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

[kanawa]

Should I compare our Diane Haskett with your Gavin Newsom
and make silly generalizations about Americans 'soft mind set'

MAYOR OF LONDON REFUSES TO BOW TO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mayor Diane Haskett of London, Ontario, refused to declare a Gay Pride Day in her city in 1995. A local homosexual association laid the usual complaint against her with the Ontario Human Rights Commission Tribunal, which found her, as usual, guilty of discrimination against homosexuals. It ordered the City of London to pay $10,000 plus interest (the maximum) to the local Homophile Association, as well as proclaim a Gay Pride Day if requested in future. The city was also ordered to issue a statement of recognition to the homosexual, lesbian and bisexual committees that they are an integral part of the city, and city officials were required to meet with the Homophile Association to promote good relations.

The City Council, led by the Deputy Mayor, Grant Hopcroft, who is an enthusiastic supporter of the Gay Pride Day, refused to allow an appeal of the case to the courts because the Council claimed that the homosexual association had been hurt and humiliated by Mrs. Haskett's actions. Ironically, the final day to appeal was on Monday, November 10th, the date of the municipal election in Ontario, in which Mrs. Haskett was seeking re-election as mayor.

However, in this case, something unusual occurred. Mayor Diane Haskett refused to bow to the Human Rights Tribunal decision. A devout Christian and a lawyer, Mrs. Haskett placed a paid ad in the London Free Press on October 22, 1997, in which she stated that she believed this Human Rights case was unfairly decided and wrong in fact and law. She stated the Commission's decision takes away fundamental freedoms that are meant to be protected by our constitution. She went on to assert her right as a Canadian to freedom of expression and she stated:

I will not bow down to the ruling of the Human Rights Commission and I am willing to bear any consequences of that. I will not offer any proclamations, either presently, or in the future. In fact, let me make it clear that I intend to cease from making any proclamations of any kind hereafter.

As to the fine that the Human Rights Commission has imposed of $10,000 against me and the City, I want to contribute my share. I am going to be commencing, immediately, a three-week unpaid leave of absence and ask that the monies saved by the City be designated for this purpose.

During this time, I will be withdrawing from public life and the Deputy Mayor will step in as Acting Mayor. The Deputy Mayor and the Council will be free to carry out their decision of last evening without it in any way compromising me. You will see me on election day and I will re-commence my duties the following morning, hopefully with a continued mandate.

Her decision to go on a leave of absence just before the election was quite a shock! Many columnists in the London Free Press attacked her for her failure to do her duty as Mayor. Other columnists such as Rory Leishman, however, did a splendid job of defending Ms. Haskett.

Haskett's resolve not to bend to the offensive ruling of the Human Rights Commission -- is there any other kind of ruling by such Commissions? -- appeared, however, to have the full approval of the voters. On election day, Mayor Haskett won a landslide victory over her opponent. This vote also indicated how little respect the voters had for the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Another idiot bashing foreign countries.

[GMMAC]

"I assume that the Prime Minister has the individual responsibility and the personal accountability for this file."

Presumably you 'assume' as much because you've never bothered to learn how Parliamentary democracies operate.
(e.g. not only Canada but also Australia & the UK.)

Aside from Judicial activism being as much - or more - of a problem up here, Stephen Harper currently heads up a "Minority Government" which limits his options in many areas considerably.

Plus, your position is akin to expecting President Bush to fly up to Boston each time a gay 'marriage' is conducted to be on hand to speak up when 'any objections' are solicited by whomever (whatever?) is officiating.

[spatso]

"The intelligence and/or motivation of posters
that try to closely link 'gay marriage' and the motivation to fight the WOT
and make sweeping generalizations about their neighbors
but are seemingly blind to what is going on in their own house."

