Canadian Conservative MP Calls Christian Political Activists “Taliban” and “Flowers of Evil”

LifeSiteNews ^ | 5/9/06 | John Jalsevac

[wagglebee]

HALTON, ON, June 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The verbal sparring match began on May 28, when Conservative MP Garth Turner appeared in a television interview, alongside pro-marriage/Christian political activist Charles McVety.

The issue at hand was homosexual “marriage” in the RCMP.

During what McVety—who is involved in or represents the views of groups including Defend Marriage Canada, the Canada Christian College, and the Canada Family Action Coalition—calls a “spirited” debate, it came to the fore that one of the goals of Christian political activists is to work to ensure that anti-marriage, anti-life, anti-Christian Conservative MPs are defeated and replaced with more family-friendly and Christian candidates during the nomination meetings that will occur before the next election.

Turner responded, accusing McVety and those who share his beliefs of employing anti-democratic tactics. On his blog that same night Turner responded to McVety’s arguments, saying “I have no time for groups in our society who try to force their morals, or their culture, on the rest of us.”

He concluded his remarks saying, “Call it Defend Marriage Canada. Call it the Taliban. Fleurs de mal [Flowers of evil]” (http://www.garth.ca/weblog/page/6/). 

In a later blog entry Turner labeled those who share McVety’s political and religious views as “people who share his divine Kool-Aid,”  (http://www.garth.ca/weblog/page/5/) an apparent reference to the infamous Jonestown Massacre of 1978, during which 913 members of the Peoples Temple cult committed mass suicide by drinking grape-flavoured Kool-Aid laced with potassium cyanide. And in another post he called those who would attempt to nominate politicians whose politics is informed by their faith as “religious vigilantes,”  (http://www.garth.ca/weblog/page/2/) and elsewhere, “single-issue monochromatic militants” (http://www.garth.ca/weblog/page/6/). And elsewhere, mere paragraphs after back-pedalling and saying "No, I did not call the fundamentalism Christians Taliban," he continues and compares the very same Christians to Afghan Militant Muslims, although avoiding the explicit term "Taliban," saying, "But a faith-based government? Forget it. Our brave troops in Afghanistan spend every day tracking down and squishing the freaks who tried that one"  (http://www.garth.ca/weblog/page/2/).

Joseph Ben-Ami, Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values, expressed his confusion at Turner’s accusations that recruiting supporters to attend nomination meetings is anti-democratic.

“When Garth Turner arranges to bring his family and friends to a nomination meeting on a bus he calls it democracy, but when a challenger who happens to be brown-skinned, or perhaps a member of the local church or synagogue, does the same thing for their family and friends, he calls them Taliban and accuses them of ‘taking over’,” observed Ben-Ami.

“Garth Turner’s behaviour is a sharp illustration of the vicious and deep-rooted bigotry lurking just below the surface of the secular-left in our society,” continued Ben-Ami. “People like him claim to be champions of tolerance, but when their own ideas and positions are challenged, they resort to name-calling and fear mongering, laughably invoking the principle of tolerance to justify their bigotry.”

Jim Hughes, president of Campaign Life Coalition, a group that works to help elect pro-life candidates, said of Turner, “We said right from the beginning that Garth Turner wasn’t somebody that could be supported. A lot of people said we just have to vote Conservative regardless of the candidates. And here we’re paying the price.”

Hughes continued, saying “The Prime Minister has had this man in already and told him to clam up. Now the only thing is for his expulsion from Cabinet. That would satisfy the bulk of people who supported Mr. Harper from the life and family movement.”

LifeSiteNews.com tried to contact party leader Stephen Harper’s office to find out if an apology for Turner’s remarks was forthcoming, but was unable to speak to anyone with information on the matter prior to publishing time.

Throughout the debate Turner has also—despite his often expressed approval of a majority-based democracy—repeatedly called into question the need for a free vote on the same-sex “marriage” issue in parliament. 

In one post Turner admits that traditional-marriage supporters represent a large portion of the Canadian population: “In a moral sense,” he says, “they have a huge current behind them since most churches are solidly behind traditional marriage. In a cultural sense, many ethnic communities represented in Halton [Turner’s riding] are massively against same-sex marriage. In a political sense, these highly-motivated voters are not going to let their views be ignored.” Turner continues, admitting that he has also had strong reservations, “about the wisdom of the Liberal move to change the definition of marriage, especially without a whole lot more public input and debate.”

