I often tell my American friends that they’re entitled to have 10 times the number of nitwits than Canada does because they have 10 times the population. But if you’d like positive proof that idiocracy is alive & well in Canuckistan, look no further than “Professor” Darren E. Lund of the University of Calgary. This fellow recently wrote a vindictive piece in the Calgary Herald, aimed squarely at anyone who supports free speech … and thus disagrees with him.
Throughout his screed, Lund goes on & on condemning others for hate speech while unable to fathom that he’s pumping out a whole lot of his own. And he has the audacity to utter this not so clever totalitarian paragraph:
What Carpay and other fear-mongers fail to notice is that most Albertans, and most Canadians for that matter, are deeply repulsed by hate speech. In this great land, we enjoy our freedoms with an understanding that there must be reasonable limits on those who seek to take away others’ humanity or safety.
To the casual reader this may sound just wonderful, like apple pie and butterflies, but to anyone who has followed the free speech debate in Canada it is downright scary. Who is it that decides what is “hate speech” and what are “reasonable limits”? But of course, the Far Left zealots at the disgraced “human rights” commissions – folks who don’t believe that facts matter and are instead just driven by their unalterable ideology, namely: Anyone who disagrees with us must be uttering hate speech and thus must be silenced.
Ezra Levant is not unfamiliar with Lund, having talked at length about him in his book, Shakedown. Others have exposed Lund for being an anti-Christian bigot.
One particular line of Lund’s had me gobsmacked because of the deep irony:
Building a strong democracy must not include the freedom to poison the public discourse and actually threaten the safety of vulnerable people.
Emphasis mine. This makes one wonder if Darren Lund has covered up all of the mirrors in his home? He clearly hasn’t been observing his own words or actions in a very long time.
Earlier this year, Lund’s crusade against free speech was discussed on Michael Coren’s show:
“In this great land, we enjoy our freedoms with an understanding that there must be reasonable limits…”
Freedoms with ‘reasonable’ limits.
Finally! A truly Canadian oxymoron…and from a truly Canadian moron, too!
Moron” no kidding, she probably can’t walk and chew gum at the same time either. Oops, better ban gum like in Singapore to accommodate her shortcomings, after all she is “central”, just ask her.
Lund is a well known anti-Christian Bigot. He makes no bones about it. One day someone will do to him, what he with malice does to others. Take him to court over his own rhetoric. That we will see how he spouts his Marxist trash talk knowing the MSM with the other Marxist enables will not back him.
I feel sorry for him. Eventually hate will eat him from within.
Revnant, hopefully it is sooner rather than later.
Not surprised, since to recognise and honour our traditional freedom of speech would spell the end of a rather lucrative gravy train for Lund. Instead of moving to any of the multitude of countries that operate according to his terms, he prefers to try to impose his totalitarian, anti-freedom views on Canada.
http://canadianpastor.blogspot.com/2005/09/letter-that-started-it-all.html
Just to remind everyone exactly what Boissoin wrote.
Then you can see the twists made by Lund.
“………If I think that homosexuality is wrong….that does not make me a bad person…it simply means I have an opinion…….”
Andy Rooney
We don’t have to agree with others opinions….
I disagree with the
“……stunning and stunningly stupid…” lable put on this Marianne Ward.
I think she is stunned…and not stunning.
I notice a pattern with lefties, who seem to believe terms like “hate speach”, “bigot”, and “racist” are decissive debating tools….in the process becoming what they declare of others they disagree with…..
Stupid….
Samsquanch:
They’re not stupid. They’re fascists. It’s only when we start calling them exactly what they are that we will be able to change things.
Meed Ward used to write for the Toronto Sun and she wrote back to me when I questioned her on her supposedly unbiased column. Brain-dead Liberal so not much sense in continuing the discussion
“Dave,
Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on how best to move the province and country we love forward. I’ll choose the Liberal plan every time.”
