This is a classic example of how the “Islamophobia” smear works. Scheer asked: “When will the Prime Minister take the security of Canadians seriously and look for ways to put these ISIS fighters in jail?” Trudeau answered that the Conservatives “ran an election on snitch lines against Muslims, they ran an election on Islamophobia and division, and still they play the same games, trying to scare Canadians.”
In other words, it’s Scheer’s fault, and he is a bad person, for being concerned about the security of Canadians. The very concept of “Islamophobia” is a war-on-reality term designed to intimidate people into thinking that it’s wrong and bigoted to oppose jihad terror. The security question is real, and the concern is real, but Trudeau is saying that it is some moral defect on the part of Scheer and the Conservatives to be concerned.
This strategy could easily blow up in Trudeau’s face, but even then he will double and triple and quadruple down, and claim that the Conservatives’ “Islamophobia” is what drove the returning Islamic State jihadis to jihad.
“FUREY: Trudeau labels legit terrorism questions as ‘Islamophobia,'” by Anthony Furey, Toronto Sun, December 1, 2017 (thanks to A.M.):
There’s an old joke in political circles that says a racist is what you call someone who is winning an argument against a leftist.
The idea of course being that if you’re using logic and facts to box your political opponent into a corner, they’ll turn around and randomly call you racist or reach for some other below the belt tactic to malign your character and sneak away from having to deal with the actual issue at hand.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used such a cheap shot earlier this week when faced with questions from Conservative leader Andrew Scheer on the government’s position on reintegrating Islamic State adherents from Canada who’ve since returned home from battle.
While a lot of attention was given not just in Canada but around the world to the government’s bonkers notion that at least some extremists who have committed serious offences under Criminal Code terror provisions just need a good hug and an uplifting poetry jam in lieu of prosecution, few picked up on the added low blow that Trudeau snuck in on Tuesday during his back and forth with Scheer.
Here’s Scheer’s question: “Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who is de-emphasizing Canadian security, and Canadians are tired of it. It was Conservatives who amended the Criminal Code to make it an offence to leave Canada to fight for ISIS. It was Conservatives who were focused on giving our law enforcement new tools to prosecute ISIS fighters. The Prime Minister is using a broad spectrum that includes poetry and podcasts, and all kinds of counselling and group hug sessions. When will the Prime Minister take the security of Canadians seriously and look for ways to put these ISIS fighters in jail?”
That’s the full question, beginning to end.
And here’s Trudeau’s complete response immediately following: “Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party learned nothing from the last election and the lessons Canadians taught them. They ran an election on snitch lines against Muslims, they ran an election on Islamophobia and division, and still they play the same games, trying to scare Canadians. The fact is we always focus on the security of Canadians, and we always will. They play the politics of fear, and Canadians reject that.”
Scheer hit back, asking: “When will the Prime Minister take this seriously?”
Trudeau’s response: “We can see that Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party is alive and well. They are doubling down on the same approaches they had in the last election, the same approaches that Canadians rejected. I wish them luck.”
That was it, then the conversation shifted to the Bill Morneau drama. But what on earth was it all about?
Scheer was clearly talking about reintegrating terrorists – people who Trudeau’s own public safety minister, in that very same House of Commons, confirmed have gone abroad to wage jihad as members of ISIS and allied groups. This is not up for debate. It’s not at all a controversial thing to say. So why is Trudeau trying to argue this line of inquiry is part and parcel of some sort of pattern of Islamophobia?
There’s been no public opinion polling release yet on the idea of reintegrating jihadists in Canada. But past numbers showed Canadians of all political stripes were keen to go hard on ISIS, with two thirds opposing Trudeau’s decision from 2015 to stop bombing them.
Are all of these Canadians Islamophobic? Are the Muslim Canadians who want to throw the book at jihadists also Islamophobic? Why is it wrong to ask questions about how the government handles the return of homegrown jihadists?…
mortimer says
FINALLY! We have a definition of Islamophobia from the PM of Canuckistan, first Sharia country in the Americas.
