Though it took longer than I anticipated, it seems Wildrose leader Danielle Smith, gag order and all, has failed to contain the radical views held by some in her party from seeping out into the public sphere. These views would have been discovered eventually, mind you, as Smith cannot muzzle her candidates (or MLAs, for that matter) forever. However, the candidates who have come under fire in recent days provide a glimpse into the more extreme elements of the Wildrose party.
First there was Edmonton-South-West candidate Allan Hunsperger, a former Pastor, who wrote how tolerance and acceptance of gay people “is cruel and not loving.” You see, gay people should choose “to not live the way they were born,” according to Hunsperger. “You can live the way you were born, and if you die the way you were born, then you will suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire, hell, a place of eternal suffering … Warning people not to live the way they were born is not judgment or condemnation — it is love!”
“When a person is making personal statements in their capacity as a pastor, which he was, I don’t think anybody should be surprised that they’re expressing certain viewpoints,” Smith explained. “I’m not going to be the sort of politician who engages in discrimination against religious candidates.”
But when it comes to her candidates themselves ‘engaging in discrimination’ toward a group of people? No harm, no foul, apparently; so long as the discrimination is expressed under the guise of religion.
Ron Leech, Wildrose candidate for Calgary-Greenway, was the next candidate to come down with foot-in-mouth disease. On a weekend radio program, Leech suggested he holds an advantage over his rivals in the riding simply because he’s white.
“I think, as a caucasian, I have an advantage,” explained Leech. “When different community leaders such as a Sikh leader or a Muslim leader speaks they really speak to their own people in many ways. As a caucasian I believe that I can speak to all the community.”
Once again, Smith’s reaction was one of indifference.
“I’m not concerned about (the remarks),” Smith assured reporters. “I think every candidate puts forward their best argument for why they should be the person the way represent the community. I know Dr. Leech runs a private school that has a large number of people from cultural communities. He has a very ethnically diverse riding. He’s made great friendships and in roads with leaders of different cultural communities.”
In other words, he’s not racist because he knows some ethnic people.
Unlike Hunsperger, however, Leech quickly apologized for, what he calls, his poor choice of words. Smith, being the ‘true leader‘ she is, broadcast the apology on twitter and Facebook, thus washing her hands of all responsibility.
As yet, however, there has been no apology or clarification from either Smith or Leech regarding the latter’s 2004 ‘defense of marriage:’
”I do not hate homosexuals, lesbians, adulterers or, for that matter, rapists. What I do hate is sin and its devastating effects on people’s lives … the foundational institution of all human society, always and everywhere.
[...] Redefining marriage to allow the deliberate exclusion of either a father or mother sends a terrible message to the next generation. It says children don’t deserve both parents, and it will further demoralize their own efforts to become parents themselves.
[...] It is biblically, morally and practically reprehensible for the government to pretend that two men or two women engaged in mutual stimulation are the same as a husband and wife, as potential parents. Marriage is not about equal rights; it isn’t a special-interest group. It is a repository for the future of humanity.
All Canadians — including childless homosexuals — benefit from a healthy marriage culture. All Canadians pay the price in increased taxes, mental illness, crime and human suffering when mothers and fathers choose to divorce or not marry. Adding same-sex marriages to a hodgepodge of family groupings will only worsen the confusion.
So I am against same-sex marriage for four reasons:
First, were homosexuality at all legitimate, the Bible would include options other than natural heterosexuality; yet homosexuality is only ever condemned.
So, second, homosexuality, like every other sin, is a conscious rebellion against divinely created order. Scriptures (like Romans 1:26-32) clearly call homosexual behaviour sinful. To deliberately choose to practise a sin is intentional rebellion.
Third, deliberately sterile homosexuality violates God’s intention for human creation itself. The Bible says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. So God blessed them and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’ ” (Genesis 1:27-28)
Fourth, homosexuality distorts the image of God. The image of God comprises both male and female, a complementarity eternal and everlasting.
