Revolutionary Moderation

Perhaps the line I drew wasn't completely clear



Why do I draw a line between criticism of C-250, particularly when the criticism includes words like "pedophilia", and homophobia? Perhaps it's the months of debate that led up to the passing of C-250, when groups that reasonalble people don't want to be associated with were making those same arguments.



I first heard of C-250 in January, 2003, when I received an e-mail from an online backgammon opponent. All the opponent knew about me was that I was Canadian. Now it may have been shotgun strategy (contact enough people, and some will agree), but in my experience, e-mails like this get distributed when it's assumed there would be general agreement ("We hate high gas prices!" "Hey, me too!"). The original e-mail and my somewhat moderated response is here, and my eventual response is here. Long story short, C-250 added sexual orientation to the protections of s.318 of the Criminal Code, which says that if you promote genocide - not "hate", genocide - against an identifiable group, you can be charged, with the permission of the Attorney General. Who will, quite naturally, rush to the defense of NAMBLA through jailing religious figures for daring to be critical, because that wouldn't be political suicide at all, no ma'am. Go to the second link, where I've quoted the entire CC section, and decide for yourself.



Since the bill passed, many of the groups have taken down their pages (and I saw some interesting ones when I was first researching, a year and a half ago). There are still a few treats out there. The Christian Heritage Party was a big critic of C-250.

Let me assure you, there are some of us who would rather go to jail than stop protecting our children by telling the truth! The purpose of C-250 is to kill free and honest discussion of one of the most important issues of our time. The homosexualization of our society is one of the most important issues of our time because it's really about adults gaining sexual access to children.

You might want to read about poor Larry Spencer, victim of the homosexualist agenda. Not that the CHP really believes the whole Protocols of the Elders of Stonewall stuff that Jack Chick alluded to in my earlier post. It's not so much a conspiracy, they say.

A more accurate description might be "a monolithic conformity of ideas" among politicians, educators, jurists and the media.

I could go on, but you can find your own fun through a google search for "c-250". Don't forget to check the wayback machine for any pages that don't seem to be as inflamitory as you expect... lots have been changed since the legislation passed.



Okay, but perhaps Gallant wasn't trying to draw this same line. And even if she was, she's one MP. Most of the Conservative candidates are likely to be more in line with Harper. Aren't they?.

Although the legislation passed under the current Liberal government, the issue is by no means dead. In fact, a meeting called "Scrap Bill C-250 Campaign" will take place tomorrow in Alberta. Pro-family leaders such as Ted Byfield, Rev. Tristan Emmanuel, and Professor Ted Morton, will address the meeting, as will two Conservative MPs, Rob Anders and Myron Thompson.



.....



The Conservative Party's attempt to bury the issue is perplexing to many supporters given that 60 of the 61 Alliance members at the time of the Sept. 17, 2003 passage of C-250 voted against it. The other party to the recent merger, the Progressive Conservative Party, had 7 members vote against and 7 vote for the bill, with one more absent. The two PC MPs who most strongly agreed with the Liberal/NDP sponsored bill, Joe Clark and Scott Brison, both rejected the merger of the parties, with Brison joining the Liberals and Clark retiring from politics. With their combined votes overwhelmingly against the bill some observers say that it would be expected the CPC would revisit the C-250 change which they strenuously opposed as a danger to free speech and freedom of religion. [Emphasis mine]

Do I need to keep going? How about "ask your boyfriend" Gallant herself? Perhaps I'll save that for another post.



Update: No link yet this morning, but if you ask me, Gallant's abortion statements this morning suggest she's trying to get kicked off the campaign. Or taking instructions from the "lifesite" people I linked above. Or trying to get the Conservative Party's asses kicked. More on that, including gaffe points, later.