According to him, Islamophobia means EVERY CRITICISM of EVERY DOCTRINE within Islam. There is no ‘safe’ topic or ‘permitted’ (halal) criticism of Islam. Kafirs are not allowed to criticize or even to DISCUSS Islam in any way whatsoever.
Sharia manual states:
“We have already discussed killing the person who, with intent, curses the Prophet, belittles him or slights him in any way. The judgement in this case is clear.” (i.e. the sentence is execution)- from Sharia law manual, “Qadhi Iyaadh in ash-Shifa”, Volume No.2, Page No. 27
-as-Suyuti writes: “(If they break their oaths…) This ayah (K. 9:11-12) is used as a proof by those who say that if a dhimmi attacks Islam (VERBALLY) or the Qur’an or MENTIONS the Prophet in a bad manner, HE IS KILLED, whether he has broken a treaty or not. Those who say that his repentance is accepted use as a proof, ‘hopefully they will stop.’”
The Sharia manual of the Shafi school states:
“We have already discussed killing the person who, with intent, curses the Prophet, belittles him or slights him in any way. The judgement in this case is clear.” (i.e. the sentence is execution)- from Sharia law manual, “Qadhi Iyaadh in ash-Shifa”, Volume No.2, Page No. 27
-as-Suyuti writes: “(If they break their oaths…) This ayah (K. 9:11-12) is used as a proof by those who say that if a dhimmi attacks Islam (VERBALLY) or the Qur’an or MENTIONS the Prophet in a bad manner, HE IS KILLED, whether he has broken a treaty or not. Those who say that his repentance is accepted use as a proof, ‘hopefully they will stop.’”
The Sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat as-salik) states:
The Sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat as-salik) states that Sharia permits the murder of anyone who verbally opposes Islam, since they are at war with Islam:
“There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim (harbi) at war with Muslims.” -Reliance of the Traveller, o4.17, p.593
mortimer says
The following quotes are more pertinent: Sharia law strictly forbids the mere ‘mention’ of ‘something impermissible’ about Islam by a kafir (non-Muslim).
From authoritative manual of Sharia law, ‘Reliance of the Traveller’ Chapter ‘O’ 11.10.05:
“The (DHIMMI) agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
-5- MENTIONS SOMETHING IMPERMISSIBLE about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.”
The blasphemy punishment for a blasphemer under Sharia law is death. Under Sharia, anyone has permission to carry out the execution of a blasphemer without legal consequences…even a kafir may execute a Muslim blasphemer, because the Muslim has in theory become a kafir by blaspheming.
Sharia permits the murder of anyone who verbally opposes Islam, since they are at war with Islam:
“There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim (harbi) at war with Muslims.” -Reliance of the Traveller, o4.17, p.593
Justin does not realize that he is CONDEMNING TO DEATH anyone who CRITICALLY DISCUSSES ISLAM!
By calling them ISLAMOPHOBIC, he places a BIG TARGET ON THEM! The jihadists all UNDERSTAND THAT! Tru-dope doesn’t understand the first thing about Islam.
Dan says
Maybe Trudolt’s wife what’s her face will sing for them like she did at the MLK tribute.
Music hath charms and all that drivel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbMXYgYxRaY
She probably “binge” attends Evita.
mortimer says
Thanks for that Dan, I needed a smile. I’m just picturing her singing ‘Kum Bye Ya’!
Georg says
Jeez. And I thought John Kerry forcing French people to listen to James Taylor after a massacre was bad. Now, to go strangle a puppy.
Cretius says
Treason is treason and those that enable traitors are also guilty of treason
Georg says
There is a liberal axiom — varying in being explicit and implied — that Westerners/whites can do no right and non-Westerners/non-whites no wrong. When the vicious and absurd nature of this belief becomes obvious they become violent. Thus, Exhibit: Trudeau. He becomes hysterical in defending ISIS terrorists. That should be registering pretty high on the “strange” meter for those of us still with common sense and decency.
