Kevin Green from CFCN News was in Medicine Hat Wednesday doing a story about the “Bikini’s on the covers of some as yet to be named magazines” bylaw.
He came to Medicine Hat today and interviewed a number of people involved in this mess. It will be on the News Tonight Thursday 22nd 6:pm on CFCN Calgary. I wonder if we will look like a bunch of loony red necks. 
/Not that we don’t deserve it after electing this council.
*update you can see the story at http://calgary.ctv.ca
Reporter: “Are you censoring ideas or images?”
CAPCS: “I think we have to start with images”
I guess ideas are next - though it wasn’t so long ago they were telling us that certain moods and lighting were inappropriate.
Spider stired all this up, way to go Spider, good to see some media attention focused on this topic.
Thanx mate I can’t wait to see this.
That must irritate CAPCS….well done.
we’ll see …for some reason the media tends to moderate CAPCS’s extreme position.
50 votes in the poll - thats unusual …and mostly from “guests” (the lurkers…people who read but dont post)- guess the idea of firing alderman has some appeal.
Wow Acording to the Poll, Peanuts has been crushed. The Dumpster is second choice.
The problem is the media has to squash everything down to a couple of minutes at most. Even the news paper. The C.A.P.C.S. issue really needs an investigative type of story. What we see on the News or in the paper usually leave out very important background info.
Most of the public have not seen the Survey, so they only have ours or CAPCS word on the truth of it. We know the Survey was rubbish because we have seen it.
Same goes for the Dumsters trash talk at the Council Meeting. All this stuff is out there, but there are too many barriers in place for most of the public to actually see it. There is no written log of what was said in that meeting. Even the minutes of the Council meeting are a month old on the City Web site.
With the technology at hand, and at little cost, The City has had the opportunity to be more transparent for years; the will is not there to get it done.
Awsome
that news story was good, Did anyone else notice how CAPCS answered the question about censoring images or messages - they said “Start with images”
Thats the real rub - we know this group has no bottom, they wont stop until they directly control what businesses can say, do and offer for sale in our city.
2mins is not enough time to demonstrate how whacked CAPCS is.
Yeh that was a really good report. You can still view it at
http://calgary.ctv.ca/
Click on the Kevin Green reports link and a vidio will pop up. Not sure how long they keep them availible.
50 votes in the poll - thats unusual …and mostly from “guests” (the lurkers…people who read but dont post)- guess the idea of firing alderman has some appeal.
Too bad couldn’t vote for the “top 3″… you know like we do the stupid elections here. 1st choice, 2nd choice and turd choice.
I see another standard C.A.P.C.S. template letter is in the news today.
Interesting, that according to that C.A.P.C.S. Template letter to the news. There has been a dramatic increase in Teen pregnecy.
I will quote right from the Stats Canada page
“During the last quarter century, there has been an overall decline in the teenage pregnancy rate in Canada, perhaps reflecting the availability of contraceptives, and the increased awareness of the risks of unprotected sex brought about by the AIDS epidemic. Nevertheless, in 1997, an estimated 19,724 women aged 15 to 19 gave birth, and a slightly larger number in this age range—21,233—had an abortion”
Yeah funny - yesterdays paper had a headline that Children born to teenage mothers was down 50% and was the lowest since 1970.
Todays letter to the editor blamed cleavage for an imaginary rise in teenaged pregnancy.
Take note Medicine Hat - by the letter to the editor and the comments in the CFCN piece CAPCS wont be finished after they have sanitized bikinis…its the look on their face that they want to ban next…
Ideas are to be censored next. What book was it that had the thought police?
1984
Today’s C.A.P.C.S. Template letter to Med Hat News left the impression that Teen pregnancy is up because of Bikini on the cover Magazines. Totally false as you can see from Stats Canada, and a headline that was in the same News Paper only yesterday. They left the impression that families are more dysfunctional now than ever before. Because of images of women in Bikini’s? They also want to turn our Society back. Back to what? A time when there were actually more Teen pregnancies? When pregnant Teens were sent away to Aunties house, or forced into a backstreet Abortion, so as not to embarrass the family? Or the time when the Man of the house had absolute power over his domain? When no one reported sexual abuse, by the Man of the House, the local Priest, the Schools they were sent off to? Or was is the time when children were forced into arranged marriages. (By their dysfunctional Society) I would really like C.A.P.C.S. to tell us when this Magical Society of theirs, when children were spared the sight of Adult Materials existed.
What I want to know is why only magazines with women on the covers are being targeted by these morons? There are lots of magazines that have half naked men on the covers, as well as those body building magazines where there is a guy in a ity bitty speedo where there is NOTHING left to the imagination. This dumb CAPCS group is sexist against women and want to ensure women are treated as second class citizens. They probably want to take voting rights away from women next and then make them cover themselves from head to toe, hey and while they are at it they might as well ban women from getting an education.
I guess we can look forward to all the swimming pools and Echo Dale closing in the future if this group isnt stopped.
I read this article today. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-males18feb18,0,7287489.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
It says how the DECLINE in sexual assaults and rapes can be attributed to the increasing equality of women in today’s society. Doesn’t that indicate that our society is not harming children but actually educating them for the better?
First of all, I could not find it on the CTV link. I would like to see it if it is still there. If someone knows, post it on the blog. Thanks.
Secondly, that letter today is such a farce that it makes me laugh at the mentality of the people in and the followers of CAPCS. Facial expressions and clevage. Man, that will sure as hell take away the spring and summer Sears catalogue. The more this issue goes on, the broader the scope of the bylaw will get. “Facial expressions.” What does this group of fanatical idiots want. Pretty soon you will not be able to have children because of the pleasureful look on someones face. They are getting stupider all the time, and it is time that this group and its followers on the council are exposed in some way for the bull#### they are trying to cram down the majoritys throat. It is plain, out and out crap. I hope Joyce and Kathy read this and have the guts to reply to this and others who have written.
