Canada | Evangelical Christians | Evangelicals | News

Alberta, Canada Candidate Warns Gays Will Face Eternal Hellfire, Accepting Them is 'Cruel and Not Loving'


Alberta, Canada's conservative Wildrose party is under fire after comments written by Allan Hunsperger, a pastor who's running as a candidate there, warned LGBT people that they will "suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire, hell, a place of eternal suffering."

Allan_hunspergerAdded Hunsperger, in remarks responding to Gaga's "Born This Way" CD: “Accepting people the way they are is cruel and not loving.”

You can read the comments above, or here.

Progressive Conservative Party Leader and Premier Alison Redford reacted immediately to the comments, the Star reports:

With only one week left before the election, Redford wasted no time joining in the condemnation of the comments that quickly spread to social media.

“The fact that there are people who think that’s a legitimate perspective just absolutely blows my mind,” Redford told reporters at a Calgary campaign stop. I think they’re shocking and I think it goes back to Albertans are about to decide who is going to govern their province. They are going to have to decide who their premier is. They’re going to have to decide who the cabinet is,” she added. “If we have people like this making these sorts of comments in Alberta I think it’s absolutely wrong and of course I disagree with it.”

Alberta Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith refused to condemn Hunsperger:

Asked about the writing, Smith noted the party won’t legislate on such social issues but said Hunsperger was free to hold his personal views.

“When a person is making personal statements in their capacity as a pastor, which he was, I don’t think anybody should be surprised that they’re expressing certain viewpoints,” she said outside a Wildrose photo opportunity at the Calgary Hindu Society’s temple.

“It was a year ago when he was talking in his capacity as a pastor. He now understands, we’ve spoken, we’ve communicated on this, that we will not be legislating on contentious social issues. He understands that. He accepts that.”

Hunsperger responded: “The views I expressed in this blog posting are my own personal religious views and were given in the capacity as a church pastor. I fully support equality for all people, and condemn any intolerance based on sexual orientation or any other personal characteristic.”

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. well, Ms Self-Righteous Prig, if you're the type of people in the other place, I'm willing to risk the lake of fire.

    Posted by: Daniel Berry, NYC | Apr 16, 2012 8:38:12 AM

  2. Allen Hunsperger? He poses like Quentin Crisp:

    Posted by: Artie_in_Lauderdale | Apr 16, 2012 8:49:03 AM

  3. Religion is poison.

    Posted by: chad | Apr 16, 2012 9:00:34 AM

  4. Oh Jesus, another closeted queen.

    Posted by: Oliver | Apr 16, 2012 9:03:33 AM

  5. Sadly, we have them in Canada too. It's just that here these nutjobs aren't invited on natuonal television and allowed to spew their hate unchallenged like Tony Perkins is on MSNBC in the United States.

    Posted by: Gigi | Apr 16, 2012 9:16:56 AM

  6. "I fully support equality for all people, and condemn any intolerance based on sexual orientation or any other personal characteristic.” BUT, your very existence is an abomination to God and you are going to burn in hell for all of eternity. Said with all love and respect of course.

    Posted by: Chadd | Apr 16, 2012 9:24:19 AM

  7. @GiGi,

    It's called free speech. You can't be charged with a criminal offense, arrested, for saying 'mean' things in America, at worse you could be civilly sued for defamation, very difficult to prove/win. In essence, the Canadian government[s] simply have greater control over the population than the U.S. federal and state governments have over people here. To make matters worse [IMO] Canada has 'Human Rights Tribunals' that are extra-judicial and have the legally authority to force people to accept their decisions. Even comedians have been 'convicted' by these so-called 'Human Rights Tribunals'. Creepy if you ask me.

    There are many people in Canada who probably agree with him or maybe don't but are against stuff like gay marriage, etc. It's just that because of Canadian laws regarding 'hate' speech and the way the political system operates in Canada, most of these people are on the DL. But they're there. I'm sure Canada and Canadian gays would survive fine if this loon was allowed to have his say. Whatever private organization he belongs to of course should be allowed to treat the matter as they please.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Apr 16, 2012 9:30:16 AM

  8. He was allowed to have his say. He said it, it's all over the media. He may receive a political slap on the wrist for being such an idiot, but it's not like he'll be tossed in jail.

