PDA

View Full Version : Hardline Christian activist takes a run at mayor's job



DebraW
24-08-2007, 07:08 AM
Hardline Christian activist takes a run at mayor's job

Scott McKeen, The Edmonton Journal
Published: 24 August 2007 2:20 am

In case you haven't heard of him, let me introduce Bill Whatcott, self-righteous jackass.

And Edmontonian. And candidate for mayor. And hardline Christian activist, whose bully preaching only serves to pervert rather than enlighten human spirituality and sexuality.

His malicious years-long campaign against homosexuality, women's rights and liberal values smacks more of indulging his ego than a serious attempt to influence public policy.

Whatcott, in a telephone interview this week, asked me to be honest and truthful. He just got his wish.

He also asked me to be fair. So in fairness, let me state for the record that Whatcott was articulate, amiable and completely lucid during the interview. Note that these are rare traits for jackass, fringe candidates.

Bill Whatcott will disagree with my opinions about him. But if he is true to his word, he will respect and defend my right to express them. Whatcott is many things, but he is no censor.

He is perhaps most zealous in his opposition to hate-crime laws, which have ensnared him on more than one occasion. He was fined $17,500 in 2005 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights

Tribunal for distributing pamphlets slandering gay and lesbian people. He says he hasn't paid the fine and boasts that he never will.

He also concedes that after moving to Edmonton five years ago, he has been contacted by members of the police hate crime unit, who are keeping an eye on his anti-gay protests and publications.

Unbowed, he plans to run in this fall's civic election against incumbent Stephen Mandel and use the platform to espouse the views of his so-called Christian Truth Activists. Not that he needs a platform. He tends to make his own.

Google his name and you'll find Whatcott all over the web, spewing vitriol and claiming to be a warrior for God. You'll also discover that Whatcott is obsessed with the terms sodomy and sodomites.

If you talk to him, he'll happily tell you of his wayward youth, when he was homeless, addicted to drugs and getting cocaine from a dealer by performing homosexual sex acts.

"Do I hate homosexuals?" he asks. "No, if I did I'd have to hate myself because I've committed homosexual acts."

Whatcott says the term "hate" is a tool used by the liberal establishment to silence him. If only it worked.

So what are we likely to hear from Whatcott during the campaign?

Well, the headline on his Internet campaign material speaks volumes.

"Mayor Stephen Mandel is pro-homosexual," it reads. "Bill Whatcott is your pro-life, pro-family, pro-father, pro-gun, alternative."

So Whatcott's anti-abortion views will be front and centre. He will promise to lobby the legislature and Ottawa to rid Edmonton of abortion clinics.

He will defend a parent's right to use mild corporal punishment on children. He will argue for father's rights and for an end to civic subsidies of humane shelters, because people are more valuable than animals.

He will oppose gun controls and call out China for its human rights abuses. He will counsel Edmonton's youth to protect themselves from sexually transmitted disease, with abstinence, not condoms.

He will oppose the Kyoto accord, funding for the arts -- much of it is erotic or gay -- and get tough on crime by dismantling the police hate-crimes unit.

He will promise to cut taxes, reduce the civil service and offer a biblical alternative to the immoral status quo.

He will stray routinely off the civic agenda -- China's human rights record? -- turn mayoral forums into gong shows and prove that democracy means opening the election door to everyone.

Including jackasses.

[email protected]

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

-30-

Dusty Bear
24-08-2007, 09:18 AM
It's great to see a serious challenger come forward; one who is focused on the important issues that a municipal government has jurisdiction over.

:roll:

Anyone know if Thom Tomilson and Dave Dowling are running this fall?

snakes on a blog
24-08-2007, 09:47 AM
I agree that this candiate is extremely questionable, but do you really have to repeatedly call him a jackass? I think, if you simply presented the facts rather than your opinion, that we could come to our own conclusion.

amanzano
24-08-2007, 09:55 AM
I agree that this candiate is extremely questionable, but do you really have to repeatedly call him a jackass? I think, if you simply presented the facts rather than your opinion, that we could come to our own conclusion.

agreed

tkoe
24-08-2007, 09:58 AM
You both realize Scott McKeen is an editorial writer? ...its not supposed to be news, its suppose to be opinion.

murman
24-08-2007, 10:03 AM
I agree that this candiate is extremely questionable, but do you really have to repeatedly call him a jackass? I think, if you simply presented the facts rather than your opinion, that we could come to our own conclusion.

Agreed. Take the higher ground and debate the issues instead of debasing the person.

DebraW
24-08-2007, 10:05 AM
You both realize Scott McKeen is an editorial writer? ...its not supposed to be news, its suppose to be opinion.

^ Yes, it is Scott's POV only.

grish
24-08-2007, 10:11 AM
It's great to see a serious challenger come forward; one who is focused on the important issues that a municipal government has jurisdiction over.

:roll:

Anyone know if Thom Tomilson and Dave Dowling are running this fall?

I would like to hear your definition of a "serious challenger". this guy sounds insane to me.

DebraW
24-08-2007, 10:25 AM
It's great to see a serious challenger come forward; one who is focused on the important issues that a municipal government has jurisdiction over.

:roll:

Anyone know if Thom Tomilson and Dave Dowling are running this fall?

I would like to hear your definition of a "serious challenger". this guy sounds insane to me.

grish,

I think (and Dusty Bear correct me if I am wrong) that DB was being sarcastic…

C2E really needs an Emoticon for sarcasm only—the rolling eyes, lol etc. do not always convey the posters intention clearly.

:D

bdejong
24-08-2007, 10:30 AM
I fail to understand how someone who stands up for what he believes in is immediately labeled as a jackass. It seems as soon as someone is recognized as a Christian they are rightwing bigots with nothing good to say. ******** articles such as this one only strengthen these ideas. I'd much sooner label Scott McKeen as a jackass. I'm Christian, also pro life, does that by default make me a jackass and insane as well?

m0nkyman
24-08-2007, 10:35 AM
He's not a jackass, he's a vile, spiteful, hate filled piece of excrement. That's my opinion.

DebraW
24-08-2007, 10:36 AM
I fail to understand how someone who stands up for what he believes in is immediately labeled as a jackass. It seems as soon as someone is recognized as a Christian they are rightwing bigots with nothing good to say. ******** articles such as this one only strengthen these ideas. I'd much sooner label Scott McKeen as a jackass. I'm Christian, also pro life, does that by default make me a jackass and insane as well?

^ Not in my opinion and I will admit to one of your four labels what does that make me?

bdejong
24-08-2007, 10:45 AM
He's not a jackass, he's a vile, spiteful, hate filled piece of excrement. That's my opinion.

Each is entitled to their own opinion. I'm wondering who is spiteful and hate filled now.

m0nkyman
24-08-2007, 10:56 AM
He's not a jackass, he's a vile, spiteful, hate filled piece of excrement. That's my opinion.

Each is entitled to their own opinion. I'm wondering who is spiteful and hate filled now.

I've never had a human rights tribunal fine me for spreading hate...

RichardS
24-08-2007, 11:09 AM
I can see the "jackass" issues people have here. 3 times is a little excessive. As I have a bit ofheartburn with the "Howie" Mandel comments that Waugh puts out, I too have an issue with jackass.

...but as with Neil, I've been told this is op-ed, so I don't have to agree. So, I will exercise that right.

To the point of the candidate....hmmmm....pay peanuts, get a circus...no, I said that already.

This person stands as much of a chance as Tom Tom does...

bdejong
24-08-2007, 11:12 AM
He's not a jackass, he's a vile, spiteful, hate filled piece of excrement. That's my opinion.

Each is entitled to their own opinion. I'm wondering who is spiteful and hate filled now.

I've never had a human rights tribunal fine me for spreading hate...

I'm not about to report you either...and yet, you are spreading hate. Does that make this a hate crime?

Dusty Bear
24-08-2007, 01:31 PM
grish,

I think (and Dusty Bear correct me if I am wrong) that DB was being sarcastic…

:D

Yes, that was a very large dose of sarcasm. Thanks djgirl.

