From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘The U.S. is turning predator and so what Canada needs to do is work closely with our democratic allies, our military allies,’ Freeland said last week, adding that ‘I would be sure that France and Britain were there, who possess nuclear weapons.’

Former finance minister and and current Liberal Party leadership race hopeful Chrystia Freeland suggested last week that Canada should have the protection of British and French nuclear weapons to deter U.S. President Donald Trump and his “51st state” comments.

During the February 25 English-language Liberal Party leadership debate, Freeland, who is running for party leadership to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after serving in his cabinet for a number of years, claimed that Canada should work with allies who have nuclear weapons, like France and the United Kingdom, to protect against U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to turn the nation into the 51st U.S. state.  

“The U.S. is turning predator and so what Canada needs to do is work closely with our democratic allies, our military allies,” Freeland stated last week. 

“I would start with our Nordic Partners specifically Denmark, which is also being threatened and our European NATO allies,” she continued. “I would be sure that France and Britain were there, who possess nuclear weapons.” 

“I would be working urgently with those partners to build a closer security relationship that guarantees our security in a time when the United States can be a threat,” Freeland declared.   

Freeland’s suggestion has been roundly condemned and ridiculed by Canadians online. LifeSiteNews’ Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen responded to her statement, saying that “this is not the Canada that most of us are a part of.” 

“The great majority of Canadians love Canada and love the counter-revolution of common sense going on in the United States,” he declared. “We hate the Canada that Trudeau represents.”  

A few days after Freeland’s speech, Trump called the Liberal leadership candidate a “whack” during an interview with the Spectator.  

“She’s absolutely terrible for the country,” Trump said. “She’s incompetent in many respects and can only cause ill will for Canada. In fact, Governor Trudeau understood that.” 

“And he actually fired her because of a meeting he had with me. I said, ‘she is so bad. She’s bad for the country,’” he continued.  

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, later in the speech, Freeland advocated for “democratic” countries to “build a New World Order,” again, allegedly to combat Trump’s threats.  

“I don’t think any of us wants to be the leader who was asleep at the wheel and didn’t get Canada defended, did not work with our democratic allies to protect our borders,” she said.   

“They want to work with us it’s time for us to step up at home to urgently reach out to them and build a New World Order where democracy and Canadian sovereignty is protected,” Freeland declared.  

Media outlets have long described talk of a “New World Order” as a conspiracy theory, but globalist organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) continue to give credence to the concept, by publicly calling for and working towards a worldwide “Great Reset” or other similarly named agendas. 

During the last few years, during which time Freeland has served as deputy prime minister and finance minister, the Liberal Party has routinely come under fire for its ties to globalist organizations like the WEF.  

In fact, Freeland’s own ties to the WEF seem extensive, with her receiving a personal commendation from former WEF leader Klaus Schwab.    

Others have also pointed out that right around the time she announced her bid for Liberal leader, the WEF’s profile on Freeland disappeared from the group’s website.   

Another Liberal leadership candidate, Mark Carney, also has ties to the WEF, as does outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

Priests are automatically excommunicated if they break the Seal of Confession, according to canon law.

The Washington state Senate passed legislation to throw priests in jail for almost a full year for maintaining the Seal of Confession.

Senator Noel Frame, a Democrat, is on her third attempt to force priests to divulge what they hear during Confession if it concerns abuse. Last year, a bill backed by the Washington Catholic Conference, though not by all bishops in the state, died.

This year, Frame’s bill includes no exemptions at all for the religious liberties of priests. It passed the state senate 28 to 20 – all but two Democrats voted to violate the religious freedom of Catholics and remove the clergy-penitent privilege. All Republicans voted against the measure on February 28. A House version is now in committee waiting a further vote.

Senate Bill 5375 and House Bill 1211 in the state of Washington are “no exemption” bills that remove all protections for what priests hear in confession when it comes to alleged abuse. Frame said the bill will not compel priests to testify but only to report abuse.

However, that is not written in the text of the law. Furthermore, a priest would presumably have to reveal the name of a person admitting to the abuse in the confessional in order to alert authorities to what child allegedly might be at risk, as LifeSiteNews previously reported.

Frame’s office did not respond to an inquiry from LifeSiteNews on March 3. LifeSiteNews asked if an attorney had reviewed the legislation for potential religious freedom issues.

Frame previously dismissed religious freedom concerns during a hearing. “I have tried really hard over the last couple of years to find a balance and to strike a careful compromise,” she claiming before saying “sorry” for not being willing to “make a compromise anymore.” She criticized efforts to protect clergy-penitent privilege “in the name of religious freedom.”

Priests are automatically excommunicated if they break the Seal of Confession, according to canon law.

Canon 1386 states, “A confessor (priest) who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.”

Efforts to force priests to do so, including Montana and Washington this year, have drawn condemnation from Catholic groups as well as several legal experts.

Catholic group calls bill ‘egregious violation’ of First Amendment

“This bill is an egregious violation of the First Amendment, and we can only hope that the courts will waste no time in striking it down,” the Catholic League told LifeSiteNews via email on Tuesday. “Given the political landscape of Washington State, it is, unfortunately, pretty much a done deal.”

Contra the Democrats claims about the bill being just about preventing child abuse, the Catholic League pointed out there are efforts to weaken protections for children, stating:

What is even more galling is that in Washington State they have steps to water down provisions on the public schools to report sexual abuse to parents. Washington State House Bill 1296 seeks to undo much a voter-backed (AND PASSED!) parental rights initiative. In the current legislation, there is a provision to allow public schools to take up to 48 hours before notifying parents if their child is sexually abused. When efforts were made to remove the language that gave schools this ridiculous leeway, the Democrats successfully blocked those efforts. A simple amendment that requires Washington State’s public schools to tell parents right away about crimes committed against their child is too much for the same people supporting an attempt to break the Seal of Confession.

Senators also killed an amendment brought by Republican Senator Phil Fortunato to require school districts to report sexual abuse allegations, and related actions taken, to the state.

“This is, simply, an effort to cause a chilling effect on people of faith,” the Catholic League told LifeSiteNews. “The rabid secularists in Washington State would love nothing more than to marginalize faithful voters who stand in the way of their revolution.”

The law is “impractical,” so the aim must be “to intimidate Catholics and other people of faith.”

“When they specifically take aim on one of the sacraments, they clearly are trying to cause a chilling effect on good Catholics and other people of faith who wish to see public policy that is ordered by traditional morals,” the Catholic League stated.

‘Blatantly unconstitutional,’ legal scholar says

A left-leaning legal expert called the bills in Washington and Montana “blatantly unconstitutional.”

“Putting aside the obvious violation of the sanctity of the confessional, it presents a novel problem for priests if they both encourage the faithful to unburden themselves while at the same time reminding them anything that they say can and will be used against them in a court of law,” Professor Jonathan Turley wrote on his commentary website.

“In my view, the Washington State law is a frontal attack on free exercise and would be struck down if enacted,” the George Washington University law professor wrote.

“The only question is why Democrats consider such legislation to be any more viable politically than it is constitutionally.”