May 04, 2018

Liberals deny summer jobs grants to nearly 2,000 Christian groups — but not THESE Muslim ones

Ezra LevantRebel Commander


Justin Trudeau doesn’t like Christians, or at least Christians who “mean it”. Prior to the last federal election, he banned any pro-life Christians from running as Liberal candidates.

Of course he does have pro-life MPs, even cabinet ministers:

The vast majority of practicing Sikhs and Muslims are pro-life, and Trudeau doesn’t ban them.

Just pro-life Christians.

This year, Trudeau started demanding that religiously motivated do-gooders who want to apply for the government's summer jobs grants program had to renounce their views, if they contradicted Trudeau’s own political ideology, particularly on abortion and trans rights.

We already know that more than 1,400 applications were rejected because of this religious ban.

But here's Candice Malcolm's new report in the Sun:

"Controversial Islamic groups receive Canada Summer Jobs Grants”

According to a government database listing recipients of the Canada Summer Jobs grant, both the Canada Arab Federation (CAF) and the Anatolia Islamic Centre have been approved for federal funding in 2018.

Do you think those groups swore an attestation that they support Trudeau’s personal views on abortion and transgenderism?

And if they did, do you think they meant it in any way?

TONIGHT I'll tell you more about CAF and the Anatolia Islamic Centre, and you'll see why I don't believe they really agree with Justin Trudeau’s pro-abortion, pro-trans views.

I typed the words "Islam" and "Muslims" in to the list of summer grants recipients.

I found 71 groups — and that’s just in Ontario — who received summer jobs grants.

Again, I don't believe they agree with Trudeau's positions on these topics, either.

But of course, that attestation was never meant for Muslims, just like Trudeau’s ban on pro-life candidates was never meant for Muslims.

Just for Christians.

My friends, the war on Christians is a lot worse than just saying, “seasons greetings” instead of Merry Christmas...

NEXT: One small business is now suing the Trudeau government over the Canada Summer Jobs Grant attestation.

I talk with Bill and Rhea Lynne Anderson of A-1 Irrigation & Technical Services, and their lawyer, John Carpay, of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

THEN: Over two years ago, we reported on Justin Trudeau's demands for multi-million dollar renovations to the PM's official resident before he'd agree to live there (including a new $275,000 indoor pool...)

Tonight, Manny Montenegrino, president of ThinkSharp, comes on to update us on this ongoing saga.

FINALLY: Your messages to me!

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-05-08 09:51:12 -0400
“Funny how you keep begging the question by never answering the q question put to you.
How would you decide what is “objectively fair and reasonable”? Would that not make it a moral issue?”

Fair and reasonable is of course going to be subjective… such matters are the source of many lawsuits, but it’s in essence the point where person A and person B both receive comparable benefit or consequence from an action. Your noisy neighbour case is a prime example – it’s one-sided in that one person gains the benefit (the music) and one person bears the consequences (not being able to sleep). Thus, illegal, and loud person would lose a court case pertaining to it. There is no need to appeal to “morality” in this case, although in cut and dried cases, the two principles overlap. .

To answer your question, no, I don’t believe it’s a moral answer. We can find an objective answer that doesn’t require the invocation of individual beliefs. Legally, fair and reasonable doesn’t always agree with “morality”. Fair and reasonable is to let gays marry. “Morally”? Your results may vary, from agreeing fully on equal rights, right through to Tanya Granic-Allen’s apparent stomach-loosening revulsion to it, presumably religiously motivated. Morality can’t be used as the basis of this law, since there is no definned “morality” to it. However, extending marriage rights to all in no way infringes upon conventional marriages, so falls under the auspices of fair and reasonable.

To use one of your definitions below,
“1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, "
This in no way projects universal acceptance beyond that particular group. Perhaps, then, since we’re talking “code of conduct”, our Canadian code of conduct which endorses reproductive freedom, thus declares abortion moral, since we as a society, have declared it acceptable within our code of conduct?

“Separate DNA. The law is an ass in this case because it is likewise being decided by leftists who also want to define certain moral issues as not being moral issues. "

Woman’s uterus. Decision left to individual. “Morality” is again ambiguous in this case, since everyone believes something different, and cannot be used to make that decision. Fair and reasonable is to take the hands off approach and let the individuals decide – since state intrusion on security-of-person is one of those one-sided relationships.

