It’s been an instructive day so far. Almost 30 faith leaders gathered this morning at a Halton conference centre to give me guidance, insight and advice and I walked away with a perspective on the same-sex marriage question I simply would not have had otherwise. More on that when I have time to write later today.
Then it was the Chuck Hour. I debated televangelist and Defend Marriage Canada boss Charles McVety on a live-to-tape segment of the Michael Coren show. It will be broadcast later today at 6 pm Eastern, in Toronto on Cable 9, in Halton on Cable 26 and Cable 36, and across Canada at various other positions on the dial. To get the one in your area, go to www.ctstv.com and then click on “Availability” in the top menu bar. I would welcome your comments, if you can bear to watch the whole hour!
29 comments ↓
Dear Mr. Turner,
I just wanted to take the time to comment on your wonderful letter of September 5, 2006. I have never received a letter from an elected Official that reflects such sincere appreciation and understanding of your constituents. My husband and I respect that you have maintained your integrity and beliefs, and you have certainly taken on some challenging issues! You can count on our continued support.
Cynthia
Hats off to you sir for making your position clear in your debate with McVety. Although he also articulated his position clearly, you did well in constantly reminding him to be more precise when he cites your words.
Dear sir,
Does it not strike you as odd that you’d be lured into a two-against-one situation by appearing on CTS TV and the Michael Coren Show?
Coren has a tendency to dismiss people out of hand and pooh-pooh what guests( if that’s the term) have to say.
Why do you think Coren has been fired from TVO, CBC, National Post, MOJO 640 and CFRB?
How could you put up with such a one-sided program–such as his– which is seen only in the Southern Ontairo area and only by satellite by others who wish to pay for it. Coren’s status has been in steep decline for the longest time and unfortunately nobody has the courage to take him out behind the barn and do what must.
It doesn’t help that McVety is not the brightest bulb on the string, either. His inanities are quite something to savour– particularly on his broadcast. He’s an evangelist?
So now you know what it’s like to be treated shabbily by a pair of so-called Christians.
You deserve better. Perhaps a forum moderated by the likes of Steve Paikin of TVOntario.
You deserve nothing less.
This broadcast you were on today was unfair and slanted from the get-go.
You deserve better
David Elliott
Toronto
David Elliot…now now….Garth is promoting tolerance and you’re not showing much……
Garth you know fundamentally I agree with your SSM take…..we may not agree with the definition but it’s time to move on…….McVety was successful however at making you appear to be “name calling and labelling”…..
David
Were we watching the same show? I think that Michael Coren did a great job. He allowed an open debate between Garth and Charles. Garth won the debate.
FOR JUDY ETC.
The Church is not in the business of designing or running governments; the Church is in the business of forming the kind of people who can design and run governments in which freedom leads to genuine human flourishing.
Contact your MP: write a letter; better still, make an appointment to see him or her personally. Communicate the continuing importance of this issue to your elected representatives. Insist that the traditional definition of marriage be re-opened.
Members of the media claim that society has not been affected, that the sky has not fallen, and that Canadians are not concerned about this change. Some people on the street have similar thoughts: “gay marriage doesn’t affect me … my life goes on as normal.†And so we are led to believe that legislation should be left alone.
Many people who oppose same sex “marriage†are unaware of the adverse effects already posed by our current legislation. A few of the more more important effects are: HAVE A LOOK
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/060912a.html
Man forced to take a goat as his “wife”, after he was caught having sex with the animal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm
I wonder if that marriage would be recognized in Canada. Maybe he could apply for immigration.
But just think about the RAMifications of family re-unification!!!
Well done Garth. The deck was stacked against you and you still came out on top. In the end McVety came off as a whiner. “He called us the taliban”, “Flowers of Evil, Flowers of Evil” wah, wah..
If I was a supporter of Defend Marriage Canada I would be really disappointed in Saint Charles McVety this evening.
[...]
Garth Turner and Charles McVety had at it on the Micheal Coren show this evening. Halton MP Garth Turner has been targeted by the h [...]
