« I Like Hugo's "In Three Months" SeriesHurl.exe, Amazon and Firefox »

More On Craig Chandler

11/29/07

  11:17:21 pm, by Nimble   , 1280 words  
Categories: Thoughts, Ethics, Politics, Religion

More On Craig Chandler

It has been a little bit tough to find detailed information on what exactly Craig Chandler, the controversial candidate whose comments have landed him in hot water - with Premier Ed Stelmach initiating a formal review - said to get himself in such hot water.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has the transcript, correspondence and decision for censure here. It's an on-air retaliation for a complaint made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

Chandler: Well, last week some of you might have been shocked when I said we were gonna do a story on the new Nazis. Well, did that shock you, Steve?

Chapman: I was completely shocked. Who are we talking about, Craig?

Chandler: We're talking about the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I want to get everyone caught up to date. [.] 'Cause that's really what this is about. It's about freedom of speech, freedom of religion. Uh, Pastor Stephen Boissoin, when he was our Alberta Chairman for Concerned Christians Canada, uh, our Central Alberta Chairman I should say, wrote a letter to the editor. Okay?

Ah, yes, Boissoin. Here is the letter that Boissoin wrote (posted on Freedominion here):

Homosexual Agenda Wicked
June 17, 2002

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

Your children are being warped into believing the same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed in how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protected homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.

Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev Stephen Boissoin

Paranoid, fevered dementia. It's one thing to have a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong; it's quite another to make up this kind of black ops gay army manure pile that crosses way over the line of belief and opinion into raving, demonstrably false accusations which, if you don't believe, indicate that you're "part of the problem".

I had to rub my eyes a bit to see someone on the forum have no problem with such a letter:

Thanks for the post I don't see any hate in that letter, just a strong opinion. He also keeps it focused to militant homosexuals who do have an agenda by their own accounting, and have openly associated with NAMBLA, which should concern every citizen.

Words fail me when faced with such intense ideological blind spots.

Ever so fun that this comes from Concerned Christians Canada, which cannot seem to be contented with the good works they do for the poor without casting many a stone while they do it. I knew Jim Blake there once upon a time (I know, I know... I used to hang out with Ezra Levant's sister, too...it's my fault somehow, isn't it? :) ) - I hope he's the sugar that counteracts some of the bile that goes on behind the scenes.

There's no question that Chandler is a deep social conservative that is disturbingly reminiscent of the neo-conservative policies in the U.S. Parlayed against that is something that has got to be one of the weirdest things I've heard a social conservative do, and that's Chandler starring in God Only Knows: Same Sex Marriage, which swaps Chandler and his wife into the pastorage of a gay minister and his partner and vice versa.

This sound like it temporarily inspired him to say that the government should stay out of marriages and individual churches could decide who they want to marry... which would undoubtedly end up allowing gays to be married somewhere.

However... it doesn't sound like the lesson was really all that deep, though, although the documentary itself was purportedly very watch-worthy.

5 comments

Comment from: A. W. [Visitor]  
A. W.

Just wondering…Do you deny that the militant homosexuals have an agenda? Doesn’t every organized group in society have an agenda? I submit that it does, otherwise there is no point in organizing! Do you deny that their agenda would involve promoting their own lifestyle as acceptable and normal? I don’t see how you could, because they are pretty open about that themselves. Do I consider homosexuals on the same level as pedophiles etc.? No. Do I consider their agenda harmful and debilitating to morality in our society? Yes. Do I believe that their agenda is infiltrating our schools? Yes. Do I consider open discussion about the problems associated with this agenda “hate literature"? No, absolutely not. If someone reads a discourse listing the negatives about pedophilia and two weeks later kills a pedophile, will you blame the original article for having led the killer to commit his crime? I hope not! People who kill or attack or in any way seek to intentionally harm another person do so because they have some kind of mental instability that leads them to act this way. We cannot blame the expression of opinions for the crimes that take place, trying to find connections to suit our own arguments. If we are worried about the influences of writing and other broadcasting on the actions of society, let’s get all the violence and disgusting propaganda off television, out of movies, out of stores (magazine racks) out of video games, music etc. because apparently we cannot expect people to take responsibility for their own actions if they are exposed to any of the above. This is another typical sidestep of our society – “if we can blame someone else for what we have done, let’s do it.” I’m not saying these things have no influence on our children, for example, and I do believe that many things should be removed from the media, but I don’t believe that simple differing opinions about lifestyles are responsible for crimes. I have been exposed to many different ideas, often not by my own choice, but because I am bombarded by messages in the media that anger and disturb me. But I am no killer, and I would not condone the killing of anyone. I am a concerned Christian though, and although I strive to love the sinner while hating the sin, I do think that we could live without gay pride parades. If they are truly seeking some kind of equality, let them come forward with proof of us ever having a heterosexual pride parade! What a joke. I don’t need to parade all over town in my underwear to show people what I am and that I am proud of it. And if they think that doing this somehow enlightens me as to their rights or their upstanding citizenship, they are sadly mistaken. I know there are many, many homosexual people who are not only offended by the behavior of militant gays, but actually wish they would just be quiet already. They do not speak for all homosexuals – as with most militant groups, they speak for themselves only, and maybe, just maybe, it is their own behavior that upsets and angers other people who commit crimes against them. I am not at all saying they deserve it, I am just suggesting that rather than blame the opinions of their opponents, maybe they should consider that they themselves are causing their own problems and swaying opinions against their own. Lastly, I would like to add that I am so very tired of the term homophobic being used to describe anyone who doesn’t support the homosexual agenda, or who speaks out against homosexual behavior in general. For those who don’t already own a dictionary, a phobia is a fear, not a disagreement, or an opinion. I am NOT afraid of homosexuals, I do not have a phobia about them or their behavior. I simply don’t share their opinions and I disagree with their agenda. Calling someone like me “homophobic” is just another means of attracting attention and sympathy for their cause. If disagreements are fears, then let’s call them heterosexualphobics – ooops, wait a minute, that’s probably hate literature……….better call my lawyer.

