Oh That's A Surprise

It seems that CTS Television has just dumped McVety's Word TV program:

CTS (Crossroads Television System) regrets that Word TV will no longer be broadcast due to its lack of compliance with the CTS Code of Ethics to which Word TV agreed under contract.

Last week, its producer and host, Dr. Charles McVety erroneously communicated that CTS was being pressured to censor Word TV; these comments are inaccurate and misleading. The fact is that Word TV failed to keep its agreement to comply with the CTS Code of Ethics and indicated a refusal to comply in the future. Unfortunately, numerous attempts by CTS to work with Dr. McVety were unsuccessful.

Cue the violins, I'm sure McVety's going to be bleating that he's a martyr even louder now.

In spite of the fact that the issue is much simpler - McVety was distorting the truth to suit his political agenda.

Charles McVety ... Martyr?

Last week, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council made public a ruling on a series of complaints about things McVety had said on his program Word.ca.

Predictably, this week, we find him playing the martyr card, instead of taking responsibility for his own actions.

McVety has fired back at the ruling against his TV show, singling out the head of broadcasting council.

"We should not have Mr. Ron Cohen, a bureaucrat, tell me what my opinions can be and what my opinions can't be," McVety said.

A statement on the show's website referred to the broadcasting body as "thought police" that launched "a vicious attack against Word TV," it said.

"Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of speech, opinion, press and religion," the statement continued.

Ummm...no, Mr. McVety, nobody is telling you what your opinions can and cannot be. The issue has more to do with how you present them ... somehow, it seems that lies and blatant distortion are seen as a bad thing...

Let's go take a look at the decision itself:

Errors of Fact: Human Rights Tribunal “Conviction” Rates

In dealing with both the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC), host McVety has either carelessly or purposefully misled his audience when he referred (in both cases) to the “one hundred per cent conviction rate” of both regulatory bodies. The Panel assumes that the host was, on that basis, attempting to impugn any decision emanating from those tribunals as unfair, biased, distorted and unworthy of the public’s trust. Leaving aside the host’s mistaken (and judgment-laden) use of the words “convict” and “conviction” in this context, whatever his motivation, his allegation of an undisputed, unmarred “conviction” record is incorrect and misleading to Word TV’s viewers.

In the case of Alberta, the decision record of the AHRC was, to pick the three years prior to the December 2009 broadcast, as follows: in 2007, three complaints were upheld and five were dismissed; in 2008, five were upheld and six were dismissed; and in 2009, two were upheld and two were dismissed. In other words, of the 23 Commission/Tribunal decisions in that period, 43% were sustained and 57% were dismissed. This is far from the 100% McVety had posited, and constitutes a serious distortion of the facts.

In the case of Ontario, the decision record of the HRTO is not dissimilar. In 2007, six complaints were upheld and three were dismissed; in 2008, seven were upheld and 27 were dismissed (of these, 21 could be characterized as procedural or jurisdictional dismissals, but they were dismissals nonetheless); in 2009, for reasons unknown to the Panel (likely procedural or administrative), the number of decisions jumped significantly; however, a review of a random block of 78 of these resulted in seven complaints upheld and 71 dismissed. As in the case of the AHRC, this is very far from the 100% McVety had posited, and constitutes an equally serious distortion of the facts.

In short, McVety lied to his viewers - and not just a small lie, but a gross distortion of the facts.

Errors of Fact: The Criminalization of Commentary

The single most egregious and misleading assertion by host McVety was his November 8 assertion that, in his words, “it is now a crime to speak against homosexuality. Yes, I said a crime. Bill C-250 went through our Parliamentary system and made it a crime for anyone to speak against sexual orientation.” That is wrong. All Bill C-250 did was to add to the list of protected categories of identifiable groups in Sec. 318(4) (namely, “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin”) and, by reference, Sec. 319(1) and 319(2) of the Criminal Code, the words “or sexual orientation”. In other words, the substance of the Criminal Code provisions dealing with the advocating of genocide and the public incitement of hatred remained unchanged. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Bill C-250 only renders the genocide and hate provisions consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which, nearly ten years before, had read “sexual orientation” into Sec. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its decision Egan v. Canada [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, in which Mr. Justice La Forest stated:

I have no difficulty accepting the appellants’ contention that whether or not sexual orientation is based on biological or physiological factors, which may be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated grounds. [Emphasis added.]