Hart - it just goes to show that this CAPCS group has no bottom. It will take a movement in Medicine Hat to finally have the people stand up and say enough in order for the madness to end. This is just the “thin edge of the wedge” as Pope pointed out.
With this group you KNOW the issue doesn’t end here. After magazines - its posters, then what dress codes? radio comments, then TV programming…This group will not stop mandating and pushing until they alone decide all that is deemed acceptable in our city.
The CFCN news page is hard to navigate but you can
1) search for “adult” in the search bar on the top left of the screen
2) click on the link “Pornography Debate” not sure how much longer they keep it up. Hope they don’t delete it, but you cant link directly to the news story as they want you to go to their site and see the ads likely…which makes sense…thats what pays the bills. - hence why my link here doesn’t work I guess
*Note sorry …even that has stopped working.
Please CFCN let us keep your news story alive a little while longer…We would be willing to host it, give you full credit for it and display it as is so people can see the news - any guidline you want to impose we will follow.
I recorded it to Vidio, but have no way to get it onto my computer. I have emailed CTV to see if there is a way to view archived stuff.
Hart go to the CTV site and do a site search for Medicine Hat. It will show you the resent news for us. Click on where it says kevin green reports at the bottom of the pornograghic debate. It takes a few seconds, a Vidio will start.
Yeah Spider …but if you wait you will see its the wrong video!
what link are you clicking mate? Make sure your at the Pornographic debatea and click on Kevin Greens name.
I did that …but the Kevin Green link brought up some story with cars in it not the CAPCS thing at least for me…but the text article was still there.
When you e-mail Kevin tell him we will host it for them any way they like …even making a mock page with advertisers all around the story.
Thats wierd I am still getting the right vidio.
An organized group is needed to fight this bunch. I am up for it.
Spider. Thanks for the info. It worked. The piece was good. Not very long, but good. The owner of HNAT was right, she does not have the time to do this idiotic “clensing” of our morals. I did not know that a city the size of Calgary does not have a bylaw and they are getting around fine. Maybe we just have too many bible thumpers in this city minding everyone elses business. Like John Hamil said, everyone has different morals, so don’t try to legislate it.
Hello, I am new to this forum, and so far have enjoyed the posts, until now.
Your logo fits true right now that you are *mostly* unbiased. I note that you have cordially invited others into the discussion in other posts (ie. Tim Clugston), however, Mr.Hart wasn’t very polite in his request for the CASPC members to join into this discussion. Has anyone in CAPCS even aware of this thread of discussion? Probably not.
I happen to be a new mother and I am pleased that there are parents in our community standing up for their believes to make Medicine Hat a safer place for our children. I happen to know many of the fine men and women in the CAPCS and they are not blubbering religious fanatics. They are crazy in love with their children and want to see positive changes come into the places they frequent with their kids.
I, too, dread the day when my child looks at me and questions why particular parts of women and men’s anatomy is in plain view in a community store and I have to try and explain today’s society to him when he is not old enough to understand lack of modesty. I appreciate the positive differences CAPCS is trying to make, and admire them for their continued efforts, despite much opposition (especially from *Christians* such as those posting on this forum).
As for the recent polls about teenage pregnancy being on the decline, we all know that it’s not entirely true. I would be hard pressed to find a teenager now a days who hasn’t had premarital sex, or contemplated it. Teenagers are having sex early and more often now than when I was a teenager (which wasn’t that long ago). And don’t tell me they aren’t (not being computer savvy, I can’t provide a recent poll, but the teenagers I know personally can certainly attest to this).
I agree with the HNAT store owner that it is much harder in today’s society to be moral, which means taking the time to move certain magazines up out of sight. I will find it much harder to scan a store before I enter it to make sure my child doesn’t see things his little learning eyes shouldn’t. It’s sad that the world, and my community has come to this.
So, let’s hear from some of the fanatics (I would agree on that word, just not in the same context as previously posted on this thread) in the CAPSC. It would be interesting, not to mention fair, to hear their views as well.
First - The forum is and always has been open to all to participate in. CAPCS members right up to their president are very much aware of this forum and have chosen to participate in it from time to time and are not choosing to anymore…que sara sara. To even suggest its not open to them is false. While we invite their input here, have they been as courteous in this process? Have they invited businesses or stake holders to speak at City Hall when they present flawed and fabricated “evidence” of non compliance?
Second - While you don’t feel Mr Hart was very polite, I encourage everyone to participate in a polite discussion but that would include CAPCS supporters who like yourself try and characterize those who disagree with them as not loving their children or being for endangerment of children. Its exactly that rude hyperbole that solicits the angry backlash. Do you honestly think you love your children more than I love mine simply because you have a different opinion as to what degree of dress constitutes modesty?
I happen to be a new father - does that alone justify my position - not at all, just as being a parent doesn’t justify yours. So again like we asked of the CAPCS group themselves - if you insist on claiming this is for the “good of the children” you would think it would be possible for you to provide ANY evidence to demonstrate children are being harmed by a woman on a magazine cover in a bikini.
but this takes the cake:
despite much opposition (especially from *Christians* such as those posting on this forum).
I think its very rude of you to suggest that Christians who worship love and cherish Jesus Christ are lesser versions of the faith because they disagree with you about bikinis. A statement like that is absolutly asinine. Do you think the minority group of CAPCS speaks for the majority of Christians? Or is your Christianity just superior to the one practiced at my church?
If you want to participate go ahead - but I challenge you on this. Provide evidence to support your opinion not just your own untempered judgment in which you decide your personal morality is of higher caliber than those who disagree with you - and support your claim with logical discussion and rational arguments not just hyperbole and insults.
