a conservative heretic commenting on hypocrisy and stupidity in a world with too much of both
If you found this post of interest, please share it with your friends.
We no longer accept advertising on this blog. Your donations help us to defray the costs of its operation and are much appreciated.
Stay informed

Follow the Bear - Subscribe today


Conservative Bigotry – Progressive Hypocrisy

“It is often easier to become outraged by injustice half a world away than by oppression and discrimination half a block from home.”
Carl T. Rowan

“The idea of democracy has been stripped of its moral imperatives and come to denote hollowness and hypocrisy.”
Paul Wellstone

“Any deviation is looked upon as a perversion, is feared, and is usually a target of hatred and prejudice.
Joey Skaggs


There is nothing more distasteful to me than people who lay claim to defending principle or religious faith as justification for their bigotry and prejudice. You see it all the time these days, although it’s  been around for centuries.

The latest example comes from Gwendolyn Landolt head of REAL Women Canada which has publicly accused Canada’s Foreign Minister, John Baird, of abuse of his office for his public support of the civil rights of gays internationally. It has caused a bit of a stir here in the land of maple syrup and hockey and there is some excellent commentary of Ms Landolt’s comments by the National Post’s Barbara Kay and Brigitte Pellerin on her personal blog.

Ms Landolt’s organization purports to speak for the women of Canada but one supposes that both Ms Kay and Ms Pellerin are two for whom she doesn’t necessarily speak – certainly not on this issue. I know for a fact that she doesn’t speak for Maggie or for any of the women in our family or social circle.

I get tired, quite frankly, of the hypocrisy of it all and I don’t believe I’m the only one. Fellow blogger, Cory Morgan, posted this comment on his Facebook page.

“Just as those with ‘Real Women’ have every right to act like puritanical harridans from 200 years ago in their condemnation and press releases; I reserve my right to invite them to blow it out their collective asses.”

Puritanical harridans – that’s one of those phrases I wish I had written because it summarizes Ms Landolt’s opinion and prejudice perfectly. It is smug, self-righteous bigotry that quite frankly is staggering at this point in time and which is embarrassing to the conservative movement and to women.

Even more disturbing is the fact that Ms Landolt has more in common with Yelena Mizulina, the head of Russia’s Committee on Family, Women and Children than the Canadian values she claims to represent. Ms Mizulina is a Russian Member of Parliament who has pushed through a significant amount of legislation that restricts the rights of individuals with whom she disagrees.

That’s the kind of government control and oppression on individual freedoms for which conservatives routinely condemn progressives.

Ms Landolt states that Mr. Baird, who is gay, has no business interfering in the affairs of other nations and trying to influence them in the development of their internal policies. Really? What in the hell does she think we have a foreign affairs department for – to set up vacation plans for the Prime Minister?

It’s logic so convoluted that I had to double check to make sure I wasn’t on a Liberal web-site, REAL Women make this statement about itself: “NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.”

Well, isn’t that special!

Apparently, Ms Landolt has no problem with consulting with the UN to try and help the United Nations influence policies in other sovereign countries as long as they are about things of which she personally approves.

Personally, I don’t care what Ms Landolt’s position on gay rights is to be honest nor am I insensitive to the fact that she may be uncomfortable with the gay lifestyle; but I take great exception to her position that Canada has no business trying to overcome injustice and prejudice in other countries. It was people like Ms Landolt who tried to avoid war with Nazi Germany by staying out of what was happening in that country until it became too late. Czechoslovakia was deliberately sacrificed to avoid war in the rest of Europe.

Compromising principle didn’t work out too well as it turns out.

Millions of people including thousands of Canadians paid for that head-in-the-sand attitude with their lives and Ms Landolt would do well to consider the words of Tim Holden.

“The Holocaust illustrates the consequences of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on a society. It forces us to examine the responsibilities of citizenship and confront the powerful ramifications of indifference and inaction.”

Canada like every other nation that values freedom and human rights has an absolute responsibility to stand up to defend injustice everywhere. In fact, if I had a criticism to level against the governments of Canada and other democratically elected countries; it is that they don’t stand up often enough. Too often they allow trade considerations and political expediency to interfere with doing what is right

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird

This time, the Government of Canada got it right and Ms Landolt needs to reconsider her position from this perspective. Besides, criticizing the Russian Government isn’t quite the same as interfering with their right to do as they please.

I am a conservative and share many of the stated values of the Conservative Party. I believe in less government and the rights of the individual. That means the rights of all individuals – not just those who agree with me or who don’t make me uncomfortable. There is a difference between being conservative and being a bigot. I am a conservative. Ms Landolt is a bigot cloaking her bigotry in Conservativism.