    And now others are using their free speech rights to condemn him or, in the case of the Conservative Party Leader, save political face. People are free to be against marriage equality in Canada, but since it's settled law and politically popular, no sane politician is going to wade back into those waters.

    In the US (and I fully support American free speech) the right wing speaks out against gay people not just because they have the free speech right to do so, but because it's politically safe for them. Once it becomes a political disadvantage, as it has in most NE states, you won't hear wise politicians going near the topic.

    Posted by: Ernie | Apr 16, 2012 9:50:46 AM

  9. @RATBASTARD I didn't say anything about charging this gentleman for his odious statements. Did you ready my comment?
    Hunsperger said what he said and the leader of his party, Danielle Smith, refused to condemn him, noting "...the party won’t legislate on such social issues but said Hunsperger was free to hold his personal views." I support his right to say whatever he wants. What I said in my comment is that we don't have people like Tony Perkins (or Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry or...) invited onto a national television who are allowed to say hateful untruths about gay people and then go unchallenged. MSNBC invited Perkins on at least once a month and he's allowed to lie about gay people and because he's on a "news" station/show it adds legitimacy to his lies.

    Posted by: Gigi | Apr 16, 2012 10:10:22 AM

  10. I make no clain of having any absolute or otherwise knowledge of the existence of a God or Satan, Heaven or Hell. I can only control how I live my life while here on earth and hope things work out for the best. Once I pass from this life, whether that means going back to the nothingness of my pre-existence on this planet, or it means moving to a new stage of existence in whatever form that may take, I know for sure I do not want to spend that next existence in the presence of people like Mr. Allan Hunsperger and his ilk.

    Should I find myself amongst their kind I will have to conclude that I, in fact, went to hell. Nothing they can threaten me with brings me more consternation than the thought of spending an eternity with the likes of these people.

    In the end they should get what they deserve, and if there truly is a deity in the sky, I believe these people are in for a rude awakening come judgement day.

    Posted by: mytwocents | Apr 16, 2012 10:24:24 AM

  11. He must feel really good now.

    Posted by: Matt26 | Apr 16, 2012 10:25:29 AM

  12. @RATBASTARD, there you go tilting at windmills again; arguing against a point that nobody made.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Apr 16, 2012 10:37:30 AM

  13. Oh Alberta, the crazy Bible Belt of Canada...

    Posted by: Derek Pearce | Apr 16, 2012 10:41:23 AM

  14. @GiGi,

    Didn't say you did, I extrapolated to make a larger point. I've no doubt there are many who post here who would love to have 'Human Rights Tribunals' and censored free speech when it comes to anti-gay stuff.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Apr 16, 2012 11:58:47 AM

  15. The Tea Party comes to Canada. (sigh) How chilling. And they're currently ahead.

    Posted by: Michael in Toronto | Apr 16, 2012 12:45:11 PM

  16. Not really a larger point to be made here. He freely spouted his anti-gay nonsense and is now being freely criticized for his idiocy. That's how free speech is supposed to work. It was really about politics and not speech anyway, just as it would be in the US.

    Posted by: Ernie | Apr 16, 2012 1:07:15 PM

  17. I have it on good authority that due to overcrowding, Hell will be releasing souls for good behavior.

    Posted by: Spraypaintedgold | Apr 16, 2012 1:19:04 PM

  18. IMHO, this far-right homophobe doesn't have to worry about hate speech or human rights tribunals based on what he wrote. The so-called comedian, on the other hand, attacked two lesbian audience members and made things worse by releasing a video.

    As for the American definition of free speech, how many people would be in jail if Shameless were broadcast uncensored over the air in a U.S. city? (

    Posted by: Hue-Man | Apr 16, 2012 1:19:05 PM

  19. "I fully support equality for all people, and condemn any intolerance based on sexual orientation or any other personal characteristic"... and at the same time he says that “Accepting people the way they are is cruel and not loving.”, so he advocates for intolerance and discrimination against gay people.
    Typical hypocritical BS from the "Christian" gay hater club.

    Posted by: Peter M. | Apr 16, 2012 2:02:02 PM

  20. Alberta is Canada's Mississippi, but the good news is that every news outlet, even the more conservative ones in Canada, are calling out the insanity of this man and his attempt at a party.