Far more damaging to our children is to grow up in a community of censorship. Far more dangerous to our children is the idea that a small group of people with an extreme position (in that its variance is far from the norm)can and will dictate to the majority what is and is not acceptable to view in public. What’s next dress codes?
To Rosey.mom.
You say you are new to this forum. I do not think politeness has anything to do with the offer of CAPCS memberss to partake in this forum. They know it is here. Read the previous posts from about 5-6 months ago. I just do not think that they want to participate, because they cannot come up with a list of items, magazines and such that they want to put on the list. Since I have been aware of the blog, I have NEVER seen a list of magazines from them, and what they want to include in the bylaw. They want to include everything from clevage on the front of maxim and oxygen to magazines like cosmopolitan which has suggestive facial expressions.
CAPCS supporters are not the only ones that have raised children in this city. I have raised two children also, so I do not need to be told by CAPCS that national geographic and magazines like Muscle, need to be out of sight, because they have a picture of some male or female body, fully clothed, probably better clothed than out a Echo Dale I might ad, be pulled off the shelf or put out of sight. Where is this kind of crap going to end? Are they going to try to legislate what the girls and boys can wear at Echo Dale, the Liesure Center or the outdoor pools in the summer. Go to the mall in the summer and see if you can go shopping without exposing your children to some clevage somewhere. I dare You, because you cant. Eventually you are going to have to explain the facts of life to your children. Or just maybe they will learn it on the street, like the many children who have already. Maybe that is why teenage pregnancy is up. Parents not wanting to explain the right choices to their children.. I do not think that a copy of Cosmo or national geographic is going to contribute to the teenage pregnancy issue. Probably just a lack of information.
And about the Christian issue. Everyone knows that CAPCS is a christian based organization. I personally take it to offense that you would suggest that I am a lesser Christian than you just because I do not agree with you. Maybe I do not attend church as much as you, but I resent those remarks.
D.M–RIGHT ON..
Thank you for your comments…I admit to not reading posts from 5-6 months ago, so my comment was based only on this thread. I understand that the CAPSC group has not been totally on the mark all the time, but I still admire their determination and efforts at protecting children in Medicine Hat.
Having said that, my main point was it is unfortunate that as parents, and especially as a Christian parent, my child has to be exposed to these magazines when I will make every effort to keep them from my home and my television. When I walk into stores, I cringe at what my child will see and what I will have to explain to him that he doesn’t need to know about at a young age. Yes, my child will need to know about the facts of life, but does he need to be exposed to it in the line up at a convenience store? Is that where I want this sensitive discussion to begin? And does he need to know these things at such a young and tender age? I don’t want to be overprotective, but I would like to be in control of the timing and the content, which is very difficult with the exposure he will undoubtedly face at an early age.
I think Medicine Hat is doing a fine job of keeping the adult material up out of sight, as per federal law. However, it’s not enough. It is impossible to escape the scantily clad women and sensitive issues that are plastered all over the covers of many magazines.
I did not intend to question anyone’s moral standards or present myself as a better Christian. I simply wanted to say that many of the CASPC members are fine people who just love their own young children and are trying to protect them. And unfortunately, this thread didn’t yet have that representation, and I felt obliged to represent it. And I think it’s too bad that we feel we can’t support them in their endeavors (whether it’s because we don’t agree with their stand or the methods by which they use to make their stand).
Rosey.mom,
Lets go to the end of your latest entry on the blog. I think the only reason there has been no entrys from CAPCS supporters, is that they know what they are trying to do is a farce. Now before you start cussing me out, let me explain.
In all the blogs there have been in the last months, not once have they laid down a list of what they want to cover. not once. I think, along with many others on this blog, that what they want is a blanket bylaw to cover what ever they want or deem is inappropriate or lewd, or obsene. I am in full agreement with the magazines like Penthouse, Hustler and etc. But I defy you or anyone in the group to tell me that Cosmo or National Geographic is obsene and should be pulled from the shelves and put up out of the way of prying eyes. If you want to keep your children out of harms way, in regards to the magazines in the convenience stores and the supermarkets, all the power to you. You will probably wind up keeping him at home until he is 18.
Do you not agree, that even at a young and tender age, they are going to ask questions?
If they ask you about certain aspects of humanity, will you tell them the truth and the facts, or will you give them the old “Cabbage Patch” story?
What CAPCS is trying to do is out and out censorship, and the world has gone through it many times in the past. Now they are trying to spread it to our fair community, and the majority of the people are saying “Whoa, we do not want this. But this little group of people seem to have the city council by the, excuse the expression, “Balls” and want them to spend all the taxpayers money on producing a bylaw, which most of the voting public in Medicine Hat feel is unwanted, because they want to “protect the children” . I am all for protecting the children also, But the way and the use of that phrase by CAPCS is just a smokescreen for their own little agenda. Something that, probably at most 200 people want, and the rest of the people will not have a say in, unless the council and the mayor straps on a set and says, “This is enough”. Hell, Calgary does not even have a bylaw.
Thanks rosey.mom - lets have a more civil discussion all around.
As to your points:
Its your right to decide what material is appropriate for your children to see - but its not your right to define what’s appropriate for stores to display. The two don’t go hand in hand. I don’t allow my children to see graphically violent news images in my house either, but I don’t expect Safeway’s to pull the copies of TIME magazine off the shelf simply because I don’t want my kids to see them.
We absolutely have the right to shop elsewhere. When every single retailer is displaying the magazines in a way you don’t like - you have to admit that your sensitivities just aren’t in line with the majority of standards in your community. Order your groceries online http://www.shopsobeys.com - shut your kids in your house if you want - that is your right as a parent.
