Posted on 06/09/2006 5:11:56 PM PDT by 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
The reality is that whether it be Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia or any western nation, gay people will soon have access to what is called "civil union". Anyone who cannot live with this might have to seek political asylum in Iran.
"The reality is that whether it be Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia or any western nation, gay people will soon have access to what is called "civil union". Anyone who cannot live with this might have to seek political asylum in Iran."
I don't disagree. Civil unions don't bother me, although I think marriage should be between a man and a women. Having said that, my issue is very simple. Why are you guys starting threads on the story about the gay mounties less than a week after the story breaks on homegrown terrorism?
Except, of course, our GAY agenda, morals, culture which we WILL force down your throats -
Exactly! What a hypocrite.
"STFU"
Romans 10:10
btt
This thread was not posted by a Canadian Freeper but by someone from Virginia. As I see it the Canadian Freepers don't want to see their new conservative government distracted by the issue of gay marriages and defeated on the floor of parliament before it has had a chance to show what it can do and thereby convert a minority to a majority at the next election. This makes great sense.
However, I agree with your stance on civil unions.
"This thread was not posted by a Canadian Freeper but by someone from Virginia."
I am not sure what to say. If it is true, my primary criticism is answered and, therefore, I may have been error to press some of the points that I made. On the other hand, most of the general observations I made still stand.
"In your desperation to make whatever point, you tried to slip one by & got caught."
I am not sure I understand the editorial point your making. Are you saying, when the editor of the editorial page writes on the editorial page it is not editorial commentary. Please explain.
As I said before, you said that you believed that the chances of reversing the gay marriage regulation would get better in the future. The commentary, on the other hand, clearly states the opposite opinion.
"Institute for Canadian Values"
Just so you guys know, this is a thinktank and policy institute that is a fine example of Christians and Jews working together to try to bring a little morality and common sense back into Canada.
No I was not playing a game. And, I was certainly not attempting to intellectualize this matter by detailing around an obscurity to the point that the substance is effectively avoided. I assumed the "editor" of the editorial page is a substantive voice. You will note he is identified on the commentary as the "editor" and not as merely a member of the editorial board as you suggest. If you would rather that I use the term commentary rather than opinion, fine, it makes no change in the substance of my point.
If you review my post #72 you will see I provided a clear and reasonable avenue for your objection. I said, "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?"
The substantive conclusion of this commentary was that gay marriage regulations were probably not going to be reversed in Canada and that over time the odds of reversal decrease rather than increase. Is that the point you don't want to concede or discuss?
Your post # 13 on this thread about terrorists in Canada first introduced your "issue" with gay Mounties.
It was politely suggested to you at post # 26 and 28, that if you wanted to discuss this issue, you should post a story about the gay Mounties yourself.
Now that an American has posted a thread on the subject, your twisted logic gives us this statement:
Having said that, my issue is very simple. Why are you guys starting threads on the story about the gay mounties less than a week after the story breaks on homegrown terrorism?
Your issue?
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.
On the other hand I think you have more than one issue.
I believe you have, as they say, Issues.
From post # 90, on this thread, we find this exchange:
Fair Go said "This thread was not posted by a Canadian Freeper but by someone from Virginia."
You said I am not sure what to say. If it is true, my primary criticism is answered and, therefore, I may have been error to press some of the points that I made. On the other hand, most of the general observations I made still stand.
I am not sure what to say.
How about "I was wrong. I apologize"?
If it is true, my primary criticism is answered and, therefore, I may have been error to press some of the points that I made.
IF it is true
IF?
Check for your self!
Of course, being a newbie, you probably don't know how.
Why don't you crawl back under whatever rock you lived under before you joined Free Republic, and leave the discussions to the adults.
I'm still waiting for your answer regarding what area of the world you live in.
On the other hand I think you have more than one issue.
I believe you have, as they say, Issues.
ROTFLOL!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.