"Let's not politicize this," said politicians of all stripes as they cried on cue for the victims of Tuesday's school shooting at Tumbler Ridge BC that left nine people dead, including the killer, and 27 injured.
Among those weeping was Marni Panas, a "trans activist" based in Edmonton, who says her heart broke when she saw the news. When rumours (confirmed much later by the RCMP) began to circulate that the suspect, at first described as "a woman in a brown coat" was actually a biological male, Jesse Strang, who "identified as a woman", Ms Panas watched in horror what she says has become a predictable pattern emerge online.
Within minutes, she says some people began to leverage the tragedy to "advance hate" against the trans community.
"This will just get uglier now for us and for our community as a whole, when our attention should be on the care of these victims and to support communities," she said.
This post is based on a report published this morning on... wait for it... CBC News.
Puzzled footnote: Agent 3 reports that Canada's Notional Pestoops, National Post, the least left of the lickspittle Canadian meeja, has turned off comments on all articles and columns related to this story. Wonder why... But you can still comment on the social media!
Lovers of freedom and liberty rightly condemn The People's Republic [sic] of China abuses of human rights such as the Tiananmen Square massacre. Such abuses continue today, particularly in Xinjiang and Tibet. China doesn't tolerate mass protests any more. Is that so wrong?
Agent 78 returned recently from a lengthy trip through China. She reports that there no demonstrations or protests like those currently to be seen in just about every Western country, where students, professional malcontents and foreign agitators are in the streets in support of Hamas terrorists,gay "rights", trans "rights",BLM,safe injection sites, yada yada yada. The list of things these scum are in favour of... or fighting against... is a long one, laden with bullshit.
Agent 78 reports that China has no such protests. There are many other things that China doesn't have:
massive encampments of the "unhoused" (read: homeless)
parks and schoolgrounds littered with needles and other drug paraphernalia
media which promote and glorify perversion and decadence
daily reports of gun violence, looting (read: "reparations shopping"), and mayhem
houses that cost 50 or 100 times what an average worker can afford
masses of illigal immigrants swarming through open borders
and the list goes on. Western society is falling apart. Look around your town or city, dear reader, and ask yourself if a little less "human rights" and a little more law and order wouldn't make things better. Any party or any politician who makes a credible promise [Is there such a thing? Ed.] to clean things up has my vote! MAGA!
Bodycam footage seen recently on X illustrates the social justice/police brutality/yada yada bullshit that cops (especially white male cops) have to put up with in Woke America.
If you didn't catch all of it, here's a list of excuses this... errr... lady?... Karen?... libtard?... wokester came up with in just three minutes.
* I have bad social anxiety
* I don't wanna step out of the car because there's a lot of stuff going around
* I'm an indigenous person
* I'm non-binary
* Don't call me "ma'am"
* I have mental health problems [I believe that one. Ed.]
* You're trying to intimidate me
* I have PTSD
* This is triggering
* I have generational trauma
* I don't like being around white people and cops
* You're scaring me
* You're hurting me!!!
To think that in Biden's woke America, people like this are allowed to not only drive cars (even when drunk), but to vote!
Even Canada's lickspittle media couldn't ignore the "Million March for Children", held in cities across Canuckistan yesterday. 1000s of concerned Canadian parents, kids, and others -- including religious Catholics, Protestants and (yes!) Muslims -- showed up to protest LGBT indoctrination in the schools of the Great Woke North.
In the capital city, crowds of protesters and counter-protesters, believed to be in the hundreds on each side, yelled and chanted at each other from across Wellington Street, a large demonstration opposed to teaching LGBTQ2S+ issues in schools took over Parliament Hill.
Yes, we have video! Maxime Bernier, erstwhile leader of the People's Party of Canada (Yes, he and they are still fighting the good fight!) answers the headline question.
You'd think the answer would be obvious, but "Mad Max" is the only leader of a Canadian political party with the intestinal fortitude to say it out loud!
The stated goal of the protesters is to make schools -- Canadian school boards, particularly the Toronto District School Board, are notoriously "woke" -- stop teaching children about gay, lesbian and trans people, which the protesters claim runs counter to their rights as parents to control their children's moral and social upbringing.
Protesters held signs with slogans that included "leave the kids alone" and "pride comes before destruction". Some people at the protest called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to resign, as the ever-popular "Fuck Trudeau" flags, first seen during the Freedom Convoy, fluttered in the wind.
The protesters complained about "intrusive elements of sexual orientation and gender ideology" (read: pro-queer agenda) in the school system. They said they don't hate the LGBTQ2S+ community, but they oppose the school systems promoting queer issues in ways that they believe go against the values and beliefs they want to raise their children with.
The march comes on the heels of months of cultural battles in Canada as well as the US of A over "gay rights", particularly involving transgender people and "gender-affirming care" -- e.g. body mutilation -- for minors.
Besides cutting off various appendages, "medical interventions" can include puberty blockers, and hormone treatments. Other parts of "gender-affirming care" (read: grooming!) can include accepting the use of a different name or preferred pronouns or dressing as the preferred gender, which we used to call "transvestism" (a psychological abnormality or perversion) or simply "cross-dressing".