Georg says
Thought from the stairs:
If ISIS has nothing to do with Islam how could locking them up be “Islamophobic”?
mummymovie says
Elementary, dear Georg!
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
+1
You caught him in another one of his contradictions.
Don’t forget that he’s got ten Mohammadan members of parliament so he’s got lots of Mohammadan voters to keep happy. Anything, anything to stay out of the classroom.
Georg says
“…lots of Mohammadan voters to keep happy.”
Definitely noticed the only thing he seems to talk about in response to being confronted on coddling ISIS fighters is winning elections. Apparently his argument is his winning boiled down to the single-issue of being a party/candidate friendly to ISIS fighters. Somehow I doubt a) his election resulted from that single-issue and b) that the majority of Canadian people think the best response to and individual committing to a genocidal regime and fighting on their behalf against Canada and broader humanity is an abridged Pre-Kindergarten experience.
Trudeau’s going into a rage over someone suggesting ISIS fighters be detained and punished belies an insecurity. Strange to have never seen him so animated as when defending ISIS members having nothing to do with Islam from Islamophobes.
Linda says
Trudeau has no regard at all for the safety and security of Canadians, but he has just spent thousands, if not millions, on security for the house and grounds where his family lives. That’s Justin “do as I say, not as I do” Trudeau.
Muslim 2017 says
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
I’ll say this on here – I think it is unjust to simply incarcerate a Muslim simply because he joined ISIS. This is a very narrow approach.
Firstly, from the principles of Islamic law even during wartime which ISIS claims it is fighting, it is absolutely disgusting and obscene to target and kill civilians whether in Muslim or non Muslim societies. So for example bombing trains, planes, airports, stadiums etc, all these things are completely evil and wrong in Islamic law. Allow me to show the evidence below.
Surah 2:190-193
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”
“And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”
“And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
“Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
What does “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you” means according to the mutafsireen of Quran like Ibn Kathir which is well respected in the Muslim world?
Abu Al-`Aliyah said, “This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah’s Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants.”
There is one argument that the above verses was abrogated by surah 9:5 according to Robert Spencer yet this is false because when one examines the preceeding and proceeding verses of surah 9:5 we see that they were people who broke a specific covenant with the Muslims as well as dealings with those who seek asylum.
(those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you’, just as Allah said (in another Ayah): and fight against the Mushrikin collectively as they fight against you collectively.) (9:36)
So as a general rule in Islamic law we see very clearly it refers to people who are fighting the Muslims, not those who are uninvolved going about their lives.
This is the heart of the discourse.
So what does “(but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.)”
This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,’ such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), “includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.” This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah’s Messenger said:
Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship.)
It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, “A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet’s battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children. ”
In conclusion we see very clearly that in Islamic law it is forbidden to kill innocent women and children. Of course there is warfare in the Holy Quran, in the bible (Robert Spencer argues that the Jews and Christians are not applying these verses – this is because they abide under secular laws, this international law or military doctrine in American academy as well as western universities teaches warfare too. Hence the double standards and misinformation about Islam is unreasonable.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=234
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Back to my issue about ISIS, Muslims from across the world joined ISIS because they were fooled by propaganda, Muslims have always dreamed of living under an Islamic State free of what they see as western immorality. They wanted to live in brotherhood with their fellow Muslims and to contribute towards building a state. They wanted to be free from their tyrannical dictators in the Middle East. Unfortunately, a number of them saw something different from what they signed up for. They couldn’t live or else they would be killed. Therefore, if a person is returning from ISIS and he or she is arrested, one needs to submit evidence in a court of law as to what specifically this person did whilst in that state. Was this person involved in murdering people? Or was this person a doctor, civil engineer fixing the roads but did not engage in killing? Was he or she just a cleaner? In other words it is wrong to join such dangerous groups however one who returns one has to look specifically into those issues. Surveillance, of course, Islamic counseling and rehabilitation, of course I agree with these measures but to simply put people in prison without any details and insight is a foolish way to go. Some teenagers were lured as well, they lack experience and proper judgement not fully understanding the details of what they were getting themselves into. One cannot allow hatred for Muslims blind common sense and reason. So yes one who joins these groups and committed dangerous crimes if found guilty should be imprisoned or whatever fitting punishment is needed.
