blackbird

No. Freedom of speech is not just something between government and private citizens. Freedom of speech should exist in society between people on forums or in media. If it doesn't, then you don't really have freedom of speech.

Verses about love of neighbour are referring to people immediately around you who you know or deal with, not evil people, like terrorists and criminals on the other side of the world or another continent. You live in an imaginary world. In the real world we must defend our country and keep bad people out. We see how bad many people are in many parts of the third world. Examples are Haiti, where murderous gangs kidnapped a dozen missionaries and five children. Yet hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants from Haiti have been crossing the border into the U.S. from Mexico and into Canada a couple years ago. These people from Haiti are supported by many liberals in Quebec because Haitians speak French regardless of their background. Countries in central and northern Africa are full of terrorists in various terrorist organizations. They kidnapped and murdered countless people. Nigeria is another example where crime is rampant and kidnapping is commonplace. Many south and central American countries also are full of gangs, criminals, and people who believe in Communism or Socialism. We don't need to let people in from places full of crime and terrorism. Canada let people in from Somalia who did in fact commit terrorist acts in Canada. Once these kind of people get in it is very difficult to remove them because of our lenient justice system run by liberals. The biggest threats from the third world are people who have been involved in or believe in crime, Communism, false religion, and Socialism. Every applicant should be carefully screened to see what they believe. Not everyone is bad but many are from certain places. Premier Ford just said immigrants who want to come here to "get on the dole" should go somewhere else. He is being heavily criticized by those who believe in open borders and bring the world in. They are the people who are wrecking Canada. "14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 KJB

Yes. Any comment board which is open to the public should be required to respect freedom of speech. What other kind of comment boards are there? There are no government comment boards. They are all privately run. The idea that freedom of speech does not apply to privately owned or run websites is a lie. If you don't have freedom of speech on privately owned websites that are open to the public to comment on, you don't have freedom of speech.

I gave up on CBC comment sections long ago when I noticed they disable relatively benign comments frequently. They are an ignorant, radical left, anti-Christian, and liberal-controlled mouthpiece. They do not respect freedom of speech at all and think they are some kind of guardians of morality when they do not respect even the most basic human rights.

The prominent NDP MP, Charlie Angus, apparently wants government to force social media to censor all comments deemed to be "extreme". Wow! So who will be the judge of what comments are extreme? NDP, Liberals, and the woke left of course. A prime example is on the CTV news right at this very moment. Premier Ford is being sharply criticized and the woke left are demanding he immediately apologize for the comment. Ford said immigrants who want to come to Canada "to get on the dole" should go somewhere else. This is an example of what would be deemed as extreme. Anybody making any similar comment would be shut down and censored if the NDP (and liberals) have their way. This kind of comment might be deemed to be unacceptable to many of the left woke and liberals in our society and many of these people seemed to have lost sight of what it means to have a free and democratic society. The Marxist ideology seems to have crept into western society and people no longer understand freedom of speech is not just for people one agrees with; it is for everyone. If they want to continue to live in a free society, they must accept comments that they disagree with and not try outlaw them or censor them in the media or internet. We must respect everyone's right to freedom of speech. That should be fundamental like breathing the air.

I explained why the Sermon on the Mount was not directed to the Church but was speaking about the future Kingdom. You refuse to accept that. But apart from that, the verse has nothing to do with immigration policies and multiculturalism unless you happen to believe everyone in the world has a right to immigrate to Canada. This highlights another problem. Bringing people into Canada who have no love for our historic culture and European founding people and who want to use their voice to bring far more of the third world into Canada. They think they have a right to take over Canada and make it another third world slum of pagan religions and cultures. I don't see anything in the Bible that says we must do that. You are abusing the Bible and trying to use it to justify the takeover of Canada by the third world.

So you give a very brief comment without indicating you read or understood anything I said. Clear proof you have no idea what the verses in Matthew ch5 are all about. You have offered no reply or refutation of what I quoted or said. Therefore it is clear you have no idea what the verses are referring to. Worse still you obviously are not interested in learning. It seems clear your mind is closed and I am wasting my time finding the websites that explain all this and posting it to you. Maybe somebody else that is reading this will learn something from it even if you don't. 2 Peter 3:16 “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” King James Version (KJV)