“And you never answer my question, IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE WAY I ACT AND YOU CAN’T SLEEP AT NIGHT, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Your refusal to answer this shows the world that your are desperately seeking comforting lies.”

You never asked what I’d do about it. Nor have you explain what these “lies” you’re so upset about are. “Fair” – or perhaps, “equitable consequence” – is a pretty simple definition and objectively reasonable.

I’d ask you to stop. If that failed, I’d invoke the law, and I’ve already addressed that scenario above. Fair and reasonable says you stop, if not voluntarily, then when the police stop in and tell you to.
commented 2018-05-07 12:12:58 -0400
When the ‘god’ you serve and bow down to is a fabrication (lie or deception) based on what looks most expedient towards wiping out Christians and Jews, lying and cheating are all fine, even if your so called ‘sacred text’ prohibits it. If Muslims had real fear of God, they would have holy concern for honesty and integrity but if ‘winning’ the holy war takes first place among all things, cheating and lying, like faking adherence to Trudeau’s immoral attestation, is all within the pale of Islam.
commented 2018-05-07 11:19:37 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
“Morality” isn’t the basis of law. Law decides what is objectively fair and reasonable.

However, for now, the decision of whose priority is higher is an individual one. The law accepts either choice.
________________________________________________________________________________
Funny how you keep begging the question by never answering the q question put to you.
How would you decide what is “objectively fair and reasonable”? Would that not make it a moral issue?

You desperately do not want to make morality for the basis of law when by definition is is. Redefining there words doesn’t change the reality, But htat;s how leftists roll.You totally ignored the definitions I posted and go back to repeating the same mantra over and over.

Separate DNA. The law is an ass in this case because it is likewise being decided by leftists who also want to define certain moral issues as not being moral issues.

And you never answer my question, IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE WAY I ACT AND YOU CAN’T SLEEP AT NIGHT, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Your refusal to answer this shows the world that your are desperately seeking comforting lies.

Try to answer a question directly without resorting to your usual deflections. I double dog dare you.
commented 2018-05-07 11:04:57 -0400
"
It is only peculiar to someone who is desperately seeking comforting lies. We have discussed this at length before. I have no problem with you doing what you want with your own body, But a baby is obviously not your own body it is a separate and distinct body with its own DNA. You want to tattoo your body go ahead. Desire to lop off a finger? Knock yourself out. Kill the unborn baby with a distinct DNA? Murder."

It is indeed unfortunate that that sacrifice must be made, perhaps a technological solution will one day arise. However, for now, the decision of whose priority is higher is an individual one. The law accepts either choice.
commented 2018-05-07 10:55:18 -0400
“Only a leftist could dance around the truth like this. So you are saying respect or lack thereof is not a moral issue? You are desperately seeking comforting lies. "

Your latter comment is well-poisoning. If you feel your argument stands on its own, you shouldn’t need to resort to that.

I think they can be separated in some cases, particularly controversial ones. You may view abortion as a moral issue, but legally, it’s a respect issue. You may view it as morally wrong, but yet respect other people’s right to make that decision (which is, more or less, what the attestation is about.

“You are sure working hard to avoid making morality the basis of law. Only a leftist who is desperately seeking comforting lies. "

“Desperately seeking comforting lies”? I think you’re overanalyzing noisy neighbours. I don’t take any comfort from it. It just is.

“Morality” isn’t the basis of law. Law decides what is objectively fair and reasonable, to the best of its ability. For many issues, the two more or less completely overlap. You can’t just walk up the street and punch someone – that would probably be “morally wrong”, but it’s also fundamentally unfair to the punchee. The line blurs when “morality” conflicts with objective fair and reasonableness. Again, take abortion. Many people view it as morally wrong, but not everyone. It’s objectively unfair, (and constitutionally unreasonable), for the government to force a woman to bear an unwanted pregnancy. In cases like this, law is not determined by morality, which is, as I noted, somewhat individually subjective, but rather, what is most fair. As a result, the choice is left to the individual.
commented 2018-05-07 04:20:00 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 3 hours ago
Are you suggesting that youre willing to respect someone’s right to a quiet apartment, but not to decide what they can do with their own body? If so, that’s a peculiar order of priority.
________________________________________________________________________________

It is only peculiar to someone who is desperately seeking comforting lies. We have discussed this at length before. I have no problem with you doing what you want with your own body, But a baby is obviously not your own body it is a separate and distinct body with its own DNA. You want to tattoo your body go ahead. Desire to lop off a finger? Knock yourself out. Kill the unborn baby with a distinct DNA? Murder.

