The Christian Right vs. Occupy Wall Street

I just read something that I could help but find hilarious. One of the smaller right-wing Christian groups in the States, in one of their recent meetings, had this to say about the ever-growing protests against Wall Street:

The sixties-style tent city protest, which seemed to fizzle after its September 17 launch, now has momentum and is expanding to cities across the nation, including Washington, D.C. Organizers of the movement (e.g. ACORN, labor unions, and other far-left leaders and groups) have been given new life by the sycophant liberal media, Hollywood celebrities and leading Democrats in Washington, including President Obama. Six arrests were made when one hundred demonstrators conducted an illegal demonstration inside a Senate office building (see Gullible, Who’s Behind it?, Official Website, Senate Building).

• May God prevent these radical organizers from stirring revolution and distracting voters from the elections and keeping watch on our elected leaders (Num 16:1-14; Is 1:4-6; Pr 12:11-12; Mt 26:41; Eph 4:28; 1 Tim 6:3-10; Heb 13:5-6).

Now, leaving aside for a moment that Jesus Himself was a revolutionary -- unless you think that there was nothing radical about forming a group that was very much against the established government -- here's what I said to the group in an e-mail response:

Jesus made it very clear, that Christians are supposed to help the poor at all costs. Lest you think that this is some liberal revisionism of The Gospels, I refer you to the incident in the Book of Mark, where Jesus Himself FLAT OUT SAYS that if you aren't willing to give up your possessions to help the poor, then YOU ARE NOT REALLY FOLLOWING HIM.

So why then, is your group praying for the FAILURE of the Occupy Wall Street movement? Would you care to show me exactly where ANYONE says in The Bible that the rich shall have total dominion over the land, and that the poor are to be treated with contempt?

Remember this, thou hypocrites, the next time you say with a straight face that it's liberals and heathens that are perverting Christianity.

Occupy Air Canada

Canada's Cards of Patriotism

You've got to love how the Harper Conservatives got elected by bitching about big government, and yet are acting more and more like Big Brother all the time. Yes, even more than when they tried to censor our movies for secret reasons, started censoring the press, fired people for disagreeing with them, trying to steal a ballot box, and spying on/arresting/assaulting people for protesting Dear Leader.

Some of the latest stupidity is that they're trying to enshrine in our laws, the right to fly a Canadian flag... um, is this really needed? Can someone honestly show me an example of a person being ordered to not fly the Maple Leaf? No, it doesn't count if someone's flying it upside down. Of course, this doesn't stop G20 commandant turned Conservative puppet Julian Fantino from insisting that it's a freedom being threatened by those pesky pinkos that the far-right sees in their bowls of soup.

But the reason this is especially dumb, is that Foreign Affairs Pitbull John Baird -- I'm not kidding, this guy looks like he has rabies, doesn't he? -- recently got caught ordering gold-embossed business cards, that don't mention Canada at all. I'll repeat that: a minister from the very nationalistic Canadian government, has a business card that has no reference to the country that he works for. I'll remind you, this is from the same government that refers to itself as either the Harper Government or the Conservative government, and very rarely as the Canadian government.

So nevermind that this is also the government suddenly obsessed with making us look and sound like we're still a British colony, now the government that accuses everyone else of being unpatriotic pork-barrellers, is itself unpatriotic and pork-barelling. Then again, there could be another reason that the CRAP government wants to take us back to pre-Confederation times: that was roughly the last time that any Conservative cabinet was good for the economy. Enough said.

Criticizing the Pope is Anti-Semitism?

What the hell??

It seems like every time I turn around, some jerk is using "Anti-Semitic" to label valid criticism, that has nothing to due with Jews -- either as a whole, or at all. The latest example, is Pope Benedict's personal preacher, comparing criticism of the Catholic Church's sheltering for pedophile priests, to the persecution of Jews by the Nazis.

(by the way, I am aware of the irony here, given not only the Church's total non-involvement during The Holocaust, but Benedict having been in the Hitler Youth -- but that's beside the point)

It's disgusting enough, that the clergy is trying to defend what is basically the harbouring of criminals -- and some of the worst kind there is, I might add. But to deflect their critics in this way is not only appalling, but it's embarrassing -- what the hell does this even REMOTELY have to do with Antisemitism? This attitude is totally inexcusable, and illustrates perfectly that the clergy doesn't care as much about their flock as they claim to.

