Apparently Ms. Landolt Doesn't Read Her Own Words

Over at LifeSite News, we find REAL Women Canada's Gwen Landolt trying to backtrack on what she said so publicly last week.

The pro-family, pro-life conservative organization REAL Women of Canada is calling a CBC report “absolutely not” accurate that quoted president Gwen Landolt as if she tacitly approved Uganda’s contemplation of the death penalty for practicing homosexuals. 

“I don’t know if the CBC did this deliberately or whether it was accidental and they misunderstood [my position],” said Landolt to LifeSiteNews.com. “My whole life I have been utterly opposed to capital punishment and I would never make homosexual execution the exception.”

Yes, well, when your own press release states rather unequivocally the following:

Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, has abused his position as a cabinet minister to impose his own special interests in the foreign countries of Uganda, Kenya and Russia. 

He awarded $200,000 of Canadian taxpayers’ money by way of the Department of Foreign Affairs to special interest groups in Uganda and Kenya to further his own perspective on homosexuality.  He also insulted the speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, at a meeting of the International Parliamentary Union in Quebec City when he criticized Uganda for its position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  In response, Ms. Kadaga stated that Uganda was a sovereign nation and not a colony of Canada, and no one could tell Ugandans what to do. 

In case Ms. Landolt hasn't been paying attention, Uganda is proposing a bill which would result in the imprisonment or execution of LGBT people in Uganda.  Let's not mince words here - LGBT people in that country face the most severe punishments possible under law for simply being alive.

So, Canada isn't supposed to protest what is clearly a violation of fundamental human rights in Uganda?  Apparently not, Ms. Landolt says the following:

Landolt stated that REAL Women would “never support the death penalty in any circumstance.”
“I would never ever in a hundred years say the execution of people is suitable and appropriate. Never,” she said.

Funny.  Out of one side of her mouth, she says that she doesn't support the death penalty, and yet Baird, acting on behalf of Canada at a diplomatic summit, shouldn't raise these issues?  Her logic is circular to say the least.

Saying nothing is tacit approval - especially of laws which have been so widely publicized on the world stage during their formulation.

CBC interviewed Landolt at the time, reporting: “When asked about reports that Uganda has considered the death penalty as punishment for having homosexual relations, Landolt said, ‘It may be unwise by Western standards, but who are we to interfere in a sovereign country?’” 

Landolt told LSN that her original comment to CBC was about the newly enacted Russian law to eliminate homosexual indoctrination of minors, which allows for jail terms for offenders of up to three years. 

Landolt said that she told CBC that while she didn’t think Russia’s move was “necessarily a human rights violation” she did think however that it was “unwise by Western standards” adding as an aside, “but who are we to interfere in a sovereign country?” 

Having read through Landolt's original press release, it is my opinion that she is lying through her teeth trying to undo some of the damage she did to her own organization.

Frankly, whether Landolt's comments to CBC were "specific to Russia" or not is irrelevant.  The laws recently passed in Russia are every bit as flawed and damaging as those proposed in Uganda.  About the only difference is the severity of the punishments.  The laws in Russia have rightly been criticized for being so loosely worded that just about anyone could be convicted of "homosexual propaganda".

Further, the presupposition of such a law is that there is such a thing as "homosexual propaganda" in the first place.  Let me be emphatically clear here - it is only in the minds of those who are irrationally opposed to homosexuality that there is any notion that homosexuals "recruit" people.  If you think a "pride parade" or a rainbow flag is somehow "propaganda", then chances are you haven't exactly got a clear understanding of the purpose, place and history of such things. 

Lies and Distortion - Gwen Landolt Parrots The Ezra

It's amazing how the right wingnuts manage to parrot each other. Over at the magazine Catholic Insight, we find "Real Woman" Gwen Landolt whining and snivelling about how the Charter of Rights and Human Rights commission infringes upon her right to be a religious bigot where GLBT people are concerned...and of course, the HRC's are "out of control".

The crux of Landolt's complaint appears to be that because the courts have been persuaded that it is in fact valid to recognize discrimination against GLBT people, they have thereby constricted her rights as a religious person.

The guarantees for religious freedom have, in fact, most often been used to restrict or narrow religious freedom rather than expand it, especially when it has come in conflict with the “equality” rights of homosexuals. The latter’s rights were written into the Charter by the courts and, in contrast to religious rights, have increased and been strengthened step by step by the courts, so much so that, for the most part, homosexual rights now trump religious rights.

Her conclusion that treating discrimination against GLBT people as being just as wrong as discriminating against someone because of their gender, religion or ethnicity somehow impinges upon her religious freedoms is distinctly misguided. Nobody has told Ms. Landolt that she has to renounce her belief that being GLBT is somehow sinful. She is perfectly free to believe that, and few in the world would really care. Of course, for Landolt, and others, it's not good enough for them to believe that GLBT people are sinful, they want to punish by social and legal sanction as well.

It is significant that actual proof of discrimination against homosexuals has never been introduced at any time in evidence in any court in Canada.

Ummm...incorrect, Gwen. Remember the case of Vriend v. Alberta? There is a clear case of government discrimination in a matter, based on an intentional omission in law.

Of course, Landolt completely misinterprets the Vriend decision, and twists it around to being a matter of "judicial activism", as the Alberta legislature had clearly not voted to provide protection to homosexuals in the province of Alberta:

On the basis of this broad definition of equality, the Supreme Court of Canada in Vriend ordered the Alberta government to include sexual orientation in that province’s human rights legislation, even though that legislature had previously voted against such an inclusion. It is noteworthy that the purpose of the Charter was supposed to be to protect individuals from government legislation and policies that discriminated against them; it was not to provide new rights to individuals to be written into legislation. The Vriend decision, therefore, was a twist in judicial activism which strengthened judicial power.

Of course, what Landolt has completely failed to admit and accept is that the legislation in Alberta was at odds with the Constitution. It was not a matter of "judicial activism" at all, rather a recognition that the jurisprudence around S15 of the Charter had already established that S15 was not an "exclusive" list; further other jurisdictions in Canada had already extended legal protections against discrimination to GLBT people.

Further, the Vriend case is quite clearly a matter of government legislation that discriminated against homosexuals. The entire Vriend case centers around the fact that the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission refused to hear the Vriend complaint on the basis that it revolved around the fact that Delwin Vriend was fired for being gay.

Let's be absolutely clear here - the Vriend decision was in fact very much about a provable case of discrimination of precisely the kind that Gwen Landolt is claiming the Charter was intended to protect people from.

Of course, Gwen's happy little fantasy world holds that we all have to bow down on Sundays and worship:

The chipping away of religious freedom began almost immediately after S.15 of the Charter came into effect in 1985 in the R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985][vii]. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Lord’s Day Act, which required the closing of businesses on Sunday, infringed on religious freedom because religious freedom meant not only freedom of worship, practice, and teaching, but also included freedom from coercion, e.g., that the government could not coerce individuals to affirm specific religious belief, such as, in this case, coercing non-believers to observe the Christian Sabbath. That is, the Court held that non-religious individuals have a right to be free from religious observance.

She is correct in one point here - freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion. Of course, what shreds of rationality are gradually torn away as she progresses down her fantasy path about just how evil it is that legislation that implies a particular religious tradition becomes problematic when you grant freedom of religion to those who aren't followers of Christian tradition:

This interpretation departed considerably from the long established interpretation of freedom of religion, which, heretofore, had meant that one was free to practice one’s religion without interference from the state. In short, the court emphasized the individual conscience and the rights of non-Christians at the expense of the religious rights of communities of believers. It is obvious that Sunday shop closing legislation simply respected the Sabbath observed by the majority of people in society, and protected both shop owners and retail workers from being compelled to work on their day of rest.

The problem with Landolt's argument is that her reasoning is deeply flawed. What Landolt has missed is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies equally to all Canadians, regardless of their faith; and further fundamental individual freedoms such as freedom of religion mean that a law whose fundamental premise is based on a particular religious tradition (and the "Lord's Day Act" was clearly such a law) is on very weak ground. Further, the Charter and the Constitution quite clearly do not recognize any single faith tradition as being primary in Canada.

We then find Landolt repeating the usual whines about cases like Brockie and others which I have already addressed in some detail. Amusingly, I'd like to know what's so offensive about printing letterhead for a gay organization that it caused Mr. Brockie to find his "religious sensibilities" offended. Of course, I wonder what would happen if the tables were turned, and a printer refused to print something with overtly christian symbols plastered all over it?

Oh yes, she tries valiantly to rescue the Boissoin case from the toilet:

Stephen Boissoin, a Baptist Minister in Alberta, published a letter opposing homosexuality in a local newspaper, The Red Deer Advocate. This letter was an expression of Mr. Boissoin’s deeply held beliefs on the issue, and ran under the subheading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked”.

Boissoin's letter was no "religious" letter. Give me a break. That letter was filled with enough distortions, outright lies and falsehoods to make any self respecting Christian blush with embarrassment with the myriad ways it breaches fundamental tenets of the ethics of that faith.

As if Boissoin's letter would have provoked any kind of rational discussion, Landolt points to this tidbit on the matter from a Gay publication:

Significantly, according to the homosexual newspaper, Xtra West (December 6, 2007), the complaint against Pastor Boissoin was opposed by the homosexual lobby group, EGALE, which issued a press release on the case stating “that debate was the best method for dealing with homophobia (sic)” and that “sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

Debate is fine. Boissoin was not opening the door to any kind of debate. Period. His language alone made it clear that he wasn't seeking debate, but was making a call to arms against GLBT people. Landolt conveniently ignores the fact that while the furor was boiling around Red Deer in the weeks after Boissoin's letter was published, a gay youth was severely beaten. While the connection is difficult to prove, the temporal coincidence cannot be ignored.

What Landolt and others need to recognize is that matters of faith are just fine - nobody has a problem with the fact that some faiths consider GLBT people "sinful". That doesn't give anybody the right to marginalize, discriminate against, or abuse someone else simply because "their faith tells them that the Other is an evil sinner". Period. It's amusing how "religious freedom" seems to imply for these people that includes discriminating against GLBT people in both law and life.

Like Ezra's tirades against Human Rights tribunals, Landolt's claims are rooted in a sense of entitlement. Her rights supercede the rights of others. Landolt is perfectly free to believe what she wishes. She is not, however, free to simply impose her religious beliefs on every body else. When she, and others like Charles McVety get it through their heads that individual freedoms are just that - individual - then they might just start to realize that they are free to their beliefs, but that freedom does not extend to imposing their beliefs and values upon others.

Gwen Landolt Resurfaces ...

I have been somewhat surprised that we haven't heard more from Gwen Landolt during the debate on C-279.  Then she popped up with a bunch of comments on Lifesite...which really refers to a press release from Landolt's REAL Women Canada organization.

Frankly there isn't much new being said here.  The press release is fundamentally the usual set of deliberate misrepresentations that we've heard during the debate of C-389 and during the debate over C-279 as well. 

However, it does warrant taking a closer look just to see how Landolt and her bunch are twisting things:

“It’s all in how the word ‘gender identity’ is defined,” said Gwen Landolt, National Vice-President of REAL Women of Canada, to LifeSiteNews.com.

The bill, put forward by NDP LGBTT Critic Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC), defines “gender identity” as an “individual’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex that the individual was assigned at birth.”

Landolt explained that “gender identity” is a catch-all phrase that could be interpreted by activist courts to legitimize “any kind of sexual deviancy”.

“This could include pedophilia, if that’s their deeply felt experience of gender and if that’s their sexual preference.”

Landolt is, as one would expect, confusing sexual orientation with gender identity.  Whether she knows the difference or not is immaterial - she's lying.

Gender Identity is not Sexual Orientation.  Period.  End Of Statement.  The two intersect with each other in some interesting ways, but make no mistake - they are distinct.   The language of the bill is actually derived from the Yogyakarta Principles document which reads:

1. 1)  sexual orientation is understood to refer to each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender.
   
2. 2)  gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms. 
   

 It doesn't take a genius to understand the distinction that is drawn between these two points.

So, turning back to Landolt's idiotic twisting of things, and we find her concluding that C-279 could be used to "legitimize" pedophilia.  Absolute nonsense.  This is nothing more than a transparent attempt at fear mongering on the part of REAL Women.

The press release goes on to discuss the Australian law's definition:

The phrase sex and or gender identity is used … as a broad term to refer to diverse sex and or gender identities and expressions.  It includes being transgender, trans, transsexual and intersex.  It also includes being androgynous, agender, a cross dresser, a drag queen, gender fluid, genderqueer, intergender, neutrois, pansexual, pan-gendered, a third gender, and a third sex…

The list that the Australians have used are predominantly gender identities.  The only one I question is the Pansexual, which according to wikipedia is more of an extremely broad sexual orientation.  That said, I can see how someone who is pansexual could well have a very fluid notion of gender and its expression.

REAL Women's press release then goes on to say:

It would seem, therefore, that this bill may have been brought before Parliament for purposes other than promoting sound public policy. Rather it will be used to extend legal protection to other questionable sexual activities without having these matters exposed to Parliamentary debate.  That is, this is an attempt to deliberately by-pass Parliament, where these changes may not be acceptable.

Since when was sexuality something that should be subject to "parliamentary debate"?  In writing this one paragraph, they have told us a great deal about their objectives.  Groups like REAL Women are all about regulating sexuality and everything that they perceive as related to it.

SGM Motion Fallout

On schedule, in the wake of the failure of Stephen Harper's motion to "reopen" the marriage legislation in this country, we find the bleating has begun, and more or less on exactly the track I had expected.

In the Dec 11 Hamilton Spectator, we find REAL Women Canada's Gwendolyn Landolt bleating away on a list of talking points that are, well, mostly bad fiction.

She dives into her tirade almost immediately:

Others are opposed to homosexuality for practical, medical, moral and/or religious reasons.

Wow, what a list of implied issues.

Practical - oh yes...the "it's all about the children" line. My does that render the marriage of anyone who doesn't have children suddenly invalid?

Medical - I'm sure any gay readers out there are rolling their eyes at this one. Once again, it's the old canard about gay male sex and the "medical consequences". (Shall we really open the whole can of worms about how women used to die in childbirth all the time - and in some parts of the world, still do?)

Moral and/or Religious reasons - Yes Ms. Landolt, be honest - it's religious reasons. I haven't met a person yet who objects to SGM that isn't quite passionate in their religion. Most non-religious people kind of shrug their shoulders and carry on.

On to the next collection of horsepuckey:

Even within the parliamentary process, the decision on same-sex marriage has been made by a very few individuals. ...

In debate last week, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties again excluded the public from the same-sex marriage debate by requiring its MPs vote along party lines.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was not much better. He begrudgingly allowed a free vote, although making the claim that same-sex marriage is a "fundamental" right under the Charter of Rights.

Oh, I see, because the two votes that Parliament has had were not "fully free votes", it's somehow "undemocratic". I have a little newsflash for Ms. Landolt - that's how our democracy WORKS! We elect our representatives (who, just happen to be members of various political parties) to do the tough job of running the country and authoring laws.

The second point, and I've raised it before, is that civil rights are not a subject of "popular vote". Our constitution talks about non-discrimination and equality before the law in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those are rights.

He was wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision on same-sex marriage, which assumed the leadership role among the provincial courts on this issue, is now under a cloud, due to a complaint laid against Chief Justice Roy McMurtry before the Canadian Judicial Council for serious judicial impropriety and the apprehension of bias for his part in that case.

Ummm, really? Well, the Supreme Court did not specifically rule on that topic, but rather issued an opinion that the law as amended by bill C-38 was constitutional. That much is correct.

Of course, Landolt is referring to her own organizations filing against McMurtry on the subject, because he allegedly has a lesbian daughter. Whether that creates a circumstance under which he should have recused himself from the ruling is perhaps an interesting matter of debate. I don't know if it should have or not.

However, Ms. Landolt is ignoring the fact that rulings in other provinces (B.C., Quebec and others) came up on the same "legal page" as the Ontario ruling.

By complaining about one of the Justices sitting on the case REAL Women clearly cannot find fault with the legality of the ruling itself, so they are attacking the persons who made the ruling. Apparently, however, REAL Women failed to read the ruling itself which doesn't even name McMurtry as one of the presiding justices.

This new definition of marriage has a profound impact on the welfare of children. A large body of social scientific research indicates that children thrive best with a mother and father who teach them gender identity and sex role expectations. This was the conclusion of a committee of the French National Assembly, which recommended, in January 2006, that France not accept same-sex marriage due to its detrimental effect on children.

The French committee criticized studies on same-sex parenting that claimed it had no ill effects on children, on the basis that these studies lacked scientific rigour, included inadequate sampling, and showed a lack of objectivity.

"A large body" ... which mysteriously, outside of a committee from the Government of France, she never cites.

I will agree that one can criticize the studies about gay parenting on the basis of sample size. Gays and Lesbians make up a small percentage of the population to begin with, finding an "adequate" sample that is willing to participate in such studies is difficult. I think most mental health professionals would agree with that.

However, while the criticism of sample sizes and perhaps a reliance on "anecdotal" evidence as a result has a degree of validity, The criticism does not show the alleged "harm" that Ms. Landolt is inferring. The evidence available to date says otherwise - and I for one will put far more weight in the opinions of the The APA than I would in a political lobby group like "REAL Women".

The duration of same-sex marriages is shorter than that of opposite-sex relationships: on average, the former last only two to three years. These factors are detrimental to children who require stability in their lives.

Again, this is argument by assertion. Ms. Landolt does not cite a source for this claim, but merely makes the claim as if it were "common knowledge".

A trend resulting from same-sex marriage is evident in the Netherlands, which has allowed homosexual couples to register their partnerships since 1997 and which legalized same-sex marriages in 2000. Statistics show that the out-of-wedlock birthrate there has increased by an average of 2 per cent a year -- more than in any other country in western Europe. This indicates a marked decrease in a desire for legal marriage and an increase in cohabitation.

What? Hang on a second here - speaking of problems with logic. Temporal correlation does not equate to causality. Ms. Landolt is once again falling into the logical fallacy of assuming that because two population trends are coincident with each other that somehow they are related. Even more brain damaging is the logical leap that says that gay marriages have anything at all to do with the behaviour of the heterosexual population.

The legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has put law and religion on a collision course. The Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus, in Port Coquitlam, B.C., was required to pay a fine for causing "hurt feelings" when it denied the use of the organization's hall to a lesbian couple to celebrate their wedding.

Religion-based social services, such as counselling and adoption services, are now required to conform to the same-sex marriage law.

Now we find Landolt's arguments devolving into the usual bunch of garbage nonsense talking points. What is it with these people that make them believe that their religion gives them the right to treat others as second class citizens?

Counselling and adoption are generally services "to the public", and at best are "affiliated" with a church. (I'd have more than a few choice words for any counsellor that decided to start foisting their religion upon me if the agency wasn't clearly and obviously connected to a church!)

A teacher and school counsellor in British Columbia, Chris Kempling, submitted a letter to his local newspaper objecting to homosexuality. This resulted in his suspension for one month without pay by the B.C. College of Teachers, which alleged that Kempling's letters "poisoned the school environment."

Subsequently, Kempling was a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party and, in that capacity, had a letter to the editor published in his local newspaper opposing same-sex marriage. He received a further suspension of three months without pay.

I've debunked these talking points already elsewhere, and I'm getting sick of hearing them. They are distortions and lies with only the tiniest grain of reality in them.

Kempling wasn't oppressed. He violated the terms of his employment, repeatedly, and created an atmosphere of intimidation for GLBT students in his school. Kempling was a staff member of a SECULAR (non-religious) school board which caters to ALL citizens of the country. Ms. Landolt needs a not-so-gentle reminder that GLBT people are citizens too.

School boards in Quebec and Ontario, especially in Toronto, Hamilton and London, now require homosexual "education" in their school systems. Such programs do not provide balanced instruction on the issue, and the medical, psychological and legal impact of homosexuality are not mentioned.

As these examples show, these are monumental consequences to same-sex marriage. Are these the changes that Canadians want? Who knows? We've never been given the opportunity to express our views. A referendum on the issue is clearly required.

Ah yes, we return to the ominous, and unstated "consequences" argument, with a clear cry that a crisis is brewing in our fair land because we are according rights to those evil queers - goodness knows that treating contributing members of society as equals has to be dangerous if they are gay.

As I speculated here, the religious reich wing of our nation will now turn to fomenting a crisis in the land in an effort to "force" Stephen Harper to crack down on gay rights.

Barbara Kay on REAL Women Canada's Outburst

In one sense, I was very happy to read Barbara Kay's column excoriating Gwen Landolt and REAL Women Canada for their attack on Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird this week.  I was pleased to see that at least someone on the far right could see the ridiculousness of Landolt's position.

That said, there are a couple of aspects of Kay's column that I find somewhat troubling.  Superficially, it gives off the impression that she is truly outraged by Landolt's statements.  But, there is an undercurrent of a parent scolding a wayward child for doing something phenomenally stupid ... like throwing a rock through the window of the neighbour that nobody on the block likes.

On one hand, the child went too far, acting in part based on what they've heard their parents say over dinner.  In effect, the child has given expression to what the parents have said in private but would never act on in public.

The child has to be disciplined for what they did, even though the parents may well think that it's perfectly apropos.

I've read enough of Ms. Kay's columns over the years to be fairly confident that she is generally sympathetic to most of the positions that REAL Women Canada has expressed.  In broad terms, she lives on the political right of Canada's spectrum, and would qualify as a social conservative no matter which way you examine her statements.

Ms. Landolt is out of line here. What Mr. Baird does or does not believe about homosexuality is irrelevant to his job, which is to represent official Canadian positions. Our government, and most Canadians, perceive homosexuals as fully equal citizens under the law, including the right to marriage and parenting. Whether or not many Canadians are uncomfortable with those positions (as indeed many are) is not pertinent to this situation. Mr. Baird is not demanding other countries enact gay-marriage laws. He is reacting to punitive measures for the “crime” of being homosexual. 

It gets worse. 

Ms. Landolt told a CBC interviewer that gay rights is not a human rights issue per se. She said, “according to the culture and the religion of, you know, Uganda, it’s not a human rights issue. You can’t imply that every country has to take our human rights issues and plunk it down in another country.” When pressed to comment on the fact that Uganda has contemplated the death penalty for practicing homosexuality, Ms. Landolt responded: “It may be unwise by Western standards, but who are we to interfere in a sovereign country?” [ http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/08/barbara-kay-canadas-socially-conservative-womens-organization-just-went-too-far/ ]

For a long time, I have felt that Canada's social conservatives have an unwritten rule about what they say publicly:  "Don't let the ugliest stuff out of the closet - believe it, advocate for it behind the scenes, but never say it where Canadians will hear it".

It's almost as if the Conservatives have an unacknowledged monologue that gets brutally suppressed when it surfaces.  (Not unlike the "in the closet" experiences of many LGBT people, I might add)

Ms. Landolt's outburst was that voice coming to the surface when the body politic of the right wing wasn't willing to face itself.  Ms. Kay is acting very much in the role of the parent scolding the child.

I'd feel better if I saw a general renunciation of these positions coming from Ms. Kay rather than what appears to be a scolding of an errant child.

Gwen Landolt On Russia and Uganda

It seems that Gwen Landolt's organization has gotten its knickers in a twist over the Harper Government's flaccid response to Russia's recent spurt of severely anti-LGBT legislation.

While the CBC's article is fairly bland about the whole business, wandering over to REAL Women Canada's website, we find Landolt's entire "news release":

by C. Gwendolyn Landolt.  August 7, 2013.

Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, has abused his position as a cabinet minister to impose his own special interests in the foreign countries of Uganda, Kenya and Russia.

He awarded $200,000 of Canadian taxpayers’ money by way of the Department of Foreign Affairs to special interest groups in Uganda and Kenya to further his own perspective on homosexuality.  He also insulted the speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, at a meeting of the International Parliamentary Union in Quebec City when he criticized Uganda for its position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  In response, Ms. Kadaga stated that Uganda was a sovereign nation and not a colony of Canada, and no one could tell Ugandans what to do.

Last week, Baird admitted working extensively behind the scenes to prevent Russia from passing legislation designated to protect Russian minors from homosexual propaganda.  Baird blasted these laws as hateful, anti-gay and intolerant.  Russia has also restricted foreign adoption of Russian children after incidents of horrendous child abuse; for example, adoptive “fathers” in Australia together with other men, sexually abused a 6 year old boy, starting at 22 months of age, born of a Russian surrogate mother.

It is a fact, that homosexual activists in Canada are intolerant of any resistance to their demands, and, as such have become a tyrannical minority.

Conscientious objections based on religion and traditional values have led, in Canada, to public officials, educators and business owners facing heavy fines and lengthy court battles for rejecting the homosexual lifestyle.  This is not democracy.  It is not equality.

This is the strange, intolerant world Mr. Baird wishes to impose on sovereign countries, despite their own cultures and religion which find this unreasonable and unacceptable.

Gwendolyn Landolt, National Vice-President, stated, “Just who does John Baird think he is, using taxpayers’ money to promote his own personal agenda and endeavouring to set standards of the laws of foreign countries?  He argues that homosexual rights are a ‘Canadian value’, but this applies only to himself and his fellow activists and the left-wing elitists.  These are not conservative values and that of grass roots Canadians, who after all, pay the bulk of the taxes”.

Mr. Baird’s actions are highly offensive to conservative taxpayers.  He cannot and must not undermine other countries’ sovereignty and dignity, rooted in stable family structures and religious faith, in order to impose his own value system on them.

Mr. Baird’s actions are destructive to the conservative base in Canada and causing collateral damage to his party.

Source:  REAL Women of Canada

Ms. Landolt apparently thinks that any kind of support for Canada's LGBT citizens is an unjustified use of taxpayer resources.  This isn't terribly surprising given her past utterances.  I can only imagine what her outrage would be if Uganda was passing laws which criminalized being a Christian, or Russia passing laws against "Christian Propaganda" which outlawed attending church.

What she is missing is that both Russia and Uganda are passing laws which explicitly attack not only their own citizens, but the citizens of other nations who should happen to end up in those countries.  A state which moves against its own citizens in such a hostile manner is in fact a threat to itself and to those around it.

Her argument also fails to consider that LGBT Canadians are also taxpayers.  These laws create an explicit hazard for LGBT Canadians who have to travel to these countries.  While it is easy to look upon travel as a luxury, the fact is most travel is done for business reasons.  Therefore, these laws create an economic constraint that affects Canada's economic fortunes as well.

Canada's TheoCon$: No Condoms - You Should Just Obey Us

Apparently, Gwen Landolt isn't satisfied with lecturing Canadians on the immorality of anything other than missionary sex for making fetuses, and is now whining about the fact that our prisons make condoms available to help reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS in the prison population.

Landolt said that distributing condoms avoids the central problem leading to AIDS.

“AIDS is a tremendously serious health issue,” she emphasized. “They should be dealing with the problem, not trying to deal with the consequences. They should be monitoring the inmates to prevent them from carrying on this activity which is causing the AIDS.”

Landolt said that condoms “only encourage the inmates to be involved with this dangerous activity.”

Apparently Ms. Landolt thinks that telling prisoners not to engage in sexual activity means that they won't. I don't think it's news to anyone grounded in reality that sexual activity happens in prisons - regardless of what the regulations say. This has been the case for as long as prisons have been bigger than a few cells in a castle's cellar.

The reason for distributing condoms is simple - they work.

Ms. Landolt seems to be of the opinion that anything even remotely related to sexuality is automatically giving "permission" for sexual acts. It isn't, but just telling people not to engage in sexual acts isn't going to stop that either. I may not like the idea of sex happening in prison, but that doesn't mean it's going to stop either.

Ms. Landolt might want to consider the consequences of allowing our prisons to become a primary source of HIV infection. Does a prisoner infected with HIV have anything to lose when they get out of prison?

LSN Lies About PEI Sexual Development Guide

Apparently PEI has published a guidebook for parents as to what is normal sexual development for children, and the folks over at LifeSite News don't like it very much.   

Link to the actual guidebook: http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/CSA_Healthy.pdf

According to LifeSite:

A new guide from the government of P.E.I. is telling parents that it is “natural and healthy” for young children to “touch the ‘private parts’ of familiar adults” and to look at “nude pictures on the Internet, videos, magazines”. Parents are also being told that they should not discourage their children from masturbating. 

