By Jonathon Van Maren
As we approach a month of public, orgiastic celebration of weird sexual fetishes, Canadian institutions are competing to see who can grovel lowest and flag-wave the hardest. Politicians arrive to genuflect to their cultural overlords; corporations send expensive floats to the festivals of nudity and indecency organizers like to call parades; the LGBT flag is hoisted above schools, city halls, and businesses. My local grocery store already has giant “progress flags” pasted to the automatic sliding glass doors.
With all of that will come LGBT activists insisting that they are victims. Here is how their grift works:
- LGBT activists insist that everybody fly the LGBT flag to overtly announce support for their ideology.
- Some institutions decline to fly this flag for reasons ranging from religious to community unity.
- LGBT activists then characterize this refusal to pro-actively show support for their agenda as a “backlash.” Canadian media obediently characterizes it as such. LGBT activists are now “victims” of their targets’ refusal to participate in the narrative they themselves have created.
This strategy is so brazen that it only succeeds due to a potent combination of the cowardice of our politicians and the collaboration of our press.
Earlier this week, for example, the York Catholic District School Board voted 6-4 against flying the LGBT flag at the Catholic Education Centre during June. This, to normal people several minutes ago, would not be considered a story: “Breaking News: Catholics are Catholic.” But it made headlines at the state broadcaster, not least due to the fact that LGBT activists shouted at trustees after the vote and then promptly made veiled accusations of violence (the police have been called at three recent board meetings over this issue).
“This school board is unsafe for York Region’s LGBTQ2IA+ community and it is kept unsafe by a group of York Catholic Board Trustees who weaponize their faith against marginalized communities,” Tristan Coolman, president of the York Region chapter of Pflag announced in a statement on May 30. Reread that and remember that what Coolman is referring to here is the decision not to fly an ideological flag. That decision, Coolman claims without irony, makes York Region “unsafe.” It is Coolman and his rainbow mafia that are “weaponizing” their ideology – against a religious institution.
A similar scenario unfolded in Norwich, Ontario, where the town council voted to limit the flags flown on civic property to federal, provincial, or township flags. “Whether flown together or apart, these (government) flags are all we need to represent the diverse and multicultural citizenship in Norwich Township,” noted Councillor John Scholten. “By flying these flags alone on township property, we can coexist in peace and harmony no matter who we are or what we believe.” In response, Councillor Alisha Stubbs – who has now resigned over the council’s decision – stated: “It’s directly, specifically, and horrifyingly discrimination (and) it’s a clear violation of the Human Rights Code.”
Again, keep in mind here that what she’s referring to is a decision not to fly the flags of specific ideologies — but because the flag that represents her ideology is included in that ban, she claims that human rights have been violated. I was not aware that there was a human right to have various levels of government fly flags representing your worldview, but you live and learn. The sense of entitlement displayed by Stubbs and her fellow activists who spoke at the council meeting was breathtaking and palpable, and their message was clear: it is our right to have a flag representing our specific political views fly on main street and everywhere else, and you are dangerous, unsafe bigots if you refuse.
Tami Murray, the president of Oxford County Pride Committee, took it further: “I think our safety is at risk in Norwich, Ont., and I think that was demonstrated last evening, not just by banning pride flags, but they also did not endorse the Diversity Equity and Inclusion committee, and they also refused to proclaim Pride Month. All of the above is very concerning in terms of their understanding of oppression and marginalization.” The committee, unsurprisingly, is filing a human rights complaint.
You see how this works? LGBT activists demand overt support for their agenda. If that support is not immediately forthcoming, they accuse those who disagree with them (or are simply disinterested in wading into a culture war by waving a flag of one sort or another) of making communities “unsafe,” with the implication being that people will literally die if we all do not loudly affirm their beliefs. The press, for their part, promptly publishes reports like this CBC column from earlier this month: “As Pride flags are once again targeted, 2SLGBTQ advocates say it’s as important as ever to fly them.”
What a surprise. I’d come to the opposite conclusion: as LGBT flags are increasingly shoved in all of our faces, it is important to create public spaces that are neutral and welcome to everyone, rather than flying the banner of a conquering, intolerant movement.