CLC Blog

CLC Blog

Why I was not wrong in my criticism of Scheer’s pro-LGBT rhetoric

Last week I posted a blog in which I pointed out that Andrew Scheer gave a problematic speech in which he used loaded, pro-LGBT propaganda terms lifted straight out of the lexicon of the “gay rights” lobby.

I wrote it to warn that by using such language, Andrew is backsliding on his Catholic faith, and distancing himself from the pro-family base of his party. Many in that social conservative base believe in traditional marriage and adhere to a biblical view of sexuality.

The blog also raised concerns about a section of Scheer’s speech which I felt was dangerously ambiguous:

‘‘ I find the notion that one's race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation would make anyone in any way superior or inferior to anyone else absolutely repugnant. And if there's anyone who disagrees with that, there's the door. You are not welcome here.” (emphasis added)

I argued the comment could be interpreted (or twisted) by progressives as suggesting that people who believe in traditional marriage, or who oppose transgender ideology, are treating those who identify as LGBT as being “inferior”. And as a consequence, they should be shown “the door” by the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). 

I warned that this politically-correct shout out by Scheer could be used by establishment red Tories to justify driving so-cons out of the party, and to insult the party’s grassroots base by openly celebrating the LGBTTIQ2S+ agenda, for example, by encouraging more Conservatives to march in the homosexual pride parade.

A few people responded angrily to the blog, accusing me of “smearing” Andrew without any basis, of being “unfair” to him, and of “misinterpreting” his comments.

But the thing they were most upset about by far, was my observation that the above quote could be interpreted as Andrew suggesting that pro-traditional marriage Canadians who disagree with the LGBT lifestyle, are not welcome in the Conservative Party. It’s a “ludicrous” fear, they told me.

They argued strenuously that the fact there are lots of pro-life MPs in the Conservative caucus, and candidates too, proves that Andrew would never discriminate against, much less cast out, so-cons of any type from the party. And therefore, my blog was “inaccurate” and my fears “overstated”.

I don’t blame these well-meaning pro-lifers. However, they don’t have the full story. There’s more they don’t know about how the Andrew Scheer Conservative Party has treated pro-traditional marriage candidates.

I’m going to share some of those details now, to reinforce my concerns about the direction of Andrew’s politically-correct, pro-LGBT rhetoric. 

Under Scheer, the CPC is banning pro-traditional marriage Canadians from running as candidates

It has become painfully clear that under the Leadership of Andrew Scheer, people who believe in traditional marriage and dare to publicly express their biblical beliefs, no matter how sensitively, are no longer permitted to run as candidates in the Conservative Party.

Scheer himself criticized Justin Trudeau for discriminating against pro-life Canadians over Trudeau’s policy of banning them from running as Liberal candidates. And yet, Scheer and his top people did much the same thing in the nomination for the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, in the case of nomination candidate Dr. Ann Gillies. Except it was not her strong pro-life beliefs that got her blocked. It was her pro-traditional marriage and pro-biblical sexuality beliefs that caused her application to be disqualified. This was just as discriminatory as Justin Trudeau’s ban on pro-life candidates.

About the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound disqualification

CLC had been supporting a Christian psychotherapist named Dr. Ann Gillies for the Conservative nomination in this riding, to replace the retiring pro-life MP, Larry Miller. She sold hundreds of memberships before being disqualified quite late in the process. CLC also recruited a considerable number of memberships to support her. We’re quite sure she would have won, and the party knew that.

The specific reason why Dr. Gillies was disqualified was because she publicly professed her biblical belief in traditional marriage and that there are only two sexes, male and female, in opposition to the unscientific theory of “Gender Identity”.

The evidence presented against Dr. Gillies by Scheer’s people as justification for banning her was a YouTube video of a lecture she gave to a church group in which she discussed the phenomenon of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, and criticized school curriculum for pushing gender identity theory and the LGBT agenda on children. 

She appealed that disqualification and the CPC’s National Council actually agreed with her, reinstating her nomination candidacy.

However, Scheer’s people were determined that she not be allowed to run as a candidate, for fear of attacks by the liberal media. So, mere days later, they disqualified her again. This time, the evidence presented against her was pages from a 2017 book she wrote called Closing the Floodgates. This book exposed the biased, unscientific, and corrupt methods used to promote the sexual revolution of the last sixty years. It detailed the harm this revolution has caused to society. Homosexuality and transgenderism were obviously significant themes explored in the book.

Very little of what Dr. Gillies wrote about homosexuality and the phenomenon of transgenderism are actually her own words. Mostly, she cited scientific, peer-reviewed research which irrefutably demonstrates the dramatically higher health risks associated with the homosexual and transgender lifestyles, whether medical or psychological.  

There was nothing in the book that was untrue, lacking in compassion, or hateful. It’s all evidence-based, truthful material, totally in-line with biblical teaching, and no reason whatsoever for banning her as a candidate. (By the way, please order your own copy from our online store.)

Scheer’s people presented the typical, fear-mongering canard that if they allowed Dr. Gillies to seek the nomination, and if she went on to become the candidate, it would cause the party to lose the election once liberal media outlets like the CBC and Toronto Star went after her with a smear campaign.

Dr. Gillies appealed the second disqualification to the CPC’s National Council but this time, the Councilors rejected her appeal.

