OTTAWA � Canada's new citizenship study guide for immigrants makes no mention of gay rights -- because those sections were ordered removed by the citizenship minister.
Somebody should remind him that gays will scare away the "evil" muslims. My guess is that he'll make that booklet look like Richard Simmons' dirty magazines. Or do Canadian Republicans fear gays more? Its so hard to keep up with all the groups they hate and in what order. They need some kind of a flowchart or a 'grumpy old man index' something.
Your arguments would carry more weight if the issue was that the government "forgot" rights...but the fact that they were included and the anti-gay politician made a deliberate and conscious decision to spike this particular one, and ignore a subsequent recommendation goes unanswered. It was in the draft and they took it out.
And the second point is that a panel was appointed to make these mundane decisions, yet this particular one still came all the way down from the top politician himself. This was a selective, executive decision to remove something that was already in the draft. It wasn't an "omission" or "oversight" or an issue of lack of space.
Right wing self rightous bastard. Where does he get off changing what is the law in Canada. They are calling for his resignation and I agree with that.. no one representing all Canadians should bring their religeous bias to parliament
Somebody should remind him that gays will scare away the "evil" muslims. My guess is that he'll make that booklet look like Richard Simmons' dirty magazines. Or do Canadian Republicans fear gays more? Its so hard to keep up with all the groups they hate and in what order. They need some kind of a flowchart or a 'grumpy old man index' something.
Posted By:
2010-03-03 06:20:13
Zip up, your insecurity is showing.
Your arguments would carry more weight if the issue was that the government "forgot" rights...but the fact that they were included and the anti-gay politician made a deliberate and conscious decision to spike this particular one, and ignore a subsequent recommendation goes unanswered. It was in the draft and they took it out.
And the second point is that a panel was appointed to make these mundane decisions, yet this particular one still came all the way down from the top politician himself. This was a selective, executive decision to remove something that was already in the draft. It wasn't an "omission" or "oversight" or an issue of lack of space.