Of course, what LifeSite quietly chooses not to tell the readers is that the guide does give parents some fairly sensible guidelines as to appropriate responses to those behaviours where they would be inappropriate.

For example, the bit about young children touching the private parts of familiar adults occurs in a table with three columns:

Under Normal and Healthy:

Touches the “private parts” of familiar adults and children with hand or body .

Under Of Concern:

Touches/rubs the “private parts” of familiar children or adults after they have been told consistently not to do so . 

Seek Professional Help:

Sneakily touches/rubs the “private parts” of adults or children and, if questioned, deny it . 

Notice anything?  The PEI guide does point out that curiosity driven behaviours are perfectly normal, and only become a matter of concern if the child doesn't respond to appropriate guidance from the parents.

Of course, LifeSite is so concerned about regulating other people's morality that they won't let a few obvious facts get in the way of a good tirade.

The experts state that a child should not be discouraged from masturbating and “should not be told that it is 'bad,' 'dirty,' or 'nasty’”. “It is important to keep in mind that there are no absolutes,” the guidelines state. “Normal, healthy behaviour covers a wide range and may not be expressed the same, or to the same extent, in every child.”“I don’t know what ‘children’ they are referring to, but no normal children do these things at those age groups,” said Landolt who is a lawyer, mother of five children, and grandmother of nine. 

I somehow imagine that Ms. Landolt's household had so many implicit taboos around sexuality that she never saw her children do any of these things.  They were no doubt smart enough to keep it well out of her sight after seeing one of their older siblings disciplined.

Children are naturally curious about all things, and anybody who believes that they won't be curious about their bodies (and the bodies of others) is blind to reality.

Landolt called the guidelines “permissive” and said that parents operating by them will only encourage their children to become “sexually involved at a prepubescent age.”  

“It sets them on a dangerous journey when they are not ready for it,” she said. 

Frankly, after reading the PEI book, there is nothing in it that strikes me as either particularly licentious or unreasonable.  It lists a series of fairly normal developmental moments and when they are likely to occur.  It then gives parents a general guideline as to when problems may be developing.

The pamphlet's advice bears echoes of the views of the 1940-50s researcher Alfred Kinsey, a controversial and highly influential figure considered by many as the “father of the sexual revolution,” who claimed that his research found that infants were sexual. While Kinsey is still widely cited and used in many circles, researcher Judith Reisman famously exposed his abhorrent research methods, which included sexually molesting babies as young as five months old to collect data on children’s “orgasms.”  

Pointing to the guideline about adults allowing children to “touch” their “private parts”, Landolt called it a “diabolic attempt” to make children “vulnerable to sexual activity” and “acquiesce to sexual acts of adults.”  

Landolt said that P.E.I parents should be outraged that their tax dollars were used to fund a guide that promotes a “misleading destructive journey” for children. 

Trust LSN to use every opportunity to slag Kinsey's work.  Of course, the booklet doesn't cite Kinsey.  Apparently, in the LSN bubble, whatever Kinsey did was bad because they don't like his research methods.

The good news for the rest of the world is that Kinsey opened the door to an open discussion of human sexuality at all levels, and that's a genie that's proving very difficult for them to put back into the bottle.

The Cry of the Screech Harpy

Jeepers, the wingnuts are escalating their cries of "foul" faster and louder than I could have expected.

Today, we are treated to the rantings of Gwen Landolt of Real Women Canada on Lifesite ranting about how the Evil Liberals(tm) have legitimized homosexuality.

She takes it all the way back to 1967 when Trudeau decriminalized sodomy, and proceeds to moan about every change in Canadian law made by a Liberal government that gave legal equality to the GLBT citizens of this country.

Her rantings achieve a unique grade of shrill insanity when she claims:

This amendment to the federal Human Rights Act had the effect of legalizing and protecting homosexual sex acts, notwithstanding their detrimental medical, psychological, and social ramifications.

Obviously, Ms. Landolt is so obsessed with what she supposes gay men do with each other sexually that she has become an expert on it - I'd have to guess that she spends more time obsessing about it than most gay men do. (and much less rationally, I would imagine)

Also, the military, which requires a united fighting unit to protect morale and the effectiveness and cohesion of the unit, was obliged to accept homosexuals.

Omigod - this old saw. It's so old and rusty I doubt it could be salvaged for anything except scrap metal value. Yes, Gwen, I'm sure that accepting gays and lesbians in the military has really hurt unit cohesiveness. Seems to me that any of the people I know in the military couldn't give a damn if the person next to them in the unit is gay or not - as long as they do their job. Unlike you, most of us don't obsess over the sexual inclinations of others.

Nor is homosexuality morally neutral, which is quite different from race, sex, and place of birth. Moreover, for the first time, “behaviour,” rather than unchangeable or immutable characteristics, was given special protection under the federal Human Rights Act.

Hold it a second. Check the evidence, Ms. Landolt. I think you will find that gays and lesbians are generally pretty consistent about their sexuality - oddly enough, just like most straight people. (We won't worry too much about complicating little cases like Rev. Ted Haggard too much, will we - it might cause your little bubble of stupidity to pop)

Justice Minister McLellan’s contribution to the homosexual agenda was to provide family benefits to same-sex partners on an equal basis to those given to heterosexual couples.

Why yes she did. Only after a long series of court battles finally forced the government to acknowledge that their own programs were discriminatory.

In contrast, the National Assembly in France, in its report in January 2006, rejected same-sex marriage, mainly because of its detrimental effects on children. The French report also seriously criticized the studies on same-sex parenting that claimed that such parenting carried no ill effects for children. The report noted the lack of scientific rigor, inadequate samplings and the flagrant lack of objectivity in these studies.

Yet, Mr. Cotler was prepared to throw Canadian children to the wolves in order to legalize same-sex marriage in Canada.

Yes, two men or two women getting married is going to cause children all kinds of harm - in her little fantasy world. The rational evidence is quite clear on the subject, with groups like the APA (that actually do real research) coming out quite squarely in favour of allowing gays and lesbians to continue to act as parents to their offspring:

Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.

Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.

I don't know what colour the sky is in Ms. Landolt's little world, but I suspect it's not the same colour I see every day when I look up. Whatever she gets paid for (whether it's political ranting or bad comedy, I'm not sure), it's clearly too much - she actually seems to take herself seriously.

...this has been another entry in the "Omigod, There's a Rights Crisis" campaign watch

Dear Wingnuts: Get Over Yourselves

On CBC this morning, I had the dubious pleasure of listening to Gwen Landolt whinging on about how the Order of Canada has "become a bastion of left-wing politics" in this country, and it isn't "right wing enough" to suit her standards.

I don't exactly consider Landolt representative of anything except Canada's right-wingnut faction, certainly far from representing the majority of Canadians (or I certainly hope she doesn't)

Then there was this story in the Globe and Mail:

Edmonton's Catholic Archbishop, Richard Smith, has written to Governor-General Michaëlle Jean to ask that the honour not be allowed to stand. In a brief statement, he said that naming Dr. Morgentaler to the Order of Canada “devalues” the honour and “offends all Canadians who recognize and treasure the precious gift of human life in the womb.”