I took notes on each segment and put them up at my blog.
I think Micheal Coren was very fair, clear about where he stood, and was a good moderator for this kind of discussion. I note it was a better venue than a political show for what wasn’t much of a debate.
And here is Bene Diction’s review:
Garth Turner and Charles McVety had at it on the Micheal Coren show this evening.
Halton MP Garth Turner has been targeted by the head of Defend Marriage Canada, to make a long story short.
Segment One
Micheal Coren framed the discussion between the debate about moral and social conservatives – the division between Conservatives.
Charles McVety started off saying he had a number of issues with Turner.
1) The MP attacked Steven Harper and his values
2) The MP had called McVety and his friends Taliban and evil Flowers
3) He did not believe Turner espoused demographic principles
4) McVety started his national campaign to espouse moral views
5) His focus is to put forth a moral point of view
Segment 2
Again the distinctions between divisions in conservatism were stressed. It was Garth Turners turn.
1) I have no problem with moral conservatism, I serve a constituency, they are who I answer to
2) I don’t attack Steven Harper, I have a brain and I will disagree on issues and when I do I will say so like I would expect anyone to say so.
3) My difficulties with Charles is that I am asking him to please be more accurate, he pulls selective things and glues them to my face
4) I have no trouble with MP’s that may be elected to advance a single issue, this is a democracy, but I do not view the world monocortically
5) Turner says in hindsight he should not have used the word Taliban regarding McVety’s tactics, he has explained why he used it on his blog and explained again on the show.
Turner believes there can be serious problems in a society when ideology dictates policy.
6) Turner explained the poetic reference to Fleur de mal and one of his favorite poets, and how McVety translated it into an English talking point, flowers of evil.
Segment 3
It was McVety on the attack. The more I listened to the man, the less credibility he had. I think I sat down to watch this fairly, but unfortunately McVety reinforced all that I distrust about his agenda. I think there are times you need to give someone enough rope to hang themselves. He keep trying to make ‘you’ accusations, while Turner responded with ’I’ statements. If I didn’t take McVety’s determination, connections and drive so seriously this would have been funny. One of the verbal tricks he used continuously throughout the show was the verbal hammer.
Doesn’t matter, Turner was gracious, clear, gave ground, and did not mock. I think in debates where the issues are so polorizing, I would not have been as patient, impatience only gives ground to the authoritarianism of fundamentalism.
McVety:
1) The spin isn’t working, you mention me and Defend Marriage Canada 130 times on your website
2) You continue on your blog rage against me
3) You are an atheist
4) be a man and stand up
Segment 4
I credit Coren, he was an fair moderator and asked Turner why he and McVety were at loggerheads. It was a bit of humour in what really wasn’t a discussion.
McVety went off again, as if he hadn’t heard a word that had been said.
1) I ask you not to go into senseless name calling, but you are the one that called us Taliban, Flowers of evil and wrote about us drinking the kool aid.
(Coren broke in and gave Turner the opportunity to point out he has a blog and people can check this out for themselves)
2) If you called homosexual people Taliban, flowers of evil you’d be ousted
3) You make us Christians sound evil, we’re nice guys
4) You call us intolerant, when the broader issue here is a civil debate
5) We can get into a debate, but you aren’t religious
Again Coren gave Turner time to respond, and he pointed out McVety needed to be clear (having watched this, it wouldn’t have mattered how many times that point was made!) Turner reminded McVety he was the only MP to defend an MP of faith (Maurice Vellacott) when he got himself into difficulty for something he said. He reiterated that he is open (TV, radio, print, blog) and believes MP’s get elected from all walks of life, and it is important we do not have a government where those serving come out of a cookie cutter. (Nice one!)
McVety ended the segment with an attack saying Turner was the one fostering a conspiracy, the flip side was true, he just had a liberal agenda. It was patently apparent he is very good at making his point, very good at attacking others, very good at repetition but not very good at discussion or listening. I think he is more comfortable in a pulpit with a captive audience, here he was in a round table with two very intelligent people and it was a bit disconcerting to watch him repeat things without much substance.