To affirm homosexuality is to distort the image of God, to insult the nature and being of God.”
To his credit, and in direct op[position to Hunsperger, Leech does state “gays and lesbians have the right to live as they choose,” so there’s that ...
But I digress.
The purpose of this piece is to provide a glimpse of another Wildrose candidate who, so far, has avoided media scrutiny. In addition, it seems someone has gone to great lengths to cleanse the internet of his written work.
Link Byfield, editor and publisher of the (now defunct) Alberta Report magazine, is the Wildrose candidate for Barrhead-Westlock-Morinville. A former ‘senator-in-waiting’, Byfield is beloved among social conservatives everywhere. What puzzles me is, being such a prominent figure, why he has remained silent throughout the campaign on various issues that he was once so eager to write about?
No matter. I archived much of his work years ago.
Whether Byfield’s writings are of any value to potential voters, I suppose is open for interpretation. However, given the public reaction to both Hunsperger and Leech, I suspect more than a few will appreciate having a complete picture of their potential candidate of choice.
Because I do not have (publicly accessible) links to the articles, the following excerpts can be lengthy. But I feel it is important to include as much of the original content as possible.
March 18, 2002 - On the issue of ‘conscience rights,’ the case of Dr. Stephen Dawson, a born again Christian who “refused to prescribe the birth control pill to single women or sildenafil to single men because of his religious beliefs.” Dawson not only abdicated his duties as a medical professional, but distributed photocopies of Bible passages to patients, one of which read “when you do not warn nor dissuade an unrighteous man from his evil ways, he will lose his soul for his iniquity, and his blood will be on your hands.”
He faced charges of professional misconduct, but in the end the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) and Dawson ‘ended their confrontation’ by agreeing a detailed policy statement be posted in his waiting room, and that he refrain from proselytizing to patients.
(Ironically enough, Dawson would later have his license revoked for having “committed an act of professional misconduct in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient.”)
Here is Byfield’s take, in part, on the matter:
“Note well the case of Dr. Stephen Dawson ... Not only could it sound the death knell of freedom, but of society as we have known it.
Dr. Dawson is a Christian of no particular denomination. He reads the Bible and I'd think he prays. [...] He realized, he says, that he should stop abetting the sins of his patients, so he sent them all a letter explaining that he would no longer write birth-control prescriptions for unmarried women, or dispense Viagra for single men, since this would promote adultery. Nor would he refer anyone to a more compliant doctor.
If any such letter came to me, whether I agreed with it or not, I’d rejoice. [...] Last summer four women, even though they were perfectly free to find themselves another contraceptive dealer, complained to the provincial college of physicians. The CPSO has since charged him with “professional misconduct in that he failed to meet the overall moral and professional standard of care.” How ironic. His case is set for April.
Dr. Dawson has sinned against modern sensibilities in two ways, or so I would gather by reading the scathing comments about him in the press. First, he is discriminating against unmarried, sexually active women. This is hopelessly cruel and inconsiderate, apparently …Women have a God-given right (or at least a government-given one) to copulate as they wish without hindrance and lectures from him. Worse, granted that he himself has this mental thing about chastity, he has refused to send them along to someone with views more up to date. He has said that if he did, he might as well give them what they want himself; his responsibility is to discourage them as best he can.
Such intransigence has provoked outrage. “Suppose someone said, ‘I’m uncomfortable with treating a minority,”‘ countered science and religion Professor James Robert Brown in the Barrie Examiner. “I’d say, ‘So long, scum.’ You have no right letting your private beliefs affect your public behaviour.”
If Prof. Brown is the best the University of Toronto can find to moralize on the rights of conscience, God help Ontario. Anyone who could utter a remark so moronic belongs on a human-rights commission somewhere … Only a weak or perverse mind would equate race with sexual behaviour. To refuse medicine to a man because he is white or yellow or black is morally a totally different thing than saying that certain occasions of sexual intercourse should be discouraged. There are no “wrong” races unless you are a racist. There are, however, many, many “wrong” forms of sex, unless you are an imbecile.
