Watch: Jewelry Store Posted This Sign Inside Their Shop, Now They’re Under Attack For It

The religious owner of a jewelry store in Newfoundland, Canada, is being forced to defend himself following a public attack by a lesbian couple that bought a set of rings from the business. According to recent reports, Nicole White and Pam Renouf were encouraged to visit Today’s Jewellers when they were in the market for engagement rings. At that time, there was no apparent disagreement between the customers and retailer; and both women put money down on their purchases and left satisfied.

White and Renouf were apparently so pleased with the experience that they recommended the shop to others – an act that ultimately resulted in the current controversy. At some point since their purchase, the women heard from a friend who visited the store on their referral that the owner had hung a sign defending traditional marriage.

“The sanctity of marriage is under attack,” the sign said. “Let’s keep marriage between a man and a woman.”

White said that, despite her positive experience as a customer, she was incensed upon hearing that such a sign would be hung in a public place.

“It was really upsetting,” she complained, suggesting the sign showed “how much they are against gays, and how they think marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

The couple has subsequently demanded a refund, a request co-owner Esau Jardon granted. Nevertheless, the backlash his business received from local media has forced him to respond. Some of the backlash, he said, has come in the form of direct threats against the business and its owners.

Jardon defended the sign, insisting it is in no way a prohibited form of expression and does not imply any discriminatory beliefs on his part.

He concluded that he feels “really bad” about the customers’ hurt feeling, though he declared “we will not retract from what we believe.”

Should business owners be allowed to operate according to their religious convictions? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Did Canada Just Give Leftist Hate-Speech Bullies Taste Of Their Own Medicine?

You just have to love this.

According to a report, which has been disputed, the Canadian government intends to use hate crime laws against advocates of boycotting Israel. (Whether or not this particular report is true, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s entire record puts most world leaders to shame–especially President Obama.)

Of course, so-called hate crime laws long have been a weapon the left has used to silence free speech. And now, an Al Jazeera article deliciously discovers the virtues of freedom of speech – at least for the very people who would destroy Israel, many of whom sympathize with murdering people because of “offensive” cartoons.

According to the article:

If freedom of expression were truly a Canadian value, the Harper administration would not be seeking to systemically dismantle the BDS movement.

Justin Trudeau, the leader of Canada’s unofficial opposition Liberal Party, has also come out against BDS. Trudeau said, in a tweet shared prior to a democratic BDS vote at McGill University, that, “The BDS movement, like Israeli Apartheid Week, has no place on Canadian campuses.”

The government opposes BDS because it allegedly undermines “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state,” according to Harper, who believes this right is “absolute and non-negotiable.” Regardless of the reasoning, the crackdown on BDS makes it clear that Harper’s forceful calls for freedom of speech and expression since the Jan. 7 attack at the Paris offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo are hypocritical. If freedom of expression was truly a Canadian value, as Harper claims, his administration would not be seeking to systemically dismantle the BDS movement.

Does it really have to be pointed out that there is a huge difference between enforcement of democratically enacted laws–however objectionable many find them–and unlawful murders by self-appointed assassins?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch This Abortion Advocate’s Responses That Had Him Begging Interviewer Not To Air

The largest turnout ever participated in the March for Life in Ottawa, Canada on Saturday, marking the anniversary of abortion’s legalization in the country 46 years ago.

The practice became legal in Canada four years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in all 50 states.

According to Life Site News, an estimated 4 million babies have been aborted in Canada since it became legal; the current rate is about 100,000 annually. There are no restrictions on abortions in the country such as those found in various states in the U.S., including bans on partial-birth abortion for late-term pregnancies, parental consent, informed consent (requiring mothers to be shown an ultrasound of image their unborn child), and waiting periods.

Approximately 25,000 pro-life marchers converged on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Saturday to advocate for the life of the unborn. Also on hand were perhaps 50 counter-demonstrators, who want the laws to remain as they are.

Image Credit: Twitter/@JackFonsec

Image Credit: Twitter/@JackFonsec

Rebel Media’s Marissa Semkiw interviewed one of the counter-demonstrators, who was holding up a sign which read: “Guess What, A Woman’s Body Is Her Own F—ing Business.”

Semkiw probed the man, Alex, to see just what his beliefs were regarding abortion. One of the issues on the pro-life agenda in Canada is instituting some restrictions on abortion like those found in the U.S.

She first asked him if he would be ok with a woman aborting her child one month before it was due.

Alex said he would, stating, “That’s her decision again.”

He had the same answer for one week.

“A day?” she asked.

“Also her decision,” Alex said.

He elaborated: “It’s not for me or any member of Parliament or religious institution organization to tell her otherwise.”

The interviewer then turned to killing the child after it is born: “How about post-natal abortion?”

He responded: “Post-natal abortion? I mean – if that’s the option- that’s the option.”

“But, again, I’m not advocating murder of any kind,” he continued.

Alex later had misgivings about his responses and asked Rebel Media not to air the interview. Semkiw’s response was: too bad. She said he came to a public place during a pro-life event, counter-demonstrated holding up his sign, and agreed to the interview, and that his views are representative by-in-large of many on his side of the debate.

Life Site News reports regarding the event overall:

More than 30 parliamentarians, both MPs and Senators, also spoke, including retired Liberal MP Pat O’Brien, who told the crowds that from his former office in Parliament he could see rallies throughout the year, and that the March for Life was by far the largest. He said MPs need courage because they are under “enormous pressure … not to speak out” on controversial issues like abortion and euthanasia.

