Last summer I had the privilege to go to the capital of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife (pictured right), to teach science summer camp with DiscoverE. Yellowknife is a town of under 20,000 people. Life takes on a slower pace there, and everyone drives 10-20 km/h under the speed limit downtown (unlike Vancouver where 20 over the norm).

One of the activities for youth there in the summer (besides the week of DiscoverE summer camps) is The Rock skateboard camp, run by some local evangelical Christians. Hopefully, this group has nothing to do with the following story, and doesn’t breed the same contempt, because from all accounts Yellowknife is a happy little community.

Scott Robertson and Richard Anthony, a gay couple, were trying to rent a room just over a year ago and had signed a lease with Will Goertzen. However, days before they were to move in they noticed that their room was listed online. It turns out that Will, with all his Christian love, had learned of the couple’s relationship (I’m not sure if he though they were just friends who planned to share a bed or something) and decided he didn’t want their kind in his house. The couple had to find a new place to rent since they had already sold their previous home and ended up homeless in Yellowknife for 10 days (the average high in Yellowknife in May is a mere 10^oC).

They have already been compensated a portion of their deposit (they haven’t received their utilities expenses back yet) and are expecting to hear back from the courts about their discrimination case in August.

Jason at The Gay White North makes a good point on this story however,

So now I’m a bit worried.  On the one hand, I believe Mr. Goertzen must be held accountable for his actions and the consequences of his actions, and on the other hand, I don’t want him to become a hater.

I know I have no control over what other people do or think.  And I know how easy it is to label someone who does not share the same worldview as ourselves.  I’ve heard characterizations such as "crazy" or "nut job," much too often.  But that type of behaviour (ie: discrimination or name calling) will get us exactly the opposite of what we want: live in peace, harmony and happiness.

In an ideal world, everyone would think like us and act like us.  But, the world is far from ideal.  So, in the meantime, I’d much rather live next door to a homophobe than a hater so please don’t make a bad situation worse.

Please.

In a large city, where few people actually know their neighbours, there’s no real social ostracism that occurs after a case like this. But in a small, progressive town, where everybody knows your name and life story, it could turn ugly quick.

I think Jason’s sentiments are, somewhat ironically, much more Christian than what Will is doing. And this is one of those few cases where the Bible does have some wisdom: forgiveness is sometimes better than revenge.

Hopefully the Will sees the error in his ways (as it were) and learns some tolerance. Otherwise, a small, progressive community has little space for him.

(h/t Friendly Atheist)

Full disclosure: My review copy was provided at no charge by BTL publishing. Nevertheless, take my review as my honest opinion on this book.

Losing Control provides a good supplemental reading to the narratives provided by McDonald. While McDonald provides the detailed look into some of the cast of characters involved in the religious right, Warner adds an academic history in the events that date back to the formation of the modern rights movements in the 1960s.

Warner documents a shift in Canadian thinking from it’s Christian roots to a secular society that prizes individual and minority rights. This shift has obviously come hard for the social conservatives in the country, who have since rallied around various conservative parties, from the Progressive Conservatives to the Reform, Canadian Alliance and modern Conservative Party.

Warner breaks his treatment thematically, treating the abortion debate, repressive sexuality laws, gay rights and gay marriage in successive chapters. He finishes with some discussion about the social conservative inroads in politics.

Unfortunately, he only has passing references to the debates over evolution vs. creationism and school prayer, both of which have been hot topics for social conservatives.

In The Armageddon Factor, McDonald used mostly original research to compose her book, however the vast majority of Losing Control is based on 29 pages of third-party sources. This extensive bibliography provides a valuable resource for anyone wanting to get the dirt straight from the source.

I partially criticized McDonald for minor editorializing at points in The Armageddon Factor, and while Warner uses the mostly neutral term social conservative to refer to Canada’s vast network of religious right figures (which includes evangelical protestants, Catholics, conservative Jews, Sikhs and Muslims), he does end many of his chapters in a more of a warning style.

