McIver shouldn’t have to apologize

By Letter to the Editor on July 9, 2014.

Re: “Ric McIver apologizes,” Herald, June 20.

That seems to happen a lot nowadays.

This political correctness garbage has gone way too far. What happened to free speech? Our right to assembly? Can’t we say or do anything any more without some sissified bureaucrat telling us what we can or cannot do?

I thought the PC Party of Alberta was still a little bit redneck. But alas, they have all become so-called politically correct. Mr. McIver really didn’t have to apologize for anything. What I find so amazing is that the homosexuals didn’t request Mr. McIver to apologize. It’s his own party that forced him to. And a party that preaches equality for all, by forcing him to apologize, has made him somehow less equal than others.

Anyway, Mr. McIver had every right to participate in this parade. Equality, remember? However, he caved in under pressure. Not very good leader material, I would say. He also mentioned that he attends Sikhs’, Muslims’, Hindus’ and Jews’ events. As far as I know, all these organizations are opposed to homosexuality and same-sex marriages. So I guess there are a lot more apologies forthcoming.

George Van Bostelen

Coaldale

http://lethbridgeherald.com/commentary/letters-to-the-editor/2014/07/09/mciver-shouldnt-have-to-apologize/

  1. snoutspot4 says:

    “Can’t we say or do anything any more without some sissified bureaucrat telling us what we can or cannot do?” Please do explain your definition of sissified and how that is not demeaning? Many persons of many faiths support human rights and many do not. I’d go on, but not worth the time.

  2. tiredofit says:

    George you wrote a brilliant letter. Sadly the majority won’t get your message, and will have fun picking it apart. It’s their game.

    McIver who I know well personally is by a landslide, (compared to the other two running) the right person to head this Provinces Politics but unfortunately his association with a stagnated bunch of losers who he shares little common ground with, will be his undoing.

    I believe we have not yet arrived at the point in Alberta where a clean living, honest person, with the right heart – and more importantly – with no skeletons in the closet – can get elected!

    We’ll know in September 2014, if we’ve turned a corner or get to live on with the same old crap we’ve had with since Lougheed left.

  3. Briton says:

    A “brilliant letter” it is decidedly not.
    A “typical” letter from this individual and other zealots in southern Alberta it most assuredly is.

  4. grinandbearit says:

    I fail to see the brilliance of this letter. No one forced McIver to apologize. He did not apologize for marching for Jesus. He apologized because, he claims, he did not know that the organizer of the march would use his participation in a specific context on a propaganda website, a context that denigrated, humiliated and demonized a group of people that McIver clearly does not want to harm. You can read from his apology here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ric-mciver-apologizes-for-participation-in-march-for-jesus-1.2681018.

    There is a big difference between coming out to support ideas of Jesus and humiliating or demonizing a group of historically disadvantaged people – Jesus even associated with tax collectors! The author of this letter to the editor seems to think it is not “sissified” to attack homosexuals and that we all have rights to demonize and humiliate people for their inborn traits. George longs for a political party and a government to defend his faith-inspired persecution of others. Very unchrist-like behaviour.
    McIver was right to apologize for being used for bigotry. He put it simply in relation to this christian group, there is “nasty, mean-spirited stuff on this website that there’s no excuse for and I apologize for drawing attention to it.” Straight up apology. He made an error, he does not want to humiliate or denigrate homosexuals.
    He did not HAVE to apologize, he CAN associate with anyone he wants and his opinion on this topic counts like everyone else’s. George wished that McIver shared his shoddy view of homosexuals, but he doesn’t. George, find another candidate and another party. They are out there.
    Like many others, especially south of the border, George is imagining persecution of christians where none exists.

    • tiredofit says:

      Points well taken.

      But – Grinandbearit – must be kidding if he or she thinks that ” No one forced McIver to apologize … .”he CAN associate with anyone he wants” If only that were true!
      One must not know much about the workings of a Canadian political party to make comments like that!

      I still think Mr. Van Bolstelen’s letter was not only “brilliant” but a brave one as well. He would surely have plenty of support for his position if he could muster more people to voice their opinion about such matters without being trampled by the VOICES. People are afraid of big mean minority VOICES, which sanctioning government’s have given plenty of latitude to.