Campaign Life Coalition’s Jeff Gunnarson, whose group organized the event, said the March’s theme “Let Life Win” is intended to acknowledge “the fact that hearts and minds must change before the laws will change. We have to have a groundswell of support that says, we need to have this abortion stopped, then you have the courage of the MPs to change.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

SFC Christopher Speer Is Dead; Omar Khadr Is Free

A Canadian judge ruled this week that Omar Khadr poses no public safety threat. Tell that to the children of Sergeant First Class Christopher J. Speer and the surviving American soldiers who valiantly fought Khadr on the battlefield.

In 2012, Khadr pleaded guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, and guilty to five charges related to the killing of Speer, a 28-year-old medic with the U.S. Special Forces. This young American hero died in Afghanistan in 2002 during an ambush by al-Qaida operatives. Just days before he gave his life, Speer had fearlessly walked onto a minefield to rescue two wounded Afghan children. It was Khadr, born and bred an Islamic jihadist by his terrorist father, who lobbed the fatal grenade in the war zone. Another American soldier, SFC Layne Morris, survived the attack, but was blinded in one eye for life.

In a sealed plea deal at Guantanamo Bay, Khadr admitted to throwing the grenade. He admitted to attempted murder, conspiracy, spying, and providing material support to terrorism. He signed a 50-paragraph stipulation that classified him as an “enemy belligerent because he has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States and its coalition partners” and documented his family’s intimate association and friendship with al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Muhammad Atef.

Don’t believe the international human rights bleeding hearts. The Khadr family is rightfully known as Canada’s First Family of Terror. This so-called “child soldier” and “good kid” was a full-blown Muslim soldier of jihad; he trained one-on-one in weaponry, explosives, and Jew hatred. A then-teenage Khadr bragged to a U.S. official “that the proudest moment of his life was constructing and planting IEDs” to “kill U.S. forces.”

Gloating over the Alberta judge’s decision to let Khadr loose, his radical leftwing lawyer railed against Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a “bigot.” His fan club thinks he deserves a medal. No, really. A Toronto Sun columnist argued last week that the jihadist “deserves some kind of recognition” along the lines of the country’s “Order of Canada” for “the dignity and stoicism with which he’s borne the mingy behaviour of Canada’s governments.”

Disgusting. This deification of an al-Qaida-trained murderer is a slap in the face to every American soldier and every military family that has sacrificed to combat Islamic jihad.

But don’t look for our government to raise its voice in protest. It is because of jihad-coddler Barack Obama, working quietly to empty Gitmo, that Khadr found his way back to Canada in the first place. The White House surreptitiously released the killer and flew him home as American citizens were distracted by the 2012 midterm elections. Now, despite opposition from Canada’s conservative government, Khadr’s out on bail while appealing his U.S. war-crimes convictions.

The “progressive” Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City has been at the forefront of pressing for Khadr’s release. CCR also crusaded successfully for the release of Gitmo jihadist Abu Sufian bin Qumu — now the lead suspect in the bloody attack on our consulate in Benghazi — whom the Obama administration has yet to bring to justice.

Retired Sgt. Morris, the blinded survivor of Khadr’s grenade attack, sees more clearly than feckless apologists for Gitmo killers and recidivists. The cheerleaders for Muslim vigilantes “ignore the facts of Omar Khadr’s life, his history and the terrible choices Omar Khadr made to get him to the spot he is in now,” Morris told The National Post last week. “The Obama administration, in its zeal to shut down Guantanamo, is willing to make any sacrifice to empty that prison. Omar Khadr is simply the fortunate beneficiary of that tactic.”

After 13 years in custody, Khadr will be breathing fresh air, walking the streets, and maintaining his unrepentant pose of victimhood.

After 13 years, the real victims and the real children in this case — the daughter and son of the real hero, SFC Speer, Taryn and Tanner — will still be without a father.

Thanks, Obama.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Canada Becomes First Country To Require For Every New Regulation, One Of Equal Burden Being Removed

Canada has taken action to tackle the hidden taxes imposed on its economy  by regulations. The Red Tape Reduction Act (C-21) requires that for every new regulation introduced by the Canadian federal government, one of equal burden must be removed from the books.

C-21 is the first law of its kind in the world, according to the Financial Post. C-21 has been in effect as policy in Canada for several years, but now it has been officially codified. The law operates essentially as a cap on the cost of regulations on the economy and the Canadian people.

The latest estimate from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business suggests that regulation costs $37 billion a year. Local small business owners suggest that 30 percent could be taken from that burden ($11 billion), without any impact on human health, safety, or the environment.

The Canadian province of British Columbia has cut its regulatory burden by 40 percent over the last decade, with no one arguing the cuts have made a negative impact, according to the Financial Post.

Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pictured above) has labeled red-tape “the silent killer of jobs.” For businesses, an unnecessary regulatory burden seems to take away time and resources that could be used to create new products or improve existing ones or to better serve their customers. For consumers, regulations appear to mean higher costs and less competition.

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the cost of federal regulations alone to the United States economy was over $2 trillion in 2012. Eighty-eight percent of businesses surveyed identified federal regulations as their top challenge.

One of Ronald Reagan’s first acts as President of the United States was to sign an executive order requiring all federal agencies to conduct a cost/benefit analysis for all proposed regulations and in reviewing existing ones.

The reduction of the regulatory burden during Reagan’s tenure in office is one of the major factors in igniting the greatest economic expansion in United States history.

It would appear the Canadians are taking a play from Reagan’s playbook.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth