Canadian pansy attacks
In Canada people are being brought before hate speech tribunals for saying something that just hurts the feelings of some homosexual. It is well known how homosexual queens wear their feelings on their blouse sleeve and it costs people a lot of money to defend themselves from these pansy attacks. So just what is just about this justice system in Canada and why would you want to bring it here by voting for a demented pro hate speech big brother control freak Democrat?
Magazine cleared of ‘bigotry,’ now facing 2nd hearing
A Christian publication already cleared by the Canadian Human Rights Commission on claims its reporting on issues involving homosexuality stem from “bigotry, discrimination and hate” will have to defend itself – again – from the same charges.
De Valk, the editor, said earlier, “It is chilling to think that a publication can be hauled before a government tribunal simply for reporting to interested citizens developments in these [homosexual rights] areas of controversy.”
WND reported earlier on the Canadian procedures that give human rights commissions virtually unlimited power to “hear” allegations of “hate crimes” and issue orders in those cases.
Already, a Knights of Columbus council was fined more than $1,000 for refusing to allow its facility to be used for a lesbian “wedding,” and before that printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for declining to print homosexual-themed stationery. In another case Hugh Owens was fined thousands of dollars for quoting Bible verses in a newspaper and London, Ontario, mayor Diane Haskett was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim a homosexual pride day.
Officials noted the United States is not immune to such cases, either, after a New Mexico photographer was fined $6,600 for refusing to meet the demands of a lesbian to take pictures at a “wedding.”
Canada Family Action Coalition has blamed the situation on “bastardized courts” because activists who claim “hurt feelings” are demanding and getting penalties imposed against those who oppose homosexuality.
Wells has alleged he was offended by the Catholic Insight. Its editor, de Valk, said the claims are unfounded and the publication simply follows the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.
Catholic Insight reported that Wells’ attack on the publication is not his first. In 2006 he tried to close down several websites including concernedchristians.ca because of their Christian content, and he targeted Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage party because the political entity posted articles “motivated by hate” of homosexuals.
Date posted: Saturday, August 16th, 2008 9:47 am | Under category: Big Brother/Nanny State, Liberals/Left, amoral society, constitutional issues, control freaks, demented, hate crime, irrational, perverts
RSS 2.0 | Comment | Trackback
Catholic Insights faces attack on yet another front. You will also be interested in Catholic Insight being put on a Heritage Canada watch list for communicating Church doctrine.
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2008/08/heritage-canada-letters-to-catholic.html
” [Catholic Insight] editor, de Valk, said the claims are unfounded and the publication simply follows the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.”
Does the Catholic Church suggest using non-inflammatory terms such as “queens”, “blouses”, and “pansy”?
Tell us again how you are just spreading the word of Jesus Christ, you foul-mouthed narrow-minded bigot. Actually, don’t bother; everybody’s seen your transparent rap and they can tell what you are.
Homos use the terms queens themselves. I guess you think it is OK for them to use it but not for me.
Blouses are shirts that queens often wear. If you don’t believe me go to a homosexual pride parade.
Pansy is a word in the dictionary and is used here for literary effect. I see you do not need literary effect to keep posting your own foul-mouthed accusations against me.
I have nothing to do with the Catholic Church so the words they suggest I use in my blogs is of no real concern to me.
You seemed to have missed the whole message of the article but then again you miss the whole message of every article because you never comment on anything of substance. I guess when you are defending a thousand posts a day for the homosexuals against Christians you cannot say anything worthwhile.
Thanks for following all of my posts and offering your pro homosexual rants it helps the ratings. Or do you just go to every post you can find that does not promote homosexual moral perversion so you can rant, “foul-mouthed narrow-minded bigot” at the author? Is that your mantra or your purpose driven life?
I never claimed to spread the world of Jesus Christ on this blog although I have occasionally done so for people who might like to hear it. Read the title of the Blog. This Blog documents how the world is becoming an increasingly demented delusional and dumb place. Now tell me that this article does not fit the theme?
If you really want Christian teaching go to my other Blog and my Website.
For a man that claims not to be homosexual you sure wear your feeling on your blouse sleeve.
