Emma Teitel is a gay woman married to a woman and also a journalist with The Toronto Star. On July 15 The Hamilton Spectator published an opinion piece by her entitled: Poilievre plays politics with bigotry. Pierre Poilievre is the head of Canada’s Federal Conservative Party and his heinous offense was to have had his picture taken at The Calgary Stampede with a loathsome individual who is clearly homophobic. But what is Emma’s evidence of his alleged bigotry?
The individual in question was wearing a T-shirt declaring his “Straight Pride.” It was further inscribed with the message “thank a straight person today for your existence.” The latter, it seems to me, is hardly controversial inasmuch as the perpetuation of the species obviously depends on heterosexual coupling. Is it hateful to point out the simple facts of human biology? Moreover is it not understandable that some, given the constant barrage of LGBTQ rhetoric to which we are presently being submitted, might be moved to point out that, hey, there’s nothing wrong with being straight? Indeed might not those women presently being denied a fair chance to excel in their sport of choice due to the presence of trans women, argue that some aspects of the non-binary political agenda are themselves truly hateful?
I have no idea if the individual with whom Poilievre shook hands is a homophobe or not. But his T-shirt was hardly grounds to conclude that he was. Poilievre, when informed later of his supposed misdeed, said he hadn’t noticed the message on the man’s shirt inasmuch as he was surrounded by hordes seeking to shake his hand. Yet even if he had, Teitel’s suggestion that he was playing “politics with bigotry” seems an outrageous exaggeration, one typical of the Left’s insistence on denouncing any point of view other than its as an expression of hatred.
Teitel’s other piece of evidence that Poilievre is an ugly, far-right extremist, is the fact that he failed to punish several Conservative MPs seen dining with Germany’s Christine Anderson earlier this year. While I do not pretend to be fully familiar with her politics, the Left appears to loathe her because she questions its all-inclusive immigration policies, this, apparently, because she is Islamophobic. Anderson, you see, is appalled that the European Union has allowed millions of Muslims into its domain, which as of now still includes Germany, whose cultural values are utterly at odds with those of her homeland. It was of course its desire to regain control of its borders that led England to leave the union. Certainly there are millions of enlightened Muslims who are rebelling against the ignorant, medieval intolerance evident in many Islamic regimes today. But there are also millions who continue to support policies which brazenly persecute Women, Homosexuals and indeed anyone who dares convert to Christianity. This is not Islamophobia, but simple, indisputable fact which would seem to make it mandatory for Western governments to closely monitor the personal beliefs and histories of those seeking refuge within their borders.
Tayyip Erdogan was just re-elected in Turkey. An Islamic traditionalist who predictably despises the gay community, he has implored Muslims to flood Europe so as to ultimately Islamize the entire continent. Is Christine Anderson right to question the European Union’s slack immigration policies or is she a bigoted jerk? Ought Poilievre to rebuke those Conservatives who dared share a meal with her, or is Teitel’s attempt to blacken his name a matter of sheer political bias?
The article we have been discussing is a perfect example of the absurdity of the contemporary Leftist world-view. Emma Teitel excoriates an individual wearing a tee-shirt which suggests he might be homophobic, even as she denounces Christine Anderson for seeking to defend Europe from the influx of millions whose religion has traditionally been aggressively homophobic. I can of course hear the objections, even as I write, from those on the Left who would point out that the history of Western Civilization has hardly been flawless. But what Socrates called the Dialectical process has relentlessly led us forward. The Left’s loathing for the so-called Western Patriarchy, for example, is grossly simplistic if not downright stupid. Ancient Greece produced texts celebrating the equality of Women, while various English literary artists, including Chaucer, who wrote in the 14th C., challenged the absurd notion that they are in any way inferior to Men. Yes, the West produced abominations such as the Inquisition, but that was 1000 years ago, while contemporary Islam in many regimes continues to support truly Medieval absurdities. Did you know that the Women of Saudi Arabia were only granted the right to drive a car in 2018? So criticism of contemporary Islam is perfectly rational and in no way an indication of bigotry or hatred. The complex truth which the simple-minded Left cannot seem to digest, is that one can have enlightened Muslim friends even as one loathes the many ignorant, intolerant biases to which many in their religion still cling.
The point of this blog, then, is simply that Teitel’s article says far more about her rabid biases than anything reprehensible about Pierre Poilievre.