      We are living in a country divided by ethnicity, religion and lifestyle choice, where anyone challenging or forwarding a non-prescribed opinion is labelled a racist or pinned with some other disparaging remark, often resulting in state police action. I wish it was not so!

      So much for freedom of speech and thought!

      It is practically illegal to think for yourself in our Big Brother state without coming under the scrutiny of the state thought police – which Human rights commissions across the land are the final authority – the judge and jury – beyond question. Some democracy! .

      Should you have the abilities of an Ezra Levant (and not many of us have his smarts or money to fight the fascism at such a scary level) you may have a chance in front of them (as he proved) But most of us die, mentally and monetarily, in the chair during a one sided human rights commission trial. Another example of Canadian Democracy at its finest.

      Today, politicians have their work cut out for them as they attempt to placate every quirk of humanity, which seemingly propagates each year like dandelions after a good rain in May.

      Yes! , In a true democracy McIver wouldn’t have to explain his support of a completely legal group or an activity, even if the group whose parade he walks in doesn’t fit the prescribed political mould of his party, or of a minority of vocal objectors. He walks on eggs during his walk with anyone, and that walk will take him where his party tells him to go and where the VOTES are.

      I still think McIvers the man – he just chose to picnic with the wrong totalitarian bunch!

      • petie150513 says:

        If he genuinely did not know that his appearance was to be used to promote hatred, then fine. I agree with grinandbearit. McIver apologized and may be a bit more careful to read the fine print about an event. There are many christians who are faithful members of a christian denomination and hold prayer vigils and marches just as their are for other faiths. but I don’t see that the majority of those gatherings are in the game of violating human rights or worse for fellow citizens labelled as “homosexuals”.

        If he’s only apologizing because someone told him to after the fact, well then he has lied and that does not make a trustworthy leader of any government ever. And… There are other parties or other candidates with different perspectives – any one of which may be more acceptable to folks that think freedom of speech means hate speech.

        • tiredofit says:

          Today if you object to something, somebody, somewhere, will call it hate. The new mantra – HATE!.

          I’m not personally enamoured with some homosexual demands, wishes. or achievement’s, and I’m betting there’s plenty who agree.

          For instance I find it quite repulsive that two adults of the same sex have in recent times achieved the “Right” to raise children. Pure hell for those kids involved, if what my grandkids are bringing back to me is any indication. Talk about being outcast. Does this make me hateful of homos or their “offspring”? No. I have an opinion that may not jive with people either born with or choosing that lifestyle, but I’m far from hateful – I just simply disagree, and that should be allowed. it shouldn’t be labelled as hate, because it isn’t.

          Earlier this year on a particularly cold day, I was in a Pizza shop in a nearby city where two males obviously passionate for each other were checking personal credentials pretty close – did I object? Were these spectacles thrown out of the place? Did they notice (or care) if the two middle aged business attired ladies sitting in the booth across from them were uneasy – No on all accounts.

          Nobody cared a dam about my human right to eat my meal without getting sick. There is no law covering that – is there? Suck it up bunky.

          Annnd – nobody dared show their distaste or “hate” for the performance – but both men sharing the lead roles certainly weren’t above encouraging it.

        • tiredofit says:

          Today if you object to something, somebody, somewhere, will call it hate. The new mantra – HATE!.

          I’m not personally enamoured with some homosexual demands, wishes. or achievement’s, and I’m betting there’s lots who agree.

          For instance I find it odious that two adults of the same sex have in recent times achieved the “Right” to raise someone else’s children. It’s pure hell for those kids involved, if what my grandkids are bringing back to me is any indication. Talk about being outcast. Does this make me hateful of homos or their “offspring”? No. I have an opinion that may not jive with people either born with or choosing that lifestyle, but I’m far from hateful – I just simply disagree, and disagreeing with someone or something should not be labelled as hate, because it isn’t.

          Earlier this year on a particularly cold day, I was in a Pizza shop in a nearby city where two male Homos were checking each other out pretty close – did I object? Were these spectacles thrown out of the place? Did they notice (or care) if the two middle aged business attired ladies sitting in the booth across from them were uneasy – No on all accounts.

          Nobody dared hate them but they weren’t above encouraging it.

X

Pin It on Pinterest

X
%d bloggers like this: