candidate removed for anti gay position

[Rue]

Well great. I just found out the candidate running for the Tories wrote an article stating all kinds of ridiculous things about gay people and making them normal again. Oh swell.

Political correctness. Let's get it out in the open. All 3 of my candidates, Tory, NDP, Liberal are Sieks. Its the way it works. They show up at all 3 party nominations and make sure all 3 candidates are Siek. Its tribal politics. No one dares say it but that is what it is. The riding also has Muslims, Christians, Christians, hey 1 Jew me, and all kinds of ethnic groups but the Siek community is very politically involved and they know how to play the game and flood and control the candidate elction process.

So when an esteemed member of their community runs, hey all 3 parties cow tow to the ethnic politics. This candidate now removed used to sit right behind Harper with his Blue turban for all to see. Its great visually-look at us we hav a visible minority.

Daliwal Bains was once the MP then this Jag Grewal. Neither comes to the door. Neither does the NDP. Instead what I get is a phone call once, from a LIberal worker whose accent I barely understood. Bains once years ago did come door to door, but when I opened the door, I could not understand a word. Not a word.

Is it mean spirited to say that? Its a fact. I do not give a hoot who you are, I will vote for you but if you can't speak English, is that too much to ask. The Tory candidate provincially who lost was Siek and he was a good man. No problem. I could care less. He was the best man for the job but he happened to be Siek. The woman who want was a Siek and the NDP candidate was a Siek. Both were idiots. Their being Siek truthfully was not the issue, there politics were although I do get this tribal politics. Its reality. Well organixed ethnic communities will dominate all candidate processes. I get that. Its legal. Its life. I am a minority I get it. There are two ridings heavily Jewish-do people wonder if the candidates elected are voted in only because they are Jewish? I get hat. Me I do vote based on your ethnicity-I vote based on your positions. Had I known this idiot running for the Tories was anti gay I would have confronted his hatred. I did not know. I do not read the crap he wrote in his Punjabi newspaper.

Now I wanted to vote Harper. I wanted to support him and I can not. Two weeks before election time, no time to replace this idiot. Once again I ask, what gives with the selection process. Well I will tell you. The same b.s. political correctness that demands we bend over back words to ethnic minorities and accommodate them brings in candidates such as this one who was going door to door getting Muslim and Siek votes bitching about gays and sex education in the class room which is not even a federal issue but believe me in the Muslim and Siek communities is on the minds of people in those communities who precisely because of their cultural and religious believes-the ones we welcome to Canada unreservedly also engage in nothing but bilge hatred of gays.

I am sick of it. I am sick of pandering to ethnic communities who bring their ignorance to Canada and demand it be imposed mainstream and now waste my vote.

I see Sieks and Muslims the vast majority in my riding pulling their kids from school because they don't want them being told a thing about sexuality or gays. So their children get pregnant and then they hide it and their gay children live conflicted closeted lives and I then have to put up with idiot Liberals telling me I am racist or intolerant of these people but if and when they become hateful of gays then I am supposed to call them out on that but not mention at all its directly related to the same values and religious beliefs we welcome to Canada?

This is a friggin joke. I can't even vote because of the insanity of accommodating idiots because if we don't its racist but if we do its homophobic.

In fact Harper may very well win this selection on the niqab hot button issue since I believe Canadians are so fed up with this madness they will vote for him over that one issue-and that probably leaves me with a Liberal mp who can't even speak English

and represents free spending and tribal politics.

Or I can vote for a man who wants to spend as much as the Liberals but claims he won't create a deficit. He now what a choice-aids or lung cancer. Thanks.

As I am writing this someone came by and took down my Tory sign.

Quick someone find me a gay siek candidate for the Tories.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Rue

[waldo]

Quick someone find me a gay siek candidate for the Tories.

please sir... your personal persuasion is none of our business!

[Argus]

I didn't hear what he said that was so bad other than suggesting differentiating between homosexuals and 'normal' people. I'm not sure the implied insult would be understood among immigrants to whom English is a foreign language. Unless there's more that was said they should have stuck it out and said as much, that he hadn't meant to offend.

[kimmy]

I've gotten pretty tired of all the candidates just dropping out. I do feel like, as you explain it, peoples' choices are being taken away for rather trivial reasons.

Someone posted a bad joke on their facebook page 6 years ago? BETTER RESIGN!

Somebody thought that 9/11 was an inside job? BETTER RESIGN!

I have no love for the 9/11 Truthies and think they're a bunch of utter morons. I probably wouldn't vote for one myself, even if I really wanted their party to win the election. But the fact is, some backbencher's views on 9/11 are about as irrelevant as it could get as far as election issues go. I think it has some probative value as a litmus test: is this person too dumb to hold public office? But depending on the situation, maybe you still want their party to win even if the candidate is a dumb-ass. I suspect that supporters of all parties have had to hold their noses and vote for candidates they didn't like from time to time, placing the party's national success higher on their list of priorities than the competence of their local backbench MP.

But the flurry of resignations this year has robbed people of the opportunity to make that decision for themselves. Personally, if it was just a question of the merits of the candidates I'd vote for the penis joke lady before I'd vote for gay conversion therapy guy.

-k

[cybercoma]

It's just another symptom of parties being more important than local representation.

[dialamah]

It's spelled Sikh. Sorry you lost your candidate, but I don't know why you'd support such an ignorant person, regardless of his ethnicity or political persuasion. Maybe your Green candidate speaks a language you can understand.

[waldo]

I didn't hear what he said that was so bad

notwithstanding a subjective ruling on 'bad'... 'fixing' gays isn't a particularly mainstream medical understanding

[ToadBrother]

I didn't hear what he said that was so bad other than suggesting differentiating between homosexuals and 'normal' people. I'm not sure the implied insult would be understood among immigrants to whom English is a foreign language. Unless there's more that was said they should have stuck it out and said as much, that he hadn't meant to offend.

He defended "conversion therapy", which is rejected by pretty much the entire psychiatric community.

At any rate, it was precisely the kind of gaff the Tories don't need, and haven't tolerated for a decade.

[cybercoma]

At least he didn't piss in someone's mug.

[ToadBrother]

At least he didn't piss in someone's mug.

Ah, this must go in the election category of "Thank God for small favors"

[scribblet]

PC gone amuk, surely people are allowed to have opinions so shouldn't the voters be the judge?

This is a new electoral district but the 2011 results applied to the new boundaries would have resulted in a Conservative win so this looks like a winnable riding has likely been handed to the Liberals.

I heard him on CFRB last night talking to Joe Warmington. According to the candidate the original was written a while ago in his native language but was interpreted incorrectly He says he is going to see a lawyer and might run as an independent. It would be interesting to get a full interpretation of what he said.

Either way, it seems activists from all sides are digging up dirt from a long time ago and apparently using programs to unearth caches and past content.

[waldo]

PC gone amuk, surely people are allowed to have opinions so shouldn't the voters be the judge?

judge? Judge a party, a Harper Conservative party, that would allow a candidate that expounds on the positive results of "removing the gay"?

He says he is going to see a lawyer and might run as an independent.

no - his name remains on the ballot (as it is too late to remove it)... remains associated with Harper Conservatives. Should he still win his only recourse would be to declare himself an independent.

[ToadBrother]

no - his name remains on the ballot (as it is too late to remove it)... remains associated with Harper Conservatives. Should he still win his only recourse would be to declare himself an independent.

I have a feeling that if this election ends up being as tight as it is, and if any of the candidates turfed after the deadline do win, they will eventually find their way back into their prospective caucuses.

[Argus]

It's spelled Sikh. Sorry you lost your candidate, but I don't know why you'd support such an ignorant person, regardless of his ethnicity or political persuasion. Maybe your Green candidate speaks a language you can understand.

Do you honestly think the other Sikh candidates feel all warm and fuzzy towards gays? The attitude of the Sikhs towards gays is similar to that of Muslims.

[waldo]

Do you honestly think the other Sikh candidates feel all warm and fuzzy towards gays? The attitude of the Sikhs towards gays is similar to that of Muslims.

please sir, that's called profiling... stereotyping - implying that all 2015 Sikh election candidates, from all political parties, align with this position of one Jagdish Grewal, who had been running for Harper Conservatives in the Mississauga-Malton riding.

.

[cybercoma]

please sir, that's called profiling... stereotyping - implying that all 2015 Sikh election candidates, from all political parties, align with this position of one Jagdish Grewal, who had been running for Harper Conservatives in the Mississauga-Malton riding.

Who knew Sikhs had so much in common with Christians like Michele Bachmann and Argus, eh?

What's that? Bachmann and Argus don't have the same beliefs? But aren't they both Christians?

Edited October 7, 2015 by cybercoma

[Argus]

please sir, that's called profiling... stereotyping - implying that all 2015 Sikh election candidates, from all political parties, align with this position of one Jagdish Grewal, who had been running for Harper Conservatives in the Mississauga-Malton riding.

.