Affront to democracy

Banning Canadians from political participation due to their religious beliefs is not acceptable for any reason … even if Scheer’s henchmen were correct about electoral damage, which they are not. The late Rob Ford won his mayoral campaign in “progressive” Toronto, sticking to his belief in traditional marriage, and refusing to march in the gay pride parade, despite the attacks that leftists threw at him over his public support of marriage.

It is not yet illegal in Canada to express biblical beliefs about marriage and human sexuality.  Should it be illegal in the Conservative Party? What happened to free speech?

Dr. Gillies’ beliefs are mainstream in her rural riding and in many parts of Canada, including with important swing voter blocs in some urban areas where, if anything, her beliefs would increase the CPC’s chances of defeating the Liberals.  The social conservative bona fides she’d bring to the party would help the various ethnic and new immigrant groups to stop supporting Liberals at the federal level, and to vote their values instead, which, morally-speaking, are better aligned with the CPC.

The disqualification of Dr. Gillies is an affront to democracy and to true conservatism of which free speech and support for natural marriage and the family are pillars.

Lest the party henchmen begin whispering that this was an “isolated incident” and that pro-lifers and socons “need not worry”, please don’t believe it.

Another nomination candidate rejected because of publicly-expressed biblical beliefs

Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson from BC is another example of the party under Scheer discriminating against those who adhere to a biblical view of human sexuality and who dare to express their beliefs in a public manner.

Laura-Lynn was a television broadcaster who had her own national show on a Christian network. There, she often spoke out against the indoctrination of BC school children with homosexual propaganda and transgender ideology.  She had twice applied to run as a Conservative Party candidate in two British Columbia ridings, but they rejected her application.

It’s beyond doubt that the Party rejected her because she was such an outspoken critic of LGBT ideology and had the audacity to express her biblical beliefs publicly.  The party gave a technical excuse for not accepting her applications, but the problem was really her Christian beliefs on sexuality… and that she dared to speak them out loud. The horror!

As a result of the rejection, Laura-Lynn joined Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada where she ran in the recent Burnaby South by-election and got an impressive 11% of the vote. (Incidentally, the CPC ran a pro-abortion candidate, who lost to the NDP Leader, Jagmeet Singh.)

Private vs. public

Scheer apologists will likely react to what I’ve revealed here by trying to muddy the waters. They’ll claim the blog is inaccurate due to the fact that CPC candidates are allowed to believe in traditional marriage and are not required to believe in gender identity theory. Well, that much is true. The party will tolerate privately held beliefs that you hold in secret, I agree.  But my argument is not that nomination candidates cannot hold these biblical beliefs privately. It’s that you are not permitted to express them publicly. If as a nomination candidate you express these beliefs too publicly, or oppose the LGBTTIQ2S+ agenda too vocally, you will not be allowed to become a CPC candidate.

An ongoing problem

The unethical practice of disqualifying social conservatives from running as candidates has been a longtime problem in the Conservative Party.  A spectacular example occurred in the 2015 federal election, under Stephen Harper, when the party establishment fired CPC candidate Jagdish Grewal in the middle of the election. He was the only candidate who looked poised to win a Conservative seat anywhere in the Greater Toronto Area.

The party fired him following a deceitful, hate-filled, smear campaign by the leftwing media. In 2015 reporters discovered an article he wrote in a Punjabi-language newspaper which he owned. It was critical of Kathleen Wynne’s government for banning counselling and psychotherapy for people who want help for unwanted same-sex attraction or sexual identity confusion. 

Grewal said nothing wrong. His position was reasonable and sensible. If a person wants counselling to help overcome unwanted same-sex attraction, why should the government take away their choice?  If parents want to help their child overcome sexual confusion, why should their rights be taken away? Even though Grewal wrote nothing illegal or hateful, Harper kicked him to the curb.

Although we acknowledge this has happened before in the CPC and isn’t new, the discrimination against people who adhere to biblical beliefs on human sexuality seems to be intensifying under Andrew Scheer.  This liberal censorship inside the Conservative Party has to stop.

Belief in traditional marriage and the natural family is a conservative value.  Respect for and tolerance of religious faith is a conservative value. Belief in objective truth and reason is a conservative value. That includes the truth that our bodies and our DNA reveal whether we are boys or girls, not our interior subjective feelings.

Turn a blind eye?

Yes, it is true that Justin Trudeau has transformed the Liberal Party into a hate group against Christians and other believers. Yes, it’s a fact that Trudeau himself is the enemy of the cross, leading the Liberals to constantly ratchet up their discrimination against people of faith.

However, just because Trudeau is much worse and we want him removed, does not mean we should remain silent as Scheer gradually transforms the Conservative Party into a place that is equally hostile to Christians who believe in marriage, treating them as so contemptible that they must be shut out of public office.

This concern was confirmed to me recently by a socially-conservative MP who commented: “If I were running for nomination for the first time today, I honestly don’t know if the party would accept me”.  That’s a sobering and frightening reflection from a pro-life, pro-family MP.

For those who found my first blog unfair to Andrew, I hope this second one puts my concerns in a more revealing light.  Even though there is more to the Andrew Scheer story that I could tell, this is once again a long post, so I’ll stop for the sake of brevity.  However, I’ll be monitoring comments and any new criticisms, and if necessary to clear up any lingering doubts, I’ll share more in a third installment.