Article content continued

After all, without proper instruction, we in the great unwashed might conclude that both examples suggest racist thinking, and that if you condemn one, you should condemn the other.

Clearly that’s not the case in the “woke” minds of our Liberal elites.

Is it because, in the unforgettable and later retracted words of Liberal MP Judy Sgro, black people told her they loved Trudeau all the more, because he wanted to have a black face?

Given that this was but one example of Liberal apologists turning themselves into moral pretzels to excuse, rationalize and minimize what Trudeau did, we need their guidance to help us understand why Cherry didn’t deserve the same consideration.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

(No doubt they applauded when Sportsnet fired Cherry on Monday.)

While we’re on the subject, we need to know why, according to Trudeau and Co., it was acceptable for Trudeau to say in 2011 that while he personally opposed abortion as a Catholic, he could defend a woman’s right to an abortion, but it’s unacceptable in 2019 for Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer to say the same thing.

We need to know why, according to Trudeau and Co., it was a racist dog whistle for Kellie Leitch to say during the Conservative leadership race that immigrants to Canada should submit to a values test, but it’s no big deal for the government of Quebec to start doing the same thing in January.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

We need to know why, according to Trudeau and Co., it was unacceptable for former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper to suggest during the 2015 election that his government might consider banning public servants from wearing religious garb like the niqab, but it’s no big deal for the government of Quebec to do the same thing under Bill 21.