No, it's knowing something about what the conservative, religious Indians believe with regard to homosexuals, and that any Sikh who is religious enough to be wearing a turban is clearly not going to think much of gays. Sikh are, in general, very conservative and religious people, and do not believe in sex outside of marriage (nor marriage except between a man and a woman).

Edited October 7, 2015 by Argus

[ReeferMadness]

No, it's knowing something about what the conservative, religious Indians believe with regard to homosexuals, and that any Sikh who is religious enough to be wearing a turban is clearly not going to think much of gays. Sikh are, in general, very conservative and religious people, and do not believe in sex outside of marriage (nor marriage except between a man and a woman).

And you know this.... how?

[Argus]

And you know this.... how?

I made it up.

[ReeferMadness]

I made it up.

Yup.

[Argus]

Yup.

The world's highest Sikh authority has admonished Sikh-Canadian MPs to block the gay marriage bill in Parliament, warning it is against Sikh code and "the laws of nature."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/world-sikh-group-against-gay-marriage-bill-1.536239

[dialamah]

Sikhism has no specific teachings about homosexuality. The holy scripture of Sikhs, Guru Granth Sahib Ji, does not explicitly mention homosexuality; however, married life is encouraged time and time again in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Whenever marriage is mentioned, it is always in reference to a man and a woman.

Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the complete guide to life and salvation. Some Sikhs believe that if a marriage between two of the same sexes is not mentioned, it is therefore not right. The counterargument is that, marriage is mentioned as a spiritual unity and since the soul does not have a gender, homosexuality should be permitted. The counterargument again arises that spiritual unity in marriage is only mentioned between a man and a woman. Since sexuality with the same gender is not directly mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Sikhism’s stand on homosexuality is derived from other beliefs such as marriage and sex.

Since marriage is only mentioned as a spiritual relationship between a man and a woman in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, same sex marriages are not conducted in Gurdwara Sahib. Only the services that are clearly permitted are conducted in the Gurdwara Sahib.

Sikh Gurus introduced a lifestyle with which one remains focused in life in order to be one with God. Homosexuality is not a part of the lifestyle instructed by Sikh Gurus. And nor is having premarital sex or having multiple sex partners if you are a heterosexual. According to Sikh Lifestyle, sexual relationship is to only exist between a man and a woman married in the Gurdwara Sahib.

Since sexual relationship can only be after marriage and marriage can only be between a man and a woman, homosexual lifestyle is logically not accepted by Sikh beliefs.

Sikhism does not hate or believe that homosexuals are damned to hell. Gurbani tells us that God is without hatred and animosity. We are all children of God. Gurdwara Sahib is open to all, no matter who they are or what kind of lifestyle they live. God loves everyone regardless of one’s thoughts or actions. Homosexuals are free to attend the Gurdwara Sahib and participate in church services.

Sikhism is more concerned with ones attainment of enlightenment rather than habitual desires such as sexuality. Views on homosexuality tend not to be a primary concern in Sikh teachings, as the universal goal is to overcome sexual desires all together. Sikhs are not to have hate or animosity to any person, regardless of race, caste, color, creed, gender, or sexuality.

---- http://realsikhism.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1250025034&ucat=7

[ReeferMadness]

---- http://realsikhism.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1250025034&ucat=7

You're on the side of angels but good luck fighting stereotypes with facts.

[scribblet]

This NDP candidate Harbaljit Singh Kahlon apologized and is staying on, maybe the CPC candidate should've just apologized too.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/10/07/brampton-east-ndp-candidate-apologizes-for-former-views-on-gay-marriage.html

[Rue]

This exercise of trying to pretend Sikhism is tolerant of homosexuality is as bogus as saying its tolerated by Musims, Hindus, Christians or Jews. Bull sheeyit. Fundamentalists in all these religious groups believe their religion says homosexuality is wrong.

Please do not insult my intelligence and say only a minority in the Sikh or Muslim community feel this way. Its wide spread. Is it as wide spread with Christians and Jews. No. The reason for that is both religions have evolved to a point of tolerance and the other religions are not there yet. Its bull crap to say the people who are anti gay are a minority. They are not in certain communities. Certain religions lend themselves to more people believing intolerant views as to sexuality and gays, etc.

Here is my point. I do not like any fundamentalists of any religion using their culture, ethnicity, religious network to promote hatred. Don't insult my intelligence though and tell me its not wide spread in my community where Sikhs and Muslims are the majority. It is.

Mr. Grewal the disgraced ex Tory candidate said in his own defence when he went door to door he felt the majority of his riding voters who he said were Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs told him they do not want sex education in schools or what they see as acceptance of the gay lifestyle and he was responding to that majority, widely held view and defending their right to believe that.

