Sikh Moderate Balwant Singh Gill Suffers Wrath of Politically Correct Sodomy

Moderate Sikh spokesman Balwant Singh Gill is under fire.

In late November, I again appreciated Gill's forthrightness when he agreed to be interviewed for The Vancouver Sun's five-page package, "Canada's Changing Moral Landscape," based on an Angus Reid poll. Gill, who says he speaks for 39 Sikh temples, responded frankly when I asked him (and a variety of other Canadians) about hot-button moral issues -- including prostitution, abortion, sex outside marriage, illegal drug use, and, of course, homosexuality.

Kaboom! Gill's comments "unleased a firestorm" within the country's gay and lesbian community, according to a Jan. 2 article in Xtra West, a long-standing homosexual publication.

"I hate homosexuality," Gill told me on the telephone three weeks before the morality package ran. "Most Sikhs believe homosexuality is unnatural and you can't produce kids through it. And, secondarily, no major religion allows it."

I told Gill at the time he was being very blunt. The long-time Sikh spokesman didn't backtrack.

Gill has not been as frank lately. He's "apologized" on CBC radio and, according to Xtra West, has been widely chastised by the ethnic media.

Read the rest of “An object lesson in free speech and democracy” here.

I wonder had Gill spoken out so bluntly against abortion, would the pro-aborts have made things as scary for him as did the homosexual activists? Here’s what he had to say about legalized child-killing:

Although Gill is adamantly against homosexuality, he thinks, like many Sikhs and unlike Christian conservatives, abortion is acceptable; an individual choice.

That's why Gill has no trouble with research with stem cells obtained from embryos.

And while Gill, a married father of four who owns a trucking company, is opposed to having babies outside marriage, he believes prostitution has to be an accepted fact of life.

So Sikhs are “pro-choice” too?

Memorial University Students’ Union said to be Delusional For Outlawing Campus Pro-Life Group

On Friday, September 28, 2007 we blogged this story: Memorial University of Newfoundland Students' Union Denies Club Status to Student Pro-Life Group.

Since that time Patrick Hanlon, President of the student pro-life club in question—MUN for Life—has advised that the club’s application has indeed been officially turned down.

In today’s issue of the MUN student newspaper, the MUSE Online, the newspaper reports on a concerned student, Conrad Abbot, who addressed the board about something he found to be disturbing.

Abbott wanted to know why MUNSU denied ratification to pro-life group MUN For Life. He said the Union gives itself a bad name by not ratifying non-left-leaning clubs.

He noted furthermore

“The university is about broadening your horizons,” he said.

The board’s reply?

We just don’t appreciate some of the tactics they’ve used. … They haven’t been conducting themselves in a manner that’s sensitive…MUN For Life has offended people and made them cry…this group also advocates taking away legal rights from over half of our membership.

Also in today’s issue is a letter to the editor from another concerned party, Alex Bill. His letter is headlined “Right to lifers are outdated, not outlawed.” He starts his letter by stating

MUNSU representatives are doing students a disservice by refusing to ratify the MUN For Life society, letting their personal politics interfere in what should be a simple debate.

He goes on to say they

…couldn’t resist turning the debate into a philosophical argument about abortion itself, an unprofessional turn of events divergent from the issue at hand.

It’s presumptuous to assume that MUNSU ratification represents some sort of ideological endorsement, and undemocratic to deny ratification simply because a group represents a different opinion than the Union.

…If MUNSU thinks ratifying this group somehow threatens their own position or compromises their credibility, perhaps they are the delusional ones.

Who is going to set these “delusional ones” straight?

Christians are to be salt and light in their societies. Lots more salt required here.

Memorial University of Newfoundland Students' Union Denies Club Status to Student Pro-Life Group

Just received the following by email from Patrick Hanlon, President of MUN for Life, the student pro-life club on campus at Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador:

**********

Friday, September 28, 2007

PRESS RELEASE

The Death of Free Speech at Memorial University of Newfoundland: MUN Students' Union disallows pro-life group

On Wednesday, September 26, the Memorial University of Newfoundland Students' Union Board of Directors (MUNSU) met for its regularly scheduled meeting. One of the highlights of the agenda was the proposal to ratify, or give official club status to, Memorial University of Newfoundland Students for Life (MUN for LIFE). When it came to this point the meeting, everyone was hesitant to speak. The chair asked for a motion to approve and one was not tabled. A motion to deny was put forth and the flood gates holding back the conversation opened wide. Every speaker, except for one, identified themselves as pro-choice and echoed the comments of the previous speakers. The motion to deny ratification passed nearly unanimous. MUSNU signaled the death of free speech on a university campus.

The dominate arguments brought by MUNSU personalities to deny MUN for LIFE their rights were 1) MUNSU is a local of the pro-choice Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) 2) MUNSU could not ratify a group in opposition to its beliefs.