Other than with this group of posters I have no interest in the gay agenda. My primary concern has been to support GWB on the immigration issue and I love the posts that have Bible themes. In regard to immigration I think GWB has hit the right seam. Ultimately, there will be a legislative agreement that works, both in terms of security and legal immigration. I know that my position is a minority point of view. Most posters here want to be angry with GWB but I fear they are playing into Hillary's hands. But, I accept we all have a similar agenda on what the goal should be in term of security. The difference is more about process rather than the common result we all want.
So, when I read the stuff about mounties on tv celebrating getting married in uniform and gay diplomats choosing to come to Canada and not one person stands up and says this is not the image we want for our country. When posters here indicate that sometime in future there is going to be vote, you can read between the lines them saying, "we don't expect anything to change." So, do I not assume that this is about the will and character of the Canadian people. You are a kind and gentle people, that is nice, we are happy for you. However, these are dangerous times and sweet is just not good enough.

[spatso]

"Haskett's resolve not to bend to the offensive ruling of the Human Rights Commission -- is there any other kind of ruling by such Commissions? -- appeared, however, to have the full approval of the voters. On election day, Mayor Haskett won a landslide victory over her opponent. This vote also indicated how little respect the voters had for the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal"

I am impressed.

[spatso]

"Plus, your position is akin to expecting President Bush to fly up to Boston each time a gay 'marriage' is conducted to be on hand to speak up when 'any objections' are solicited by whomever (whatever?) is officiating."

No, but I expect GWB will stand up and say I disagree if they are dressed in the colors of a government service. Just reading over the last few hours, it appears the Prime Minister has more interest in shutting the issue down. What kind of leader denies free speech to the elected people that have a strong opinion on an issue?
I will recant, I will stand down if just one of you posters will say the Prime Minister should not try to repress opposing opinion to mounties being married in uniform.
I will also recant and stand down if just one of you says the Prime Minister should have said the gay mounties should not wear their dress uniforms for the marriage ceremony.
I will also recant and stand down if just one of you guys say the discussion on gay marriage in Canada is an enormous distraction to those things which are really important.
Canadians often prove themselves to be self righteous and smug and quick to criticize others, especially if they are calling out those who have had the responsibility to carry the mail. So, it kind of surprises me how thinned skin you are when somebody puts a little legitimate criticism on your door step. In order talk the talk you first gotta walk the walk and I don't see any evidence here that any of you are prepared to do that.

[spatso]

I need to go out for the afternoon. I do want to hear just one person say the Prime Minister made a mistake. If you do, I will recant. So far your response has been less than deafening.

[headsonpikes]

I will also recant and stand down if just one of you guys say the discussion on gay marriage in Canada is an enormous distraction to those things which are really important.

I heartily agree! It'a an egregious distraction!

Now exactly which Phelpsian monomaniac posting on this thread is fixated on this issue? Hmmmm?

[GMMAC]

Stephen Harper has made his personal views in opposition to same-sex alleged 'marriage' crystal clear on countless occasions including voting against it, along with all but 3 members of the CPC caucus, when the former Liberal government brought the issue before the House of Commons.

Personally, I'd just as soon not see it come up for a vote until after the next election when we'll hopefully then have a strong majority in Parliament.

My reasons are twofold:
Our government is making important progress in numerous other equally important areas (e.g. introducing many new anti terrorism & anti crime laws which are expected to soon pass into law) to deal with the overall distraction of fighting a battle which it may well not win on this issue. which may well not win

As a practicing conservative Catholic, I'm no doubt just as opposed to every aspect of the radical homosexual & feminist agendas - as well as to this one particular facet of it - as you are. However, for the reasons above & because a Parliamentary loss on a vote on this issue would amount to a massive setback, I rather wait until I'm absolutely certain we have the numbers to win.

If a vote were held in the House tomorrow, its result is currently literally too close to call so, I'm prepared to wait until the odds are better & I'll be surprised if Stephen Harper isn't as well.

[spatso]

"Now exactly which Phelpsian monomaniac posting on this thread is fixated on this issue? Hmmmm?"

Let's just assume it is the guy who posted the original story and then commented on it by implying this was the initiative of leftists. It was very clear that the article specified that it was a dispute involving two conservatives. I am assuming that the person who first posted the story is Canadian and is prepared to understand just how badly this reflects on the image of Canadian conservatives.

