hammer’s main positive role involves the Arabs who, since their arrival in 711, have gained a toehold on the European continent in the Spanish peninsula. The Arabs advanced rapidly northwards in their planned takeover of the continent and were soon beyond the Pyrenees. Narbonne was taken in 720 and an extended raid in 725 brought the Arabs briefly into Burgundy. There was a lull until 732 when a Muslim army took Bordeaux, destroyed a church near Poitiers and rode on towards Tours. Here the Arabs were confronted by an army of Franks led by Charles Martel and were stopped.It was a turning point in the attempted Muslim takeover of Europe.The Middle AgesSet of pictures of notable Scientists who self-identified as Christians: Isaac Newton (top left), Robert Boyle (top right), Francis Bacon (bottom left) and Johannes Kepler (bottom right).Science [20]Early in the eleventh century, the full writings of Aristotle were reclaimed in the West by intrepid monks who traveled to Spain to work with the Jews there translating Aristotle’s writings into Latin. (These writings had been mostly lost in the West but not in the East, and when the Muslims came to Europe, they brought their books.) The church’s study of these texts laid the foundation for the beginnings of modern science as well as our modern university system.Historians of science, including J.L.Heilbron, A.C.Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein, and Ted Davis, have argued that the church promoted learning and science during the Middle Ages. Critics will raise the Church's condemnations of Copernicus, Galileo, and Johannes Kepler as evidence to the contrary— which is a valid criticism—but it should also be considered that these same men all considered themselves Christian, were influenced by their faith in their work, and were originally sponsored by their respective churches.The sheer number of scientists and the amount of scientific work and discovery done by Christians, (many of them funded and supported by the church), supports the assertion that, taking its failures into consideration, the church’s overall impact on science has still been positive.Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the great scholars of the Medieval period.Thomas Aquinas—the friar—opened the door for the church’s promotion of scientific and intellectual development by arguing that reason is in harmony with faith, and that reason can contribute to a deeper understanding of revelation.[21] The church put that into practice. Churchmen such as the Augustinian abbot Gregor Mendel (pioneer in the study of genetics), the monk William of Ockham who developed Ockham’s Razor, Roger Bacon, (a Franciscan friar who was one of the early advocates of the scientific method), and the modern Belgian priest George Lemaître who was the first to propose the Big Bang theory, and others, have been among the leaders in astronomy, genetics, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics, with many becoming the "fathers" of these sciences.Christians who influenced Western science include such notables as Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Nicholas Steno, Francesco Grimaldi, Giambattista Riccioli, Roger Boscovich and Athanasius Kircher.[22]Henri Becquerel, discovered radioactivity; Galvani, Volta, Ampere, and Marconi, are pioneers in electricity and telecommunications; Lavoisier is the "father of modern chemistry"; Vesalius is the founder of the modern study of human anatomy; and Cauchy, is one of the mathematicians who laid the rigorous foundations of modern calculus.According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), (which is a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000), 65.4% of all Nobel Prize Laureates have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.[23]It is not too much to say that modern science may never have begun without the influence and support of the Christian church, and it most certainly would not be what it is today without it.[24]Universities - The church of the middle ages helped found and build the university system, which grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries. Today, there are more universities in the West than any other part of the world and almost all of them were founded as Christian institutions.[25]Map of mediaeval universities established by Catholic students, faculty, monarchs, or priestsArts and Humanities [26]Painting, Sculpture and Architecture — Artists like Michaelangelo, Da Vinci and Raphael produced some of the most celebrated works of art in history sponsored and supported by the church.[In the West] with a single exception, the great artists of the time were all sincere, conforming Christians. Guercino spent much of his mornings in prayer; Bernini frequently went into retreats and practised the Spiritual Exercizes of St.Ignatius; Rubens attended Mass every morning before beginning work. The exception was Caravaggio, who was like the hero of a modern play, except that he happened to paint very well. This conformism was not based on fear, but on the perfectly simple belief that the faith which had inspired the great saints of the preceding generations was something by which a man should regulate his life.The cathedrals of the Late Middle Ages are among the most iconic feats of architecture ever produced by Western civilization.Music — Catholic monks developed the first forms of modern Western musical notation; there would be no modern music as we know it without this.An enormous body of religious music has been composed for the church, with its support, and this sacred music led directly to the emergence and development of European classical music, and its many derivatives.Ludwig van Beethoven, composed many Masses and religious works, including his Ninth Symphony Ode to Joy.Law and Human Rights [27]Church laws were the single Universal Law common to the different jurisdictions and peoples throughout Europe for much of European history.Human Value[28]If we turn to the roots of our western tradition, we find that in Greek and Roman times not all human life was regarded as inviolable and worthy of protection. Slaves and 'barbarians' did not have a full right to life and human sacrifices and gladiatorial combat were acceptable... Spartan Law required that deformed infants be put to death; for Plato, infanticide is one of the regular institutions of the ideal State; Aristotle regards abortion as a desirable option; and the Stoic philosopher Seneca writes unapologetically: "Unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal.” And whilst there were deviations from these views..., it is probably correct to say that such practices...were less proscribed in ancient times. Most historians of western morals agree that the rise of ...Christianity contributed greatly to the general feeling that human life is valuable and worthy of respect.