The governments of the provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have tabled legislation that would require that educators obtain parental consent if a child wishes to use a different name at school or be addressed by different pronouns. Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Education Minister Stephen Lecce have discussed similar ideas but, so far, no legislation has been announced in Ontario.
The issue has also raised its bewigged head in federal politics. At the recent Conservative Party of Canada convention, delegates voted in favour of a future Conservative government prohibiting "life-altering" medical and surgical interventions for "gender-diverse and transgender people" under the age of 18. But the new Tory leader, Pierre Poilievre, said that delegates can vote as they like, but he's the leader and willl go along with the liberals if that's what it takes to get elected.
Canadians should hope that, as Max Bernier said, common sense will prevail. But don't count on it.
You can call yourself "transgender" if you want, and dress up like a drag queen if you want, but if you've got a cubic pubic between your legs, you're still a man... as far as the Ukrainian government is concerned.
In what has become a controversial move by Ukrainian authorities, transgender "women" are being denied from leaving the country because their passport indicates they are not women, but men!
Radio Gold reports that Ukrainian female wannabes say they are "totally stuck" and "scared for their lives" in the country because their passport states that they are "men".
As they clutched their feather boas, two Ukrainian trans women said they can't join the "women and children first" fleeing the Russian invasion, because all of their ID documents say "male". And... horror of horrors... their papers mention their "old masculine names", and use those pesky old masculine pronounes!
Some "gay rights" groups have started advising trans "women" to lose their ID, in order to get out of Ukraine. LGBTQ2SXYZetc activists estimate this issue is leading to "hundreds" of trans people in Ukraine being left in "serious danger" and feeling "completely alone."
One trans woman said she is "terrified" of being stopped trying to leave Ukraine and having to submit to short arms inspection, which would reveal that xi [Is that the right pronoun? Ed.] which would reveal xer manlihood, after which xi would be forced to join the Ukrainian army.
Another Ukrainian trannie is the only person left in her neighbourhood, xi says through xer tears, because xi's scared to leave her accommodation for fear of transphobic attacks.
The real gender divide cuts both ways. One trans "man", who transitioned over six years ago and has lived as a man in Ukraine since, only has an ID which labels xim "female". He told VICE World News [That's its name? Seriously? Ed.] about xis fears of leaving his house and trying to make it across Ukraine. During a phone call, screaming and explosions were heard coming from outside xis accommodation, but xe still refused to leave because of his ID issue.
Walt sez... Ya big girl's blouse! If you had `em cut off, grow a new set, and stand and fight for your country!
Thanks and a tip o' the шапка to Agent 5, a 100% Ukrainian MAN!
Canada's Cuckservatives had no position on "values issues", because they were (and remain) deeply divided. On the left there are the Red Tories who will do and say whatever it takes to win (or at least not lose too badly), even if that means sounding like alt-Liberals. Opposing them are the True-Blue Tories, who claim to be social as well as fiscal conservatives, but don't like talking about killing unborn babies or the nonsense of gender ideology.
It appears that although Mr Scheep himself claims to be a SoCon, the Red Tories had the upper hand in the smoke-filled backrooms. Thus true Canuck conservatives had no party to vote for except "Mad Max" Bernier's People's Party of Canada, and even the PPC was not very strong on the pro-life side, saying merely that they would "allow debate" on the issue. The result, a whoda-thunk-it victory for the Rt. Hon. Justin Blackface, was utterly predictable.
Knives were stuck in Mr Scheep's back within 24 hours, not just be Canada's liberal media (Hello, CBC!) but by those who would be the new leader, notably Peter MacKay, who likened the Tories' loss to "having an empty net to shoot at, and missing." Mr MacHackey is now the leading contender for the leadership, with only a non-entity named Erin O'Toole [Mr or Ms? Ed.] claiming to be "true blue".
Six other "Conservatives" have entered the lists, bringing the total number of contenders for the poisoned chalice to eight. Not admitted to the list, officially announced yesterday, was Richard Richard Décarie, a social conservative whose post-secondary education includes graduate studies in Philosophy – Applied Ethics from the Université de Sherbrooke. M Décarie had submitted the required application, fee and nomination signatures, and was interviewed by the party, as required by its rules. Yet his nomination was rejected.
Why is M Décarie not being allowed to put his name forward? CPC spokesthingy Cory Hann [Ms or Mr? Ed.] couldn't say specifically why not, because "the process is confidential." Walt suggests it may have something to do with M Décarie's very public statements of his belief that being one of the alphabet people is a choice, and that government should defund abortion.
M Décarie has also said that "LGBTQ" is a liberal term, and that governments should work to uphold and restore "traditional values." Some of his opponents, including Mr MacHackey, Erin O'Toole and Marilyn Gladu [Who she? Ed.], condemned his remarks as did current MPs, party strategists and former staff. It appears that M Décarie is about as welcome in today's "Conservative" Party of Canada as a skunk at a garden party.
Walt predicts that on June 27th, Peter MacKay will be chosen as the new Cuckservative leader. Walt further predicts that he will never become Prime Minister of Canada. Never! Lifetime pct .992.
His Royal Highness Hassanal Bolkiah, sultan of the tiny but oil-rich state of Brunei, in southeast Asia, is a good Muslim, very keen to follow as closely as possible the moral code of Islam, the basis of Sharia law. Being the ruler, Sultan Hassanal has not just the will but the power to impose his strict beliefs on his country. And so it comes to pass that new Islamic criminal laws take effect in Brunei today, punishing gay sex and adultery by stoning offenders to death.
