I mentioned recently that Conservative MP Garth Turner got caught in an ambush panel with Dr. Charles McVety of Defend Marriage Canada.

Turner wrote a strong piece at his blog dealing with the ongoing issue of stacking candidate meetings with insta-members (loading a nomination meeting with new supporters) as opposed to oldsta-members (people who have been a member of a party for quite some time.

This is a common practice across all parties, across the country and throughout Canadian history.

In his post Turner did name calling after the ambush and his obvious dislike of McVety was not hidden.

About a month ago he was the only Conservative MP to step forward to help out Maurice Vellacott (also a fundamentalist in the way the vast majority of evangelicals in Canada would define his beliefs). Apples and apples and no win.

Turner called McVety a ’sanctimonious blowhard’ (the issue was gay marriage of course), someone who was spouting off “an agenda of hate and discrimination and godlessness.” and a man who in the TV appearance “thundered and thumped”. Turner ended with this:

Faith-based politics is fine. It has a long tradition. It can accomplish a lot of good. But when one religious or cultural group engineers a coup, overwhelming existing political party members and workers, and replacing a politician elected by a plurality of people with a single-issue monochromatic militant, well, kiss democracy goodbye.

Call it Defend Marriage Canada. Call it the Taliban. Fleurs du mal.

The backlash was not far behind. Turner:

As you may have noticed, I am in God’s crosshairs. After being critical here of the motives and tactics of a Christian coalition group led by Dr. Charles McVety – who I met in a TV debate just days ago – the prime minister is now being urged to punish me for my “grossly ignorant and bigoted” views. Just what I need, eh? At least two weeks without getting into trouble, and now this…

McVety and Turner chatted after the press release calling for his punishment.

“The messaging from your article was that we, on the other hand, represent just a tiny amount of people and that we should be compared as a result to some kind of evil. It is very evident from your bloggers that this is how they read it.”

McVety also took exception to some of my more colourful language. And when I referred to special-interest candidates as “single-issue monochromatic militants”, he read that as code for people with skins of a different colour than mine. Of course, it was not. Low blow, Rev.

In any case, I did agree with the guy on one thing: Political debate is best when it does not involve name-calling. “This is not a fight I wish to engage in,” he said. “I will debate you, but I do not want to fight you.”

The press release: Institute for Canadian Values calls on Harper to discipline MP Garth Turner for ‘bigoted comments’

“Last week Garth Turner attacked so-called ‘ethnics’ on television

“Now he is targeting people of faith on his blog, especially those who support the traditional definition of marriage, calling them ‘taliban’ and accusing them of an ‘agenda of hate’.”

“Grossly ignorant and bigoted comments such as these are unacceptable in any civilized society…

“Garth Turner’s behaviour is a sharp illustration of the vicious and deep-rooted bigotry lurking just below the surface of the secular-left in our society,”

“People like him claim to be champions of tolerance, but when their own ideas and positions are challenged, they resort to name-calling and fear mongering, laughably invoking the principle of tolerance to justify their bigotry.

Oh.
One of the things I believe is important is that Turner readers do not dismiss this group and other far right groups allied with them such as Focus on the Family Canada. These are bright committed people, well organized and positioned to push for what they want. We make a mistake to dismiss them or name call at our peril, and assume all evangelicals are fundamentalists. Yes, they are focusing on the same single issues the US is, citing Judeo-Christian ethics, values voters, and using the same effective lobby tactics but although some of the smaller groups may be more fringe than others, they work together in common causes.
They know how to ’fight’ with their debates using the tactics they accuse others of.

Turner made a mistake in his frustration by name calling. 
We voters need to understand what groups like this want and how they go about getting it; and rather than dismissing them, engage them on the larger procedural issues facing Canadian voters.