[spatso]

"I heartily agree! It'a an egregious distraction!"

Thank you, I will try to avoid adding to the distraction.

[spatso]

Ottawa Citizen ed., pg 6

"Most of these holdouts are rural folks or people older than 60. The data are clear on that. Very soon, resistance to gay marriage will be concentrated in senior residences and on disappearing farms. I suspect Mr. Harper is personally reconciled to the inevitability of gay marriage but feels compelled to hold a vote to appease parts of his political base. So let them have their vote. It'll be their last stand."

I can only wonder. Are you being snowed by Harper? Or, are you trying to snow me? Or, is this paper trying to snow everyone?

[fanfan]

Gay mounties get married, gay diplomats make Canada the country of choice and nobody is offended.

Why would you assume I'm not offended by that?

Does nobody up there get it? It is a dangerous world and you guys are playing patty cake.

I'm sure you've heard the word "priority".

pri·or·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-ôr-t, -r-) n. pl. pri·or·i·ties

1. Precedence, especially established by order of importance or urgency.

2. 1. An established right to precedence.
2. An authoritative rating that establishes such precedence.
3. A preceding or coming earlier in time.
4. Something afforded or deserving prior attention.

Gosh, you sure are fixated on this subject.

Did you used to be gay or something?

BTW, you have yet to answer my question about your location.

Where do you live? Paradise?

[spatso]

"Gosh, you sure are fixated on this subject."

All my postings are an open book. I have had very little interest in the subject. I assume, the original post was made by one of the members of what appears to be a posse of faux Canadian conservatives. I thought I was reacting to the hypocrisy of you guys trying to pull a fast one. The original article clearly indicates this is a dispute between two conservative officials, yet the commentary from the posse suggests it was a liberal group who called Christian activists "Taliban."

[fanfan]

The original article clearly indicates this is a dispute between two conservative officials, yet the commentary from the posse suggests it was a liberal group who called Christian activists "Taliban."

Can you please point me to those comments?

[spatso]

Can you please point me to those comments?


"The left disgusts me more and more every day."

1 posted on 06/09/2006 5:11:58 PM PDT by wagglebee

[GMMAC]

Re: your post #72

You must be extremely desperate to make whatever point it is you're trying to make because:

A. albeit the quote you've cited may come from The Citizen's Editorial page but, it's highly out of context.

B. the quote you've cited doesn't come from an actual "Editorial" as your "ed." would have us believe but, rather from a signed opinion piece by someone on its Editorial Board (e.g. I've posted numerous articles on FR by Lorne Gunter who happens to sit on the National Post's Board but have never portrayed them to be "Editorials" when they plainly were not.)

C. this opinion piece (copied below) cites numerous alleged societal attitudinal shifts with respect to homosexuality based upon AMERICAN RESEARCH and/or SOURCES !!! ... so, again, what's your point with respect to Canadians alone vis-a-vis the gay agenda ?!?!

How gay became OK

Leonard Stern, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, June 10, 2006

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised to let parliamentarians vote this fall on whether to reopen the same-sex marriage debate. Yet social acceptance of homosexuality is growing so fast that the fall might be too late for opponents of gay marriage.

We tend to think that, barring a transformative event, cultural shifts move glacier-like. In fact, attitudinal change can happen quickly. A population can in one generation reject a whole set of inherited prejudices. (The reverse is also true: we can in short order adopt a whole set of prejudices that our fathers never knew.)

Every few years, since at least the early 1970s, the National Opinion Research Centre at the University of Chicago has surveyed Americans on how they feel about sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex. Up until the 1990s, a solid three quarters of Americans said homosexual relations were always wrong. In 1987 the number who felt that way peaked at 80 per cent.

Then the numbers started dropping, dramatically. By 2004, only 58 per cent of Americans were prepared to say that sex between two men or two women was always wrong. In 2002, the number was even lower, at 55 per cent.

By the end of this decade it's probable that a majority of Americans, despite belonging to one of the most religiously Christian nations in the industrialized West, will no longer believe that homosexuality is inherently harmful.