Segment 5
McVety went right back at it.
1) Turner is a half conservative, like libertarians who are against marriage, they don’t espouse traditional conservatism
2) You attack Harper and Harper is fighting for marriage.
Then it almost turned into a discussion. Both Coren and Turner clarified the fall vote, with Turner telling McVety he does not believe it should be re-opened even though he thinks the Liberals debate was shallow and too short. Both Coren and Turner made it clear Harper is not ‘fighting’ for marriage the way McVety attempted to define the vote.
And again, he asked McVety to be clear and careful about what he says (lost cause!) and looked him in the eye saying, “Charles, I am not pro same sex or anti marriage.â€
When Turner mentioned his meeting earlier that day both Coren and McVety were surprised the faith leaders told Turner they’d be praying from him, that it sounded contemptuous to McVety.
(That was a no win for sure, the fact McVety holds public prayer meetings to further his political base or the fact he has people praying for him got a bit lost here)
Turner clarified, Coren was fine with it and McVety went barrelling down the track.
McVety says with Bill C-38:
1)clergy are exposed now,
2)they have zero protection,
3)your faith leaders (Halton) you spoke with today are exposed
4)and he mentioned the Knights of Columbus Hall in BC
Even Coren step into clarify and correct McVety on that one.
McVety went right on scolding.
1) There is no protection and you (Turner) as an MP should know that
2) You keep doing the classic liberal spin, saying one thing and doing another
3) You are outspoken against marriage
and he went off again about the Taliban and flowers of evil and attacking Harper
Turner spoke about his marriage, clarified his position and said he was voting not to reopen the issue.
Segment 6
McVety:
1) You actions speak louder than your words, this is just spin, you are against marriage, so why not just take off the red jacket and put the blue liberal one on.
2) You have a sense of entitlement
3) You attacked D’Arcy Keen like he was the devil incarnate
4) You attack people who challenge your entitlement
5) You demonize others
(McVety kept on and on about the Taliban and flowers of evil – it’s politics – clarification or apology doesn’t suit his POV, he was like a kid stuck on a point, like a hurt child)
6) Defend Marriage Canada has had 300 rallies around the country with about 2 thousand people attending and he repeated his top points.
7) You over react to Christians
You have to make sure you shut people down who don’t agree with you.
Segment 7
There was a drift toward the Ontario liberal government education and back to federal issues. Turner clarified he had some trouble with the judiciary at the top of the mountain in Canadian politics, acknowledged it is a fallout from the Trudeau area and would like to see a return to parliamentary supremacy. McVety
1) Defend Marriage Canada has had 300 rallies around the country with about 2 thousand people attending and he repeated his top points.
2) It’s open season on Christians
Again, I give Coren credit, he was extremely fair, understood the issues well, and gave each guest time for clarification and the discussion about differences in the Conservative camp was clear.
Turner basically ended by again asking McVety to be very clear about what he said and what he accused him of. He ended with his concern that in our culture we are seeing a death of tolerance.
These are hand scribbled notes, not a transcript, and any mistakes are mine.
I’m glad it was Coren who moderated this, I don’t know if this would have worked on most political shows. One thing for sure, McVety/Turner are going to be polarizers until this vote is taken. I think the people of Halton have elected a good MP who is serving them well.
Missed the broadcast by just a few minutes.
Anybody have this on video? What about TBS – er MPTV?
a copy of an email that I sent Michael Coren:
Michael:
I haven’t been a great fan of either Charles McVety or Garth Turner, though I’ve appreciated things that each of them worked for. Together, they made the most interesting pair of sparring partners I’ve seen in a long time – and for a whole hour!.
