Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Toronto-area transit follies | Main | Making political engagement easier »

Monday, April 19, 2004

A foretaste of C-250

A Christian dinner at a Calgary hotel on Saturday night was invaded by a pack of masked hooligans calling themselves the "Queer Militia". They disrupted the dinner, hurling obscenties and chanting against the diners, calling them "bigots" and generally ruining the evening. They left just before police arrived.

The diners simply closed their eyes and prayed.

Watch a one-minute video clip here.

Here's a quiz for you:

1. What is the likelihood that these masked, verbally abusive, vaguely threatening trespassers will be held to account by the police?
2. By the media?
3. By gay political leaders?
4. If it was a "Christian Militia" that stormed a gay dinner with a similar chant, how would you answer those questions?
5. Do you think more or less of this will happen if C-250 becomes law?
6. What is the likelihood that the "Queer Militia" has received some sort of indirect government funding?

Just asking.

Posted by Ezra Levant on April 19, 2004 in Religion | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834290bbd53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A foretaste of C-250:

Comments

Ezra, I couldnt get the film clip to work.

In any event:

I expect that inevitably we will be treated to an interesting spectacle with regards to the application of C-250.

The whole situation reminds me of how the feminist Gay lobby in Canada demanded the passing of legislation prohibiting the importation of Porn in Canada from the states. They rallied - they fought - they speachified and screamed for these laws.

A couple of years later The gay feminists were shocked, suprised and horrified when they discovered that Canada customs was refusing to allow THEIR Feminist/Gay Erotica into the country.

I expect a similar result in instances like this.
It may take a little while. But it will happen.

Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-04-19 10:59:38 PM


1. What is the likelihood that these masked, verbally abusive, vaguely threatening trespassers will be held to account by the police?

If caught, pretty high.

2. By the media?

Well, you're the media Ezra...

3. By gay political leaders?

Which ones? The problem with gay politics is that it is heavily factionalized.

4. If it was a "Christian Militia" that stormed a gay dinner with a similar chant, how would you answer those questions?

I would just love to have the video of that. I'd answer the questions the same way.

5. Do you think more or less of this will happen if C-250 becomes law?

Less. Simply because there will be one less thing to act up about.

6. What is the likelihood that the "Queer Militia" has received some sort of indirect government funding?

Or, for that matter, the likliehood of the Christians receiving some sort of indirect government funding.

Get a grip. These were hooligans who happened to be gay. A batch of pro-choicers or Palestinians or frat boys out for laughs would have been equally disruptive and offensive. I rather doubt C-250 had very much to do with it.

Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-04-20 12:03:23 AM


Recall what happpened to support for gay marriage in the US following the news footage of all those "illegal" weddings allowed by the mayor of San Francisco. The coastal right-on media thought that the story would engender greater sympathy for the same-sex marriage cause, but the visual spectacle of the weddings had the reverse effect. The left will think this is because of our religious intolerance, prejudice, etc. It is, in my view, much more subtle & profound than that. As with the Calgary group's tasteless baiting of Christians, was I the only one who noticed in the SFO instances the sheer lack of seriousness exhbited by the oddly-attired wedding groups, trendy Anglican vicars, off-colour comments & jokes etc etc. These folks gave every appearance of mocking the institution they have allegedly fought to be able to join.

Posted by: JGS | 2004-04-20 5:58:00 AM


Dear Ezra,

In politics, it's your friends who will kill you, not your enemies:

“Proposed legislation that would extend hate-law protection to Canada's gays and lesbians should be suspended because its big proponent — NDP MP Svend Robinson — is an "admitted thief," a family coalition says.

"The process of amending the Criminal Code of Canada must be beyond reproach," said Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition.”

Best,

Norman

Posted by: Norman Spector | 2004-04-20 7:41:56 AM


But isn't the point that a "Christian militia" _hasn't_ stormed a gay dinner? When Fred Phelps shows up at funerals, dozens of Christians show up to counter protest, and write articles denouncing the guy over and over again.