One Order of Canada recipient has already returned his award in protest at Dr. Morgentaler's appointment. Father Lucien Larre, a Catholic priest in Coquitlam, B.C., who was named to the order 25 years ago after founding a group of homes for troubled youth, said yesterday that he was “trying to make a point that we have to be careful who we give this to,” since it should be “reserved for people who can be models or be inspiring for a majority of Canadians.”

Father Larre is no stranger to controversy himself. In 1992 he was convicted of the common assault of a resident of one of his youth homes and jailed for one day, and acquitted of nine other charges.

Talk about double standards here. Of course, these are the same pretentious twits who scream blue murder over anything to do with sexuality - including condom use. I don't know when Father Larre got his OC, but I don't much care - if he wants to get on his moralizing high horse about someone else's award, then the first question I'm going to have to ask is what a convicted criminal is doing holding an OC? Unlike Morgentaler who was convicted of a crime, but through persistence and exercise of due process, convinced the courts that the laws of the day were plain wrong, Larre was convicted of assault - and as far as I know hasn't exactly provided much reason why the statutes in question would be wrong or inapplicable in his case.

As for Ms. Landolt's claim that the OC is "too left wing", it strikes me that compassion for others has long ago been lost in ideology. In short, I doubt that anyone like Landolt will ever receive an OC because doing something that recognizes and respects other people is a value that they've long ago forgotten.

Bill C-389 - Including Protections For Transgender People

A private member's bill tabled by MP Bill Siksay, Bill C-389, has been wending its way through Parliament in recent months.

Bill C-389 would amend our criminal and human rights laws to explicitly provide protections to members of the transgender community by adding the terms 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' to the Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code. The bill itself is brief, but to members of Canada's transgender community, filled with positive implications.

Of course, Canada's wingnuts see it through a far different lens, and are quite unabashed about showing us their ignorance, too.

Let's start with McVety mouthpiece C.F.A.C, run by Brian Rushfeldt hand in hand with McVety. From their website, the following bit of inspired stupidity:

Dear members of parliament,

Beware of the ramifications of Bill C-389, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code put forward by Siksay.

If you legislate this ill defined and unsubstantiated definition of “gender expression” as Siksay talks of below you will have just opened the door to every uncommon, unnatural and dangerous sexual expression that can be imagined.

From Hansard May 10, 2010 – Siksay said “Gender identity refers to an individual's self-conception as being male or female, their sense of themselves as male or female. Gender expression refers to how a person's gender identity is communicated to others through behaviour, speech, dress or mannerisms.”

Just as Svend Robinson scammed wording changes and definitions through parliament now Siksay is trying the same thing. His use of “gender expression” is not only foolish it is dangerous.

Reject this attempt to legalize all sexual behaviors. Pedophilia is already being argued as a sexual identity/ orientation. Will it now be argued that it is a “gender expression”?

I ask you as legislators - reject this attempt to change both Human Rights code but more startling the Criminal Code. Reject it before the second sober thought Senate has to do so.

This only underscores Rushfeldt's ignorance - he is busy misunderstanding the distinction between gender identity and sexual identity. Contrary to Rushfeldt's alarmist rhetoric, it would be impossible to argue that pedophilia has anything to do with someone's gender identity. Although sexual identity is intertwined with our gender, there is no meaningful way that one can claim that pedophilia is a form of gender expression.

Then we have LifeSite spewing Gwen Landolt:

Landolt said that the bill "goes to show that homosexuals are never satisfied and will push the situation as far as it will go." She warned that it could "create all sorts of difficulties to ordinary, everyday communication in society between men and women," such as the use of public washrooms.

Of course, trust Landolt to play the bathroom card along with the "trans people are homosexuals" card. Yet another example of how the right wing assumes that anything they cannot be bothered to truly understand is automatically conflated with a dozen threats - all of which are imaginary.

Then there's what one of the idiot Con$ said in the House of Commons during debate over this bill:

Daniel Petit, parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Justice, said Tuesday that the amendments proposed "are useless and unclear." "Transsexuals are already protected against discrimination based on sex under the Canada Human Rights Act, a federal law," he said, noting that "the courts have upheld the validity of discrimination complaints filed by transsexuals."

That's part of the problem - transsexuals are protected - but often only after surgery, assuming they are legally recognized in their chosen gender.

The problem is that those protections don't extend to people who don't transition fully, or who are in the midst of transition but have not yet started to live full time in their chosen gender role.

There are risks aplenty to those who find themselves between the normative gender structures that society has. The amount of systemic discrimination that exists throughout our social and legal structures that place transgender people in multiple forms of jeopardy is astonishing, and the impact on individual lives is astonishing.

Of course, it does not surprise this writer that the Con$ would happily throw transgender people under the bus.

I hope that Siksay's bill makes it through parliament and gets signed into law, but I'm not holding my breath - it's a private member's bill to begin with, and there is a high probability of an election sometime in the next six months.

Right On Cue

I swear, it's possible to set a clock by the timing of the howling from the Right-Wing idiotsphere.

Via buckdog, I found Michael Coren's latest screed.

Generally, Coren's crap is more or less the intellectual equivalent of a McDonald's hamburger - mostly empty calories for the sofa-squash set. In fact, I've already pulled apart most of what Michael's whining about here, here, here and here.

However, take a close look at the following paragraph in Coren's rants, and then think back to what Stephen Harper said in the wake of the "failed" Gay Marriage debate motion last December:

Today it is John DiCicco or perhaps me. Tomorrow it could be you.

Do stand up for that which millions have fought and died.

Yes, Michael really does believe that there is a huge "gay conspiracy" to "suppress religious belief". I cannot even begin to describe how utterly brain dead that assertion is.

However, as I speculated here, this is yet another piece in the game of the religious right trying to plant the notion that "religious freedoms" are being unduly oppressed in Canada. While Landolt and REAL Women were first out of the gate, they are far from the last. I expect to see more of this kind of bleating as we move into the expected spring election.

Harper and The TheoCons - Part II

Related: Harper and The TheoCons Part I

I had been considering whether this particular essay was necessary, but with recent events that look suspiciously like the TheCons in the CPoC flexing their muscles, I decided that it is worth some time to examine who some of the personalites that the article in the October issue of The Walrus noted.

First out of the gate is Texas Evangelist John Hagee, the man behind John Hagee Ministries. Hagee came up to Canada at Charles McVety's invitation of Charles McVety. What's the relevance of an American Evangelist coming to Canada? Not much - superficially. However, the Walrus makes two very important observations about Hagee:

...to hear a superstar pastor with a direct pipeline to the born-again occupant of the White House. As Hagee confied to a reporter before his Toronto appearance, he first broke bread with George Bush back in the Texas statehouse, "so I know that he is with us."

Now he has reached the same conclusion about the man ensconsed at 24 Sussex Drive. On stage, Hagee lauded one of Stephen Harper's first post-election acts: after Hamas militants won power in the Palestinian Authority, Harper became the first world leader to cut off its funding, trumping even Bush.