So then you concept the comforting lie that babies are parasites. Have you no shame about your twisted reasoning and logic?

Ian Tyson said it well.

And the sighing of the pines
Up here near the timberline
Makes me wish I’d done things different
Oh, but wishing don’t make it so.

So stop trying to wish nonsense as truth. Wishing don’t make it so.
commented 2018-05-07 04:11:53 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 3 hours ago
I don’t really consider it a moral issue, ore one of basic respect.
________________________________________________________________________________

Only a leftist could dance around the truth like this. So you are saying respect or lack thereof is not a moral issue? You are desperately seeking comforting lies.

OXFORD DICTIONARY:

NOUN
mass noun
1Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY:

More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

You are sure working hard to avoid making morality the basis of law. Only a leftist who is desperately seeking comforting lies.
commented 2018-05-07 04:02:52 -0400
Andrew, the question still remains unanswered:
“And here we see the problem: you didn’t answer the question. If you don’t like it what are outgoing to do about it”
commented 2018-05-07 01:08:01 -0400
“Allan Peterson commented 10 hours ago
No you didn’t. You said other people’s freedoms. Not the same thing. "

How are they not the same? In this scenario, even if they’re distinct – and I don’t think they meaningfully are – they’re inseparably intertwined.

“And here you proved my point. Someone’s morality is going to infringe on someone else’s freedom. I do not have the freedom to blast my music if you want the freedom to enjoy a night’s sleep. Why? Because it would be immoral to do so. But then If I have my own morality I make give a damn what you want.

And here we see the problem: you didn’t answer the question. If you don’t like it what are outgoing to do about it"

It would be obnoxious, and vaguely illegal, and most people try to be at least somewhat respectful of others. I don’t really consider it a moral issue, ore one of basic respect.

You sign an attestation about respecting other people’s tenancy rights when you rent an apartment. Do you find that objectionable? Are you suggesting that youre willing to respect someone’s right to a quiet apartment, but not to decide what they can do with their own body? If so, that’s a peculiar order of priority.

“Drew Wakariuk commented 6 hours ago
Andrew Stephenson sorry but no one is forced to agree with anything,stick your commie BS! :

Then why the objection to signing an attestation saying so?
commented 2018-05-07 00:55:20 -0400
When is that “feminist” Eunuch maggot Mohammad Trudeau going to speak at a mosque next ? with the woman all corralled in the basement away from the men ???
His pet religion is the most anti woman cult in the history of man ( oh sorry ) people-kind
commented 2018-05-06 19:01:03 -0400
Andrew Stephenson sorry but no one is forced to agree with anything,stick your commie BS!
commented 2018-05-06 15:22:33 -0400
One other thing: the Supreme Court in 1989 wasn’t particularly “Liberal”. The majority were Mulroney appointees.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mulroney was Liberal light at best.
commented 2018-05-06 15:20:08 -0400
As I said, both in this post and earlier, “You can believe whatever you want, but you can’t do things that infringe on others rights.”
________________________________________________________________________________

No you didn’t. You said other people’s freedoms. Not the same thing.

Legally, it is, under the principles of “quiet enjoyment”, which more or less says exactly that, in that you can’t unreasonably bother others.
_______________________________________________________________________________

And here you proved my point. Someone’s morality is going to infringe on someone else’s freedom. I do not have the freedom to blast my music if you want the freedom to enjoy a night’s sleep. Why? Because it would be immoral to do so. But then If I have my own morality I make give a damn what you want.

And here we see the problem: you didn’t answer the question. If you don’t like it what are outgoing to do about it?
commented 2018-05-06 14:45:53 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, you deflect, and hang yourself at the same time. Where is your proof of your claim that you hold a PhD? State your proof. Thesis title and University where your alleged PhD was earned.
commented 2018-05-06 12:50:58 -0400
Common, as I said, I try to make my arguments objectively defensible, which is to say not reliant on personal credibility. I’d say it’s prudent to not trust anyone you meet on the internet since you never know who they are or how credible they actually are.