[...] There is a growing tendency to mistake hurt feelings for criminal assault, especially on behalf of politically favoured “victim” groups: women, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, etc. To criticize their attitudes or behaviour is to “attack” them, which amounts to sexism, homophobia and racism. Thus freed from unkind comment, they do what they like.
But the worst part of Dr. Dawson’s prosecution is this. He is defending the principle of sexual purpose: that it isn’t just for recreation; it’s to transmit life through the natural institution of the family. Suppress his right to defend the natural family and you render inevitable the only ultimate alternative–the spiritually vacuous Brave New World that is the subject of this week’s cover story by Terry O’Neill. We always want to think that “choices” don’t really matter. They really do. Some paths lead to heaven, others to hell. If as a society we choose to suppress genuine freedom in favour of some fraudulent synthetic substitute, we will soon find ourselves in hell. Dr. Dawson could be forgiven for thinking we’ve already arrived. “
January 1, 2001 - On the issue of same sex marriage.
“ [...] Registered Domestic Partnership (RDP). This singularly unattractive label would be affixed to any two people who want to declare themselves mutually dependent for tax and pension purposes, be they a married man and wife, common-law cohabitants, two siblings, two gays or just two long-time friends.
[...] First, all of our “houses of worship” worth the name always have and always will reserve marriage solely to heterosexuals … homosexuality being what it is, relatively few homosexuals and lesbians want to be married anyway. They may want the right, but few seem to want the reality. This whole struggle has been about political mastery, not equal rights, for this is not a right they use … the few who do form more lasting partnerships already have the same tax and benefit rights as normal married couples… the Liberals gave them that last year: everything except the use of the word “marriage.” And now, needless to say, a few activists are determined to get that too, and nothing seems likely to stop them … the goal now is status.
This debate is not … between “traditionalists” and “progressivists.” It’s between nature and perversity; between reality and illusion. The triangle of father, mother and child is a permanent and inescapable norm of human nature. You can always find some workable exceptions to it, but they have to be recognized as exceptions. Any society foolish enough to pretend there is no norm will soon enough suffer grave, even fatal, consequences.
The danger of homosexual marriage is not that there will be many such marriages. There will be few. The danger lies in recognizing them, or affirming them, or pretending they’re just as good as the real thing. It debases the whole institution.
I don’t think it is possible to have a free and orderly society if the state refuses to affirm certain natural moral norms. It’s one thing to say that we should tolerate differences, but quite another to insist that the state not recognize any norms at all. Yet that is what we keep trying to do.
Christians say that man is inclined to rebellion against both God and his own better nature–that his good inclinations have been corrupted by ungodly, unnatural contrary impulses: pride, anger, dishonesty, lust, laziness, jealousy and greed. A good government sets itself to discourage these bad impulses, but can’t succeed unless (a) the government itself can tell good from bad, and (b) most people actually govern themselves. Families are an essential–in fact the essential–agent of that self-government. They are the first and most effective authority of all. Forget that simple fact and you are very soon left with a choice between anarchy and slavery. Which increasingly is our emerging circumstance. “
February 5, 2001 - On homosexuality, apparently being in the same class as, and promoting, pedophilia.
“The like-minded groups we now discreetly refer to as “sexual minorities”–homosexuals, lesbians, pedophiles, etc.–loomed large in the news in January. There was worldwide media attention on two gay pseudo-weddings in Toronto, which were described as a “first” despite the fact that such illegal ceremonies have been occurring in a few obscure renegade “churches” for years.
[...] The January 1-8 edition of the U.S. Weekly Standard newsmagazine carried a chilling story … (documenting) how pedophiles are gaining acceptance as a legitimate “sexual minority,” especially the homosexual variety. This astonishing tolerance is not to be found among the general public … rather it exists among the various social, medical and psychological establishments, and many (though not all) of the homosexual organizations, where it has been incubating securely for over a decade. Now it is creeping stealthily into the areas of high culture and gay literature, cutting-edge cinema, classy advertising, “gay studies” departments, and into the legal system.