There is fundamental difference between anti-gay bigots and anti-Christian bigots: Gays don’t have a choice; Christians do.
Gays don’t have a choice
I disagree.
Ann Heche would disagree too.
If gays don’t have a choice why did they coin the term “sexual preference”?
Oh, and I find your comparison of gays with Christians to be offensive and hateful.
Marianne whatsherface……community activist. Nuff said..
Andrew >
My gaydar just went DEFCOM 1, I’ll try to say this calmly without panic.
The radical left are selective bigots with mental disorders, no shame in that, they simply can’t be trusted as the guardians and directors of other people’s welfare as they relentlessly insist. Is that a bigoted comment on my part? Sure it is, so friggin what? This isn’t Saudi Arabia and anyone with perverted appetites is more than welcome in SanfranSicko .
Choices, choices there are always choices.
I really don’t know what Lund is complaining about. “Reasonable limits” are direct threats to person or property. This is already covered in the criminal code. So now Lund can go away quietly; his apparent problem was already dealt with a very long time ago.
And he can take the HRCs and their Section 13 with him.
Ooz
“Gays don’t have a choice
I disagree.
Ann Heche would disagree too.”
you have a right to be wrong
every human characteristic has a “genetic” underpinning, gays do not choose to be gay, but they dochoose to practise their genetically designated life style
your pontifications demonstrate your ignorance, supported by Ann Heche’s ignorance
I’ll just leave this here:
http://i.imgur.com/8Tnd1.jpg
For the record I’m straight as an arrow, but that’s even more irrelevant than my link.
Robert/Kate would you please release my last comment from the spam filter?
“every human characteristic has a “genetic” underpinning …”
Possible but stupidity may have a nurture component. Not all progressives were born that way, so why should the gay ones be different?
Cheers
Just looked at Lund’s page at UofC and he’s one of the adherents of so-called “social justice” which is an anti-individualist totalitarian ideology. Can’t get much more anti-freedom than that. Also noticed he’s a member of the education faculty; passing on his warped totalitarian ideas to future teachers.
Lund probably doesn’t believe in the truth as defense argument as he probably lives in the Marxist fantasy world where truth is what the state deems it to be rather than what people observe with their own eyes. There’s no debating such people as they are totally convinced of their righteousness. Destroy their points in a debate and they’ll probably accuse you of “bullying” them. All sniveling cowards that run for the protection of the maternal state asking it to respond with “hate speech” legislation to silence the “hurtful” truth. Despite my disdain for ad-hominem arguments, Lund is an individual who seems to allow no other rebuttal to his totalitarian weltanschauung.
A question for those who insist that gays have no choice: How do you explain those who switch? Having known a goodly number of heterosexuals who suddenly discover their inner gayness I know almost an equal number of gay individuals who chose to eschew the gay lifestyle and now live as heterosexuals.
As for the anti free speechers out there. Go away and let the adults carry on an intelligent conversation. Your mewling is about as relevant as a gnat’s buzzing. Just many times more annoying and dangerous to democracy.
“every human characteristic has a “genetic” underpinning …”
There is no evidence of such a thing being true.
Even so let us reason together.
If there were such a thing as a “gay gene” long ago in the beginning of humanity and gays had no choice but to be gay, then down through the mists of time the gay gene would have ceased to exist through the biological filter of homosexuality because only heteros actually get to pass on their genes to the next generation.
If a homosexuals were to have “chosen” to have relations with the opposite gender and passed on their genes to another generation then that would be evidence of “choice”.
My earlier post, caught in the spam filter, was a medical article dealing with research into the possibility of a gay gene.
The conclusion is that there isn’t any evidence of one.
@ Knight 99, cgh, loki and Oz, all great comments.
The main problem the way I see it is the attempt of certain groups and ideologies to silence anyone who does not agree with them. This effort by the left is not restricted to just the gay issue, but extends to all political and even the environmental topics. Robert’s second paragraph sums it up well.
I like how Lund uses the word ‘freedom’ in a way that is possibly more Orwell than Orwell. It is seriously doublethink. Orwell and Rand should’ve teamed up to write a book in the ’50s. They could have called it THE FUTURE.
Is Alberta going to get its free speech back soon? I thought we had heard some really contradictory stuff vis-a-vis the WRA and its policies here…something about Rob Anderson getting torn apart by Ezra on The Source…any updates?
PS: could the homo-haters please leave us smart people alone? You’re embarrassing us. It is well established that homosexuality is biologically determined.
It is well established that homosexuality is biologically determined.
It’s a well established myth.
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp
Lund is an idiot. Nothing more needs to be said about that rubber-nosed clown. Or perhaps a more fulsome description would be a fascist.
1:04 AM: The moment Oz lost all the respect of anyone remotely intelligent or rational.
Meed-Ward managed to finally get elected to council in Burlington last year which
precluded her from getting another shot at climbing on the ON Liberal gravy train
for now via this month’s provincial election. Burlington’s loss is Ontario’s gain.
.
I have to disagree with OZ on this one. What normal man would choose to have his sphincter abused by …. another man? This has to be genetic.
I don’t know enough about women to even have a comment on what motivates them to get it on with what seems to be mostly fat hairy dykes. Really hot babes who are gay, just don’ t come across as gay … because they act like chicks. It’s all so nuts. And let’s not even discuss trannies. It’s just all too weird.
But we are now teaching kids that this is all just normal daily fare. No wonder kids are disappearing into their kill ‘anything that moves’ video games. They are rejecting the insanity.
At 72 years of age I notice that there are or seem to be more homosexuals than there used to be. I think they started to increase their volume from the estimated 2% of the population science determined to whatever the accepted amount today is after they started to teach all about it and encourage children to try it and other sexual practices in our schools. In other species of animals the rate is still around 2% give or take but they do not go to school to learn all that neat new stuff. Lucky them eh.
Facts are hate speech, leaders of the Muslim community tell us so…
When it comes to homosexuality, there appears to be misplaced hatred of homosexuals based on the political views of the majority of homosexuals. It’s equivalent to saying “all Jews are statist scum” based on the number of Jews that have been involved in the creation of HRC’s and their idiotic persecution of anyone who dares question some of their official myths.
Ezra Levant has made it clear that these “official Jews” don’t stand for majority Jewish opinion and he’s doing a great job at SunTV discrediting these fascist scumbags and their beloved institutions such as HRC’s.
If one were to look at the political views of the majority of homosexuals without knowing where they came from, there certainly wouldn’t be much support for them at SDA. The predominant viewpoint is one of an hyperinflation of the social importance of ones sexual proclivities and use of statist oppression to persecute anyone who points out the health risks or social costs of the groups lifestyle. Criminal behavior by group members is condoned and accepted whereas any assault on members of the group requires special legislation to more severely prosecute accused assailants. In short, any minority group that considers such preferential treatment for itself to be the norm will be hated by a majority of the population who are rightly outraged as a result of being discriminated against.
It’s not surprising that “hate crime” legislation has the exact opposite effect that is intended as the moonbats who come up with some legislation discount human nature.
Homosexuality has been around as long as there have been people. I’m not aware of the existence of a “homosexual gene” but sexuality, just like every other human trait, has its pathologies. In the area of a very basic drive, hunger, one has pathologies ranging from anorexia nervosa at one extreme to morbid obesity at the other. One also has pica, the eating of objects ranging from house dust to cigarette butts. The only difference between human sexual drive and appetitive drive is that we refer to perversions rather than pathologies.
If there is a homosexual gene, it would possibly survive as a result of the hypersexuality it induces in its carriers and bisexuality in large portions of the population was the norm in the distant past. NAMBLA would have fit right into Socratic Greece.
