Following are two of the documents I have received pertaining to the continued program of harassment of Father de Valk and Catholic Insight by Heritage Canada and an unnamed complainant.
As for my own mixed feelings on aspects of this issue, I think my friend Timeimmortal said it best – “I don’t much like it when people align themselves with Caesar and then complain that he’s acting too Roman for their tastes. And since Catholic Insight does accept Heritage Canada money, they have unfortunately opened themselves to this state of affairs — one never gets to lead when one takes Caesar as a dance partner.”
However in the case of Father de Valk and Catholic Insight I believe a double standard may be at play, that not all animals are equal in the eyes of Heritage Canada, but more on that later. Based on what I have learned to date Heritage Canada has placed Father de Valk on their “watch list” for the same material by and large, that was used as evidence in the recently dismissed, though currently being appealed, Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint raised against him. Father de Valk is in effect both guilty and innocent depending on which Kangaroo is in charge.
On to the Letters, and please forgive the poor jpeg scans. The 1st files are pages 1 & 2 of the complainants letter to Heritage Canada decrying their slow pace of action on the Catholic Insight file. The last file is a letter sent by Scott Shortliffe – Director, Periodical Publishing Policy & Programs Department of Canadian Heritage in which he thanks Father de Valk for agreeing to comply with Heritage Canada’s request that Catholic Insight provide copies of each issue of their periodical for “monitoring purposes”.
In a third as yet unpublished letter from Mr. Shortliffe Father de Valk is cautioned that; “While Catholic Insight has the right to present religious or political views on the issues of same sex marriage and homosexuality (as a sexual choice or lifestyle), any denigrating content that is specifically directed towards homosexual men and women could potentially render it ineligible for support by by our programs.”
Denigrating content, remember that term.
Here’s a sample of the fare you missed at last May’s InsideOut festival.
I don’t know what category of pedophiliac wish dream the following films represent but hey it’s your money they’re spending so why should Heritage Canada care? Besides it’s being done in the sacred name of diversity you Stick-in-the-Mud Haters!
Synopsis: What do you do if you’re nine and nobody will tell you what ’fellatio’ means? When Andy’s uncle and his boyfriend arrive to babysit, she corners them with a Supersoaker and they can do nothing but comply.
Or how about, No Bikini:
Synopsis: When Robin was seven, she spent her holidays at a swimming camp. She decided to do without her bikini top – and managed to pass for a boy for several glorious weeks.
Of course you could have opted to enjoy – Jerking
Synopsis: Gender tensions are expressed through short bursts of boxing and jerking off.
Now if film isn’t your thing you can always curl up with a copy of Fab Magazine, which Heritage Canada supported to the tune of $35,751 in fiscal 2006-2007. Click on the Hot Links tab on the right hand sidebar under “Regular features”, I dare ya;) I’m not sure if that section qualifies under “Editorial Content” funding guidelines hmmm.
Denigrating content indeed. So there you have it, in Heritage Canada’s moral universe, pedophiliac wish dreams and Gay Porn are considered a wise cultural investment, while Father de Valk is threatened with having his funding cut off for daring to support traditional values and communicating church doctrine. Nope, no double standard here.
PS. My SuperKitty Powers are picking up signals, the complainant may be a disgruntled ex-seminarian, with frustrated political aspirations, ah but the signal grows weak….