The process is identical to the one that has succeeded so well for homosexuality–behaviour which, you may recall, was a crime until 32 years ago. First, pedophilia ceases to be an immoral act; it becomes merely an illness. All the terminology is carefully neutralized: to go on calling it “sexual abuse” is denounced as pedophobic. It then rapidly ceases to be seen as a disease, and becomes merely a different orientation.”
March 19, 2001 - On homosexuals as parents, caregivers, and (apparently incompetent) competent human beings.
“A lesbian in our vicinity named Teresa O’Riordan, I read in our weekly Morinville-Gibbons Free Press, has been appointed to the local Community Justice Committee. She and seven other volunteers will help try to keep young offenders out of jail by giving them guidance and encouragement to turn their lives around.
[...] four years ago Ms. O’Riordan was something of a celebrity, when she had a run-in with the Alberta social services department over her suitability as a foster mother. [...]
Ms. T O’Riordan and her then-husband had the reputation in foster-parent circles of being excellent substitute caregivers; in fact, they specialized in severe and difficult cases … but in their middle years in, the middle ’90s, Mr. T departed, Mrs. T discovered herself to be a lesbian, kept possession of the house and brought in a female spouse. Word got around, and when she applied for two more foster children, having only one remaining in her care, she was asked if her new live-in was “more than just a friend.” Having thus run afoul of an Alberta Social Services policy against employing “nontraditional families” for foster purposes, she shared her unhappiness with the Edmonton Journal. Ever vigilant against homophobic intolerance in Alberta’s Tory government, the Journal loudly proclaimed her cause against then minister Stockwell Day.
But Mr. Day soon moved on to Treasury, and his social services successor, Lyle Oberg, put the “nontraditional” policy under “review.” The Alberta government was by now under attack about human rights from lesbians in Calgary, homosexuals in Edmonton, sterilization victims, nine sarcastic judges in the Supreme Court of Canada, the United Nations, federal cabinet ministers, its own addlepated human rights commission, Desmond Tutu and media-driven lobby groups everywhere. So on the question of homosexual fostering and adoption it quietly buckled.
[...] According to the Free Press, she is now a government-paid family counsellor in Athabasca during the day, and presents after-hours family life courses about parenting and anger management in Edmonton. And to boot she’s on one of federal Justice Minister Anne McLellan’s new Gentleness and Compassion Committees.
All of which goes to show how absurdly our public attitudes have been turned on their head. Here we have a divorcee teaching families how to succeed, a lesbian teaching about parenting, and all on the state payroll. Here we see a noted permissivist assigned to monitor young criminals whose most urgent need is probably a good hard kick in the pants.
As for anger management, I can’t help but wonder (bigot that I am) if Ms. T’s household suffers the kind of domestic violence and discord for which lesbian relationships are so notorious. The odds are that it doesn’t, but short of a police complaint or hospital emergency visit, how would anyone know? Did anyone ask? Is anyone these days allowed to ask?
[...] The trouble with Ms. T is not that she is a bad person; I assume she’s a very nice person, a nicer and more caring one than I. Nor is the problem that she’s “different”; we are all in some ways unusual, and if we weren’t it would be a dull world. No, the trouble with Ms. T is simply that there is no Mr. T, and every child should, if at all possible, have a mother and a father. It’s the way nature intended it, and no matter how many lobby groups and judges claim otherwise, the government can’t change nature. Moreover, anyone who can’t see something so obvious has no business teaching others about family life. Of all the things Ms. O’Riordan might have made a livelihood doing, it’s odd she chose this one. And it’s even odder that the people who hired her saw nothing odd about it. I suppose they sensed that the sexual misfits are unaccountably in control of things, and feared that if they didn’t hire Ms. O’Riordan they’d find themselves beset by her ruthless media attack dogs. Rather than risk such a calamity, they put her on the payroll. That’s how it’s done these days.“
November 20, 2000 – On … Eminem?!? (and Byfield’s selective support for censorship and really, really Big Government.)