Did it ever enter into your pea brain that one does not have to BE a homosexual in order to be offended by your constant stream of derogatory comments? Can it be that other folks may be Christians and not have the ugly narrowmindedness that you possess?
Congratulations on recognizing that the words “queens”, “blouses” and “pansy” are, in fact, words in the English language. I never doubted that, as it’s quite apparent that you would be unable to create your own vocabulary without considerable outside assistance.
And you have the nerve to suggest that there wasn’t any insult intended in your use of those words? You’re a liar and a poor excuse for a human being, much less a Christian.
like usual you never respond to the subject of the post which is about hate speech laws in Canada but you only attack the messenger. The Canadian hate speech laws are being used to attack and fine Christians that see biblical and health issues why homosexuality is an abomination and should not be acceptable in any decent society.
In the other blog post that you respond on you were given the gospel of salvation to you a couple of times by two different people. Yet, you give no indication that you believe it or even understand it. Still you call yourself a very religious Christian. Based on what I might ask again?
My comments do not have to be read if you do not like them and I don’t expect homosexuals or demented liberals to agree with them. Like I said this blog documents a demented delusional and dumb world not what people like you wish to think it is. Just by the title you should be able to figure out that some satire and other literary devices would be used to attract attention to the post and to get the the points across.
Your responses or should I say lack of responses to the topic gives me reason to believe that you are just a troll looking to attack any Christians that is trying to stop the homosexual agenda in this nation. If you continue to not address the subject of the blog posts and just attacking on my blogs you will be banned from making any comments at all.
OK, we’ll go slow for you.
Before ANYBODY can intelligently comment on the topic, you need to know what exactly was said in the Catholic Insight. Your post gave no clue as to what was said.
In their absence, I chose to look at YOUR words, which are in fact offensive. And, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there’s little doubt you intended them to be offensive; it evidently makes you feel better about yourself when belittling others.
If the Catholic Insight uses derogatory language like yours, thinking it’s acceptable, then they’re at fault, too. I don’t care if they get hauled before some Canadian governmental body or not; I think we should be able to trust Canadians to govern Canada in their own best interest.
My post linked to an article that said plenty about the Catholic Insight case. Maybe you just have a problem following post links.
In any case, Catholic Insight was cleared of the charges. Those that made the judgment know exactly what Catholic Insight said and they cleared them on the grounds that the reporting was not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation. What else would you need to know? Are you going to out judge the judges by having the exact words? You also could do a little research on your own if you want the exact words. Further, the article explains that Catholic Insight was just quoting Catholic doctrine on Homosexuality THAT DOCTRINE IS WELL KNOWN. I agree with the Catholic position on homosexuality. What in the world else would I or you need to know? Do you want me to read the Catholic Catechism to you. Do you want me to read what the Bible says about homosexuality to you? You claim to be a Christian you ought to know these things but obviously you never even read the doctrines that support the religion you claim to believe in.
Mr. West is appealing the case to the Federal court. Federal courts cost a lot of money and that is the real way they intimidate people to not oppose their agenda. The article also explains that this is not the first time Mr. West has attacked Christian publications.
So what you find so offense that I said really must come down to this lone statement.
“It is well known how homosexual queens wear their feelings on their blouse sleeve and it costs people a lot of money to defend themselves from these pansy attacks”
I do not think any ration person would question that feminine homosexual men are overly sensitive and often act and dress like woman. So what I said there really does apply. Therefore, the offense really just comes down to the words “pansy attacks”. They are attacking Christians and they are homosexuals so I guess I could have said homosexual attacks instead of pansy attacks and you would have not even have responded, right? Sure!
Homosexuals can do injustice to the English language by calling themselves gays when they are not gay, they are homosexuals, but I cannot call them pansy’’s? That was a common English word for feminine men before homosexuals came out of the closet and twisted the English meaning on that word claiming that it is offensive to them. Must we change the whole English language to appease homosexuals? There are many other common English words that they also find offense because someone might have called them that? Well join the world, we all have been called offense names we do not like but we do not need to change the language because of it. You called me a pea brain. Don’t you know that retarded people would find that term offensive? They also would find the word retarded offensive. Like this Blog indicates, the world is becoming a demented, delusion and dumb place when you cannot even express yourself without being called a bigot by people like you who offend me by redefining the language.
People like you are so tolerant that they are intolerant toward those who still tell the truth. You can call me names but you want to be the protector of the English language. Give me a break!
If you read my post I was concerned about Canadian laws coming here when people like you vote for people who will support having the same hate speech tribunals in the United States. Like you said, you do not care if Christians get hauled before some government body for quoting the Bible. You support a culture that brings disease and early death but you see no problem with supporting that but you still claim to be such a religious Christian man..
Who has talked about supporting hate speech tribunals? Not me.
I don’t consider the Bible to be “hate speech” but my point was I didn’t know exactly what was said. I didn’t notice the links. But I did recognize speech that ISN’T in the Bible that gets a lot closer to the line of being hate speech: YOUR words, not the Bible’s
I don’t “support” the homosexual culture. But there is a was to express your disapproval of the homosexual culture without being smarmy and derogatory. You evidently haven’t evolved that far yet. Good luck with that.
But you should have known what was said in the article before you attacked me on commenting on it. The article explained that printing standard Catholic doctrine against homosexuality is what got them brought before before Canadian tribunals.
There is nothing that I said that is hate speech against homosexuals. I love homosexuals enough to try to correct them and to try to stop them from spreading disease and killing themselves and others and to give them the message of salvation and deliverance from their bondage. I do not do that on every single post and did not do it here because this post was not about homosexuals in general anyway.
This post was about certain pansy’s who claim their feeling were hurt by the Christian position on homosexuality so they use that as a license to get Christians dragged before Canadian tribunals just because they can get away with that in Canada and it was about that we should not allow that to happen here.
There are many ways to combat the homosexual agenda and none of them are exclusively right or wrong in every case. In the homosexual culture you have predators and you have victims but most of activist leaders are predators and they need to be dealt with as such. I was not addressing homosexuals in general in this post anyway, I was addressing the issues in the article that I quoted. Your the one who made what I said out to be an attack on homosexuals. When you start looking for hate speech and become the judge and jury of my free Christian expression you become very much like Mr. West.
Hey, you certainly have freedom of expression. And I have the right to express my opinion, that a truly CHRISTIAN expression would not likely include perjoratives like “queen”, “blouse” and “pansy”. They’re cute (i.e. smarmy) terms which you’re entitled to express, but “Christian” is not an adjective that most reasonable persons would attach.
That is your narrow minded opinion. I would think the majority of Christian Americans would accept the use of the words “queen”, “blouse” and “pansy” when those words were used to describe homosexual queen’s that wear their emotions on their blouse sleeves and are real pansy’s for using the Canadian tribunals and courts to attack Christians that are only quoting the biblical position on homosexuality. That is what this post is about. In case you have forgotten.
I do not think most true Christians would approve of your foul-mouthed narrow-minded statements against me on this post and the other post that you commented on. By the way, I never said my statement was a “Christian” expression. As I implied before, the expression on this blog documents why the world is becoming a demented, delusional and dumb place.
You only have the right to express your opinion in the comments section of my Blog if I allow you to. That may soon end.
You are simply one sick individual in what you say, and it’s even sicker for you to actually believe that a majority of American Christians wouldn’t think the terms you choose are unnecessarily offensive and insulting. If that is actually the case where you live, I’m glad I live elsewhere — ANYWHERE elsewhere.
Don’t worry about it, Donny. There’s only so much filth I can stomach, and your bilious blog has met that quota.
Enjoy your gay-bashing. It’ll ensure your entry into your heaven. Just be prepared: it might be a lot hotter than you had anticipated.
I am also glad you live in gay Paris. You just exposed yourself by calling my Donny. You keep promising to go away but you also keep lying like a troll. By the way, the avatar program gave you the most fitting avatar on earth. Was it just the luck of the draw or does this software know you from somewhere else?
You know about as much about anyone’s entry into heaven and what is really homosexual bashing as you do about the Bible so considering the source you are totally irrelevant.
I have had enough of this foul mouthed troll on my Blog. He no longer has any comment rights.