In any event, it is not a crime to merely “speak against” homosexuals, or members of any of the other groups identified in Sec. 318(4). Crimes are a serious matter. In order for Sec. 319 to be invoked, an accused must be found to have intended, in making the offending statements, to incite or promote hatred, or must have had knowledge that making the statements would have created a substantial certainty that hatred would be promoted. It cannot be forgotten that, as the Supreme Court said in R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697,

The word "hatred" further reduces the scope of the prohibition. This word, in the context of s. 319(2), must be construed as encompassing only the most severe and deeply felt form of opprobrium. [Emphasis added.]

On the issue of freedom of expression itself, the Court also stated in that decision:

Section 319(2) of the Code does not unduly impair freedom of expression. [...] This section does not suffer from overbreadth or vagueness; rather, the terms of the offence indicate that s. 319(2) possesses definitional limits which act as safeguards to ensure that it will capture only expressive activity which is openly hostile to Parliament's objective, and will thus attack only the harm at which the prohibition is targeted. [...] [W]hile other non-criminal modes of combating hate propaganda exist, it is eminently reasonable to utilize more than one type of legislative tool in working to prevent the spread of racist expression and its resultant harm. To send out a strong message of condemnation, both reinforcing the values underlying s. 319(2) and deterring the few individuals who would harm target group members and the larger community by communicating hate propaganda, will occasionally require use of the criminal law. [Emphasis added.]

It is the view of the Panel that the host’s statement that “it is now a crime to speak against homosexuality” is factually incorrect and misleading to the audience. It is a gross distortion of the serious reason for the creation of a protection in the criminal law in order to give effect to the Parliamentary goal of prohibiting the incitement of hatred against identifiable groups. Any broadcaster may disagree with the adoption of such a criminal remedy by the Government, but, once adopted, no broadcaster ought to distort its meaning or effect. It would be correct to assert that “it is now a crime to incite hatred against homosexuals” (in the circumscribed conditions of the Section); it is not correct to assert that “it is now a crime to speak against homosexuality.”

Yet another point where McVety has lied to his audience. My, we're doing well here, aren't we?

Let's move along to how McVety chose to portray the proposed changes to Ontario's Sex Education curriculum.

Mis-characterizations: What the Curriculum Teaches Children

The host is, as noted above, entirely free to disagree with the proposed Government curriculum changes favouring openness and diversity. That would be fair enough, but apparently not far enough to suit him. He has characterized the school issue in the following way on the January 17 program: “All of these sexual practices to be taught to our children in our schools. When we send little Johnny and little Jane to school, [it’s] not to learn to be homosexuals and lesbians.” He then attributes the curriculum modification proposals to “an activist group”, whose members “have an insatiable appetite for sex, especially with young people.” There is not a shred of evidence offered in support of this clearly excessive characterization of the Government’s motivation and the alleged criminal practices of the proposers of the curriculum changes. On the January 24 episode, he again refers to “this activist, homosexual activist agenda.” Overall, the McVety comments go a considerable step beyond those dealt with by the Prairie Regional Panel in CKRD-AM re Focus on the Family (CBSC Decision 96/97-0155, December 16, 1997). That Panel said:

While Focus on the Family is free to describe the homosexual lifestyle as sinful, as did Life Today with James Robison [see CHCH-TV re Life Today with James Robison (CBSC Decision 95/96-0128, April 30, 1996)], the program under consideration here has gone much further. It has treated support for the movement as “flimsy” and has disparaged that support (see, for example, the dismissal of a study authored by a gay activist with the general statement that “like all gay science, it really has very flimsy foundations”). Moreover, it has attributed to the gay movement a malevolent, insidious and conspiratorial purpose, a so-called “agenda”, which, in the view of the Council, constitutes abusively discriminatory comment on the basis of sexual orientation, contrary to the provisions of Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

In sum, the Panel finds that the characterization of the revised curriculum as one designed to teach homosexuality is utterly wrong. The proposed curricular revisions are intended to teach tolerance. McVety is entitled to disagree that such teaching of tolerance should be tolerated but his twisting of the purpose of the revisions is wrong-headed, unfair and improper.

