[Below is an excellent (if long) piece by a practicing homosexual, tearing into the absurdities of homosexual activists. Very similar to Camille Paglia.
This come from Robert Jason, a Canadian who writes about the pseudo-liberal absurdities in his home country. E. Fox]
Gay activists are pushing to get Hate Crime Legislation and Same-sex Marriage codified before summer recess and on time for Gay Pride celebrations. Most gays
and lesbians neither need nor want this. Attached is an address I gave in Svend Robinson country which speaks to these issues. This will be followed by my brief to the Parliamentary Standing Committee which you are likely receiving for a second time, since it was sent to all MP's and MPP's in April. Please circulate and distribute.
There's HOPE for the World
Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism
REAL Women Address
First of all, thank you for
inviting me to Svend Robinson country. Now I'm sure some
of you are thinking that this poor lad from Ontario is geographically challenged and
doesn't realize that Vancouver is a few hundred kilometers down the road. But, alas,
we're all one big happy province and I wouldn't need to address you today if Svend's
gay activism didn't impact this beautiful valley. In fact, he may have sent a clandestine
observer to monitor my speech for hate and intolerance. Goodness me! Perhaps I
should engage in "safe-talk" by putting a giant condom over my head. Well, isn't that
they teach in school these days? Condoms protect you from everything...so why not
hate, intolerance, bigotry, homophobia and heterosexism?
Let me assure you, even as a
young, radical college student, I had no time for the
clubby, leftist lemmings who comprised the early gay activists. They were dull, they
were depressing, they always looked and acted as if they were born to be offended
and victimized, they could never discourse for more than 5 minutes without hitting
some tiresome barrier of resentment or ideology. So basically, I just avoided and
ignored them because they had nothing to say to me or for me. Neither I, nor those
I gravitate towards as friends or associates, wear the mantle of victimhood particularly
well. If I'm harassed or discriminated against, I get more satisfaction from dealing
directly with the problem myself. That's what builds character and prepares one for
the roadblocks of life that everybody faces - not just gays and lesbians - everybody.
Occasionally, someone will
try to tweak me by saying, 'come on John, if it weren't
for the activists, you couldn't write or speak as you do'. Well, alleluia baby! And if it
weren't for the Suffragettes, I probably wouldn't be here today either. Any successful
movement must have a beginning and an end, and must focus on worthwhile goals. In
1967, Pierre Trudeau supposedly liberated us when he said "the state has no business
in the bedrooms of the nation". Subsequently, matters of privacy and discrimination
were laudably and necessarily dealt with in the early 1970's. But today, the bedrooms
of the nation are in everybody's faces. Today, it's all about benefits, privileges, social
engineering, nihilism and redefining normalcy. Today, it's all about blurring every
distinction between personal and political issues and vigorously stifling any attempts
at discussion or debate. Believe me, my life would be much simpler if I didn't have
to contend with all of this. But how can I sit still when my public image is embarrass-
ingly represented by a small but vociferous clique of radicals bent on making the
whole world their closet? How can I sit still when the mainsteam media constantly
gives unequivocal support to the lies, myths, distortions and propaganda of modern
gay activism? How can I sit still when my freedoms are being threatened and the
traditions and institutions of my country are being compromised?
So I formed HOPE (Homosexuals
Opposed to Pride Extremism) to give a voice to
gays and lesbians who choose to live with dignity and discretion, who don't wake up
every day looking for discrimination under the bed, and who don't go running to the
governments, the courts or the human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic
The 19th century writer,
Oscar Wilde, is revered by many in the gay and lesbian
community but, believe me, if he were alive now, he'd be totally exasperated with
the whining, hysterical malcontents who dominate todays gay lobby. The unhappy
truth is that homosexuality will never be fully accepted by the heterosexual majority
who are obeying the dictates not of 'bigoted' society or religion, but of procreative
nature. Whatever society teaches or doesn't teach about homosexuality, no gay or
lesbian, surrounded overwhelmingly by heterosexuals, will feel at home in his or
her sexual and emotional world, even in the most tolerant of cultures. At a young
age we learn the rituals of deceit, impersonation and appearance, and anyone who
believes political, social or even cultural revolution will change this fundamentally
is denying reality. Yet, this alienation and desperation deepens our artistic insight
and allows us to create civilization. Look at such historical icons as Michelangelo,
Leonardo da Vinci, Tchaikovsky, Somerset Maugham, Gore Vidal - who were
homosexual and who undoubtedly experienced hardship and repression. But look
what they gave to the world. Look how they advanced the cultural heritage. They
were too creative, cultivated and cosmopolitan to be concerned with the trivialities
of sexual pride, queer studies, diversity and whatever other pop-culture banality
dominates our modern landscape.
