Having it both ways

Rob Breakenridge of the Calgary Herald is a little taken aback to discover what most of us have known all along, that the religious right isn't quite as committed to "free speech" as they like to pretend they are. Sure, they talk the "free speecher" talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, they have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting:

"Given the number of instances where conservative Christians have been called to task and even prosecuted for their words -- Bishop Fred Henry, Rev. Stephen Boissoin, Hugh Owens, Catholic Insight magazine, the Christian Heritage Party -- it's not surprising to see the so-called "religious right" mobilize in support of freedom of expression." [...]

"However, the religious right needs to decide just how committed it is to freedom of expression. If you haven't the stomach for the fight, best to sit it out.

Last week, the aforementioned Canada Family Action Coalition demanded that the federal government step in and revoke the broadcast license of a new Canadian adult film channel. CFAC president Charles McVety describes the existence of Northern Peaks as being "to the public detriment" and fears the adult channel will "corrupt minds."

In other words, the approach of the CFAC on this issue of "offensive content" is really no different from the approach of the pro-censorship crowd on other matters of "offensive content."

Whereas supporters of human rights commissions believe we can engineer a society devoid of "hate," the anti-porn moralizers believe we can engineer a society devoid of "immorality.""

Hypocrisy: it's what's for dinner.

Heck hath no fury

...like a socon scorned, and after he unloaded on the CFAC's complaint against Justice McLachlin in the National Post yesterday, Colby Cosh might be feeling some socon wrath. (But like most of us, he probably doesn't care.)

Cosh's op-ed hit one out of the park: he called the CFAC's letter of complaint "bizarre" and jeered at the Massive 42 Organizations™ that supposedly signed on to it, putting "42 organizations" in "quotes". HA! He even referenced some of the original information turned up by Buckets in his research on the CFAC's astroturfing, and appropriately disgusted at yet another odious example of socon sleight-of-hand, proceeded to tear the CFAC and their complaint 8 new assholes:

"CFAC’s letter of complaint is a bizarre document even if one overlooks the sheer improbability of having a Chief Justice cashiered over some supposed act of jiggery-pokery involving the Order of Canada. CFAC’s Web site, whereupon the hyperlink to the letter is currently broken, has marshalled “42 organizations” in support of their missive; eccentrically, the “organizations” include several small businesses (Can Am Fabricating and Welding stands strong in favour of life!) and at least one private citizen."

"Its arguments, rest assured, are no less weird. The Constitution of the Order states that a member may be terminated if his conduct marks “a significant departure from generally-recognized standards of public behaviour which is seen to undermine the credibility, integrity or relevance of the Order.” According to CFAC, Morgentaler’s years of challenging abortion law are obviously in violation of “the norms of society”: Ergo, the Chief Justice of Canada must be fired. It’s simple logic, people!"

But socon Johnny Quest was not pleased, leaving this odourific little diatribe on the carpet of the comments section:

HRCs attacking socon groups!?? Feminazis driving them out of universities? The Broadcast Standards Council rendering them too controversial for airtime!? They have their own 24/7 channel, fer fuck sake. JQ's brain is clearly squirming like a toad on crack, but his comments highlight the delusional persecution complex that characterizes the religious right. They truly believe that if they can't tell everyone else how to live, they're being silenced, censored and persecuted.

More of this, please: more articles like Cosh's, taking these cretins to task, and more public displays of inanity like Johnny Q's comment. And more questions before taking these people at their word about who they are and what credentials they've earned.

Every pigeon a wanted pigeon

If this birth control experiment in Hollywood catches on and spreads north, the next "The Pill Kills!" demonstration might be held in Vancouver's "Pigeon Park". No, really -- Hollywood pigeons are going on the Pill:

"Eager to reduce the neighborhood pigeon population and the mess that comes with it, Hollywood residents appear ready to try a new birth control method on their wild birds.

Beginning within the next couple of months, a substance called OvoControl P will be placed in kibble in new rooftop feeders, say residents and state and local officials. The substance, which interferes with egg development, generally is viewed as a humane way to lower the birthrate of the birds, which many residents consider a nuisance."

Yes, but... shrieeek! Conventional Social Conservative wisdom is that where the Pill goes, abortion, divorce, pornography (if the pigeons can find a good pornograph to play it on), and the Collapse of Western Civilization™ follow. Could this little social engineering experiment be the beginning of an avian "Demographic Winter"??