There for: its not reasonable for CAPCS to DEMAND by force of law that businesses give up profits and sales to please the views of the minority of citizens. As a community the moral business owners and shoppers and citizens of Medicine Hat don’t agree that an image of a woman in a bikini is harmful to children. We are allowed to disagree on that point- but freedom of expression guarantees that publishers have a right to publish material that you might object to, to push the envelope so long as it isn’t deemed obscene (read nudity or explicitly erotic) – and stores have a right to display that material for sale. You might be offended by Cosmo or Maxim magazine that’s your right, but free speech implies that people are allowed to offend you.
Let me ask you this.
Do you see no value in having freedom of speech and expression? Do we really give up nothing, if a small unelected group gets to alone decide what shall be “acceptable” for public viewing?
WHAT IF a strong willed group of determined citizens wished to banish the sight of something they don’t like, (Symbols of the Cross or the Bible) simply on the basis of their own opinion - What if they claimed those symbols and words are “unacceptable” – would you be so willing to give up your rights then? I am sure there are several religious sects in Canada that would deem our faith offensive and something their children should never be exposed to. (hence they should protect the children from this unspecified danger) What if they decide Christian symbols were a “danger to our children” without having to prove any danger or damage like CAPCS has failed to produce in this instance.
Do you want to live in a society where your rights of expression aren’t protected and guaranteed? Shouldn’t you get to say to them – So what if my Cross offends you, it’s a free country! That’s what free speech means! It cuts both ways! You cant insist on your rights to express yourself how you want for symbols of religion and the right to public Nativity scenes - and then demand others conform to only your expression.
Thats not how freedom works. Thats not the contract on which we developed our democracy and founded this community.
That’s not democracy. That’s not a free society.
By the way freedom and democracy are compatible CHRISTIAN ideals – Is it coincidence that the first societies to embrace freedom of speech were Christian? (think of the early martyrs of the Church) - Christians rose up and fought for free speech. Demanded it when the came to this continent and others. Is it coincidence that the vast majority of free people in the world live in countries that are founded by Christians? Is that all coincidence? Being pro free speech is not a contrary position to that of Christianity. That some Christians in my community will bully, intimidate and lie to remove someone else’s freedoms to operate a legal business selling a legal product doesn’t make our position any less moral or sound. For CAPCS to suggest theirs is the Christian position by default is mistaken.
So for people on the CAPCS side of the debate to debase or denigrate someone else’s faith simply for disagreeing - well I don’t think that’s very Christian at all – but its certainly implied in their statements.
as to the magazines themselves - Doesn’t it seem silly to allow a scantily dressed woman to stand in line with you at the check out counter, but then insist a picture of a woman with a “look in her eye” be kept out of sight?
Its perfectly legal to show cleavage in an outfit at the mall in front of our kids- why should we hide it on the cover of a magazines?
I am sure many or all of the CAPCS members are fine people…but you know what? So are many or all of the people who disagree with them. This isn’t about “good” people vs “bad” people – to that end CAPCS supporters on this issue have been very ugly and disrespectful. Mr Duminosky spoke publicly at the City Hall characterizing anyone who is against this bylaw as being against our children. – Really? I think the majority of Hatters are against the bylaw…are they are all anti child? What sort of hyperbole is that?
So if our reaction to your statements seemed defensive its because you are in a long line of similar statements that have gone on far too long in this community.
but welcome to the discussion and the blog - you are free to express yourself in this forum.
rosey.mom
If you can supply me with proof, that your child is suffering damage from the display of Magazines in a Store. I will gladly help you change the way material is displayed in this Country.
Until then I leave you with this. I have no doubt at all, that children are safer now, in this time, at this place. Than in the entire History of the Human Race.
I invite you to prove me wrong.
Spider, I’ll have to get back to you on the negative impact of magazines on by child as my child as my child is under a year, and hasn’t yet started asking questions!!
But, how could that be gauged, do you think?
However, I can attest to the negative impact that such images have had on me. There are images branded in my mind that I have seen while growing up that I would love to wipe clean, though I will admit, did not come from a magazine, but from a show on TV (? is it because the content on magazine covers wasn’t as daring as it is now? I don’t know). While I won’t get THAT personal and say the impact it had on me, I can say that those scenes will continue to flash in mind when I will least expect it, and it disturbs me. Nonetheless, I can’t go back and change that glance that permanently pasted questionable pictures in my mind. But, THAT is what I would like to protect my child from. And, I plan to do that in my home as much as possible, and I wish it was easier to do that in grocery stores, and movie stores, and the like, but in today’s society, such is not the case. I realize that I can’t protect my child from what is viewed in stores and in other people’s homes, etc. and that is unfortunate.
Just to note, I don’t necessarily agree with the bylaw, nor the methods by which they are setting out to pass it, but I also don’t agree with slamming a whole group of people by the very vocal representatives of CAPCS, which is why I felt the need to paint some of them in the noble light they deserve.
I also would like to say, that it’s unfortunate that, circumstances are the way they are, that people who endeavored to make a positive change in something they felt was morally important to them, have taken it to a level where they have lost credibility and respect from peers and other members of their community. With someone standing up for moral issues, it’s a shame that we couldn’t all be on the same page. It would be refreshing to be able to take a stand on a moral issue with a united front.
Just to note, I don’t necessarily agree with the bylaw, nor the methods by which they are setting out to pass it, but I also don’t agree with slamming a whole group of people by the very vocal representatives of CAPCS, which is why I felt the need to paint some of them in the noble light they deserve.
How exactly do you separate the members of the CAPCS group from the actions of the CAPCS group?
How else should we judge the actions and statements of the CAPCS group OTHER THAN by the statements and actions of their representatives? If there is a more moderate voice of CAPCS members they certainly have not made themselves public. They show up on mass in full support of the actions of their very vocal representatives.