Hmmm...let's see, twisting things and distorting the facts. Last I checked, that's yet another form of lie - and no better than any other lie.

Perhaps we should look at the nature of his characterizations of Gay Pride parades ...

Mis-characterizations: Gay Pride Parades

The Panel notes that the Gay Pride events, including the parades associated with Pride Week, have become quite mainstream. This hardly means that homosexual activities are, or need be, everyone’s cup of tea. Once again, the Panel has no difficulty with the broadcast of a critical position regarding the funding of LGBT events, but the constant accusation of “sexual perversion” levelled at the parades, the labelling of the parades as “sex parades”, and the argument that advertising for Pride events promotes sex with children (and specifically “there’s boy, young boys and young girls and you can do whatever you want with them”) and “underage people” are disparaging and unacceptable. The latter is another important recurring implication, if not an outright accusation in the dialogue between host McVety and his guest Brian Rushfeldt, namely, that gays prey on young boys and girls, on “underage people”. McVety may not like homosexuality. That is his entitlement, but to leave the totally unsubstantiated impression that gay and lesbian adults have a predilection toward young, underage people is insidious and unacceptable.

In all, the Panel finds the McVety mis-characterizations as excessive, inappropriate, disparaging, and abusive and consequently in breach of the Human Rights Clauses of both Codes, as well as Clauses 6 and 8 of the CAB Code of Ethics. It also considers that, given the central role that the manifestation of gay pride plays in the LGBT world, the immediately preceding comments constitute a derision of the traditions and practices of that community, and hence a contravention of Clauses 6 and 3 of the Equitable Portrayal Code.

My goodness, yet another lie perpetrated by misrepresenting the facts and distorting things.

I'm positive that Mr. McVety must have done all these things in error. Surely a man of the cloth such as he couldn't have forgotten what Scripture has to say about lying?

Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

Leviticus 6:2 "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;" ... 6:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:
6:7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.

I'm just guessing here, but I don't imagine Mr. McVety sacrificed a ram for each of the shows in question...

Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight."

Proverbs 13:5 "A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame."

Now, Mr. McVety, before you go running off at the mouth about the evilness of others, I suggest you take a long hard look at what your oh-so-precious scripture says about what you're about to say when you sit in judgment over others.

For the rest of the population, you might want to think twice before taking anything McVety says about Bill C-389 seriously.

Bill C-389: A Rational Perspective

Unlike the insane paranoid shrieking of Canada's religious right wingnuts, today's editorial in The Globe and Mail has some very intelligent things to say.

Transsexual and transgendered individuals expose the shortcomings of our narrow categories. Because they trouble this vision of male and female, they have been “socially erased,” to borrow a term from Concordia Professor Viviane Namaste. The result is a serious dearth in understanding concerning trans identities and everyday experience.

This lack of understanding can take on many forms, from workplace discrimination to physical, emotional and sexual violence. The lack of education concerning the existence of trans people and their various societal contributions has a significantly negative impact on this demographic. Many trans people, especially transsexual women from visible minorities, struggle to gain access to education, employment, health care and essential social services. As a result, many trans persons are placed at high risk of impoverishment, illness, homelessness and violence.

... and ...

Mr. McVety’s use of the language of pedophilia, and other forms of sexual predation, criminal opportunism and violence within female-specific spaces serves as a perfect example of the pathologization, criminalization and fear-mongering that continues to mark the lives of those within the trans communities.

There's more, and it is well written. Read It

Baying At The Moon

I see that Chuck McVety has opened his yap on Bill C-389.

“As adults, we can handle these things,” Mr. McVety said. “But my daughter turned 13 on Saturday, and I don’t want some guy showering beside her at the local swimming pool.”

The worst-case scenario, he said, would be if someone like convicted killer Russell Williams, who photographed himself dressing in women’s lingerie, could demand protection under human-rights legislation after being found in a gender-restricted space. “That would absolutely horrific.”