The penalties were provided for under new sections of Brunei's Shariah Penal Code, instituted by Sultan Hassanal in 2014 to bolster the influence of Islam in the oil-rich monarchy of around 430,000 people, two-thirds of whom are Muslim. Even before 2014, homosexuality was punishable by a jail term of up to 10 years. The first stage of the Shariah Penal Code included fines or jail for offences such as pregnancy out of wedlock or failing to pray on Fridays. The second stage raises the bar considerably.
Those found guilty of gay sex could be stoned to death or whipped. Adulterers risk death by stoning too, while thieves face amputation of a right hand on their first offence and a left foot on their second. The new laws apply to everyone, including children and foreigners, even if they are kafirs (read: non-Muslims = infidels). So if you're into deviant sex of any kind, or even normal sex outside a marital relationship, you'd do well to take Brunei off your list of the 100 places you want to visit before you die.
The usual gang of non-Muslim celebrities are in full cry against the new laws. Ignoring the fact that the law of Brunei is none of the business of Westerners, the likes of George Clooney, Elton John and (of course) Ellen DeGeneres have been vocal in opposition to the new laws, calling for a boycott of hotels in the USA and Europe with ties to Sultan Hassanal. Mr Clooney asks, "Are we really going to help fund the murder of innocent citizens?" While you can't shame "murderous regimes", he wrote in Deadline Hollywood, "you can shame the banks, the financiers and the institutions that do business with them."
Pro-queer politicos in Germany, France, the UK and (of course) Canada -- even the USA -- expressed "deep concern" about Brunei's new laws. In Brunei itself, there has been no vocal opposition to the new penalties. That could be because the sultan rules as head of state with full executive authority to do whatever he thinks is right. And what he thinks is right is pretty clear. Sultan Hassanal, who has reigned since 1967, has previously said the Penal Code should be regarded as a form of "special guidance" from God and would be "part of the great history of Brunei."
Negotiations to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), dragged on for well over a year before culminating this fall in a new US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA). The problem was the insistence of Canada's progressive, feminist Prime Minister Just In Trudeau, that any new agreement be a model of liberal ideology, putting social justice and the progressive agenda ahead of business and prosperity.
Mr Socks sent his lead negotiator, a former journalist named Chrystia Freeland, to the meetings with a shopping list of "non-negotiable demands" including new policies on climate change, gender equity, indigenous rights and other issues largely irrelevant to free trade, including (of course) measures to advance the liberal pro-queer agenda and protect "gay rights".
Faced with the prospect of being cut loose, the Canucks caved on a couple of the real issues -- the auto sector and supply management in their dairy industry -- and the new USMCA (aka NAFTA v2) was hastily signed. Cue sighs of relief in Ottawa and a certain amount of behind-the-hand snickering in Washington and Mexico City.
As a sop to the Canadian snowflakes, the new agreement includes a pledge that all three countries will support "policies that protect workers against employment discrimination on the basis of sex, including with regard to pregnancy, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, gender identity." Now that they've gotten around to reading the fine print, dozens of Republican lawmakers have noticed this clause and, on Friday, pronounced themselves unhappy with it.
According to POLITICO, 40 conservative congresspeople [Ed., is that what we're supposed to call them now?] have signed their names to a letter to President Trump urging him not to sign the agreement unless that language is removed.
Among the signatories are House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), a member of the Ways and Means Committee. The coalition said the United States "has the right to decide when, whether and how to tackle issues of civil rights, protected classes and workplace rights" as a sovereign nation.
"A trade agreement is no place for the adoption of social policy," the letter continues. "It is especially inappropriate and insulting to our sovereignty to needlessly submit to social policies which the United States Congress has so far explicitly refused to accept."
Another signatory, Republican Doug Lamborn, has expressed concern congressional approval for USMCA could set a precedent “for activist courts” and he said in a statement Friday that Trump needed to remove the “troubling language … adopted behind the scenes.”
Before it can be put into effect, the new deal must be approved by Congress, but Friday's letter suggests POTUS could lose some Republican support for the agreement unless changes are made. In an interview with POLITICO, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) referred to "troubling language...adopoted behind the scenes" and said "This is language that is going to cause a lot of people to reconsider their support of the trade agreement, and to the point that it may endanger the passage of the trade agreement unless something is done."
Walt agrees completely. The mere suggestion that America should base its labour and related policies on the liberal model lwhich is failing spectatularly in Sweden, the United Kingdom and, yes, Canada is nothing short of ridiculous. Let Americans -- and only Americans -- decide how to run the US of A. If Canada (and Mexico) want to play in the American league, they're going to have to play by American league rules!
Further reading (and viewing): "CBC stunned by American prof's criticism of Chrystia Freeland", WWW 9/9/18. Includes video.
Breaking news from Jackson! Mississippi governor Phil Bryant has signed a law that allows private and public businesses to refuse service to gay couples, if serving them would violate the proprietors' religious beliefs.
The intent of the law is to protect those who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should only take place inside such marriages, and that male and female genders are unchangeable. Those people are known as Christians.
