Just another proof that when humans abuse God's law, there are negative consequences.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111804.html
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
More persecution of Christians by homosexual movement
A disturbing story about a group of Christians being physically and sexually assaulted by a homosexual mob during a prayer service. Read the article and watch the videos.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111816.html
.
.
.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111816.html
.
.
.
Homosexual violence continues
Have you heard about the ongoing violence in the United States being perpetrated by the homosexual movement? You probably haven't, because the mainstream media is being very quiet about it.
People have been assaulted, churches attacked and death threats been made. All this because the people of America voted against same-sex marriage and in favour of traditional marriage during various referendums held on the same day as the Presidential election.
If the homosexual movement had been on the receiving end of these attacks, do you think they would have received some coverage? Yeah, big time.
What ever happened to those arguments about "tolerance" and "inclusiveness"? The true hypocrisy is now evident. They don't care about tolerance, inclusiveness or free speech. They just want State-imposed legitimacy. They want to push their rights at the expense of yours and mine.
The following article will give you an example of the persecution that many Americans are currently suffering at the expense of the fascist homosexual movement. The article also contains links to other incidents, if you would like to read more.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111711.html
People have been assaulted, churches attacked and death threats been made. All this because the people of America voted against same-sex marriage and in favour of traditional marriage during various referendums held on the same day as the Presidential election.
If the homosexual movement had been on the receiving end of these attacks, do you think they would have received some coverage? Yeah, big time.
What ever happened to those arguments about "tolerance" and "inclusiveness"? The true hypocrisy is now evident. They don't care about tolerance, inclusiveness or free speech. They just want State-imposed legitimacy. They want to push their rights at the expense of yours and mine.
The following article will give you an example of the persecution that many Americans are currently suffering at the expense of the fascist homosexual movement. The article also contains links to other incidents, if you would like to read more.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111711.html
Bad day for the CHRC
Those poor folks at the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). Their kingdom is gradually collapsing around them. Do I feel sorry for them? Not a chance! :)
Some time ago, when the CHRC was besieged with criticism from all sides, it commissioned a review by University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon.
Professor Moon just released his review. Here is the juiciest portion of the report:
This is a tremendous victory. Professor Moon is essentially saying that the CHRC has no business censoring public debate and acting like a free-speec police in a totalitarian country.
Significantly, both of Canada's national newspapers published articles on their cover page about this review. This means that the mainstream media has not forgotten about the abuses of the CHRC, even though the organization has been keeping a low profile lately.
Is anybody in Harper's government paying attention? This is a no-brainer with little political cost.
Read more:
National Post: Ottawa urged to scrap hate speech law
Globe and Mail: Let police investigate hate speech, report says
SoCon or Bust: Victory for the blogosphere against the CHRC
Some time ago, when the CHRC was besieged with criticism from all sides, it commissioned a review by University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon.
Professor Moon just released his review. Here is the juiciest portion of the report:
"The principal recommendation of this report is that Section 13 [of the
Canadian Human Rights Act] be repealed so that censorship of Internet hate
speech is dealt with exclusively by the criminal law.""The use of censorship by the government should be confined to a narrow category of extreme expression -- that which threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group."
This is a tremendous victory. Professor Moon is essentially saying that the CHRC has no business censoring public debate and acting like a free-speec police in a totalitarian country.
Significantly, both of Canada's national newspapers published articles on their cover page about this review. This means that the mainstream media has not forgotten about the abuses of the CHRC, even though the organization has been keeping a low profile lately.
Is anybody in Harper's government paying attention? This is a no-brainer with little political cost.
Read more:
National Post: Ottawa urged to scrap hate speech law
Globe and Mail: Let police investigate hate speech, report says
SoCon or Bust: Victory for the blogosphere against the CHRC
Student associations are crazy: Part 2-- White men can't be helped at Carleton
The Carleton University Students Association (CUSA) just decided that they will stop fundraising for the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. What do you think prompted such action? You'll never guess. Never.
CUSA executives decided that cystic fibrosis was a disease that only affected white men. As a result, any fundraising for this cause wouldn't be "diverse" enough. How silly is that?
Leaving aside the false assumption about cystic fibrosis being concentrated in white men, why on earth would you choose a charitable cause based on gender or skin colour?
Should we stop funding breast cancer research because it only affects women? Or perhaps ban prostate cancer research because it only concerns men? Or what about funding to stop malaria, because it only benefits Africans?
This is so ridiculous. And so politically correct. As if we had to be ashamed of being white. No race or gender should be singled out in this fashion.
Here's another angle: Do you think they would have ever banned fundraising for AIDS because a disproportionate number of victims are living a homosexual lifestyle? Not a chance. That wouldn't be politically correct.
