uh-oh ... You're in beeeg trouble now, Justin.

Fundamentalist religious zealot laser beams have latched onto Justin Trudeau for expressing his beliefs.

Following in his father's footsteps, Trudeau is an ardent supporter of the homosexual movement. He spoke at the homosexual activist group EGALE's June 5th gala this year. In September, he participated in the Montreal Gay Pride parade, gaining special media attention for his appearance.

Despite the publicity of these stances, his reputation seems to have eluded organizers of Catholic events. Only few months after addressing the gay activist group, Trudeau was a key speaker for the Toronto Catholic District School Board, addressing 4,000 Catholic students. He also addressed Catholic students of the Halton Catholic school board in 2008 at the Notre Dame high school's Leadership Conference.

Covering his 2001 speech for the papal World Youth Day promo, the Toronto Star reported, "Trudeau recounted his struggles with the strict tenets of Catholicism." To youth who were to receive the late John Paul II, Trudeau said he slowly started to rediscover his own religion and said, "Church isn't about rules. It's about guidance." He urged the youth present to reject "old men with old ideas."

LieSiteNews is emitting low-decibel shrieks in his direction, too.

Trudeau, the member of Parliament for the riding of Papineau is pro-choice and supports gay equality rights.

eh. "Church isn't about rules. It's about guidance. [Reject] old men with old ideas."

That should get Blob Blogging Wingnut spitting mad. Well, madder than usual.

More riveting than the Ol'-lymp-dicks events, actually.

Some court cases are headline grabbers, and rightfully so.

The female ski jumpers who lost their appeal in the BC superior court system aren't going away. They have directed their lawyer to obtain leave to address the Supreme Court of Canada on their behalf.

“We believe our argument has been misunderstood and that a matter of national importance is at stake,” Ross Clark, the women's lawyer said in a news release. “This case isn’t just about women ski jumpers. It is about the interpretation and application of the Charter and whether the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee, in carrying out an ascribed activity of government, can be forced by a foreign entity to put a discriminatory decision into effect in Canada.

“Gender discrimination is at issue here and discrimination is something we do not tolerate in Canada. We hope our highest court in the land will take a look at this case and grant our declaration” ...

Good for them. You go, grrrls!

RCMP: pre-emptive ass-covering for VanOC

When last we wrote about the RCMP, it was a mere spit in the ocean that has been blogged about the Horsemen and the Braidwood Inquiry.

It appears that in anticipation of the roughshod, no holds barred, security authority to 'Taser with impunity' that the Vancouver Olympic Committee is about to bestow upon the Mounties, the RCMP is attempting to cover its ample posterior by holding one public consultation.

Olympic security officials have approached a local multicultural organization for help in providing culturally sensitive security during the 2010 Games.

On behalf of Sukhvinder Vinning, vice president of the Multifaith Action Society, former Vancouver city councillor Nancy Chiavario has sent an e-mail announcing an opportunity for people to discuss issues pertinent to their faiths with an RCMP officer.

The objective is to enhance the understanding of security screeners at Olympic venues. Anyone who wishes to convey information on this topic will have an opportunity to speak to an (sic) RCMP officer on Wednesday (July 22) at 2:30 p.m. at the Guildford library branch at 15105 105th Avenue in Surrey.

The RCMP meeting with people of different faiths comes shortly after two legal experts claimed that the 2010 Integrated Security Unit's plans would be illegal in the absence of new legislation.

One meeting will enhance the understanding of (RCMP) security screeners at Olympic venues? Really? One. Meeting.

And what impact will that valuable public input have upon the legality of its security plans?