This segues nicely into a discussion of Charles McVety - a very significant player in the "Christian Right Wing" in Canada. He was certainly one of the loudest opponents during the arguments over SGM, and is known to be trying to load the Conservative caucus in Ottawa. (Besides the challenge to Garth Turner, the Walrus makes more observations)

His Toronto host, not to mention longtime Canadian major-domo, was Canada Christian College president Charles McVety, one of the most outspoken players in this country's religious right wign. During the last election, as head of a handful of pro-family lobbies including the "Defend Marriage Coalition", McVety emerged as a power to be reckoned with. He bought up the rights to unclaimed Liberal websites such as josephvolep.com and stacked a handful of Conservative nomination contests in favour of evangelical candidates adamantly opposed to same-sex matrimony, a campaign he has vowed to repeat. As Harper navigates the tricky waters of minority rule ... it is noteworthy that he has continued to cultivate a man regarded as the lightning rod of the Christian right. Last spring, those around the prime minister drafter McVety to help sell the government's contentious child-care policy and on budget day he was the personal guest of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in the Common's VIP-gallery

I'll not spend too much time on Darrel Reid - I've already discussed him.

Last winter, The Institute of Marriage and Family opened its doors in Ottawa, headed by a gentleman by the name of Dave Quist. Besides the known connections back to Dobson, I'll let the Walrus' excellent research speak about this man who is otherwise a cipher to me:

...A born-again Christian who spent six years as executive assistant to Reed Elley, the Reform/Alliance MP from Nanaimo-Cowichan, Quist more than fit the job description. In 2004, when Elley resigned, Quist ran for his seat and, aftr losing spent last year as operations manager in Harper's office.
...On the day of the Throne Speech, Quist was one of more than a dozen guests at a festive pre-event lunch in the parliamentary restaurant hosted by Senator Ann Cools, a vocal social conservative in Harper's caucus. There had been no mention of a business agenda in the initial invitation, but Cools' guest list included some of the country's most muscular so-con voices, include McVety and Gwen Landolt of REAL Woman of Canada.

There's more, much more that I want to discuss. What I see as key here is a pattern that is consistent with what we have observed in recent weeks, especially with respect to MP Garth Turner's treatment. More and more, the picture that is emerging is that the CPoC is being driven not by a group of moderate conservatives, with the extreme being kept somewhat at bay by numbers, but rather it appears that the extremists are slowly pushing out the last vestiges of the old Progressive Conservatives (or those who will not convert to their particular way of thinking...)

A Good Decision - If Unsurprising

I can't say I'm surprised by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal's decision regarding civil marriage commissioners and gay marriages.

The logic of the decision is pretty simple - civil marriage is just that - CIVIL marriage. At that level, they are carrying out a service as agents of the government, not as agents of their particular faith community. As agents of the government, marriage commissioners are obliged to treat all citizens equally.

Predictably, Canada's right wingnut religionists have begun complaining:

“What we are seeing now is that step by step religious rights in Canada have been diminished while homosexual rights have been accelerated by the appointed unaccountable judges,” Landolt told LifeSiteNews.com. “This decision means that religious rights have been pushed to the side once again in favour of judge-made homosexual rights. If there were genuine equality between these two competing rights, then both should have equal recognition under the law which has been denied by this decision.”

“Canada has suffered a severe loss to its collective rights and identity today,” said Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) Executive Director and General Legal Counsel Ruth Ross, in a press release.

Where, might I ask, is there any "restriction" being laid upon what an individual believes? I don't see anyone saying that an individual must like the idea of a same-sex marriage. Rather, what we see is that where government functions are concerned, they must be carried out on behalf of all citizens equally.

Tough Boy Harper

When I read brain dead crap like this, I keep getting visions of Harper and his bunch doing their best imitation of gangsta:

One who willfully promotes and participates in destructive and self-serving culture in an effort to project a particular image of 'toughness' or to make oneself intimidating. Willingness to blatantly and horrifically misuse English is a necessity, as is a low IQ and sub-par education (or at least the appearance thereof).

While Harper's busy getting all excited over his new "tough guy" image - being rooted on by Bush, he further bolsters his ego (which has inflated at a rate exceeding that of his gut), by trying to slag his opponents:

Mr. Dion "is not just soft on crime," Mr. Harper said. "For the first time in history we have a leader of the opposition who is soft on terrorism."

The Liberal Leader, Mr. Harper said, "is being led by extremist elements in his own caucus."

Wow - coming from a man whose knowledge and understanding of our own legal system is dicey at best, that a real slam, isn't it?

Let's talk about parties and extremists for a moment. First, we have Harper being run by the TheoCons ... and the TheoCons are willing to brag about it!

We have a Prime Minister who has admitted that he wants to stack the judiciary with judges who are political allies. (Note that a judge's job is to interpret the law, not to "interpret the law as Stephen Harper would like")

Lurking within his party organization, we have Jason Kenney, Rob Anders, Darrel Reid. This is a man who listens to the insane rantings of Gwendolyn Landolt, and he's accusing Dion of "extremism"?

Somebody's Having A Tantrum At CFAC

It seems that someone left the children over at 'Canada Family Action Coalition' with the passwords to the computers, and they've been having quite the little hissy fit this month.

It seems that Mr. Rushfeldt and his companions over at CFAC don't much like a recent series of human rights rulings and complaints that have emerged in the last months of 2007.

Unsurprisingly, much of their tirade is a call for human rights commissions to be abolished in Canada. This is neither surprising nor atypical for extreme right-wingnut "Christianity" who seem to believe that their "god-given right" to spew supercedes all other rights.

Consider the following from one of their screeds:

Human Rights Commissions are akin the Court Challenges Program that was thankfully "killed" federally. Human Rights cases are cases where taxpayer dollars are being used to undermine the very tenant of our Charter. The Charter's Clause 2 - every Canadian has the right to freedom of speech -has become absolutely meaningless.

Really? It has? Or has Mr. Rushfeldt & Co. simply lost sight of the reality that rights exist in contention with each other.

The cheering over the dissolution of the "Charter Challenges" program speaks to the real agenda at play here. Under that program, it was possible for very small minorities to get the funding necessary to actually drive a case to the Supreme Court in this country. Without it, it is a prohibitively expensive process to challenge the government at all when it puts laws on the books that one believes are in violation of Canada's Constitution.

What CFAC is really angling for is the right to spew whatever dubious "truths" about people (especially GLBT people it would seem, although more recently they are picking up the fear of Islam from loons like Mark Steyn as well) without any fear of being held to account for the veracity of those "truths".

Here is a line out of the Alberta Act that should frighten all citizens: Procedural rules: (2) Evidence may be given before a human rights panel in any manner that the panel considers appropriate, and the panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence in judicial proceedings.

If that is not enough to make you shudder hear this one: Protection from giving evidence:40(1) No member of the Commission, nor the director of the Commission or any other employee mentioned in section 18, shall be required by any court to give evidence relative to information obtained for the purposes of this Act. (2) No proceeding under this Act shall be deemed invalid by reason of any defect in form or any technical irregularity.

So errors, omissions, even false statements can not be grounds for a " mistrial". Do those clauses mean that the Commission is above the law then? Or is there any law that applies to the function of human rights appointees?

This is patently false at both the provincial and federal levels in Canada. A Rights Tribunal ruling can be appealed to the courts, a which time a more rigorous approach to evidence becomes significant. At the level of the tribunal, certain amounts of hearsay and inference are going to be necessary, as rights cases often are the result of actions far less blatant than Boissoin's letter.