There are homosexuals who have conservative or libertarian political views and don’t believe in CAGW. It just underscores the importance of dissociating the predominant views of a definable group from views of individual group members.
“Hate crime” legislation is simply evil and such statist perversions must be vigorously attacked and extirpated from society. Similarly, legal equality of all individuals should be rigorously enforced and no favored classes should be allowed to exist. These are some of the most fundamental aspects of a free society and any attempt to pervert these principles should be ruthlessly eliminated. “Social justice” is one of the perversions that should be viewed in the same light as pedophilia.
Preventing people like Lund from having any influence on school teachers is just defense of a free society. I don’t particularly care what people do in their private lives as long as they subscribe to a few basic principles required to maximize individual freedom in society.
“Gays don’t have a choice; Christians do.”
I agree. Sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. That’s why I don’t understand why people hate pedophiles, rapists, homosexuals, polyamorists, sadists, etc. None of it is by choice.
Unlike homosexuals, Christians have chosen to follow a good path. They should be praised for choosing good over evil.
This woman, Marianne Meed Ward, has some very unexamined ideas there. Drilling down a little (because she’s quite shallow and there’s not much to work with there) she believes in freedom for her, but not for you. SHE is reasonable and good, therefore YOU have no right to upset her.
This is the source of most everything that is crap about Canada. The Marianne Meed Wards of the world feeling quite justified in using government to suppress anything and everything they see which offends their sense of propriety.
From Human Rights Commissions which ban unpleasant speech down to city by-laws which ban hanging one’s laundry on a clothes line, or having a half-built car in the driveway, there is no issue so large or so small that these self-important, arrogant, STUPID people don’t feel they should controlling.
But if somebody ELSE decides to object to something they have done, oh that’s DIFFERENT. Then the gloves come off.
That’s the real reason they hate Conservatives so much. They can’t stand being told no. We stand up and say “No, we are not going to allow you to persecute and crush this man because of a f-ing letter to the editor, even though he is both wrong AND a d1ck. Because its a free country, and he’s free to be as big a d1ck as he wants.”
And Marianne Meed Ward has a tantrum. That woman must have been a trial as a kid, eh?
How many complaints to the AHRC has lund placed, and how much money via pain and suffering awards has he been granted? Failure to provided said information by the paper is gross negligence in my opinion. His entire piece is nothing more than progressive sniveling and baffle gab, if he wants to place limits on free speech he best run for office.
ErisGuy
“That’s why I don’t understand why people hate pedophiles, rapists, homosexuals, polyamorists, sadists, etc. None of it is by choice.”
Unlike homosexuals, Christians have chosen to follow a good path. They should be praised for choosing good over evil.”
The hate where-ever directed is an instinctive and mostly, meritorious instinct to preserve your bloodline/culture…survival of the species.
This is why anti-social individuals, such as serial killers, homocidal maniacs…..pediphiles and sadists as well…. have always been culled, by execution, assasination, exile or utility in the front lines in warfare….
Perhaps it is not by choice, there seems to be a constant incidence of mutation…..logically this will manifest as deviant behaviour…
And like most species’ mutants are culled by the herd/flock.
Genetic…impossible….self limited by being genetically impotent….
Christianity has had it’s deviants as well…alleged celebate monastic orders for example…but for the most part Christianity has been a “humanizing” driver of our rule of law, moral, western culture.
Does that clarify your fuzzification?
Knight 99, cgh, loki Ken and Oz have all made excellent points, which are born out by my reading as well. There is -no- credible evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. There are a lot of people saying that it is.
Its just another Scam, capital “S”. Guns cause crime, my truck is melting the ice caps, and there’s a gay gene. So don’t get sucked in to the hype.
Now, the other troubling thing is that many people on the social “Right” are no different than this Lund guy and Marianne Meed Ward. Things which they find objectionable should be banned, and they can decide stuff like that because they are Good People(TM). Reverend Stephen Boissoin certainly falls into that category.
