Toronto neighbourhood confronts religious harrassment

janew, I love the fact that you are still a recent rabble rouser! Too funny!

... And hello, darling webwonder.

By the way - what happened to Catchfire apologizing for his intemperate remarks, and TB and others making peace? What will it cost you?

Unionist, this is starting to get a bit too 9-11ish ... Watch yourself.

writer wrote:

Unionist, this is starting to get a bit too 9-11ish ... Watch yourself.

Right, sorry bout that.

Catchfire@Post14

Your observation about about Jehovah's Witnesses being "generally white" kinda made me raise an eyebrow... I did a little search on the demographics of JW congretations and while I could only find firm U.S. statistics (where 37.4% of JW adherents identified themselves as African-American - as opposed to identification as African-American by only 12.4% of the general population) which seems to indicate that, proportionate to their numbers in the population as a whole, POC are over-represented within the ranks of JW congregations. (Coincidently, the article that gave the demographic breakdown went out of it way to point out that JW Kingdom Halls are significantly more integrated than most other Christian denominations in the U.S.) I can see no particularly compelling argument to be made that, on this side of the border, that POC are significantly under-represented (again, proportionate to their numbers in the population as a whole) within JW congregations. Perhaps you could offer some sort of explanation of why you choose to describe JWs as "generally white". Did you mean disproportionately white? I find the use of this description a little "off" somehow. I could describe the prison population of Canada of being generally white (stats are hard to find on this, unlike in U.S. reports, but the 1996 figures I could find indicated that 73.3% of prisoners in Canada would be considered "white") does this mean I could describe prisoners in Canada as being "generally white"?

I prefer this classroom discussion: Fear and Love, and the problems of absolute dichtomies of good and evil.

I guess this should be posted:

Quote:

To Chiasson, however, they are the unthreatening "church people" - and they did not do anything wrong.

Chiasson, 45, said he believes Highfield parishioners only choose to read the Bible from a spot near their house because a fire hydrant prevents cars from parking there.

He said the parishioners preached on the street long before he and Collins, 47, arrived 13 years ago. Moreover, he said, he and Collins have never felt personally targeted by the parishioners, have never heard them say anything homophobic, and have not even been present for three years on the summer Sundays when the infrequent sermons occur.

He said the parishioners are "a part of the neighbourhood" with the right to speak freely. The neighbours who confronted them, he said, "overreacted."

[SNIP]

Asked about the Internet response to the video, most of which has assumed the parishioners were homophobic, he said: "Unfortunately the Internet is its own animal, and I can't control it. I just took a video of what happened, and the Internet did the rest."

Toronto Star

remind wrote:

jane why did you guys wait 7 years?

They seem to have stepped up their street preaching this year. They've been here since before we moved here (18 years ago) but I've only seen them do this kind of thing a few times. Usually we all go out and tell them they're not welcome and they don't stay long. This time I think one of the neighbours called the police.
We really are a pretty easygoing neighbourhood and I think we have a certain amount of respect for people trying to convince others of their point of view... most of us do that too. ;-).
I don't actually think they target same sex couples, which is not to say that they're not homophobic, but not in the blatant way the the media coverage suggests. They're just typical pushy, self-righteous religious fundamentalists.
It's odd that it's become a racial issue because even though their main spokesman on the video is black, the congregation is mostly white. The guy with the white hair in the video is the leader. That's the one good thing I would say about this group. They don't seem to be racist.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Good luck dealing with the freaks. I read in the youtube post that the cops came.Who actually called them?

I think it was one of our neighbours who called the police.  This actually happened on the block north of me and even though I was home, I didn't hear it.  We saw the police talking with the congregation at the church but that was only for 15 minutes or so.

Even though I do think this is a tempest in a teapot, I'm also proud of my neighbourhood for showing that religious zealots are not appreciated in the community, because certainly everybody else is.

Cueball wrote:

Open harassment and abuse is one thing, but the Toronto Star report indicates that this is not what was going on, according to the person living in the house they were in front of. He sounds quite angry and says that the congregation are "a part of the neighborhood". That puts another light on this entirely.

They're 'part of the neighbourhood' in the same sense that some arrogant, inappropriate uncle is part of a family.  They've been here a long time and we usually tolerate them, but they don't live in the area and they are never involved in street festivals, outdoor conversation gatherings, election campaigns etc.

Unionist wrote:

...Organized religion - and I mean every fucking single one of them (whew, sorry for shouting) - gives its adherents the crackpot delusion that they have a right and duty to bother other people - ignore other people - humiliate other people - dehumanize other people - butcher and rape and slaughter other people. Those in the ascendancy of political power just sometimes act a little more polite than others.