Argus is the only one with balls to say-its wide spread and I am stating its widespread in belief in the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities. It is. That is a fact-I hear it, I see it.

The Liberal candidate yes denounced the article as homophobic but will not discuss the anger over sex education or homosexuality in his community. He won't dare discuss it. Neither will the NDP candidate. both are categorizing it as a belief limited to this one man. Bull.

Now I stand corrected on my NDP candidate because I believe it is someone with the name Douglas. I doubt that cadidate will dare acknowledge how wide spread it is and confront it. Hah. All the parties have pandered to this intolerance and only the Tories denounced it.

I will vote for you if you are Muslim, Sikh, Christian, gay, WASP I don't care. Speak clearly, positively, make sense to me I will vote for you. Your race, what you do with your pee pee, what religion you chirp means nothing to me. Never met a human who wasn't the same kind of a-hole. Start selecting any group out to hate, I will challenge you as being an ahole. Don't dare hide behind your niqab or beard or Turban or whatever to justify being hateful and intolerant-don't you couch your hatred as a multi-cultural right. Scre wyou if you do that.

I do not and will not condone scapegoating gays to get Hindu, Muslim and Sikh votes. Its a cynical way to get votes. The fact is its whispered by all the candidates provincially and federally in my riding to get votes. The same people who demand they be treated equally demanding face coverings, certain attire, certain accommodation are the very same people spitting at gays and sex education.

The fact is the same multi-culturalist-liberal belief that we mist accommodate everyone, is in effect accommodating the same intolerant views deeply engrained in these communities which have become ghettoes.

This is why we have the horse's patoot Kathlleen Wyne in one breath expressing horror over homophobia then in the next breath demanding we take in 20,000 refugees pretending they will all come to Canada and embrace her views on sexuality? Really?

It's a fact-we have so called bleeding liberals demanding we accommodate peope who come from religious and ethnic groups whose views are intolerant of thevviews these same liberals hold dear such as sexual equality.

So? How do you have your cake and eat it. Do you in the name of multi culturalism welcome Muslim or Sikh intolerance or do you have the balls to call it what it is?

There is Trudeau calling Harper an intolerant man, but would Trudeau or Mulcair do what Harper did? Of course not. They haven't removed candidates they should have. They don't dare speak out and acknowledge homophobia is but one form of intolerance in certain communities who embrace fundamentalist views such as the Muslim and Sikh communities..

They only time they will criticize fundamentalism is when its Christian fundamentalism.

The same Katherine Wynne demanding Ontario be allowed to take in 20,000 refugees doesn't discuss reality-the reality that some of the people she wants to take in m have religious beliefs that promote hatred and division.

Not her.

So I say again this concept we can accommodate everyone as a Canadian including intolerant Muslims, Sikhs, whatever and then beat around the bush about their intolerance is a crock. Enough.

I hold my own fellow Jews to the same standard. If a Jewish person wants to impose their religious belief that homosexuals are immoral, then I will say to them what I say to Sikhs, Muslims or anyone else that says the same-shaddup. You want to believe that-save it for inside your mosque, temple, church. That is where it belongs.

The fact is in the Sikh, Muslim and Hindu communities, there are fundamentalists no different than in the Christian and Jewish fundamentalist communities whose views are just as archaic because of their fundamentalism and it should be called out but is not.

The point is I see people reluctant to call out the Sikh community, the Muslim community as they should and say-enough, if your candidates promote these archaic views popular in your communities such beliefs have no place in Canada.

Harper has said that but Mulcair and Trudeau pander to it.

The niqab issue is not about the face covering per se. Its about the symbol of what it represents-an archaic method of dealing with sexual difference and isn't it ironic he only person willing to call it what it is, a symbol of outmoded regressive intolerant ignorant thinking is a conservative while the left wing darlings accommodate it and bend over back words for it o the point where these idiot liberal do gooders are creating a literal civil war as these same intolerant people demand they impose their archaic views in the government and public as norms to protect..

No one wants to say it but Harper. If we criticize Muslim fundamentalism its called unfair to Muslims. Why? In this case the homophobia in the Islamic community, Sikh community, Hindu community which is widespread, won't be discussed for fear of alienating such voters. Why? Why I ask? Why is Harper the only one speaking about it while the other two pander to it? Just who is supporting the intolerant views?

I am tired of accommodating intolerance under the guise of poltical correctness.

For bloody sakes. My vote has been thrown away because of it.

I respect Christianity, Judaism, the other religions-not if they are used to segregate, hate, justify war. Thank you. Never met a religious extremist who didn't have the exact same hygiene problem. They all need a cold shower.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Rue