That probably sounds like I’d be rushing to support the ‘boycott the Olympics’ crowd. I’m not. I dislike hypocrisy as much as bigotry.

Let’s back up for a second.

There are more than 70 countries in the world that have laws on the books declaring homosexual activity to be a crime. Depending on the country, conviction can result in punishments that range from a few months to 14 years in prison, flogging / whipping, and in some countries – death, because in those countries, being gay is a capital offense.

Gay teens hanged in Iran

Gay teens hanged in Iran

Being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice. People don’t get up one day and think, “Gee, I think I’d like to try something different.” It’s an established fact that being gay is how your brain is wired and it isn’t exclusive to the human species. Same-sex behaviour is common in mammals and birds across nature from the big cats and chimps to penguins. It takes a pretty closed mind to believe that someone would risk their lives in Iran just to try being gay for a bit.

There was a time when it was believed that the earth was flat.Society used to think that some races were inferior and that women were incapable of holding their own with men. Some people still do unfortunately but just as that is uninformed bigotry, so is the prejudice against gays.

Darryl Hannah chains herself to the White House fence to protest the Keystone Pipeline because God knows it’s better to buy oil from Saudi Arabia where people are flogged and imprisoned for being gay than to buy it from Canada because – well – those damned oil sands kill birds.

My kick with the current self-righteous progressives demanding boycotts and signing petitions against participation in the Olympics is how bloody hypocritical and thoughtless it all is. My own godson is one of those eager to take action against Russia. He is my favourite nephew and I have loved him dearly since he was born but I want to grab him and tell him to give his head a shake because he’s put no thought into his position. It’s all emotional knee-jerk reaction and that is the kiss of death when trying to fight injustice.

It’s easy to pick on Russia; it’s safe protest and even convenient but what about all those other countries?

Are the folks who want to have other people pay for an Olympic boycott prepared to boycott Middle Eastern oil they use to fuel their SUVs? In Iran, they hang gays publicly. You never hear much about boycotting stuff from Iran – it’s all about their nuclear program.

How about the Caribbean? Are these same hypocrites prepared to organize boycotts of St. Lucia or the Barbados; both which have long-standing laws that criminalizes same-sex activity?

I have a gay friend who is outraged by Russia’s legislation but who is recently back from a two-week vacation in Mauritius where male same-sex activity is a crime punishable but up to five years in prison. She has also vacationed in the United Arab Emirates where same-sex activity is punishable by deportation or imprisonment.

I like her and personally don’t care where she vacations but if you’re going to criticize one country for criminalizing homosexaulity, criticize them all. If you’re going to call for a boycott of something in one country in protest of their laws against homosexuality, call for boycotts of them all and be prepared to step up and honour that boycott – not just the ones that don’t inconvenience you.

As E.B. White said once:

“Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts.”

And that is my kick with the self-righteous these days. They prance around making a lot of sanctimonious noise but have put less thought into the issue than my dog Jasper puts into selecting precisely the correct spot to take a dump. They become aware of something and jump on the bandwagon. “Something needs to be done.” moves quickly to “Let’s do it” without any consideration of the scope and breadth of the issue or the ramifications and consequences of the current protest.

What do these twits think they will accomplish? They’re naïve if they think petitions will cause the Olympic Committee or any major nation to boycott the Olympics and even more gullible if they believe their shallow demands will cause the Russian government to change the law. The only people who get hurt by an Olympic boycott are those who have invested millions in creating the games and the athletes who have worked for years to achieve an opportunity to compete and perhaps kick start a professional career.

But then the boycott hypocrites will tell you that it is a small price to pay to achieve justice. Yeah! Right! Progressives are always big on sacrifice as long as it is someone else being sacrificed.

Fighting injustice is hard. It takes time, effort, commitment and most of all; it takes consistency. You can’t condemn something over here because it offends you but ignore it over there because it would be inconvenient to lose whatever ‘over there’ provides for you.

It’s small wonder we take so long to accomplish anything of real value anymore. Conservative bigotry and progressive hypocrisy impede the advancement of the issues we face together. Both, despite their claims to the contrary, are two of the biggest impediments to obtaining and respecting the equal rights of all people regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or political ideology.

I don’t expect much more than that from the left but I did expect better from fellow conservatives who make a lot of noise about respecting individual rights.

But apparently it doesn’t seem to matter whether it is conservative bigotry or progressive hypocrisy it all comes down to the same thing in the end. It’s just a lot of sanctimonious, self-serving noise that signifies nothing and accomplishes even less.