I am not so sure that is true. While many organised religions can be used, are used, and have been used as you describe, this is not universal. The peace churches are a good example of organised religious communites that are respectful of others.

Unionist wrote:

...

Anyone who suggests religion is the source of all evil is providing cover for imperialism, colonialism, exploitation, fascism.

Anyone who suggests organized religion can play a progressive role in today's world is doing exactly the same thing.

....

If anyone makes noise in my street in praise of God - yes, even if their skin pigment is noticeable - they will feel the wrath of Allah in short order.

I agree that religion, while it can be used as a justification for immoral acts, is not necessary for such justification.

I do not agree that organised religion can not play a progressive role in today's societies. Martin Luther King Junior's life and legacy disprove that, as does Arcbishop Romero. Even the Vatican (one of the least progressive institutions in the world) is criticising Sarkozy about French treatment of Roma.

Having said that, the history of organised religion is such that it is logical to assume that organised religion (especially if the more powerful clergy are friends with the secular powers that be) will be on the same side as the oppressors rather than the oppressed.

As to the OP, I would err on the side of freedom of speech. Yes, the "crazy old uncle" church group can proselytise, but the local community also has the right to assemble and speak out against the proselytisation. I have not seen th eyoutube video, but the articles seem to indicate that both sides are being respectful.

I don't believe this should be dignified as a "freedom of speech" issue - it is a bylaw/appropriate use issue and one in which it appears that, yet again, a religious group seems to think they are automatically worthy of some exemption from the regulations that apply to the population at large. From the video linked in the OP it appears to be a residential street and the "public" quality of such a street means that everyone has the right to unimpeded passage on the street and sidewalk and not a heck of a lot else.

If the group that had been disruptive had been a commerical entity, or a sports team, or even a political party I would assume that Toronto's bylaws are not so radically different from Calgary's that a commercial entity, sports team or party would be allowed to conduct their disruption without having first obtained a permit from the city to conduct their activity. This applies particularly to streets and pathways as well as areas where the "public" right extends beyond the right to unimpeded passage (such as a park). Why do religious groups seem to act as if these requirements for permits and the like don't apply to them?

I think this issue gets my back up based on my past experience of living in too close proximity to a couple of churches and having had their disruptive behaviour negatively impact me. The specific instance that is foremost in my mind involved a Baptist church of a particular evangelical bent that would, seemingly randomly, hold two and three day "revivals" in the parking lot behind their place of worship (and almost directly across the street from the building where I was renting an apartment). Working graveyard shifts at the time, you could imagine how pleasant it was to have amplifiers blare out the "non-normative Canadian accents" [in my experience they were usually American "southern" or "bible belt" accents - although the individuals possessing these accents were in my experience inevitably as "lily-white" as the congregants] shrieking about hellfire and damnation and the need to be washed in the blood of the lamb starting about 90 minutes after I had gotten home from my shift and was trying to go to sleep. Having contacted both local bylaw enforcement and the city police I was able to discover that no permit had been applied for or approved for the use of the outdoor sound amplification despite it being a requirement under local bylaws (and having looked at the links remind provided, it seems to be a requirement in Toronto as well) - and one that bylaw enforcement officers declinied to enforce "because it was a religious group".

Now I do accept that there are certain built-in disadvantages to living in proximity to a "place of worship" - at least one day a week there will probably be an issue about parking, a lot of Christian places of worship will insist on the loud ringing of bells for some of their ceremonies, and while I have not lived in close proximity to a mosque I can picture the adhan being a bit of an aural intrusion. But these are relatively predictable occurrences and to the extent one can afford the luxury of choice in where one resides, are something that one would factor into the decision of whether to rent or purchase housing in proximity to a place of worship. Loud outdoor "revivals", impromptu sermonizing sessions on the street and other noisy activities on the part of the god-ridden are not, however, predictable and I think expecting that they will go through the screening process of getting a permit to conduct these activities before indulging in them is not unreasonable. I also think that there should be no surprise if such permits are refused on the basis that a strictly or primarily residential street is not the appropriate venue for such outdoor activities.

I have no idea of the demographics of the neighbourhood along Highfield Road (whether they are in fact "white hipsters" as Catchfire describes them or "multi-racial and gay positive" as janew has mentioned), no idea if they are owners or renters, whether or not this is considered a desirable area to live (for whatever reason). In the final analysis it is not terribly important to me if it is made up of expensive owner-occupied single-family residences, or cheek-by-jowl studio apartments - the residents should still have the reasonable expectation of relatively peaceful enjoyment of their place of residence. Having a group sermonizing or testifying at the end of one's sidewalk is disruptive and is something that ought to be regulated.