That was entirely predictable from the alarmists like McVety. First of all, I don't know of a single case where a violent rapist like Williams has been transgender - if someone would care to show me evidence of such a case, I'd like to see it. Williams was a violent murderer whose behaviour is closer to that of a rapist than it is to any transsexuals I have ever known.

As Bill Siksay points out, McVety is being a twit:

“I think this is Mr. McVety being his alarmist best, once again, when it comes to an issue of human rights, equal rights, for minorities in Canada,” he said. “There is nothing in this bill that will change our understanding of appropriate behaviour in public washrooms or in gendered spaces.”

Anyone who believes they have been a victim of voyeurism or inappropriate sexual contact in a public space can report the matter to the people who manage that space, or to the police, Mr. Siksay said.

Bingo. The fact is that transgender people who use a gender appropriate washroom aren't likely to do anything untoward. Like everyone else, transgender people use the washroom for basic bodily functions. You're more likely to find stray politicians soliciting in the men's room than a crossdressing predator in the ladies room.

Think about it for a minute - sexual predators are all about power and violence. Chances of such a person being willing to make themselves appear feminine in order to get to their prey is just about zero - that would make them their own prey, and the cognitive dissonance that would induce would be crushing to the very drive that makes them predators.

Charles McVety: Clueless AND Ignorant in one package

So, I see that Ontario Premier McGuinty has decided to drag sex education into the modern era.

Frankly, I think it's a good idea. When it is so easy for children to "learn" about sexuality via some truly awful stuff on the Internet, credible and meaningful material is needed earlier than before. I'd love it if parents actually could teach this subject to their children - but so few people can talk about sexuality openly and honestly in our society that it still ends up falling to our schools to attempt to stem the constant barrage of misconceptions and myths that permeate pop culture.

Predictably, the usual suspects have their panties in a twist:

Dr. Charles McVety, President of Canada Christian College, stated that “it is unconscionable to teach 8 year-old children [about] same-sex marriage, sexual orientation and gender identity. It is even more absurd to subject 6th graders to instruction on the pleasures of masturbation [and] vaginal lubrication, and 12 year-olds to lessons on oral sex and anal intercourse.”

“Mr. McGuinty plans to teach our children sexually explicit material that he did not give to his own,” Dr. McVety continued. “The Premier is not acting in trust. He must stop this form of corruption.”

I see ... of course, like any good prude, McVety immediately glues his eyeballs on what he thinks are salacious ideas (dear god, who would EVER think of oral sex without instructions? /sarcasm) and utterly ignores the fact that the curriculum will more than likely talk about what it is, and some of the safety steps you can take to minimize the risks that such activities can entail. (for example, using dental dams and condoms)

If McVety wants something to be shocked about, he should Google "Oral" and take a note of the first page of results - it doesn't include Oral Roberts.

What used to mostly be rumours and discussion on the school playground is pervasive in our world today. I suspect that kids are more than passing familiar with the language of sexuality long before Junior High (grade 7).

The curriculum, when you read past the emotionally loaded language of Lifesite's writers doesn't sound unreasonable:

Under the curriculum, students begin to explore “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in grade 3, as part of an expectation to appreciate “invisible differences” in others. In grade 5, a student is expected to recognize that “things I cannot control include ... personal characteristics such as ... my gender identity [and] sexual orientation.”

In addition to learning about masturbation in grade 6, the curriculum suggest that students can better understand “sexual orientation” by “reading books that describe various types of families and relationships,” including those involving two “mothers” or “fathers.” In grades 7 and 8, “preventing pregnancy and disease,” “gender identity,” and “sexual orientation” become “key topics.”

Grade 7s are expected to be taught about “using condoms consistently if and when a person becomes sexually active.” In grade 8, the use of contraception is a key component of the curriculum, and students are expected to “demonstrate an understanding of gender identity (e.g., male, female, two-spirited, transgendered, transsexual, intersex) and sexual orientation (e.g., heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual).”

I seem to remember getting some of that material in Junior High myself - although it was certainly not complete in any sense. The basics of contraception were certainly discussed, and in an era where HIV is an enormous risk, and other STIs are far from 'conquered', it seems to me not only reasonable, but prudent, to make sure that children have information available to make intelligent decisions about their sexuality as they are coming into it.