Peaple keep saying stuff like
“but in today’s society, such is not the case”
As if they are alluding to a time that was better. What exacly do you mean by that statement?
First, rosey.mom, if you’d like to do some catching up, start out by reading through this thread from November: http://www.medhatblog.com/?p=187#comments
Joyce Stiger (President of CAPCS) posts as “Brahms” throughout the thread.
Second, DM, I think your comments about democracy are bang on. I want to add my perspective to this as well. Just so you have some background, I am a born-again, spirit-filled Christian who had a very conservative upbringing. My wife is the same, and together with our two young daughters (both under 5) we are active participants in a local evangelical, charismatic church - active participation including teaching Sunday School, playing music on the worship team, and leading a bi-weekly small group - (approx 15 people) from our home.
Now, as a committed Christian, and caring father, I am opposed to the public display of pornography or sexually suggestive materials. I would rather that myself and my family never were exposed to these things. However, my family and I have to live our lives. As the Bible says, we are to be “in” the world, but not “of it”, meaning we have to live in an imperfect world as we strive to live righteous lives.
The real issue here is that democracy, while founded on many Christian principles, is still (from a Biblical standpoint) a flawed form of government. As we all know, democracy is in a nutshell “rule by the people”, or what we often call majority rule. If the majority of individuals in a democracy are not born-again Christians, than over time that democracy will become more secular, and move away from governance that is aligned with the Bible”.
In the Bible, God initially formed the nation of Israel as a theocracy (led first by Moses, then Joshua, etc.) The people of Israel begged for a king soon however, and therefore with the start of King Saul Isral became a monarchy - against God’s wishes.We have to deduce from this that God prefers the government of a theocracy. However, in today’s world there are no 100% Christian nations such as the ancient nation of Israel, so this is not at all workable, although other religions other than Christianity try to make a go of it (see Iran). Of all the other forms of government left to choose from then, democracy is the most preferred. So, we as Christians in Canada have chosen to live in this democracy, so we are obligated to accept both its advantages and it’s drawbacks (in relation to our beliefs).
So, getting back to the CAPCS thing. Because the methodology of CAPCS tries to subtrovert the basic tenants of our government, I AM 100% OPPOSED TO THIS BYLAW. Do I want to see the kind of materials removed that they are trying to get removed? Definitely yes. However, I believe the right way for us as Christians to do this is through the proper “use”, not “abuse” of government channels. WE CAN NOT TRY AND FORCE OUR BELIEFS ON A PREDOMINANTELY SECULAR COMMUNTIY! If we really desire change, the most effective way for us as Christians to undertake this task is through prayer and evangelism. If we turn our city, our province, and our country toward Christ (become a predominently born-again nation), THERE WILL BE NO NEED for the kind of ugly tactics and strongarmism that CAPCS is using. The majority of people will be begging for legislation that upholds and protects purity and righteousness.
The Bible says in reference to judging people, “…by their fruits you shall know them.” The fruit of the CAPCS group has not been Christ-like, but rather the opposite. Of course, they credit opposition as “the work of the devil”, which IMHO is probably true to some extent, but what a disgrace to try paint the backlash of their wrongdoings and ethical mistakes as the work of Satan! Unfortunately I belive that CAPCS may have done more harm than good to the cause of Christ in this community. Many people have been turned off to Christianity by this minority group. To non-Christians out there: please don’t judge us by this group - they do not represent Christ, and they do not represent many Christians.
Another very sad thing is that many Christians that I know (either actively or passively) support the CAPCS group simply because they are a Christian group. This phenomenon is rampant in my own church - I’ll bet if I read this post in front of my church 90% of them would give me the stare of death. To them, Kathy Smith is a Christian, CAPCS is a Christian group, so therefore it MUST be the right thing to support. Many of my own friends are SO GUILTY of this. They take NO TIME to actually investigate the issue, and are blinded by their religious biases. To all other Christians out there - PLEASE take time to really investigate this issue, learn what has taken place, pray about this - don’t just blindly follow the herd because someone you know has told you that it is the right thing to support.
/I really hope that made some sense, it does in my (Christian) head anyway…
What troubles me, is the fact that City Council has to know they have been mislead, and outright lied to. Yet they are going ahead with this bylaw anyway.
What troubles me, is the fact that City Council has to know they have been mislead, and outright lied to. Yet they are going ahead with this bylaw anyway.
I agree - I think for the most part they didn’t think anyone was paying that close attention to their decisions.
I also think for some of them probably do think that CAPCS has gone too far, but they feel that the city lawyers will cut out the absurd parts of the bylaw for the obvious issues of conflicting with the constitution and will return a bylaw similar to Lethbridges that wont include the look in a woman eye or the mood of the lighting or whatever vague term CAPCS is using today.
I think they felt intimated by a well organized group that is very active and most importantly votes on election day. They felt they should cater to the loud minority in front of them and assuming that as usual the bulk of Hatters wouldn’t bother to notice. - Admittedly its a formula that seemingly worked well in the past.
I hope there is a penalty to be paid on election night - its the one night we can hold them accountable….
