"Correction – June 1, 2017: This column mistakenly states that Andrew Scheer referred to same-sex marriage bill as“abhorrent.” In fact, Scheer’s statement referred to the treatment of Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry being called before a Human Rights Tribunal for speaking out about the Catholic Church’s position on same-sex marriage. In his speech, Scheer said: “To think that a Catholic bishop must answer to a civil authority over matters of faith is abominable. It is abhorrent to me, to other Catholics and to every member of every faith community. It is abhorrent because the very essence of being a religious official is to teach the faith and instruct the faithful. There is an inherent right for religious officials to do so.”So why did the Star publish the article at all? Is it because it's just too much fun to trash social conservatives?
Now I don't usually read the Star but Michael Coren--now a good friend of the Star--tweeted it. Coren thought it was a "very good column".
Can a column be very good when it's based on a falsehood? What am I missing here?