But, I wouldn't expect McVety to understand such things - after all, he's still in the world of denying sexuality exists at all.

McVety's Moralizing on the Arts

Remember Bill C-10 - and more specifically McVety bragging about his influence in it?.

Well, take a read through this little turdgem that he plopped onto the "Christian Government" website.

Following the October 14th vote, Canada’s representative of the Queen will conduct the ceremony inaugurating the nation’s next Government Representatives, Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. This official ceremony will be conducted with the backdrop of a large homosexual mural called "Androgyny", which means being both male and female.

Huh? Since when was androgyny even remotely related to homosexuality? My goodness, but McVety's reaching here...but wait, it gets better:

The homosexual lobby group EGALE, has pushed this issue for years. During the 2004 election they circulated a questionnaire to all federal candidates asking the question, "will you commit to fighting the discriminatory practice of labeling children male or female at birth?

Ummm...actually, this is a very real problem for Intersex individuals. The real problem is not assigning a gender role to the child, but the common practice of doing "corrective" surgery on the child which they may well choose quite differently when they are older.

However, it is not McVety's ludicrous attempt to tie Intersex and homosexuality together that is most disappointing, it is his statements about the picture's backstory itself:

The Governor General’s website describes the giant 20 foot mural as follows: "In the Okanagan, as in many Native tribes, the order of life learning is that you are born without sex and as a child, through learning, you move toward full capacity as either male or female. Only when appropriately prepared for the role do you become a man or woman. The natural progression into parenthood provides immense learning from each other, the love, compassion and cooperation necessary to maintain family and community. Finally as an elder you emerge as both male and female, a complete human, with all skills and capacities complete." Does the Governor General actually believe that in order to be a complete human you must be both male and female?

So, the painting itself is based not upon themes of sexuality at all. It is in fact a reflection of spirituality of some of Canada's First Nations.

McVety's whining because that spirituality doesn't align with his precious "Christianity". I don't know what notion of Christianity McVety subscribes to, but I do know it's a nasty, small-minded worldview when he cannot even find it in his heart to honor the spirituality of those who occupied this land so long before his ancestors took up residence in the early colonies.

McVety is, essentially, a cultural imperialist - as long as it is his particular notion of "Christian". What a drab world we would live in with he and his ilk dictating what is "culturally acceptable". How many voices filled with beauty would he silence? One can only imagine.

(Oh yes, just to verify that the article on "Christian Government" wasn't a forgery in McVety's name, I went over to Word.ca and looked there to verify that he was splattering the same spewage all over websites he controls directly. Sure enough.)

Like I Would Trust McVety To Sit On The Bench...

Apparently, McVety is out for blood:

A move by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin to stifle a controversy about her role in the awarding of the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler has done nothing to clear her of misconduct allegations, one of her chief critics said yesterday.

"If Canadians cannot count on non-political, non-ideological justice from the Supreme Court of Canada, it compromises the whole justice system," Charles McVety, president of the Canadian Family Action Coalition and president of the Canada Christian College in Toronto, said in an interview yesterday.

Coming from a man who is busy astroturfing his supposed support in his crusade against "evil feminist judges", it's hardly a particularly well founded complaint. First of all, McLachlin was not acting in her capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. McVety's just trying to propagate an old meme of the religious reich wing in this country - only this time he's accusing someone directly.

If I were McLachlin, I'd be busy recording every asinine word that McVety spews on the subject - There's enough fodder there for quite a libel suit.

But second and more importantly, McVety is making an accusation against Justice McLachlin that doesn't bear up under scrutiny. Essentially, he is claiming that because of her role in the OC nominations process, that her judgment in her professional role is impaired and unreasonably biased.

Coming from McVety, it's not a surprising allegation, although I think he would be hard pressed to identify any rulings that are not well grounded in law itself and existing case law that McLachlin has had a direct involvement in writing. You don't get to her position with a spotty record as a justice.

When You Can't Get Your Way...

I see that Canada's religious wingnuts have decided to go after Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin's day job for having anything at all to do with Dr. Morgentaler's Order of Canada.

Of course, as usual, they are dead wrong, and the good judge had very little to do with the nomination.