One good thing will come out of this: since the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation supports embryonic stem cell research (which destroys human embryos), the decline in funding should save little babies from being used as lab rats. I would never donate to an organization funding such unethical research.
Read CTV's coverage: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081125/carleton_fundraiser_081125/20081125?hub=TopStories
CUSA executives decided that cystic fibrosis was a disease that only affected white men. As a result, any fundraising for this cause wouldn't be "diverse" enough. How silly is that?
Leaving aside the false assumption about cystic fibrosis being concentrated in white men, why on earth would you choose a charitable cause based on gender or skin colour?
Should we stop funding breast cancer research because it only affects women? Or perhaps ban prostate cancer research because it only concerns men? Or what about funding to stop malaria, because it only benefits Africans?
This is so ridiculous. And so politically correct. As if we had to be ashamed of being white. No race or gender should be singled out in this fashion.
Here's another angle: Do you think they would have ever banned fundraising for AIDS because a disproportionate number of victims are living a homosexual lifestyle? Not a chance. That wouldn't be politically correct.
One good thing will come out of this: since the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation supports embryonic stem cell research (which destroys human embryos), the decline in funding should save little babies from being used as lab rats. I would never donate to an organization funding such unethical research.
Read CTV's coverage: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081125/carleton_fundraiser_081125/20081125?hub=TopStories
Student associations are crazy: Part 1-- Vigilantes at Queen's
Having studied for 5 years at university, I had a chance to see first hand how awful student associations can be.
These associations were founded with noble goals of protecting student interests. Unfortunately, they have now become political organizations. It makes me want to spit.
It's all the more troublesome when you see how immature these students are. They know so little about life and are ill positioned to be taking stands on political issues. I'll admit that I was immature as an 18 year old. But I wouldn't try to give an interview to the CBC on some important issue of the day.
Today, I'd like to talk about the vigilante system being implemented at Queen's University, one of the most prestigious institutions in Canada.
The vigilantes are officially called "dialogue facilitators". Their purpose is to roam around the campus, listen in on conversations among students and intervene if they hear something "offensive" that is not consistent with "diversity".
As we know, "diversity" is code for promoting social engineering, such as pushing the homosexual lifestyle, abortion, contraception, etc.
There you have it: the State, through a university, is infiltrating private conversations in order to push a particular ideology.
Be afraid.
Read more: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111907.html
These associations were founded with noble goals of protecting student interests. Unfortunately, they have now become political organizations. It makes me want to spit.
It's all the more troublesome when you see how immature these students are. They know so little about life and are ill positioned to be taking stands on political issues. I'll admit that I was immature as an 18 year old. But I wouldn't try to give an interview to the CBC on some important issue of the day.
Today, I'd like to talk about the vigilante system being implemented at Queen's University, one of the most prestigious institutions in Canada.
The vigilantes are officially called "dialogue facilitators". Their purpose is to roam around the campus, listen in on conversations among students and intervene if they hear something "offensive" that is not consistent with "diversity".
As we know, "diversity" is code for promoting social engineering, such as pushing the homosexual lifestyle, abortion, contraception, etc.
There you have it: the State, through a university, is infiltrating private conversations in order to push a particular ideology.
Be afraid.
Read more: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111907.html
Sunday, November 23, 2008
eHarmony forced to cater to couples living homosexual lifestyle
The popular dating website called eHarmony (which was founded by Christians) has reached a settlement with homosexual activists who were demanding that the dating service accommodate individuals with same-sex attractions. Currently, clients of the service can only be matched with people of the opposite sex. eHarmony has essentially caved-in to the pressure from the homosexual activists.
I am disappointed. eHarmony says that the legal battle was becoming a financial burden on the company. However, a true Christian would not give in to bullying. A true Christian must hold his/her ground, even if it means being put to death.
Moreover, eHarmony fails to see the bigger picture. They need to realize that unless they fight this aggressive intolerance towards Christian beliefs, Christian freedoms will continue to be scaled back.
Read more here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112104.html
Poll: Majority of Canadians support limits on abortion
Interesting article.
This is nothing new. For many years, polls have shown that a majority of Canadians support limits on abortion. Read here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112102.html
Why won't any politician have the guts to implement the wishes of the people?
This is nothing new. For many years, polls have shown that a majority of Canadians support limits on abortion. Read here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112102.html
Why won't any politician have the guts to implement the wishes of the people?
Continued corruption at "Human Rights" Commissions
"Human Rights Commissions" in Canada have again showed their bias and cowardice, as well as proving that their agenda is 100% political.
Ezra Levant, a prominent critic of Human Rights Commissions in Canada, has been acquitted by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). And he's ticked off about it.
Mr. Levant recently published on his blog a letter written by Alberta pastor Steve Boissoin. The letter expressed Pastor Boissoin's strong conviction that homosexual behaviour was morally unacceptable. Following a complaint to the AHRC, the pastor was found guilty of hate speech in late 2007. In addition to having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyer's fees, the pastor was consequently fined $7000, ordered to apologize to the complainant in the case , and ordered to never again publicly speak about his views on homosexuality.
This is Official State censorship of free speech.
Mr. Levant is a smart guy. He is also a tenacious activist. In order to prove the bias of Canada's various human rights commissions, he published the same letter on his blog.
Not surprisingly, a homosexual activist filed a complaint against Mr. Levant before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This is exactly what Mr. Levant wanted.
Not surprisingly, the Commission dismissed the case and let Mr. Levant off the hook.
This would normall leave most rational people scratching their heads. But those of us who have followed the disgusting behaviour of these commissions are not surprised.
So why did this letter earn a hate crimes conviction to Pastor Boissoin but not to Mr. Levant? The official ruling stated: "The Commission is of the view that the Respondent is posting this article with the goal of furthering a public debate on freedom of expression."
This is false, of course. On his blog, Mr. Levant once again republished Rev. Boissoin's letter, making clear that in doing so he has no intention of furthering any public debate, but rather that he is doing so "as a personal insult to (Canadian Human Rights Commission Chief Commissioner) Jennifer Lynch."
The real reason he was acquitted is this: Mr. Levant is a well-funded, well-publicised and well-supported activist. Had he been convicted, he would have raised quite a stink. Mr. Levant's previous encounters with human rights commissions earned him much well deserved press coverage and earned the human rights commissions some well-deserved scorn from the main-stream media. They could ill afford to be humiliated again. So they preferred to let Mr. Levant off the hook.
This confirms that the human rights commissions are not operating based on objective principles. They are political organizations that are pushing a left-wing, anti-family agenda. They are also cowards that won't stand up for anything.
As Mr. Levant points out, "In the entire history of section 13, stretching back to 1977, not one single Jew, Muslim or gay has been taken before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the CHRC... It's legal for a Jew like me to publish [Boissoin's letter]. It's illegal for a Christian like Rev. Boissoin to publish it. That's sick."
Read more here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112108.html
And be scared for your freedoms.
.
.
Ezra Levant, a prominent critic of Human Rights Commissions in Canada, has been acquitted by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). And he's ticked off about it.
Mr. Levant recently published on his blog a letter written by Alberta pastor Steve Boissoin. The letter expressed Pastor Boissoin's strong conviction that homosexual behaviour was morally unacceptable. Following a complaint to the AHRC, the pastor was found guilty of hate speech in late 2007. In addition to having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyer's fees, the pastor was consequently fined $7000, ordered to apologize to the complainant in the case , and ordered to never again publicly speak about his views on homosexuality.
This is Official State censorship of free speech.
Mr. Levant is a smart guy. He is also a tenacious activist. In order to prove the bias of Canada's various human rights commissions, he published the same letter on his blog.
Not surprisingly, a homosexual activist filed a complaint against Mr. Levant before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This is exactly what Mr. Levant wanted.
Not surprisingly, the Commission dismissed the case and let Mr. Levant off the hook.
This would normall leave most rational people scratching their heads. But those of us who have followed the disgusting behaviour of these commissions are not surprised.
So why did this letter earn a hate crimes conviction to Pastor Boissoin but not to Mr. Levant? The official ruling stated: "The Commission is of the view that the Respondent is posting this article with the goal of furthering a public debate on freedom of expression."
This is false, of course. On his blog, Mr. Levant once again republished Rev. Boissoin's letter, making clear that in doing so he has no intention of furthering any public debate, but rather that he is doing so "as a personal insult to (Canadian Human Rights Commission Chief Commissioner) Jennifer Lynch."
The real reason he was acquitted is this: Mr. Levant is a well-funded, well-publicised and well-supported activist. Had he been convicted, he would have raised quite a stink. Mr. Levant's previous encounters with human rights commissions earned him much well deserved press coverage and earned the human rights commissions some well-deserved scorn from the main-stream media. They could ill afford to be humiliated again. So they preferred to let Mr. Levant off the hook.
This confirms that the human rights commissions are not operating based on objective principles. They are political organizations that are pushing a left-wing, anti-family agenda. They are also cowards that won't stand up for anything.
As Mr. Levant points out, "In the entire history of section 13, stretching back to 1977, not one single Jew, Muslim or gay has been taken before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the CHRC... It's legal for a Jew like me to publish [Boissoin's letter]. It's illegal for a Christian like Rev. Boissoin to publish it. That's sick."
Read more here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112108.html
And be scared for your freedoms.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)