I suppose that hyperbole could account for Garth’s equating Charles’ organization with the Taliban; and Charles’ public lobbying with what we both interpreted as suicidal Kool-Aid. But this man who said Charles should be more tolerant and not call names told viewers to check out his web site, where Charles is described as being a “one-way intolerant and religious fringist.â€
On the other hand, when Charles was challenged for calling Garth the name “atheistâ€, he quoted Garth’s website’s claim of no religious beliefs and offered as an alternative the word agnostic – which describes people who live as atheists. This contrasts with Garth quoting religious figures for authority, but then refusing to names the names of those he claimed had said would “pray for youâ€.
Besides their views on social issues, I found another difference between them was that Charles said what he meant and meant what he said. After a while, Garth’s repeated call for precision sounded a lot like Ignatieff’s and Bill Clinton’s, with endless claims of nuance, which I found increasingly difficult to believe.
Garth said that he wasn’t voting for gay marriage by voting against reopening the issue, after agreeing that it wasn’t properly voted for in the first place. But that fits well in a country where nobody personally supports abortion, but everybody pays for its unrestricted, daily practice all over a nation that silences public dissent.
All this reaffirmed my faith in the mainstream media which kept leaving me the impression of Garth as being a ‘straight-talker’. I found him to be otherwise. Stirring up controversy isn’t the same thing. But I understand what Charles said and meant.
Roger in Mississauga
p.s. for garth.ca
I don’t really know much about Garth apart from what showed up during my occasional listening or reading mainstream media news, which has been when he publicly disagreed with Harpur. So my ‘not a straight-talker’ is based upon him on Coren’s show, which is the first time I’ve seen or heard him at length. And the issue was basically him vs. McVety including same-sex ‘marriage’.
David Elliott, just a small update. Due to massive feedback from listeners, Michael Coren is BACK on CFRB.
Have a nice day!
I think you did very well, Garth.
I think also you should market a drinking game (not that you condone binge drinking, of course) that makes you take a drink every time Dr. McVety says ‘Taliban’.
One quick modification from Roger in Mississauga:
The show was basically about Garth vs. McVety and Fundamentalist Christianity including same-sex marriage.
…monocortically…
(Note To Self: Place this word in verbal toolbox. It’s a darn good one.)
Hello Garth Turner
I watched you tonight on the Michael Coren show. If it was a debate tonight then I would say you won. That does not mean I agree with the current law re Same Sex Marriage. I will not go into details here except to say: Many Canadians have been sleeping through the poltical process over the last 30 years. When we look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms some of us take a 2nd breath at the enormity of how this charter challenges the traditions of Canada. Not that every tradition is good. To me I expect that some who never thought of fighting for their rights will have to in the future.
I did not hear of why you will vote no on re opening this issue? Is it because it is a stinker that you wish would go away. Respecting others is something I aim to do. Sadly that does not mean the other side will meet that kind of tolerence with the same. If only we lived in a perfect world.
When it comes to other popular topics on this website, such as Middle Eastern wars, there is much outcry – warranted in many cases – against one religious group – Muslim – imposing its will and views on any another religious or secular group. If I extend that example and state that as a general rule, no religious group should hold dominion over another, I’d expect that most would agree. Then, getting back to another popular topic at this site of which this thread is one, can I then suggest that if religious groups should only hold their views within their own bounds, they should be free to oppose SSM within their sect, but have no say on the beliefs of sects external to them, provided those beliefs do not violate fundamental laws such as murder and theft? If the Catholic Church does not want to recognize such marriages, that’s fine. If the Metropolitan Church does, that too is fine. The state is not a religious body, and should be in the business of dealing equally and even-handedly with all individuals, conferring rights on those individuals rather than taking them away. It should not favour one church’s practice over another. If the term “Civil Marriage†is not acceptable, then use something else like “Civil Union†but apply it to all couples, and do not recognise any religious marriage. Let the Catholic Church have its version of a marriage, the Metropolitan its version, and so on, and move the battle to one between churches, leaving the state out of it. Of course this would likely cause an outcry.
If there is a flaw in the above logic, please feel free to point out the shortcomings.
Jerry: The Church is not in the business of forming governments!!!
Tell that to the Evangelists in the U.S. who campaigned vigorously for right wing Republicans.