So how do we tackle this dangerous extremism? The root of this problem is gross misinformation and a distorted understanding of the Holy Quran and Islamic law. Only Imams who are frank and honest can work together with our youth to tackle this hence there must be open discussions about this issues. It is because I have read into these verses and had serious discussions with people specialized in Islamic law and as a student myself I am able to see the difference. ISLAM DOES NOT TEACH TO KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS WHETHER HE IS NON MUSLIM OR MUSLIM.
May Allah remove impediment from my speech and help me to be as honest as possible. Ameen. So in essence I agree that it is wrong to murder civilians no matter his ideology, religion etc in the manner these misguided groups are doing.
gravenimage says
The appalling “Muslim 2017” wrote:
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
I’ll say this on here – I think it is unjust to simply incarcerate a Muslim simply because he joined ISIS. This is a very narrow approach.
………………………….
Well, of course. ISIS just crucifies boys who snack during Ramadan, teaches children to behead the “insufficiently Islamic”, keeps Christian and Yezidi women as sex slaves, and practices genocide. All of these things are perfectly Islamic, so jailing those responsible is “a very narrow approach”.
Sure it is. If we were really open-minded, we would let then practice such aspects of their great religion right here…
More:
Firstly, from the principles of Islamic law even during wartime which ISIS claims it is fighting, it is absolutely disgusting and obscene to target and kill civilians whether in Muslim or non Muslim societies…
………………………….
Is that so? Yet, we should not jail people who are supposedly transgressing such bounds? “Muslim 2017” can’t even keep his Taqiyya straight…
More:
Surah 2:190-193
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”
………………………….
“Muslim 2017” would like us to believe that raping and murdering are “transgressions”–but of course the Qur’an verses he posted say no such thing.
More:
“And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing….”
………………………….
Doesn’t “Muslim 2017” realize what he is acknowledging here? That not worshipping Allah is worse than murder. In other words, he is *affirming* that Muslims can murder us for not submitting to Islam.
More:
“Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.”
………………………….
If “all worship is for Allah”, that means that everyone has converted to Islam. Muslims will only stop murdering us if we all convert to Islam under threat.
More:
There is one argument that the above verses was abrogated by surah 9:5 according to Robert Spencer yet this is false because when one examines the preceeding and proceeding verses of surah 9:5 we see that they were people who broke a specific covenant with the Muslims as well as dealings with those who seek asylum.
………………………….
This is not “according to Robert Spencer”, but according to Islamic scholars.
Muslims regularly slaughter non-combatants. If “Muslim 2017” *really* had a problem with this, he would take it up with his coreligionists, instead of slinging Taqiyya at the good Infidels at Jihad Watch.
More:
(those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you’, just as Allah said (in another Ayah): and fight against the Mushrikin collectively as they fight against you collectively.) (9:36)
………………………….
“Fighting” just means resisting, even peacefully. If Muslims encounter *any* resistance from Infidels not submitting to Islam, they can slaughter them.
More:
Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah’s Messenger said:
Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods)…
………………………….
This is grimly hilarious, and has been cited by other Muslim apologists here.
The “captured goods” is booty *stolen from the Infidels*–and this includes captives they have enslaved by Muslims.
It is just telling Muslims not to steal the booty they *from other Muslims* that they have already stolen from Infidels. This just proves that robbing and enslaving Infidels is perfectly fine.
Why are pious Muslims so damn stupid? Wait…don’t answer that…
More:
Back to my issue about ISIS, Muslims from across the world joined ISIS because they were fooled by propaganda, Muslims have always dreamed of living under an Islamic State free of what they see as western immorality.
