ht: National Newswatch
The controversy centres on Doug Cryer, who was appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board last month for the Toronto district. Cryer, a longtime Conservative supporter, was appointed "on good behaviour" for a three-year term to the job, which pays between $99,300 and $116,800 a year.
(...)
Cryer's appointment has sparked controversy because he has been a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage and defended the church's right to say homosexual behaviour is "sinful."
It's prejudicial of the EGALE to assume that just because one doesn't, for one's own part, believe in a particular irrelevant aspect of a person's private life activities/philosophy/ideology and/or doesn't agree with what the Liberal government of Paul Martin imposed, without the Peoples' rightful, fully-informed democratic consent, upon Canada vis-a-vis the potentially-deleterious, socially-reengineering, extreme transformation of our society's oldest, most established, most-proven-beneficial-as-it-had-always-been institution, one would necessarily deny a refugee claim by such an individual on such grounds. Such an assumption is fundamentally prejudicial and Christianophobic in nature. If EGALE insists on pursuing such an assumption, then why don't they similarly pursue such assumption vis-a-vis Muslims who might potentially be responsible for issues concerning homosexuals, etc.?
And would they similarly make assumtions about judges who have openly indicated certain personally-held ideological beliefs? Would they target judges who've demonstrated that they believe certain things and/or have done things in their social activism which could be reasonably considered to be motivated by personally-held ideological beliefs? What of known "right-wing" and "left-wing" individuals? What if they've openly professed certain beliefs and/or have engaged in ideologically-oriented social activism in the past? Should these potential judges be disqualified from appointment to the bench? Should these judges be fired from the bench if already appointed thereto?
Should we target known homosexual ideologues who have engaged in militant social activism in favor of homosexuality and/or against other minority ideologies... should we demand they not be appointed to or to be fired from positions in which they might potentially be responsible for "life and death decisions" concerning individuals known to possess certain beliefs with which the homosexual doesn't agree? Should we assume that the homosexual would necessarily rule according to his/her ideological beliefs and not according to the law? Wouldn't that be prejudicial and potentially violative of his/her Charter rights?
And the militant 'gay' lobbying/propaganda group "EGALE" is going after the fellow on the grounds that his religious beliefs and his exercise of his right to affirm them publicly should disqualify him for the job.
Well, I see again that the "gay" supremacists are targeting a Christian for persecution. This seemingly hateful persecution militates against his inalienable Charter right to freedom of religious beliefs and freedom to hold such beliefs openly... and to not be discriminated against or in any way whatsoever caused to be disadvantaged therefor.
It is wrong to assume that just because one holds certain religious beliefs, one will necessarily rule according to those beliefs, and not according to the law. If we are to make such an assumption, then we can just as readily assume that a judge who's known for being a Far-Leftwing radical activist/militant will necessarily rule in cases according to his personal ideology and agenda of social reengineering/persecution of minorities like Christians and others. I wonder if the EGALE would agree with this? Would it be fair to make such assumptions about judges who may potentially hear cases concerning GLBTs? Perhaps known Left-wing-in-ideology judges shouldn't be allowed to decide cases concerning GLBTs, as they might as well be suspected of harboring an agenda of advancing the radical "gay" lobby's agenda and are to be presumed to be planning to rule in that militant group's favor, notwithstanding the law and facts of the case? Or shouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt, like we ought to give Mr. Cryer?
Can anyone provide ONE example of EGALE targeting a devout Muslim on the basis of his/her religious beliefs vis-a-vis homosexuality and homosexual marriage and alleged unsuitability for anything?
In fact, I challenge all to provide examples of the militant "gay" lobby targeting Muslims for their religious beliefs vis-a-vis "GLBT"s. I predict there won't be any.
I suggest that the EGALE might be persecuting Christians because they hate Christians for some reason, not necessarily for believing that homosexual activity is "sinful", nor for not believing in "gay" marriage, but because there's something about the faith which they fundamentally hate out of nothing but their own personal/collective irrational fear/prejudice.
After all, the EGALE doesn't go after devout Muslims, who also, due to their faith, are against the practice of homosexual activities and homosexual marriage. Do they go after Muslims? If so, how come we haven't heard of it in the Big Corporate Politically Correct Media?