Matthew 7:25 KJB has been taken out of context repeatedly and commonly by many churches and people. I am of the view that dispensational theology or interpretation is correct. You would have to do some study to understand it. There are a number of ways to interpret the Bible which are in strong contradiction to each other. As for this verse, it is part of what is often called the Sermon on the Mount. According to dispensational theology, Jesus was not speaking to the Church. The church was not in existence until it was created by God as described in the book of Acts. So the gospel of Matthew was written before the Church had begun. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus was speaking about the future Kingdom Age and how life would be in that future Kingdom. The church is a New Testament creation. Reformed churches do not believe in dispensational interpretation. Many denominations do not believe or understand and commonly misinterpret the Sermon on the Mount. If you simply read it without understanding what it is referring to, you could easily believe it applies to the church today. The fact that what it teaches is impossible to achieve by anyone alive or in the church today should raise alarm bells and raise concerns about your interpretation. You have to read the epistles to understand the directions for the church. If you believe the Sermon on Mount must be obeyed successfully to be saved, you are seriously mistaken. It is an impossibility. Many Baptists do believe in the dispensations. That is why Reformed churches reject much of prophecy in the Bible or about a third of the Bible. They cannot understand the book of Revelation. In fact they believe the church existed through the Old Testament times and replaced Israel. You will hear them say the church is the new Israel. This ignores the prophecies in the Bible and ignores the account the creation of the church in the book of Acts. In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew Jesus was speaking about what it would be like in the future kingdom, not the church age. We are now still living in the church age, the age of grace. The dispensations make more sense and divides Biblical understanding into seven ages of dispensations. Many churches fail to understand this and lump the Bible into one long age and this leads to misinterpretations of the Bible in many instances. The dispensations or different ages make it possible to understand many parts of the Bible which otherwise would make no sense. It has been common for people who have no understanding of dispensational theology to pull isolated verses out of the Bible like you did and try to apply them to everyone today. That is not rightly dividing the word. Here is one dispensational view, although there are even some different dispensational views: quote THE DISPENSATIONAL APPROACH Dispensationalism is a product of a Bible and prophetic conference movement in the nineteenth century which divided history into a number of time periods, or dispensations, in which God dealt with humanity on a different basis in each period. The classic exposition of this interpretation is the Scofield Reference Bible. In it Scofield states that the Sermon on the Mount contains the law of the kingdom but not the duty of the church. The Sermon on the Mount has a twofold application: (1) Literally to the kingdom. In this sense it gives the divine constitution for the righteous government of the earth. Whenever the kingdom of heaven is established on earth it will be according to that constitution. . . . In this sense the Sermon on the Mount is pure law. . . . For these reasons the Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church. These are found in the Epistles. 5 Secondly, he states that the Sermon on the Mount lacks the teaching on grace. The Lord’s Prayer asks the individual to pray for imperfect forgiveness because the forgiveness is based on the individual’s readiness to forgive. However, in the period of grace, full forgiveness is granted to the individual because it is based on Christ’s forgiveness which he has freely granted. Under the law of the kingdom, for example, no one may hope for forgiveness who has not first forgiven (Matt. 6:12, 14, 15). Under grace the Christian is exhorted to forgive because he is already forgiven (Eph. 4:30-32). . . . Under law forgiveness is conditioned {21} upon a like spirit in us; under grace we are forgiven for Christ’s sake, and exhorted to forgive because we have been forgiven. " Direction: Approaches to the Interpretation and Application of the Sermon on the Mount (directionjournal.org) This is crucial to understand. The believer in Christ is already forgiven. If you incorrectly understand Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount, you may think you must obey or be successful in following those commands in order to be saved, which is not correct. They are impossible standards to achieve. They are referring to the future Millenial Kingdom. Secondly, it is a long stretch to say Matthew 7:25 applies to immigration laws and therefore a country must welcome anyone in the world. That verse does not apply at all to immigration. Every country has borders and controls who gets in. It is a matter of defending one's country from people who would do it harm. People with alien cultures and religions do not fit in western countries and a country has a perfect right to protect itself from harm. The principle of self defense is not over-ridden by that verse. I have already pointed out the verse about having no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. There is much darkness in the world and we as a nation, do not have to bring it into our country. Liberals in Europe brought millions of migrants in from the middle east and Africa and are now paying the price with periodic terrorist attacks and no go zones in their cities.

No, I don't smoke or take drugs. What you eat or how much you eat doesn't affect other people. But not getting vaccinated does threaten the safety and lives of other people.

I know what your driving at. Like many people with heart conditions or strokes, lifestyle probably had a lot to do with it. But the point is everyone has been repeatedly warned about Covid and should have been vaccinated by now. So there is not much excuse for those who refuse to get vaccinated in my opinion. It is not difficult to get vaccinated. It only takes a few seconds. Controlling one's lifestyle is an ongoing process which requires a major effort for some people every moment of their lives. That makes it far more difficult or next to impossible for some people than just getting vaccinated.

Had nothing to do with vaccination. It is clogged or blocked coronary arteries. Vaccination doesn't cause that.

How do you know who is Christian? You must a god to be able to discern that from some comment board. Islam has been at war with Christianity for about 1,300 years and not much has changed. How's that immigration working in Europe where a 25 yr old guy from Somalia just stabbed a British member of Parliament to death? Just the latest of unending attacks in Europe.