I'm not sure those sorts of rhetorical role reversals really prove anything. It reminds me of people who compare 9/11 to the bombing of abortion clinics: certainly on scale alone we're comparing apples and oranges.

Plus the vast majority of Christian leaders denounce the murder of abortion providers and/or the destruction of their property. Unlike...

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-04-20 8:11:47 AM


Even here in the US I can't see much being done by the establishment about this sort of thing. See, you have to let gay people do whatever they want apparently or it's some kind of hate crime. I mean, who wants to be a "homophobic" (said with hushed tone)?

Sigh.

Posted by: Brian Swan | 2004-04-20 10:08:27 AM


C-250 is an amendment of existing Canadian law that criminalizes "hate propaganda." Anti-religious hate propaganda has already been criminalized.

The time for Christians to complain was when those speech codes protecting them were passed.
C-250 is their comeuppance.

For the record I oppose government speech codes for hate or indecency. Svend Robinson and Michael Powell are both embarassments to civil, adult society.

Posted by: Frank Elliott | 2004-04-20 11:51:54 AM


1. What is the likelihood that these masked, verbally abusive, vaguely threatening trespassers will be held to account by the police?

"If caught, pretty high."

I disagree. Have a look at the police's reaction to the following, which took place in March 2000:

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/columns/charlesmoore/2000/charlesmoore032700.shtml

On March 7 the Roman Catholic cathedral Mary Queen of the World in Montreal was attacked by a band of feminist pro-abortionists who screamed obscenities at worshippers, spray-painted anti-Christian slogans on the high altar, ripped hymn books, turned over flowerpots, stuck tampons and sanitary napkins - some soiled - to pictures and walls, and threw condoms, panties, and bras around the church, as well as apparently stealing two altar cloths.

The raiders then burned crosses on the church steps, according to reports in The National Post.

The Post cited a participant saying that the demonstration was organized by local feminist activists who wanted to set a more radical tone to International Women's Day. This incident was generally ignored by the national media, save for The National Post. The only other papers that I've heard reported this attack and desecration were the Sarnia Observer, the Guelph Mercury, and The Montreal Gazette which buried the story on Page C9, among classified "adult personals."

Apparently the Montreal Urban Community police considered the assault to be as much of a non-event as the media. National Post columnist Ian Hunter, a law professor, notes that while these tampon commandos committed at least five serious, criminally indictable offences, the seven persons arrested were merely charged with the minor summary offence of "unlawful assembly" and released on their own recognizance.

Posted by: Hamilcar | 2004-04-20 4:16:12 PM


"I rather doubt C-250 had very much to do with it."

Actually, Bill C-250 did have very much to do with it, as one of the main speakers was Rev. Tristan Emmanuel (see his site at http://www.report.ca - interestingly, that's Report Newsmagazine's old website), whose organization is dedicated to mobilizing Christians and opposing Bill C-250, among other things. See the account from Paul Tuns' Lifesite News:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04042002.html

The other speaker was Rev. Stephen Boissoin, who wrote a letter to the editor of a newpaper, criticizing tax dollars being spent on "gay-rights" propagandizing in Alberta schools, and as a result of a complaint by a U of C law professor, Rev. Boissoin has now been called up before the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

This is all about C-250; even now, prior to its implementation, we see a strategy of intimidation and coertion against those who oppose their agenda, both by the State (e.g. the various provincial "Human Rights Commissions") and by lobby groups...

It's not so-cons who need to get a grip; it's those who roll their eyes at us and think we're paranoid...

Posted by: Will S. | 2004-04-20 11:30:17 PM


National Headlines - August 25, 2005

Alberta pastor's human rights hearing coming up

IN SEPTEMBER, a case will come before the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) that could set a precedent for the freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the freedom of expression in that province.

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/

Posted by: Stephen Boissoin | 2005-08-26 1:24:39 PM


pkgyd rngdf newcmqpvy tmgochv kjrpbvxy xrybnamvi hvswrzl

Posted by: sbuxc dnsxfecra | 2008-03-29 1:20:41 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.