If MUNSU only ratifies groups that it agrees with, why is it that an assortment groups with competing ideologies are listed on their website. For example, there are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Pagan groups. There are Progressive Conservative, Liberal, and New Democratic groups. Surely, MUNSU can not agree with every one of these groups. If MUNSU can grant ratification to these groups, it should be able to allow MUN for LIFE its democratic and university rights to free speech.

If CFS is an obstacle, why it is that a number of other CFS locals have pro-life groups? A small example of these would be the Universities of British Columbia, Toronto, Dalhousie, Carleton, and Saskatchewan. Once again, MUNSU is grasping at straws for excuses to silence the voice of the pro-life movement. MUN for LIFE members have paid CFS and MUNSU union dues and must now be granted their rights to free speech and association.

In November 2006 the Carleton University Students' Association passed a motion to silence pro-life student groups on their campus. As a result, Carleton Lifeline's ratification was placed in jeopardy. A heated debate, which attracted national media coverage, ended in Carleton Lifeline's membership increasing and work continuing.

Patrick Hanlon, the President of MUN for LIFE, is encouraging his fellow union members and all concerned individuals, regardless of their position on life issues, to demand MUNSU to immediately reverse the decision made at the September 26 meeting. If this decision is not reversed, a dangerous precedent is set in place for MUNSU, and other Student Unions in Canada, which would allow the silencing of any other group that a union wishes not to have democratic and university rights.

##########

Patrick Hanlon
MUN for LIFE President
709-579-1500 MUNforLIFE@gmail.com

*********************************

To respectfully contact the MUNSU executive and voice your opposition to the decision:
James Farrell, External Director, munsu@munsu.ca
Bradley Russell, Student Life Director, studentlife@munsu.ca
Stella Magalios, Campaigns Director, campaigns@munsu.ca
Stephanie Power, Advocacy Director, advocacy@munsu.ca
Nick Eisnor, Finance Director, finance@munsu.ca
Phone: 709-737-7633
Fax: 709-737-4743
Mail: MUNSU, Suite 2000 - University Centre, MUN, St. John's, NL A1C 5S7

To respectfully express your concerns to the university administration:
Dr. Axel Meisen, President and Vice Chancellor of MUN, president@mun.ca
Dr. Lilly Walker, Dean of Student Affairs and Services, lwalker@mun.ca

You may carbon copy or send best wises to:
Patrick Hanlon, MUN for LIFE President, MUNforLIFE@gmail.com

*********************************


MUN for LIFE
munforlife@gmail.com
(709) 579-1500 or 877-997-LIFE
P.O. Box 5427
St. John's, NL A1C 5W2


WE BELIEVE THAT:
-human life begins at conception;
-the right to life is a fundamental human right, and all other rights depend
on it; and
-all human beings share this right equally from conception to natural death.


The university should be a place for open dialogue and freedom of speech. It is a place where the ideas and values of our society take root. Therefore, MUN for LIFE has a duty and a right to be an active group on campus.

Cross MUST Be Destroyed Says The US Federal Court

This travesty should alarm all Christians in North America.

When will Christians wake up from their sleep?

Christian leaders, we're running out of time, PLEASE, rise up and proclaim God’s truth!

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Duped by Religious Leaders into Violating the Rule of Impartiality

UPDATE: Please see update at end of posting.

Or this might also be appropriately entitled: "Dialogue between the RNC and a St. John’s Religious Leader"

Last Wednesday, September 5, 2007, something shameful went down in Newfoundland history in the city of St. John’s, and shockingly, but very sadly, it took place at a meeting of the province’s top religious leaders.

Furthermore, officers of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) not only permitted it to happen but they also facilitated the outrageous incident where a loyal son of Newfoundland was stripped of his fundamental rights of free assembly and free speech.

In addition, as a result of the RNC’s cooperation and complicity in the affair, at the end of the day this man’s character was impugned and on provincial, if not national, television news he was filmed and falsely portrayed as an unruly protestor, some extremist who had disrupted the Press Conference of a wonderful new coalition of religious leaders.

To date, no correction, retraction or apology has yet been issued by any of the parties involved in this egregious violation of the person of Eric Alcock.

The following scenario is one that might have been constructed by any Newfoundlander who expected the RNC, of all parties, to be able to assist and defend in a situation where fundamental rights and privileges of his/her person were being threatened, and where unjust discrimination and accusation had been laid.

1. Religious Leader (RL): Officer, we called you here to have this man removed.

2. RNC: Very well sir, what has this man done?

3. RL: Well, he has come here to disrupt this meeting and he is not welcome.

4. RNC: He looks peaceful enough to me.

(turning to guest) Is this true sir? Have you come here to disrupt?

