|
Svend
Robinson likes to mix together examples of assault with
examples of hurt feelings in his arguments for the need
for "hate crime" protection against homosexuals.
That is rhetorical manipulation, but also in the real
world, one has to have a separate strategy to deal with
each one.
Homosexuals
face - generally - two types of opposition: thoughtful
opposition by people who believe their behaviour is sinful
and immoral, and mockery and assault by people who want
to make fun of them and get rid of them. Barring perhaps
a few very limited exceptions, we are talking about separate
groups of people with these 2 categories. The homosexual
argument that Christian opposition to homosexuality leads
to the humiliation and violence that takes place is baseless,
and all honest people know that.
Svend
Robinson needs to be forced to answer the question: "Are
you more concerned with protecting homosexuals from assault
or are you more concerned with protecting them from hurt
feelings?" Why? Because Bill C-250 won't deal with
both problems.
Better
enforcement of legislation against assault and vandalism
would more effectively deal with problems of violence
and replacement of "How to legally sexually assault
your fellow student" (otherwise known as "sex
ed") classes with classes on civility might help
to curb harassment of homosexuals, to the degree that
it exists. Bill C-250 will not do anything to curb these
problems. Bill C-250 will only serve to intimidate Christians
and others who express opposition to homosexuality, but
who don't go around beating up homosexuals.
This
means: a) that Svend Robinson is more concerned about
homosexuals with hurt feelings than he is about homosexuals
who have been physically assaulted, and/or b) his primary
agenda is to silence Christians, not to do anything substantive
about violence.
This
point alone shows that the provincial attorney generals
and police associations that have endorsed C-250 are among
Canadians with the lowest intellectual capacity or they
are slaves to the homosexual political agenda, raising
serious questions about their commitment to the protection
of Canadians from real crime. Officials like that will
increase the odds of more civil disobedience and vigilantism
because they undermine people's confidence in their willingness
and ability to protect us. When they parade their preference
for political brownie points over real solutions to crime
as openly and brazenly as they do with their support for
C-250, why should anybody trust them in any area of law
enforcement?
And
finally, due to our conclusions about who will really
be affected by Bill C-250, it is absolutely legitimate
to frame it as "criminalization of Christianity"
legislation. The burden of proof is on Svend Robinson
to demonstrate that his real intention with this bill
is not to silence and marginalize Christians.
Christian
historian and economist Gary North pointed out recently
that jealousy is wanting what others have and envy is
wanting to take away from somebody something they have
that you don't have. He pointed out, correctly, that socialism
is driven by envy, in particular a desire to steal from
the "rich" something they have that you don't
have. That wealth doesn't necessarily have to elevate
the poor, it simply has to be taken from the rich. And
we all know that Svend Robinson is a socialist's socialist.
And he demonstrates that again with C-250. Instead of
giving homosexuals something - raising them up, so to
speak - what he wants to do is to tear Christians down
- marginalize them, steal from them a significant portion
of their liberty. It's a destructive agenda; it's an agenda
of envy; it's a socialistic agenda.
|
