Wandering through the wingnut news part of the web, I found this article which contains more carefully crafted spin than the best dodging to come out of Karl Rove.
It starts with the headline:
Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural”
and leads almost immediately with an "editorial byline" just below the headline:
Catholic Councillor had his business door vandalized with graffiti - “Homophobia Die”
I'm not going to condone the actions of those who vandalized his door, but notice the careful crafting of words to imply that he is being persecuted. After all, he didn't say anything much, other than the opinion that being gay is neither "natural or normal" ... or did he?
A Catholic city councillor in Kamloops, British Columbia, who was himself the victim of the crime of vandalism due to his faith, has been forced to apologize and pay a homosexual activist couple $1000.
The use of wording here is fascinating. First, he is "A Catholic city councillor", while the couple who lodged a complaint is "a homosexual activist couple", as if standing and demanding to be treated with a degree of dignity is making someone an evil "activist". Like the "reporting" the Byfield family used to engage in while running the "Alberta Report" magazine, this is a classic way of trying to twist the story.
Strangely, it was councillor who was shown true discrimination worthy of a human rights complaint. In June, the councillor opposed a homosexual pride proclamation, after which his barber shop was vandalized with "Homophobia Die" scrawled on the door of his business.
Oh...waitasec...so he didn't just "express an opinion" at all. Instead, he expressed that opinion in his capacity as a public person. You know, there's quite a difference between something expressed in conversation, and something that is said by a public official, acting in their public role.
In an attempt a diversion (a quite typical tactic of the wingnut crowd), the article's authors immediately point out that his business was vandalized after that proclamation, as if that somehow equalizes the discussion.
It's not the event itself that I take exception to, it's the blatant spin that is being used here. The writers are obviously insinuating that "homosexual activists" are busily conspiring to "suppress the right to express religious views". Somehow, I doubt that the councillor cited any biblical passage in making his statements, rather he simply made his assertions as "fact".
It's on schedule, with the blatantly obvious intent of creating the "crisis" of rights that Harper alluded to after the motion put forward in December was defeated.
1 comment:
It certainly is spin and a blatant attempt to deceive. These "religious persecution" cases are never as simple as the writer would like one to believe. The counselor in question did not simply state that homosexuals were unnatural, he went out of his way to discriminate. That is really what these people are after, it has nothing to do with religion at all in my opinion.
Post a Comment