5. GUEST: No Officer I have not.

6. RNC: (to guest) What are your intentions in being here sir?

7. GUEST: I came here Officer hoping to express a viewpoint should the opportunity present itself. I have no intention of disrupting this meeting.

8. RNC: (to RL) Sir, this man says he has no intention of disrupting this meeting. Has he actually done anything disruptive?

9. RL: Well, no, but he just got here a minute ago. I’ve been welcoming him (and holding him) by shaking his hand, until my associate just headed into the hall to immediately fetch you two officers.

10. RNC: So he hasn’t done anything disruptive to this point?

11. RL: No, but we just don’t want him here in case he does.

12. RNC: But Sir, you must realize, this is a public press conference and all interested parties have been invited.

13. GUEST interrupts: Yes, Officer, and the reason I learned about the Conference was I received a forwarded email from Coalition members to all those interested in the issue of poverty and encouraging them to be in attendance.

14. RL: Well, we insist Officer that he must leave immediately or that you remove him because he is a threat to our meeting.

15. RNC: Sir, has this man threatened you or others in any manner?

16. RL: No.

17. RNC: Has he made any threatening gestures?

18. RL: No.

19. RNC: Do you suspect that he has a weapon of some sort that he intends to use here?

20. RL: No Sir but he did say some very mean, bad things about us yesterday in a press release.

21. RNC: I’m sorry Sir, there’s no law against expressing a viewpoint. I ask you again, what has this man done to warrant his removal?

22. RL: Very well then, we would just like to disinvite him, to rescind his invitation. We don’t like him.

23. RNC: I’m afraid Sir there hardly seems sufficient cause to remove a law abiding citizen from a public event to which he appears to have been invited just because you don’t like him. Furthermore there is no evidence whatever of disturbance or threats.

24. RL: We just don’t want this man expressing his opinion and bringing chaos to our meeting.

25. RNC: Sir, as I said before, there’s no law against expressing viewpoint. I’m sure others present here today are likely to be doing the same. And besides, please explain how your meeting will be thrown into chaos simply by allowing this man to express his opinion. Will others present start throwing chairs around?

26. RL: Of course not! But it will detract from our good initiative and usurp our very pleasant message to Newfoundlanders.

27. RNC: Perhaps Sir, if you wanted to ensure that everyone present was going to say only good things about your initiative, you should have sent out private invitations and given passwords for the door.

28. RL: But I protest Officer! I had you people called in and waiting so that you could immediately remove this man once we had identified him.

29. RNC: Sir, you are beginning to sound very extreme. We understood there might be some threat posed by this man’s presence at this event. It appears that is not the case and I urge you to remember that this man has certain rights and freedoms which we must also respect and protect. We will monitor this man’s activities throughout this conference and act accordingly. In the meanwhile, please release this man’s hand.

Imaginary? Yes. Sadly so, and perhaps too much to ask for in the times in which we live.

When the same thing happens to YOU and you recall that you were one of the people who failed to speak out regarding this incident, you’ll be feeling a whole lot worse sitting in the paddy wagon than even Mr. Alcock did.

Now remove #’s 4 through 29 and replace it with the following and you have a summary of how the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary failed miserably in its duties to ensure justice on the most fundamental level at the Press Conference called by the Religious Social Action Coalition on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 11AM in St. John’s NL at The Lantern.

4. RNC: Sir, you are no longer welcome here. If you do not immediately leave, we will forcibly remove you.

And indeed, they did just that.

UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that the real violation here was not being discourteously thrown off private property, as rude and hypocritical as that was, but detention without accusation.

Apparently my detention for one hour in a police cage on site, without reading of my rights or being accused of an offense, was the real violation.

Is This The Kind Of Canada You Want To Live In?

Today I’m busy writing press releases for the upcoming week and preparing more blog postings with commentary on last week’s outrageous assault on my right to free assembly and free speech at the Press Conference called by the Religious Social Action Coalition (RSAC).

As I recover from the reality of a disintegrating Canadian society where politically incorrect ideas are more and more rigidly controlled by those best characterized as the “thought police,” my attention is drawn to an article on the TakingCanadaBack.ca website. Entitled, “Betrayed,” I can’t help saying that’s much of what I feel over last week’s fiasco when I was dragged to the paddy wagon by the thought police of the RSAC—and all the worse because these men and women claim to be sincere Christians and others of good will.

At the conclusion of this article, the author asks:

Is this the kind of Canada you want to live in?
Do you want to live in a Canada where decisions are made in secret, where Cabinet can dictate to the police how they can handle a case or respond to an issue, where courts can make law outside of Parliament? Do you want to live in a Canada that no longer controls her sovereignty, energy, resources, borders, defence, trade, environment or laws, to name a few? Do you want to live in a fascist police state where you have no personal freedoms? If not then please join us and start taking Canada back today! Make your opinions known in the Canada Blog. Sign the Canada Agenda. Tell others to do the same. Together we can make a difference! But time is short.

