Talk:Tristan Emmanuel

Various responses

Background: This article has recently been edited by someone claiming to be Tristan Emmanuel (a claim that I can neither verify nor refute). Regardless of the editor's identity, he (I'm assuming it's a he) has introduced a number of changes, some benign, others more questionable.

I'm prepared to address his concerns, one at a time.

(i) The editor has objected to the assertion that Emmanuel has described homosexuals as "sexual deviants". He has also threatened to pursue libel action over this assertion. In response, I would first recommend that he consult Wikipedia:No legal threats and desist from making further such statements in this forum.

I would also suggest that, if he actually is Tristan Emmanuel and believes the statement to constitute libel, he should direct his attentions elsewhere. I am not the originator of this statement, which has appeared in reliable media sources on more than one occasion.

The online source which I originally used for this quotation is no longer available. However, it may be found in a Canadian Press report from 11 April 2003, filed by Andrea Baillie at 7:56PM (recovered by Factiva):

Two senior Conservative cabinet ministers plan to take part in a weekend pro-U.S. rally organized by a writer who has criticized Islam and called homosexuals deviant.

The rally, to be held Saturday in Queenston, Ont., is being organized by Canadians for Bush. The founder of the group is Tristan Emmanuel, a writer and Presbyterian minister.

On Friday, the opposition NDP issued several excerpts of Emmanuel's writings.

In the July 8, 2002, issue of the Edmonton-based journal The Report, which bills itself as an ``independent newsmagazine, Emmanuel refers to gays as ``sexual deviants.'

In the Dec. 12, 2002, edition of the California-based Web magazine Razormouth, he wrote: ``Islam is as far from peace, as hell is from heaven.''

For clarity, it bears mentioning that this article was filed before the Wikipedia article on Tristan Emmanuel was written.

I would also ask that our editor consider Michael Valpy's article, "Spreading the gospel of political evangelism", published in the Globe and Mail newspaper on 13 June 2005. Here, Valpy writes that Emmanuel "has referred to homosexuals as “sexual deviants” and to their sexual intercourse as sodomy, and he has opposed the extension of anti-hate laws to include homosexuals."

It's possible that both Baillie and Valpy have taken the original passage from The Report out of its proper context, but to my knowledge there has never been a refutation of their assertions in any reliable published source.

I am prepared to change the wording of the disputed passage to read, "Emmanuel has been quoted as describing [...]". I am not inclined to remove the reference entirely. CJCurrie (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ii) The editor objects to some aspects of the following passage:

In 2002, Emmanuel endorsed Franklin Graham's opinion that Islam is "a very evil and wicked religion". He referred to Graham as a "very courageous man", and argued that any home-schooled Christian would have reached the same conclusion. Emmanuel has also criticized George W. Bush and Pope John Paul II for being accepting of Islam and Islamic culture.

In a prior edit, he (i) removed the reference to home-schooling, (ii) changed "endorsed" to "made statements defending", and (iii) changed "accepting of Islam and Islamic culture" to "too passive in their approach to Islam".

The relevant article by Tristan Emmanuel begins in the following manner:

The god of Islam is not the same GodIt's a different god, and I believe it is very evil and wicked religion.

These are the words of a very courageous man; a man not at all concerned to be politically correct, sentimental, and who obviously doesn't pander to his dad. These are the words of Franklin Graham, Son of Billy Graham; say what you want about his theology, he's got this one right.

So what, you're saying. Who hasn't figured that one out? True, Graham hasn't said anything profound. I'm quite certain that any Christian home-school student could have said as much. But remember, in the broad scope of modern Christendom, his statement is about as controversial as they come. [1]

I can only interpret the phrase "he's got this one right" as constituting an endorsement, and I don't believe the reference to home-schooling can be said to have been taken out of its proper context.

Regarding the third objection, I can only respond that the phrase "too passive in their approach to Islam" implies that Islam is a threat. While this may be a fair reflection of Emmanuel's beliefs, it does not pass Wikipedia's standard for neutral language.

Since the editor is no longer challenging these points (aside from the reference to hom-schooling), I think we can let the matter rest.

The editor has also insisted on "contextualizing" the reference by noting that it took place "in the wake of 9/11". My response is twofold:

(i) "in the wake" is overly melodramatic language.

(ii) There is only one passing reference to 9/11 in Emmanuel's original article. This makes the call for "contextualization" somewhat week. Emmanuel may have intended the piece as primarily a response to 9/11, but it's implications and subject matter are broader.

I'd be willing to compromise as far as indicating that the article was written in January 2002; people can extrapolate the rest, if they wish. CJCurrie (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(iii) The editor has changed "Emmanuel is an opponent of multiculturalism which he calls "a form of Anglo-Saxon self-hatred"" to "Emmanuel is an opponent of Canadian multiculturalism which he argued fails to "assimilate" immigrants whose values and customs reflect their old world customs." In his edit summary, he writes that he does "not call multiculturalism "Anglo Self hatred"", and asserts "that was Worldnetdaily's title and like most columnists I do not choose what the headline will be. Once again you are misrepresenting me."

My response:

(i) For someone who claims to be Tristan Emmanuel, this editor doesn't seem to be completely informed about Emmanuel's beliefs. I'm prepared to accept that the article title wasn't of Emmanuel's choosing, but this fact becomes irrelevant when one considers the following statement from the main body of the piece:

Take Canada, for example. I'm a Canadian, and we don't have an "illegal alien" problem. However, we suffer from something just as bad – a form of Anglo-Saxon self-hatred. We call it multiculturalism. This is the politically correct way of saying white, English-speaking culture is bad. [2]

From this, I think it's fair to extrapolate that Emmanuel regards multiculturalism as a form of "Anglo-Saxon self-hatred".

(ii) The WorldNetDaily article covers both American and Canadian multiculturalism.

(iii) The expression "old world customs" is outdated, at best, and the longer phrase "whose values and customs reflect their old world customs" is simply bad writing.

Emmanuel uses the word "assimilate" in the original article, albeit in scare quotes; I can't see why it can't be included here. CJCurrie (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)