For example, I can objectively refute the contents of the original article here, for simply pointing out that Levant didn’t do even the most basic comparison here – yes, some Christian groups were rejecfted, and some Muslim ones accepted, but we don’t know if there’s any actual skew in approval rates to support the indignation. That claim would also be true if 5% of Christian applications were rejected and 95% of Muslim applications rejected – but the latter scenario would totally invalidate the premise of Christians being unfairly penalized. If one wanted to, one could speculate that the omission of comparative data is deliberate, for that very reason.

It’s also why the right wing alternative media is so terrified of social media crackdowns on “fake news”. These stories predicated on half-truths and alarmism are well into that category, and the entire narrative of “bringing you stories the MSM won’t” is spurious, since it is based entirely in misdirection rather than robust analysis.

However, a well researched and argued post stands on its own, regardless of who submits them. If you have a problem with what I’m saying, it should be evident in what I’ve written itself. I’ll take the observation that you can’t refute my posts (vs the generic internet insult), as evidence of their quality. Thanks, Common!
commented 2018-05-06 10:22:27 -0400
Oh Andrew, Andrew, are you there? You seem to have plenty of time on your hands, with your fake PhD, to " think about it a lot. I think the effort I put into these posts is pretty self-apparent. My framework is objectively consistent " yet you don’t have the time to provide the proof of your claim to be the holder of a PhD. As such, you have zero credibility.
commented 2018-05-06 01:59:04 -0400
“No, but you have to agree to treat it that way. How is it any different? Those opposed to abortion are being silenced by government force and threat.”
If you’re opposed to abortion, don’t have one. Your choice. Notice the difference? Respecting that people have that choice is pretty reasonable, in my opinion.

“That is a sleight of hand and a completely arbitrary exercise in legal and mental gymnastics. At one time the tall foreheads also decided women were not persons either. But we still couldn’t kill them at will.”
False equivalency – the legal status of women is not an issue of competing rights, whereas the legal status of a fetus vs an unwilling bearer, is one. The law is the law, and fetuses are not considered equivalent. You can believe otherwise – again, don’t want an abortion, don’t have one – but legally, this one is pretty cut and dried.

One other thing: the Supreme Court in 1989 wasn’t particularly “Liberal”. The majority were Mulroney appointees.

“Only a deluded leftist would think that everybody can do whatever they want and have no repercussions.”
I don’t think I implied there weren’t repercussions. It’s pretty evident that there will be (I apologize if I was not clear enough, but bear in mind it’s not possible to address every possible scenario in advance). The hard part is minimizing those. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the tendency is towards leaving individual decisions to the individual, as long as those decisions do not infringe on others unreasonably. The problems arise when you have competing rights, but that’s going to happen no matter what groundrules you lay.

“So, you’re OK if I blast my music until 3 AM even though you have get u the next morning for work? That’s my morality. My morality says to hell with everyone else. If you don’t like it what are you gong to do about it? Do even think before you post this rubbish? "

As I said, both in this post and earlier, “You can believe whatever you want, but you can’t do things that infringe on others rights.” Do you feel that blasting your music at 3am would not be such an infringement? Legally, it is, under the principles of “quiet enjoyment”, which more or less says exactly that, in that you can’t unreasonably bother others.

Yes, I think about it a lot. I think the effort I put into these posts is pretty self-apparent. My framework is objectively consistent no matter how many strawmen you try to set up otherwise.
commented 2018-05-05 23:50:26 -0400
The attestation by the Muslims included the small print, it’s okay for and desirable for everyone else to support abortion to facilitate population jihad.
commented 2018-05-05 22:28:12 -0400
Andrew Stephenson laws usually apply to EVERYONE! You do realize the difference right??
commented 2018-05-05 22:04:25 -0400
This in no way says you have to agree that abortion is morally OK. It says you have to respect reproductive rights.
_______________________________________________________________________________
No, but you have to agree to treat it that way. How is it any different? Those opposed to abortion are being silenced by government force and threat.

The Supreme Court, in Tremblay Vs Daigle (1989), determined that the fetus is not legally a person and has no such right.
________________________________________________________________________________

That is a sleight of hand and a completely arbitrary exercise in legal and mental gymnastics. At one time the tall foreheads also decided women were not persons either. But we still couldn’t kill them at will.
This is an example of what I mentioned earlier- the left’s propensity to play with the definition of words and to define things in and out of existence to suit there preconceived ideas.