As to the posters talking about proseltyzing groups bothering them at their doorways... strangely enough posting one of those "no peddlars or agents" signs is remarkably effective, adding the words "no proselytizers" even more so. Also, answering the door in your housecoat in the middle of the day, hair askew, eyes blurry and saying "this better be important, some of us work nights you know" not only will see them scurry down the steps, they often actually apologize for waking you up!

janew wrote:

They're 'part of the neighbourhood' in the same sense that some arrogant, inappropriate uncle is part of a family.  They've been here a long time and we usually tolerate them, but they don't live in the area and they are never involved in street festivals, outdoor conversation gatherings, election campaigns etc.

My friends and I do not have to live on your street or in your neighbourhood if we wish to peacefully assemble on your street or in your neighbourhood, and then proceed to preach whatever political/religious/social ideology we like. The street you live on is a public place, and no more belongs to you than to any other citizen of Canada. The question of where these preachers are from the neighbourhood is, I believe, a red herring: whether their actions are illegal or respectful or injunctionable or delightful or obnoxious is independent of whether they happen to live around the corner or across town. The right to peaceful assembly is not the right to peacefully assemble in only one's own neighbourhood.

I want to be clear: I am not defending the actions of this group, or attacking them. I am simply arguing that the question of what neighbourhood they live or work in is a red herring.

Snert wrote:

Quote:

 The question of where these preachers are from the neighbourhood is, I believe, a red herring: whether their actions are illegal or respectful or injunctionable or delightful or obnoxious is independent of whether they happen to live around the corner or across town.

I think it speaks to their intentions. If all they want is some fresh air, one would think they might choose to go outside in their own neighbourhood. If they wanted a specific audience other than themselves -- say, a gay couple -- then they'd travel to that audience's neighbourhood.
If I just want to rant about God-botherers I can do so on my own front lawn. If I stand outside of their church to do so, doesn't that suggest I'm not just looking to get outdoors??
What you've said -- and I don't disagree -- is that neighbours don't "own" their neighbourhood and that non-neighbours can't, for example, be charged with tresspassing.

Does this speak to their intentions (again from the "targeted" person who objected to their ejection) :

Quote:

He said the parishioners preached on the street long before he and Collins, 47, arrived 13 years ago. Moreover, he said, he and Collins have never felt personally targeted by the parishioners, have never heard them say anything homophobic, and have not even been present for three years on the summer Sundays when the infrequent sermons occur.

Seems to me that there is substantive evidence that these people go from their Church to do their "witnessing" thing in the neighborhood, and have been doing so for quite some time.

i agree with bagkitty, and Smith's comment about the backyard fire rule is a good point of reference.

if you want to gather and shout about whatever myths you ascribe to, go for it.  But if you do it in a residential neighborhood where the only people who can hear you are the people who live in the surrounding houses, and they ask you to stop,  you should stop and go somewhere else.

the main issue here is why do the religious people feel it necessary to make a public display in this particular location.  if they can provide some reason maybe we can sympathize with them, but they haven't.  

that's a pretty hypothetical situation.  perhaps another example might be the protests outside the CEO of shell's mansion.

in that case, since it's a sprawling mansion, there are no neighbors to really disturb.  Also, they had some tangible reason for doing it as in the CEO of shell is responsible for untold environmental/human degradation.  In that case, they wanted to meet with the CEO as he had refused all other attempts to meet with them so it was a last resort.  When he met with them, they eventually left.

i think a more apt analogy for the religious folks is:

a gathering of 15 star trek fans decide to hold a weekly (for several years) convention with speakers and singers on a completely random residential street, and get all up in arms when the people who live there ask them nicely to leave for several years and finally tell them to fuck off when the trekkies refuse, although they proclaim "we'll be back!!"

i'm more sympathetic to disrupting people when there is a reason.  there is no reason at all why these folk need to yell about god on this particular street.

@Post 88

Detention centers in residential areas? Damn you Central Canadian Overlords think of everything, good way of dealing with unruly house parties. Yet another reason I am glad I don't reside in Toronto.

Mayoral candidate, Rocco Rossi, comments about the occurence:

Rossi Defends Freedom of Peaceful Assembly

Toronto mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi has issued the following comment regarding a confrontation between residents and members of a church group Sunday evening in Leslieville.

TORONTO, ONTARIO-(Marketwire - Aug. 25, 2010) - People of faith have enriched Toronto. They put their faith into action. They make our city more compassionate and caring.

