This is a letter from Chris McDougall (our keyboardist & songwriter) to Canada,
Hi,My name is Chris McDougall. I am a 30 year old,well-educated, well-informed working class citizen from Regina, Saskatchewan and I am voicing my concerns for the destination of this great nation of Canada. I urge you to read my email in its completion before judging it, and I urge you not to delete this email the moment you read something controversial. If you have feelings and opinions about my email after you finish reading it; please feel free to email me at. My goal is not to antagonize, but it is to speak up about things that are happening in Canada that I do not think a lot of people are aware of. You are free to delete this without reading it. If you do that, however, please don’t present yourself as someone who is trying to hear all sides of the story. This email will take a few minutes out of your life and is worth reading. As you likely already know, Canada officially changed its definition of marriage last spring to include same-sex couples. The public was assured this would only impact legal marriages and that religious freedoms would be protected. The official amendment made to bill C-38 to ensure this was that members of clergy would not be forced to perform same-sex marriages. Is this protecting freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?Here are a few of many things that have happened in Canada recently (if you think the stories I am about to list are made up or exaggerated to cause fear, I urge you not to take my word for it. Google-it, do some research, and find out for yourself):In Port Co’Quitlam, BC last year, a Catholic rental hall was rented for the purpose of holding a lesbian wedding reception. Initially, the owners of the hall did not realize what the hall was being rented for. When they did find out, they advised the couple that the reception could not be held there, apologized for the misunderstanding, refunded their money, and found them another rental hall.This organization was taken to court and was ordered to pay the couple $2,000 for discrimination. This was appealed and was up-held. I am going to suggest here that choosing a rental hall owned by the Knight of Columbus for a same-sexwedding reception when there are plenty of options available is not an exercising of ones freedom, but a deliberate attempt to undermine someone else’s belief system. I don’t know that for certain, but I am suspicious. In Ontario, a print shop owner named Scott Brockie rejected a request from the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. He stated that printing the material they requested would go against his Christian beliefs. He was fined $5,000 by his province’s human rights commission. He appealed this fine and his conviction was upheld. He could have appealed once more, but he had run out of money after spending $100,000 in legal fees. Furthmore, the other side appealed and he was ordered to cover their legal fees of about $40,000.Chris Kempling, a teacher in BC, wrote a letter to the editor of his newspaper expressing concerns about changing Canada’s definition of marriage. He was suspended for one month. He has continued to remain vocal about his concerns and was recently invited to go to Ottawa to voice his concerns. When he went to Ottawa (by invite) to speak further on the issue of same-sex marriage, he was suspended for 3 months more. In addition to these examples, a number of marriage commissioners (not religious leaders) are before the courts across Canada to defend their individual religious freedoms. They have been taken to court for choosing not to perform same-sex marriages in accordance with their own religious beliefs and their own conscience. One case is in the works in my hometown of Regina right now. I don’t know too much about it, but I am hoping it gets some media attention as alot of these cases don’t seem to be getting a lot of media attention. Ironically, a marriage commissioner is still free to refuse to marry a hetero-sexual couple if he/she has any moral concerns or any concerns at all surrounding that marriage. One of many key arguments opposing changing the definition of marriage was that it would open the door to the legalization of polygamy. If you are concerned at all about women’s rights, you should be concerned about the legalization of polygamy. MPs who voiced this concern were mocked for linking this to polygamy and were told that it would never happen. Well, earlier this week, the Federal Justice Department released a study recommending the decriminalization of polygamy. One argument made was that we don’t criminalize adultery, so why would we criminalize polygamy. I respectfully disagree and believe arguments like that hold no water atall. If that is an argument at all, it is an argument to make adultery illegal, not to make polygamy legal. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that we make adultery illegal. I am saying that making the argument“because we already endorse one bad behaviour, we may as well endorse another bad behaviour, too” is inherently flawed and I don’t think I need to explain why. As most of you know, the Supreme Court recently ruled to allow swingers clubs in Canada. In order to do this, they were required to nullify the validity of community standards. What this effectively does is take away the rights of communities to set moral boundaries as long as they can not demonstrate immediate harm. If I understand correctly, this means that if you want to go to an Amish Community and open up a swinger’s club, you are free to do so. If they wish to take a stand and try to have you shutdown, you could probably take them to court and win. Obviously, this is an unrealistic exaggeration, but I hope it makes a point. Completely throwing out the