I stand corrected. In my earlier post, I doubted whether the Left was so stupid to go after a genuine social conservative through Free Dominion. I was wrong.
Apparently, the whiner in question is a little woman from some two bit college in Quebec. And I am sure we are all shocked that it’s a female professor too! I know, I know. I am still scratching my head at the unlikelihood of thaaaaaat one.
Her name is Marie-Line Gentes and she is a wildlife biologist who studied at the University of Saskatchewan and now teaches at Vanier College in Quebec. A couple of pictures of her can be located here.
(Personally, I feel these women need a good macho man to settle them right down so they are not going around making fools of themselves.)
Anyhow, I scarcely know where to begin. This whole thing has been one big fat farce from the beginning. Here is the text of Mark Fournier’s post which details the substance of the complaint:
From the complaint:
03/09/06 “To see the original hitting Edmonton mailboxes tonight. (warning disturbing but necessary photo) http://takebackcanada.com/whatcott.html “
04/24/06 “I can’t figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals.”
03/09/06 “I defy Islamic censorship and speak about what I believe is the truth about violent Islamism and its threat to religious liberty in Canada.”
If you are not a Muslim and you have read the above, according to Gentes, you have been discriminated against. I imagine everyone is writhing on the floor right now but I’m not done discriminating against you yet. I’m going to reproduce some more stuff from her complaint to further torture you. These she added with no accreditation, but she doesn’t seem to be attributing them to Whatcott:
“How many of us pay nothing but lip service to the Muslim threat here in Canada?”
“Probably everyone want to jail a Muslim.”
“I have to ask why we are importing them here?”
“Islamic fundamentalism and its threat to Canada’s religious and civil liberties.” Source
No, no, no. Don’t get up. I know you are trying to adjust the knob on the tube, because you’re likely thinking what I’m thinking: “there must be more right?” Nope, there’s no more to come. That’s it. That’s the whole enchalada. The great “hate” case that our tax dollars are funding is contained in the above post. Part of the Conservative Budget no less. Makes you feel your donations to the CPC and tax dollars are being well spent attacking what your grandfather fought and died for, donit?
What has Bill Whatcott presented for this farce of a proceeding?
Here is the link to the article in question which was referred to above by Ms. Gentes.
1) Pictures of
a) fanatical Muslim brutality on a Christian girl,
b) destruction of Art,
c) the famous Muhammed cartoon picture.
A description of above pictures is presented in Paragraph 1.
2) Paragraph 2: Reporting the facts of recent Muslim aggression against Chrsitians.
3) Paragraph 3: An opinion on the facts in Paragraph 2.
4) Paragraph 4: An acknowledgement that not all Muslims are violent, but that history shows that Muhammed himself was a very violent man. Examples of this violence are cited. A smackdown of the main stream media, including the CBC, for their rank hypocrisy in blaspheming Christ but not defending the freedom of the press when a religious figure other than Christ is criticized. Typical of the Christian Broadcasting Corporation.
5) Paragraph 5: A reaffirmation that not all Muslims are violent but that Islamic theology itself is violent.
6) Paragraph 6: Citations from the Koran re: paragraph 5 claims.
7) Paragraph 7: An opinion expressed on the state of the affairs of the Muslim world, in particular the lack of resolve of Muslims to curtail the violence in their own community against non-Muslims, backed up by examples.
8) Paragraph 8: More reaffirmation that nominal Muslims are no threat, but that the extremists are a serious threat to religious freedom.
9) Paragraph 9: A doctrinal statement which is a truth of the Catholic faith: Muhammed was a false prophet since he did not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ. An opinion that Islam and Sharia Law is oppressive. A condemnation of Muhammed, a historical religious figure.
10) Paragraph 10: An appeal to “dear Muslim(s)” to convert to the Christian faith.
None of Bill’s comments are “hateful”. In fact, if the Left were to simply clear away the hateful frothing at the mouth for a moment and stop their incoherent babbling, they would concede that, in his own peculiar way, Bill has real concern for the Muslim (as a human person) and his salvation. There is certainly no intent to spread or even promote hatred against Muslims. To suggest otherwise is to admit a serious case of delusion.
His comments are “controversial”. They are politically incorrect. But we do not call in big brother because people have their feelings hurt. We certainly don’t call in big brother when the facts supporting the conclusion are well known and accepted by the wider culture. Bill went after fanatical Muslims and he pointed out that Islam is a violent religion. Not popular but historical. And certainly not a hate crime either – by any stretch of the imagination. Even if you had a liberal imagination, it would have to be pretty contorted to call the kangaroo court accusing this kind of (largely) factual and substantiated opinion a “hate crime”.
The fact that this thing was not laughed right off the desk of the functionaries of the CHRC is not surprising. But lost in all this is something much more ominous and dangerous for our culture. If Ms. Gentes is successful and Islam is going to be treated as such, it will be very difficult for Christians and Catholics in particular to not consider similar complaints against the Left who have vilified, blasphemed and defamed many Christian figures including Jesus Christ Himself, His Mother, and the Pope on a scale that makes the cartoons mocking Muhammed down right reverent.
If squeezing Muhammed or Islamic theology is not kosher, then neither are attacks against Jesus Christ or Christian theology either. That’s how it works. Just remember, my lefty friends, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If this decision goes through and costs Connie or Mark anything of significance, the free speech chill will not be contained to conservative circles. We’ll make sure the refrigerator door is kicked wide open so everyone feels cooler weather, global warming nothwithstanding.