The law allows churches, religious charities and privately held businesses to decline services to people violating those beliefs. Individual government employees may also opt out, although the measure says governments must still provide services.
I will pause now to insert my earplugs, against the noise of righteous indignation from the gay rights gang, lamestream media and Hellery Clinton.
After three years of negotiations, the United Nations has approved a set of "Sustainable Development Goals", which liberal one-worlders and other "progressive thinkers" had assumed would include support for legal abortion on demand, homosexual "marriage" and other secular humanist shibboleths. Walt is surprised to be able to report that abortion and gay "rights" were left off the UN list.
The goals were approved on August 2nd, after tense round-the-clock discussions in which developed nations, led by the USA (no surprise there) and the European Union, pressed for adoption of language that would specifically endorse legal abortion and homosexual rights. Their efforts were successfully opposed by other nations’ delegates, particularly African diplomats who spoke out against the attempt to impose Western norms on traditional societies.
Walt's comment: Say what you will about Islam, but the followers of the Prophet are following God's laws (and the laws of nature) in these matters considerably more closely the leaders of the mainstream "Christian" churches and post-Christian Western society.
African-born journalist Ken Mufuka writes a "Letter From America" every week in the Financial Gazette, one of Zimbabwe's courageously independent newspapers. This week his topic is Obergefell v. Hodges, the recent decision of the Supreme Court in which the dishonourable court, by a vote of 5-4, tortured the "equal protection" provisions of the Constitution into a finding that homosexuals (gays, lesbians, transexuals, bisexuals and queers in general) have the same rights as straight folk to marry and have their nuptials celebrated by society.
Gay "marriage" maybe be against God's law, but it's now the law of the USA. God save the United States of America!
Well, that's Walt's view. In "Gay Triumph Now Complete", Mr. Mufuka [pronounced with a long "U". Ed.] takes an even dimmer view of the decision, but he takes much longer to say so. Walt has excerpted some of the more acidic bits of his column. The words are Mr. Mufuka's; the emphasis is mine.
July 4, or Independence Day, commemorates the overthrow of the British imperialists by American patriots in the war of independence. It is big deal, as they say here. Citizens use this day to blow off steam, dance in public and generally engage in good-natured goofy behaviour, even disgracing themselves. It is all done in good faith. The police look the other way. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) “community” had the best July 4th celebrations ever. They say that such a joyous time as this comes only once in a millennium. Their celebrations started June 27, when the US supreme court announced two rulings.
A pro-gay reprobate judge, Anthony Kennedy, announced the judgment. The issue was whether same sex marriages were protected in the US constitution. To cut a long story short, marriage is not mentioned because it was assumed, supported by immemorial custom that a man shall leave his home to find a damsel and marry her. Having failed to find a constitutional clause, the reprobate judge strained all sensibilities to create one out of thin air, calling it equal protection under law. Same sex partners, wrote the pro-gay judge, bring with them the hope that in their marriages they are not “condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” Chief Justice John Roberts, who disagreed with the decree, nevertheless, saw the earth shattering impact it had on the future of the world. The decision cannot be justified on moral or historical grounds. The fact remains that United States is an exceptional, confirmed in its own righteousness. As such arrangements have been put in place for the advancement of the gay agenda to the world.
Protestant denominations...had foreseen the gay decision, they were unprepared for the onslaught within their own organizations.... Infiltrated by earthly philosophies over the years, they were left wondering in the wilderness, as gay forces outflanked and swiftly destroyed all opposition. South Carolina Methodists barely survived a gay resolution, but it was very close, 752 votes against 550. The pro-gay lobby promised that “they will be back, the fight is not over.”
The 3.8 million members Lutheran Church (USA) which split into two denominations over the issue revisited it with wisdom gained from experience. Each individual denomination will, after prayer, instruct their pastor whether they will permit gay weddings in their church. The Anglicans, meeting in Utah, the home of the polygamous Mormon Christians, suffered resounding defeat, 173 delegates in favour, against last-stand motley of 27 resisters. There is another juicy change among Anglicans. Gays can now be married in the full communion of the church, and church wedding bells are allowed. Little boys and girls can walk in the isle to present flowers to a gay couple. When the deputies took on another position on gender neutral religion, they suffered a worse defeat, 184 supporting the change against miserable 23. In this second resolution, God is no longer “Our Father in Heaven” but the Creator of the Universe. It is, however, alright to say: “God our Mother in Heaven” or to say: “The faith of our mothers.”
It's tempting for us Catholics -- especially traditional Catholics -- to sneer at the Protestants' capitulation to the homonazis, but Holy Mother Church is not immune from the cancers of moral rot and political correctness. The pro-queer agenda, along with weakening of the Church's laws on divorce and remarriage is being pushed relentlessly by the gay lobby in the Vatican and in the liberal churches of Germany and the low countries. This fall will see another Synod on the Family, at which same sex "marriage" will be back on the table. Stay tuned.
Note from Ed.: No, we don't know if Mr. Mufuka is a Catholic. Why don't you ask him? mufukaken@gmail.com.
Today's National Post features an excellent piece entitled "Why human 'rights inflation' could spell 'the beginning of the end of social change'". According to Dominique Clément, a historian at the University of Alberta, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in 1948, included a few dozen rights, all familiar from their notorious violations by repressive states. Today, international law recognizes more than 300.
