I am not going to sit here and pretend that I was okay with a particular pastor's comments on his blog regarding homosexuality and other issues - my brother is gay, so I pay attention to what these people in political groups say. However, at the same time, I know that everyone is supposed to have 'freedom of expression' in Canada, as long as it does not infringe on someone else's right's. That should cover 2 sometimes-warring parts of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Did the pastor's words infringe on someone else's rights? Did it infringe on my brother's rights? I don't think so. My brother would not have even heard about this man's words until it was reported in the news so I don't know that it did him or anyone else direct harm. I understand that it could 'lead' to someone doing something that infringes on his rights - but I think pretty much everyone has stated something in their lifetime, even recently, that could potentially 'lead' to another person taking those words and acting upon them in a way that infringes on another's rights. Where do we draw the line between having freedom of expression, and not having it? Who decides that? It's a tough road to navigate these days.
I did some reading and the blog post was made before the Pastor was a candidate. I don't know that he has written anything else that controversial since - I have not heard/read about it at any rate. Now he is a candidate for WildRose in next week's election. Okay - so if this guy was MY candidate and I was unhappy with things, I would have been contacting Wildrose and telling them that I would love to vote for them but I refuse to put my mark next to that guy's name, so they better be more careful in the future. Or something to that effect. But he is not my region's candidate and mine seems to be quite good. He took a lot of time going around talking to people - I saw him at my neighbour's house for a long time but I was dashing out the door to a sports event so I missed his knock on our door. But everything I have read sounds like he would be a good guy to try out. Our current PC MLA is retiring and I have never voted for him because about 15 years ago my boss had a run-in with him and he was VERY rude to her even though she had spent years looking after his kids at our center. So I did not bother voting in the last round at all even though I would have preferred to vote PC at that time. I just could not get myself to go put a mark next to this particular man's name. This time I am - and it's going to be for who I think would be a good candidate for my city as well as for Wildrose.
Anyway back to the matter at hand, there is a lot of press about Premier Redford being very concerned about these comments. I don't get it. The press is tearing WR Smith apart for defending the pastor's right to freedom of expression while warning that they will NOT be legislating on such matters..... and meanwhile a PC party member in Redford's own group, who is running for re-election, put forth a BILL stating the same things that Smith has been chastised for (freedom of conscience) and this pastor (acceptance of different sexuality in schools). So the PC guy tried to LEGISLATE on these same things back in 2006, taking it beyond freedom of expression and conscience, and tried to put it to the govt. Why is Redford having such a spaz when the same things and WORSE can be said about at least one of her own party members???
I found a great link from the Financial Post that shows PC members quoting the charter of rights and freedoms in the same manner that Smith now is - but suddenly it's the PCs that are coming down hardest on Wildrose for it. Bizarro. You could literally take out the PC part and Ted Morton in that article and slide in WR and Danielle Smith and re-post it today and no one would know the difference - other than the fact there was a Bill.