The Halton MP, however, dismisses the concern that the Liberal government side-stepped proper democratic processes in pushing through the same-sex “marriage” legislation, and failed to properly take into account public opinion on the redefinition of marriage.

“It is behind us,” says Turner about the passage of the legislation, “the Right has been extended, and there seems no compelling reason to take it back.” He did not say whether or not the majority of Canadians being opposed to the extension of the “right” would be a sufficient reason. Numerous polls have indicated that the majority of Canadians are indeed opposed to same-sex “marriage”. A CBC poll conducted in January of last year indicated 54% of Canadians were opposed to Bill C-38, while a National Post/Global National poll in February of the same year indicated 66% opposition.

“I’ll go down fighting to stop any faith-based group, Christian, Islamic or whatever, from using our precious political system to impose their value system and religious beliefs on the rest of us,” Turner wrote on his blog on June 6. “There’s a reason wise people decided the state and the church should be separate, and Canada – proudly multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-faith and multi-hued – is no d**n place to start gluing them back together.”

“That does not mean,” he continues by way of clarification, “we can’t be ethical, moral, responsible, principled and virtuous. In fact, our government should be an example of humanity gone nuts with goodness.”

Throughout the debate Turner has repeatedly labeled himself as a “Christian”, although it is unclear if he draws his beliefs of what is “ethical,” “moral” and “good” from his Christian faith, or from some other unnamed source.

To express your concern contact Stephen Harper at: pm@pm.gc.ca

[spatso]

I am sorry but are you guys just loopy. The entire dispute on the thread article is about a two conservative members fighting about gay issues.

"HALTON, ON, June 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The verbal sparring match began on May 28, when Conservative MP Garth Turner appeared in a television interview, alongside pro-marriage/Christian political activist Charles McVety.

The issue at hand was homosexual “marriage” in the RCMP."

Like that is the lead and the first line of the story. Do you guys never stop to read or think about this stuff or do you just keep running and posting.

[spatso]

"To: wagglebee
It is the strangest country in the world. Only a few days ago they found home grown terrorists in Canada. Now there they go again planning to talk about gay marriage, gay mounties. The two guys fighting are "supposed" to be conservatives, one is a cabinet member. They better try to get their act together pretty soon."

That is my first post, I stand by it. The issue and my question is very clear. Why are two conservative members playing pattycake over the never ending Canadian debate on gay marriage when they just discovered a major plot involving home grown terrorism.

[fanfan]

Are you going to answer any of the questions I've posed, or the statements I've made, or are you just going to continue to call names?

[Irish_Thatcherite]

It might pay you better to post to the right comment!!

[spatso]

"You might be right that this is your issue, as you haven't posted on any other threads but these two since the 8th of June."

Sorry, I did not realize you were trying to do an analysis of me and my posting patterns. But, had you looked closely, you will see that I seldom comment on more than one thread at a time. Generally, I stick to border security and religious issues and for the most part I enjoy reading the posts more than posting.
As I told you before, on a previous thread, I don't have a strong opinion on gay mounties or even gay unions, I would prefer that marriage be limited to a man and a women.
In regard to the original post being from Virginia, I concede my initial post may have been different had I understood he was not part of the Canadian posse.
On the other hand, my primary point remains. Do you not think that your experience with homegrown terrorism changes the debate? Do you really think it serves anyones best interest that two conservative members are fighting about gay marriage (on tv) during the same week the terror plot was uncovered? Is there not one person who is prepared to say some of this boy scout stuff has to be put away.
In terms of my home address, you will have to wait till I finish my information page, it will be ready soon.

[fanfan]

Do you not think that your experience with homegrown terrorism changes the debate?

On gay marriage? No.

Do you really think it serves anyones best interest that two conservative members are fighting about gay marriage (on tv)

No, it doesn't.

during the same week the terror plot was uncovered?

I don't see what one topic has to do with another.

Is there not one person who is prepared to say some of this boy scout stuff has to be put away.

