Click here to visit the mobile version of winnipegfreepress.com

Winnipeg Free Press > Opinion > Bloggers > Welch's Gripe Juice > Gay rights

Welch's Gripe Juice

Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION

Gay rights

By: Mary Agnes Welch

15/09/2009 5:13 PM | Comments: 17

Former Tory Leader Stu Murray, named today to head up the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, is among the nicest guys in Manitoba politics. But one wouldn’t call him a hardcore human rights activist a la Nelson Mandela.

In fact, one of the few times he had a chance to vote for human rights, he didn’t. That was back in 2002 when he voted against an NDP bill extending adoption rights to gays and lesbians.

Related Items

  1. Videos

  2. Articles

Here’s what he had to say about that today:
 

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This blog is currently rated an average of 3.7 out of 5 (3 votes).

    • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

17 Commentscomment icon

I was horrified to learn that Stewart Murray was given the very important job of CEO of our Human Rights Museum. This is a ridiculous & uninspired choice. Truly, regardless of political leaning, who equates Mr. Murray with human rights? Is this appointment the result of some kind of back room deal? Something seems fishy. Having looked at his background, I see nothing associated with the running of a museum or being a promoter of human rights.

Progress in the struggle toward human rights means being able to have a sensitivity to minority concerns and being courageous enough to assert a just position (even when it is not supported by the majority). Mr. Murray did not do this and his inarticulate response in the video fails to reassure.

How exciting it could have been to have selected a CEO who actually comes from the minority experience! How exciting to actually hire someone who has been visible in the struggle for issues of justice and equality. What about someone who understands the complexities of running a museum? There is certainly a skill set required that would be more transferable than having been an aid to high profile tories, led an opposition party or being the Vice President of Domo Gas!

He wasn't inarticulate at all... he was just doing the typical politician's "dancing around the issue" ie: blathering without saying anything. Having said that, what freaking qualifications does this guy have for this job other than a capital "C"

Who on earth voted this Stu Murray in for CEO?
It is unbelievable that, in this day and age, when Manitoba is at the forefront of gay and lesbian rights, that anyone in their right minds would have voted him as CEO.
First of all, in the entire interview, he said nothing that made sense. He could hardly string a sentence, let alone a paragraph together, and what he did say, made no sense at all.
e.g. I'd like to know WHICH people "think he's reasonable"? His friends, who are likely of the same ilk as he is?
"He's from a farm in Saskatchewan?" I imagine that, with an excuse like that, some forward-thinking, open-minded farmers in Saskatchewan might take great exception to THAT being his excuse for being homophobic! That is an insult to farmers.
Is there NOTHING that we can do to bring about a change in CEO?
Please don't let's put Manitoba, and the Museum back into the dark ages with this [edited] as its CEO! Please!

Continued from comment posted below.

With an issue like gay adoption rights I do believe this approach is flawed, and yes, even frightening. Mr. Murray or the PC caucus at the time had a right to say that gay Manitobans shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. I had the right to listen to their statements, or not. And that’s where I think it should end. The statements were discriminatory and the (intended) action to flow from them would have violated basic human rights. I feel they ought to be dismissed as such, and not be granted any kind of legitimacy which really would be nothing more than a collective failure of people to stand up and say: “No. We heard you, but that’s as much consideration as you’re getting. People should be treated as equals, end of story.”

It frightens me to think what other violations of human rights this museum might encourage thoughtful consideration of(i.e., thereby legitimizing) as one point on a spectrum of positions re. any human rights issue.

That’s my opinion, anyway. :)

Yikes. I think some clarification or rounding out of my comment is in order.

To clarify: by the phrase "hearing out all opinions" I meant give thoughtful consideration, and thereby credence, to. I didn't mean the basic right to simply listen to opposing opinions.

Of course I believe that people should be able to say whatever they like - even if I didn't believe that I wouldn't be foolish enough to think that anything like comprehensive censorship of voiced opinions is even possible. The corollary (as pointed out by Trott and Hallick) is also, of course, true - people ought to have the basic right to listen to anything. I even believe that the latter right may serve some benefit, if only to remind us of the possible threats to human rights that do exist.

With respect to Mr. Murray and his response to Mary Agnes: the impression I received is that he believes that not only is it important to simply listen to different viewpoints no matter if you find them offensive to human rights (a right), but that he takes that point and slides it dangerously close (as many others do) to saying that opinions against basic human rights (and the actions they may inform - i.e., the PC gay adoption vote) ought to somehow be granted a kind of legitimacy - that they are one viewpoint among many and there's room to thoughtfully consider them all (versus just having the right to state them/listen to them).

To be continued...

When this museum opens, my family and extended family will be outside protesting.

I should also add that this attitude is also prevalent at our Human Rights Commission where, according to Susan Tama Joanis, Human Rights Invesigator at this joke of a commission, stated that discrimination against homosexual persons is sometimes justified.

Do these people really think they can continue to peacock around pretending they have done ANYTHING for human rights other than erect statues to human rights and to themselves? Let us be clear, this is hypocrisy and bigotry at a profound and high level with a great deal of back slapping between these "good old boys and girls". DISGUSTING. The Canadian Human Rights Museum will not be shining in anyone's sun as standing for anything other than bigotry.
We will build another museum where the real story of Human Rights WILL be told. It will be called the INTERNET. This museum needs to deconstruct itself. It is a joke.

Look at this weasel trying to talk his way out of his bigotry.

Sorry I need to edit my last post: I have NOT seen a gay couple argue that Muslims should have the right [to spin their wives around 3 times as a way to divorce them (totally acceptable method elsewhere, btw)]...

and, of course -- what an oversight! -- a BIG CAPITAL C on the word 'conservative'.

The rights of gays need to be protected, naturally, but it is not so 'simple'. Opinions DO exist. There is not one answer sometimes. For example, in the case of Same sex 'marriage'. For some people Same sex civil union (with all attendant rights) in not enough. They want 'marriage'. But here's the rub, in this country, a 'marriage' is a 'Judeo-Christian by-product'. As such, same sex couples cannot be 'married'. Some find this objectionable, some don't and some say it's just a word.

Ditto with the concept of divorce in Canada. In this country, we don't allow men to spin their [multiple] wives around 3 times and say 'I divorce you.' which is the way it's done in some religions. I have seen a gay couple argue that Muslims should have this right here in Canada. I suspect that's because they think the idea is objectionable. Or maybe they don't care.

Bottom line is...EVERYONE has opinions. And it sounds like some poeple think they know the TRUTH with a capital T -- and can get very nasty-sounding when others don't agree... Of course it doesn't take a psychologist to understand why, but we should all try to do things the Nelson Mandela way...

ps. I think this guy is an uninspired choice (and inarticulate) but he's a conservative and THAT"S THE IMPORTANT THING.

View all Comments

The comment period for this story has ended.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Special coverage

Our Communities

Poll

Should youth convicted of serious crimes have their names made public?

View Results

View Related Story