“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Joan Loehr. She was a prominent resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. She and her family have given a lot to the community. She leaves behind her children Geoffrey, Regan, Kent, Joel, Jarett and Mary. May perpetual light shine upon her. The member for Winnipeg North just talked about religious liberty and not being worried about this impacting religious rights and speeches. My colleague talked about legislative intent. Well, the Supreme Court of Canada grappled with this issue of legislative intent, I believe it was this year, in a ruling, where Parliament specifically said it wanted the legislation to say this. It was in debate, and it was in an amendment, and the Supreme Court of Canada still went against that. With that in mind, the uncertainty that this bill would create is part of the issue. What does the member say to that?”
Statement grade
A
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 93 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Procedure 5%Reasoning 76%Positioning 19%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 4 wordsit seems pretty clear.ProcedureReasoning · 49 wordsNo one can tell me that it is possible to spread hate in good faith or to interpreting a religious text to read that hate is a good thing.The same goes for hating Jewish people, Muslim people, Christians, Catholics, Black people, white people or God knows who else.Positioning · 17 wordsIt may be possible, but can we agree that all of it is done in bad faith?PositioningReasoning · 18 wordsSpreading hate in good faith is impossible, and doing it based on religious writings is even more impossible.