    Posted by: Symon | Apr 16, 2012 2:06:25 PM

  21. As an Albertan, I want to say a few things: firstly, the reason the Wild Rose are ahead is not because Albertans support these clowns and their moral crusade, but rather, their exhaustion with the Progressive Conservatives; a party that has been virtually unopposed for 40 years and, as of late, has become almost entirely feckless and incapable.

    Albertans are so tired of having no representation in government. In addition to this there has been rampant scandal and corruption. It's time the PCs are thrown out on their heads. The Wild Rose party has done a good job of painting themselves as a libertarian alternative, intent on strengthening the economy, making government more transparent and respecting established civil liberties. They've gone to great length to cover up their real nature by keeping their image very guarded and polished. It has only been recently that several of its members have been uncovered for what they really are. Sadly, I think it's too close to the election to make a difference.

    I don't have a lot of pride for my home except for some of its natural beauty. It's a bit backward and barbaric but I do know that these politicians do not represent most my fellow Albertans. I think, yet again, we've been duped by greedy and power hungry politicians more interested in personal gain than noble service. We just wanted a change and the Wild Rose made great promises but I fear that we'll only get more of the same.

    Posted by: D.R.H. | Apr 16, 2012 2:31:35 PM

  22. @Chad

    Re: "Religion is poison" ... Not so simple.

    Pastor Brent Hawkes, of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto (a progressive, gay-positive church) is partly responsible for gay marriage being legal in Canada. He later was awarded Canada's highest civillian honour (the Order of Canada) for this civil rights work.

    "On January 14, 2001, Hawkes gained national attention by performing a wedding ceremony for two same-sex couples at the Metropolitan Community Church.[2] Although city clerks would not issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages at this time, Hawkes employed the alternative provided in Ontario law for regular church attendees to publish official banns for three consecutive weeks, and thereby conducted a legal marriage without requiring prior government permission[3][dead link]. In the spirit of the banns as a public opportunity for interested parties to raise legal objections, the church also issued a press release in late 2000 announcing its intentions. The government of Jean Chrétien did not endorse the marriages, although Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson sent a personal letter of support. The city clerk refused to register the record of marriage, leading to a court battle. On July 12, 2002, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the marriages performed by Hawkes in January 2001 were legal, but stayed its decision pending a possible appeal, and on June 10, 2003, the Court of Appeal for Ontario declared the common law definition of marriage as "invalid to the extent that it refers to “one man and one woman” [Halpern et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada et al.], immediately striking down all barriers against same-sex marriage in the province (Court of Appeal for Ontario)"

    Posted by: Rafa | Apr 16, 2012 2:31:45 PM

  23. You know, he's right. He CAN'T get away with being a hateful bigot. Therefore, I vow to change people like you, because leaving you the way you were "born" is indeed cruel and unloving.

    Posted by: Matt | Apr 16, 2012 3:50:32 PM

  24. @ Ratbastard:

    The American perception of "rights" is v. different from that of most other Western, first-world countries. America is a country of extremes, which is part of what makes it interesting for sure!!! And it focusses extremely on individual rights.

    In other Western, first-world countries such as Canada, we instead are constantly weighing and balancing individual rights against community rights -- I think the community rights concept is alien to American policy and law, but it's not to other countries.

    I personally believe in a balance of the two rights, leaning towards individual in most instances, but I'd never favour an ethos of individual rights only outweighing everything else in society.

    Your system is great and works for you, so hey, more power to you. A more balanced approach works for most other Western, First World countries, so, everyone's happy.

    Posted by: Randal Oulton | Apr 16, 2012 4:13:26 PM

  25. The beauty of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Happy Anniversary, BTW!) is that it makes a discerning, explicit intellectual process of understanding distinctions of hate speech.

    Cliff'sNotesVersion: if your right to say something comes at the expense of your "targets" rights to freedom and safety then one must weigh what matters more. it's not about unpopular speech, it's specifically and explicitly dissecting and understanding where a person's "right" to say something specific comes with a greater 'threat' to the safety and wellbeing of the speaker's target.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Apr 16, 2012 4:25:59 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Hillary Clinton Lets Her Hair Down in Cartagena: PHOTOS« «