Rev. Diane Rollert Is Now Officially An U*U In The Media. . .

Rev. Diane Rollert, the now not quite so brand spanking new minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, has now officially achieved "U*Us In The Media" status in a brief report that is very appropriately headlined 'Man contests minister's bid for restraining order' in the Montreal Gazette today. Irwin Block's story is alternatively headlined 'Court asked to restrain church protester' in another online version of the report. The Gazette justifiably markets itself as Montreal's only English-language daily, and I have equally justifiably protested The Gazette's repeated refusals to responsibly report on my trials and tribulations with Montreal Unitarian U*Us, to say nothing of failing to report other important stories that the Montreal public has a right to know about. . . by displaying a picket sign slogan saying -

A PAPER WHERE NO NEWS IS BAD NEWS

This is the first time in almost a decade that the Montreal Gazette has seen fit to publish a bona fide news report of any substance about my ongoing peaceful public protest against diverse U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. No less than three Gazette journalists (or former Gazette journalists) are members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and at least one former Gazette employee, Nancy Lorimer, is a long time member of what could be described as the U*U "Church" of Montreal. The three Gazette journalists who are members of the U*U "Church" of Montreal are Mark Abley, Sue Montgomery, and Harvey Shepherd. I have some reason to believe that they have may have exerted some influence to keep this story out of 'The Gazette' until now, and that these same Gazette employees may well have exerted some influence to ensure that a Gazette reporter was waiting for me as I exited the courtroom following my second court appearance arising from Rev. Diane Rollert's deeply misguided, and almost certainly futile. . . attempt to obtain a restraining order from the Quebec Court that would effectively force a 12 month (or less. . .) suspension of my peaceful public protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.

Yes, you read that right, in past blog posts I may have truthfully, albeit somewhat inaccurately, stated that the court ordered restraining order that Rev. Diane Rollert is foolishly seeking would effectively force an end to my protest activities in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal; however, as Irwin Block's 'Just the facts Ma'am' Gazette news report more or less makes clear, any restraining order, assuming it was ever successfully obtained and enforced (something that IMNSHO is rather unlikely to actually happen. . .) would only require yours truly to "enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for any period that does not exceed twelve months." As I said elsewhere on the internet earlier today, the last time I checked. . . my protest activities in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal fit the description of "peaceful public protest" and, amongst other things. . . are intended to expose and denounce the well-documented bad behaviour on the part of Unitarian*Universalist U*Us, including intolerant and abusive U*U clergy who only an U*U would deny are guilty of conduct unbecoming a minister aka clergy misconduct. In my books, my ongoing peaceful public protest against diverse U*U injustices, abuses, and quite outrageous hypocrisy can be quite justifiably described as being "good behaviour".

Montreal Unitarians, to say nothing of lifelong U*Us U*U World-wide, might do well to recall that when I was first expelled from the Unitarian Church of Montreal for a full six months, for doing nothing more than submitting an important letter of grievance to the "church" Board that could have led to a just, equitable and compassionate resolution of this conflict in 1997 had it been responsibly acted upon instead of ignored. . . that I simply took the six month "sabbatical" from the "church" and, upon my return, made it clear to Montreal Unitarians that they still had a serious internal conflict that required some resolution. The restraining order that Rev. Diane Rollert is so cynically and hypocritically, and indeed remarkably foolishly. . . seeking to obtain based on her very dubious claims that my emails to her constitute "email threats", that she is "very frightened of me" and has "reasonable grounds" to believe that I will "commit a serious personal injury offence" against her would not, and could not, enforce a permanent cessation of my protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.

It might interest Rev. Diane Rollert, other Montreal Unitarian U*Us, and U*Us world-wide, to know that one of my all time favorite songs, and one of my all-time favorite National Film Board animations, is 'The Cat Came Back'. . . ;-) Be assured that this "cat" will come come back ASAP in the unlikely event that Rev. Diane Rollert is actually successful in obtaining the restraining order that she is seeking.

Comments

Robin Edgar said…
My July 4th The Emerson Avenger blog post which provides background to this post may be read here.
Robin Edgar said…
I guess there is not much point in creating a brand spanking new thread to report the fact that Rev. Diane Rollert of the Unitarian Church of Montreal got her proverbial 15 minutes worth of U*U World fame by getting a not so honourable mention on the UU World blog web page that is devoted to Unitarian Universalists in the Media.

Herewith is the email that I sent UU World editor Chris Walton and Sonja L. Cohn requesting some corrections to the somewhat erroneous and misleading blog post -


Hi Chris and Sonja,

Thank you for posting a notice about 'The Gazette' report about my second day in court to respond to Rev. Diane Rollert's highly questionable attempt to obtain a restraining order that would force an end to my ongoing protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal on the U*Us in the media page of the U*U World blog.

There are some misleading errors in your post that I am asking you to correct.

1 - Robin Edgar is the name that I am commonly known by. Instead of butchering my name, how about writing Robin Edgar (aka Robert Edgar).

2 - It would be more proper to say that I am contesting the restraining order although one can be sure that am protesting it as well.

3 - My protests are not exactly weekly. In fact I have given Montreal U*Us a fair number of breaks, most recently for most of this summer. In general I protest between two or three Sundays a month and I also protest when the UCM hosts various public events. I have protested in front of 25 Beacon Street in May 2000 and intend to return soon. Prominent U*U churches in major North American cities may be targeted too. I regret choosing not to protest in front of San Francisco and Bay Areav U*U churches when I had the opportunity to do so last year.

4 - I have been protesting against U*U anti-religious intolerance and bigotry, and related U*U clergy misconduct, and various other U*U injustices and abuses, outside the Unitarian Church of Montreal since May of 1998. My membership was permanently revoked on November 22nd, 1999, ostensibly due to the "image tarnishing" that the UCM had suffered from my protests and the media attention that they had received.

Here is a suggested correction of your post -

Robin Edgar (aka Robert Edgar) is contesting a restraining order sought against him by the current minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Rev. Diane Rollert. Edgar has demonstrated against (feel free to throw in "alleged" here if you want to cover your U*Us) anti-religious intolerance and related clergy misconduct outside of the church since May of 1998. (Montreal Gazette - Quebec, Canada 8.30.07) A June 4, 1998, story from the Montreal Mirror provides some background about Edgar's protests (Montreal Mirror - 6.4.98)

Here is the link to the first Montreal Mirror article about my protest -

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1998/060498/news5.html

Feel free to link to subsequent Montreal Mirror articles and letters to the editor that Chris Walton is fully aware of if you decide to provide additional background but, at present, your blog post is erroneous and thus misleading.

Thank you,

Robin Edgar