Talk:Heather Stilwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 14:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone down the rhetoric, please.

"Anti-Gay" and "banned homosexual activities" are inflammatory, exaggerate, and misrepresent.

Mrs. Stilwell is an evangelical Christian, and as such, seeks to obey God and emulate the life of Jesus Christ. As such, to be "anti-gay" would be to breach the Great Commandment. The CHP would not "ban" homosexual activity, but it would set things straight by acting to disallow the promotion of a behaviour that has ample medical documentation as an unhealthy behaviour, while maintaining compassion for those trapped in the behaviour. Current party leader Ron Gray has stated, numerous times: "If they want to be left alone to suffer privately, we would leave them alone. If they want help, we would offer them help." The small number of militants, however, would be disallowed from aggressively promoting the behaviour and misrepresenting it as a viable lifestyle, and the CHP would also uphold the right of free speech to tell the truth about it. Sadly, militant homosexuals who clamor for tolerance are themselves intolerant of opposition to their statements, and try to shut down those who speak in opposition.

[edit] --Response--

When Stilwell and fellow Trustee Pickering were sued personally by a teacher under a collective agreement to ensure a harassment free workplace, Stilwell was quoted as saying: "I reserved the right to say that homosexual behavior is wrong". As such, it is fair comment to say that she is indeed "anti-gay". As for me, I reserve the right to say that Mrs Stilwell appears to be a militant Christian who is intolerant of others and who will stop at nothing to promote her own personal beliefs. Let look at the facts:

1) she has undertaken an active role in a myriad of organizations whose main purpose is to oppose EQUAL rights for gay and lesbian individuals. One such organization is Campaign Life Coalition whose position reads: "To have become a homosexual is to have acquired a moral disorder. To indulge in homosexual activity is to pervert human sexuality. So-called sexual orientation should not be placed in the Canada Human Rights Act; homosexuals should be permitted neither in the army nor in the clergy; homosexual unions' must not be recognized as 'marriages';

2) after removing a child from a gay teacher's classroom, she was sued personally and her school board's actions were found to be guilty under the BC Human Rights Act;

3) she has been quoted as saying "All law imposes morality. I believe I have just as much rights as the pro-abortionists to impose my morality on society";

4) she fought for and ended up establishing a 'traditional school' at a time when the school district was suffering from significant funding cutbacks for other publically funded programmes in the district;

5) she opposed the teaching of safe sex practices to students in the district, even though they suffer from a high level of teen pregnancy;

6) she opposed library books dealing with other religions and cultures;

7)she opposed learning materials designed to teach tolerance via a reflection of the diversity present in today's society;

8) after the Supreme Court of Canada disallowed the School Board a religious basis for opposing these books, Mrs Stilwell opposed them by applying such specious rigorous standards that the Bible itself would not have been able to pass them;

9) she prevented members of a legally constituted provinicial political party from speaking at an all-candidates meeting.


Stilwell has a right to speak her opinion on all these matters, but she seems to have made a career out of trying to silence all those who don't share her philosophy. That is real intolerance.--BillC38 08:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Rebuttal to response:

"I reserved the right to say that homosexual behavior is wrong". As such, it is fair comment to say that she is indeed "anti-gay".

I reserve the right to say that drinking and driving, murder, theft, perjury are wrong. So, call me intolerant and militant, too. I am going to oppose people who have fun drinking and driving, committing murder, theft and perjury. Heather and I are not promoting our personal beliefs: we are obeying our Holy God who prohibits murder, theft, perjury and homosexual behaviour. The American Psychiatric Association held homosexual behaviour as a deviant behaviour; the only reason they withdrew it is because, in 1973, militant homosexual activists threatened physical violence if the APA did not change its official stand. The activists didn't come up with reasoned medical or scientific evidence - they resorted to bully tactics. Therefore, the APA stand of today is not legitimate, and in fact, most psychiatrists still regard homosexuality as deviant behaviour.

she has undertaken an active role in a myriad of organizations whose main purpose is to oppose EQUAL rights for gay and lesbian individuals.

