drummindiver

Well, I've posted seveal links regarding this, so which one are you talking about? A two second search will show you the books that have/are banned. Intelligence cornered me? lmfao

Your ignorance is confounding. I'm sure I'm not the only person on MLW who doesn't think literature should be banned or censored, which it most assuredly has. Sorry, I'm on my phone and have a difficult time with the small keys. "governing slaves"

...and this should have been done in Caledonia when the OPP left the townspeople out to dry.

Fake news? Censoring literature is a slippery slope I realize sjws won't see the lessons to be learned due to their blinders. I find the Bible much more racist with their rules of governight slave. Merchants of Venice uses derogatory Jewish epithets. I guess we should ban Shakespeare. Alice Walkers book The Color Purple has also had public debate and calls for it to be banned. Why don't we just cancel English classes to ensure we dont offend or frighten.

Thanks for that well thought out response. Clearly, not just this school, as it was banned a month after publication. https://pen.org/nonfiction/mark-twains-huckleberry-finn

The author of this article states this succinctly, and I agree. These books hilight the evils of racism, and banning them due to their use of racial slurs is counter productive. ANY thoughts? http://www.dailywire.com/news/11275/leftists-virginia-ban-kill-mockingbird-huck-finn-ben-shapiro

I don't know if this covers raw in your face corruption, but it covers raw in your face ineptitude. I also personally think raw on your face illegalitarian use of public funds, but no proof. http://m.torontosun.com/2016/11/30/8-billion-and-14-years-later-ehealth-has-yet-to-finish-the-job

Don't know about burning, but the OPP arrested people in Caledonia for tryING to raise a Canadian flag.

If Harper had come out against the Kong you know it's because of xenophobia. If Justin had been in power he would have fallen over himself. Pretty sure her hypocrisy was not shown on page 1 but your partisanship was.

They sure care about it now. MSM around the world are reporting it. What news source are you looking at, Granma? Ciber cuba? Juventud reveled?

Then it really says something that the populace lived in poverty while Castro was worth a billion. #eventrudeaucantmakethatshitup

So, you're a dick head?

So a pOster had a thread deleted as Charles Anthony deemed it a poor attempt at conversation. Donald Trump is a Fascist could gave been worded better, fair enough.However, young Altai is given free reign to start and continually post the most inane and offensive posts and threads possible. Is this two tiered administration? Is someone's prejudices dictating censorship?

I stand corrected.

The Charter of rights also says no religion in school, and we've seen how well that worked.

There was an example cited. Regardless, man, it is on the books. As a person who lives in a country that espouses religious freedom and tolerance I find this disconcerting, man.

The Canadian government condemns places that do not allow religious freedom and tolerance By law, neither do we, hence the hypocrisy.

Roughly 70% of our taxes will go to health care by 2020. You think people who are carrying that tax burden should ante up even more?

We seem to judge a lot of other cultures for not allowing religious freedom. Here in Canada you can still get up to two years in jail for taking the lords name on vain. Hypocritical or not? When we are trying to keep religion out of schools this seems to tip the scales in favour of Christians. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/16/canadian-blasphemy-trial-a-warning-against-smugness-walkom.html

And clearly, religion and their practices is what this word was made for.

As have schools.

Sorry, I added the wrong link http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/lord-s-prayer-banned-25-years-ago-after-sudbury-protest-1.1359913 This direct from the charter. 1. Freedom of Conscience and Religion (Section 2(a)) Before the Charter came into force, there was no express protection for freedom of religion under the Constitution Act, 1867. Some limited protection was, however, given to denominational schools in section 93 of that Act. Specific legislative jurisdiction with respect to religion is not dealt with in the Constitution Act, 1867 and the courts have had to characterize laws touching religion as coming either within section 92 or section 91 of that Act. The pre-Charter cases in this area mainly dealt with challenges by merchants to various Sunday closing laws. The fact that "conscience" has been separated out from "religion" led to comments that the Charter might constitutionalize the right of civil disobedience when the route of opposition to law is sufficiently the product of an individual's deeply held system of moral beliefs, whether or not these are grounded in considerations normally regarded as religious. In R. v. Big M Drug Mart, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that the freedom of conscience safeguarded by this provision relates to freedom of conscience in matters of religion. The paragraph protects against all state-imposed burdens on the exercise of religious beliefs, whether direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional, foreseeable or unforeseeable, provided they cannot be regarded as merely trivial or insubstantial. I The court concluded that since the enactment of the Charter it has become the right of every Canadian to work out his or her own religious obligations, if any, and it is not for the state to dictate otherwise. And finally! First Nations are not first among equals despite the hyperbole otherwise. There is no way in hell you are going to give a muslim kid a bar mitzvah for the sake of education. http://www.thecharterrules.ca/index.php?main=concepts&concept=9

Odd. I didnt think the Canadian Charter of Rights was something you used arbitrarily.

Found many cites claiming 6-7 millio