These less familiar "rights", such as the human right to affordable Internet access or higher education, represent a worrisome trend. "Rights inflation", he argues, erodes the legitimate core of rights that are strictly necessary to life and freedom.
How so? Well, the more "rights" people have, the more likely they are to come into conflict. The "rights" to which I am "entitled" is as long as my arm, but what happens if your arm is longer than mine? Human rights legislation says you may not discriminate against me, or preach hatred against me, for being a white, male, traditional Catholic.
I happen to be a "social conservative" too, but there are no laws to keep the "progressives" from ridiculing my beliefs and demonizing me as antideluvian, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, etc etc and so forth. And if I, or someone like Mark Steyn (Hi, Mark!) attempts to turn the tables, it's "Helloooo, Human Rights Tribunal!"
Imagine, then, what would happen if one of the "protected groups" -- gays, let's say, or wimmin -- came into conflict with another, like... wait for it... Muslims. Consider the following cases.
Case One:a friendly soccer game in Brampton ON last week. It's established law in Ontario that girls can play sports -- even a real sport like hockey -- on boys' teams if they want to. Last Tuesday a coed team from Robert F. Hall Secondary School (a Catholic school) met on the field with an all-male team from ISNA Private Islamic High School. The teams played the first half without incident, and Hall led ISNA 3-1 at the break.
At that point, the coach of ISNA's team realized that there were girls playing on the other team! (How he figured this out is not reported.) So at halftime, the Muslim coach told the referee that his team "didn't feel that they could continue for religious reasons and for their own personal beliefs."
Obviously his complaint had nothing to do with his team's being on the low end of the score, but, although ISNA would have lost the game by forfeit, Hall needed to win by more than a two-goal differential to advance to the next round of the tournament. So, the girls volunteered to sit out in the second half so play could continue, and Hall went on to win 6-1. Bruce Campbell, speaking for the Catholic school board called the girls' decision to come out of the game "an incredible display of sportsmanship and selflessness and team spirit. But [he added] they shouldn't have been put in that position."
A spokesthingy for the athletic association that organized the tournament explained all teams are expected to abide by league rules and league constitution that includes a gender equity policy, which gives female students the right to play on a boys' team if their school doesn't have a girls' team. "It's our assumption that when schools apply (to be part of the league) they've read the rules and regulations," he said, adding that any team that joins the league is bound to abide by its rules and regulations.
The Brampton Guardian report says that at press time, ISNA Private Islamic High School had not responded to a request for comment. Their end the story by saying that "commenting has been suspended...because some readers have violated our commenting guidelines. Rude remarks and comments that are off topic are unacceptable. Foul language is forbidden."
Case two comes to us from Steven Crowder, an American actor, comedian and former contributor to the Fox News Channel. In October 2013, Big Journalism reported that Fox News had dropped him, shortly after he made negative statements about Fox News host Sean Hannity. Mr. Crowder now hosts a weekly talk show, Louder with Crowder on WAAM in Ann Arbor MI, and posts comedy, commentary and news videos to his YouTube channel, Louder with Crowder -- "the most politically incorrect channel on the Web".
In April, Mr. Crowder posted a hidden camera video which proves that, if you're a Christian who wants to practise religious freedom, you'd better get ready for ridicule, threats and discrimination. But if you're a Muslim who wants to practice religious freedom, of course there's no problem! At least, that's the case in Dearborn MI where he attempted to get Muslim cake shops to bake a cake for a gay wedding, which Islam teaches are wrong. Need we tell you that they refused openly? Watch! And ask yourself if a Christian baker could have got away with this.
Africans are just like the rest of us, right? We in the West -- Europe and North America -- are no more civilized or progressive than our dusky-hued brethren in the Dark Continent. Right? And they're just as committed to equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. Right? That's what the "human rights activists" keep telling us.
However, as this Amnesty International map discloses, there is at least one significant difference between Europeans (including us gringos) and Africans. The latter overwhelmingly reject the sexual diversity which our governments, media and opinion-makers tell us we must embrace. The Church told us (under Pope Ratzinger at least) that homosexuality was "disordered". But in most African cultures, being gay is regarded as sick, depraved and contrary to the laws of God and nature!
It follows that homosexuals acts, even between consenting queers, are illegal in most of Africa -- the countries shown in red. Walt is surprised to find Chad, Niger and Mali (in west Africa) coloured grey, given the strong Islamic influence in those states. Perhaps they have not yet adopted Sharia law, which also forbids homosexual acts. But Sharia is surely coming, and the LGBT crowd should be packing their bags.
Turns out that queers from the "red countries" are already en route to Europe in record numbers. Having mastered the English word "REFUGEE", they are arriving by the hundreds in EU countries such as the Netherlands [home of Zwarte Piet! Ed.], where they believe they will be made welcome and gifted with houses, cars and condoms. Will you be surprised when Walt tells you the gay asylum-seekers are not entirely welcome? I thought not.
In fact the Dutch Council of State asked the European Court of Justice -- the EU's supreme court -- whether homosexuals could be considered a "particular social group" (thus potential victims of discrimination) and whether criminalization and possible imprisonment amount to persecution. Will you be surprised when Walt tells you the ECJ's opinion?