Gay Penquins and The Flat Earth Society


© 2013 Maggie’s Bear
all rights reserved
The written content of this article is the sole property of Maggie’s Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others
Connect with the Bear on Twitter: @maggsbear or send a friend request on Facebook to: Maggie’s Bear





  • Gramma Barb

    I have just read your posting a little late in the discussions. I struggle with the reasons why we have to argue about or even raise the topic of another’s color, sexual preference, political stance, or historical heritage. Color of the skin, is just that…color and along with that comes the heritage beliefs and culture, which we should all appreciate in each other. Why is it necessary to discuss a persons sexual behavior if it does not infringe upon my own?… I just don’t understand why it is necessary to have this ‘gay parade’ gay pride day’ or whatever! Politics is great conversation and in some ways very entertaining and educational … not a force to start wars…. although it does. If you live your life as you prefer, why is it necessary to be constantly bombarded with the gay rights issues and why should it matter to another, your choice? I have FN friends, black friends, Asian friends and Caucasian friends…..(I have never questioned their sexual preferences, why should I? ) …we have political conversations ….I do wonder about those that constantly pound about ‘their beliefs’ / perhaps trying to convince the rest of us, about what they question in themselves. ….’ I do not care if your pink, purple, or green, treat me nasty and we part company’ makes for such a simple life!

    • MaggiesBear

      We share the same thoughts on this but I do believe that you have to speak, out when some group is being persecuted. Other than that, let’s just get on with life.

      • Gramma Barb

        speaking out/up, yes, ….. let your voice be heard, marching, demonstrating, dancing almost naked etc, in protest of ‘a group’ I mentally shut down in disgust.
        I find those displays totally disrespectful for any cause or statement ‘they’ are trying to protest or support. Guess I am just getting old and cranky, I turn the channel or move on to the next story, I believe many do … tired of the stupidity…..

        • MaggiesBear

          I find those displays adolescent, shallow and pointless. It’s a lot of noise signifying nothing and often leads to vandalism and violence. I believe that if you can’t make your point without burning some cars and smashing some windows or disrupting the public, you have no point to make.

  • MaggiesBear

    This is where bigotry leads us. This news story speaks for itself.

  • Brrr

    “Being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice.”

    It absolutely is. People can and do change their minds and “switch sides” all of the time. You aren’t hard wired for it any more than you’re hard wired to prefer Coke over Pepsi, or Skynyrd over Chopin.

    • MaggiesBear

      You’re wrong. Same-sex activity is common in the animal kingdom. Birds and mammals of all species have members that are hard wired to same sex preferences. Animals don’t make lifestyle choices, they simply accept was is and live accordingly. May gays pretend to be heterosexual and fight the way their wired because they are afraid of the persecution and intolerance of people who discriminate against them.

      You have to be pretty narrow in your thinking to believe that people living in Iran would choose to be gay when the penalty is being hanged in the public square. That’s a pretty significant risk to take just to get laid.

      • Brrr

        You’re wrong. See how easy that is?

        Animals DO make choices. They do have individual behaviours.

        People aren’t pretending anything, they simply change their minds about what they want. It happens all the time. I know several people who have done it. One woman I know was in a very long term live-in lesbian relationship. It was not some shameful secret, and they were quite happy. Happy that is, until she fell in love with someone else, left her female partner, and married a man.

        People in Iran choose to do all sorts of things that can get them hanged. People all over the globe routinely choose things that are against their own best interests.They choose to engage in behaviours that are not socially acceptable and subject to varying degrees of retribution. Some of those choices are as mundane as the type of music they listen to or the clothes they wear, yet they still choose to do it in the face of bullying, violence, discrimination for job prospects, or admission into public venues.

        • MaggiesBear

          Have it your way. I don’t have time to argue with those who refuse to look beyond their own prejudice.

          • Brrr

            Prejudice. Nice. It’s a sure sign that someone knows they don’t have a leg to stand on when they start insulting people. I just finished telling you that I have direct personal knowledge on this issue. I didn’t pre-decide anything, I observed it.

            If anything the prejudice if yours. You’ve pre-judged that someone who doesn’t buy into the gay political agenda must be some sort of bigot.

            • MaggiesBear

              I haven’t pre-judged anything. Your last sentence betrays your prejudice. You assume that your personal experience means that all gays are part of some vast gay-political agenda and that they’ve chosen their sexual orientation simply because they want too.

              I’m no so arrogant as to base my opinion on my personal experiences. I run into a lot of stupid people in my personal life but that doesn’t mean that I think all people are stupid. I base my opinion on the best available scientific research and whether you like it or not, agree with it or not; sexual orientation is a matter of genetics both in the human species and all others in which it occurs.