Or to the Southern Baptists.
Or to the Pentecostal Church.
They are all in the business of trying to form governments.
I know of few churches who don’t believe that states should be run based on the laws of the church.
Dube: That is quite the typo!
Fixed. Thanks.
Web admin for Mr. Turner is faster than my spell checker.:^)
Judy, I think this fellow Bishop Frederick Henry is from Canada and speaking about Canada.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/060912a.html
What, no comment’s on the GOAT???
Garth,
Watched the show and at the end I wished you had of just admitted your Taliban quote was inappropriate. One thing that Christianity teaches is the understanding that we all err in times of stress, fear or frustration. Why even St.Peter cowarded under stress. Why can’t you be a human being and admit your error, after all, will anyone really cast a stone at you?
I watched the full hour – and it was basically a no win debate. Neither side said nothing new. Neither side wanted to understand each other. Neither side did any active listening. It was a total waste of my time.
McVety holds a doctorate. That means he is supposedly a minority, intellectually above most of us.
Then why did he perseverate? Bene Dictions transcription makes it clear that Dr. McVety may not be able to think outside the box.
You can’t legislate morality.
The Turner-McVety Debate
Do you believe that Dr. McVety is really the best individual you have to engage in public discussions about legislating social conservatism? He came across extremely poor last night.
David Elliott, just wanted to let you know that Michael Coren is back on CFRB on Sundays at 7:00 p.m. Yahoooo!!!
This is not to do with this exact topic but I think that in the wake of what is happening in the world presently it is very pertinent!!!!
Subject: WAKE UP CaLL
This speaks of Iraq but applies equally to Afganistan and should be read by the likes of Jack Layton and his supporters who think Canadians and our military should tuck our tails neatly between our legs and bail….
Please take the time to read the following essay by Dr. Chong. It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the War in Iraq.
If you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give a fair evaluation and think about your children and grandchildren’s futures. I had no idea who Dr. Chong is or the source of these thoughts… so when I received them, I almost deleted them – as well-written as they are. But then I did a “Google search” on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs in California, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! (the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)
Subject: Muslims, terrorist and the USA. A different spin on Iraq war. This WAR is for REAL!
Written by: Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired Tuesday, July 12, 2005.
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to it’s existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let’s examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001.
The answer, as far as the United State is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%
5. Isn’t the Muslim religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world – German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the same way — their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing — by their own pronouncements — killing all of us “infidels.” I don’t blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don’t clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war? and 2. What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question – What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn’t matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don’t win, they are finished too, in that they can’t resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can’t stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by “imploding.” That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, or really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don’t comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war, people! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don’t worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn’t because they are disloyal. It is because they just don’t recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the “humiliating” of some Muslim prisoners — not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn’t show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned — totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims — not just in the United State, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being ‘arrogant.’ That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can’t! If we don’t recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone — let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world. This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don’t win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don’t have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the “peaceful Muslims”? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
Garth, I’m not sure if you caught McVety on the CBC’s The Big Picture last night, but I’m finding curious irony in his behaviour on that show and then something that he said when he debated you on Michael Coren two weeks ago – that “all we say is… let’s have a civil discourse, let’s have a good debate on issues” and that “we’re kinder and gentler”. On the Big Picture, McVety came across as something of a ranting nut; he was inconsiderate to other guests, loud and expected everyone to take for granted his own views while considering their own barely worth listening to.
Hopefully Canadian media will start to clue in that he is not the most articulate spokesperson for the Christian right and will just stop talking to him. He isn’t making the debate any clearer for anyone. He is much ado about nothing and it’s high time that they just ignore him.
Amen. — Garth
You know, Canadian politicans have a good deal more to discuss than SSM. I think we’re in a war somewhere, people need our help in the Africa, the environment is melting around us and I could go on and on and on.
Let’s get these people in Ottawa to stop spinning wheels and get on with the business of government! SSM is a done deal. Let’s move on!