Not much of a spoiler here then. The ECJ ruled that homosexuals from Sierra Leone, Uganda and Senegal who fear imprisonment in their home country have grounds for asylum in EU member states. Asylum can be granted, the court said, in cases where people are actually jailed for homosexuality in their home country.
The ECJ says laws specifically targeting homosexuals do indeed make them a separate group. (Walt guesses that would be "the LGBT community" that the gay rights activitists and our lamestream media bang on about.) But, the court said, it is up to the national authorities - in this case the Netherlands - to determine "whether, in the applicant's country of origin, the term of imprisonment...is applied in practice". In other words, do the "homophobic" laws exist only on paper, or do places like Uganda actually lock up their queers?
Walt finds it interesting that the Netherlands would ask the ECJ "Do we have to take them?" What the Dutch -- always a practical people -- should be doing is greeting them at Schiphol and handing them one-way tickets to JFK, LAX or (best of all) SFO. [Crackheads could be sent to YYZ. Ed.] American and Canadian politicians wouldn't dare ask the queers to prove they were legitimate asylum-seekers. Hell no! Instead, they'd probably organize a "pride parade"!
Hallmark Cards is about much more than greetings cards. Much, much more! Look at their online catalogue and you'll see all kinds of stuff. Including "keepsake ornaments", which include 287 "Christmas" ornaments (of which a mere 20 are "faith-related").
One of the "secular" Christmas ornaments is this lovely miniature sweather -- you'll find it about a third of the way down the page -- bearing a phrase from the old Christmas carol "Deck the Halls with Boughs of Holly". [Isn't it "Deck Us All with Boston Charlie"? Ed.]
But, as you can see, the phrase has been updated a bit. Hallmark seems to think no-one wants to don "gay apparel" any more, so they've changed the adjective to "fun". "Don we now our fun apparel"... Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it. And, as surely as Boxing Day follows Christmas, the change has drawn the wrath of the LGBT "community".
On Thursday a spokesthingy for Hallmark Twittered, "We’ve been surprised at the wide range of reactions expressed about the change of lyrics on this ornament, and we’re sorry to have caused so much concern. We never intend to offend or make political statements with our products, and in hindsight we realize we shouldn’t have changed the lyrics on the ornament."
Hallmark did not say where negative reaction to the ornament came from, but according to Reuters a leader of at least one gay rights organization said on Friday that the company went overboard in using the word "fun" on the ornament. "The whole thing seems silly to us," lisped Mitch Levine, "community ambassador" of the Lesbian and Gay Community Center of Kansas City.
Perhaps Hallmark should send Mr(?) Levine one of their "craven apology" cards!
A short follow-up to our post of August 7th about REAL Women of Canada's calling out Canada's light-in-the-loafers foreign minister, John Baird. The conservative (with a small "c") women's group is upset with Johnboy for his strident criticism of Russia and Uganda for laws curbing the spread of pro-homosexual propaganda and deviant sexual acts.
The next day Canuck PM Steve "Stephen" Harper joined the war of words. Mr. Harpoon always stands behind his Foreign Minister, which is probably smarter than standing (or bending over) in front of him. Anyway, Steve made it clear that he is all in favour of treating queers just the same as other people. Why, he even has one or two in his cabinet! See today's Huffington Post article, "John Baird's Gay Rights Stance Nothing New For Harper Tories". [What's with the capitalization of every word in the headline? Does no-one follow Strunk & Whyte any more? Ed.]
Also today, Canada's self-styled National Post says "Canadian conservatives divided over Harper government's defence of gay rights". This is news? [Got the capitalization right though. Ed.] We think that if a poll were taken of all Canadians -- not just those of bluish hue -- a majority would agree that Minister Baird is pushing the LGBT agenda more than a bit too hard.
But why would he do that? What we don't understand is how neither the HuffPost nor the NatPost could get through a rather lengthy piece on the controversy without even alluding to Minister Baird's sexual preference. Which brings us back to Wednesday's post. Does no-one in the lamestream media know Mr. Baird's dirty little secret? Or is it just one of those things that we can no longer talk about because we don't want to be accused of being homophobic? Perhaps Mr. Baird should -- as they say in politics -- declare his interest.
That's right. The DOMA is doomed, and Christian/family values be damned. Walt thinks the weakening of the institution of marriage and the decline in family values generally is the cancer that's going to kill our Western "culture". The Supremes either don't see it that way or (more likely) have given up trying to fight the gay lobby in the media and in the Obama administration. (Presumably the gay lobby in the Vatican had nothing to do with this week's decision.)
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court also struck another blow (albeit a backhanded one) for the LGBT crowd by declining to rule on California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, just as it says in the holy books of all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
Wonderful, isn't it? Now all the buggers and sushi-eaters in San Francisco can get "married" and enjoy the same rights as those who think homosexuality is unnatural. It may be disordered, but it's not illegal any more!
Ontario's openly gay premier, Kathleen Wynne, has applauded the decisions. So has the not-openly-gay President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.
So... Windsor v. United States and Hollingsworth v. Perry are now the law of the land. In a country where there was an even balance between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature, the elected members of the last-named body could undo the wrongs which the "justices" have done. Sadly, as we have seen with the persistence of Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, the USA is not such a country. In America, the Supreme Court rules supreme.
