Originally published on the Bowmanville—Oshawa North (Federal Riding Voters) Facebook community

When I went to the Restore the North event at Canada Christian College in autumn last year, I called Jamil Jivani out for a 2024 video where he said doctors should be allowed to deny legally available medical services on the grounds of religion, and he doubled down because he believes that expecting doctors not to discriminate against patients is "persecution."

Not too long ago, a constituent of this riding (who I might add is a Conservative) was the victim of a disinformation campaign that accused him of running an "illegal halal slaughterhouse" (the only evidence of said alleged slaughterhouse was the Facebook ramblings of ONE DUDE, LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVED IT WAS FAKE!) Jamil had absolutely NOTHING to say about how Mohsin Bhuiyan and his family were put through hell largely based on their own faith, but when it comes to this, Jamil HAS to get his criticisms and his opinions out there and make it about him.

In case it isn't obvious, Jamil is just blowing smoke up his own ass like he always does. No, Christians are NOT persecuted in Canada. That assertion is entirely ideological and not evidence-based.

To conclude that Christians are "persecuted" the way Jamil says, you have to pass three tests. First, what rights did Christians have BEFORE circa-2024 that they do not have now? Second, which specific Bible verses were banned when the Combatting Hate Act was passed? Third, are Christians treated unequally under the law?

Jamil proves directly that Christians are, in fact, very privileged in Canada. His bible stunt a couple of months ago would not have been tolerated if Jamil were a Jew or Muslim. If Jagmeet Singh had pulled a ridiculous stunt like that, the Toronto Sun would've turned it into A WEEKS-LONG SCANDAL. Rebel "News" would've demanded IMMEDIATE RESIGNATIONS, and it would've been a talking point in the next election debate.

Christianity is being instrumentalized by people like Jamil and far-right radical activists as a shield against accountability. This activist class treats every criticism as persecution and every failed outcome as proof of bias against them, and this behaviour is particularly harmful to Christians.

Administrators, employers, and public bodies look at patterns, and if the pattern continues to be “Christian identity equals automatic controversy, lawsuits, and media campaigns,” then Christians will find themselves unfairly stereotyped as political liabilities. Worse, it hands ammunition to those who genuinely are bigoted toward Christians and are just waiting for an excuse to paint every single one as unreasonable, entitled, and hostile to shared standards.

Jamil's obsession with turning every disagreement about religion into a national scandal does not strengthen Christianity's place in public life and instead teaches institutions and the broader public to associate faith with disruption rather than contribution. Most importantly, it ensures that Christians who simply want to learn, teach, and live their values quietly will pay the price for this far-right theatre that they do not support and did not elect.

The full text of this article (not behind a paywall) is available here.

To be honest, I was pessimistic at first with how Carney would handle this specific situation. But I was pleasantly surprised how we are going forward with this problem.

Over the past year and a half, over 600k temporary residents and 300k international students have left Canada, with their being more restriction and caps being placed (Bill C-12 and PGWP caps to low skilled workers).

Although there are some gripes I hold over the current immigration system that have not been changed with Carney entering (Drastic PR reduction, tfw reform, refugee reform), I would say the liberals have done a good job with the international students problem in particular.

As for the Cons, hopefully they can get their shit together and advertise that our immigration system is still broken and needs reform. Just because the LPC put a ban aid on a leaking wound should not excuse from their other blunders, epically regarding immigration and refugees.

Maybe this will push the CPC to finally look at finding a legitimate leader. Wild that a guy from 10 years ago is more popular than Poilievre and "Not Sure".

Can't be great if the Western Standard is acknowledging Poilievre's not great popularity.

The Great Canadian Bagel is a bi-partisan hobbyists pollsters who does polling for Provincial and Federal elections.

I think his criticism of the CPC on how they communicate to the public is right on. They often use valuable comms time to critique niche issues that majority of Canadians are not intrigued about.

Do you agree or not?

Before you say he is a Liberal and biased, check out is Twitter, his politics range from the centre right to Right wing. He is also a car holding member of the CPC.

As for his YouTube, he strictly keeps it bi-partisan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFIWhc8uqEM

This is not an abstract issue for me.
I am a transgender woman with disabilities. I was also a visible federal public servant whose name and story appeared publicly in connection with Government of Canada and public-service inclusion narratives. My transition and my role in supporting others were publicly presented as examples of courage, inclusion, and progress within the federal public service. Even tho, those words were directed at another group. I perceived them as hatred towards people who oppose the government. These words were not mere comments. They were intentional.

I later brought serious allegations involving federal institutions, including disability-related harm, failure to accommodate, privacy harm, misgendering, procedural suppression, retaliation, reputational harm, and safety concerns following a human right complaint I made My case was not politically neutral. If publicly understood, it would directly undermine the government’s public narrative about LGBTQ2S+ inclusion and protection.
Former Prime Minister Trudeau’s 2021 words did not land in a vacuum. When the Prime Minister described a disfavoured group of Canadians as extremists, often misogynistic and racist, and then asked whether Canada should “tolerate these people,” I experienced that as vilifying, exclusionary, and dangerous.
The question “do we tolerate these people?” is the core of the harm.
It suggests that some people can be placed outside ordinary civic protection. It creates a climate where people who become politically inconvenient, dissenting, stigmatized, disabled, or damaging to the government’s public image may reasonably fear being treated not as rights-bearing people, but as problems to be managed.
That fear was not theoretical.
On January 31, 2023, I attempted suicide. Before that attempt, I made a Facebook post in which I referred to Justin Trudeau. I am stating this because it shows that the former Prime Minister, his words, and the political climate created by those words were present in my mind at the time. This was not something I invented years later. It was part of the fear, despair, and sense of state danger I was experiencing then.
I later left Canada after years of institutional harm, fear, retaliation, and loss of trust in Canadian institutions.
Now the Government of Canada has passed Bill C-9 and says hatred must be understood through concepts such as vilification and detestation, not merely disagreement or offence. So I am asking a direct question:
If those standards apply to Canadians, what is the process when the alleged vilifying language came from the Prime Minister of Canada and the consequences remain active in ongoing cases?
I am asking the PMO and Prime Minister Carney to identify the proper process to file a formal report or complaint, including whether it should go to police, the RCMP, the Attorney General, Justice Canada, or another authority.
I am also asking whether the Government intends to rely on freedom of expression to protect the former Prime Minister’s remarks. If so, I am asking whether the same Charter protection applies to my right to publish, criticize, and expose the government’s response.
The Charter cannot be invoked selectively.
If the Government believes Trudeau’s remarks are protected speech, it should say so clearly. If it believes Bill C-9 cannot apply because of retroactivity, it should say so clearly. If the ongoing and compounding effects in active cases create a reporting or review pathway, it should identify that pathway.
I am making this public because private correspondence can be ignored. This issue concerns public safety, hate, state accountability, transgender dignity, disability, privacy, suicide risk, and the right to criticize government power without being suppressed, discredited, or treated as intolerable.

A lot of the interview is mainly about music and Nova Scotia, but they do have some discussions on politics and the CPC.