              • Gerry

                Can you point me to the best “available scientific evidence”? The total genetics claim is as specious as the total choice claim. It is complex but I do challenge you on the evidience that it is all genetic.

                Sorry been out fishing for a few days so am doing catch-up

                • MaggiesBear

                  I wish I had been out fishing. Most of my information comes from books including these two:

                  Homosexual Behaviour in Animals various contributors compiled and edited by Volker Sommer, Paul L. Vasey

                  Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl

                  As for links, you’ll find thousands on this issue both for and against the science which is why I prefer books to the Internet. It’s hard to sort through it online but here’s three links from my files.




                  I used the term genetic in an earlier comment, some scientists use the term natural selection. My argument isn’t over the label it’s the simple fact that whether we are comfortable with it or not, same sex behaviour is prevalent in nature and apparently quite natural.

                  • Gerry

                    Thanks Bear, will check those out when I get to the big city (the books). I will quibble about what the term ‘natural’ means which ends us up in a debate as to whether 1 incident is enough to be natural or is there some percentage of the population required. I do like that last one as it often involves someone shooting themselves in the foot or doing such gyrations as to be ludicrous.

                    Would have enjoyed having you along. It is called fishing for a reason – this year catching has been absolutely awful. Too late a spring and too hot a summer. But as usual the scenery is fantastic up here. You no doubt have wonderful spots there – heck we could do a dueling scenic shot exchange. I would start with a pic this year at 12:19 AM at Kusawa Lake – I think a matching pic from you at that time might be a wee bit on the dark side so I have to stipulate no flash allowed :)

                    • Gerry

                      and I really do not give a whoop-de-doo over who anyone sleeps with. My negative reaction is against those who insist on telling me that I need to not only endorse, but also affirm what they want to publicly promote. Sleep with whom you like; just don’t rub my nose in it and tell me I have to cheer or affirm or endorse or say ‘ain’t it lovely’ or any other bloody thing. If it stayed private that is fine but it doesn’t and to me that is the issue. And the claims being made (and yes I will check these sources out with a critical eye) in order to overcome the norm are rather extreme.

                      And one last pithy comment: I am more than happy to accept that homosexuality is natural as it is simply an indication that the particular individual should not reproduce. If one accepts evolution and the survival of the fittest there is no other conclusion. However, not only do we have the demand to accept their choice as natural (ignoring of course the consequence on non-reproduction which I am fine with) combined with the demand that society now pay for in vitro and whatever other method of tenuous reproduction they choose. Hmmmmm, if homosexuality is natural then their reproduction is unnatural or vice versa. It does not logically fit that both are ‘natural’ and of course Darwin’s opus did spend a lot of time on natural selection.

                    • MaggiesBear

                      I believe tolerance means accepting the rights of others. It doesn’t mean we’re obligated to like everything about everyone. I have no use for gay pride parades, for example. I think they’re self-indulgent and achieve little except to flaunt a particular sexuality in the face of the broader community.

                      The points you raise about reproduction are covered in some of the material I provided you. Some have made the argument that in nature, same-sex behaviour is a means to strengthen ‘the herd’ which is part of that natural selection argument. Others that it is simply how some folks are wired. Like I said, there’s lots of commentary and studies on both sides of the debate but if I’m going to make a mistake, it will always be on the side of tolerance rather than discrimination.

                      I don’t believe we have an obligation to fund or provide the means for gays (or anyone else for that matter) the means to have children. I am only concerned with the persecution of minorities and the propagation of hate. I don’t care if someone feels uncomfortable with something – that’s their right. They can even bring that out into the open and we can discuss it. But when it crosses over to the level of spreading hatred against a definable group then I have an issue.

                      This all started because a very prejudiced statement made by Gwendolyn Landolt of REAL Women. She has since released two more statements and is now desperately trying to back peddle but all she’s doing is digging the hole deeper. Her statement was socially divisive and has divided the conservative party which is precisely what we don’t need at this point in time.

                      Hatred never accomplished much that was of any real benefit to anyone.

                    • Gerry

                      Exactly, wish I could have stated it as clearly.

                    • MaggiesBear

                      I wish I could have said it with fewer words but I don’t seem to be able to edit myself very well.

                    • MaggiesBear

                      I agree with you about the term natural. It’s like normal, it’s all in the eye of the beholder I think.

              • Brrr

                Hold on. YOU are the one who made the blanket statement that it’s NOT a choice. You said people do NOT just try something different. My personal experience may not cover every person, but it does unequivocally show your position to be false.

                For your “stupid” example to be germane, one would have to be claiming that there’s no such thing as a stupid person. If you meet people who ARE stupid, then you know the claim is false.