(h/t: megan mccardle via buckets, by email)

That's why we call them "lying liars"

In the wake of the KLRVU debacle, it's worth remembering that social conservatives are against more than just abortion, and are equally disingenuous in how they champion their other pet causes.

I mean, who could possibly forget the feverish campaigning they did against equal marriage in the run-up to the last election? In anticipation of a socially-conservative Harper government taking the reins and rolling back the ridiculous right for gay couples to celebrate their love just like anyone else, a number of "Defend Marriage! Think of The Children!"-type websites sprung up overnight. They were all run by the same people, but the noise they were able to generate made them seem like a far greater number than they really were. Like when they freep online polls. Or conduct you-know-what kind of phone POLLS.

The methods the socons used in their anti-equal marriage campaign are uncannily similar to their campaigns against abortion and, most recently, against Morgentaler's Order of Canada -- a lot of noise being generated by not that many people. Buckets wonders if their movement can even properly be called "grassroots", or is it something else?

And then there's Baba

Early this morning I read with pleasant surprise a most reasonable article on Omar Khadr, written by someone I virtually never agree with, Jonathon Kay. Later on I read his Ma, the ever-shrieking Barbara, who is, sadly, still whinging on about Dr. Morgentaler's Order of Canada. Now it's the OC itself and the unfairness of the selection process:

"The awarding of the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler has stirred controversy in recent weeks. The negative attention paid to this decorous institution has led some to ask: Is this the end of the Order of Canada as we know it?" [...]

"For any rational observer of OC history knows that only people who hold the "correct" views are eligible for the OC, and Ms. Selick's views aremanifestly "incorrect."

Which isn't to say that most of the OCs aren't worthy. But then there are all those equally worthy individuals who will never get one because they hold the wrong views."

Oh boo hoo hoo. Everything with these people is "the end of (fill in the blank) as we know it"... it has to be those apocalyptic religious beliefs. So, only people with the "correct" views are eligible for the OC? Brian Mulroney? Conrad Black?? Please. There are plenty of conservative inductees that are hardly icons of political correctness. But the "wrong views" Kay refers to are primarily the regressive social conservative views on abortion and same-sex marriage.

"Case in point: bio-ethicist Margaret Somerville whose nominator was told by a committee member her candidate was "too controversial." Ms. Somerville has made a great contribution to the intellectual life of Canada and has received a cornucopia of other honours. But she does not believe in gay marriage. For the committee, offending gays is controversial, while sickening Catholics is not."

Now you're catching on, Babs. See the common thread here? The Catholics who are "sickened" (boohoo!) by Dr. Morgentaler's OC would gladly remove the right he championed, that of reproductive choice. Somerville has been outspoken in her opposition to equal marriage, presumably a right she'd rather gays didn't have. See where I'm going with this? The committee is clearly on the side of human rights, Somerville and the "sickened" (boohoohooo!) Catholics are not. So it's easy to see how not many socons, with their backward, bigoted and small-minded views, have had the right stuff to deserve an award that's supposedly given to those who "want a better country".

But whew, Ms. Kay isn't calling for the OC to be abolished:

Let the Order stand. But take away the secrecy of the process. Rotate the committee membership and make it reflective of Canada, not a university Women's Studies department. Like juries. You know, democratic.

As if the process is always cloaked in secrecy. Only in Morgentaler's case was there a significant effort to keep things quiet, and why not? The other option was 5 months of fetus fetishists spinning their bearings and going out of their minds with rage, and the barrage of emails, phone calls, letters, and months of escalating bullshit that would follow... nah. Who needs that? So Dr. M's award was kept quiet. But normally, not so much.

Kay goes on to suggest that milquetoast should be the order of the day for the Order of Canada:

"Make professional politicians ineligible. Make no controversial appointments, or admit both sides of the controversies. That would be a beginning. Most of the non-ideologically appointed members would still be there."

Well sure, we could have only the most inoffensive, non-ideological nominees. The problem is that those dynamic enough to really make a difference are often activists fighting some battle or other (or sometimes even just high-profile shitbags who've done a particularly outstanding job of looting and pillaging). There are OC recipients that in my opinion are as foul examples of human scum as you're ever likely to trip over, but for all their vileness, they made a difference. So who cares if they get an OC?... not me, anyway. The only ones who seem to give a happy monkeyfuck about who gets what is the noisy little perpetually offended peanut gallery.