Now compare those cultural
giants with the likes of Svend Robinson - who fancies
himself as a leading pioneer and revolutionary - but whose self-inflicted martyrdom
and incessant demands are so unrepresentative of, and so demeaning to the civilized
majority of gays and lesbians. To my radical brothers and sisters, sexual orientation
is not only a lifestyle, but a religion and a career. It's their whole identity. How
absurd and how sad. From the exalted creativity of the Renaissance, to the vulgarity
of Gay Pride, we've managed to dumb ourselves down to the level of barnyard animals.
We've also managed to overpoliticize and polarize viewpoints, labelling people pro-gay
or anti-gay with little room between.
As an openly gay male, I have
no problem conceding that heterosexuality is and always
will be the great human norm. But I'm sick and tired of a media culture that faciley
equates homosexuality with heterosexuality and asks no deep questions about human
psychology beyond the superficial liberal-vs-conservative, freedom-vs-oppression
dichotomy. And I'm sick and tired of the sentimental, feel-good, liberal propaganda
that conceals and denies the blatant Roman Empire decadence and compulsive, tunnel-
vision promiscuity of so many gay men's lives.
Before the Stonewall
rebellion - which was the genesis of modern gay liberation - gays
and lesbians mixed quite freely, socially, and in the bars. But in the 1970's, gay men,
feeling ebullient from their newfound freedom and confidence, segregated themselves
and rapidly descended into a bacchanalia of narcissism and promiscuity which eventually
collapsed into the hell of AIDS. Then midway through the AIDS epidemic, the media,
having ignored homosexuality or treated it in a lurid manner, did a quick flip-flop under
activist pressure, and now continues it's unthinking policy of parroting the gay establishment
party-line on every occasion. But it's not a media conspiracy. We need to be careful and
avoid using the 'C' word, because it makes us vulnerable to mockery and marginalization
and detracts from the essence of the message. Rather than a conspiracy, it's a mindset and
an attitude that is born from various sources - one being a widespread shift in public
morality - another being that arts and media are filled with gays and lesbians - and, of
course, we can't ignore the intimidation tactics which gay activists have honed to perfection.
and with which I have had plenty of first hand experience.
In 1998, I was invited to
write an op-ed piece for the Ottawa Citizen in which I criticised
the extremism and excesses of Gay Pride. Now I don't really expect everyone to agree with
my outspoken opinions and I certainly welcome challenge, confrontation and opposition.
But the very day the article appeared, the self-annointed leaders of the gay community
demanded a meeting with the publisher and editor of the newspaper and demanded to know why they printed my essay. What a joke! What a hissy fit! They could easily shut me up by smartening up, but they are so blinded by their fanaticism that they don't realize that
every time they resort to these Stalinist tactics, they make me look good. They give me
credibility and justification.
Another egregious example of
media bias is the ever partial-reporting of the Matthew
Sheppard murder. For sure, this was a brutal and barbaric crime and I'd be happy to
see his killers fry. But I'm also disturbed at the canonization of Matthew as the patron
saint of hate crimes. His sexual proclivity was cruising for "rough trade", which means
he was attracted to his assailants precisely because they were scuzzy punks whose look
and manner vitually screamed trouble. He doesn't deserve to burn in hell as Fred Phelps
constantly rages. But rational public discourse about his destructive behavior could help
save lives - especially among gay youth. So shame on the media for placing political
correctness ahead of safety and responsibility.