Homosexuals do have equal rights. Militant homosexuals are demanding special rights. They do not require marriage in order to do what they want to do - no law stops them from being friends, living together, or engaging in their behaviour with one another. Marriage is a special institution that was initiated by God with Adam and Eve in order to furnish a stable relationship between a man and woman and an ideal environment to raise children. When that man-woman relationship is abused with sexual deviancies of the many kinds, that ideal environment that is crucial for children ceases to exist.

Homosexuals are only 1-2 percent of the North American population. Children are 100% of the future. Why must we sacrifice our children to satisfy these homosexuals when most of what they're asking for they already have, and the rest is harmful to the children?

My church, which obeys God and not mere mankind, will never marry homosexuals, and I will stand behind my pastor if he is challenged on it. It had better not be challenged, because the Liberal government has claimed (with little credibility) that religious freedom will be protected to refuse to perform such marriages!


she has been quoted as saying "All law imposes morality. I believe I have just as much rights as the pro-abortionists to impose my morality on society"

If the pro-abortionists claim the right to impose their morality, then everyone with a contrary point of view has the equal right.

she fought for and ended up establishing a 'traditional school' at a time when the school district was suffering from significant funding cutbacks for other publically funded programmes in the district

A school, which I said, had more parents wanting to put children into it than they could possibly accommodate - if the school had unused capacity, only then would you have a legitimate point. If other schools are under used, then perhaps some of them should be converted to traditional so that more children can be accommodated and the rest can be better utilized.

she opposed the teaching of safe sex practices to students in the district, even though they suffer from a high level of teen pregnancy

Safe sex is a misnomer. The only safe sex is abstinence until marriage then faithfulness. Condoms have natural pores in them large enough for hundreds of HIV cells to pass through simultaneously. Giving a kid a condom is giving them a false sense of security, because they won't contain the HIV, preventing it from moving from seminal or vaginal fluids to the other person. Uganda is a perfect example of success: they're promoting chastity, while the countries around them are promoting condoms; Uganda alone in Africa has reversed its AIDS infection rate.

she opposed learning materials designed to teach tolerance via a reflection of the diversity present in today's society

Giving children materials that "normalize" homosexual households is not teaching tolerance - it is spreading the illusion that such households are normal and are not dysfunctional. Since most homosexuals have hundreds of partners in their lifetime, and most violence to homosexuals comes from other homosexuals during the acts of "sex", it is hardly fair to children to portray such households as normal. The children must be taught first not to feel any hatred, and second, to remember the ideal and offer friendship; heterosexual parents can offer their example of God's creation of man-woman relationships to assure the children who have homosexual households of God's beautiful creation and reinforce to their children not to exhibit hatred.

she prevented members of a legally constituted provinicial political party from speaking at an all-candidates meeting.

Specify. Was she allowing only candidates and randomly-selected questioners to speak? Was she preventing an outburst by those not recognized or not part of the random selection? I would like to know the details of this event, and I may or may not choose to contact Heather and ask her what her recollection is. The truth is often somewhere in between.

I myself have been a candidate for office. At my very first all-candidates forum, the press reports indicate I was being heckled for my socially conservative views. Even if I had heard them (and I did not), it wouldn't have bothered me one bit, because they weren't heckling me; they were heckling my Lord and Saviour. He took nails, thorns, piercing by spear and mocking, and He took it for me, and if anyone mocks me, I accept it with honour because I know they're mocking the One who my life belongs to. If people have an opinion that differs from mine, they can speak it all they want (without profanities, if they wish to retain their dignity and civility!), and I reserve the right to speak my opinion, too. Voltaire, an atheist, also defended the speech of those he didn't agree with.

Heather is definitely not homophobic (I know you didn't say she was) and neither am I. A phobia is an irrational fear or hatred. Since we neither fear nor hate homosexuals, and since we only reject homosexual behaviour, and that rejection is reasoned obedience of a superior wisdom, it is not a phobia.

