Friday, November 30, 2007

You know what your nickname is, Mr. Bigot

Just because I probably won't have the opportunity to take shots at the nominated PC candidate in my home riding past Saturday, I thought I'd toss out a few gems from the best of Craig Chandler courtesy of today's Globe & Mail:

Earlier this year, a settlement arranged by the Canadian Human Rights Commission forced [Chandler] to publish an apology for comments made on a radio program that he co-hosts - among them, reportedly, that "God sees murder as equal to homosexuality." As part of the settlement, he agreed to "cease and desist" from posting information on the Internet claiming that "homosexuals are conspiring against society" and that they are "sick, diseased or mentally ill."

His homophobia appears to know few bounds. On the website of Concerned Christians, he approvingly pointed to a letter by Calgary pastor Stephen Boisson charging that "[w]here homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds." When Belinda Stronach ran for the Conservative leadership, he suggested the presence of gay activists on her campaign team meant "a takeover from the militant homosexual movement" was at hand.

I should point out that all of this was public record when the PCs decided to let him run for the nomination in the first place...

(sorry on the obscure Chandler from Friends reference in the title - it narowly beat out, "Could he BE a bigger homophobe?")



  • Man... what a tool.

    It's totally true that these guys spend more time thinking about bumsecks than the actual "out" gays do. Which I guess explains the entire social conservative wing of the U.S. Republican party and its frantic attempts to keep the closet door shut.

    By Blogger Jessica, at 3:54 a.m.  

  • Just like said about the alleged bigots at RSU: I'd much rather bigots be out in the open, so we can see them and hear them.

    Besides, Chandler is free to interpret the Bible as he pleases, and free to believe that a segment of society is deviant.

    As long as he doesn't advocate violence, I have no bone with him. I even encourage the dialog. After all, the more he argues that homosexuality is wrong, the more people think about it and understand that it isn't.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 10:19 a.m.  

  • The homosexual militia has fabulous uniforms

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:25 p.m.  

  • Any chance we might be able to convince Mr. Chandler to run for the Conservatives federally?

    By Blogger KC, at 12:34 p.m.  

  • hmmmm.

    I wonder how the provincial PC's "allowed" Mr. Chapman to run for their party.

    Oh, that's right -- the provincial PC party resembles a democratically elected party.

    We shall see what the party executive does with his nomination this weekend.

    And a word to all you elites out there: this man (Chapman) may appear to be a bigot -- but in a democratic society with a principle of free speech, even he (and those who think like him, of which there are more than a few) have the right to voice their opinions -- just as do the rest of us.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:44 p.m.  

  • Sorry anonymous, but saying "homosexuals are diseased and mentally ill" and "conspiring against society" is pretty much akin to saying that Jewish people are conspiring against society, or that black people are diseased and mentally ill.

    In this country we recognize that in a society that respects the principles of fundamental justice, hate speech does not qualify under free speech laws.

    If he wants to say that being gay is a sin, or God doesn't like gay people, or things like that, he is free to do so. But making slanderous hate claims like he did, in saying that they are diseased and are conspiring against society, that is clearly beyond the pale.

    By Blogger Brandon E. Beasley, at 1:48 p.m.  

  • He is a tool, no doubt. I totally encourage people to express their views and perspectives no matter how much I disagree -- being gay personally has nothing to do how I view their opinions.

    But Anon's idea that Chandler is part of some "dialogue" is silly. The reason Chandler is a tool isn't because he mistrusts homosexuals (*I* hardly trust homosexuals myself!), it's because he wants to control other people, not listen to them, not engage in dialogue with them.

    If Chandler thought homosexuality was wrong and was starting an Outreach Centre to help cure them or something, it might seem naive, but well-intentioned. He's not well-intentioned.

    Dan's point isn't that Chandler shouldn't share the right of free expression, it's that Chandler is an asshole. I happen to agree. Chandler may not advocate violence, but he certainly advocates the legislation of morality, and no true "conservative" (or "liberal") would agree to such a thing.

    On another note: Why are Conservatives so unable to keep out lunatics? The LPC has them too, but mostly leaves them for the NDP. If Conservatives are looking to become some new "natural governing party", they could take a hint from the Liberals on this one.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:16 p.m.  

  • I was planning a post titled "Could I be any more of a douche?", based what I anticipated his reaction would be if his candidacy was rejected...

    By Blogger The Invisible Hand, at 1:08 a.m.  

  • There is a difference between "free speech" which allows you to make principled statements of conscience without fear of imprisonment, and being able to say anything you want without any personal or professional consequences. No society protects the latter.

    Even in the US, if I wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times and said "As a human resources manager of X corporation I think all African-Americans are racially inferior, subhuman and should be deported back to Africa", I guarantee if that company fired me because of those comments, no court would back me up.

    That isn't what "free speech" means and it isn't protected by the 1st Amendment.

    By Blogger toujoursdan, at 9:03 p.m.  

  • I will say this once.

    Remove your comments about me here where you attribute comments made by someone else.

    If this is not corrected I will sue as this is defamation of character.

    I will not ask again.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:28 p.m.  

  • By Blogger Unknown, at 2:47 a.m.  

  • the important thing is that there is no violence at the time they do a demonstration out there, after all it is their right if you want to be anything. homosexuals currently also have voting rights to be able to argue, but must remain in the laws specified

    visit my website at :

    By Blogger Poker45, at 2:19 a.m.  

  • I completely agree with your statement. Thank you for the information you provided in this post.

    Official Website :

    By Blogger Agenpoker1827, at 11:31 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home