A well respected Toronto
journalist recently expressed to me her dismay that, despite the
mainstreaming of Gay Pride, teenagers are still being harassed. Sorry, but I'm afraid the
connection is lost on me. For years, I've been warning that the primary contribution of
Gay Pride is to reinforce every public prejudice against us and to accelerate the inevitable
backlash. When well meaning but foolish politicians, such as Alan Rock or Joe Clark,
march in our cheezy, sleazy pride parades, they're not doing us any favours. The media
pronounces them cool, enlightened and compassionate, but, like the Emperors New Clothes, the naked eye sees awkward sychophants. Or as my beloved lesbian author and professor of humanities, Camille Paglia, has said, "If you don't swing with the sodomites, you're nowheresville on the A-list".
Now if you happen to be the
mayor of any municipality, don't even think about not
issuing an official proclamation for gay pride, unless you want to find yourself in front
of a human rights tribunal. I realize that Kelowna has managed to dodge this bullet for
the time being, but there will be other years, other events and other mayors, and who
knows what the future will bring. But this relentless effort toward mass education and
forced compliance cannot be achieved without fascist obliteration of all individual
freedoms. And since freedom is a hell of a lot more important than political correctness
or tolerance, you can rest assured that any perceived threat to freedom will result in
a societal backlash which will guarantee oppression of all homosexuals. And gay males,
especially, are forever on the edge of a precipice because, in a political cataclysm,
we're always the first to be purged.
It's important and essential
to distinguish that the human condition is capable of both
creative and destructive conduct, and that a civilized society recognizes and upholds
this distinction. Throughout history, homosexuals have always been at the forefront
of creativity in art, music, fashion, literature etc. In recent times, however, we have
massacred our most promising by ignoring, tolerating or embracing destructive conduct.
Indeed, it is civilized and compassionate to treat all human beings with love, respect and
concern. But it is also civilized and compassionate to discriminate between creative and
destructive behaviour. Candid discussion and constructive criticism of aberrant conduct
does not denigrate the human being and does not imply or encourage discrimination.
In fact, the correct and conventional meaning of "discrimination" has always been
"refinement, perception, the ability to form opinions and the ability to discern", but,
these days, it's been hijacked by the language and thought police who have fallaciously
designated it a pejorative.
Another word whose classical
and true meaning has been distorted by current pop-culture
and political correctness, is 'pride'. We've practically deified the word, and like Stalinists,
we persecute and prosecute those who fail to pay homage. The dictionary defines pride as,
'inordinate self esteem, an overweening opinion of one's own qualities and attainments that
give rise to superiority over and contempt for others'. (Ha! it is any wonder that the gay
lobby has designated this word as it's chief mascot?) Pride is also one of the seven deadly
sins; it's destructive and divisive; it's the cause of most wars; it's responsible for the spread
of AIDS. Happy, successful people are humble. If one needs to have pride, then be proud
of your achievements, your morality, your independence, your discipline. But pride in
your sexual orientation? How shallow, narcissistic and infantile!
One could fairly and
legitimately ask, who annointed HOPE or John McKellar to speak
on behalf of any segment of the gay and lesbian community. A more pertinent question
would be, 'who authorized lobby groups, such as GALE BC, to bring their self-serving
agenda and their cultural angst into the schools?' And how thoroughly have these activists
been qualified and scrutinized? HOPE is non-partisan, non-sectarian, unattached to all
intents and purposes, and seeks not to indoctrinate or reform, but to comment, criticize
and inform. I have often expressed the unfortunate, but undeniable truth, that the number
of times one was called 'faggot' in the schoolyard is directly proportionate to the stridency
of one's activism. So, special interest groups, such as GALE BC, are comprised mostly of
wounded and resentful individuals who should be receiving counselling and compassion,
rather than trying to dispense it. You don't need gay activists to teach young people love
and respect for one another. And you certainly don't want young, impressionable minds
forever inculcated with a victim and entitlement mentality. When you fancy yourself an
oppressed minority - particularly one that is based on a basic human drive and compulsion -
you become obsessed with increasing your numbers and mainsteaming your behaviour.