But on a different point, how many times does it have to be clarified on this forum? Scott McKeen is a columnist - he writes about his opinion.

I happen to concur with McKeen; the guy is a jackass. In my copy of the Bible, Jesus doesn't go around carrying signs with hateful messages about homosexuals.

The fact that he calls himself "Christian" or "right-wing" is irrelevant. Whatcott is a hateful man. And I think he gives us a glimpse of self-loathing.

bdejong
24-08-2007, 02:19 PM
grish,

I think (and Dusty Bear correct me if I am wrong) that DB was being sarcastic…

:D

Yes, that was a very large dose of sarcasm. Thanks djgirl.

But on a different point, how many times does it have to be clarified on this forum? Scott McKeen is a columnist - he writes about his opinion.

I happen to concur with McKeen; the guy is a jackass. In my copy of the Bible, Jesus doesn't go around carrying signs with hateful messages about homosexuals.

The fact that he calls himself "Christian" or "right-wing" is irrelevant. Whatcott is a hateful man. And I think he gives us a glimpse of self-loathing.

I am not going to pass judgement on Whatcott. He is using his own methods to get his point across. It may be over the top, if anything it is sparking a reaction, which is what he is intending to do. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone hatred, or people acting to spite others.
However, I also don't support the fact that in a free country, with religious rights and freedoms we are constantly getting 'gay rights' slammed down our throats, and the least things said contrary to this results in stereotyping and labelling (best case).
These stereotypes are so wrongfully propagated by the media.

North Guy66
24-08-2007, 02:24 PM
That hateful Scott McKeen is painting all jackasses in a negative way!

http://www.richierowe.com/images/bands/jackassBig.jpg

Dusty Bear
24-08-2007, 02:32 PM
However, I also don't support the fact that in a free country, with religious rights and freedoms we are constantly getting 'gay rights' slammed down our throats, and the least things said contrary to this results in stereotyping and labelling (best case).
These stereotypes are so wrongfully propagated by the media.

Just how are gay rights being slammed down your throat? Are you being forced to engage in homosexual intercourse? Are you being forced into a same-sex marriage?

grish
24-08-2007, 03:26 PM
does family and human rights fall under capital projects or transportation? I am just not sure what city department to call about these issues.

bdejong
24-08-2007, 03:34 PM
However, I also don't support the fact that in a free country, with religious rights and freedoms we are constantly getting 'gay rights' slammed down our throats, and the least things said contrary to this results in stereotyping and labelling (best case).
These stereotypes are so wrongfully propagated by the media.

Just how are gay rights being slammed down your throat? Are you being forced to engage in homosexual intercourse? Are you being forced into a same-sex marriage?

By the very fact that as soon as one speaks up about this issue they are treated as a hazard to society, whereas really they are just expressing their belief, as is their right.

Dusty Bear
24-08-2007, 04:17 PM
By the very fact that as soon as one speaks up about this issue they are treated as a hazard to society, whereas really they are just expressing their belief, as is their right.

Canada's courts - quite rightly - recognize that "free speech" is not absolute. For example, do I have the right to yell fire in a crowded room?

In one of the more infamous examples, Ernst Zundel was deported for promoting his anti-Semitic views. Jim Keegstra losing his ability to teach after telling his students that the Holocaust never happened is another example.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself recognizes that there are limits. According to the very first section of the charter: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Whatcott isn't just saying he's against gay marriage. He's been known to hand out literature with graphic photos of dismembered fetuses and STDs. He has claimed that Planned Parenthood causes AIDS.

Somewhat ironically, he is saying his rights have been violated. He also advocates for gun rights, parental rights, right to life, animal rights and a whole other assortment of "rights."

Yet he says homosexuals should not have the basic right to be recognized as equal under the laws of Canada.

bdejong
24-08-2007, 04:42 PM
You're right, Whatcott's methods are at times over the top and offensive. If I were in his position I would likely take a more modest approach. Which is why I am not in his position I suppose. His methods have raised awareness to a point that people are offended, and therefore consider him a jackass. I can see that point to an extent. But if I express that based on my religious principles I do not agree with gay marriage or with abortion, that does not make me an activist, bigot, extremist, etc. I am not outside my 'right' to do so. I know that in this thread nobody has insinuated that, but it happens often enough. That's what I mean by someone getting labeled as soon as he says anything that might conflict with the 'expected norm'.
Good explanation on the Charter by the way

lux
24-08-2007, 04:54 PM
bdejong, I am a "sodomite," according to whatcott. I feel perfectly at liberty to call him a jackass.

His methods are at all times over the top and offensive. He can keep his "religious principles" to himself.

And if he thinks that his religious beliefs should be so important to me that I should live my life by them instead of my own religious beliefs, then he and everyone else had better get used to me slamming my rights down their throats.

JimR
24-08-2007, 05:06 PM
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

bdejong
24-08-2007, 05:09 PM
bdejong, I am a "sodomite," according to whatcott. I feel perfectly at liberty to call him a jackass.

His methods are at all times over the top and offensive. He can keep his "religious principles" to himself.

And if he thinks that his religious beliefs should be so important to me that I should live my life by them instead of my own religious beliefs, then he and everyone else had better get used to me slamming my rights down their throats.

By definition a sodomite is someone who is homosexual. If that is indeed your sexual orientation, then such a label is not really an insult.

RichardS
24-08-2007, 05:15 PM
does family and human rights fall under capital projects or transportation? I am just not sure what city department to call about these issues. :smt082 :smt044

A perfect summation of this candidate's platform.

lux
24-08-2007, 05:18 PM
from oxford:
sodomy

• noun anal intercourse.

— DERIVATIVES sodomize (also sodomise) verb.

— ORIGIN from Latin peccatum Sodomiticum ‘sin of Sodom’ (after the Book of Genesis chapter 19, which implies that the men of the town of Sodom in ancient Palestine practised homosexual rape).

Check your definitions and watch yourself for libel. I'm no rapist and I will not suffer that lie to be told about me.

RichardS
24-08-2007, 05:34 PM
We WILL be monitoring this conversation very carefully. Debate the issue folks, NOT the person!

bdejong
24-08-2007, 05:48 PM
lux, my intent is not to insult on this website. My apologies for that. The definition of sodomite can mean homosexual in the strict sense, and no more. By no means was I labeling you as a rapist. Again, perhaps my statement about sodomite was not really pertaining to supporting my position in this thread.

Sonic Death Monkey
24-08-2007, 05:52 PM
If you talk to him, he'll happily tell you of his wayward youth, when he was homeless, addicted to drugs and getting cocaine from a dealer by performing homosexual sex acts.

"Do I hate homosexuals?" he asks. "No, if I did I'd have to hate myself because I've committed homosexual acts."
Typical closet case, except he stepped out and then stepped back into it.

kcantor
24-08-2007, 06:01 PM
You're right, Whatcott's methods are at times over the top and offensive. If I were in his position I would likely take a more modest approach. Which is why I am not in his position I suppose. His methods have raised awareness to a point that people are offended, and therefore consider him a jackass. I can see that point to an extent. But if I express that based on my religious principles I do not agree with gay marriage or with abortion, that does not make me an activist, bigot, extremist, etc. I am not outside my 'right' to do so. I know that in this thread nobody has insinuated that, but it happens often enough. That's what I mean by someone getting labeled as soon as he says anything that might conflict with the 'expected norm'.
Good explanation on the Charter by the way
i am not offended by any of your views, nor by your being christian.

i think much of what offends people is whatcott's coopting his personal views as representing all of of christendom (and he is not alone in doing that). and when criticism of those views is then forthcoming, it is seen as an affront to christianity. the best way to avoid the latter is to divorce the former. you cannot wrap yourself and your views up in something and then expect the debate to exclude the something, whatever that may be (for this does not happen only with christianity).

my 2 cents worth anyway on a candidate whose platform isn't worth 2 cents.

lux
24-08-2007, 06:04 PM
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

An elegant quote, and very applicable to this candidate and this discussion. As a candidate in an election, I can tolerate his right to speak. I am also glad to do my duty, as seen by JS Mill, to ensure that Whatcott's ideas die a quick death in the light of day. Gay people actually love and care for each other. I've never seen cocaine for instance, something Whatcott seems not to acknowledge in his world view.