Incidentally, before anyone accuses me of Catholic bashing, please take a moment to actually read the news, and find out that there are a lot of Catholics who basically agree with me on this -- so much so, that they are no longer comfortable attending church, over it. They recognize, that this farce has nothing to do with Christianity.

Ezra Levant vs. Free Speech

As anyone following the "Ann Coulter in Canada" farce knows, her primary supporter in the Great White North is a conservative commentator named Ezra Levant. He's mostly known as an exile from the Conservative Party, as well as defending his "right" to reprint the inflammatory cartoons depicting Muhammed the Prophet as a terrorist.

When the provost of the University of Ottawa politely but firmly reminded Ann Coulter, that her usual hate rhetoric is illegal here, Levant was one of those accusing the provost of hate speech himself -- just because Coulter is a conservative -- and has filed a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, despite the fact that the hates its very existence. Sensing hypocrisy yet?

Anyway, a short time ago, an amateur stand-up comic in British Columbia was taken to that province's HRC, for yelling at a lesbian couple that was talking during his act (and if you didn't already guess, it's alleged that he used homophobic slurs). Levant, you guessed it, says that this isn't an issue, and the case has no merit.

So let's recap: it's okay to print sacrilegious and racist cartoons of Muslims (I know he says it's about free speech, but when he prints a cartoon depicting Moses or Jesus in the same light, then I'll buy that claim); it's okay to scream slurs at a lesbian couple in a public place; but God forbid that you remind a hatemonger, that we don't take kindly to her saying things like "we should kill all Muslim leaders and force the people to convert to Christianity", or "Canada's lucky we allow them to exist on our continent".

When this chucklehead comes to the HRC, defending America's answer to Osama bin Laden, I hope they throw him out on his ass.

Updates and Apologies

Lap Dance Bruhaha

PETA Pinheads

Security Soap Opera

Maine Homophobes II

Is it just me, or is the so-called "Moral Majority" not even trying to look respectable or rational anymore? Just a couple of days after I posted my rant about Maine voting to revoke same-sex marriage, this prick called JarodysCampaign -- who lost an election for city councillor down there -- said to me that the definition of marriage MUST be "one man and one woman", that the gay camp was the only one that made it a rights issue, that being gay is a choice... you know, the usual horseshit. And if you think I'm going to just let this be, you clearly haven't seen the show.

Let's start with this business about the definition of marriage "clearly" being between one man and one woman... well, according to who? Depending on which religion or denomination or culture you ask, marriage can be defined as all sorts of combinations of human, not all of them simply one man and one woman. In fact, in ancient times same-sex marriage was quite common, not that the Christian Right will ever acknowledge it, because it requires them to read a book not endorsed by The 700 Club. Jarody's argument that he's helped restore the "original" form is also very dubious, when you consider that the original form not only forbade marrying outside of your race or religion, but by and large women had no choice in who they were going to marry -- AND more often than not, it was done as little more than a business deal. Not to mention it was not only common but expected, that the husband would keep a mistress -- NOT THAT KIND OF MISTRESS! Thank you... The point is, marrying out of love is a fairly new phenomenon, despite what the so-called family values clan says. If anyone out there doesn't believe me, I suggest that you go to a very special building in your town: it's called a library.

Oh and I'd be neglegent if I didn't point out there are parts of The Bible -- like Deuteronomy 21 -- that say it's totally fine for a man to force a woman to marry him, as a sort of war trophy. I'd also be sloppy if I didn't point out that it was totally normal for marriages to happen at age 12, in those days. Wow, how loving and godly.

Incidentally, this same man also claimed that by criticizing a clearly discriminatory point of view like his, I'm being a Constitutional Revisionist. Really? Does that mean he also thinks that mixed marriage, decriminalized homosexuality, women's rights, desegregation, and even the separation of church and state should all be revoked? What about the partonizingly named "Defense of Marriage Act", which only exists to discriminate against gays? By the way, I just love how a guy like him shuts down critics by saying that he won't talk to people who are intolerant -- that's like a Neo-Nazi slamming people who have issues with swastikas.

He's also one of those who dismisses gays as a whole, by saying that being gay is a choice. Um yeah, do you ever notice how you almost always hear this bullshit from people who have either never had a non-judgemental talk with a homosexual, or never willingly talked to one at all? Now I know that science isn't entirely sure what does cause homosexuality, but there are a couple of things that are certain. One is that since it's found in animals all the time, that pretty much destroys any argument that it is unnatural. The second is that there is NO evidence whatsoever, that people actually choose to be gay.

