There is no question that we are living in difficult times. Our culture is undergoing great strain in a struggle between those who support a secular, materialistic society, where no restrictions are placed on sexual and other behaviour, and those who wish a society which respects the law, basic human rights and freedoms and the values which have proven to be worthy over years of experience.
The reasons for this difficult conflict of values are many. However, we can identify those agencies, organizations and individuals who are pressing the case for a more liberal society with unrestricted sexual liberties. At the same time, they demand that society adapt to their values exclusively, backed up by financial penalties and open public contempt and derision for those contradicting them - charging that it is “intolerant” to disagree with them.
We have outlined below the major institutions and individuals who are currently attempting to impose their questionable values on society.
In the next issue of REALity (Jan/Feb 2010), we will deal with what we can do about this situation.
Human Rights Commissions
The self-righteous determination by Human Rights Commissions to zealously impose their “politically correct” nonsense on Canadians is unbearable. Their victims are now legion: Macleans and Catholic Insight magazines, writer Mark Steyn, publisher Ezra Levant, religious leader Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, and Pastor Stephen Boissoin of Red Deer are just a few of their more recent victims. Who are the arrogant individuals appointed to these Commissions and paid for by our tax dollars to torment us with their capricious agendas? We must at least de-claw them and send them off to hide in a dark corner – away from decent, law-abiding citizens who dare to think independently and to freely express their own thoughts. To accept the right of the free speech of others, regardless of whether one agrees with them, constitutes the high point of a civilized democracy. We are neither civilized nor a democracy with our Human Rights Commissions dehumanizing us. The attempt by the Commissions to intimidate us, and to herd us into mindless obedience is deeply offensive. We must not become subservient to these capricious dictators.
Intolerant Homosexuals
Homosexual activists have one worldview – namely, anyone who doesn’t agree with them, is intolerant and a bigot. They, themselves, are filled with intolerance. They object to those who express opposition to them, whether this opposition is faith-based or otherwise. The democratic process is not for them. Intimidation is their weapon of choice.
This mode of operation became most vivid in the aftermath of the referendum in November, 2008 in California, which overturned the 4-3 decision of the California Supreme Court, that May, to legalize same-sex marriages. The referendum on this court decision, called Proposition 8, overruled the court decision 52% to 48%. Homosexual activists went berserk. They began to trample on religious freedom, as well as on the democratic right to freely vote and to have independent beliefs. They did this by way of protests, marches, witch-hunts on individuals and businesses that supported Proposition 8 and vandalism of religious buildings and church services – all in the name of “tolerance”. The homosexual reaction to Proposition 8 was an out-of-control wildfire of hate.
Homosexual Intimidation
Although a broad based coalition of Jews, Muslims, Evangelicals, Catholics, Sikhs and Hindus supported Proposition 8 (the Episcopalian [Anglican] Church was one of the rare exceptions), homosexual activists turned their hatred especially on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), which is a strong promoter of family and traditional marriage. The Church, acting on its beliefs, put its heart, soul and money (approximately $25M) into promoting the passage of Proposition 8. Frustrated homosexual activists thus used the Mormon Church as the primary scapegoat for their crippling loss on the referendum. Protests were staged at Mormon temples in California and, in New York, Mormon churches were vandalized. The church is now being charged with election violations and its tax-exempt status is being challenged by homosexual activists. The depth of homosexual hatred was apparent in their ad to oppose Proposition 8, released just before voting day, which portrayed two Mormon missionaries invading and ransacking a lesbian couple’s home, rifling through their belongings, and destroying their marriage license. This ad was unabashed religious hatred. Letters containing a white powder (obviously mimicking anthrax) were sent to the Mormon Salt Lake City headquarters in Utah and to a temple in Los Angeles. Homosexual activists also called for a boycott of Utah State, which takes in $6 million in tourism each year.
More Faith Bashing
It was not just the Mormon Church under attack, however, although the latter received more than its share of such attacks. The Catholic Knights of Columbus headquarters in New Haven, Connecticut, which also contributed to the support of Proposition 8, received an envelope containing white powder. A Christian Church in California, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, was spray painted by vandals, after homosexuals learned that the church served as an official collection point for Proposition 8 petitions. A 69-year-old Christian woman carrying a cross was spat on and her cross stomped on in San Francisco. Also in San Francisco, a Christian group was swarmed by homosexual demonstrators, its members were thrown to the ground, had hot coffee thrown at them, were urinated on, and sexually attacked. A Christian Church, Mount Hope Church in Lansing Michigan, was interrupted in the middle of its services by homosexuals who threw flyers and condoms at the congregants and placed an obscene banner over the pulpit.
Cities, such as Seattle, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York had homosexuals marching around city halls to demand same-sex marriage. In Washington, D.C., protestors held signs saying, “This means War,” “Jesus had two daddies,” and “If I can’t have a husband, I’ll steal yours.”