That’s crap, kids. Freedom does not come from that place, only totalitarianism and ultimately death. Besides which, it is anti-Christian in the extreme. Lead by example, not by force.
So you know what? You get to put up with the fags. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to pretend to like it, and you don’t have to sit quietly while some exhibitionist gets their freak on by getting up in your face with it. But you don’t get to use the power of government to abuse and oppress. That’s what liberals do, not conservatives.
I should add at this time that I have on the whole been treated a lot better by gay men and lesbians than the usual run-of-the-mill in society. They generally have a lot more tolerance for some of my more annoying personal foibles and failings than most people. Just so we all know which side of that particular fence I’m standing on. With my bat.
That said, the activities of gay -activists- are pure poison, falling as they do into the Lund/Boissoin continuum of oppressive bullsh1te.
These above issues are all things that can be improved with a tax cut and the firing of several hundred thousand public employees, I’m sure we can all agree. When the HRC don’t answer the phone, who ya gonna call?
“…she believes in freedom for her, but not for you. SHE is reasonable and good, therefore YOU have no right to upset her…
This is the source of most everything that is crap about Canada. The Marianne Meed Wards of the world feeling quite justified in using government to suppress anything and everything they see which offends their sense of propriety….
And Marianne Meed Ward has a tantrum. That woman must have been a trial as a kid, eh?
Posted by: The Phantom at October 2, 2011 9:18 AM
Suitable for framing. Possibly the nicest job I’ve seen of capturing the the essence of all socialsts.
They all sound the very same, don’t they? M-Ward, Ruth Greer, Judy Rebick, etc., etc: like strident screechy hags who allow for no opposing fact or opinion, with political ideologies that support ‘freedom’ as long as there is a large attendant bureaucracy to control it.
Have to disagree with the Gay verses Religion comments, it’s about gay verses heterosexuality, and conduct as individuals in society.
Gays lost the battle of hearts and minds a long time ago with overt sexual displays in public and an over abundance of sexual predator crimes. These crimes have been perpetrated at times through religion, organized crime and criminal socialist governments throughout modern history.
The statement “Gays don’t have a choice; Christians do.” Is not an argument, it’s a bumper sticker slogan without merit.
Thanks Jamie. Make you just want to slap her, doesn’t it?
I think it would be a worthwhile social experiment fire the hell out of Barbara Hall and put the Church Lady in charge of the HRCs for six months. Give these people a taste of what its like to not be in power, and listen to the -screaming- that would ensue.
Then say “Just kidding!” It would be FUN!
Actually, Phantom, lesbianism follows Mendelian inheritance patterns and is therefore likely genetic. Male homosexuality doesn’t but brain scans show they are biologically different, so there position comes is probably non-genetic but still not a choice. Just more ignorance from the bigots.
Smarter >
Bigoted female sex? It very much seems like most heterosexual men don’t mind the idea of two lovely well endowed feminine beauties engaging in sex with each other, specifically when the intent is for male visual stimulation.
It is the marine style butch, hairy armpit anti-male imagery that becomes a “morality/ decency” issue for both heterosexual males & females.
It’s the universal masculine verses feminine instincts of the human condition. It’s not a learned bigotry to be repulsed by a “man” who has lost his masculinity or a “woman” her femininity. It is a natural biological and instinctive reaction.
You can wish it away, attempt to educate it into normalcy, and legislate all the punishments you wish, it will never change the core structural building blocks of normal human existence.
I love that bit at the very end, where Ward says “Well they’re (the HRCs) not interfering with my life”.
Yes, Marianne, we know. You’re not the sort of person who commits thought-crimes.
She’s just thick. Not quite as thick as Babs Hall, but definitely thick. It’s embarrassing, actually, all these stupid women. I’m with Shaidle, we should never have gotten the vote.