People of faith have every right to practise their faith in public, so long as they do so legally.

Last Sunday evening, members of Highfield Road Baptist Church were on a public street doing exactly that.

An altercation occurred between the church group and some residents in the neighbourhood.

An allegation has been made by one resident that church members focused their prayers on a house apparently owned by a gay couple, who were not home at the time.

Other residents, and several members of the church, have denied this was the case.

The incident ended with church members being asked to stop their lawful activities and being made to feel unwelcome in a community they have served for more than 70 years.

I believe this is a very slippery slope.

Toronto is the most diverse city on earth.

We cannot shut our ears to different opinions.

We must open our ears and our eyes to the variety of beliefs and lifestyles that have come here to live in peace.

I want Torontonians to know that when I am mayor, I will stand up for their beliefs.

I stood up for Pride. I marched and sang and rallied for hours on end.

My support for gay rights is clear and on the record.

And when I'm mayor, I'll stand up for faith.

When I'm mayor, people will never have to apologize for what they believe.

And when I'm mayor, people will never have to apologize for their sexual orientation.

So far as I know the other night, no laws were broken and people dispersed peacefully.

It was a minor incident on a small street in the east end.

But it has major implications for every street in our city.

The motto of our city is "Diversity is our Strength."

We are a city of immigrants, of different beliefs, colours and sexual orientations. Living together and accepting one another is key to our prosperity. Recognizing everyone's right to assemble and gather peacefully is key to our living together in harmony.

That's how we will co-exist in this city when I'm mayor.

By sharing rights - - Not taking them away.

Do the religious people have a right to peaceful assembly? Sure, they do?

Do people have the right to voice their opposition. I think so too. After all, Rossi did mention, "We cannot shut our ears to different opinions."

While Rocco Rossi was marching in the Pride Parade carrying his Pride and Israeli flags, advocates for the current pro-apartheid state of Israel were advocating that those in opposition to Israel had no right to peaceful assembly in the Pride parade.

I do think that one can support a multicultural society while thinking critically about different cultural viewpoints. While I can tolerate a woman wearing a niqab, do I accept it? No. I think it dehumanizes that woman. Do I tolerate someone who opposes abortion? Yes, I do. I would rather have someone verbally express his or her opposition than act physically to harm women and abortion providers. I can tolerate other people's opinions even though I may not accept them.

If the religious wing-nuts can freely spew their garbage in front of someone's property. Other's should be allowed to challenge their filth. Today, it's religious wing-nuts; tomorrow, it might be McDonald's giving free samples to the neighbourhood children. That corporation can argue that it is not commerical if their is no exchange in money.

i would disagree.  i think coming into an area and shouting about your religion when clearly the people there don't want you to and have asked you to leave is confrontational.  not physically, but i imagine if this were happening on my street i would see this as confrontational the moment someone said "please don't do this here" and they responded "we'll be back!"

why this street?  why target these people with their religious ranting?  i mean, it seems to me they are looking for confrontation.

still i'm not sure why they insist on doing their ranting in this spot.  someone raised the issue of freedom of assembly, but a protest would have a specific reason if it was to take place on a particular street, like someone mentioned with zundel.  in this case they have absolutley no reason for choosing this street as opposed to the one over.

i mean i'm all about exercising the right to assembly and i do it all the time, but if someone held a WEEKLY protest in solidarity with palestinians in the OT on a random residential street completely unconnected to the conflict, i'd understand when after a few years the residents said "okay enough, can you do this somewhere else now we'd like some peace and quiet"

milo204 wrote:

i would disagree.  i think coming into an area and shouting about your religion when clearly the people there don't want you to and have asked you to leave is confrontational.  not physically, but i imagine if this were happening on my street i would see this as confrontational the moment someone said "please don't do this here" and they responded "we'll be back!"

People keep insisting that these people specifically targeted this neighborhood. Yet, the very people most directly affected by this, the people who live right where they usually come to stand, say that they did not feel targeted, and that these people had been doing this since before the couple moved into the house.

I have Jehovah Witnessess and the Muslim Brotherhood in my neighborhood all the time and I don't feel particularly targeted. Now, if they started coming after me personally, that would be a different story. But no one is saying these people were doing anything other than reading from the bible in public, in an orderly manner.

Saying that the confrontation begins when the guys says "we'll be back next year" amounts to the begining of the confrontation, when peoples right to free expression is being opposed, is precisely the same argument being used in the USA to suggest that Muslims are causing the problem, because they are being disrespectful by not relenting to the demand to move the Muslim community center at ground zero.