As for Keegstra he just wasn't doing his job as a teacher - glad he's gone.

lux
24-08-2007, 06:10 PM
lux, my intent is not to insult on this website. My apologies for that. The definition of sodomite can mean homosexual in the strict sense, and no more. By no means was I labeling you as a rapist. Again, perhaps my statement about sodomite was not really pertaining to supporting my position in this thread.

Apology accepted. It is not my intention to misinterpret your remarks either.

North Guy66
24-08-2007, 06:28 PM
This is what Bill Whatcott wants.

He's not so dumb that he thinks he will actually be elected the next mayor of Edmonton. But he knows by putting his name in the mayority race people will talk about his agendas and issues. This is better publicity than handing out leaflets.

DebraW
24-08-2007, 08:42 PM
This afternoon I did something I have not done for several years, I took the afternoon off! I went to a park, sat out and enjoyed the last few days of August. The sun was shining and I actually managed to relax (no small feat for me) temporarily leaving worries over my employment search etc. behind.

Therefore, I was surprised (and disappointed) when I got home this evening and checked my email to see some of the diatribes in this thread.

I have no problem with making my opinion known as evidenced on C2E but I am also interested and actively encourage differing viewpoints again as evidenced here.

I embrace parts of various religions as people and the many aspects that makeup societies fascinate me. I tolerate beliefs that may not be akin to my personal views because I believe it is diversity and tolerance that enable change for the better.


Be entirely tolerant or not at all; follow the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess.
Heinrich Heine
German critic & poet (1797 - 1856)

While this thread did get back on track after its veering of course, I want to end this post with one more quote.


Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine.
Henry S. Haskins

Dusty Bear
24-08-2007, 08:44 PM
You're right, Whatcott's methods are at times over the top and offensive. If I were in his position I would likely take a more modest approach. Which is why I am not in his position I suppose. His methods have raised awareness to a point that people are offended, and therefore consider him a jackass. I can see that point to an extent. But if I express that based on my religious principles I do not agree with gay marriage or with abortion, that does not make me an activist, bigot, extremist, etc. I am not outside my 'right' to do so. I know that in this thread nobody has insinuated that, but it happens often enough. That's what I mean by someone getting labeled as soon as he says anything that might conflict with the 'expected norm'.
Good explanation on the Charter by the way

Thanks. I've enjoyed this discussion, and glad we've kept it so civil. This is one of those hot button issues that can easily result in flame wars.

I don't disagree that there are some instances when Christians have been unjustly persecuted in the name of political correctness, and that bothers me, too.

I've always felt, though, that religion is a personal thing. If someone doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, they should not marry someone of the same sex, you know? Live and let live - don't impose your beliefs on me, and I will do in kind. Whatever one might think about someone's sexual orientation, they are still human and should be treated with respect.

Perhaps Whatcott has forgotten the golden rule.

Northguy 66, I don't believe we should ignore people like Whatcott. By turning a light on him, we expose the rot for what it is.

GregK
24-08-2007, 11:05 PM
atta boy Scotty

IKAN104
25-08-2007, 10:44 AM
Can anybody tell me what exactly Bill Whatcott has said or done that is hateful?

bornandraised
25-08-2007, 05:13 PM
This guy is a perfect argument for why the requirements for running for the position of mayor should be strengthened. He can probably get the 100 signatures he needs to file his nomination papers. But do you think he could get 500?

The mayoralty forums are going to be an absolute zoo.

snakes on a blog
25-08-2007, 07:39 PM
lux, my intent is not to insult on this website. My apologies for that. The definition of sodomite can mean homosexual in the strict sense, and no more. By no means was I labeling you as a rapist. Again, perhaps my statement about sodomite was not really pertaining to supporting my position in this thread.

Apology accepted. It is not my intention to misinterpret your remarks either.
I sense a group hug coming on... :smt008 :mrgreen:

Casa
25-08-2007, 07:45 PM
Well IMO, regardless of whether the candidate stands a chance, or is really raising valid political issues or not. He should definetely bring a new spin to any debates that occur prior to the vote.

DebraW
25-08-2007, 09:08 PM
lux, my intent is not to insult on this website. My apologies for that. The definition of sodomite can mean homosexual in the strict sense, and no more. By no means was I labeling you as a rapist. Again, perhaps my statement about sodomite was not really pertaining to supporting my position in this thread.

Apology accepted. It is not my intention to misinterpret your remarks either.
I sense a group hug coming on... :smt008 :mrgreen:

^ Please anything but a hug... :shock:

highlander
26-08-2007, 12:48 AM
I've always felt, though, that religion is a personal thing.

While this sounds good, it practically excludes religious individuals from the civic sphere.
Every leader, every politician, and every voter looks at each issue from a different view, and every viewpoint is based in the individual's life philosophy. For some reason some philosopies are called "religious" and are unacceptable, and others are areligious and acceptable.



If someone doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, they should not marry someone of the same sex, you know? Live and let live - don't impose your beliefs on me, and I will do in kind.



This doesn't quite work. Every policy, and every law results in inequal treatment of citizens by the state. Noise bylaws distinguish between those who play loud music after 11pm, and others. Tax law distinguishes between employees, investors and small businessmen. Marriage law originally(in the british tradition) distiguished between opposite-sex pairs of adults who have made a particular set of vows, and all others. Now marriage laws distinguish between pairs of adults who are or have been sexually involved and either made some sort of vows and filled out a form. We now discriminate against asexual cohabiting pairs.

All our laws, from the highway act to the criminal code, attempt to promote a particular idea of what is good and worthwhile at the expense of what is bad, or even only less good.

If government is stripped of the power to discriminate, it is stripped of the ability to govern.




Whatever one might think about someone's sexual orientation, they are still human and should be treated with respect.


I couldn't agree with you more

Dakine
26-08-2007, 01:13 AM
There is only 1 reason we are all here on this planet...and that is to procreate. can 2 woman or 2 guys do that? i think there is a reason we have male and female organs. but thats my feeling

I dont care really if somebody is gay, just keep it to yourself. A Few time i have had guys check me out or come up and flirt with me and i feel like taking a poke at them, but i dont. I also dont need my kids witness there disgusting acts i would like my family to carry on for generations.

there are feelings then there is the physical aspect.... i love allot of my bro's, but i dont let them {MOD EDIT, VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF SERVICE WITH POSTING DERROGATORY AND PORNGRAPHIC MATERIAL INNAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS AUDIENCE - changed to have sex with me}

lux
26-08-2007, 09:00 AM
I've always felt, though, that religion is a personal thing.

While this sounds good, it practically excludes religious individuals from the civic sphere.
Every leader, every politician, and every voter looks at each issue from a different view, and every viewpoint is based in the individual's life philosophy. For some reason some philosopies are called "religious" and are unacceptable, and others are areligious and acceptable.



If someone doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, they should not marry someone of the same sex, you know? Live and let live - don't impose your beliefs on me, and I will do in kind.



This doesn't quite work. Every policy, and every law results in inequal treatment of citizens by the state. Noise bylaws distinguish between those who play loud music after 11pm, and others. Tax law distinguishes between employees, investors and small businessmen. Marriage law originally(in the british tradition) distiguished between opposite-sex pairs of adults who have made a particular set of vows, and all others. Now marriage laws distinguish between pairs of adults who are or have been sexually involved and either made some sort of vows and filled out a form. We now discriminate against asexual cohabiting pairs.

All our laws, from the highway act to the criminal code, attempt to promote a particular idea of what is good and worthwhile at the expense of what is bad, or even only less good.

If government is stripped of the power to discriminate, it is stripped of the ability to govern.




Whatever one might think about someone's sexual orientation, they are still human and should be treated with respect.