Boy Scout stuff?

In terms of my home address

I don't want your home address. I want to know what area of the world you claim to be posting from.

It must be so perfect, we'd all want to live there.

[spatso]

"Do you not think that your experience with home grown terrorism changes the debate?"

"On gay marriage? No."

The home grown terrorism issue has changed the file. Canadians have always been nice people. Fine. But this is a really dangerous world and I don't know if Canadians can be trusted to do what needs to be done. This is not just my opinion but a large number of GOP senators and congressmen who see Canada as being as big a border threat as Mexico. Nothing I have seen on this thread would cause me to think differently. Indeed there seems to be almost universal denial.
I think the whole Canadian promotion of gay lifestyle sends the wrong signal. You appear to be too soft to stand up in terms of what needs to be done.

[fanfan]

I see.

What would you do in our place?

[GMMAC]

The bottom lines here are:

Almost exclusively in the publishing world, whether a piece is signed or unsigned denotes whether it constitutes an "Editorial" (e.g. the official stated policy/belief of the publication) or "commentary" (the personal opinion of the signer).

A good Stateside example would be the official endorsement by a publication of its chosen Candidate for the Presidency - in 2004, while its individual columnists (even ones with fancy titles!) may well have advanced their own choices & reasons for same, once the unsigned Editorial was published, Bush or kerry was plainly that paper's "officially endorsed" choice.

Your out of context citation not only failed this litmus test but, beyond that, was intellectually dishonest in omitting to mention that the writer's personal opinion about a Canadian issue were to large extent 'supported' by American sources & research.

Ergo, based upon your apparent 'logic', it seems any personal opinion piece published Stateside (similar to that of the likely gay or pro-gay activist whom you dug up & disingenuously presented) may quite freely employ primarily Canadian info to justify advancement of the homosexual agenda in the U.S. & fully expect to be taken seriously ???

[spatso]

What would you do in our place?

I know you don't think it is important but the gay mounties and the gay diplomats moving to Canada are symptomatic of the greater concern. Perhaps they are merely metaphors, perhaps it is entirely unfair, but the image exists that you cannot hold up your end on border security, terrorism, Iraq etc.
So, when you say border security and Canada's nice image are not related, you demonstrate that you just don't get it. Even Clinton understood, don't ask don't tell was about image and confidence. You guys have this image problem. Your perceived to be soft. On this thread, where you would expect a stronger message, the Canadian posse unites to say that anybody raising the matter must be gay or homophobic.
My views have changed somewhat since the beginning of the thread. Reading between the lines I realize that some of the posse are genuinely discouraged by the entire matter. Regardless, whether you like what I say, it would do you well to understand that you do have an image problem.

[fanfan]

So, when you say border security and Canada's nice image are not related, you demonstrate that you just don't get it.

Do not put words in my mouth.

I said terrorism and gay marriage are not related.

What you don't seem to get is that we have a democracy and free speech.

Just because there are idiots doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

I haven't quite figured out your agenda, but it's obvious you have one.

[spatso]

I have no desire to dispute the point you are making. I agreed to call it commentary rather than editorial. Now will you please respond on the substance of the commentary. If I remember, the key point is the opportunity to reverse regulations allowing gay marriage diminishes in the future.

[kanawa]

On the other hand, my primary point remains. Do you not think that your experience with homegrown terrorism changes the debate? Do you really think it serves anyones best interest that two conservative members are fighting about gay marriage (on tv) during the same week the terror plot was uncovered?

Are you thick? In high school?
What experience do you have with Canada and/or Canadians beyond what you read in the media that justifies conclusions such as this...
"I find Canadians to be incredibly defensive about this issue of "sensitivity.""?

Are you suggesting we should stop discussing any matter that you deem irrelevant and that all of us should spend 24/7 discussing terrorism as if it's the only issue of importance to us or as if we can not deal with other things while dealing with terrorism?

If you had bothered to follow some of the links in the article you would have seen that the Conservative MP was ambushed into the discussion....

"I went to a TV studio in Hamilton to shoot a piece on “Harper vs. the Media.”

At least, that’s what I thought. The mic went on the tie and the IFB went in the ear. Donna, the peppy anchor, was prepped and ready. The lights went up, tape rolled and – whammo – it was time to talk about gay marriage in the RCMP!