Astounding news from Russia. The Duma -- the lower house of Russia's parliament -- has flown in the face of all that's politically correct by striking not one but two blows at the secular humanists, LGBT "rights" promoters and other "progressive thinkers".
Yesterday the Duma passed a bill imposing up to three years in jail on those who offend "religious believers". Most Russians who are "believers" are Russian Orthodox Christians, but the new law (once approved by the Senate and signed by President Putin) would presumably cover Jews, Muslims and followers of other faiths.
The law follows the imprisonment of punk rockers Pussy Riot for desecrating an Orthodox cathedral by performing an anti-Putin protest in February 2012. Two band members, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina, are currently serving two-year jail terms for the offence.
So that's a good bit of pushback for Christians (and others) who feel that they're being belittled and demonized by the lamestream media and other "Forces for Progress" in the Western world.
Russian "gay rights" activists also have reason to feel dismayed. On the same day as the pro-religion bill was passed, the Duma also unanimously approved a law imposing heavy fines for providing information about homosexuality to people under 18.
Under the new law, private individuals promoting "homosexual behaviour among minors" face fines of up to 5,000 rubles (US$155) while officials risk paying ten times that amount. Businesses and schools promoting the LGBT agenda -- whether under the guise of "sex education" or otherwise -- could be fined as much as 500,000 rubles!
Although homosexuality was decriminalised in Russia in 1993, anti-gay sentiment is running high. A recent poll found that nearly half of Russians believe that the gay and lesbian community should not enjoy the same rights as other citizens.
Walt wonder why this is. Why is it that the Russians are embracing new laws (and old beliefs) which the Western media tell us are backward, anti-progressive, and contrary to Everything that's Right and Good in our wonderful New Age Society?
Our Lady of Fatima warned us that if Russia was not converted (by Consecration to Her Immaculate Heart), its errors would spread throughout the world. And so it would appear to those "Fatimists" and others who have studied Our Lady's prophecy.
Some Catholics believe the Consecration has been done, and that the fall of Communism represents the promised conversion. The "Fatimists" say this is not so, that the Consecration has never been done publicly, by the Pope in union with all the bishops, as the Blessed Virgin asked. But if that's the case, how should we understand what's happening in Russia today?
Our Lady of Fatima also said that once Russia was converted, that nation would become the instrument by which the rest of the world would be converted to the Christian Faith. Traditional Catholics take that to mean to the Catholic Faith. But, given the diabolical disorientation of the mainstream Church today, perhaps that Faith is to be found elsewhere.
Footnote and WOW! Walt is not imagining the "diabolical disorientation" referred to in the previous paragraph. Just today we have a report from AFP that Pope Francis himself confirmed the existence of a gay lobby within the Roman Curia.
The Vatican's Chief Flak-catcher, Father Federico Lombardi, said he had "no comment" on anything the Holy Father might have said in "a private meeting". And that's all ye need to know.
Unlike Gonzaga University -- see previous post -- George Washington University doesn't hold itself out to be a Catholic institution. (It is, however, within spitting distance of Georgetown University, which is about as "Catholic" as Gonzaga.) Although a private, non-denominational school, GWU has a Newman Center, complete with chapel in which Catholic students are free to worship. Non-Catholics are welcome to join in devotions if they wish, so there's no discrimination there, right?
Errr, well, not according to at least a dozen GWU students, including seniors Damian Legacy and Blake Bergen, who say they have left the Newman Center because its chaplain, Rev. Fr. Greg Shaffer, is "anti-gay" and "anti-abortion". Imagine that! Next thing you know, they'll be saying he's actually Catholic!
According to a report in The GW Hatchet, the students lambasted Father Shaffer’s counseling sessions, in which he is said to have advised students who are attracted to members of the same sex to remain celibate for the rest of their lives. They also criticized the priest for a blog post he wrote last May, calling gay relationships "unnatural and immoral" (in response to the Prez's support of same-sex marriage).
Here's what Father Shaffer actually said: "As Vatican II states, God is the author of marriage. He has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So, marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. This is not just divine law, it is natural law (the law imprinted on each of our hearts about good and evil). Every single rational person knows that sexual relationships between persons of the same sex are unnatural and immoral. They know it in their hearts."
Hey, this is Obama's America! The gay gang doesn't have to take those insults bending over! ["Lying down", surely. Ed.] And the offended LGBT types are doing a lot more than just throwing a hissy! They've started a campaign to have Father Shaffer removed from not the Newman Center and any connection whatsoever with GWU.
They're also going to complain to Cardinal Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington, in hopes of getting Father Shaffer run right out of the Archdiocese, if not burned at the stake. Will they be successful? Is the Pope a Jesuit? Oh... wait...
Shocking news from the capital of the Greatest Nation on Earth™. Believe it or not, the Washington Post is pro-gay! Who knew?!
The ultra-liberal rag's ombudsman ["ombudsperson" or just "ombud", surely. Ed.] said as much in "Is the Post 'pro-gay'?", published on February 22nd. Patrick Pexton was responding to "a steady stream of e-mails and phone calls from readers who assert that The Post has a 'pro-gay agenda' and publishes too many 'puffy' stories about gay marriage".