GBC 05:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Heh. "Condoms have natural pores in them large enough for hundreds of HIV cells to pass through simultaneously." You got some credible evidence on that? "Since most homosexuals have hundreds of partners in their lifetime, and most violence to homosexuals comes from other homosexuals during the acts of "sex"." Again, where are you pulling this out from? As a faithful straight Roman Catholic, I don't think you know what happens during gay sex outside of hearsay. …Markaci 2005-07-22 T 10:41:33 Z
The inherent, naturally occurring flaws in latex are up to 5 microns (0.0002 inches) in size. Sperm cells are 50 microns in diameter, and the AIDS virus is 0.1 microns in size. -- “C.M. Roland, Ph.D., Editor, Rubber Chemistry and Technology and Head of the Polymer Properties Section, Naval Research Laboratory. Washington Times, April 22, 1992.” ................ what this shows is that sperm are too large to get through an unripped condom, but the flaws are 50 times wider than an AIDS virus. Exact measurements. Is Dr. Roland's information credible enough? I hope so! As to "hearsay", I haven't heard "hearsay" of alternatives; PARDON BLUNTNESS - STOP READING THIS PARAGRAPH UNLESS YOU'RE READY - just where is a male homosexual's member supposed to fit inside another male other than the place where the sun doesn't shine? - physically damaging, unhealthy, and it is heart-rending, "cringe-some", and grief-striking to those of us not into this kind of behaviour. Please don't deny this horrific physical abuse - no wonder so many homosexuals suffer clinical depression - they're hurting badly, even if they won't admit it, and the bravado of their "pride" days could be, for some of those paraders, a desperate reach of denial. GBC 15:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
GBC, whatever you believe is your business, and your business alone. I won't say anything about your beliefs. But Wikipedia is not the place to push those beliefs, no matter how well-founded you may believe them to be. NPOV is one of the most important tenets of Wikipedia, and much of what you have recently been posting here is clearly not NPOV. If you want to share your view, or the view of your church, on LGBT rights with others, then by all means do start a blog or any other kind of website. But Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not the place for those views. Wikipedia is about describing phenomena, not about judging them (either positively or negatively). Other than that, do remain involved in Wikipedia, because the remainder of your edits is very constructive to Wikipedia. Aecis 11:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There are many flaws with Roland's study, the greatest of which is that he used rubber gloves as his test material. Condoms are manufactured of a significantly superior latex. --Underwearman 19:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google hits

A google search for "Heather Stilwell" Surrey produces 290 hits.

A google search for "heather stilwell" Surrey homophobia OR homophobe OR homophobic OR anti-gay OR intolerant OR intolerance produces 65 hits.

--BillC38 05:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surrey traditional school

On a visit to Mrs. Stilwell, she shared with me the experience she and others had in attaining the founding of this school. They prevailed upon the school board to establish one, and once it was established, so many parents applied to have their children admitted that the school could not accommodate them, indicating a pent-up demand that was not being met by the school board's own preferred curricular and social design for schools. It is ironic that now these parents' wishes are again being defied by the imposition of books with content disagreeable to the parents with children. I happen to believe that schools should respect the beliefs of the parents whose children are educated there, not that of social activists whose children attend other schools.

GBC 00:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional school stats

The Surrey School Board is responsible for educating over 60,000 students. In the mid-1990's the BC education system suffered significant funding cutbacks. There was solid opposition to the establishment of a traditional school by the majority of parents, teachers and the Surrey Teacher's Association--the district could not afford the establishment of a traditional school without cutting funding for other necessary programmes. In spite of this, Stilwell pushed for the establishement of such a school to serve less than 1% of the parents in the district. In the words of Trustee Jim Chisholm, "there's a strong contingent of parents who would like to take over the entire school system", the traditional school was "rammed through" at a cost of $350,000. --BillC38 06:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

And the school that become a traditional school was going to be closed down, so it didn't take any school space from anyone. GBC 04:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'LGBT' opposition

Perhaps we should also add categories to entries for people and parties that are pushing homosexual rights: 'Religious liberties opposition'.