validity of community standards has dangerous implications to our freedoms.I would not expect anyone is going to go to an Amish Community to open up a swinger’s club, but then again, I would not expect anyone holding a same-sex wedding reception to choose a Catholic rental hall when there are so many other options available. I realize the church has significantly hurt the gay and lesbian community and that amendments need to be made, but I do not believe that means we owe it to anyone to compromise our moral standards or religious beliefs and go against what the bible says. Furthermore, I do not think that having a moral objection to someone’s lifestyle is comparable to discriminating against that individual.I will give an example to illustrate why. Probably a lot ofyou know the story of Andrew Shepherd. Andrew was brutally beaten to death for no other reason than the fact that he was a homosexual. This act of violence was disgusting and when I heard about it, I was incredibly upset. Perhaps you are reading this and don’t completely believe me. Maybe you think that people with views like mine are the reason these horrific acts of violence happen.Well, let me make a comparison. Take prostitution, forinstance. My opinion of prostitution is that it is physically unhealthy, it is emotionally damaging, and that it is (dare I say it) morally wrong. Tonight, I am going to be going out into Regina’s rougher neighbourhoods with an organization called Love Lives Here.We will be talking to people that are out on the streets,giving them coffee and sandwiches, and what-not. The bulk of who we will be talking to are girls that are prostituting themselves. I will even be doing “wacko” religious things like pray for them and tell them Jesus loves them. The goal of Love Lives Here? To play a role in helping these girls get off of the streets.Why would I do something like this? Because I believe Jesus loves the people on the street and that he would help them. Do I agree with the behaviour? No! Do I feel sympathy?Absolutely! They are there for reasons including drug addiction, desperate financial situations, violent coercion,and simply because they don’t think they have any other options. I believe we should try to help.About 10 years ago, in Regina, a woman who was working the streets was picked up by two young men. They drove her to the outskirts of town and beat her to death for their ownpersonal amusement.When I heard about this, I was really upset about it, alongwith everyone else. This was a disturbing incident. What was even more disturbing is that before the jury went intodeliberation, the judge advised them to keep in mind that the victim was a prostitute. The result was that these men were charged with manslaughter.For obvious reasons, I was outraged when I heard. The idea that this woman being a prostitute in any way minimizes this act of violence against her is ridiculous. And if someone was to put me in the same category as these two men because I morally object to prostitution, I would be royally offended.Likewise, putting me in the same category as people who commit acts of violence against homosexuals or calling me a hate-monger or a homophobic because I disagree with the lifestyle does in fact, offend me. I don’t think I need to explain why.My views are not extreme religious views. They are not unique to Protestants and Catholics. They are not even unique to people of faith. For those who think that science has proven homosexuality is natural, I recommend you do some authentic research of your own. There is much more evidence supporting that most homosexuals were people who were once sexually abused than there is supporting the correlation between chromosomes and sexual orientation. Most of the latter research was discredited in the early 90s after being around just long enough to influence pop-culture. Don’t take my word for it. Do some research. Anyways, the primary purpose of my email is to make people aware of some of the recent incidents in Canada right now.I do not believe that recent changes to our Constitution are in fact protecting our rights and freedoms. I believe the opposite is true, and I have some major concerns. Foreign Affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew recently said (in so many words) that in regards to moral issues, opinions of people of faith should not be regarded as they are biased.I strongly disagree. People of various faiths make up the majority of Canada and their opinions are valid and they count. I urge you do some research on statements that Pierre Pettigrew has made and the situations surrounding them, because his comments have scary implications if you are anything but an agnostic or an atheist. And a belief that there is no God is equally biased to a belief that there is a God, and either belief will shape your worldview and your opinion of right and wrong.That’s pretty much all I have to say. If you wish to respond, my email is at the top. If you wish to delete my email, then so be it.If you have received this email and think it is worth passing along, please do not be afraid to do so. Right now is the time to speak up in Canada. I have my freedom thanks to ancestors and relatives who stood up for what was right and defended Canada. I am not prepared to tell my future children and grandchildren that I saw my nation going down the tubes and did nothing because I was scared of offending people, being taken out of context, being falsely accused, or even facing legal action.I seriously urge people to keep informed (and try wherever possible to research all sides of an issue), go and vote,write letters to your newspaper editors, write letters to your MPs, and don’t be afraid to be heard. And for those of you who believe in prayer, pray.My name is Chris, and I am Canadian,God bless.