Furthermore, at the risk of ripping off David Cross, try actually thinking this attitude through a little. Even in this supposedly enlightened part of the world, if anyone even THINKS you're gay, then no matter how young or old you are, you are going to be harrassed, assaulted, singled-out, discriminated against, raped, or murdered solely because of what gender you're supposedly attracted to. Not only that, but you can't count on The Powers That Be to do anything about it -- they may ignore your troubles, or simply say you got what you deserved. This includes many of the supposedly moral and upstanding people in the church. Wow, that really sounds like a life I'd want to live.

By the way, don't even get me started on the arguments that "You support gay marriage, so you must be gay", or "What did the Christian Right take away?" Seriously, do you idiots not hear yourselves talk? Do you really not understand how stupid you sound?

The cold-bloodedness and hypocrisy of the "traditional values" people never ceases to amaze me. They call themselves devout Christians more often than not, but even I know that Jesus said to let what is the government's, belong to the government. Kind of like He also said to judge not, lest ye be judged, to live a non-capitalist life, and to live as a community -- not that the Moral Majority likes to hear any of those things either. And let's not forget, they called the same-sex laws in Maine undemocratic, even though they were voted in freely by the elected senate. It seems really convenient to me, that of all the things they could get nitpicky about in politics, it's things that give rights to people they despise for no good reason. I bet you they'd never go to this much trouble, if the same senate declared that only conservative Christians be allowed to vote. Enough said.

Maine Homophobes

Remember how Maine voted in the senate to legalize same-sex marriage a few months ago? Well, that didn't stick. There was a referendum on it in several states, and just like in California, the Christian Right saw to it that now, gay marriage is once again illegal. Congratulations, you bigoted fucks, you've once again demonstrated that you're not content to simply try to stop equal rights, you're fine with taking them away once they've either been democratically earned, or given by courts that actually understand what the Constitution is for. Never mind that gay marriage never had any effect on so-called traditional marriage, that churches in America were never forced to perform them, and that gay rights do no harm to families whatsoever -- the idea of sodomites having the same rights as straights is always a bad thing to you. Go fuck yourselves.

By the way, I'd be neglegent if I didn't point out two other problems with their tactics -- leaving aside that they can't possibly claim to not be homophobic when they've personally referred to homosexuals as a cancer. You guys say that legalizing same sex marriage is an assault on freedom of religion, but what about the churches that genuinely have no problem with gay marriage? You just violated THEIR freedom of religion, you hypocrites! Second thing, what would you say to other bigots who would be enabled by your movement, to do any of the following: ban interracial marriage, forbid atheists and pagans from marrying, or even make being gay a crime again? After all, there are those who say that that has to be done, to protect Christian American families, too.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no respect for the sort of people who proudly discriminate against total strangers, who've done no harm at all to them, and then have the nerve to say they're protecting family values. The only families that I know of, who teach hate and prejudice, are families in the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood. And conservatives wonder why the rest of the world thinks they're intolerant? Enough said.

The Fundy Bible

Jewish Defense League (terrorists) accepted in Canada

This was originally printed in today's Toronto Star.

JDL considered `terrorist' in U.S.

Re:Mom, daughter too frightened

to stay at event, Letter Sept. 19

Sadly, I'm not at all surprised by the near-riot that the letter writer suggests was being stewed by the Jewish Defence League. While the group is treated as a noble humanitarian group, their charter actually encourages intimidation and violence to further their goals.

Not only that, but in the United States and abroad, they have been linked to several beatings and murders, usually politically motivated. That is why, in the U.S. and abroad, the JDL has been declared a terrorist group.

Yet in Canada – for reasons no one is willing to explain – the JDL is welcomed with open arms. What is the matter with this country?

Lack of Information Act

As my readers/viewers/hangers-on might know, I recently sent an Access to Information request to the RCMP, to find out what -- if anything -- they are doing about the Jewish Defense League of Canada. This is a known terrorist group, which in the United States is responsible for several assaults and murders, yet for some reason they are treated in Canada as a legitimate authority on the Middle East. Given the fallout towards anyone in this country, who voices support or sympathy for Palestine -- or simply points out that Israel is just as aggressive but with several times the firepower -- I thought it was important to find out how bonafide terrorists are treated in this country.

After much delaying, I got a reply from the RCMP, trying to side-step the issue by saying that because the JDL is based in Markham, it is basically a local matter and the Mounties aren't involved.

Excuse me?