As an example, at the end of the chapter on regulating sexuality he states:

Sadly, there is no realistic reason to believe that members of Parliament will take the next logical step and actually decriminalize prostitution and repeal the repressive bawdy house sections of the Criminal Code. As has so often been the case in the past, the best hope for progress on those issues rests with the justices of the Supreme Court and their interpretations of the rights guaranteed by the Charter.

This is of course not to say that I disagree with anything Warner has to say, I’m with him almost the entire way through this book. He does come down firmly with the BC Civil Liberties Union and criticizes other gay activists who have used the Human Rights Tribunals to censor hate speech, to which I’m still undecided upon, but otherwise I’m in total agreement.

I think the greatest value in Losing Control is in its framing the battles with the religious right in terms of conflicting societal values. It’s secular rights (which include religious freedoms) versus theocratic ambitions to regulate morality.

One final chapter I was hoping for was for Warner to connect the dots (something McDonald attempted to do) and discuss the main organizations that have been active in the fights against progressive minority rights. Such organizations as REAL Women Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League and Focus on the Family Canada. At the very least, a brief perusal through the comprehensive index will identify the organizations that routinely come up in church-state separation debates.

Overall, Losing Control is a well-researched book that covers the history of social conservatives in Canada and the battles that have been fought and progress that has been made since the introduction of various Bills of Rights and the Charter. While not an outright replacement for The Armageddon Factor, it does make a good supplement for anyone who wants to dig a bit deeper into these issues.

The story isn’t completely confirmed yet, but early reports seem to be that an 11-year-old in New Mexico tripped and cute her nose and loosened some teeth was denied access to the school nurse or a call home because her teacher thinks she should attend another school since she has married lesbian parents.

The Albuquerque Journal also reports that when the girl submitted an assignment about her summer vacation, where her parents got married, the teach ripped the page out and told her “this is gross, this is horrible, you need to write about something else.”

The family is rightfully filing a lawsuit for negligence and violations of her civil rights (this is a public school).

"We don’t send our kids to school in New Mexico to get hurt and to learn hatred and intolerance," Foster [the family’s attorney] said. He said his suit will aim to show a pattern of harassment.

So what is so wrong with this teacher that she has to avoid the school?

If you think that it’s action on pedophilia in their ranks, you’d be wrong.

It’s the simple fact that when this teacher goes home to her family, she is greeted lovingly by another woman and child.

And no, this isn’t the Southern USA or the third-world. This woman was discriminated against in Vancouver, her school is only a few kilometres from where I live!

But even worse is that as a Group 1 Private School [pdf], the BC government funds 50% of this school’s per-pupil budget. That’s right BCers, your tax dollars are going to fund religious-fuelled homophobia.

Same-sex marriage is legal in this country. Gay couples are allowed to adopt and have children. It is downright wrong that this discrimination can be funded by everyone.

The government does stop partially-public-funded private schools from discriminating on a few grounds (from above PDF):

"Before issuing or renewing a certificate of group 1, group 2, group 3 or group 4 classification to an authority the inspector must be satisfied that
(a) no program is in existence or proposed at the independent school that would, in theory or in practice, promote or foster doctrines of
(i) racial or ethnic superiority or persecution
(ii) religious intolerance or persecution
(iii) social change through violent action, or
(iv) sedition.”

So no racism or religious discrimination, but I guess sexism and homophobia are still cool.

The other ironic thing about that document is how it brags about “diversity” while segregating large chunks of the population into their religious groups. Even further, almost all of the private schools are Christian!

At least the good news is that our heroine is getting a position with the public Vancouver School Board in the fall where she won’t have to put up with the child-abusing bigots.

It must have been somewhere mighty important for you all to miss the third and final vote on Bill 44 in the legislature.

I mean, I can understand all the Conservative MLAs who missed (including Education Minister Dave Hancock), who may fear that there really is no such thing as a “free vote.”

But you Liberals made a lot of hoopla, and then almost half of your caucus fails to show up to oppose it. At least the New Democrats did their job (see page 8 for votes).

Bill 44 received Royal Assent on June 4th.

The most successful government in Canada right now is arguably the Manitoba NDP led by Gary Doer. He has the only balanced budget in Canada and is largely popular in his province.

So why can’t his cabinet support funding for gender reassignment surgery?