“There was much rolling of eyes two weeks ago when authorities in Ontario tried to prevent the loathsome white rapper Marshall Mathers (alias Eminem) from entering Canada. The attempt failed, the concert sold out and there was predictable tut-tutting about the self-defeating futility of anyone trying to censor “freedom of expression.”
Now like most people of reasonable taste, I have never listened to Mr. Mathers’ noise. Reading about it is enough. [...]
It probably was a mistake for Ontario Attorney General Jim Flaherty even to suggest there was a chance Mr. Mathers could be kept out for violating Canada’s Criminal Code hate law … he demonstrated his and our utter impotence to establish community standards of any kind at all.
Small-l liberals seem to like it this way. Mr. Mathers “is no more shocking for our time than Elvis and his swivel hips were for his, not to mention Alice Cooper and his chopping up a baby doll on stage in the 1970s,’ wrote Edmonton Journal pop culture apologist David Staples … he thinks the rapper deserves “respect” for giving the “raging ambitions and hormones” of young males a safe outlet. “It crosses a line,” conceded Mr. Staples, “but it’s nothing too horrific, and it certainly expresses feeling.”
Well, yes. And all feelings are equally good, right? So say the liberals. All emotions, no matter how depraved, unreasonable, destructive, self-indulgent, violent and vile–all deserve an unrestrained airing on a public stage, and life will go on. Nothing is shocking, nothing is shameful. Just learn a little tolerance.
[...] Why should we tolerate Eminem? He is bad for music, bad for social peace and trust, bad for morals, bad for his fans, bad for everyone, including himself … That liberals like Mr. Staples can behold 20,000 fans worshipping someone with the manners and morals of pimp, and imagine no evil will come of it if we just look the other way, surely represents some kind of cultural death wish.
It’s time–long past time, in fact–to admit that we have stopped even trying to defend community standards of decency. The job entails someone saying “no” to the parade of creeps who pander for profit to humanity’s worst instincts and impulses. Until about 40 years ago we were willing to do this, and we were a stronger and better people as a result.
What we need is a Criminal Code amendment authorizing municipalities to empanel a jury of citizens, half of them men and half women chosen at random, to arbitrate community standards. If Valerie Smith thinks Mr. Mathers has squandered his right to appear in Toronto, she should make her case to the jurors, and if two-thirds agree with her the concert should be shut down. If a record or video store sells such material, and a jury majority finds it outside community norms, the merchant should be fined.
Horrors! the liberals will cry; that would be censorship. Yes, indeed it would. But what is the alternative? To say there must be no such thing as community standards? To insist that our social norms must always be set by those who are consciously determined to destroy them?
No credible case can be made that a free society never censors anything. A few lingering vestiges of censorship can be found even in our own; public sexual intercourse is still forbidden, for example, at least for now. (But just wait for the chorus: How intolerant of us! How would it harm you?)
The real question is, who gets to say what the community standard is? To whom do we entrust that task? To government bureaucrats? Not likely. To judges? No, they’ve spent the last four decades telling us they don’t feel qualified. But that leaves only one source of authority–namely, the public itself.
So let’s ask the public. Empanel a jury and let the Marshall Mathers of this world make their case.”
When Danielle Smith insists, so long as she is the leader of the Wildrose, she will not legislate on moral issues, I believe her. However, that doesn’t mean Albertans should be electing individuals who have yet to escape the mentality of the 19th century.
One of the more amusing moments to emerge from the Leaders’ Debate was Liberal Leader Raj Sherman’s quip: “This is Alberta, not Alabama.”
The Wildrose would do well to remember that.
Cross-posted at CalgaryPolitics.com