I couldn't agree with you more

Highlander, it doesn't exclude religious people from public life, it just ensures that religious people govern in the interests of all citizens and not just the ones of the same religious persuasion.

As for the "power of discrimination" being necessary to govern, that is just not the case. Government has hardly dissolved into chaos since the country started allowing interracial marriage. Traditional marriage used to mean women would love, honour and obey their husbands. Traditional marriage used to mean that it was impossible to rape your wife. Traditional marriage? Which tradition?

Ultimately whatever one might think about someone's sexual orientation, unless it is your own self, or someone you would like to date, it is none of your business. And it is certainly none of the government's business.

IKAN104
26-08-2007, 12:16 PM
Can anybody tell me what exactly Bill Whatcott has said or done that is hateful?

I guess I'll answer my own question then .... it seems he's done nothing hateful after all. It's just fear mongering.

240GLT
26-08-2007, 02:06 PM
You decide.
(Warning..graphic contents)

http://www.mydatabus.com/public/Billwhatcott/MayorinPDF.pdf

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002292&p=

http://www.mydatabus.com/public/Billwhatcott/Mayorswomenshealthinitiative.pdf

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=82776

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=82423

(edited to remove links to .PDF's that no longer work.. Bill obviously figured out that the posters he puts up are not condusive to a mayor's campaign!)

North Guy66
26-08-2007, 03:24 PM
But what' Bill Whatcott stand on building the 23 ave. overpass?

grish
26-08-2007, 04:29 PM
But what' Bill Whatcott stand on building the 23 ave. overpass?

he would build it only if no "sodomites" ever use it? :shock:

Dakine
26-08-2007, 04:51 PM
But what' Bill Whatcott stand on building the 23 ave. overpass?

he would build it only if no "sodomites" ever use it? :shock:

hehe good one grish :)

thing is sodomites , or modern term homosexual will not reproduce leaving it unlikely they will pass on there messed up genes. excepting them will eventually help self eradicate them, i have no problem with these people not carrying there gene's on for generations. lets except them for they are and let them self destruct. maybe more people should turn sodomite.

North Guy66
26-08-2007, 06:07 PM
But what' Bill Whatcott stand on building the 23 ave. overpass?

he would build it only if no "sodomites" ever use it? :shock:

hehe good one grish :)

thing is sodomites , or modern term homosexual will not reproduce leaving it unlikely they will pass on there messed up genes. excepting them will eventually help self eradicate them, i have no problem with these people not carrying there gene's on for generations. lets except them for they are and let them self destruct. maybe more people should turn sodomite.

You can say the same thing for infertile couples.

DebraW
26-08-2007, 06:27 PM
You decide.

Thanks for adding to this topical, controversial discussion.

Welcome to the C2E forum! :D

DebraW
26-08-2007, 06:42 PM
There is only 1 reason we are all here on this planet...and that is to procreate. can 2 woman or 2 guys do that? i think there is a reason we have male and female organs. but thats my feeling

The rest has been deleted as it was over the top...please watch the descriptive references as C2E has all ages, genders and backgrounds and we do not want to ever offend anyone.

Thanks! :D

Dakine
26-08-2007, 07:58 PM
But what' Bill Whatcott stand on building the 23 ave. overpass?

he would build it only if no "sodomites" ever use it? :shock:

hehe good one grish :)

thing is sodomites , or modern term homosexual will not reproduce leaving it unlikely they will pass on there messed up genes. excepting them will eventually help self eradicate them, i have no problem with these people not carrying there gene's on for generations. lets except them for they are and let them self destruct. maybe more people should turn sodomite.

You can say the same thing for infertile couples.

how do you figure? as long as they have a male and female DNA they can reproduce .....it is outlawed in some parts of the world but lets say a womans eggs are not good they can take the outer part of another woman egg, fact is the child has 3 DNA's, they exchange the outer portion of the egg and a child can be born....i dont feel like doing he research or providing the links go check it our for yourself.

its possible as long as you have male and female....you will never see 2 ****'s reproduce

Mohandas
26-08-2007, 09:23 PM
edited

Dakine
26-08-2007, 09:31 PM
Hey...I get why this Bill Whatcott is so obsessed with 'Homos'. Apparently he used to do 'favors' in return for drugs. What's your story Dakine? Everyone's talking about it and wants to know.

well it would not suprise me, look at all the catholic priests etc that sexually abused all them young boys. its kinda a shame he fights what his religeon supports. how long did they protect there people to cover there crimes?.....

i feel no bible thumper diserves a right in politics as they provide no scientific evidence nor understand the real world. like i said i am not against ****'s i hope they carry on and never meet someone of the oposite sex as it is not good to spread there seed for the benifit of man kind.

as for drugs and religeon, it is very common. Look at hispanics they take mercury to expand there mind and cure illness etc. stupid if u ask me. we all take drugs and most dont understand the effects, they believe what others tell them....

DebraW
26-08-2007, 09:34 PM
This thread has veered in directions that are not appropriate.

The personal attacks against C2E members, gays or Bill Whatcott or sexual references in general WILL STOP or this thread will be locked.

If you want to debate Bill's stand on homosexuals, pro-life or any of the issues brought up in Scott McKenn’s article fine but it must be kept clean and respectful. (If it seems questionable it probably is so don't post it.)

snakes on a blog
27-08-2007, 10:13 AM
Congradulations C2E members! last count was about 1/2 dozen or so members who have been suckered into a debate about homosexuality, sodomy, religion and other irrelevent civic topics, which is exacty what Bill Whatshisname wanted.

His campaign is designed to be a stage to voice his own perverted views of the world and to distort the civic election. his views are a distraction and should be ignored.

Dusty Bear
27-08-2007, 10:23 AM
Congradulations C2E members! last count was about 1/2 dozen or so members who have been suckered into a debate about homosexuality, sodomy, religion and other irrelevent civic topics, which is exacty what Bill Whatshisname wanted.

His campaign is designed to be a stage to voice his own perverted views of the world and to distort the civic election. his views are a distraction and should be ignored.

I completely disagree. Ignoring his views only allow them to spread unchecked. Whatcott's views must be publicly denounced.

This thread has been valuable. For instance, it's outed certain C2E posters as homophobes.

RichardS
27-08-2007, 10:32 AM
As expected with this debate and candidate, the views are rather passionate and extreme. Watch the language folks.

Dakine, I am getting bombarded with PM's about your content. Again, the subject. I will go through the reported posts, and if you have violated the TOS, expect action to be taken up to and including possible termination of your account.

RichardS
27-08-2007, 11:09 AM
Username Dakine has been temporarily suspended pending Steering Committee review.

Dusty Bear
27-08-2007, 11:50 AM
I've always felt, though, that religion is a personal thing.

While this sounds good, it practically excludes religious individuals from the civic sphere.
Every leader, every politician, and every voter looks at each issue from a different view, and every viewpoint is based in the individual's life philosophy. For some reason some philosopies are called "religious" and are unacceptable, and others are areligious and acceptable.



Not at all. It simply refers to separation of church and state. Our mayor is Jewish, but he is not trying to impose kosher laws on Edmonton eateries. (OK, that's a weak example, but I think you get what I mean.) One religion cannot impose its views on all of society.




If someone doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, they should not marry someone of the same sex, you know? Live and let live - don't impose your beliefs on me, and I will do in kind.



This doesn't quite work. Every policy, and every law results in inequal treatment of citizens by the state. Noise bylaws distinguish between those who play loud music after 11pm, and others. Tax law distinguishes between employees, investors and small businessmen. Marriage law originally(in the british tradition) distiguished between opposite-sex pairs of adults who have made a particular set of vows, and all others. Now marriage laws distinguish between pairs of adults who are or have been sexually involved and either made some sort of vows and filled out a form. We now discriminate against asexual cohabiting pairs.

All our laws, from the highway act to the criminal code, attempt to promote a particular idea of what is good and worthwhile at the expense of what is bad, or even only less good.

If government is stripped of the power to discriminate, it is stripped of the ability to govern.