Would you agree with the statement, then, that Conservatives want government to enforce morality, even at the cost of personal freedom? The two cannot co-exist.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Liberal government already does this. They take my money without my agreement to it to fund hospitals and roads and abortions and other things. I do not have the freedom to keep my money nor the freedom to decide what I think is worth funding. Leftists are the worst for using the coercive power of the state to stick their hands into my wallet for what they think is just and right. i.e. “moral”.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. When there is more than one person there will be restrictions on our freedom. Morality is what those two persons use to decide what the restrictions will be. The Hell’s Angels may have a different idea of that than you. Muslims have shown that they think differently than Canadian society. Only a deluded leftist would think that everybody can do whatever they want and have no repercussions.

But then that would be the 3rd Pillar of leftiedom- the refusal to exercise discernment.

Go ahead and have your morality – the law protects that. Just don’t expect me to abide by your morality, just as I don’t expect you to abide by mine.
_______________________________________________________________________________

So, you’re OK if I blast my music until 3 AM even though you have get u the next morning for work? That’s my morality. My morality says to hell with everyone else. If you don’t like it what are you gong to do about it? Do even think before you post this rubbish?
commented 2018-05-05 20:26:46 -0400
Anxiously waiting for Access to Info docs to reveal that the aforementioned islamic groups did not check the required box !

Trudeau has dug himself a huge hole. The attestation which Trudeau is demanding could set a dangerous dangerous precedent. Even liberal judges are smarter than this. Therefore he will lose in the court of law. In fact John’s case with the Andersons v. Gov’t of Canada should be in full swing about the time the rit is dropped if not sooner. Good luck Mr. Trudeau and PM Gerald Butts. You’ll need it.
Canada will again flourish when you two are punted out of office. In fact it will be equivalent to the relief one feels upon getting rid of a terrible migrane coupled with a seriously abscessed tooth.
commented 2018-05-05 19:43:03 -0400
Boy Andrew.
Everytime you post, I’d swear I’m reading Gerald Butt’s Twitter account.

Guess time will tell if your boy Justin has his head up his arce everytime he talks about what the Charter states.

Sunny daze.
commented 2018-05-05 18:45:06 -0400
" it IS forcing people to say that they agree that abortion is morally OK when the do not agree to it. More lies from the deluded left. "

This is the exact text.
“Both the job* and my organization’s core mandate* respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation, or gender dentity or expression; "
https://catalogue.servicecanada.gc.ca/apps/EForms/pdf/en/ESDC-EMP5396A.pdf

This in no way says you have to agree that abortion is morally OK. It says you have to respect reproductive rights. You can believe whatever you want, but you can’t do things that infringe on others rights. That’s all it says. Try not to get too bogged down in the moral panics.

“As in infringing on the right to life for Parasites? "
The Supreme Court, in Tremblay Vs Daigle (1989), determined that the fetus is not legally a person and has no such right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremblay_v_Daigle

"
Every law is someone trying to force their morality on someone else. Everyone is telling other “how to live”. The question is simply whose morality or lack thereof will win the day. "
“Wrong again. Conservatives hold to the morality of an issue not just the expediency of it. They see that all laws are forcing someones morality on someone else so they try to be circumspect about it and limit government interference to major issues. Leftists love using government power to force people to acquiesce to everything that they like or don’t like however trivial- like the carbon tax ferinstance. The left are micro-mangers of the worst order. "

Would you agree with the statement, then, that Conservatives want government to enforce morality, even at the cost of personal freedom? The two cannot co-exist.

The law itself makes no provision for subjective “morality”. That’s too hard to define and too variable, so their default solution is to leave it in the hands of the individual.

Go ahead and have your morality – the law protects that. Just don’t expect me to abide by your morality, just as I don’t expect you to abide by mine.
commented 2018-05-05 17:35:59 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 2 hours ago

Then why are they opposed to an attestation saying as much?
-—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————The attestation doesn’t say that the applicants will not force people to not have abortions (as if that is possible- grab a brain) it IS forcing people to say that they agree that abortion is morally OK when the do not agree to it. More lies from the deluded left.

Nobody’s forcing anybody to do anything.
-—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Mr. Babies-Are-Parasites, they are forcing people to agree with them or they don’t get funding. That is force by using the coercive power of the state. How is not “forcing”?