“…most Canadians for that matter, are deeply repulsed by hate speech…”
Of course we are repulsed — that’s the whole point to why we don’t need hate speech laws: general social opprobrium will regulate it, not a State agency or ideologically/politically-oriented interest groups arbitrarily deciding what should or should not be legal speech according to their biases.
There’s only one exception to when hate speech should be prohibited: when the State engages in it. When the State engages in hate speech it’s called “propaganda”, and the State has the power to officially control media and eliminate everyone else’s right to speech. The State-sponsored “anti-hate-speech” HRC’s are in fact the first step down that slippery slope to official State-sponsored hate propaganda by first eliminating the free speech rights of its citizens. The State can then spread its propaganda unopposed.
Lesbianism follows Mendelian inheritance patterns and is therefore more likely learned bigotry against the male gender than genetic because humans are not sting beans.
Male homosexuality doesn’t but brain scans show they are biologically different just as Arnold Swartzenegger looked biologically different from most other males because of exercizing different muscle groups more strenuously.
My 1:04 link above addresses this issue.
There is no gay gene, it is choice or what gays themselves describe as “sexual preference”.
trollbertarian said: “Actually, Phantom, lesbianism follows Mendelian inheritance patterns and is therefore likely genetic. Male homosexuality doesn’t but brain scans show they are biologically different, so there position comes is probably non-genetic but still not a choice.”
References? Other than Wikipedia I mean. Because I’ve seen nothing that even passes the giggle test. You’re a sucker if you fall for this scam.
By the way I know about the brain scan project, their sample is like 20 people, which is a joke.
@ Knight99, “Gays lost the battle of hearts and minds a long time ago with overt sexual displays in public and an over abundance of sexual predator crimes”. This is true in my mind also, as many years ago one of my coworkers for nine years in the office and who became my boss for four years was a quiet gay. He was a given a hard time by the workers in the plant, but was treated by a ‘live and let live’ attitude in the office. I defended him to the abusers and my wife and I became friends with him and had him over on occasion. However, because of how that community has been acting the last number of years and trying to brainwash our grandchildren I would not do the same today. It would be a quiet ignoring. I want to puke when I see their disgusting public displays. We would be arrested if we did the same.
Ward is just a typical Marxist, no thought is tolerated except theirs and has to be suppressed by whatever means possible. Coren has to be nice to her ilk because of his public position.
So when did you choose to be straight? I don’t remember making the choice, and I don’t think you do either.
The only reason Oz believes homosexuality isn’t a choice is that if it were, it means God made them that way. And if there is one thing we know about God, it’s that He hates fags.
But Ken of course not all gays are exhibionist jackasses. There’s no need to take that out on – well, anyone who isn’t an exhibitistic jackass.
libertariansdeliberatelymissthepoint – I’m so sick of this one. Nobody’s suggesting that anyone wakes up in the morning and decides “I’m going to find breats very s*xy today. Tomorrow, perhaps donkeys”. The point is that people have tendencies which can be cultivated one way or another. I strongly suspect that a lot of men could fancy lolita-age girls if they wanted to, but most guys couldn’t live with themselves if they found they were sitting around letching after middle-schoolers. (Please don’t make out that I’m comparing homosexuality to pedophilia morally.) Lots of, for example, actors and British public (i.e. private) school boys go through a gay phase and then outgrow it. And then there’s prison… you know what they say… Personally, I think most people have a certain innate capacity for bisexuality, but few or none are hardwired gay or straight in utero.
And Phantom’s right, if you’re going to make these sweeping claims about scientific evidence existing for things (“lesbianism follows Mendelian inheritance patterns”), you really should cite something.
Ken (Kulak)>
Bingo! The general heterosexual public wouldn’t pay much attention to gays, if they didn’t “stick it in our faces” at every opportunity. Then there is the children… my my my, even most stupid people know to leave bear cubs alone when out camping.
The true could also be said for Islam or any other radical minority infestation.