You try to evoke guilt and intimidation by incessantly reiterating banal epithets, such as
'hate', 'homophobia', 'intolerance', 'teen suicide' and 'self-esteem'. You quickly discover
that the optimum way to ensure future supporters to your cause and ideology is through
the minds of the young. You skillfully master the techniques of invoking sympathy,
hiding the truth and presenting a sanitized portrait of gay life.
Introducing kindergarten and
grade one students to alternative behaviours and lifestyles is
psychological pedophilia. You don't have to engage solely in physical contact to molest a
child. You can diddle with their minds and their emotions. And this is exactly what some
of my radical brothers and sisters are up to. And this is exactly what a disheartening
majority of educators, school trustees and teachers unions endorse. Spare me the tolerance
and compassion bunkum. Just leave the kids alone and let them enjoy their short period of
innocence and sexual latency. Then when they approach puberty, balance the pop-culture
bombardment with messages of abstinence, discipline and self-control. Don't just assume
that all teens are out-of-control hormone factories and that all you can do is shrug your
shoulders and throw condoms at them. Listen, I'll donate $100 to their favorite charity
if anyone can show me a scientific study that proves condoms prevent the transmission of
HIV. And the fabricated slogan 'safe-sex' is dangerous, misleading and designed to
preserve lifestyle, not life. HOPE recommends that Dr Jeffrey Satinover's lucid and
scholarly book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, be compulsory reading
at the secondary school level. But over and above everything, tell the truth and present
the facts. Stop presenting young gay men as pretty 'St Sebastians', martyred by benighted
homophobes and the big bad authorities, and instead, reflect on Oscar Wilde's hedonistic
Dorian Gray, confronting his spiritual failures in his corroding portrait.
One of the most hauntingly
memorable days of my life - which I recall as if it were
yesterday - occurred in 1981 during a conversation with a friend, whose cousin was a
physician in New York City. My friend told me there was a mysterious 'gay cancer'
running through the homosexual community in Manhatten, which was spread by anal
sex, which produced lesions on the skin, which weakened the immune system by
destroying white blood cells and which was 100% fatal.
Let me assure you that as
young, naive and perpetually horny as I was, that single
conversation was all that was needed to put enough fear into me to forever alter my
sexual activities. The phrase 'safe-sex' had not yet been coined, but believe me, I
was practising it! But it was with great dismay that I watched the ravages of AIDS
spread like wildfire and it was with great contempt that I observed how the activists
carved careers for themselves, making a political circus out of this disease and
trampling on the rights of the majority. Here we were confronted with the most
easily preventible, difficult to acquire, behaviourally caused, fatal disease in the
history of humankind - and look how the gay leadership responded to it.
To them, it was more
important to change the name of this disease, which was
originally called GRID (gay related immune deficiency), to the 'less homophobic'
AIDS. To them it was more important to fight for the rights and the protection of
those who suffer from this disease than to fight for the health and safety of the
entire population. To them it was more important to canonize the victims of this
disease with commemorative walls, memorial quilts, vigils and galas than to
condemn the behaviour that resulted in their death. To them, it was more important
to distibute condoms than to declare a moratorium on promiscuous anal sex. Shame.
I can recall numerous times
sharing with friends my bewilderment and frustration
over why traditional public health measures for combating epidemics were not
deployed against AIDS. Sixty years ago, those afflicted with tuberculosis had their
homes quarantined and fifty years ago, public swimming pools were closed during
the polio epidemic. Throught the sexual revolution of the 1960's and 1970's, there
was stringent and systematic follow-up for all those infected with gonorrhea, syphilis
and herpes. But at a National AIDS Conference in Denver Colorado in 1983, gay
leaders declared, 'we oppose any legislative attempts to close private clubs or
bathhouses...we should never forget that we live in a homophobic society and that
homophobia is the major threat to our health'.