Perhaps partly because of the article’s emphasis on “policies of secrecy and diversion that were so perfected by the Liberals under Pierre Elliot Trudeau,” and its focus on the removal of citizens’ rights and freedoms in the process, I see it as a somewhat accurate portrayal of Canada’s current reality. As we've noted before, Trudeau was a powerful [Catholic] instrument in foisting “the ‘legalization’ of the triad of contraception, abortion and sodomy upon Canada, along with the liberalization of divorce laws.”

I’m not familiar enough with the many other political issues covered in the article, nor are those my emphases or those of Vote Life, Canada! We do not necessarily subscribe to all the views expressed. However, they do seem to paint a consistent picture of creeping tyranny and dangerous socialism.

If the reader understands much of the emphasis of the Vote Life, Canada! project it will also be quickly apparent that the article pointed to does not address the failure of leadership in Christian circles in Canada, most notably with the Catholic Bishops of Canada, and so it really doesn't touch on the moral/spiritual dynamics which have led to the disastrous decision making condemned by the author.

So, having issued that disclaimer, here are some of the passages that jump out at me, especially in light of this past week’s events.

**********

REALITY CHECK: Canada is no longer a free country

The Canada of today is not the same country millions of Canadians fought and died for in two world wars. That Canada is largely dead. It has been replaced by an imitation created by elitist nihilists who, in addition to benefitting from the corruption and greed that they supported (Gomery's comments come to mind), cared more about street gangs and criminals than they do about their victims. Make no mistake. This is true. They still do. Just listen to what they're saying.

Now these people, even while sitting in opposition, can't come to terms with the mess they've created. I am fed up to the teeth with these hand-wringing, limp-wristed nihilists and their attitudes. I don't care how our lawmakers solve the problems they created, just solve them. But don't take away *my* rights and freedoms in the process. I am talking to you Mr. Prime Minister. I am not a criminal. My heart cries when I think of what your predecessors have done in the last 38 years.

If you have a problem with terrorism, take it up with the terrorists and those counselling violence and hate in our country. Don't take away my rights and freedoms. If you have a problem with guns in the streets, find and arrest those street gang members and others who are carrying guns in the streets. Don't take away my guns. I repeat. I am not the criminal. I am the person who elected you and who you swore to serve and protect. I am a peaceful citizen.

Since 1968 Canada has become a pacifist, socialist country where judges make law instead of elected legislators; where courts are more concerned about criminals than their victims; where foreign companies can sue Canada for enacting laws that are good for Canada and Canadians; where people are encouraged to get on welfare and discouraged from finding work when on it; where the ability to speak two languages has become enough to qualify for public office and; I could go on...

Our federal government has become a large and intrusive government that has either forgotten what its core functions are, no longer cares, or, worse yet, has become an instrument for others who want to destroy our sovereignty. Canada is a country on the eve of destruction.

….

With his election to Prime Minister on April 20, 1968, Pierre Elliot Trudeau's creeping "dictatorship of relativism" succeeded in embedding his pacifist, Marxist-leaning, socialist philosophy into the Constitution and laws of Canada. Western Canadian columnist Link Byfield wrote in a September 2000 Globe and Mail article that "Parliament annoyed [Trudeau], so he bulldozed his Charter of Rights into the Constitution (1982) and surrendered statutory supremacy to the court."

…

Why did the Liberal Party choose socialism and dictatorship for Canada that day in Kingston, Ontario in 1960? The answer to me is simple. They did it for power. They knew what would buy votes. They didn't care about what was good for Canada. They cared only about what they believed would get them back in power and keep them there. And they were right. They created fear of Quebec separation and then said they were the only party that could deal with it. They created the welfare state and then said they were the only party that would continue to dole out the money. Enough people believed them and voted for them, and the people of Canada got what they deserved.

…

In my opinion Canada's politicians have been bought off and are now firmly in the pockets of an international crime syndicate whose sole objective is to take over Canada and destroy Canada's sovereignty and the rights and freedoms of her citizens. Unless Canadians rise up and stop this, the result will be slavery and a police state existence for us all.

….

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is smoke and mirrors. I challenge anyone to identify one single right or freedom, desired by the majority of Canadians, that the Charter offers that we did not already have under the existing Constitution Act of 1867 or under Common Law. The Charter was crafted in secret by lawyers, for lawyers, with the specific objective of empowering courts and Cabinet to create laws in secret [my note—including laws to kill unborn babies] outside of Parliament. Once again, the lie is in the name. It has nothing to do with individual rights and freedoms. It has everything to do with power and control.

…

Robert Bork in his book The Tempting of America-The Political Seduction of the Law, wrote, "Once the judges make the law, the democratic process is at an end."

…

Read the entire article here.