But, that isn't the interesting bit. Not only is this complaint being organized by CFAC, but a suspicious number of the organizations who have "signed" have rather direct connections to one Charles McVety - including CFAC, I might add.

Just scanning through the list, we find:

Canadian Christian College - McVety's own little private college.
Canadian College of Christian Counsellors - which mysteriously shares both address and telephone with the "Canadian Christian College" above.
Evangelical Association of Canada - Similarly shares both address and telephone with Mr. McVety's college.
Institute for Canadian Values - Again, shares resources with McVety's college.
Christians United For Israel - Which McVety is the chair of the Canadian arm.
Niagra Chapter of CFAC - I think it's safe to say who controls that group...

That makes six of the organizations who signed this letter directly associated with McVety. Smells like astroturf to me. I suspect that it wouldn't be terribly difficult to draw connections between McVety and a good number of the other signatories with a little digging. At the very least I suspect the executives of the various boards are well known to each other.

Personally, I don't think it would be a bad thing for Justice McLachlin to sue these clowns for attempting to impugn her character and professionalism.

"Dr." McVety's Wisdom...

It would seem that all of the degree mill diplomas that "Dr." Charles McVety claims to have earned (paid for) haven't exactly enhanced the man's critical thinking skills.

For example, consider the following bit of drooling stupidity published on http://www.charlesdarwin.ca.

Entitled "Sexism in Schools" sexism in schools, it attempts to portray evolution theory as outright sexist, and all of the evil things that it says to put women into a second place status in society:

Darwin’s theory of natural selection as the process for progress of a species places the developmental responsibility on the male; therefore, man is further developed than woman. The stronger, more fit man will out do the weaker man and win the woman, ultimately producing stronger offspring, contributing to the evolution of man. This conclusion that the woman plays little or no part in development leads to the belief that women have not evolved as far as man.

Ummm...no, it doesn't Mr. McVety. Even the most egregious abuse of what Darwin wrote in 'The Origin of Species' could justify that particular position.

However, even if Darwin had written precisely that in The Origin of Species, it hardly reflects the current day understanding of evolution - or science in general for that matter.

You see, unlike raving nutballs like Charles McVety, science long ago figured out that it must change as new data emerges - and plenty of data to refute whatever piece of Darwin's writing McVety is nitpicking about has come along. (Remember, Darwin wrote much of his material long before women were considered equal citizens in our society - if some of it has undercurrents of what today we would call sexism, we shouldn't be surprised).

However, I suppose McVety can be forgiven such failings, as he comes from a tradition where reading and actually interpreting things is verboten - after all scripture is the "unchanging word of God", is it not?

But, then he goes on and proceeds to drop an even better turd out of his intellectual orifice:

Evolutionists also teach that the woman resembles an eleven-year-old male therefore is clearly lesser developed than man is. This type of superficial conclusion only reveals the ignorance of so-called scientists that propagate such nonsense. They obviously do not look beyond outward appearance and have no understanding of women.

Another “brain storm” of evolution is that women are over burdened by strong senses to the point that they have no ability to develop intellectually. Evolutionists compare women to lesser developed species like dogs that have such strong noses that their minds are constantly overwhelmed by the sense of smell, so that they cannot progress mentally. This is utter nonsense and highly offensive to all mankind.

I don't even want to know where he derived that bit of nonsense from. It's beyond stupid, and lands firmly in the realm of just plain crap. If one were to make an utterly ridiculous extrapolation from observed evidence, you could probably derive whatever McVety is dribbling on about (it's fairly well known that women have more sensitive senses of sight and smell than men do - on average - but I don't think anyone with half a brain views that as anything other than a difference, especially in the context of science classes).

As for what is supposedly taught in high school science courses, I don't think it comes anywhere near to spouting the kind of drivel that McVety is manufacturing. He's actually being somewhat less coherent in his arguments than Behe was in Darwin's Black Box - a feat that I find somewhat surprising.

Mr. McVety might want to do a couple of remedial exercises - actually read "The Origin of Species", as well as one or two current day books that talk about evolution. Shouldn't be a difficult thing for a man with a PhD. to do ... if he actually earned that PhD the old fashioned way...