This childishly self-serving
attitude sealed the fate of the gay communities still free
of the virus. Wth less than 2000 cases nationwide, drastic measures...the declaration
of a health emergency in the affected areas, the closing of the bathhouses, testing
among those at risk, contact tracing to warn those in the path of the infection...
might have stemmed the tide of the epidemic and eventually saved tens of thousands
of lives. Yet, gay leaders remained adamantly opposed to these measures because
of the perceived stigmatization of the gay lifestyle.
So, as I observed the
inexorable spread of AIDS and the effects of the gay left to
control, weaken and obstruct the measures to combat it, I could easily extrapolate
the numbers who were going to die. By doubling the 2000 existing cases every six
months for the next ten years, I was able to calculate (accurately in hindsight) that
by 1994 there would be 200,000 people - mostly gay men, mostly in the bloom of
youth - who were going to die for an idea of liberation. And there wasn't a damn
thing I or anyone else could do about it! Sure, Ronald Reagan may have been
unconcerned and uncommunicative about AIDS, but as my aforementioned sister
in solidarity, Camille Paglia, has stated, 'the delusional arrogance of the gay lobby
unleashed the 20th Centuries second holocaust'.
So where are we in 2003?
Well, we still have 20-year-olds, who weren't even born
when AIDS first appeared in North America, becoming infected with HIV. We continue
to introduce new, potent and costly anti-HIV drugs, none of which destroy the virus,
but which give gay males a false confidence, which leads to high-risk behaviour. We
have an increasing number of gay websites, phonelines and classifieds promoting the
growing desire for 'bareback sex' and 'extreme sex'. And even at the Annual Global
Conference on AIDS, the nightlife is more noteworthy than the daytime activities. The
discos are packed with gay doctors, nurses, activists and researchers shamelessly cruising
one another, and likewise, the bathhouses do land-office business. So, in spite of the
solemnity and tragedy in dealing with a wasteful and fatal disease, the hedonistic,
promiscuous, sex-carnival atmosphere never lets up.
Of course, it's no accident
or coincidence that the major sponsors of World AIDS Day
and the ubiquitous Walk For AIDS are the international pharmaceutical companies and
the condom manufacturers. And it's neither callous nor cynical to point out that there
are big bucks to be made from each new AIDS patient. But in North America, this is
still a gay male disease, and while present sufferers deserve comfort and care, there
needs to be far more emphasis placed on prevention than on cure.
My activist brothers and
sisters, along with their ever-willing accomplices in media
and academia, relentlessly drum into the public psyche that homosexuality is 'not a
choice', because no-one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. First of all,
there is an element of choice in all behaviour. Secondly, despite media fanfare and
trendy hypotheses, there is no conclusive scientific evidence as to the biological, genetic,
psychological and social influences on sexual orientation. The modern change in opinion
concerning homosexuality, though presented as scientific advance, is contradicted rather
than supported by science. Once again, we have a transformation in public morals
consistent with widespread abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our
civilization is based. Though hailed as 'progress', it is really a reversion to ancient pagan
practices supported by a counter-culture restatement of gnostic moral relativism.
The average person
comprehends neither the complexities of good scientific research
nor the extent to which politics has corrupted the scientific process. For instance, it was
strictly politics and nary a speck of science that motivated the American Psychiatric
Association in 1973 to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. So, that begs the
question, do I consider myself mentally ill? Perhaps by the time I finish here today,
some of you may think so. Seriously though, we are all born incomplete and vulnerable
to compulsive and addictive behaviour. As I said previously with respect to 'pride', it's
a constant struggle; you either control it or it controls you. My friend and colleague in
the trenches, Reverend Ken Campbell, has often publically said that when he was a
college student, his natural inclination was to chase every skirt. That's because young
males are constitutionally prone to libidinal excess. The overwhelming power of sexual
gratification, makes it highly susceptible to becoming compulsive and addictive. But as
human beings, we possess the intellect and the free will to exercise restraint. Until AIDS
came along, male homosexuality had no inherent biological controls and so the use of the
body seemed unlimited. Then came the Apocalypse: a complete systems breakdown of the
body which lost its defences against nature. And the the ugliness and premature ageing of
this wasteful disease were especially painful and grotesque in view of gay men's historic
idealization of youth and beauty.