First I never came from a third world country. Secondly I never said not to love people in the third world. That doesn't mean we should not have borders and sensible immigration policies. The interpretation of that verse doesn't mean countries, border and immigration controls should not exist. That verse is speaking about person to person relationships in certain circumstances. It doesn't mean you have to invite any stranger into your home, which might endanger you and your family. We must use discernment in relationships as well as in immigration policies so we don't destroy our country. Bringing people in who don't accept our historic culture but reject it and expect us to accommodate their alien culture don't contribute to harmony and a good outcome. "8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) 10Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 13But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light." Ephesians 5:8-13 KJB Many people from the third world are worshipers of false religion and sadly are not willing to listen to anything else. In fact nobody can be forced to change their beliefs because they immigrated here. Multiculturalism says every belief system is equal. So there you have your answer. These verse make it clear in that situation.

I am wondering if I might legally challenge the health authority for failing to provide timely care to a close relative. I understand the health authority in this region put a loved one, who needs emergency heart care for clogged coronary arteries, on hold and brought Covid patients into our region from another region. These Covid patients chose not to get vaccinated. Is there a legal obligation for the health authority to provide emergency medical care for a person who has a health care card and paid premiums for health care and followed all the Covid health regulations, including getting vaccinated?

Leftists and multicultural woke could care less about native, European descendants rights or culture. Alien cultures and religions don't enrich the lives of the established Judeo-Christian culture in Canada. The lefty activists supporters of third world immigration / cultures constantly complain about racism without giving specific instances and thereby insult people for simply being Caucasian or being of European descent. We often hear how we are colonials, colonizers, and guilty of genocide and systemic racism. Politicians exacerbate the differences by constantly harping about systemic racism and pandering to immigrants and smearing everyone else. Many left/liberal politicians use the issue to exploit the masses for votes by deliberately causing division. "Global anxieties about immigration are not merely about security and economics. They are also about culture. People are feeling robbed of their cultural security, like someone has come into their home and changed the furnishing and décor without their permission, and then shamed them for daring to speak out. Most Australians—immigrants included, I believe—don’t give a damn about diversity, they care about immigrants fitting in and making a contribution. The problem with multiculturalism is that at its heart there is a contradiction, a contradiction that is now playing out in Europe with the rise of anti-immigration movements, and in the UK with the Tommy Robinson movement. Foundational to multiculturalism is the plausible premise that culture matters to personal identity and self-respect. But multiculturalists then advocate the adjustment of pre-existing national cultures to suit the cultural needs of migrant communities so that they don’t feel alienated from the host nation. The problem is that multiculturalism forgets that the pre-existing national culture means something to its citizens too—surprisingly, to multiculturalists at least, it isn’t just cultural minorities who love their culture." The one huge problem with multiculturalism | The Spectator Australia "One of the defining features of Multiculturalism is the tenet that all cultures are equally valuable, good, and worthy of respect, if not outright celebration. This in part stems from a hodgepodge of postmodernism (“There are no objective truths”) and moral/cultural relativism (“Who are we to judge the moral and/or cultural precepts of another people?”). For a discussion of these misguided principles, see my earlier posts here and here. A consequence of Multiculturalism is the notion that host nations/cultures should not expect that new immigrants internalize the defining ethos of the host nation. Rather, it is assumed that each cultural group will maintain its distinct identity irrespective of whether its foundational cultural values are contrary to those of the host nation. Lack of integration and assimilation are not necessarily poor outcomes according to Multiculturalism, as such isolationism is viewed as an instantiation of cultural pride." Multiculturalism: A Failed Policy | Psychology Today The truth is western civilization-culture is deteriorating with the influx of immigrants and illegal migrants from the third world. Nationalism is shunned in Canada and even Trudeau said Canada is a post-national state. Canadians have nothing to be proud of in destroying our Judeo-Christian civilization.

Canadian liberal politicians embraced multiculturalism back in the 70s under PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau. But I don't think ordinary Canadians were ever asked about this. It was just forced on Canadians, much the same way many things have been forced on Canadians without their consent. This was also done in Australia around the same time ironically. "Multiculturalism was imposed on Australia. As if any nation would ever vote to kill its own culture. It was a policy that in the 1970s breezily swept aside the normative significance of the still largely British nature of the Australian nation and simply declared that we had no culture but multiculturalism. Australians were never asked whether they were happy for Australian culture to be radically changed over a generation through high levels of non-Anglo-European immigration without an emphasis on assimilation. Young Australians ever since have merely been taught to recite the creed: ‘There is no Australian culture but multiculturalism.’ It became a self-fulfilling prophecy." The one huge problem with multiculturalism | The Spectator Australia It is a coincidence that this happened in Australia about the same time as in Canada. Coincidence or what?

