gov't funded Religious groups demand right to ignore canada's rights and freedoms!

Image from G&M: Queen Elizabeth II signs Canada's constitutional proclamation in Ottawa on April 17, 1982 as Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau looks on. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has caused no end of squabbles among Canadians.


OPINION: Justin Trudeau's 'values test' is offensive
This year, the Liberal government requires everyone applying for a Canada Summer Jobs Grant to sign an “attestation” that neither their core mandate, nor the jobs being funded, oppose human rights.  That includes reproductive rights.  That amounts to an “attestation” that they agree with abortion.

A welcome case of the Trudeau apple not falling far from the tree -- but the opinion response from another politician is astounding for its tunnel vision.

It's actually some of the most defective ideation I have read in a long time. If the writer of this opinion piece is in any way indicative of the brain power of politicos in this country, we are in deep trouble.

The Trudeau government clearly upholds "reproductive rights", as it most certainly ought to according to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The term "reproductive rights" clearly intends the right to have or not to have an abortion.

Do I have to spell it out? If a religious group won't agree to reproductive rights, then they are jeopardizing their own right to NOT have an abortion.

In other words, because of the Charter, they are free to follow their own conscience and/or religious beliefs. But they must allow others --- "sinners, if you will" -- to do the same.

Somebody needs to get acquainted with the "mote" verse in the Bible, because there's definitely a beam stuck in some eyes here, possibly protruding straight through to the brain.

To haul out children's programs to invoke sympathy for this misguided cause, is reprehensible (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word) and in no way negates the cognitive dissonance demonstrated by the author of the opinion piece.

How many ways does this need to be said? To attempt to cherry-pick freedoms and rights by refusing to tick an acknowledgement of Freedoms and Rights, the organizations themselves are the ones putting the children's programs in jeopardy.

A commenter (Peter Turley) to the opinion piece had a suggestion:
"We should sue every Faith that uses it's (sic) money to oppress Women's rights. Every Church, Mosque and Temple that insists that their beliefs are so important that they trump the Charter of rights (sic)."

If you need my personal view on abortion: although I worked quite some years ago with a group of volunteers who helped arrange safe medical abortions for people in dire straits, there is no way I could ever have allowed myself to have one - - but then, I was never in straits that dire. These uptight religious folks need to walk a mile or two in someone else's shoes.

Are there sour grapes at the root of this cruel judgement of other women?  What are they really trying to say?  Could it be, "I had to raise kids I didn't want, or couldn't afford, so you should have to too"? Or maybe, "I had to marry somebody I didn't even like so the kid wouldn't be illegitimate"? Or, "I had to get married to avoid being ostracised by my religious group, so why should you get off scot free"?

The Sermon on the Mount pretty much covers that kind of malice, but maybe it should be added to the 10 Commandments as well: