This article exposes the lie that removing what makes us “unique” creates “respect for diversity” by revealing how foundational “frameworks” are used by those in control to limit our sense of what the true, available choices we have really are!

Here is a LINK to the Epoch Times article from which I took my feature graphic:


Trudeau is at it again with his anti-religious, pro-woke, irrational imposition of culture erasure. An email sent to chaplains that was leaked to the Epoch Times now forbids expressing any ‘particulars’ regarding the faith dimension of that cultural expression by insisting on reducing things to a ‘common denominator’ that identifies no differences not shared by others, thereby destroying completely the religious dimension of Canadian culture, which is the very foundation of one’s culture!

The link to this article is in the comments. Here is a snippet that makes my point nicely:

“Department spokesperson Derek Abma didn’t deny that religious prayers are now forbidden at events such as Remembrance Day gatherings. ‘The Chaplain General’s directive on chaplains’ spiritual reflection in public settings clarifies that on occasions where CAF chaplains are asked to address public ceremonies and functions in which CAF members are required to attend, they will offer words of reflection that respect the diversity of belief of those gathered, including those who do not hold religious or spiritual beliefs,’ he said.”

I just finished reading that document – the Chaplain General’s directive on chaplains – and it is obvious that this move away from any reference to God, or anything that could be construed as ‘prayer’, came after a Supreme Court Ruling. It is specifically mentioned as the basis for the change and the adoption of what is referred to as a ‘strict policy of neutrality’:

5. Following the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruling in the Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City) case (Ref C), the RCChS began an in-depth analysis of the impact that this legal decision could have on current policies and practices. The SCC set a strict standard for religious neutrality by the state, which the RCChS has a legal obligation to abide by. This requirement is aligned with the principle of inclusion that is paramount within the CAF. This ruling establishes that:

“The evolution of Canadian society has given rise to a concept of neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs. The state must instead remain neutral in this regard, which means that it must neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief. The pursuit of the ideal of a free and democratic society requires the state to encourage everyone to participate freely in public life regardless of their beliefs. A neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person’s freedom and dignity, and it helps preserve and promote the multicultural nature of Canadian society. The state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or nonbelievers in public life to the detriment of others.” [See: “ ].”

There is a VERY big problem with the way these words from the Supreme Court are being interpreted! Everything is being interpreted to ERASE religion, but the statement clearly states that the government is NOT to interfere by using its powers in such as way as to either promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers TO THE DETRIMENT OF OTHERS.”

What does “in such a way” entail? It could entail anything, but most certainly would include the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of religious expression, which is, to put it bluntly, the worse-case scenario for the government to use its powers to interfere with the religious expression of Canadians, in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s directive NOT TO DO SO!

The charge from the judges in the ruling is that “… it [exercising of government power] must neither favour nor hinder any particular belief…”. Instead of honouring this by ensuring that the cultural expression of all different faiths – including no faith in God – are included, and the secondary factor or condition for that is that none are excluded!, which is inferred from the explicit use of the phrase “to the detriment of others!”

The policy in place, under the pretense of being inclusive, is so exclusive as to make the only recognized position regarding religion the one that rejects God’s very existence.

What is explicitly referred to as a ‘policy of strict inclusion’ [based on a false reading of the SC ruling] becomes a full-on endorsement of atheism and a strict ‘policy of exclusion’ by our government, using a clever lie and trick of the evil one now being foisted upon humanity everywhere in an attempt to prevent us – people with faith in God – from being who we are and living as we choose, notwithstanding our constitution which grants us those rights which are not being recognized by our leaders.

Again, the statement form the SC is very clear:

“The state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others.”

“How is the ‘duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience’ achieved by preventing every person with faith from expressing or acting upon that freedom of conscience publicly?” you might ask?  It isn’t! It’s a pretensive lie based on a false frame of  reference and interpretation of the SC ruling.

Everything important seems to be lies these days. Most lies are presented as truth to confuse people into thinking something bad is good, or to instill in people the idea that there really isn’t any other logical answer to the problem but the one being offered, and that they therefore have no choice but to participate in some form of evil in the world, and must look for the ‘lesser of two evils’ at best in such a world. 

This way of framing things justifies Trudeau’s anti-God and anti-religious vision for the future of Canada, as well as his errant policy forbidding expression of anything religious by the government, even CHAPLAINS.  People are getting partial and/or false information trapping them into thinking believing lies and accepting what is offered! 

While living in the social systems that characterize our lives, including the political and economical, we are always thinking and communicating within the frameworks presented to us, and now, because everything we are being told is supporting a grand false-narrative, our freedom is continuously being suppressed. Like advertising we know enough NOT to trust, now everything becomes a trap,  especially for those who don’t yet have a reason not to trust the leaders telling those lies.

The Free-Trade Debate: A case study in ‘framing’ to manipulate public opinion

What happened during the infamous “free trade debates” in the late 1980s and early 1990s is a good study of what I’m trying to get across with my use of the term “frameworks”, perhaps more aptly, “frameworks of meaning”.  They provide the “horizon” and boundaries for our thinking, and our logical arguments.

During the Free-trade debates, the proponents who controlled the media and so-called “debate” were able to frame things to pretty-much guarantee the outcome in their favour.  The pitch was that to trade globally was the “manly” and brave thing to do, the way to ensure success by embracing challenge.  The cincher was in the claim that there wasn’t any ch0ice but to strive to be successful in the global market anyways, because the only alternative was to be unsucessful and a failure!

That was the lie everyone seemed to never gain awareness of, or at least not in time to prevent the outcome that happened – that the opposite of being competitive and successful is to be “uncompetitive and a failure”.

Canadians bought it, allowing corporations to rob us globally under the pretense that “free trade”was about our freedom and ability to succeed on the world stage. All a lie – corporations got a ‘bill of rights’ that removed domestic powers and control that allowed their rapid growth being ‘successful’ in the world market while enslaving the world’s population in greater and greater poverty, with less and less control over their own national destiny.

They did that with the framework we bought into thinking uncompetitive was the opposite of being competitive making competition the only ‘option’ in the debate (the issue became whether Canada could be ‘successful’ and outcompete with ‘niche’ markets) rather than Canadians having a true, honest debate about the real choices on the table that were never discussed. All because people forgot that the opposite of being ‘competitive’ is to be ‘cooperative,’ an option which paves a road for all to be winners!

You don’t honour the SC ruling to not interfere so as to ensure the protection of all religious and non-religious expressions in society and government by annihilating all mention of God and prayer and various religious and non-religious belief systems, but by respecting and acknowledging them, which educates others about their neighbours and fellow-Canadians and builds real social inclusion!

If you want to know what the ‘false frameworks’ fooling folks are today….subscribe to my website, Fleeing Babylon, and please consider making a financial donation to support my work.