Canada's Wingnuts - When Facts Won't Do

There is a part of me that takes a perverse pleasure in watching the sheer stupidity of Canada's wingnut fringe.

Today, I find our friends over at one of McVety's little mouth organs decided to quote Spanish psychiatrist Enrique Rojas' comments about homosexuality from a speech he gave in Buenos Aires:

Rojas characterized homosexual orientation as a "disorder" rather than an illness, and stated his opinion that 95% of cases are caused by environmental factors, according to the Spanish news service Terra.

The disorder, according to Rojas, is the result of an absent father, overweening mother, or sexual abuse in childhood.

Once again, we see the classic canard about "bad parenting" or other "family environment" problems as a causal explanation for why someone is gay. Of course, it falls apart when one considers studies such as twins studies where although there is an increased probability that both twins will be gay if one is, that is just a probability. At 55% probability, that is pretty close to even odds - not what one would expect from a dysfunctional parenting arrangement (where I would expect the effect to be considerably more pronounced). Nor does it explain the emergence of gay children from families that are clearly quite normal.

If this clown is some "eminent" (it's amazing how as soon as one of these people says something the fundies like, they immediately grant all kinds of authority to the person's utterances) psychiatrist, it seems to me that he is lacking the requisite background in current research on subjects he is claiming to be an authority on.

Questioning McVety's Money Trail...

I don't have much time for Charles McVety on good days. I think he is an unpleasant little man who will stoop to anything to turn Canada into a Theocracy - but that's just my opinion.

Fortunately, the keepers of the Shuffl blog are a little more patient than I about the man and have done an outstanding job of tracing through McVety's little lobbying empire and revealing quite a bit about how money apparently moves around his world. (There's much that we can't see without access to McVety's books, but I imagine a forensic accountant would have a grand old time with them.)

The upshot of it all is that an awful lot of the contact pages from various organizations affiliated with McVety (CFAC, Word.ca, Institute for Canadian Values and Canadians United for Israel) all ultimately point back to telephone numbers and an address that mysteriously corresponds to Canada Christian College.

Of particular interest are observations such as how the "donations" page from Word.ca mysteriously links to the "donations" page for the "Institute for Canadian Values".

All of this doesn't actually prove that McVety is engaging in a shell game with donor's money, but one does have to wonder about how "arm's length" the relationship between known political lobby organizations (such as CVI) and McVety's college (which is a registered charity) really are. CFAC is a bit of an oddity here, since its offices are in Calgary, and I believe that Rushfeldt founded CFAC locally - although McVety is the titular President. The details of the relationship between Rushfeldt and McVety are unknown to me, but their names keep popping up together on various organizations McVety runs.

I can only imagine what would turn up if Revenue Canada actually did an audit of the books for the various organizations that McVety is affiliated with - and the financial shell-games that are being played to fund the various political lobby organizations.

In any case, the donation pages along with the suspicious collision of offices makes me wonder aloud about whether or not donations actually go where people think they are going in the first place.

So, Charles, Just How Do You Define "Public Interest"?

Since Charles McVety is so hot to trot about the film credits censorship clauses in Bill C-10, I thought I'd like to consider McVety's arguments as recorded by the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Rushfelt said the Conservative government proposal to refuse tax credits to productions that are "contrary to public policy" would limit only one avenue of federal funding for objectionable films and television shows.

So "this bill, in our opinion, may not go far enough," he said. "It deals with tax credits more than grants and subsidies as incentives, as we understand it. But it is a start."

(BTW - Rushfeldt is one of McVety's verbal puppets, put forth to make it look like McVety actually has the backing of people who don't think he's a complete loon)

Is anyone else here a little freaked out by the use of the phrase "contrary to public policy" here? "Public Policy" is a phrase that politicians pull out of their ass on a regular basis, and it changes almost as rapidly as the weather in Calgary.

The accusations of censorship are clearly out of line, said Mr. Rushfeldt. "And I would like to suggest to the committee here that maybe there be some investigation of the films that we've paid for over the last - now I don't expect you to go back 40 years - but certainly over the last three or four years, possibly. We need to look at what films did get funding and did they meet standards, if there were any."