Now, I am happy to expound about most anything, but this is one topic I know nothing about and actually have no opinion on. So, I skated through an initial question and waited for the topic to change, only to find I was doing a double-ender with some sanctimonious blowhard named Dr. Charles McVety."

...a tactic you should find familiar.

Is there not one person who is prepared to say some of this boy scout stuff has to be put away.

Is this your agenda, that we should stop opposing the attempt to redefine marriage?
Whose interest does that serve?
Whose interest does it serve when a citizen from a conservative ruled country takes snipes at a neighboring conservative ruled country?

[fanfan]

BTTT

[fanfan]

What would you do in our place?

I asked you a very simple question.

Will you answer it?

[GMMAC]

"On this thread, where you would expect a stronger message, the Canadian posse unites to say that anybody raising the matter must be gay or homophobic."

Plainly untrue.

Several of us acknowledged our opposition to all aspects of the militant gay agenda.

I went a step further to very patiently (IMHO) explain (more than once) the likely strategy behind dealing with it.

PM Harper is - very wisely to me - sticking to many just as important issues (e.g. WOT, national security, law & order, accountability in public life) where it's easier to gain a broad consensus until such time as he gains a strong Parliamentary majority. Once this is achieved, issues related to social morality will then doubtless be addressed.

[styky]

Garth.

He's a live fuse in our otherwise sane Conservative Government.

We need to dump him but quick!

Could not agree more. How he got this far is beyond me.

[Glenmerle]

And yet, you and like-minded politicos are happy to impose your values on the rest of us

That's the dirty little secret. Every group, every person -- be they atheist, agnostic Democrat, enviromentalist, union member, whatever -- hopes to have their ideas prevail in the public square. But when Christians try to do what everyone else does, oh no, you can't have that. Sheer hypocrisy.

[spatso]

What would you do in our place?

I'm sorry I thought I had a good answer in my previous response to you. I'll try to say the same thing a different way.

I am sure the posse must be a fun thing. But for someone like me it is like dealing with waves of hornets. All coming from different directions with the sole purpose of trying to wound me. Everyone seems to want to attribute motive or find some hidden agenda in each and every post I have made. My posts are my opinions, I may be right, I may be wrong but I am prepared to stand for what I believe. If I am proved wrong, I am fine to say that I am wrong.

My primary purpose, in the political sense, for joining FR was my anger over some conservatives total disrespect of GWB on the illegal immigration issue. And, on some of those threads I have spoken harshly about what I think has been a betrayal of the President by his supporters when he is down and vulnerable. I don't have any doubt that some of his most vocal critics will be hurting themselves jumping back on the band wagon given the good news in Iraq. As you probably know my position is the minority on most threads on immigration, but many others hold the same view as I do. Some people have slammed me pretty hard and I have slammed back and then everyone moves on, a rugged individualism. But, I have never encountered anything quite like the Canadian posse.

So, specifically, if I were you what would I do? First, remember just how much self righteous crap has come out of Canada that has been uncooperative with and critical of the US. Second, don't take it personally when someone says Canada has an image problem, you do. Third, don't expect you get a free pass just because you have changed administrations, let's wait and see what the new administration does, people have memories. Fourth, don't expect that everyone is going to like you. So, when the posse acts in concert, a single voice against any critic of Canada, you diminish the chance for discussion and maybe you never get to know what others may be thinking.

[spatso]

Is this your agenda, that we should stop opposing the attempt to redefine marriage?
Whose interest does that serve?
Whose interest does it serve when a citizen from a conservative ruled country takes snipes at a neighboring conservative ruled country?

I think my very first post said what I wanted to say, basically, why are Canadians talking about this when the home terrorism story broke. I understand it was not a 9/11 experience, but it was biggest story in the entire world for a few days. So, it struck me as rather goofy that the Canadian posse started pinging each other about this story.

You might not like it, but the wonderful international image of Canada depicted by the Mountie has been replaced by the lovely couple holding hands as they walk down the aisle. This is your Canada, kind, gentle and sensitive.

So, you elect a new administration and you want everyone to be happy. So, you tell me what has changed.