Pro­tect re­li­gious rights

Winnipeg Free Press - - YOUR SAY -

Free­dom has al­ways been part of our Cana­dian her­itage. As news of re­strict­ing women’s abil­ity to wear burkas dom­i­nates our me­dia lately,

I’m shocked the me­dia would be rel­a­tively silent on an­other is­sue of equal im­por­tance: Bill C-51, Clause 14, tabled by Jody Wil­son-Ray­bould, and her at­tempt to re­move Sec­tion 176 of the Crim­i­nal Code.

Sec­tion 176 states that: Any­one who by threats or force pre­vents a min­is­ter or clergy from per­form­ing their du­ties, and any­one who dis­turbs or in­ter­rupts an as­sem­blage of per­sons meet­ing for re­li­gious wor­ship, is guilty of an of­fence pun­ish­able on sum­mary con­vic­tion.

By re­peal­ing or re­mov­ing Sec­tion 176, the Lib­er­als will be re­mov­ing the only pro­vi­sion in the Crim­i­nal Code that pro­tects the rights of Jews, Mus­lims, Chris­tians, Hin­dus or mem­bers of other re­li­gions to as­sem­ble in their mosques, syn­a­gogues, churches or tem­ples with­out fear of per­se­cu­tion.

It’s ap­palling that the Lib­er­als would even en­ter­tain the idea of hin­der­ing re­li­gious free­dom, some­thing that has al­ways been a part of Canada’s her­itage and has made Canada proud.


Lorette these ser­vices could be re­duced. Emer­i­tus sta­tus is ac­corded after re­tire­ment if at all, ergo these in­di­vid­u­als are not paid.

— USER-6972138

@user-7211019: Here’s some math: U of M could save mil­lions by sim­ply cen­tral­iz­ing its ad­min­is­tra­tive fa­cil­i­ties rather than hav­ing sep­a­rate staff un­der each fac­ulty. Here’s an­other one: cen­tral­ize ap­pli­ca­tion and regis­tra­tion for all pro­vin­cial post-se­condary in­sti­tu­tions — there is noth­ing strate­gic to per­form­ing these in­di­vid­u­ally. But of course, no­body wants change and the whole big ma­chine keeps grind­ing so that the only al­ter­na­tive is more gov­ern­ment fund­ing or tuition in­creases. Tax­pay­ers should be up­set, but not at stu­dents.

— USER-7106690

This prov­ince has the low­est tuition fees in Canada with the ex­cep­tion of Que­bec. We also have the low­est-rated uni­ver­si­ties in the coun­try. If stu­dents want the best qual­ity of ed­u­ca­tion avail­able it takes money and post-se­condary in­sti­tu­tions are fac­ing in­creased costs and we can­not con­tinue to ex­pect the gov­ern­ment to fi­nance all of these in­creases. Young peo­ple who want the ad­van­tages that higher ed­u­ca­tion pro­vides for a life­time should ex­pect to cover the cost.


@op­ti­mist 55: New­found­land and its much more af­ford­able ed­u­ca­tion says hi.


@op­ti­mist 55: So­ci­ety ben­e­fits from higher ed­u­ca­tion, which in­cludes re­search as well as teach­ing. In­ter­est­ing that older peo­ple who ben­e­fit­ted from post-se­condary ed­u­ca­tion that used to be cov­ered more by gov­ern­ment now com­plain about pro­vid­ing the same sup­port to to­day’s stu­dents. I agree that tuition needs to in­crease to main­tain qual­ity, but pri­mar­ily be­cause gov­ern­ments have re­duced their sup­port.

— 23654902

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.