Friday, 27 June 2014

MLA Routley Weighs In On Leadercast


The following is a comment posted on this website by MLA Doug Routely, I have checked with him and he confirms he is the author.


Would you accept a convention sponsored by the Klu Klux Clan?

The sponsors have attempted to overturn the Human Rights Act protected rights of a group based on their identity. Ezra Levant and Sun are the worst example of extremist media in Canada, as evidenced by their spin that Nanaimo banned Christians.

Levant appears to pass up no opportunity to foment division and undermine progressive Canadian values. He seems determined to "Americanize" Canadian politics and social discourse to the detriment of all of us.

Free speech is not without responsibility and the sponsors of that convention who have attacked the rights of Canadians now, ironically, challenge the decision of Council by invoking rights protected under the same act. This is a sad perversion of the intent of our Charter.

Do Christians feel comfortable being identified alongside the bigoted sponsors? I suspect that those who object to the decision of Council have never been chased down an alley or beaten in a school yard because of who they are. Kudos to the City Council of Nanaimo.

Doug Routley

allvoices

21 comments:

  1. Where is the proof that this was sponsored by the KKK? Looking at the actual content, it's the tamest stuff in the world, just inspriational leader drivel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a hypothetical. Leadercast is sponsored by Chick-Fil-A who are known to be anti-LGBT. Do a quick google search and you can see for yourself. They oppose same sex marriage and feel that homosexuality can be "treated" with therapy.

      It's not as simple as being able to separate the event from the sponsor. Sure, the event itself was probably fine...but you can't just segregate the two. That's like saying you'd be okay with the KKK sponsoring your son's soccer team.

      City council made a tough but right decision.

      Delete
    2. Traditional marriage has been the opinion of the Bible and those who follow it for 1000's of years. Are you saying it is a crime to oppose something that goes against what the Bible invented in the first place and gave clear definition about? Are you saying we should be banned from our ancient beliefs? Because that was the intent by City councils ruling wasn't it? It troubles us who follow the Bible when things important like marriage are redefined, we should stand up for what we believe in as Christians. It is not Hate. The Bible is a righteous standard that was given to mankind in Love, and humans do best when we follow its instructions.

      Delete
    3. Jordan, there are as many interpretations of those texts as there are people who read them. The 'righteous standard' you mention is perceived and 'given weight/authority', by each individual according to their own preferences and paradigms. I've been a christian for a long time, and I've come to notice something: The bible is preoccupied with matters of mercy toward the 'other' -the foreigner, the 'slave' help for the stranger, the broken and hungry. It is not at all preoccupied with homosexuality. Modern-day Christianity/Christians need to concern themselves with how we behave toward human beings.

      I hear fellow Christians say they have to stand up against gay marriage or "... Gods judgement will fall on our nation..." etc ... This is an entirely self serving motive. It's not out of 'love for gay people" it's about avoiding possible punishment from an angry God. Today's westernized Christianity doesn't look like Christianity at all. What is deemed 'ancient beliefs' are in fact modern traditions - that justify greed, theft and entitlement,
      Love God, love people- that's the gig. We have the right to worship God to,gather, and to serve- the rest is privilege. One doesn't need a building to feed the poor, or to pray. So really, what is the western modern-day church fighting for. ?

      Delete
  2. Some politicians are kluless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. is this another satire...I can't believe that this MLA is dead serious about this rejoinder!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Megan Callaghan27 June 2014 12:14

    Are you saying the KKK was sponsoring the event? Or are you simply equating those who hold a traditional view of marriage to the KKK...which is somehow related to the fact that they probably haven't been chased down an alley and beaten up? If that's the case, that is as random and uneducated a stance as what city council delivered and your support of their uninformed decision is not only not surprising but completely undermines your credibility as a leader in the community as far as I'm concerned. A large part of the problem in all these shennanigans is that the leaders who should be providing equal representation of all members of their community even if their beliefs/opinions don't line up with said members, are not able to put aside their personal feelings and simply look at the facts with an unbiased eye. I'm a Christian who values the traditional definition of marriage. However, if the tables had been turned and a leadership event sponsored by a company associated with an individual who believes in same sex marriage was cancelled because somebody took offense to that person's views, I'd be the first to speak up and say that is unacceptable regardless of my own views because I have an understanding of what our collective rights and freedoms really are. I would fight to my dying day to ensure ANY person has the right and freedom to have and express their beliefs. It is a slippery slope. As soon as we allow the the freedom of one religion, race or orientation to be taken away I know mine won't be far behind. People would do well to remember that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I would fight to my dying day to ensure ANY person has the right and freedom to have and express their beliefs."

      I assume you have fought for Sikh's to bring Kirpans into schools? Or how there should be no dress code for children regardless of how offensive their shirt reads?

      Delete
  5. Time for my Freedom of Expression:

    Routley is a K--ook.

    We now must have psychiatric assessments before someone like this is entitled to hold public office.

    Spelling wouldn't hurt either. It's "Ku" Klux Klan.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good for Doug Routley, and Council.

    Jordan Williams writes: "Are you saying it is a crime to oppose something that goes against what the Bible invented in the first place and gave clear definition about? Are you saying we should be banned from our ancient beliefs?"

    You are welcome to your beliefs. However, if you seek to limit the civil rights of others because of your beliefs, you should not expect to be supported by government.