There are those who oppose "LGBT" rights out of anger and hatred, like the Nazis. (They didn't like anyone if they weren't purely of the 'master race', and even those that were could not embrace "perversions" like communism, liberty, swing music, etc.)

Then there are those who oppose "LGBT" rights not because they think the individuals are unworthy of them, but because they recognize inherent implausibilities, incapabilities and unhealthiness. Homosexual, bisexual and other immoral sexual behaviours are unhealthy because they are often polygamous, and the "rights" sought by those promoting such "LGBT" are not even realistic. Same-sex "marriage" is a sham that is sought only for its symbolism, not because it will actually be fruitful for society.

"LGBT" "opponents" who, like Heather, Ed Vanwoudenberg, myself and other CHP candidates, do not hate homosexuals, bisexuals (and those who practice other immoral sexual behaviours) as people. If we truly obey God and seek to be like Jesus Christ, we do not hate homosexuals, and I certainly do not. I have met three or four homosexuals, and I feel no revulsion or hatred. Rather, my heart aches in agony for them. I yearn for them to know true happiness in Christ, not the counterfeit happiness they have. I oppose "LGBT" "rights" because it will do nothing but prolong their ultimate agony, an agony I desire them to not have to endure.

Therefore, please recognize that while there are "LGBT" opponents who do have revulsion and hatred for homosexuals, bisexuals and such, the people who do have such hatred are ignorant of the Great Commandment.

I recommend a review as to whether it is appropriate to hastily and unqualifiably apply, to people who subscribe to a faith that calls upon them to practice that Great Commandment, the label that is assumed to mean a feeling of personal hatred: "LGBT" opposition?!

GBC 06:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Further to above comments...

Heather Stilwell does not deserve the "LGBT opposition" category. She opposes it only because recognition of "LGBT" "rights" would prolong, for those individuals, their personal agonies like clinical depression, and would also prolong the division they maintain that keeps God from reconciling them to Himself. Heather and I would agree that we want them in Heaven when this life on earth is done, not lost forever in Hell.

If anyone merits the "LGBT opposition" category, it would be Fred Phelps, the Kansas "minister" who does heartless things like picket at the funeral of a homosexual boy and claim that he's in Hell or that God hates such people. God does not hate homosexuals - that's why Jesus died on the cross, to pay for their sins, not just mine, Billy Graham's, Mother Teresa's and others who are heterosexual. And Phelps does not know that Matthew Shepard (sp?) is in Hell. Neither do I. I hope Matthew's in Heaven, and it will be a joy for me to see him there.

But I will not support the LGBT opposition category being put on Fred Phelps, either. I will go there, and request its removal, and leave it up to a vote. As long as the category exists, it is open to misuse. Phelps and Heather Stilwell voice opinions. The difference is: Heather wants the redemption of homosexuals; Phelps has written them off and mouths vile hatred at them.