12/02/07 @ 08:58
Comment from: truth be told [Visitor]  
truth be told

A.W.,

Good questions. (Too bad about the format. Ever hear of paragraphs?)

“Do you deny that the militant homosexuals have an agenda?”

Heck, even non-militant, passive homosexuals have an agenda - it’s peace, order and good government, accompanied by safe streets, safe schools and safe communities. Thanx 4 askin’.

“Do you deny that their agenda would involve promoting their own lifestyle as acceptable and normal?”

Yes, I would deny that because 1. we don’t ahve “lifestyles", we have LIVES, and 2. we don’t have to “promote” being gay as acceptable and normal because it IS acceptable and normal. Just not to YOU, apparently.

“Do I consider their agenda harmful and debilitating to morality in our society? Yes.”

You would first have to define and then seek agreement on exactly what is meant by our “agenda". What you post here has nothing to do with it. Then, you would have to say HOW it is “harmful and debilitating". Then, you would have to hope and pray that you were believed.

“Do I consider open discussion about the problems associated with this agenda “hate literature"? No, absolutely not.”

Except, of course, you don’t consider comparing committed, loving, adult, consenting relationships to child molestation as ‘hateful’, so we wouldn’t agree on much else, would we? So why bother having this “open discussion"?

“People who kill or attack or in any way seek to intentionally harm another person do so because they have some kind of mental instability that leads them to act this way.”

Thank you ever so much for explaining why you attack and intentionally harm gays - it’s because of your “mental instability". NOW we understand where all this comes from.

“We cannot blame the expression of opinions for the crimes that take place”

Of course we can, especially in light of the call to “take whatever steps are necessary". That’s a direct call to attack and harm gay people. And guess what? It worked.

“I would not condone the killing of anyone”

But a little roughing up, a little debasement, a little diminishment, a little demeaning, a little false witness about God’s gay and lesbian children it seems you’re okay with.

“I am a concerned Christian”

You come across as more of a busybody, mean-spirited “christian".

“I strive to love the sinner while hating the sin”

Odd how it’s always the “sinner” that gets bashed, eh?

“I do think that we could live without gay pride parades.”

Like you were forced to go to them?

“If they are truly seeking some kind of equality, let them come forward with proof of us ever having a heterosexual pride parade!”

Proof!??? How about every single day of the year. How come when I put a picture of my husband up at work, I’m “flaunting my ‘lifestyle’", but when you put a picture of your spouse up, you’re ‘displaying family values’? How come when you ask for your spouse to be covered under your work’s health plan, it’s a natural expectation, but when I do it, I’m “forcing it down your throat"?

“I know there are many, many homosexual people who are not only offended by the behavior of militant gays, but actually wish they would just be quiet already. They do not speak for all homosexuals – as with most militant groups, they speak for themselves only”

Do YOU speak for “ALL” heterosexuals, or just the militant, anti-gay ones?

“and maybe, just maybe, it is their own behavior that upsets and angers other people who commit crimes against them.”

Hmm. Your writing upsets and angers me. Would that justify me committing a crime against you?

