<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rob Anders is a buffoon, part 346!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trashysworld.ca/2012/10/04/rob-anders-is-a-buffoon-part-346/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trashysworld.ca/2012/10/04/rob-anders-is-a-buffoon-part-346/#utm_source=feed&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=feed?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rob-anders-is-a-buffoon-part-346</link>
	<description>Scribbling some perspective on Canada, Ottawa and whatever else crosses my mind...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:40:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evolving Squid</title>
		<link>http://trashysworld.ca/2012/10/04/rob-anders-is-a-buffoon-part-346/comment-page-1/#comment-135419</link>
		<dc:creator>Evolving Squid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 22:02:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trashysworld.ca/?p=6789#comment-135419</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was interested in his justification, since I am a proponent of unisex restrooms, which, of course, would totally negate this &quot;problem&quot;.  However, I saw this:

&lt;blockquote&gt; He says it’s the duty of the House of Commons to protect children from any exposure or harm that will come from giving men this kind of access&lt;/blockquote&gt;

And I know damn well that&#039;s the code for &quot;Jesus told me to trample someone&#039;s freedom&quot;.

Because if the best argument you can come up with is that you need to protect some unknown cabal of children from unspecified harm, it is guaranteed you&#039;re talking about a completely unnecessary, completely unjustifiable, and thoroughly egregious restriction on personal liberty.

It&#039;s never &quot;for the children&quot;.  It&#039;s always &quot;for personal bias&quot;.  The simple fact here is that Anders would feel uncomfortable because a man in a dress might have a bigger willy than he does.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was interested in his justification, since I am a proponent of unisex restrooms, which, of course, would totally negate this &#8220;problem&#8221;.  However, I saw this:</p>
<blockquote><p> He says it’s the duty of the House of Commons to protect children from any exposure or harm that will come from giving men this kind of access</p></blockquote>
<p>And I know damn well that&#8217;s the code for &#8220;Jesus told me to trample someone&#8217;s freedom&#8221;.</p>
<p>Because if the best argument you can come up with is that you need to protect some unknown cabal of children from unspecified harm, it is guaranteed you&#8217;re talking about a completely unnecessary, completely unjustifiable, and thoroughly egregious restriction on personal liberty.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s never &#8220;for the children&#8221;.  It&#8217;s always &#8220;for personal bias&#8221;.  The simple fact here is that Anders would feel uncomfortable because a man in a dress might have a bigger willy than he does.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