Homosexual protestors boycotted business owners who supported Proposition 8. Names of individuals who contributed to the referendum were publicized and subjected to boycotting and other pressures. The artistic director at California’s largest non-profit musical theatre company was forced to resign amid protests over his $1,000 donation to the Proposition 8 campaign.
This latter strategy of publicizing the names of individuals and businesses which support traditional marriage was also used recently with same-sex marriage on the ballots in Maine and Washington in November. Marriage supporters there were faced with the possibility that their names will be released to the public. It is obvious that the purpose of this is to intimidate people. By the way, Maine voters in the referendum held in November rejected last spring’s decision of the State Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage.
At the Miss USA Pageant, held in April 2009, the contestant, Carrie Prejean, a Christian, was asked by homosexual judge and celebrity gossip, Perez Hilton, for her views on same-sex marriage. She spoke in support of marriage between and man and a woman and thereby promptly lost the crown to the runner-up. Ms Prejean sued the Pageant in August. In early November, the Pageant and Ms. Prejean reached a confidential settlement of the lawsuit.
Homosexual Intolerance in Canada
Homosexuals in Canada have been quick to lay complaints with their favourite human rights tribunals against anyone contradicting their worldview, especially religious leaders. School boards (Surrey B.C. School Board) and universities (Trinity Western) have been brought to court, charged with “hate” and discrimination for expressing views contrary to those of homosexual activists. Why must those with a religious faith be silenced by homosexual activists in the name of tolerance?
Intolerance by the Media in Canada
It is difficult to feel regret for the diminishing power and influence of the mainstream media, especially newspapers (see REALity July/August 2008 “Newspapers Experiencing Sharp Decline in Circulation”, p.1). The latter have consistently supported only the liberal or left wing approach to issues, no matter what the issue – abortion, same-sex marriage, drug injection sites, sexual swinging, etc. We can always count on a lack of balance in most newspapers and in other media reports.
A blatant example of media bias occurred in Canada in 2003, when the Globe and Mail gleefully gave its “Nation Builder” award – awarded to those who have made a special contribution to Canada – to Chief Justice Roy McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal who “swept away the last obstacles to same-sex marriage in Canada”. Same-sex marriage - a “nation builder”? Only a prejudiced newspaper could have come up with that idea. No mention was ever made in the media that McMurtry had a direct conflict of interest in the defining court case, since he had a daughter living in a lesbian relationship, which relationship was legalized by his decision. In addition, he also ordered that handsome payments of court costs be paid to the lawyers retained by the homosexual activists, who argued the legal challenge against traditional marriage. Judge McMurtry then topped off his homosexual support by partying with the homosexual litigants, along with Madame Justice L’Heureux Dubé, on June 26, 2003 – several weeks after the decision was handed down. Mr. McMurtry (now thankfully retired) was a judge who lacked honour and integrity, and was a political activist hiding inside a judge’s gown.
Intolerance of Judges
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, imposed by Prime Minister Trudeau in 1982, has given unlimited power to appointed, unaccountable judges. The latter relish their role as the decision makers rather than as interpreters of the law. No one appearing before Canadian courts can doubt the power of this exclusive club of political activists.
For example, a handful of appointed judges in the Canadian courts suddenly discovered a constitutional right to same-sex marriage – a right, never noticed before. Madame Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé of the Supreme Court of Canada made no secret of her bias and personal belief that she was ordained to set this country right by declaring same-sex marriage a fundamental right. She did this boldly in public speeches, made at a conference on same-sex marriage, held in London, England in July 1999, in a speech on Domestic Partnerships at Queen’s University on October 21 and 23, 1999, and at a party celebrating the same-sex marriage victory in the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 26, 2003 when she stated:
… courts have been at the forefront of this [homosexual] evolution not to say revolution. It’s fascinating that the courts played a unique role…the Ontario Court of Appeal handed out, I am told, as I have not read it yet, one of the most perfect decisions on an issue which was difficult. It took a lot of courage…Canadian law owes [the courts] a great deal.
Contrary to Judge L’Heureux-Dubé’s silly, self-serving comments, the appointment of a lawyer to the Bench doesn’t give him/her any special knowledge or insight – only the apparent right to impose his/her personal views on the public.
In the US, thirty-one (31) states have passed amendments to their constitutions to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. These amendments were made necessary because of the danger presented by arrogant judges, as in Canada, who see themselves above the law – indeed, creators of the law.
The practice of using the courts and their obliging judges to rewrite laws and create “rights” must end. The courts have become the most dangerous branch of government because there is no control over them. They are a disgrace to democracy. Who can respect them? Who wants the present-day dysfunction? Only the left-wing activists who rely on them to achieve their objectives by doing an end-run around Parliament, which is the democratic foundation on which this country is built.
Conclusion
Although the current situation in Canada is dire, this does not mean that Canadians are helpless victims of it. The intolerance now on display in this country does not mean we can do nothing to put a stop to it.
In the next issue of REALity (Jan/Feb 2010) we will deal with what can be done about this deterioration of society.
|