Political Islam is not conservative in the sense of western conservatism. It rejects western values and is in conflict or at war with western culture. Inclusiveness and reconciliation are just shallow words that don't begin to describe the broader term of multiculturalism. The words are weasel words to hide a much broader agenda. The word liberals includes a broad spectrum of people including progressives, left wing ideologues, and generally those of liberal thinking. The CBC is engaged in a steady war against what they see as white privilege and systemic racism of north American society. They are constantly broadcasting angry racial minorities with grievances and throwing gas on fires to incite racial division and hate. Incidentally the CBC at this very moment has activists on discussing Netflix and some kind of trans controversy. The constantly give voice or platform to various activists on the subject of racism and transphobia. If you want find out some of the problem and aspects of multiculturalism read this article. The word does not begin to describe the various aspects of the word. It is really another broad subject. In a general sense it is a broad attack on hour historic Judeo-Christian civilization/culture. WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH MULTICULTURALISM? | Pandaemonium (kenanmalik.com)

Obviously it is a mixture. The news and politics broadcasts seem to lean toward liberal and tow the liberal ideology. As an example, the host of the evening news broadcast is a Muslim woman with a Hijab. The obvious purpose of this is to send the liberal message of multiculturalism rules. Other political broadcasts often use racial minorities although the number of minorities they often use does not represent the demographic cross section of Canada or Canadian thought. Often they use aboriginal pundits to constantly push their liberal ideology of inclusiveness or reconciliation. The Fifth Estate program might be more of an independent branch.

Generally it is. The program the Fifth Estate does sometimes reveal some deep failures about the government. This is one of those cases. The deal with China was pure madness. But it makes me wonder why this was not broadcast by the CBC Fifth Estate before the September election, instead of a month and a half later. I doubt if it would have made much difference though because the Liberal voters are not listening or probably would not have understood. The fact is obvious that China weaponized the Covid vaccine that was supposed to be jointly developed by Canada and China, through the Chinese company Cansino BIO and the People's Liberation Army, and simply refused to ship the first samples to Canada for testing in a lab in Canada likely because Meng Wangzhou was being held in Canada. Trudeau failed from the beginning to realize what he was doing was utter madness. Any government that thought they could make a deal like that involving the PLA must be in an alternate reality. This really put Canada's national security at risk. As the Fifth Estate said, this delay in Canada getting it's own vaccine production capability might have cost thousands of lives. I am reading the Kindle book "Hidden Hand: Exposing How the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World" and just learned how deeply embedded China's CCP operatives and puppets are embedded in government and all levels of society in Canada. Britain has been infiltrated and influenced so deeply by the CCP now that the book says it is probably beyond recovery. There are British, European, and other followers of Maoism, Leninism, and Marxism who really believe China is leading the way in bringing enlightenment to the world.

Canada actually has a Chinese-Canadian Senator who fights for Communist China and tries to pressure the Senate and government.

Interesting article here: The Ties that Bind the Trudeau Liberals to Communist China "Canada-China relations dominated the news in the Nation’s Capital this week – more accurately, Canada’s many questionable dealings with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The fact is the governing Liberal Party has multiple tight relationships with the CCP and this factors into all matters between the two countries." - The Niagara Independent This makes me doubt whether the Liberals will be too eager to abandon Huawei. They claim they will make a decision in the next few weeks. We will see.

China has been building it's Belt and Road massive warehouse/headquarters in Surrey, B.C. China is paving its 'belt and road' to British Columbia - Asia Pacific | Business in Vancouver (biv.com) Liberal Premier Christy Clark signed an MOU in 2016 which really helped China move ahead on this.

That explains how most Canadians vote and the country and system is dysfunctional.

Do you support Trudeau, the master apologizer. True North news said his apology was fake. Now FNs expect to get some things out of him, like millions of dollars in some kind of benefits as compensation for taking a holiday on Truth and Reconciliation day. He has no problem spending taxpayer money like water. So he will probably have no problem writing a few cheques.

No, I don't agree. O'Toole moving toward the left makes him look more like a liberal lite. He lost some seats and didn't do well in ridings where he should have done better. Trying to become more liberal just doesn't gain many votes for conservatives in the Toronto 905 ridings and in Quebec. People just don't see him or the Conservative Party as being much different than the Liberals. He adopted carbon taxes against the wishes of the majority of the party in the convention. That was a fatal mistake. Just claiming he wants the party to be a big tent party just doesn't cut it or convince anyone of anything. He is not a true conservative. He is too much of an appeaser. Keeping him on would mean losing the next election. I don't see any reason at all why he would do much better. The way it looks is if O'Toole leads into another election, Trudeau will win another minority government and we will be no better off.