You are making a flawed analogy. For starters, your examples involve some aspect of public interest or safety. (The tax example is also inaccurate. While income is treated differently according to the source and amount, the individuals still have the same legal rights under tax law.)

I'll dissect your example of speeding. Should you get caught speeding, you get a fine, as well as the right to challenge that penalty. All drivers have that right and are treated the same.

Homosexual couples, by contrast, did not get treated equally. Straight couples could marry and receive the legal rights and recognition that comes with it, but homosexuals could not.

There was no breaking of the law involved, as you cited in your example. Homosexual unions were simply not legally recognized, meaning they did not have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I think the ideal of "traditional" marriage was dealt with very well by an earlier poster.

highlander
27-08-2007, 01:06 PM
I've always felt, though, that religion is a personal thing.

While this sounds good, it practically excludes religious individuals from the civic sphere.
Every leader, every politician, and every voter looks at each issue from a different view, and every viewpoint is based in the individual's life philosophy. For some reason some philosopies are called "religious" and are unacceptable, and others are areligious and acceptable.



Not at all. It simply refers to separation of church and state. Our mayor is Jewish, but he is not trying to impose kosher laws on Edmonton eateries. (OK, that's a weak example, but I think you get what I mean.) One religion cannot impose its views on all of society.


I do understand what you mean. I'm still not quite sure whether I disagree with you or not. I strongly support the separation of church and state but from what scott mcKeen is saying, I do not see that Bill is violating that principle.

What bill is doing is taking firmly held, somewhat religiously informed principles (what do gun rights have to do with Christianity?) and applying them to his own politics. Sure, given that virtually all of his platform is outside of municipal jurisdiction it's a misapplication, and a potential unfortunate distraction to real municipal issues, but he is well within his rights to propose what he does.

Basically what I'm saying is that religions should be no different than other belief systems when it comes to politics. Noone bats an eye when a candidate says that they are committed Liberals, or Marxists, or whatever, and states that they will apply Liberal or Marxist, etc, priciples in the laws that they enact, and will attempt to conform society to Liberal, or Marxist, etc patterns.







If someone doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, they should not marry someone of the same sex, you know? Live and let live - don't impose your beliefs on me, and I will do in kind.



This doesn't quite work. Every policy, and every law results in inequal treatment of citizens by the state. Noise bylaws distinguish between those who play loud music after 11pm, and others. Tax law distinguishes between employees, investors and small businessmen. Marriage law originally(in the british tradition) distiguished between opposite-sex pairs of adults who have made a particular set of vows, and all others. Now marriage laws distinguish between pairs of adults who are or have been sexually involved and either made some sort of vows and filled out a form. We now discriminate against asexual cohabiting pairs.

All our laws, from the highway act to the criminal code, attempt to promote a particular idea of what is good and worthwhile at the expense of what is bad, or even only less good.

If government is stripped of the power to discriminate, it is stripped of the ability to govern.



You are making a flawed analogy. For starters, your examples involve some aspect of public interest or safety. (The tax example is also inaccurate. While income is treated differently according to the source and amount, the individuals still have the same legal rights under tax law.)

I'll dissect your example of speeding. Should you get caught speeding, you get a fine, as well as the right to challenge that penalty. All drivers have that right and are treated the same.

Homosexual couples, by contrast, did not get treated equally. Straight couples could marry and receive the legal rights and recognition that comes with it, but homosexuals could not.

There was no breaking of the law involved, as you cited in your example. Homosexual unions were simply not legally recognized, meaning they did not have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I think the ideal of "traditional" marriage was dealt with very well by an earlier poster.

Homosexuals always had exactly the same marriage right as heterosexuals: they could marry someone of the opposite sex, or not at all.
The law did not distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

What the law did was set apart one specific relationship to recieve specific benefits and responsibities, and make provisions to ease legally registering that type of relationship. The state had reasons for this, including encouraging stable homes for children, and requiring husbnd and wife to take care of eachother, thereby reducing demands on the state. As far as I know there was no law prohibiting a unconventional couple from going to a lawyer and having a marriage-like contract drafted.

While that law is not what homosexuals wanted, there are thousands of other laws that at least someone does not want. That is where the parallel with traffic and criminal law occurs.

Dusty Bear
27-08-2007, 01:23 PM
You'll have to forgive me, highlander. I seem to be having trouble getting my thoughts into words today.




I do understand what you mean. I'm still not quite sure whether I disagree with you or not. I strongly support the separation of church and state but from what scott mcKeen is saying, I do not see that Bill is violating that principle.

What bill is doing is taking firmly held, somewhat religiously informed principles (what do gun rights have to do with Christianity?) and applying them to his own politics. Sure, given that virtually all of his platform is outside of municipal jurisdiction it's a misapplication, and a potential unfortunate distraction to real municipal issues, but he is well within his rights to propose what he does.

Basically what I'm saying is that religions should be no different than other belief systems when it comes to politics. Noone bats an eye when a candidate says that they are committed Liberals, or Marxists, or whatever, and states that they will apply Liberal or Marxist, etc, priciples in the laws that they enact, and will attempt to conform society to Liberal, or Marxist, etc patterns.



Are you sure no one bats an eye when political candidates say they are Marxist? :)

Bill wants the law to reflect his religious belief - homosexuals should not be married. That's where church and state come in.





As far as I know there was no law prohibiting a unconventional couple from going to a lawyer and having a marriage-like contract drafted.


Possibly, but straight couples did not have to go to a lawyer for that. The government already gave them that through a licence and marriage commissioner.

pablo
27-08-2007, 02:17 PM
As expected with this debate and candidate, the views are rather passionate and extreme. Watch the language folks.

Dakine, I am getting bombarded with PM's about your content. Again, the subject. I will go through the reported posts, and if you have violated the TOS, expect action to be taken up to and including possible termination of your account.

Mod Edit: Removed posting by a banned user with two accounts.

pablo
27-08-2007, 02:38 PM
Mod Edit: Removed posting by a banned user with two accounts.

DebraW
27-08-2007, 02:39 PM
Dakine has said he is for homosexuals dont undertand is the community against homosexuals the comments are in line and worth talking about reminds me of home in china how we get censored all the time i come to canada for freedom of speach find no diference in community forums form china as what happens hir. disapointed i am.

pablo,

I am sorry you are disappointed but I assure you Dakine is not being censored. He has been warned repeatedly to watch the language and overt sexual references and he has continued to use terms that are not appropriate anywhere in the public domain.

Debating the issues is great but not with graphic or crude language this is something he (and every registered C2E member) agreed to when they signed up and violation of this must be taken seriously to protect the integrity of ALL C2E community members and the forum itself.

Welcome to C2E and hope to see you online again soon!

Regards,

djgirl :D

RichardS
27-08-2007, 02:43 PM
As expected with this debate and candidate, the views are rather passionate and extreme. Watch the language folks.

Dakine, I am getting bombarded with PM's about your content. Again, the subject. I will go through the reported posts, and if you have violated the TOS, expect action to be taken up to and including possible termination of your account.

Dakine has said he is for homosexuals dont undertand is the community against homosexuals the comments are in line and worth talking about reminds me of home in china how we get censored all the time i come to canada for freedom of speach find no diference in community forums form china as what happens hir. disapointed i am.

That is NOT why the temporary suspension is in place.

It is for the explicit nature of his comments. You cannot use anything of a porographic or sexually explicit nature. Please see the edit.

soycd
27-08-2007, 03:28 PM
Wow.

Sometimes you have to shake your head and wonder if it is all a dream. Anyway....

Those links that 240GLT submitted....I went on a little cruise through those. Aye carumba! freedominion? YIKES! Almost equally yikes was the rabblebabble site.

I gotta get out more. I suddenly feel very un-informed (if that's the correct word) and not in a good way.

RichardS
27-08-2007, 03:35 PM
Dakine is nice man i come hir no success he give me tent and gives me work for food he feels bad you shut him out and i care for him he help me and listen he sais he will help me and others start business and look for home for me and family he give me computer program to work on english and we go long way he help me i help him i believe he sais nobody her fare about us he do we build stong empire and fight evils

Pablo, I beleive that Dakine would like to thank you for your support.

