May 20th, 2018

What is happening to Canadians’ rights?

By Letter to the Editor on February 8, 2018.

Whatever has possessed our prime minister and Parliament to come up with that inane ruling that there will be no funding for summer students hired by faith-based organizations (unless they sign something in regards to abortion or transgender, etc.)?

Those are the self same organizations which provide food, clothing and shelter for people in need. They are also the ones who help set up many of the summer programs and camps for our children, and have provided much of the physical and emotional support for the refugees brought into our country.

What is happening to the rights guaranteed to all of us in the Charter of Rights and Freedom? What is happening to our wonderful country of Canada? People, wake up before it’s too late and we find ourselves, as the saying calls it, “going to hell in a handbasket”!

Gerty Heinen

Picture Butte

Share this story:

15 Responses to “What is happening to Canadians’ rights?”

  1. Kal Itea says:

    The simple answer is that it was decided a long time ago to keep religion out of government and government out of religion. The law is the law.

  2. already extinct says:

    Perhaps so Kal Itea But, for me the answer to the question “What is happening to Canadian’s rights” can be found in an analysis of How “Scary” Steven Harper looks today after a shot of Trudeaumania II .

    • Tony Pargeter says:

      Well, Harper still looks a fair bit like a “satiated badger” actually, as bloated and more evasive.
      And though you want to paint Pierre Trudeau as entirely “frivolous” on the assumption that stylish, youthful, lithe and/or handsome people are somehow lesser beings, it was nonetheless he who brought in the Charter. And say what you will– it has become our defining feature and what we are most admired for in the rest of the world.

      • already extinct says:

        ‘it has become our defining feature for the rest of the world” Give me a break for gods sake.

        This clown and the mechanism that writes the speeches and cheques he throws around, just gave away 10.5 million Canadian taxpayers dollars to a criminal “pushing an agenda that must not be in alignment with the charter

        Bottell below says it “isn’t overstepping the charter”. Well enough. I actually don’t know much about the Canadian charter but if what I’m seeing lately happening in our courts, in our schools, universities, and politics defines who we are supposed to be in front of the world, it’s enough to make me declare unequivocally not a bloody bit of it “defines” me!! Carry on.

        • IMO says:

          @already extinct: The 10.5 million pay out was a Supreme Court of Canada decision NOT a decision made by the federal government of Canada.

          BTW, if, by your own admission, you don’t know much about the Canadian charter, how are you informed about what your rights are? and the rights of others?

          • already extinct says:

            Oh I get it IMO, the Supreme Court of Canada doesn’t answer to me, the government of Canada or anyone else – I don’t need to have studied the charter endlessly like you have apparently to know there’s something uncharter like about giving to a terrorist 10.5 million dollars of public money with no consultation whatsoever, while thousands of veterans and children go grovelling for funding..

            I guess I have no right to draw upon common sense.

            Furthermore, IMO, have you studied the Bill of Rights charter? I doubt anyone weighing in here, has. I have the document in its entirety direct from the Queens printer at significant cost too, and if there’s anyone other than a lawyer who has it figured I’d be very surprised.

            • IMO says:

              @already extinct: You can’t_know_something is “uncharter like” unless you have at least read the Charter. I have read the Charter. Sorry you had to go to great expense to obtain a copy of the Charter, when it is readily available on line in pdf format. In accordance with the Charter, you have every right to your opinion; however, as you well know, opinion is not fact. For your edification, follow this link to the actual text of the Supreme Court decision vis a vis Canada vs Khadr.


              If you are finding it difficult to understand the Charter, you may find answers to your questions here:


              and here:


              • snoutspot4 says:

                Thank you IMO for calling out the inconsistencies in Already Extinct’s posts. How can one who knows nothing about the Charter then state that they own an expensive print version from the Federal Government press charge others with not having actually read the document that they haven’t?

                Much like this contributor’s comments on other threads – her/his opinions are a right to freely state; pretending to have expertise and claiming ownership of the facts is not.

                • already extinct says:

                  Snotspots bad fail again. I said nothing of the sort the words you attribute to me – “…one who knows nothing about the Charter……’ Read what I actually said then commence your attack, I listen well to experts on everything such as you portray – NOT, and nowhere will you find I claim to have “ownership” of anything I say or said -, unlike you I am a free “personhood” (lol) to think for myself, because you disagree ala Hillary style doesn’t mean………… ahhh enough words wasted on you!!

  3. Steve Bottrell says:

    Have you ever read the Charter? Personally, I think the opening line is bullcrap, but most of the rest of it makes sense in the context of society and that the government isn’t overstepping the Charter in its decision to with-hold tax dollars from groups that want to use the money to push agendas that oppose said Charter. I also think we fail to uphold many of the Charters utterances due to our socioeconomic systems structure, but that’s another discussion. Paper proclamations rarely work out the way the authors want them to.

    • IMO says:

      @SteveBottrell: It is my understanding the the Preamble to the Charter is symbolic in nature, establishing a transcendent value, a moral foundation i.e. human rights are derived from sources beyond the state and exist together with the rule of law. Therefore, the word g-o-d becomes merely a phoneme to include and encompass the fundamental right of conscience and religion and the freedom of belief. Then, if one does not subscribe to a religion or deity or deities, the moral ethic of reciprocity could be encompassed by the phoneme. Or, in the language of lawyers, the Preamble “recognizes a fundamental principle upon which the theory of the Charter is based: people possess universal and inalienable rights derived from sources beyond the state, and the Charter purports to enumerate positivist protections for these pre-existing human rights.”(Penney, Jon; Danay, Robert Jacob. University of British Columbia Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, p. 287, 2006).

  4. biff says:

    let’s face it – the charter has been watered down and neglected over a number of key issues relating to the fundamental right of adults to be free from the ever encroaching arm of the gov’t. some examples are: check stops; laws that prohibit adults from doing as they wish with their bodies, such as ingesting drugs, choosing easily and clearly when they need to die; and, being spied on by secret police agencies as we go about our business via digital means with one another.
    s.b makes fine points, and al ex reminds us how we are suckered into revering the joke that is our faux democracy – we move from one lying poser to another every election. kal makes a very clear point. take the info to heart, g.t. what i would ask you, however, as you live in one of the country’s hotbeds of animal cruelty, how it is acceptable that people in your community have no real concern for the welfare of livestock, except insofar as their dirty money value?

  5. zulu1 says:

    Not to worry ,such organizations will get their funding provided they support the government’s agenda,rights notwithstanding !!

  6. johnny57 says:

    Its so black and white to me Gerty! The cancer known as “Political Correctness” is spreading faster than a fire being put-out with gas.If the courts don’t strike this one down then one can only wonder what’s next?

  7. snoutspot4 says:

    MP Harder tried this tactic in the House of Commons. It was soundly criticized for being a pack of lies. Perhaps you missed this commentary thread?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.