Trudeau column close minded
Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau watches Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill during a 3 day official visit to Canada on July 1, 2017 in Ottawan, Canada. (Photo by Chris Jackson/Getty Images)
I feel someone must answer the closed-minded intolerance expressed in an article by Josh Aldrich, editor. In the issue of July 6. He expressed a perfect example of “I have made up my mind so don’t confuse me with facts.”
To somehow promote a simple flub in a speech to something of a plot against the province is too ridiculous for comment. I refer him to the remarks made by the Mayor of Calgary on this topic. He pointed out how utterly stupid this effort is.
As for understanding Alberta Mr. Aldrich must recognize that his intolerant attitude to all non-Conservative ideas is not helpful and does not help in the movement towards national unity. Canada is a land of two official languages and the message is the same in both. As a matter of fact when the Prime Minister or other official speaks, translation is provided, so listen up!
The other criticisms are a collection of nonsense. The downturn of the ‘80s was caused by the crash of the oil price, not the national energy policy, just a little truth please!
The problem is not lack of understanding of Alberta, it is the refusal of Mr. Aldrich and other Conservatives to understand that this year is 2017, not 1980. Alberta must move into the present century and stop moaning for the past.
Re: Trudeau’s payout, apology to Khadr is wrong
Kevin Sorenson wrote an oped in last week’s Canadian, which I believe is below the standard that any Canadian Parliamentarian should aspire to. He, through his provocative language and word choice, stoked the basest instincts in us.
As a parliamentarian, he has every right to question the Trudeau government’s decision on whether to settle the lawsuit. That should be expected and encouraged of us all – democracy demands participation. It is something that makes this country a great place to live.
But with Mr. Sorenson using the phrase “western values” not once by accident but twice to reinforce it, that’s contemptible. It’s a dog whistle used by the far right used to rouse racists and which is used as a wedge to define some as an “us” and some as “them”. And the same rules that apply to us don’t apply to them and that opens the door so that all sorts of actions are allowable. And that Mr. Sorenson is very dangerous territory.
It can lead to all kinds of negative consequences. I would remind Mr. Sorenson of a situation not so long ago that happened in his constituency. If you’ll recall, a hotel was burned down in Bashaw and racist graffiti was located nearby. The arson resulted in an innocent community member being murdered while doing nothing wrong and a family trying their best to find the Canadian dream being torn to pieces and having their business and lives destroyed. These were your constituents. Do you really want to stoke that kind of sentiment or foment those kinds of feelings?
We need our leaders to be leaders and for them to not pander to the lowest instincts in human beings for short term political gains. The long term consequences could be devastating.
I would strongly urge Mr. Sorenson to write a follow-up and clarify what he meant and also hopefully move towards language that seeks to unify our community and make people (all people regardless of religion, colour, creed, gender, sexual orientation, opinion, etc) feel included. And maybe he can clarify that he speaks for all of us.
Re: BRSD votes to end relationship with CCA
I found the article exceedingly fascinating and revealing. Also it left me with a lot of questions.
Quote 1:“The addendum puts the school in the position where if in the future if the school board came out with other illegal demands the school would not be able to speak to the public about it.”
Can someone please tell me how it could possibly be remotely acceptable, in a country that is immensely proud of its right to freedom of speech, to muzzle a respectable academic society for exercising that constitutional right when a school division makes illegal demands?
I do not know how this clause is worded. According to the report in The Camrose Canadian and according to the reaction of the society the clause portended illegal intent by violating religious freedom. How can it possibly be legal to not sign a contract because of a clause that portends illegal intents?
Quote 2: “Our lawyer indicated that any scripture that could be considered offensive to particular individuals should not be read or studied in school.” The offensive scripture is quoted in the Canadian’s article and I admire that it was quoted in its entirety. To the fornicator and the adulterer the naming of sexual immorality as sin is an offence. To those who worship idols the naming of idolatry as a sin is offensive. To the thief the naming of theft as a sin is offensive. And yes the same principle applies to the homosexual. The Bible names the sins that are offensive to its author. Cornerstone Christian Academy is merely exercising it’s right to teach the Bible. Our freedoms were instated so that this would forever be possible in this country. As long as these freedoms are upheld our country prospers. If we see them slip we see decline. It’s the order of things.
Let’s not forget. Our countrys constitution was based on Biblical principles. That is why we have prospered in tolerance, hospitality, acceptance, education, economics, and equality. Where these equities are challenged we need to confront. Let’s do it peacefully in as far as at all possible. On foreign fields many of our young men have fought and died for them. Let’s not erode their sacrifice on home soil.