***Edit*** Longshot and Dangermouse can continue this discussion somewhere where they are not thread jacking. This topic is about CAPCS, one discussion per thread, otherwise its just chaos.
http://www.medhatblog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2158#2158
The CFCN story was interesting in how the CAPCS representative was as elusive as their dogma and alluded to a further extension of their hidden agenda with the reference to “images” for now. They had started with business licensing, Zoning, Videos and Magazines six years ago when their petition failed (a petition that was even wider in scope) and now with this possible bylaw have extended the magazine issue to include posters, calendars and adult novelties. Will this stop at images only? Certainly not. They have targeted clothing, perfume and printed material (minus pictures) as well. The letters in the paper from a Margaret Rose and the 22-year-old Melanie Herman is typical in how CAPCS and CAPCS supporters have eluded the subject on what is adult material. The 22 year old stated, “I don’t think the definition of adult material seems broad” yet also states “I think material that shows cleavage, genitalia or sexually suggestive facial expressions and words is classified as adult material”. With no clear guideline her statements are contradictory and her statements make the magazine definition wide open/broad. Without an insult to our readers it is of common consensus that the Playboy/Penthouse variety magazines are “porn” and should not be accessible to children. However to say Maxim/Stuff style magazines are also adult material (remember CAPCS state adult material and porn are one in the same) but excludes Cosmo/Oxygen and various other magazines because the audience of these magazines are geared to men is pure bunk. To even suggest that any ANY magazine that shows cleavage, genitalia or sexually suggestive facial expressions is adult material is ludicrous. If that was the case then the level/scope of “porn” is truly broad, so broad to include teen magazines, art books, and even yes the bible. The frescos in the Sistine chapel in Rome (the hotbed of catholic logy) show cleavage and genitalia. Please explain the logic of that “porn”. The CAPCS group have targeted comic books that have drawings (as opposed to photographs) and if that is the case then any bible that has art drawings showing biblical depictions with nude or partially naked figures then these should by the very description as applied to CAPCS logic (read illogic) should be declared adult material. Let us remember that the invention of the camera did not occur until the mid 1800’s and paintings/drawings and sculpture (many many that show cleavage AND genitalia) was the media used. Perhaps Ms Herman could enlighten us all in what a sexually suggestive facial expression is. Can you readers?
Rose.mom is as vague as CAPCS are in what is adult material. Please list for us some examples i.e. magazines and at the same time list magazines that are not and let see the comparisons.
Superwilly …while I applaud your stand on how CAPCS have subverted democracy in city council you have also been as vague as the rest of CAPCS in what is adult material. Please give examples as to what is and isn’t. Let’s see if the comparison is similar or clearly evident in difference. This is what has been the bone of contention from the store operators. CAPCS have refused perhaps you as a “supporter” of the good intentions of CAPCS can provide some clarity. Let’s see if your views differ than the CAPCS view.
As to the statements here that CAPCS supporters differ from the views of say “the CAPCS representatives (i.e. Joyce Stigter, Dan Smith, Cathy Smith etc) then I draw you to the fact they had a number of people at the council chambers showing their support. They are either in full agreement with these fanatical leaders of theirs or are as duped as the rest of city council. Facts are facts and these facts are in the files held by city hall. This shows that CAPCS has perverted the system to meet their agenda. We are not in the wrong here. City hall has said ….oops…. yet rather than correct the oops they have continued the propagation of this corruption as evident by the four members Vallely, Kelly, Dumanowski and Smith. I challenge rose.mom and Superwilly to state otherwise. …and to show use what is adult material. If you cannot give a clear cut definition then you are part of the problem and not the solution.
whew, this is one great blog topic. i saw the piece on cfcn and my blood ran cold when the capcs reps said “start with images.” will they try and stop what people are thinking by using electric shock! i want to know where the bully council members were when cfcn came calling? too afraid to step forward now? Hmmm. i think a news program such as w5 needs to be contacted to do an indepth story and show the public that capcs members have bullied their way onto the council agenda and wasted OUR money for THEIR personal mission, that can yet be defined clearly!!!!!
Hey Jim - I think you are mis-reading Superwilly’s post. He is stating it doesn’t matter which magazines he personally objects to because its subjective and his own personal belief. What he is stating is that you cant legislate your beliefs onto others.
The problem with CAPCS is that they have to be stopped. They have no bottom that the rest of the community can live with. “Starting” with images means this is only the beginning of the morality bylaws they wish to bring to law.
Floyd:
W5 has crossed my mind as well.
Thanks DM…….. I know where he is coming from…… just disagree that you have to be a Christian to be moral. And again my question what is acceptable and what is not. Are nudes in a church mural (or city hall mural) okay but in an art book are not? Simple question..by whose standard do we censor…by a Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, wickers, or an atheist. We do not have to believe in any religion to know right from wrong…just being human .
Thats the thing Jim - we are allowed to self censor what we feel is or is not appropriate - and we dont have to defend or explain it- its just simply a subjective point of view. Nobody has to agree. I could be of the opinion that woman over the age of 9 should be covered head to toe in a viel…nothing wrong with having that belief - but its wrong to insist others share that belief.
CAPCS is welcome to have the opinion that magazine A is acceptable and magazine B isnt simply because of their opinion - they are entitled to an opinion. Of course they arent entitled to a bylaw based on that opinion.
He is correctly saying that you cant project that subjective view point onto others especially by force of law. And I agree.
I made a suggestion to Spider on a course of action we can do but do not want to give out details here as CAPCS are surly monitoring this blog. Contact him on details and let him know if it is a plan. Five years ago Vallely asked me to shut up and wait for the wording of the bylaw they were drafting up and so I “cooled my jets” as his words were. But then when the bylaw came out it was too late to further protest and they voted on it 5 minutes later after only allowing me 5 min to speak. By then it was already decided by them anyhow and when I pressed the issue they said the whole process I was questioning, and that they only allowed a review of (which they did not), was to do about magazines not the zoning bylaw that moments later passed by a vote of 6-3 (not by the 8-1 vote count listed on the CAPCS website). I gave Spider some copies of the council meeting which covered this vote and it is on tape how they screwed up, then covered their mistakes by saying we are passing the misinformation. Lies caught on tape go figure eh? We can not rest on our laurels while this bylaw is being drafted like CAPCs would like but must get the press on board and the info out that CAPCS is again pulling a fast one with 4 concil members in cahoots. Oh such positive community standards my foot.
e-mail me the info lets have the community take at a look.