"Many journalists have a hard time giving much voice to those opposed to gay marriage," Pexton wrote. "They see people opposed to gay rights today as cousins, perhaps distant cousins, of people in the 1950s and 1960s who, citing God and the Bible, opposed black people sitting in the bus seat, or dining at the lunch counter, of their choosing."
Pexton recounted an e-mail exchange between a unnamed reader and an unnamed Post reporter:
The reader wrote that Post stories too often minimize the conservative argument: "The overlooked 'other side' on the gay issue is quite legitimate, and includes the Pope, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, evangelist Billy Graham, scholars such as Robert George of Princeton, and the millions of Americans who believe in traditional marriage and oppose redefining marriage into nothingness. .?.?. Is there no room in The Post for those who support the male-female, procreative model of marriage?"
Replied the reporter: "The reason that legitimate media outlets routinely cover gays is because it is the civil rights issue of our time. Journalism, at its core, is about justice and fairness, and that's the 'view of the world' that we espouse; therefore, journalists are going to cover the segment of society that is still not treated equally under the law."
The reader: "Contrary to what you say, the mission of journalism is not justice. Defining justice is a political matter, not journalistic. Journalism should be about accuracy and fairness. Good journalism also means not demeaning conservatives as 'haters.'"
The reporter: "As for accuracy, should the media make room for racists, i.e. those people who believe that black people shouldn't marry white people? Any story on African-Americans wouldn't be wholly accurate without the opinion of a racist, right? "Of course I have a bias. I have a bias toward fairness."
Walt thinks it's a pity this dialogue, especially the illogical -- and patently unfair -- last comment of the reporter, isn't in the form of a video so we could see if the unnamed "reporter" was able to utter that line while keeping a straight face.
In "Equating Christians with Racists", the American Spectator says "That a major American newspaper likens Christians to racists would once have generated outrage. Now it inspires little more than a shrug. The paper's...ombudsman blandly notes it, wishes for a little more 'objectivity', and then moves on."
What can you say about a country that earlier this week had a grand total of $217 in its national bank? You can say that it's poor. You can say that its government is a kleptocracy. You can say that it must be in Africa. All those things are true of Comrade Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, last on the list of members of the Disunited Nations, and last on just about every other list you can think of.
Comrade Bob, however, doesn't care about how his country looks in the eyes of the rest of the world. He will go his own way, and the West and the rest be damned. And many of his subjects agree with him.
One thing "Bob's-your-uncle" is adamant about is the immorality of homosexuality. He goes way beyond the stance of the Roman Catholic Church, of which he is nominally a member. The Church calls homosexuality "objectively disordered" but asks that gays be treated with understanding and compassion, and given pastoral help not to change their sexual orientation but to live with it in conformity to God's commandments.
Where that becomes difficult is in matters like same-sex "marriage". The Church, along with every other religion in the world, has always maintained that marriage is a solemn and sanctified bond between a man and a woman. It has been so since Adam and Eve. Until lately, that is.
Now we have the wimmin's libbers and gay activists clamouring for "equal rights", by which they mean licence to do whatever they damn well please, no matter what God or mere mortals may think, and no matter what damage is done to the fabric of society. Christianity is now so weak, and the LGBT agenda -- see WWW passim -- is being pushed so hard and so successfully that same-sex "marriage" is now legal in large parts of the so-called Christian world. (A better term would be "post-Christian West".)
The rest of the world -- Asia, the Middle East and Africa -- is different, and intends to remain so. You don't see people agitating for same-sex "marriage" in China or Japan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Uganda or... wait for it... Zimbabwe.
In fact, Zimbabwe proposes to make same-sex "marriage" illegal! Its leaders -- not just Bob but leaders of the opposition -- have approved the draft of a new constitution, to be tabled in the Zimbabwean Parliament on February 8th.
According to an article in NewsDay, Section 4.78 of the draft, on marriage rights, prohibits forced marriages, marriages of people under the age of 18 and between people of the same sex.
One of the co-chairthingies of the drafting committee called the clause a clear statement that Zimbabwe does not condone homosexuality. Said Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana, "This is the first time we have this clause in our constitution.... There will be other legal instruments to enforce it, such as the Sexual Offences Act. It's clear sexual relationships between people of the same sex are prohibited."
Mugabe has long been a fierce critic of homosexuality. He has often criticised it as unAfrican and branded gays and lesbians as "worse than pigs and dogs". He has also said, as the Church says, that same-sex relationships are ungodly -- not according to God's law or natural law.
Douglas Mwonzora, the other co-chair, said homosexuality was a criminal offence in Zimbabwe, as it is in many other Asian and African countries. "The constitution cannot prescribe a crime, but the issue of homosexuality can be covered under the criminal law of sodomy," Mwonzora said. "Same-sex marriages are prohibited and homosexuality is a crime under the country's criminal laws."
What should Western "gay rights" campaigners and same-sex "marriage" advocates make of third-world opposition to their agenda? Are the countries where marriage is still just for men and women backward and uncivilized?
Once upon a time the Christian nations sent missionaries to places like Zimbabwe to preach the gospel which says that homosexual acts are evil. (See St. Paul's epistle to the Romans.) Should we now send missionaries to say that those who came a century ago were wrong, and that what was once regarded as evil is now to be not just tolerated but encouraged? Don't be surprised...
.png)