“I am not at all saying they deserve it”

It just comes across that way. Wonder why?

“I am so very tired of the term homophobic being used”

Me too. Homo-hatred is much more apt, and so evident in what you post.

No, “heterosexualphobics” isn’t hate-literature. The correct term is heterosexists, those who think they are superior because they’re str8.

Try again, but DO BETTER!

12/02/07 @ 14:08
Comment from: Nimble [Member]  
Nimble

Your stand of ‘loving the sinner while hating the sin’ is not as generous as you would make it out to be, for this particular variant of the Christian ethic that imagines homosexuality to be a choice, indeed that must imagine it to be a ‘choice’, when it is not, in order for it to be a sin that can be redeemed. Painting it as a ‘choice’ also leads people to believe some things that are not only contrary to reality, but are beliefs that are dangerous for some people to hold, for they may act on them.

For if it’s a choice, then by extension the only way that there are still as many homosexuals now as there have been at most points in history is because they must be swelling their ranks somehow. Since they do not seem to be good at showing how appealing it is, which would be required in order to entice new recruits in, the explanation that “follows” is that it must somehow be done via the recruitment of children, like some sort of drug pushing racket… for why else would children grow up to be homosexuals?

Just ask homosexuals about their attraction, when it started, and whether anyone led them to it, and it may help disabuse you of such mythical notions.

Spreading vitriol specifically of the “gays are after your children” type is not mere media agitation: it pushes the fear buttons of parents, which are some of the most potent fear buttons of all. Seeing danger to children where it does not exist will bring people to violence. Remember the “Satanic Rituals around every corner” paranoia in the 80’s and 90’s that turned out to be unjustified? Jewish blood libel?

Your pedophilia violence argument is on the borderline, depending on what the article says and the who committed the violence. If the article just talks about what’s wrong with pedophilia, what happens to the poor children who suffer it, then your line of reasoning is quite right. I’d say that extends even to television specials like “To Catch a Predator".

If, however, the article or video whips up a paranoia and makes something sound like an immediate and specific threat, and causes a fearful parent to go off and murder someone matching the general description, then I would blame the original article. The scales are different, of course: the killer is to charged with murder and the author with a maximum of incitement to riot or the like.

*laugh* Gay pride parades aren’t to everyone’s taste. They’re garish and a caricature of gay culture and potentially embarrassing to gay folks who are more culturally mainstream, but with all such endeavours, it is a day for the participants to express some solidarity and to at least try to uncoil, if not wear shiny gold underpants.

Feel free to boycott them :)

For the record, there was a “straight pride” parade in Durham, North Carolina in 2004. All in good taste, too :)

I wouldn’t tarnish you with “homophobic” in that sense, either, though I do think your misgivings about homosexuals, apart from merely disagreeing with homosexuality from your personal faith and point of view, are misguided.

12/02/07 @ 14:43
Comment from: A. W. [Visitor]
A. W.

Sorry about the paragraphs – some sites don’t accept them and I didn’t think to check first and then I noticed the confusing appearance after I posted.

Secondly, thank you for reminding me why I don’t post things that are controversial on the web or in newspapers anymore – there’s always a way for someone to misinterpret or misconstrue what is said depending on their perspective. I thought I was very clear in saying that I don’t support violence against homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. I am pro-life but I don’t support the bombing of abortion clinics either. And I wasn’t talking about my own mental instability causing a crime to be committed. I am not a murderer.

Lastly, I apologize for not knowing ahead of time when I read your site that you were homosexual and were arguing from that perspective. I found the site as the result of a search for Chandler’s letter and was intrigued by your comments so I hastily commented myself, but had I known, I would not have approached it in such a general way. My mistake.

I still disagree with your comments, and with your response to mine, but I am not a gay hater, or an anyone hater for that matter. I know people who are gay and they deserve to be treated with dignity like anyone else. I was responding to your criticisms of another person.

I can understand that if you have been treated in a way that you feel is unfair by people who are rude, or violent towards you, my comments have simply hit a nerve. Perhaps I jumped the gun myself in commenting in the first place without thinking about how I was presenting my words.

This is not likely to change anything, but I figured it was worth saying anyway.

12/05/07 @ 18:20
Comment from: A.W. [Visitor]
A.W.

wait a minute! now I am confused. I got the responses mixed up. I thought the first response above - from truth be told - was from the moderator of this site and I responded accordingly. Now I notice that the moderator responded second and in quite a different manner. You may certainly disregard my last post - and this one - if you wish! I don’t want to cause any confusion. I think I better just quit for now!!!

12/05/07 @ 18:31