From what I can tell - under pretty much any definition City Council comes up with for ‘Adult Material’, the mural just outside council doors could fall under this bylaw.
I’m curious with what they plan to do with this mural? Put stickers over the Native Women’s nipples? That is what this is about, correct?
Oh no - its not about the nipples …its the “look” in her eye. Does she have that shameful look? you know the one …the one thats …well …dirty and shameful?
I was going to sugest a store, where CAPCS members could buy Chisels, but its on their hit list.
But she shows clevage.
Off with her breasts I say..Hmmm maybe I should start a survey on city held property with adult material/porn on them.
While digging around for past city council minutes that I held onto over the past 6 years I came upon minutes from a May 20, 2003 council meeting that some may find interesting. During the entire time this issue was an issue council continued to say we (the opposition) were the ones responsible for all the misinformation being disseminated and not council. Equally interesting is that council (Cathy Smith and CAPCS as well) placed a strong emphasis as to the importance of “protecting our children” and how this bylaw is needed to safeguard our society from immoral businesses yet as you can see in the following excerpt from the minutes that Vallely would say that the issue was only about magazines (despite their own mandated stipulation to the Public Service Committee to the contrary) and that this matter as not important (yet it hasn’t been put to rest for 6 years). Included is the recorded remarks from Karen Charlton (tasked to oversea the adult material review) that the review was only about magazines (written material) yet 3 other topics (licensing, videos, and the infamous “Zoning Bylaw”) were on the mandated review and to which CAPCS participated and demanded the implementation of the proposed recommendations that later was passed by council. Her response was made after I had demanded during that very meeting that it was not about magazines only and Vallely had Karen Charlton come down from the public gallery to the public mike to say her remarks. And they say WE were passing on misinformation? Sick.
Medicine Hat City Council minutes –May 20, 2003 (Page 3 Item 4 Communications) following communications by G. Leismeister and C. Hicken Re Proposed Adult Materials Bylaw.
Karens remarks are as follows:
“In response to a request for clarification of who had been invited to meetings on adult materials, Mrs Charlton, Manager of Social Development, stated that the initial public consultation was done July 16, 2002 with 60 businesses that would be directly affected by written adult materials only.”
This despite the mandated topics under review as stated. So even though Zoning was the major topic operators like Sassy Secrets, The Doll House, and others directly affected by the zoning bylaw later passed (directly as a result of this “alleged” review were not to be invited. Why not?). Karen knew her mandate was not just about magazines so why did she state it was? Because confusion reigned in council and required, and demanded, leadership under Vallely was not forthcoming.
After Karens denial there was a motion made by Hamill as follows.
“That city council meet with the businesses, Citizens Advocating for Positive Community Standards (CAPCS) and the people involved, find the problems, smooth them out and make the directions more acceptable for the businesses”
This motion was at our (those opposed to CAPCS and the bylaw) request that the review be sent back to council for a better review and to allow ALL affected to be represented on all 4 topics as mandated.
Council then discussed the motion issue but during the discussion Hamill made confusing remarks, got confused himself and then said it was only to have the issue of the Goodwill letter sent back for review. Much to our horror and dismay. This is mot mentioned in the minutes but is seen in a video tape of the meeting I have from Shaw TV (then Monarch TV). The motion was shot down by council with only Hamill and Spears voting in favor. Had Hamill been clearer Ald Craven and possibly others would have voted in favor but because of the Hamill induced confusing all the others were in favor of the “Goodwill Letter” approach. Again confusion reigned and Vallely doe’s nothing but propagate it further with the following recorded remarks that followed the motion vote and are as follows.
Medicine Hat City Council- May 20, 2003 (Page 4)
Mayor Vallely stated, “Although the process of notifications may have been flawed it was not an attempt to hide anything. The businesses missed were businesses the staff thought were not handling written material. This is not an attempt to legislate anybody’s morality, an increase in license fees is not being imposed, and we did not try to install a piece of legislation inside another one, (the amusement Act). The only thing that is coming forward is a Land Use Bylaw Amendment with respect to zoning issues on where businesses should be located. The public process will be open for everyone to participate, and there will be public information meetings before a decision is made. That is what I suggest you do Ladies and Gentlemen, get involved with these meetings, get involved with the public process with the bylaw and then we will get on with other things because there are a lot more important things than this issue.”
This confirms that the mandate was about four topics and not about magazines and this statement and myself raising the demand that it be sent back to the PSC (Public Service Committee) was because the public process was already done WITHOUT the public and affected businesses input.
The city would later hold two “open houses” because to the pressure exerted on them but it was only information (erroneous at that) out and not input in. The businesses were not consulted nor invited. In the end the only public ability to argue against this bylaw would come prior to the vote for the bylaw…but by then council was already decided as to the vote. Despite the CAPCS website saying only Hamill voting against the Adult Entertainment Facilities Bylaw (the Zoning issue, to which the affected businesses were not invited to participate, only CAPCS) the people voting against it was Hamill, Speers and Craven. CAPCS misinformation mixed in with huge amounts of city hall misinformation real or planed.
As for Vallely asking for participation in this whole process he would tell myself and the group of public and businesses I organized to voice a concern about this review to shut up…or as he said ‘Cool my jets until the bylaw wording came out” and then it was to late, voting was already predetermined and the public/businessmen had only 5 minutes to try to convince council to change their predetermined vote where as CAPCS had hours of time and all of their demands were in the bylaw anyhow.
So Garth…who is spreading this misinformation and is this how democracy works?
No No No BS no.
And to even assume that this new bylaw was or will be dealt with, with the same form of democracy is a fallacy and shows how council has been corrupted beyond any reality.