In fact, it sounded so much like Dakine, I had to trace. An independant audit/verifiaction revealed something.

Perhaps, you should look in the mirror and thank yourself.

Trace reveals Pablo = Dakine

Final infraction - multiple usernames,.
Dakine/Pablo - permanent ban.

DebraW
27-08-2007, 03:39 PM
Thank you for the pro-active (but fair and just) approach to what was becoming a worrying (and time consuming) situation.

Dusty Bear
27-08-2007, 03:42 PM
Dakine/Pablo - permanent ban.



I'm sure he'll be missed. :wink:

Medwards
27-08-2007, 03:48 PM
He did bring up a few valid issues though, and although I was against him for the most part, its too bad he couldn't present his views in a more friendly public manner...

dakine2
27-08-2007, 04:00 PM
Mod edit: Banned People don't get the luxury of a last word. You could have made your valid points before, but you lost the priviledge.

Medwards
27-08-2007, 04:09 PM
perhaps we need to set it up so an admin has to approve an account first before allowing posting?

RichardS
27-08-2007, 04:12 PM
We may need to go there.

DebraW
27-08-2007, 04:16 PM
^ No, point not taken apparently.

C2E is not a forum to provide Sex Education in any manner.

C2E is not a forum to replicate the plethora of great resources (online and other) in Edmonton for the varied things that people may need to access.


Connect2Edmonton is an autonomous, non-political online community that discusses topics of importance to Greater Edmonton's future.

DebraW
27-08-2007, 04:21 PM
To get this back on topic...

Bill Whatcott, the mayoralty race (or lack of) and "non-partisan" civic politics.

ShermanT
27-08-2007, 04:22 PM
He did bring up a few valid issues though, and although I was against him for the most part, its too bad he couldn't present his views in a more friendly public manner...

Agreed. It's not what you say it's how you say it.

RichardS
27-08-2007, 04:32 PM
Exactly. His views were not the issue at all. His expression therein was the issue. There are many other ways to communicate what he wanted to say. Vulgarity, sexual innuendo, and graphic depictions of acts are not it.

...as for this candidate, has anyone checked out his website?

Dusty Bear
27-08-2007, 04:38 PM
...as for this candidate, has anyone checked out his website?

Yes. Yikes.

For somone claiming to be opposed to homosexuality, he sure is obsessed with it.

Other than his statements on taxes and the civil service, he seemingly has little to say about municipal government issues. That's rather illuminating about his seriousness as a candidate, I would say.

lux
27-08-2007, 06:07 PM
There was nothing valid about his views or the way they were presented; it was not just style it was substance. Whether the content of his views violated the Terms of Service may be another matter, but there was still nothing intelligent or insightful about it. (dakine or whatcott for that matter)

We wouldn't be having this discussion about interracial marriage if that was who Bill Whatcott's decided to pick on instead of the gays, and it amounts to the same thing.

Highlander, to suggest that gay people had the same rights because they could also have a legal heterosexual marriage is nonsense. At best this is analogous to Henry Ford telling his customers they could have any colour they wanted as long as it's black. But the situation is actually more akin to the Inquisition telling the Jews that of course they were equal; all they needed to do was accept the catholic church like everyone else and they'd go free Or it's like telling someone in a wheelchair that they can go up the steps of city hall just like anyone else if only they would apply themselves.

Of course we don't do that, so even if someone is ignorant enough to view homosexuality as some kind of disability, we would still accept people as they are. We put a ramp in place at City Hall, and we don't expect gay people to marry unsuspecting straight people as though the gender of your spouse is interchangeable at whim. On second reflection, maybe having gay people marry straight people is not the best solution after all. In fact it is pretty clear that gay people will be in gay relationships with or without the government's okay.

So now it is just a matter of equal rights. As far as having the same rights recognized for an "unconventional" couple :roll: yes you can go to a lawyer and do that. It cost us $800 for the bulk of the important things that would have automatically been in place if equal marriage had been available at the time. The extra price tag is not acceptable; that is just one of the costs of discrimination. And there were still things left out that go with marriage. The interesting thing here is that you don't actually seem to take issue with a same-sex relationship having the same rights and obligations if a lawyer can provide them via a "marriage-like contract." Well, I'm sorry but that just won't be good enough.

Jeff
27-08-2007, 09:05 PM
Connect2Edmonton is an autonomous, non-political online community that discusses topics of importance to Greater Edmonton's future.

Ok – second time that quote has been recently posted… a non-political online community (?). Say what? If C2E is representative of (a segment of) its membership, then C2E is highly political by the nature of the diverse and at times disparate political based opinions offered by it’s membership. Hey, isn’t there a political forum here? :-D

Jeff
27-08-2007, 09:11 PM
Trace reveals Pablo = Dakine

Final infraction - multiple usernames,.
Dakine/Pablo - permanent ban.

free Dakine... Attica, Attica, Attica

by the by - can ya ban by IP address? :-D

Dakine, PM me about proxies - oh, right... guess ya can't :P

psiebold1
27-08-2007, 09:35 PM
It's great to see a serious challenger come forward; one who is focused on the important issues that a municipal government has jurisdiction over.

:roll:

Anyone know if Thom Tomilson and Dave Dowling are running this fall?

I would like to hear your definition of a "serious challenger". this guy sounds insane to me.

grish,

I think (and Dusty Bear correct me if I am wrong) that DB was being sarcastic…

C2E really needs an Emoticon for sarcasm only—the rolling eyes, lol etc. do not always convey the posters intention clearly.

:D

The pacman works well for this.

Jeff
27-08-2007, 10:26 PM
I guess I missed some of what Dakine must have written – now mod-deleted/adjusted. In what I did read, there was validity in Dakine’s posts; a validity not necessarily in content/intent, but a validity by representation – representing a viewpoint shared, to varying degrees, across a significant segment within this highly conservative province.

Perhaps in this boards infancy, in trying to cover it all, there is some justification in mods having thin skins towards “anything” remotely offensive to some segment of a potential increased membership base. The dual membership aspect is another thing altogether.

Part of attempting to increase the acceptance versus tolerance versus opposition segments to anything that espouses Gay/Lesbian rights in Alberta requires engaging the opposed in dialogue. That dialogue needs to be respectful – but it also needs to have latitude in engaging differing viewpoints, how crudely or offensively inferred they might be displayed. These opportunities are rare – rarer even more so within Alberta. Threads go where they go – this one had a chance to challenge, to debate, to counter a visible representative of the opposed camp. That chance, it would appear, is now lost - squandered. Really – when the opposed barely articulates an opposition, how difficult would it have been to, with deference to "Reverend Whatcott", “cast him down” in the field of meaningful debate? :-D

ShermanT
27-08-2007, 11:08 PM
I guess I missed some of what Dakine must have written – now mod-deleted/adjusted. In what I did read, there was validity in Dakine’s posts; a validity not necessarily in content/intent, but a validity by representation – representing a viewpoint shared, to varying degrees, across a significant segment within this highly conservative province.

Perhaps in this boards infancy, in trying to cover it all, there is some justification in mods having thin skins towards “anything” remotely offensive to some segment of a potential increased membership base. The dual membership aspect is another thing altogether.

Part of attempting to increase the acceptance versus tolerance versus opposition segments to anything that espouses Gay/Lesbian rights in Alberta requires engaging the opposed in dialogue. That dialogue needs to be respectful – but it also needs to have latitude in engaging differing viewpoints, how crudely or offensively inferred they might be displayed. These opportunities are rare – rarer even more so within Alberta. Threads go where they go – this one had a chance to challenge, to debate, to counter a visible representative of the opposed camp. That chance, it would appear, is now lost - squandered. Really – when the opposed barely articulates an opposition, how difficult would it have been to, with deference to "Reverend Whatcott", “cast him down” in the field of meaningful debate? :-D

This wasn't the first time something like this was posted and it was willfully not following the rules on this forum for the final time that did it. It is not about just this one thing. Take a look at his posting history and you can see a bunch. Then there are a bunch of private messages to mods that you cannot see as well.