    Frank Moher

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just another example of left-wing suppression of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Doug Routley28 June 2014 14:22

    The comment included this first paragraph that was not published:

    "The issue of Council’s recent decision to deny access to the Nanaimo convention center is complex, as is the issue of free speech versus acceptable community standards. While we have the right to our beliefs, we do not have the right to advocate for discrimination that contravenes the Human Rights code or constitutes hate speech. The convention is clearly not the issue, the record of the sponsor is. Council explains that they do not wish to isolate vulnerable groups in the community. The question is clearly, where would you draw the line as to what groups can use publicly funded facilities?"

    I stand by the assertion that the council drew a line based on the sponsor and that they object to the efforts made by that sponsor to overturn constitutionally protected rights of Canadian citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Doug Routley28 June 2014 14:30

    This is the entire post, as it should have been posted. the editor chose the formatting, which makes the first sentence appear to be the title. As for the missing first paragraph, well, I don't know about that. When he checked for verification, I pointed out that the first paragraph was missing, provided it and was told it couldn't be changed.

    "The issue of Council’s recent decision to deny access to the Nanaimo convention center is complex, as is the issue of free speech versus acceptable community standards. While we have the right to our beliefs, we do not have the right to advocate for discrimination that contravenes the Human Rights code or constitutes hate speech. The convention is clearly not the issue, the record of the sponsor is. Council explains that they do not wish to isolate vulnerable groups in the community. The question is clearly, where would you draw the line as to what groups can use publicly funded facilities? Would you accept a convention sponsored by the Klu Klux Clan?

    The sponsors have attempted to overturn the Human Rights Act protected rights of a group based on their identity. Ezra Levant and Sun are the worst example of extremist media in Canada, as evidenced by their spin that Nanaimo banned Christians. Levant appears to pass up no opportunity to foment division and undermine progressive Canadian values. He seems determined to "Americanize" Canadian politics and social discourse to the detriment of all of us.

    Free speech is not without responsibility and the sponsors of that convention who have attacked the rights of Canadians now, ironically, challenge the decision of Council by invoking rights protected under the same act. This is a sad perversion of the intent of our Charter. Do Christians feel comfortable being identified alongside the bigoted sponsors? I suspect that those who object to the decision of Council have never been chased down an alley or beaten in a school yard because of who they are. Kudos to the City Council of Nanaimo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is noteworthy that this MLA has identiified with the reasoning and process used by City Council in cancelling the event..There was no notice of motion, no presentation of a factual report, no legal advice sought and no right of anyone affected by the motion to speak to the Council. This resulted in a decision that was based solely on stereotypes and deeply held prejudices of Council members (eg. equating Christianity with Boko Haram) with the outcome of the decision being determined in advance by those prejudices. It reminds me of films I have seen about Nazi trials of political enemies in the 1930s except that, typically, the Nazis allowed the accused to appear in court.

      The scheduled Christian-themed Leadercast event had nothing whatever to do with homosexuality or "gay marriage". However, Council Members did not care about that. They were out to target beliefs they disagreed with and would not allow due process or even the Charter of Rights (see below) to get in their way. Unfortunately, the taxpayers of Nanaimo are going to be on the hook for a big legal bill over this one.

      I suggest that Routley's endorsement of their actions gives us a preview of what an NDP government would do.

      Delete
    2. Doug,

      The Nanaimo city council has come to its sense after a long pause and offered its apology publicly. It is now your turn to do so.

      Delete
  10. Cheryl Eakins28 June 2014 14:40

    Mr. Routley.

    Please enlighten me. How did the sponsors of that convention "attack the rights of Canadians"? My understanding is that a number of years ago the CEO of ONE of the sponsors, when asked, expressed that his PERSONAL opinion was that he supports traditional marriage. That does not attack the rights of anyone. That is simply one person's personal opinion. You don't have to agree with it. You do have to allow him the right to have that opinion, especially if you want to have the right to your opinion. There are obviously a lot of people who have differing opinions on that issue. It's a good thing you are not all being banned from using City owned property because your opinions differ. Please, take a step back, get rid of the inflammatory "gay bashing"/"christian bashing" rhetoric and look at the what the issue is. It is simply the rights of each of us to have different opinions without being discriminated against for it. We have the right to disagree. Quite simply, this motion by council took that away. That means that if the next council has a different opinion they could now ban whoever doesn't agree with their opinions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Cheryl, thanks for your comment.

      Delete
  11. Doug, I told you 'I' couldn't change YOUR post, as I can only accept or delete them. Which is as it should be, so it maintains the integrity of the post EXACTLY as the contributor submitted it.
    I told you the only way to add the missing paragraph was for you to re-submit the complete post, to which you responded you would let it stand as it was.
    You seem to be suggesting that somehow I am to blame for you not wishing to resubmit the full post, I trust that is a misunderstanding and you are not trying to assign blame, I told you how to add the paragraph and you willingly chose not to.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Doug Routley

    "Do Christians feel comfortable being identified alongside the bigoted sponsors?"
    I understand the Daily News, Coastal Credit Union (?) and the Chamber of Commerce were sponsors of this event.

    Are you now claiming they are bigoted?

    ReplyDelete
  13. The bigot here is Doug Routley. He supports a City Council directive that was clearly targeted at Christians and in violation of the BC Human Rights Code. He now stands along side a member of City Council who compares Christianity with Boko Haram.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My question is why any organization would want to affiliate itself with an event as banal and slimy as Leadercast, which is plainly designed to dupe business people the way some evangelical churches dupe their congregations.

    ReplyDelete

Your comment will appear after moderation before publishing,

Thank you for your comments.Any comment that could be considered slanderous or includes unacceptable language will be removed.

Thank you for participating and making your opinions known.