Kay goes on to say that the OC wouldn't be losing anything by rejecting controversial nominees, (and dammit, if we'd thought of it sooner the evil Dr. M wouldn't have been inducted!). But Kay and her ilk already think the OC is meaningless, and neglecting to reward those who really make a difference, the fighters and the activists, would truly render it so. And making a change to the process at the behest of the jabbering socon minority is an even worse idea -- they might start to believe that someone actually gives a flying fuck what they think.

Always a bridesmaid

Shorter Margaret Somerville: "If I can't join, the club should be shut down":

"In the wake of the controversy surrounding the awarding of the Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler, the question arises: Are citizen honours a good idea?

First, however, in the interests of transparency, I want to note I'm in the somewhat unusual position of having been both given such an award and, 17 years later, refused one. It's an open question whether those experiences qualify or disqualify me from weighing in on this issue, but here goes."

Yes yes, the soconuts have been whining for awhile that Somerville has been rejected by the Liberal Elite who control the Order of Canada because of her socially conservative views. But the Order of Canada is supposed to be about "wanting a better country", something that's hardly consistent with the ass-backwardness of social conservatism.

Though I kind of wish the O of C committee would accept her nomination, if only to see whether she'd refuse it.

There's batshit and bad shit

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the most virulent fetus fetishists and homophobic whackjobs in Canada has heard of extremist shrieker Bill Whatcott. When "Wartcott" isn't stuffing gross abortion pictures or anti-gay propaganda into the mailboxes of unsuspecting homeowners (and oh how I wish I could catch him trying to pull that on my property), he's happily marching at the head of gay pride parades carrying signs denouncing the evil Rainbow Conspiracy. And of course, famously (and repeatedly) posting pictures of anal warts, prolapsed rectums and other ass issues (assues!) on FD and whatever other sites still allow him to do his strange and scummy thing -- hence the nickname, "Wartcott".

Predictably, Wartcott is anything but pleased with the Morgentaler Order of Canada award, and went out of his way to express his displeasure scatalogically. Who knew that "feces flinging" was more than a metaphor!? Astonishingly, the post where Wartcott delightedly describes how he shat on a picture of the Order of Canada and mailed it to the GG sat festering in the Blogging Tories message bowl for at least half a day before it was flushed. Hopefully it was there long enough for Stephen Harper to get an up-close look at his socon base.

Wartcott's clearly gone the extra distance and outdone himself this time; pictures of anal warts pale in comparison to the transmission of an actual turd via Canada Post. Maybe it's time to leave anal warts behind (heh) and come up with a new nickname for Wartcott, one that more aptly personifies the new nadir of rotten creepiness he's achieved... Shitcott? Crapcott? Sir-Crap-A-Lot?

While we're at it, maybe we could help SUZANNE come up with a name for the new conservative version of the Order of Canada that she's proposing. Order of Wankerda? Odour of Canada? Brainstorm, guys, brainstorm!

P.C.

No, that's not "politically correct", that's "Persecution Corner"! Hang on tight, here we go!

Now that Macleans has won its 2nd out of 3 Human Rights complaints and is looking good to win the third, it's clear that for what it is, the system is functioning as it's supposed to. But it's not easy to let go of a martyr complex once it's been wallowed in for an extended period of time, so it's no surprise that some are anxious to keep persecution party going. This might be accomplished by continuing to rally behind the increasingly repugnant elements who are still wending their way through the HRC process. Or it could take on another form, like this demand for reparations from the government to "oppressed" social conservatives from a poster at FD:

Anyone still doubt these people are completely batshit?

In a nutshell

From that little bundle of nuts known as FD, a brief primer in social versus libertarian conservatism:

Thank you, Little Big Man. Well said.

Libertarian conservatives, this is your last warning

Shorter SUZANNE: (warning: fetus porn) "Submit to the Nanny State!":

"The Government controls people's [sic] bodies all the time -- and it's okay!"

Trying to refute the pro-choice argument that the state has no business controlling womens' bodies with abortion laws, SUZANNE takes a swing and misses. Her rebuttal? We already have lots of intrusive, onerous and stupid laws dictating What Big Daddy Government Thinks Is Good For Us... so what the hell, why not a few more?

Heads up, lib-cons. You might want to take a closer look at your "allies".