………………………….
Of course–“Western immorality” such as the banning of slavery and genocide. All good Muslims.
More:
They wanted to live in brotherhood with their fellow Muslims and to contribute towards building a state. They wanted to be free from their tyrannical dictators in the Middle East. Unfortunately, a number of them saw something different from what they signed up for. They couldn’t live or else they would be killed. Therefore, if a person is returning from ISIS and he or she is arrested, one needs to submit evidence in a court of law as to what specifically this person did whilst in that state.
………………………….
I’m sure ISIS will be happy to turn over all incriminating evidence…sarc/off
In other words, without arrest records from a state that did not hold any of these atrocities illegal, we have to allow in hordes of Jihadists who voluntarily decamped to the most horrific Shari’ah and terror state in modern history.
And if we don’t allow them all back in to use the Jihad training they have received, then we are all a bunch of “filthy Islamophobes”.
More:
Surveillance, of course, Islamic counseling and rehabilitation, of course I agree with these measures…
………………………….
“Islamic counseling”–that is grimly hilarious. Give them counseling in the very creed that precipitated such atrocities in the first place.
Oh, and remind them that they must lie to the foolish Kuffar about such matters.
What could go wrong? From the perspective of the Jihadists, nothing at all.
More:
So how do we tackle this dangerous extremism? The root of this problem is gross misinformation and a distorted understanding of the Holy Quran and Islamic law. Only Imams who are frank and honest can work together with our youth to tackle this hence there must be open discussions about this issues. It is because I have read into these verses and had serious discussions with people specialized in Islamic law and as a student myself I am able to see the difference.
………………………….
Says the Muslim who above admits that Muslims can murder Infidels who do not submit to Islam.
More:
ISLAM DOES NOT TEACH TO KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS WHETHER HE IS NON MUSLIM OR MUSLIM.
………………………….
Islam, of course, does not consider any Infidels to be innocent–nor does it consider “heretics” or the “insufficiently Islamic” to be innocent. So pious Muslims can pretty much murder anyone who they want to.
More:
May Allah remove impediment from my speech and help me to be as honest as possible. Ameen. So in essence I agree that it is wrong to murder civilians no matter his ideology, religion etc in the manner these misguided groups are doing.
………………………….
Really? Even though this counters Qur’an 2:193, the very verse he cites above? What a load of Taqiyya.
Muslim 2017 says
Darn if you do, darn if you don’t. Guess you want Islam to be wiped off the face of the earth but it will not happen, Islam and Muslims are here to stay and this beautiful way of life will grow. Everything is taqiyya which is so silly.
carol says
A shame that it’s able to grow on the mountains of fertilizer it creates. How nice for you that you’re able to enjoy yourself basking under the shade.
Keys says
What could possibly be “most gracious” and “most merciful” about the greatest deceiver and one who commands the murder of unbelievers?
Voytek Gagalka says
Why? Why? Here’s the simple answer: because it works, unfortunately. And as long as it works, it will be used. In case of Trudeau only the next election will tell if it works still in Canada. We know that it worked pretty well in Britain where one ca be jailed for expressing anything which could be deemed “Islamophobic.” So far, in Canada, no one is jailed for it, yet. How long it will last? No one knows. But as long as I am here writing this, you can be sure that it is probably not yet enforced.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Yeah, how long will it take our liberal fascists to monitor or simply block sites like JW?
Parker says
Maybe True Dough will get murdered by one of his pet Moslems and be the martyr we need to clamp down on them?
Cheer Bear Girl says
Trudope wants Canada to be a North American Caliphate. What a disgusting creature he is.
Islam the religon of death says
If they had guns those Jihadi’s would Kill Trudeau in a millisecond, and any other Canadian in front of them.
I say give the the benefit , free housing, new cars and access to explosives, just make sure the get enough money to ruin the social welfare system, and use up all the money set aside for our retirement.
