One way tolerance

Try to picture a beefsteak eating contest being held in a Hindu banquet hall. No, that wasn't the only banquet hall in the town. There were others that would've been happy to host a beefsteak eating contest on their property. But the contest organizers specifically choose a banquet hall owned by a Hindu organization and located just a stone's throw away from a Hindu temple.

Consuming beef is frowned upon in Hinduism. Could the priests and owners of the temple do something to get the festivity that was offensive to their beliefs out of the temple's property? Not sure. But finally it was one of the parishioners, Bijal Venkatesh, who marched to the banquet room and started preaching to the people in there, calling on them to stop praising meat-eating and respect the cow which is honored by the Hindu society as a symbol of unselfish giving.

His sermon lasted about 4 seconds - the amount of time needed for the two plain clothes policemen to grab Bijal Venkatesh by his arms and drag him away from the temple, onto the sidewalk. Bijal was warned that if he sets foot on the temple property again, he'll be arrested and charged with trespassing.

When the policemen left, Bijal returned to the temple. This time he wasn't making any attempt to preach to the beef-eaters, but prayed alone in the room where religious services are held. But when Bijal needed to use the washroom, the cops confronted him again, asking what part of "leave" he didn't understand. After a short argument, the cops realized that dragging a Hindu out of a Hindu temple would be quite disturbing, so they agreed to let Bijal Venkatesh pray in the temple, as long as he stays away from the banquet hall.

Now, assuming this story happened here, in Canada, what would be your reaction? I bet if I run an online poll, 99% would call this a blatant attack on the Hindus which shouldn't have happened on Canadian soil. Even those who don't approve of Bijal's actions, would say that there shouldn't have been a beefsteak eating contest in a Hindu-owned banquet hall in the first place.

Now here is what really happened. This wasn't a beef eating contest in a Hindu-owned banquet hall, but a perverse "pride" party in a Catholic-owned banquet hall, adjacent to the St Andrew's Catholic church in Edmonton. The name of the person who tried to preach to the participants was Bill Whatcott, not Bijal Venkatesh. Does that change your opinion on what happened? If yes - why?

Really there is more than 100 banquet rooms in Edmonton that would only be too happy to host the Mayor's homosexual pride brunch. If they really wanted a church I'm sure the Anglicans and United Church would probably give them a banquet for free just to register their approval for homosexual pride. But nope they had to target the most Conservative Catholic Church in the city.

More >>>

The fact that sodomy activists had their goons ready to drag Bill out clearly shows that they were looking forward for a confrontation. If this happened in a mosque, the human rights activists would be furious, blaming the event organizers for insensitivity. But when a group of sick perverts chooses to hold their gathering in a Catholic church, just across the floor (10 meters or so) from the Sanctuary - it's the church's fault for not being tolerant enough.

Where in the Charter does it say that Bill Whatcott, a Catholic should be less equal than Bijal Venkatesh?