                • MaggiesBear

                  I’ve had about enough. I don’t mind civil debate but I have no time for this kind of back and forth bullshit. I don’t know what you think gives people like you the right to prowl the Internet looking for places to act rudely and with a lack of civility but it ain’t going to be here. I gave you a full hearing and an opportunity for adult debate. I don’t have time or the inclination for this kind of crap. Take you road show somewhere else.

  • Pingback: A Conspiracy of Stupidity | A Bear's Rant()

  • Randy

    Good article. Here are my questions Bear.
    Why is it that anyone who disagrees with gay rights or lifestyle is a bigot,
    anyone who disagrees with a black person’s position is a racist,
    anyone who disagrees with a natives argument is a colonizer and land thief,
    anyone who disagrees with a women’s right argument is a chauvinist ?
    How in the hell do we ever solve anything if the first thing we do is label
    someone because we disagree with them ?
    People will disagree!! Live and let live might be a credo for some of us on
    this planet. That goes for both sides of each argument.
    And hypocrites are like cockroaches. They will always survive, and they always
    show up where they are not wanted.

    • MaggiesBear

      There is a difference between disagreeing with someone or something and trying to deny them rights. I’m not comfortable with some of the in-you-face behaviour of some gays and lesbians but I don’t deny them their basic civil rights because of it. I’m equally uncomfortable with the behaviour of some heteroseuxals as well. The point is that that it’s one thing to resist bad behaviour but something else entirely to deny fundamental human rights regardless of race, sexual orientation or gender.

      I do agree with you, however, there are too many lines being drawn in the sand which makes it impossible to have adult conversations about these issues. It’s why I wrote the piece. We need stop hiding behind our prejudice and shallow thinking, put on our big people pants and start behaving like grownups if we intend to resolve any of these issues.

  • http://www.ldjackson.net/ LD Jackson

    Let me preface my comments by saying this. I believe homosexuality is a sin in God’s eyes. The Bible is clear about what it says about the practice. I also believe it is a choice a person makes. God did not create homosexuality. We humans managed to come up with it all on our own.

    Having said that, I also believe it is wrong for anyone to discriminate against someone for any reason. That includes their sexual practices. There is no reason to mistreat homosexuals, as long as they treat those who believe they are wrong with respect.

    I have long held the opinion that many homosexuals, at least the most vocal members of the group, are not satisfied with living their lives as they see fit. Rather, they want to force the rest of us to accept them as normal. Case in point is something that happened several years ago.

    Our next door neighbors have a daughter who is homosexual. They know we go to a Pentecostal church and know some of what we believe. I was over at their house to help the father repair his vehicle. While I was there, my wife and two daughters came over to see how the repairs were going. While they were there, the daughter brought her girlfriend outside and did some very unseemly things, right in front of our girls. My wife quickly gathered them up and made her way back home. (She would have done this, even if it had been a man and woman carrying on in front of the girls.) I would have hoped the daughter would have had more respect for us than that, but she did not. She was more interested in making sure we knew she was a homosexual.

    I realize not every homosexual would have treated us that way, but many of them would and do. I do not want to see them mistreated or discriminated against, but neither will I accept their sexual behavior as normal. That is something I can never do, but I do not believe that makes me a bigot.

    I believe the bigotry and hypocrisy comes from both sides of the political spectrum. I have seen conservatives who are as hypocritical and bigoted as they come. The same goes for some progressives. Speaking as a conservative with a libertarian streak running up my spine, I find it more than a little hypocritical for some conservatives to speak about limited government, as long as their own sacred government cow is left untouched. It is something we could all use some work on.

    Sorry for being so long winded. It was hard to find a stopping point.

    • LFRD

      Enjoyed your long wind and do agree with. Bigotry & hypocrisy has no face nor political party preference. Again, thanks.

    • MaggiesBear

      I’m not an activist for gay rights. My issue is with respect for life. If I’m going to make a mistake, it’s going to be for trying to understand and to be tolerant of others rather than discriminating and persecuting the rights and lives of those with whom I might disagree or even disapprove.

      • http://www.ldjackson.net/ LD Jackson

        I agree with your stance, although I am less likely to be as tolerant of certain things than some people. I do not want to see anyone, no matter their background, race, sexual orientation, poverty level, etc., discriminated against or mistreated.

        • MaggiesBear

          Don’t misunderstand, I can be pretty intolerant of stupid people and people who are hypocrites and who spread hate but otherwise, I try to be tolerant. You and I may not agree on every issue but I appreciate the fact that we can discuss things pleasantly and with mutual respect.