Tom says
Trudeau’s response is EXACTLY the reason why we Canadians MUST fight with every ounce of our being to prevent Trudeau’s M-103 from becoming law in Canada, and why we HAVE TO awaken our fellow Canadians to the danger Trudeau poses not only to our freedom of thought and speech, but to our safety and that of our families.
Trudeau and his Liberal Islamist supporters must go next election.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Interesting statements from our Dear Leader.
———–
““Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party learned nothing from the last election and the lessons Canadians taught them. They ran an election on snitch lines against Muslims, they ran an election on Islamophobia and division, and still they play the same games, trying to scare Canadians. The fact is we always focus on the security of Canadians, and we always will. They play the politics of fear, and Canadians reject that.”
————
Surely it’s the Liberals who are running a great deal on ‘islamophobia”? It seems to be part of nearly every freedom-robbing idea they have.
So strange how the Liberal mind desires to accuse people who acknowledge danger as being the ones who are the terrorists, isn’t it?
The Liberals certainly are focusing on the security of Canadians. They are expending a great deal of mental energy finding ways to reduce it.
———-
Scheer hit back, asking: “When will the Prime Minister take this seriously?”
———–
A great question, but unlikely the silly virtue signaling mini-tyrants on the opposing bench would understand what he means.
I like what i’ve heard from Mr Sheer in his questions with the PM. He seems willing to say things as they are.
————–
Trudeau’s response: “We can see that Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party is alive and well. They are doubling down on the same approaches they had in the last election, the same approaches that Canadians rejected. I wish them luck.””
————–
Of course, the Liberal Mind, lacking fixed and immutable principles of Freedom, would find it hard to conceive of pursuing a course of action against ones determined enemies, rather than flip flopping whichever way the wind blows. “Doubling down”? How about “being consistent” ?
What a pathetic nothing of response. The closest thing to shouting “you’re a poopoo head” he could realistically get away with. Complete avoidance.
What a low we have reached.
gravenimage says
Trudeau labels question about putting returning ISIS jihadis in jail as “Islamophobia”
…………………….
In other words, opposing violent Jihad is “Islamophobic”…
LeftisruiningCanada says
Which is actually true!
gravenimage says
🙂
John Forbes says
VERY DIFFICULT TO COMPETE WITH A NEW MUSLIM CONVERT LIKE JUSTIN ACTUALLY!
BE INTERESTING TO SEE IN WHICH TERM HE HAS HIS – COMING OUT – PARTY ACTUALLY.
THERE WILL BE SOME SPECTACULAR CELEBRATIONS IN MOSQUES I CAN TELL YOU!
Xlinkk says
That photo says it all.
Carolyne says
Is there such a diagnosis as “Trudeauphobia”? I think I have it.
Ren Harke says
PM Trudeau doesn’t care about Canada. He has a globalist agenda.
More Ham Ed says
The left’s language war goes something like this: “if you disagree you have some kind of phobia, ‘hate’, or ‘monger’ problem.”
UNCLE VLADDI says
It doesn’t matter what Canadians who think about things think, because the media is in the pocket of the globalists and government who want to increase profits by bringing in cheap foreign (muslim) labour.
Lydia says
See?
We are making sarcastic jokes on here one day, and the next day it is the reality thanks to these fools.
Will says
Trudeau’s hug a thug policy for returning ISIS terrorists is the perfect pretentious platform { the great pretender }.
He is taking his absurd identity politics and special interest pandering to a lethal level . Reintegrating ISIS demons into Canadian society is the wet-dream of a narcissist simpleton bent on a vanity virtue-signaling foray , he remains clueless of ISIS’s ideological savagery …… Our government needs to set an example to our prodigal & wayward sons that volunteering to do Al-shaitan’s work is treason and let future returning wannabe holy-jihadists know that they will be met by the full force of western law and not with hugs & kisses & a pat on the bum…….
A blatantly naive response to a serious problem, Trudeau is like a uber-feminist babe in the woods……..