I am all for differing opinions but in this particular community, we have to draw the line when something is too crude and offensive. The rules are there plain as day and almost everyone that has joined this community has agreed to follow the rules (most do). We cannot allow this kind of behavior to go unchecked.

As for "Reverend Whatcott" he'll have his chance in the coming weeks to stir this forum up. We'll see where that goes.

DebraW
27-08-2007, 11:14 PM
I guess I missed some of what Dakine must have written – now mod-deleted/adjusted. In what I did read, there was validity in Dakine’s posts; a validity not necessarily in content/intent, but a validity by representation – representing a viewpoint shared, to varying degrees, across a significant segment within this highly conservative province.

Perhaps in this boards infancy, in trying to cover it all, there is some justification in mods having thin skins towards “anything” remotely offensive to some segment of a potential increased membership base. The dual membership aspect is another thing altogether.

Part of attempting to increase the acceptance versus tolerance versus opposition segments to anything that espouses Gay/Lesbian rights in Alberta requires engaging the opposed in dialogue. That dialogue needs to be respectful – but it also needs to have latitude in engaging differing viewpoints, how crudely or offensively inferred they might be displayed. These opportunities are rare – rarer even more so within Alberta. Threads go where they go – this one had a chance to challenge, to debate, to counter a visible representative of the opposed camp. That chance, it would appear, is now lost - squandered. Really – when the opposed barely articulates an opposition, how difficult would it have been to, with deference to "Reverend Whatcott", “cast him down” in the field of meaningful debate? :-D

^ I am not a moderator in this particular forum but I was the recipient of PM’s regarding the sexual and graphic nature of the posts. I have a very thick skin thank you but when other members contact me with legitimate concerns I was compelled to validate (and pass on) these concerns.

Where there some valid thoughts expressed yes and I repeatedly tried to reinforce that aspect of the posts minus sexual innuendo and graphic sexual descriptions.

Debate same sex marriage, homosexuality but do it without sexual descriptors and without hate messaging this is not displaying a “thin skin” on C2E’s part this is displaying respect for ALL of the community.

C2E is not intolerant IMO but it is a mosaic of the community at large and like any community there are accepted codes of behaviour and if these are violated there are consequences.

I want to see some great debate on same-sex marriage, the abortion question…but let’s keep it at that—debate the issues—without the vitriol.

m0nkyman
27-08-2007, 11:45 PM
Can we debate mixed race marriages too? How about whether women deserve the vote?

:?

DebraW
27-08-2007, 11:52 PM
How about whether women deserve the vote?

:?

Women "deserve" the vote? Thems are fighting words cowboy. :evil:

Go for it...give it your best shot... :wink:

ike9126
28-08-2007, 12:33 AM
saying this as a Christian whose just looked at Whatcotts webpage: this guy shouldnt be elected... no gun control? global warming is a total fraud? no arts funding? having the right to kill animals left and right? not to mentioon the graphic pic with Steven Mandel... sounds like he wants to bring us back to the age where people were stoned for doing what was "wrong". He gives Christians a bad name.

DebraW
28-08-2007, 11:12 AM
Who's the jackass here?

The Edmonton Journal
Published: 28 August 2007 1:36 am

Scott McKeen's opinion on Bill Whatcott and his mayoral candidacy ambitions ("Hardline Christian activist takes a run at mayor's job," The Journal, Aug. 24) needs refuting.

I think it takes a lot of guts and hard work to run in any election, so I respect anyone ambitious enough to throw their hat in the ring.

Scott may not agree with what Bill believes, but that does not afford him the right of character assassination.

In Scott's world view, anyone who does not espouse liberal left-wing views is a fringe candidate not worthy of consideration. Bill addresses hard issues that the mainline media are terrified to tackle, and so they ridicule anyone who defies political correctness. Let Bill present his agenda to the civic voters and let them decide if he should represent them at City Hall.

By terming Bill Whatcott a self-righteous jackass, Scott has exposed himself to be a self-righteous jackass simply because he doesn't approve of ideas alien to his own.

Scott, why don't you get ambitious and get nominated for election?

Jerry Pasternak, Edmonton

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

-30-

DebraW
28-08-2007, 11:13 AM
Show some class

The Edmonton Journal
Published: 28 August 2007 1:36 am

I was shocked by the vitriol demonstrated in Scott McKeen's comments. I cannot believe that a writer for a major newspaper can get away with interviewing someone and then turn around and ridicule and insult them in their column.

It seems that whenever someone takes a stand against homosexuality these days, some "self-righteous" writer feels that they are fair game to slam them down and label them a nutcase. There is a sense of hypocrisy here. (As long as we believe the same things, then we can be friends.)

I had never heard of Bill Whatcott before today, and maybe he is a bit on the extreme end of things, but try to show a little objectivity and class in the future.

Allen Kropp, Edmonton

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

-30-

Dusty Bear
28-08-2007, 11:44 AM
Bill addresses hard issues that the mainline media are terrified to tackle, and so they ridicule anyone who defies political correctness.


Um, no. Bill addresses issues that have nothing to do with municipal politics. That might have something to do with why he's being ridiculed.

DebraW
28-08-2007, 11:48 AM
Bill addresses hard issues that the mainline media are terrified to tackle, and so they ridicule anyone who defies political correctness.


Um, no. Bill addresses issues that have nothing to do with municipal politics. That might have something to do with why he's being ridiculed.

YES! Finally!

I was hoping someone would state the obvious...municipal politics do not influence issues such as same sex marriage, homosexuality or the abortion issue as such civic politicians (and those who want to be) should stick to the agendas they can affect. Like those, darn potholes, the AGA, LRT, BRT, SLRT and overpasses at 23rd Ave.

RichardS
28-08-2007, 01:43 PM
does family and human rights fall under capital projects or transportation? I am just not sure what city department to call about these issues. :smt082 :smt044

A perfect summation of this candidate's platform.

You mean grish's well placed observation didn't help? ;)

DebraW
29-08-2007, 09:04 AM
'Jackass' was kind

The Edmonton Journal
Published: 29 August 2007 1:38 am

The letters slamming columnist Scott McKeen for being so judgmental on Bill Whatcott's views ("Who's the jackass here?"; "Show some class," Letters, Aug. 28) are understandable, but having had a confrontation with Whatcott in my neighbourhood, I did not feel

McKeen was out of line.

If you think he was, it's because you haven't had to deal with the horrendously offensive graphic materials that Whatcott has put in thousands of unsuspecting Edmonton residential mailboxes. Reporting this to the police has done nothing because apparently it isn't illegal to distribute graphic images of dismembered babies.

Bill Whatcott's beliefs do not justify his approach. Even people who completely agree with him will be offended by his printed materials. His distribution of materials is closer to an assault than spreading information.

As for homosexuals or other people who live different cultural trends than Whatcott's version of Christian standards and beliefs, those differences don't allow one to distribute materials that encourage discrimination, which is what Whatcott was fined for in Saskatchewan.

I thought Scott McKeen was kind to only call him a jackass. If you haven't received his materials in your mailbox, count yourself fortunate.

Keven Kanten, Edmonton

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

-30-

alethea
29-08-2007, 11:07 AM
I consider myself conservative but I sure would never support the likes of Bill Whatcott for any public office, he gives a whole new meaning to the word 'homophobe' - a word which usually doesn't apply to most people who might simply disagree with changing the definition of marriage. While not actually inciting anyone to violence Bill W. takes his hatred to a whole new level.

While I applaud his right to free speech, I would never vote for him as it would be condoning his hatreds. If he ever stepped foot on my property he'd know it!!!

DebraW
29-08-2007, 11:10 AM
I consider myself conservative but I sure would never support the likes of Bill Whatcott for any public office, he gives a whole new meaning to the word 'homophobe' - a word which usually doesn't apply to most people who might simply disagree with changing the definition of marriage. While not actually inciting anyone to violence Bill W. takes his hatred to a whole new level.