This has never been about “Porn” to me but how council has failed to represent the public and its businessmen in an honest and open way as demanded by the Municipal Government Act. This civic ineptitude has progressed in to other issues over the past 6 year and can be felt in other issues not the least is the council actions regarding the new Arena.
Sorry for any grammar and spelling errors.
Good job Jim.
Now we can see how a failed petition, CAPCS went to City Council with in 2001. I repeat A failed Petition. Yet Somehow in 2003 City Hall creat a bunch of bull shit Bylaws, that resulted in giving CAPCS most of what was on the petition.
“Mrs. Joyce Stigter representing the Citizens of Alberta for Positive Community Standards (C.A.P.C.S.), concurred that the petition presented did not have enough signatures to meet the requirements for a plebiscite or bylaw, but asked the Council Members consider proceeding with one at the upcoming election. After providing statistics from other urban centers, Mrs.Stigter expressed the concern that restrictions must be put in place to remove or eliminate sexually oriented businesses from Medicine Hat as it will continue to have a negative effect on the community”
Here we are 6 years later and Council are still farting around with this crap.
Hey did the Mayor really hand his Balls over to Joyce? Or is that just an Urban Legend?
Kids in our society today live a very different life than the life I grew up with and very different from the life my parents grew up with.
We are in a new information era. Blogging, file sharing, networking, it seems to me that there is really no question that a person can’t get an answer to in todays day and age by spending a couple minutes on the computer with a search engine. Sit and watch the news and the headlines and then pretend you’re twelve years old. So when you hear about Paris Hilton having a sex tape on the news are you curious? What stops you from going to the computer and looking it up? If it’s big news don’t you want to see it? Parents can’t watch over their kids shoulders 24 hours a day and the more things that they can do that the adults can do the more grown up they feel. The bottom line is, we’re going to have to start drastically changing the way we teach and look at the world we live in. CAPCS is looking at bikini magazines as a cause for the corruption of young kid’s minds? How about watching two planes plow into the world trade center, how about watching a soldier get his head sawed off on tv? We now live in a world that has become a totally open free information sharing giant. As long as we keep focusing our news on Paris and Britney our kids are going to do the same thing. As long as the news shows videos of terrorist attacks and suicide bombers our kids will be watching that too. We don’t spend enough time talking to our kids about what’s actually going on in the news. We need to really start focusing our values in the right direction. If Paris has a sex video out, just accept the fact that your son or daughter does have access to it and can watch it whenever they want. We need to sit down with the kids and talk about why we don’t want them watching it and what’s in it. When the kids see a man get his head sawed off, we need to sit down and ask them, “do you know why or understand why that happened? How does that make you feel?” It’s a new world and the new world has to be all about being open and honest and trying to make our thoughts and opinions known and being totally 100% truthful and honest with our kids. How much does the average joe know about Al Qaeda or muslim fundementalism? How many of us have talked to our kids about who the terrorists are and who the terrorists aren’t? If we don’t talk about these things, our kids won’t hear our opinions, and if we don’t give our opinions, they won’t know how to shape their own. The Dark Ages where we could hide things from our children until they got older is almost gone. I think our society has to give itself a real reality check. We can’t hide britney’s bikini behind a desk and expect that it’s going to protect our children anymore than hiding the front page of the Calgary Sun because it shows a man with a bomb strapped to his chest. It’s time to face the facts and face our fears and start learning about the world and the people around us because our kids are going to have a lot of questions and we need to be able to provide them with answers. There are a lot of people willing to talk about the Bible, but how many of us talk about the Korran or have read it? How can we teach our children tolerance when we live in comfortable sheltered ignorance? I love our country and I think we have strong values, but we have to remember that as the world changes we have to change with it. Someone said something in high school about life long education and that the truly illiterate people of the new generation will be the ones who don’t practice life long learning… I think that’s us adults folks and it’s time that CAPCS realizes that cenorship is just blatant intolerance. In Toronto the metropolitan police went to a gay pride convention to recruit gay and lesbian and transgender people to become police officers. How do we expect our kids to understand this if we don’t accept the fact that there are people like this in our world and in our communities? We can have our own beliefs, but intolerance can not be one of those beliefs. I understand people’s fears, but it’s time for a reality check. We are over fighting intolerance in Afghanistan as we speak and if we’re not careful we’re going to be just as guilty as those that we’re fighting against.
Really good post codygirling.
C.A.P.C.S message is we must protect our Children. That’s a very good thing and I am all for it. However they believe that hiding stuff from kids is better than educating.
codygirling, why dont you tell us how you really feel?
good post though! seems like you have been holding that in for a while.
Mo
* seems like you have been holding that in for a while. *
Actually, you guys just inspired me to put in my two cents that’s all. Some very good posts and posters on this blog site.
I respect CAPCS for trying to make what they believe is positive change, but I truly believe that what they see as positive has a very negative flip side and it would be a shame not to put up a fight on this one.
I have met and admire Cathy Smith as a person and I think, in all honesty, there are times where she is one of the best council members we’ve got, but there are also times like these, where I’m forced to say enough is enough and Alderman Smith, respectfully, you’re firing at the wrong target.
Skeet hows it going, to my knowledge we have never met, If so maybe through Jenifer Ross but what did I due to make you so disruptive to my allogation with referencene To My Dads will dec 9 1980 will and my chater argument filed June 1 2007 and false wittnes
http://my.opera.com/thevoiceoftheson/blog/2007/06/02/skeet-and-bearing-false-wittness
Some hot Paris Hilton sex tape pics
Shouldn’t Paris Hilton have gone to jail because of her sex tape videos rather than because of not paying ticket charges?
Latest Paris Hilton sex tape clips
Paris Exposed - Paris Hilton Sex Tape Videos
Alltel Ringtones…
100 free Ringtones
Adult Ringtones
Aflac Ringtones
…