Actually, there’s a pretty simple standard here – you have individual freedom, but that can’t unreasonably infringe upon others.
-—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
As in infringing on the right to life for Parasites?

Many of the laws- like tax laws- do nothing to infringe on someone’s freedom but they use the coercive force of the state to twist your arm. IF you don’t think so, try not paying your taxes for a while.

Nor the rightists, those freedom lovers who will happily tell you how to live and want the government to back them up on it.
-————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Wrong again. Conservatives hold to the morality of an issue not just the expediency of it. They see that all laws are forcing someones morality on someone else so they try to be circumspect about it and limit government interference to major issues. Leftists love using government power to force people to acquiesce to everything that they like or don’t like however trivial- like the carbon tax ferinstance. The left are micro-mangers of the worst order.

Every law is someone trying to force their morality on someone else. Everyone is telling other “how to live”. The question is simply whose morality or lack thereof will win the day.

Leftists don’t like the morality of an issue because it infringes on their self-absorbed desires so they redefine words into and out of existence. As in “babies are parasites”. Sound familiar?
commented 2018-05-05 17:08:51 -0400
Actually Andrew you are… If you’re going to proclaim to the world that you have something you better be able to back it up or prepared to be ridiculed for lying..!! You have made a mockery out of those that did put the effort in and actually speak the language unlike yourself .
commented 2018-05-05 16:12:30 -0400
“Diversity is our strength”?, Yikes, to paraphrase the menzoid. What happened to diversity of thought?
commented 2018-05-05 15:09:58 -0400
“Except that the only one forcing anyone to do anything here is the leftists government. Pro-lifers are not forcing anyone to do anything.”
Then why are they opposed to an attestation saying as much? Pro-lifers, by definition, want to force women to bear unwanted pregnancies, which is very much forcing someone to do something.

" You say you don’t want the government to forcing people to do anything but you are quite willing to have them force me to agree with them."
Nobody’s forcing anybody to do anything. Pro-choice means pro-choice, you choose yourself. They’re rejecting applications for those who would advocate forcing others to do things, such as forcing someone to bear an unwanted pregnancy. You’re allowed to have your opinion, but you’re not necessarily entitled to force others to listen to you.

“Of course every law made is forcing someone to do something or to prevent you from doing something. i.e “forcing someone’s morality” on someone else. Tax laws, noise abatement laws, speed limits, medical funding, and on and on. The question is simply who’s morality will it be? But some how abortion is sacrosanct. No laws regarding it need apply.”
Actually, there’s a pretty simple standard here – you have individual freedom, but that can’t unreasonably infringe upon others. For example, noise laws – noise infringes on others. Or, say, funding agencies that actively advocate against personal freedoms.

“But then consistency was never the leftist’s, strong suit. "
Nor the rightists, those freedom lovers who will happily tell you how to live and want the government to back them up on it.
commented 2018-05-05 14:39:19 -0400
SPACE MOOSE commented 2 hours ago
I would rather the government just not hand out money for summer jobs. I thought this was a conservative site. Employers can go and find their own money.
________________________________________________________________________________
As usual, SM, yo miss the point. The debate is not whether government should hand out money. The point is that if they are handing it out they should be consistent in how the rules apply.

The leftist education system has done a fine job on your reasoning skills, I see.
commented 2018-05-05 14:37:07 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 2 hours ago
Freedom of choice means you are free to choose. If you feel threatened by that freedom, I’m sorry, but Canada is a free country. You live how you want. I’ll live how I want. I have no obligation to support you trying to force me to live how you want me to.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Except that the only one forcing anyone to do anything here is the leftists government. Pro-lifers are not forcing anyone to do anything. You say you don’t want the government to forcing people to do anything but you are quite willing to have them force me to agree with them.

Of course every law made is forcing someone to do something or to prevent you from doing something. i.e “forcing someone’s morality” on someone else. Tax laws, noise abatement laws, speed limits, medical funding, and on and on. The question is simply who’s morality will it be? But some how abortion is sacrosanct. No laws regarding it need apply.

But then consistency was never the leftist’s, strong suit.
commented 2018-05-05 13:00:03 -0400
Muta Ween,
As usual, you are 100% CORRECT!
Thank you for your SANE comments. It appears canadians (what is left of them) have lost their sanity!