It really puts you more in line with the Albertan tyrant Stelmach who recently began his quest to destroy public medicare by delisting GRS first.

So to the Manitoba NDP: Remember who supports you, so far you’ve failed to implement electoral reform (a major NDP plank nationally), and now you’re selling out the GLBT lobbies.

It’s frustrating how power seems to corrupt every party in our system (I can imagine the exact same things happening to you Green supporters too without change).

The centre says they only have a month or so of money left without charitable status and then they may be forced to close.

This is a terrible loss for the city, as a centre like this provides safety and information for Edmontonians, regardless of their sexual orientation.

But apparently the federal government didn’t like their predecessor the Gay and Lesbian Community Centre of Edmonton which closed in 2004 and spawned the Pride Centre.

Todd Babiak, who wrote the article, clearly has a soft spot for the place as the article blasts right-wing non-profits that continually appear partisan, including the Catholic Archdiocese of Calgary, The CD Howe Institute and Focus on the Family. He also gives us a personal look into the facility.

He does say that, “No one is suggesting that the Roman Catholic diocese of Calgary should lose its status as a registered charity.” And here I would have to disagree with you Todd. It should lose its status, along with all other churches, mosques, synagogues, and even atheist organizations. Only groups that are truly non-partisan and reach out to better the community (as their sole goal) deserve the government endorsement of issuing tax receipts.

Nevertheless, this is unfortunate news for the city, and here’s to hoping that something new can fill the void that this centre will leave.

This is something of a news story.

People protested in China after zookeepers separated two (apparently) gay male penguins from the rest after they continually attempted to steal eggs from other penguins. The zookeepers caved and gave the couple a pair of eggs from an inexperienced female.

At first this is a very cute kind of story – everyone loves penguins.

But there’s a couple more things here: homosexuality exists in nature (this isn’t news, but many anti-gay advocates don’t realize this yet), and these penguins were just granted more rights than gay couples in many states in the US.

It’s key to note this bit:

One campaigner who did not want to be named welcomed the move and said: ‘It wasn’t fair to stop them becoming parents and keep them apart from all the other birds just because of the way nature has made them.’ [emphasis added]

Even if you believe in a god, you can still respect the feelings in these animals.

Specifically, I appreciated this quote:

Any time you ask a majority of people to vote on the rights of a minority, especially when religion is involved, the minority doesn’t stand a chance.

Her article references Proposition 8 from California, a proposition which passed and denied gays and lesbians equal access to state-sanctioned marriages. However, the same statement rings true for any case of minority or secular rights.

Many have claimed in Gateway or other letters that things like the convocation charge should simply be “put to a vote” and let the majority decide.

Yet, surprisingly, this isn’t how a democracy works.

Democracy requires equal voicing of all opinions, and then informed debate, compromise and decision based on what’s most desirable for all constituents. Without the ability for equal voicing, the majority will crush the minority and rights of the minority will fade and disappear.

These ideas are collectively known as tyranny of the majority, and once you fail to protect all minority rights, you’re country loses its ability to proclaim itself a “free, democratic nation.” But that’s never been synonymous with a “Christian nation” now, has it?

Who has a legitimate reason that Proposition 8 (to ban gay marriages in California) and similar legislations should be put forward?

Why single out a single segment of the population and say, “I don’t approve of what you do in your own privacy”?

Someone explain to me, because I don’t get it.

The traditional answers: violation of holy books etc. is garbage. So what if other people don’t do what your book says – if you want a “free” country, then you have to accept that sometimes people won’t do what you like.

I don’t like that you speak in tongues (I just find it weird), but I’m not going to stop you from doing it. I’m not even going to usually tell you that I don’t like it. I respect your right to do whatever you want, so long as it doesn’t interfere with other people’s rights to do what they want.

Adam and Steve, or Eve and Ellen getting married in no way infringes any of your rights.

Your church doesn’t have to marry them – that’s fine. They don’t have to go to your church. Everyone wins.

So I ask what Keith Olbermann so eloquently asks: Why do you care? What difference does it make?

I feel especially in touch with this issue as Alberta is likely the first place such a freedom could be lost.