GBC 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you see, claiming that "homosexuals" are in need of redemption in the first place is what earns that woman a place in that category -- well, to be precise, the fact that she actively works to deny people rights does. You know, you may have your opinon, and she may have hers - but to claim that this opinion is the only one that is "right" is something that you really should do only outside of Wikipedia. Because here, you know, we have NPOV, and that really does not go well with bible-thumping. Besides, what is your point? You rant here for pages that she indeed opposes LGBT rights - even the most basic one, human dignity - and then you whine if she is put into the appropriate category? That does not make a whole lot of sense, to put it mildly. -- AlexR 07:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I see no dignity in being clinically depressed. People who suffered clinical depression were cured of that depression when they were treated for their addiction to homosexual behaviour. I see no dignity in being physically injured in the violence that characteristically found when homosexuals exploit someone like Jessie Dirkhiser, a young boy who was assaulted, repeatedly raped and died from the abuse of two homosexual men. Homosexuals are, like all other people, in need of redemption; there is not a human being born who does not need it, but sadly, those who refuse to give up the justification of their sins miss out on redemption. Why is it regarded as "hatred" to want to share, with homosexuals, the glories of Heaven? I regard it as hatred by people like Fred Phelps who would willingly let homosexuals go to the eternal agony of separation from God. Hate sends to Hell, Love invites to Heaven. GBC 23:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that most LGBT people are not depressed, and would be even less if they would not suffer from the "attention" of the like of Ms. Stilwell. And I sincerely doubt that the undeniably horrible fate of Jessie Dirkhiser was somehow more horrible than that of children assaulted, raped and killed by heterosexual people - because, you know, that happens, too. As for the need of redemption, two things: a) not everybody believes in eternal sin and the idea that "every human needs redemption" in the first place, and b) should it indeed be needed at all, there is no reason to assume that LGBT people (which is, BTW, not quite the same as "homosexual people") need it any more than non-LGBT people. Also, your "invitation to heaven" comes at gunpoint; and I really don't see why anybody should feel particularly invited by people who denying them the right to be as God made them. That is not an invitation to heaven, that is a ticket to hell; and the difference between the likes of Ms. Stillwell and Fred Phelps is just a gradual one, but not a fundamental one. -- AlexR 00:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Even in countries with widespread acceptance of homosexuality, like the Netherlands, or cities like San Francisco, the rate of clinical depression among them is no lower. If there's such widespread acceptance, why are they still depressed... unless it is inherent in the unnatural and destructive nature of the behaviour? As to Jessie Dirkhiser, only one major newspaper mentioned his case, while Matthew Shepard received massive coverage; a bias - the homosexuals who assaulted (to a fatal degree) Jessie for their own gratification aren't villains to the mass media, but the men who assaulted Matthew are? I think the assaulters of both boys are criminals! Also, God doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head to accept Christ - God gave us free choice, and if we choose to be self-willed, doing what we want, then we can pay the price for our sins. "The wages of sin is death", so therefore, all of us are sentenced to death for being unholy. The good news is that Christ dies for us so those who accept Christ don't have to die for their sins. If homosexuals don't want to give their lives to Christ, God is perfectly willing to let them die themselves to pay for their sins. Sure, that is a religious belief, but unlike every other faith, for which no savior is provided, Christianity does have a savior to rescue us from condemnation. I don't believe Islam provides a savior, although you can go to "paradise" (with 70 virgins just for you) if you kill a bunch of people and die in that act; Judaism, like Christianity, seeks a savior, but does not yet realize the savior has already come. Christianity is also the fastest growing faith in the world, even though it is commonly believed that Islam is growing faster. GBC 01:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I refuse to get involved in this discussion, but as a Dutchman, I'm very curious as to what you are basing your statement on that "even in countries with widespread acceptance of homosexuality, like the Netherlands... the rate of clinical depression among them is no lower." What are your references? Aecis 09:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:Irangay teens.jpg|right|thumb|Jessie Dirkhiser is one thing, but what Fred Phelps wants to do is another horseboy 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)]]

This discussion is way off topic--AJSingh 00:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parents' rights

The following was just added to the article:

Stilwell says she is a strong supporter of parents' rights, that is to say, the 'rights' of a minority of parents with conservative views, who have no respect for the equality provisions found in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Why do group rights and national rights usurp individual rights? I believe that all Stilwell is seeking is the respect of those parents' rights. And since the writer of that section refers to those conservative parents as a minority, then Stilwell is defending minority rights, something that Liberal-minded groups have been using the charter for since 1982. Bravo to Stilwell for defending a minority's rights.

Why should those conservative parents' be denied their rights? They are a minority, as the writer of the paragraph said, so shouldn't they have their minority rights protected by the Charter?

Besides, this is what section 15 says: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Equal protection and equal benefit of the law! If conservative-viewed parents want their children excluded from teachings that violate the conscienscious beliefs, or religious beliefs as the case may be, then they are entitled to that protection and benefit.

GBC 05:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not the business of wikipedia to be interprutting section 15. I'm removing the last sentance. I think the bigotry is plenty clear in the rest of the article. Benw 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)