[29]Human Rights — Christian theology has strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists in many ways, but nowhere more than in the area of human rights. Howard Tumber says, "human rights is not a universal doctrine, but is the descendent of one particular religion (Christianity).""...one cannot and need not deny that Human Rights are of Western Origin. It cannot be denied, because they are morally based on the Judeo-Christian tradition and Graeco-Roman philosophy; they were codified in the West over many centuries, they have secured an established position in the national declarations of western democracies, and they have been enshrined in the constitutions of those democracies." [30]Saint Peter Claver worked for the alleviation of the suffering of African slaves brought to South America.Slavery — The Church initially accepted slavery as part of the social structure of society, campaigning primarily for humane treatment of slaves but also admonishing slaves to behave appropriately towards their masters.[31] However, historian Glenn Sunshine says,Christians were the first people in history to oppose slavery systematically. Early Christians purchased slaves in the markets simply to set them free.Later, in the seventh century, the Franks..., under the influence of its Christian queen, Bathilde, became the first kingdom in history to begin the process of outlawing slavery....In the 1200's, Thomas Aquinas declared slavery a sin.When the African slave trade began in the 1400's, it was condemned numerous times by the papacy.[32]The British became involved in the slave trade in the late 1500s, and by the 1700s, most people accepted slavery as a fact of life, until gradually, from the mid-1700s onwards, a Christian abolitionist movement began to take shape. It began with American Quakers.Slavery was also coming under attack from Enlightenment philosophers like Montesquieu and Rousseau, but it was Christian activists who initiated and organised an abolitionist movement.By the 1770s, Evangelicals were waking up to the seriousness of the issue – the British Methodist John Wesley and the American Presbyterian Benjamin Rush denounced the slave trade in influential pamphlets. Once the British Abolition Committee was established in 1787, abolitionism quickly became a mass movement. Within twenty years, the slave trade had been abolished throughout the British Empire. [33][34]Christianity was instrumental in stopping slavery. If you don’t think it was Christianity that made the difference, read this: John Dewar Gleissner's answer to What are some mind-blowing facts about slavery?Consistent with Calvin's political ideas, Protestants helped create both the English and the American democracies.Christianity is criticized for many things, some of them justly. David Gushee says Christianity has a "tragically mixed legacy" when it comes to the application of its own ethics, using the examples of three cases of "Christendom divided against itself": the crusades, and Frances of Assissi’s attempt at peacemaking with Muslims; Spanish conquerors and the killing of indigenous peoples, and the Christian protests and fights for Native rights; and the on-again, off-again, persecution and protection of Jews. [85]But we have also gotten a few things right here and there.I have borrowed from the article Role of Christianity in civilization - Wikipedia but I did attempt to limit myself to those sections of the article I wrote myself. Here are some of my references:Footnotes[1] From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity (Revealing Antiquity): Kyle Harper: 9780674072770: Amazon.com: Books[2] A Short History of Christianity: Geoffrey Blainey: 9781442225893: Amazon.com: Books[3] Amazon.com: Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome (9780521859431): Rebecca Langlands: Books[4] The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism: Timothy Keller: 9780525950493: Amazon.com: Books[5] Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion[6] Amazon.com: Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia (Routledge Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages) (9780415969444): Margaret C. Schaus: Books[7] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Abbess[8] Get the facts in order: A history of women's leadership[9] Society, Spirituality, and the Sacred: A Social Scientific Introduction, Second Edition: Donald S. Swenson: 9780802096807: Amazon.com: Books[10] Christian Charity in the Ancient Church - Kindle edition by Gerhard Uhlhorn. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.[11] A Short History of Medical Ethics: 9780195134551: Medicine & Health Science Books @ Amazon.com[12] Nuns, a ‘Dying Breed,’ Fade From Leadership Roles at Catholic Hospitals[13] Giving: Charity and Philanthropy in History: Robert H. Bremner: 9781560008842: Amazon.com: Books[14] A History of Orthodox, Islamic, and Western Christian Political Values: Dennis J. Dunn: 9783319325668: Amazon.com: Books[15] Amazon.com: How the Irish Saved Civilization (Hinges of History Book 1) eBook: Thomas Cahill: Kindle Store[16] Amazon.com: 9783319325668: Books[17] Benedictine Monachism[18] Christian Community in History: Volume 1: Historical Ecclesiology: Roger D. Haight: 9780826416308: Amazon.com: Books[19] Charles Martel : the Military Leader and Frankish Defender: History and Civilization Collection: 9782366593624: Amazon.com: Books[20] 100 Scientists Who Shaped World History[21] St. Thomas Aquinas and the Natural Law Tradition: Contemporary Perspectives: John Goyette, Mark S. Latkovic, Richard S. Myers: 9780813213781: Amazon.com: Books[22] Faithful to Science[23] 100 Years of Nobel Prizes: Baruch Aba Shalev: 9780935047370: Amazon.com: Books[24] 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God[25] Amazon.com: A History of the University in Europe: Volume 1, Universities in the Middle Ages (9780521361057): Hilde de Ridder-Symoens: Books[26] The Western Humanities: The Complete Edition: Roy T. Matthews, F. Dewitt Platt: 9780874847857: Amazon.com: Books[27] Amazon.com: The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought (Routledge Religion Companions) (9780415442251): D. Jeffrey Bingham: Books[28] The Sacredness of Human Life: Why an Ancient Biblical Vision Is Key to the World's Future: David P. Gushee: 9780802844200: Amazon.com: Books[29] Text, Cases and Materials on Medical Law and Ethics: Marc Stauch, Kay Wheat: 9781138024021: Amazon.com: Books[30] The Routledge Companion to Media and Human Rights[31] The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery[32] Why You Think the Way You Do[33] The abolition of the slave trade: Christian conscience and political action by John Coffey - Jubilee Centre[34] The Abolitionists