Some social conservatives, disoriented by this development, will take it as proof of a growing sexual immorality. That won't hold, however. The same University of Chicago data show that Americans today, though more tolerant of homosexuality, are less tolerant of adultery. In 1973, 70 per cent of respondents said it was always wrong for a married person to have sex with someone other than his or her spouse. In 2004, that number had expanded to a healthy 80 per cent.

If acceptance of homosexuality were synonymous with loose sexual mores, there'd have been a commensurate endorsement of adultery -- and instead just the opposite has obtained. Nor is there an increasing acceptance of, say, premarital sex. For the past quarter century or so the number of Americans who say sex before marriage is wrong has remained stable.

All these data are in a report released last month by the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. Canadian numbers are harder to come by, but what data there are indicate similar trends. While many straight people may find the idea of gay sex personally unappealing, fewer and fewer believe it is criminal or immoral -- which is why opinion surveys consistently show that very few Canadians or Americans support discrimination against homosexuals.

A Leger Marketing survey in 2001 found that more than three quarters of Canadians believe gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals. That's a big majority, and considering the trajectory of public opinion, it would likely be even bigger if the survey were repeated today. Just last month in the U.S., a Gallup poll found that 89 per cent of respondents believed homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities.

I see two main reasons for this huge attitudinal shift. First, a growing body of research suggests that sexual orientation is part of our hardwiring, like skin colour. The biological dimension makes it harder to label gays and lesbians as deviants who have made perverted lifestyle choices.

Second, the gay rights movement gave homosexuals the confidence to come out, the result of which is that straight people discovered their own colleagues, friends and even family members were gay. Homosexuals and homosexuality were demystified. It turned out that gays and lesbians -- among them politicians, lawyers, teachers, parents -- were not predatory weirdos but completely ordinary people.

As the American Enterprise Institute report puts it, "Solid majorities are comfortable being around people who are gay." Again, this is a new development. In the 1970s most people supported banning gay teachers from elementary schools. Flash forward to a 2004 Los Angeles Times poll, in which nearly 70 per cent of respondents said they wouldn't care if their child's teacher were gay. As well, a CNN/Time survey found that most people today would see a gay doctor or vote for a gay politician.

True, there remain some holdouts -- a minority who still think homosexuals are by definition deviant, their behaviour immoral and their claims for social equality unpersuasive. But here's the rub: Most of these holdouts are rural folk or people older than 60. The data are clear on that. Very soon, resistance to gay marriage will be concentrated in seniors' residences and on disappearing farms.

I suspect Mr. Harper is personally reconciled to the inevitability of gay marriage but feels compelled to hold a vote to appease parts of his political base. So let them have their vote. It'll be their last stand.

Leonard Stern is the Citizen's editorial pages editor.
E-mail: lstern@thecitizen.canwest.com

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

Source

[Fair Go]

It seems to me that countries that have granted gay people rights to a civil union rather than access to traditional marriage have avoided much controversy. Britain and New Zealand fall into this category.

[CaptainCanada]

In Canada, gay marriage was made legal by the elected government. In Canada, it appears everyone plays nice. Gay mounties get married, gay diplomats make Canada the country of choice and nobody is offended.

Wow, very impressive -- you seem to know so much about Canada...
When you've finished solving all the problems in your own country, maybe
you can come up here and share some more of your wisdom with us.
Until then, STFU.

[spatso]

"If a vote were held in the House tomorrow, its result is currently literally too close to call so, I'm prepared to wait until the odds are better & I'll be surprised if Stephen Harper isn't as well."

Do you guys over react to everything? I posted the conclusion of the editorial exactly as it appears. The point was simply in response to your statement indicating that you were "prepared to wait until the odds are better." The editorial indicates the opposite is happening. I read your post as suggesting both you and the Prime Minister believed that the possibility of changing the rules on gay marriage would improve in the future. As I read the editorial, the editor of the editorial page said the possibility of change actually decreases significantly in the future.