For those who believe that discrimination and bigotry are truly the ugly underside of civil society, a body of law around human rights is vitally important, and the means for it to be arbitrated without drowning our courts in otherwise minor matters. The religious right wing, having lost their battle over SGM have now turned their eyes on Canada's human rights laws.

My Canada is multicultural, tolerant and willing to listen to reason. I'm not so sure that same vision is reflected in the ranting tirades of CFAC or for that matter Gwen Landolt of "Real Women", who has a lengthy diatribe on her organization's website bemoaning how human rights law steps all over religion.

CanWest Slipping Towards Bankruptcy

As CanWest's financial troubles become more dire, it's beginning to look like Bankruptcy is a very real possibility in the coming weeks.

Potential investors including Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. want the Asper family to give up control of the Winnipeg, Manitoba-based company in return for a cash infusion, the newspaper said today, citing unidentified people.

At least one investor said that Chief Executive Officer Leonard Asper must step aside and that he and his siblings must eliminate a dual-class share structure that allows them to control the company, the Globe said.

Certainly, under the direction of the Aspers, CanWest has stripped the former flagships of the Southam newspaper chain of any editorial freedom. The result being a group of newspapers that spout what ever the neoCon talking point of the day is. Writers capable of being intelligent and engaging like Naomi Lakritz have become mouthpieces for right-wing drivel that might as well be written by Gwen Landolt. When the Quebecor controlled Sun Media newspapers have to come to represent a more balanced approach to journalism in comparison, one must conclude that thoughtful, intelligent journalism has truly withered under the Aspers.

I can only hope that whatever rises from the ashes of the Asper family's mismanagement of a media empire is capable of more intelligent and independent thought in its editorial boards than has been permitted from Winnipeg lately.

Dear Ms. Landolt:

...no, you do not have the right to speak for me or other Canadians.

When you wrote your "apology" to the world, along with your ideological brethren McVety and Rushfeldt, you claimed to speak for Canadians. Wrong - this is one Canadian you do not speak for, and I know I am not alone.

We are grieved and troubled as we consider the impact this is having in weakening the fundamental institution of marriage in countries and cultures around the world. We understand that because Canada does not impose citizenship or residency requirements in order for same-sex individuals to be “married” here, couples are coming to Canada to seek legal sanction for their homosexual relationships with the intent of returning to their own countries to challenge those countries’ legal definition of marriage.

Frankly, your wording here is offensive in the extreme - especially to those of us who respect the notion of a civil, egalitarian society. Your use of quotation marks around the word marriage is offensive and denigrating to everybody who is married under Canadian law.

Our government and courts only considered adult “rights.” Among other things, the impact on children’s rights, children’s education, parental rights, religious rights, adoption, the economy and family law were never fully considered. Changes were implemented quickly and without a genuinely free vote in our federal parliament.

Ummm...frankly this entire paragraph is pure assertion, and blind bullshit. You are inferring negative impact without so much as one iota of comprehensible reasoning. Of course, you come from the same group of narrow-minded pinheaded thinking that insists that a child who sees a gay couple is going to be irrevocably damaged for the rest of their life. (Oddly - this runs contrary to rational research which finds otherwise, but then, nobody expects you to be rational)

Rob Ford's re-Election Strategy

After reading this, I wonder just who from Harper's inner circle is advising their campaign?

In another pointed jab at the gay community, Doug Ford accused the mother of a gay son of “bullying” for accusing Rob Ford of homophobia.Rob Ford has begun his mayoral campaign by saying that hedeliberately avoids the Pride festival and vocally opposing the city’s decision to fly a rainbow flag during the Olympics in solidarity with the gay community in Russia. Doug Ford, his brother’s campaign manager, has complained that Pride involves “buck naked men.”On the second episode of their YouTube campaign show, released on Tuesday, Rob Ford read aloud a letter from a Scarborough mother who said she is hurt by his actions and called him “homophobic.”“This is about being patriotic to our country,” Ford said to the camera. “I am not homophobic. I will go to anyone’s house, anyone’s place, to help them out. I take offence when people say that to me.”Doug Ford said: “You know how many gay friends that we have? People that have worked on our campaign. So you may want to try to bully us into things, but — that’s how I feel sometimes, Rob. I feel like I’ve been bullied into something.”

This is hallmark tactics out of the far right these days - attack on one front, and then when you get blowback, start dog-whistling to the extremists in your base.  

It is a zero-sum game.  Any criticism must be eradicated.  If you can do it in a way that reinforces the support of your "base", so much the better.

I don't know how much of Ford Nation is staunchly So-Con, but clearly they have gained a prominent voice on the shoulder of the brothers Ford.  This is clearly dog-whistling to the supporters of people like Gwen Landolt and Charles McVety.

Of considerable note is the conflation of Rob Ford's opposition to flying the Pride flag outside of Toronto's city hall with "patriotism".

“This is about being patriotic to our country,” Ford said to the camera. “I am not homophobic. I will go to anyone’s house, anyone’s place, to help them out. I take offence when people say that to me.”

This position conflates opposition to Russia's anti-gay politics and patriotism relative to Canada.  Yet, among Canada's athletes at Sochi are no doubt LGBT persons, so how is sending a message of solidarity to them and the LGBT community at home "unpatriotic"?

Of course, it isn't.  But that won't stop them from trying to confuse things in the minds of voters.  This tactic has been used before, and the results weren't pretty.  One can only hope that the voters of Toronto are smart enough to see this for what it is.

Part of me wonders if this isn't a trial balloon for tactics that the CPC is planning for the proposed 2015 election campaign.

Standby On The Fainting Couches ...

This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down our countries archaic laws on prostitution.

Predictably, the Con$ who report to PMSH are wagging their fingers at the Supreme Court:

Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the government was "concerned" by the ruling, and is "exploring all possible options to ensure the criminal law continues to address the significant harms that flow from prostitution to communities, those engaged in prostitution, and vulnerable persons." 

Meanwhile, Employment Minister Jason Kenney raised the spectre of judicial activism — saying legislators, not judges, should be making the law. It's a topic Prime Minister Stephen Harper has complained about as recently as this week. 

"My own view is the judiciary should be restrained of the exercise of overturning a democratic consensus. Having said that we of course respect the independence of the judiciary and its role," said Kenney. 

The high court struck down all three prostitution-related prohibitions — against keeping a brothel, living on the avails of prostitution and street soliciting — as violations of the constitutional guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person.

Kenney's words are particularly troublesome, as they grossly misrepresent what is going on here. The court has not "overturned a democratic consensus" at all.  The court has overturned laws which are out of date and violated fundamental principles of this country's constitution.

Of course, right on cue, the pearl clutching set over at Lifesite are falling onto their fainting couches:

According to Gwen Landolt, a lawyer and national vice president of REAL Women, the Supreme Court “seems to be in a tizzy” because it has disregarded the basic legal principle that the court stand by its previous rulings. She noted that the Supreme Court had upheld the ban on solicitation in 1990. 

“It’s no longer the court of last resort. It’s now the court of interim resort,” she said. “Everything is up for grabs now. They’ll just change their minds according to the current trend.” 

“The only positive thing coming out of this is that we know the prostitution law was not strong enough to protect women and the community,” she said. “Now we hope the Conservative government will go back and create a law that will provide proper protection for women and for the communities.” 

 Uh yeah, Gwen - "the current trend" is actually evidence-based...