Brian Lilley - May 24th, 2012
Warren Kinsella came on the show Wednesday and defended section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That’s the hurt feelings on the internet provision. You can watch the post here and see if you agree with Kinsella or me.
But I have to wonder why Kinsella supports the hurt feelings on the internet provision because he seems to take joy in throwing around accusations. He’s called plenty of conservative commentators and bloggers racists and Nazis simply because he disagrees with their politics.
Now he’s posted about a Jewish group and a Christian group joining together to bring Glenn Beck to Toronto. Kinsella calls Beck an anti-Semite, a rather slanderous claim, and questions the sanity of the folks at Uptown Chabad and International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (Canada). To prove Beck is an anti-Semite with a real hate on for Jews, Kinsella links to a number of left-wing websites that hate Beck.
Now I don’t know if Kinsella has ever watched Beck or listened to his radio program but one thing that no one who has listened to him could say is that Beck is an anti-Semite. I had lunch recently with two rabbis who couldn’t say enough good things about Beck.
Glenn Beck is a man who has stood with and for Israel more than anyone lately.
Warren my friend, you are out to lunch on this.
I have to say, it is amazing that calling people Nazis and anti-Semites hasn’t landed any section 13 complaints. Although as we know, that section is on hold due to a prior ruling that it is unconstitutional and is being challenged in court.
Brian Lilley - May 24th, 2012
This morning CBC posted a strange story about Foreign Affairs minister John Baird and a speech he was giving in Washington, D.C.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird will be the main speaker at a Washington, D.C., event celebrating religious freedom Thursday night to promote Canada’s planned Office of Religious Freedom.
But the event sponsor’s hardline stance on same-sex marriage and homosexuality is at odds with Baird’s support for gay rights around the world.
There are a couple of things wrong with this opening pair of paragraphs.
1. In the eyes of CBC, a church saying that they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman is a hardline stance. A few Christian churches have embraced same-sex marriage but not really any of the big denominations that are growing and attracting adherents. This church, the Seventh Day Adventists, are a pretty conservative denomination. Their position on same-sex marriage should not be regarded as a surprise or as hardline.
Also remember that in the United States is a country that is debating same-sex marriage. In every state that has had a straight up vote on just same-sex marriage the voters have rejected it. Yet to CBC, holding this position is a hardline stance.
2. Standing up for religious freedom does not mean you cannot stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians to be free from discrimination. The Canadian government, led by Baird, has called for an end to laws that see homosexuals jailed but they don’t advocate that every country adopt same-sex marriage.
Yet this article would have you believe that if you stand up for freedom for one group then you can’t stand up for the freedom of another group.
That brings me back to the first point, claiming that a church opposing same-sex marriage is a hardline stance. Is it possible that this author thinks that standing up for gay rights should include the government calling on churches to accept same-sex marriage? Is that the next step in the progressive march? Government power over churches and individual belief and worship?