An internationally organized terrorist group is operating on Canadian soil -- very openly -- and for some reason this is shrugged off as a "local problem"? I can't help but wonder, would the RCMP be so complacent, if it were Al Qaeda who had a chapter in Markham?

Young People Fucking (review)

Those of you who've been following my rants against Charles McVety and Bill C-10 would probably have heard of a movie with the unfortunate title Young People Fucking. More than any other film in recent history, this one movie has been trumped up by conservatives as a reason for tax money to be pulled from certain films made in this country -- even if they feel the government should be able to do that totally in secret. So you know I just had to make it my life's mission to see this so-called travesty for itself... if only I could find it.

My quest to watch and review this movie could probably make a decent comedy film of its own; it only played in one theatre in all of Hamilton, which stopped showing it the week I decided to go see it, the only rental store in my area doesn't carry it -- which is a little funny, considering that it does carry a movie called Wicked Sins, but anyway... -- and when I finally found it on YouTube it was taken down just as I got halfway through the movie. So unfortunately, this is really an incomplete video, and I'm going to have to base my opinions on what I did see, plus do what McVety has always refused to do: research other articles.

The premise is very simple: we follow four couples and one threesome one night, as they all knock boots. Along the way, they discover that sex is much more complicated than meets the eye, partly because no matter how casual or raunchy it may be, it's impossible to separate it from love. So right out of the gate we have some irony; religious conservatives are slagging a movie that actually promotes a message of love and connection, which you'd think they'd be happy to see.

The most common form of slander -- I mean, criticism -- by Mr. McVety about this movie is that it's supposedly pornographic. Admittedly the scenes are very suggestive, and once in a while there is a shot of coupling that leaves very little to the imagination... but that's quite rare. In the forty minutes or so that I caught, I saw maybe a half dozen or so breast shots, and one bare butt, all filmed pretty discreetly. Also, the sex scenes in question showed little more than continuous hip-grinding, rather than any explicit shots of penetration. According to every single review I have read -- both professional and amateur -- this is the extent of the sex in this movie. I kid you not.

It reminds me a little of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre; it has a reputation for being shockingly graphic bloodbath, but when you look at it it isn't very gory at all. Hell, I'm not even sure there's that much blood in it!

Let's break this down: if Young People Fucking is to be called porn for showing the odd boob and butt, then so are MASH, Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, most horror movies, Animal House, Not Another Teen Movie, The Last Picture Show, Braveheart, at least four Highlander movies, much of Monty Python's handiwork, and this is just off the top of my head.

We could then go the route of the MPAA and go after hip thrusts; after all, they have a policy of banning movies if they have more than a certain number of humps at a time -- which I find a little strange, considering that some of the more degrading sex acts I can think of don't involve any hip thrusting. If people bumping pelvises makes this movie porn, then you can also say the same of The Shawshank Redemption, Scary Movie, Hellraiser, the original Halloween, American History X, at least three Highlander movies, The Last Picture Show... you get the idea. The point is, it's a really flimsy place to label anything as porn.

I don't dispute that there are movies out there that are so explicit in their sex scenes as to be interchangeable with hardcore porn -- the American-made Shortbus being a perfect example -- but as far as protecting the morals of the public, there would appear to be far better places to start than Young People Fucking. For example, Taking Lives was filmed in Canada, and features a sex scene that has very prolonged shots of Angelina Jolie getting her clothes ripped off and her pounded against her entire hotel room, showing the full monty along the way. But, since it was produced by an American company, it would have been exempt from the rules of Bill C-10. For that matter, what about the Saw movies, which are notorious for extreme levels of gore and relentless torture scenes? They're shot in Canada, but no, they're made by Americans too. If you really want to take the hypocrisy to its logical conclusion, one has to wonder what Charles McVety would have said, if The Passion of the Christ were financed with our tax dollars... I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that he'd call that exactly the kind of morally enriched entertainment we should be showing to all cross-bearing Canadian families.

The scary part of all of this is that this little scheme from the so-called Moral Majority almost worked -- it took a huge outcry to get the Senate to investigate Bill C-10, and even then the government wanted no part of it. In fact they, like McVety, have refused to see this movie. Do these sort of clandestine, fundamentalist oppressors really sound like the sort of people we should have running Canada? When a theocracy rears its head halfway around the world, the first reaction is to bomb the hell out of it, yet when the same type of thing happens at home, it seems we welcome it with open arms. And people wonder why I'm not patriotic. Enough said.