While I applaud his right to free speech, I would never vote for him as it would be condoning his hatreds. If he ever stepped foot on my property he'd know it!!!

alethea,

Thank you for your comments and joining the lively debate on C2E regarding this candidate.

Welcome to C2E too! :D

Cheers,

djgirl

psiebold1
29-08-2007, 08:31 PM
Haven't heard a single thing from him that has anything to do with running for mayor.

DebraW
01-09-2007, 09:44 AM
McKeen right on

The Edmonton Journal
Published: September 01, 2007 1:37 am

Re: Scott McKeen's article on Bill Whatcott (Aug. 24) and associated letters to the editor.

I had mixed feelings about Mr. McKeen's article when it appeared in The Journal.

On the one hand, I was upset that he profiled Mr. Whatcott's platform of hate.

However, upon reflection, I believe Mr. McKeen's article has provided us with a great community service. It is better to know what your neighbours are thinking than to allow them to remain hidden under the cloak of darkness.

It's time for more Edmontonians to stand up and echo Mr. McKeen's call: Hate is not a value of Edmontonians and will not be tolerated in any form.

We must speak out against injustice whenever and wherever we see it. To remain silent makes us complicit in the very act of discrimination.

Kristopher Wells, St. Albert

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

-30-

DebraW
10-09-2007, 03:40 PM
Election season draws near in Edmonton

Sep, 07 2007 - 7:20 AM

EDMONTON/630 CHED - Mayor Stephen Mandel officially opens his campaign headquarters this evening in the downtown area, and by a week Monday we'll know officially who's running against him.

Bill Whatcott has been in and out of several courts facing hate crime charges. He has posted video of his protests of the most recent gay pride parade here in Edmonton. Keith Borle wasn't available for comment but has his "for a better tomorrow" website up.

Peter Lefaivre says he's got 75 of the needed 100 signatures and doesn't want to give Mandel a free pass. And according to his website, Dave Dowling says he'll run and has highlighted the three forums he plans to attend.

In his past attempt he failed to get one per cent of the vote.

Scott Johnston

-30-

travis
10-09-2007, 05:12 PM
This is going to be the lowest voter turnout in years.

http://www.canadianredneck.ca/My_Homepage_Files/Page13.html

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=206

DebraW
10-09-2007, 05:15 PM
This is going to be the lowest voter turnout in years.

I so hope not but it is starting to look that way with no real contenders.

DebraW
24-09-2007, 11:48 AM
Gay basher gets lashed
Mayoral candidate won't apologize for anti-gay, Christian extremist stance

Mon, September 24, 2007
By BROOKES MERRITT, SUN MEDIA

Whatcott: Wouldbe mayor

Members of Edmonton's gay community are lashing out at controversial mayoral candidate Bill Whatcott over his anti-homosexual election platform.

But Whatcott - a former gay prostitute turned Christian extremist - made no apologies and insisted large numbers of Edmontonians share his views.

The 39-year-old trucker said he opposes homosexuality, abortion, birth control, gun control, animal shelters, the EPS hate crimes unit and various Canadian human rights commissions, which have fined him $18,000 for offences in Saskatchewan.

"Homosexuality is killing young men with diseases like anal warts, anal gonorrhoea and anal cancer ... you're not going to get that living the lifestyle of a Ukrainian," he told Sun Media yesterday.

Whatcott - who's considered a fringe candidate - admits performing "homosexual acts" for money as a teen but has since "found God and repented for the repugnant things" in his past.

"I don't expect people to like me but I've got supporters, especially in church circles," he said. "If you don't like me don't vote for me."

Coun. Michael Phair and Edmonton Police Commissioner Murray Billet - both high-profile members of Edmonton gay community - find Whatcott distasteful but recognize his right to run for office.

Billet agreed to weigh-in on Whatcott "because it's important to expose what a cowboy this guy really is."

He called Whatcott a poor representative of Edmonton in 2007 and said his "platform of intolerance" harm the city's image.

"His message is vitriolic and unCanadian. This is the kind of person who gives Albertan's a redneck reputation and it's undeserved."

Phair called Whatcott "distasteful" and his campaign "amateur," as it fails to address any local issues such as infrastructure or transit.

"And as a gay politician I can tell you voters don't care about your sexual orientation. They care about paved roads, improved traffic flow and snow removal.

"And they don't want someone who is intolerant."

Whatcott said 70% of the calls he gets are from voters who threaten him or want to argue.

"If someone stops to argue, I give them five minutes. When they start talking about (tolerating) abortion and homosexuality, I hit them with some disease rates and tell them of the rights of an unborn child," Whatcott said.

Rather than door-knocking, he distributes flyers outlining his views. One flyer features a picture of Mayor Stephen Mandel's face inserted between two naked men kissing.

Some people who received the flyer complained to police.

Last week, Edmonton Police Service spokesman Dean Parthenis said the hate crimes unit had not laid any charges against Whatcott. He said he could not confirm whether they were investigating the candidate.

There are nine candidates running for mayor. Election day is Oct. 15.

-30-

Jeff
24-09-2007, 08:48 PM
Members of Edmonton's gay community are lashing out at controversial mayoral candidate Bill Whatcott over his anti-homosexual election platform.

"Homosexuality is killing young men with diseases like anal warts, anal gonorrhoea and anal cancer ... you're not going to get that living the lifestyle of a Ukrainian," he told Sun Media yesterday.

So, like... uhhh..... why do Gay Ukrainians get a pass? :-D

kona
24-09-2007, 09:21 PM
Billet agreed to weigh-in on Whatcott "because it's important to expose what a cowboy this guy really is."

No one can win, now cowboys are in the same camp as Whatcott.

Why not just call the guy intollerant and leave it at that, why call him names of groups that have nothing to do with him and probably do want anything to do with like cowboys and jackasses

DebraW
27-09-2007, 10:15 AM
Sex and the city

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Spetember 27, 2007 3:08 am

I was surprised to find taped to my front door a flyer outlining mayoral candidate Bill Whatcott's hatred of gays and his elementary understanding of the Bible, abortion, Communist China (why is this a local election issue?), arts funding, the environment and "sexual health."

Thank goodness Whatcott is not teaching health class. His flyer states: "The solution for maintaining a healthy sexuality is to abstain from homosexual behaviour."

Why does he spend so much time thinking about gay sex?

Daniel Morley Johnson, Edmonton

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

-30-

DebraW
29-09-2007, 02:27 PM
Sat, September 29, 2007
By YUKON JACK

An open message to our gay and lesbian community. Don't get bent out of shape about the anti-gay mayoral candidate.

I'm not using his name, cause I'm not giving him the ink.

In case you haven't heard about this hate-filled *****, let me get you up to speed.

One of the nine candidates who's name will be on the ballot is an admitted ex-homosexual. He has since found Jesus and is now a Christian extremist with an anti-alternative lifestyle platform. He's against homosexuality, gun control, birth control, abortion, the hate crimes unit, this mutt even hates the SPCA.

Why you ask, as an open minded, tolerant Albertan, am I advising our city's gay community to relax and let this guy have his spotlight? Because he's a biscuit. With biscuit views and opinions and a biscuit lifestyle. If we give him his 15 minutes of harmless fame, he's gonna look so stupid that he's gonna shoot himself in the foot and do more damage. If he shines like the giant flaming ***** he is, then who's going to want to join his team?

This guy's not spreading hatred. He's spreading stupid.

And in order to be affected by his campaign, you too have to be a total mutt. Only the weak of mind are at risk here.

I don't know about you, but when Oct. 15th rolls around I'll be voting for a candidate who will address issues that will affect me. Things that I will notice like taxes, employment, infrastructure, potholes and snow removal, not the perils of anal relations between consenting adults. I couldn't care less. An awful lot of anal chat in this guy's campaign. Appropriate for what he appears to be.

In the meantime ... I'll just shut my big yap.

-30-

george
02-10-2007, 04:41 AM
hey everyone its Adam and steve HAHAHAHA! i really wish i grew up with 2 dads

Mohandas
02-10-2007, 09:01 AM
edited