Dr. McVety repeatedly pointed to a movie called Young People Fucking - which he referred to as "Young People F-ing" - and another called The Masturbators as examples of pornography that have qualified for the tax credits.

Okay, so there's some movies that McVety and Rushfeldt don't like. Big deal. Who the heck appointed them as the arbiters of "public policy"? They happen to believe that those shows are "bad" or "against the public interest". But, just what does that mean? How would that be decided?

While I certainly have little desire to watch the movies cited as examples, I don't profess to sit in judgment over whether they have any particular merit, either.

However, it really has more to do with McVety's overbearing desire to ram his particular sense of morality down the throats of Canadians:

Breakfast with Scot, released last fall, is about a gay ex-hockey player and his partner caring for a young orphan who displays less-than-masculine tendencies.

"(It) is about an 11-year-old boy who is being raised by a homosexual Toronto Maple Leaf to be a homosexual," said McVety. "... This is not something that the government should be (funding)."

So, the problem here is not that 'Breakfast With Scot' is some kind of "adult movie", but rather the fact that one of the characters happens to be gay?

Toronto-based filmmaker Laurie Lynd said he was "appalled" by McVety's description of his movie.

"The film is a gentle family comedy about self-acceptance and loving your child for whoever he or she is," Lynd said in an interview. He added that losing public financing just before production "could have killed the film completely."

Returning briefly to the IMDB entry on the show, and the plot synopsis in particular:

When 11 year old Scot arrives and they open his duffle bag, inside they find... one pink musical hairbrush, two plastic containers of beads and faux-gold chains, a pink poodle belt, and four pairs of white sock-ettes with lacy fringe at the top... they realize Scot is more out of the closet then they are even though he does not know it yet. A unique boy in an even more unusual situation, Scot throws Ed and Sam's life into complete disarray.

Okay, I get it. With the exception of having GLBT themes, this is a pretty classic style of comedy plot line. Hardly any more offensive than hundreds of other movies out there. So what's McVety's issue here? Nothing more than his ever burgeoning desire to declare anything to do with GLBT folk "off limits" - after all, if you can't see it, it's not there - right?


Of course, when pushed on defining things, McVety can't define what should be suppressed in his ideal world:

McVety would not say how he would define entertainment that is "against public policy," instead listing titles such as The Masturbators and Young People F------.

Perhaps even more amusing is the blatant dishonesty of McVety and his cohorts. Not so long ago, he was bragging about how influential he had been in getting the HarperCon$ to slide this bunch of garbage into Bill C-10. Now that the implications are becoming public knowledge, we find the following:

Dr. McVety backed away from that yesterday.

"We had no discussions about this legislation period. We didn't even know it existed. We didn't know it until The Globe and Mail called us the day after they had put this provision on the front page of their newspaper. We had zero knowledge of it. We had no specific meetings on this," Dr. McVety said.

"All we did, over the years, is we brought this to light: that our government is funding objectionable films."

So, what is it McVety? You either were directly involved in this little charade, or not. (I'm putting money on the former rather than the latter) McVety has bragged before about his connections to Harper's government, and by inference his influence.

The hypocrisy of these loons is astounding at times. Not only do they whine, bitch and bellyache about bodies like the CHRC - which have an actual process wrapped around them, but they then want to hand an astonishing amount of direct control to the whims of whatever politician happens to be sitting in a particular chair. Considering how much they supposedly value "freedom", it seems to me that McVety, and his allies within the HarperCon$, seek to exercise a greater degree of arbitrary control over the rest of us, with even less accountability than the HRC's they campaign against so vocally.

The line between art and obscenity is a fine one indeed - what I don't want to look at, another person might find to be the finest of art. McVety doesn't have a lock on "what's right" here, and without some kind of clear definition, I cannot imagine how the clauses of C-10 can possibly be implemented in a consistent and meaningful way. At best, it places the entire subject at the whim of the minister of the day - a situation that would make it nearly impossible for most media productions to ever qualify. In his zeal to control what we see and hear, McVety would have us become the dull, grey monochrome of Orwell's 1984 - our entertainments limited to the imagination of whatever the minister of the day happened to approve of.