Gay activists become
particularly hysterical at the mention of sexual reversion therapy.
Now it may be impractical to 'convert' totally from homosexuality to heterosexuality,
but if counselling can allow a gay man to respond sexually to women, it should be
encouraged and applauded, not lambasted or lampooned. If a gay male wants to marry
and sire children, he shouldn't be harassed by gay activists accusing him of 'self-hatred'.
Come on! Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may
not want to be gay? Or that a woman's power should not be ignored, especially in the
context of raising children. The difficulties in changing sexual orientation do not spring
from its genetic innateness. Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically
possible. However habit is refractory, once the sensory paths have been blazed and
deepened by repetition - something that is also evident in the struggle with obesity,
smoking, alchoholism or drug addiction.
The obscene contention made
by most activists that constructive and rational opposition
to sexual conduct is tantamount to anti-semitism or other forms of racism, is not only
intellectually dishonest, but insultingly disrespectful to Blacks, Jews and other minorities.
Discrimination against skin colour, ethnicity or religion is not wholly comparable to the
complicated resistance of virtually all societies in history to open homosexuality, which
involves thorny questions of morality and psychology. There has never been a gay leader
remotely near the stature of Martin Luther King or Ghandi, both of whom drew upon
the profound spiritual traditions of religion, to which gay political rhetoric has always
been childishly hostile. Remember, it was the influence of the Quakers in 18th century
Britian and the flamboyent, thunderous activism of Evangelicals in 19th century America
that powered the abolitionist movement and led to the end of slavery.
No major world religion has
ever endorsed homosexuality which can be openly practised
only in peaceful, affluent and cosmopolitan times. Even in classical antiquity, homosexuality
was controversial, and despite the exaggerated claims of today's partisans, there was no
place or period where it flourished in complete freedom from moral opprobrium. History
shows that male homosexuality flourishes with urbanization, soon becomes predictably
ritualized and always tends toward decadence. So my radical brothers and sisters should
stop bitching about sincere Christians, Jews and Muslims who are merely exercising their
constitutional right to free speech, and whose vast philosophical perspective easily triumphs
over the provincialism and amorality of the gay world. Indeed, their position is far more
credible and honest than the tortuous casuistry of self-interested clerics who take the path
of least resistance by creating their own church, tailor-made to affirm their Rainbow
The prominent recurring theme
in the materials presented by gay advocates seems to
revolve around the acceptance of same-sex families. This approach is clearly less
controversial than attempting to discuss specific sexual practices and, of course, one can
candy coat the agenda with cute titles and seemingly innocuous story lines (such as Blue
Dads... Green Dads... Pink Dads). But it is still an attempt to undermine the traditional
family and to inure young, fresh minds to the current ethos that same-sex parenting is
equivalent to opposite-sex parenting. Once you have effectively broken one of societies
taboos, others will fall away easily and rapidly. Children must not be used as guinea pigs
for social engineering experiments. Children need a biological mother and father. We know
that this is not always possible, even in the context of opposite-sex marriage, but we don't
solve the problem or alleviate the inconsistency by adding to it. Self-interested partisans
will manufacture statistics to support their specious claims that children of same-sex
marriages fare as well as those of opposite-sex marriages. However, the phenomenon
of same-sex parenting doesn't have the longevity needed for such conclusive evidence,
whereas the experience of single parent families has, not always, but often shown
detriment to the development of the offspring.
So what about those gays and
lesbians who really want to raise a family? Some of us
have 'baby envy'; it's intrinsic to our species. Some of us feel excluded and stigmatized.
Too bad! Since when does everybody get everything they want? Laws are written for
the good of all society and not for the individual, the special rights advocates or the legal
radicals. The true libertarian recognizes that we are first of all social, interdependent
beings - free, but also bound. And because human community can only arise from some
prevailing unity, society always has a natural and logical primacy over the individual.
For the true libertarian, there is a connected stream of virtues, standards and institutions
that must be distinguished and protected. And if we ignore the lessons of history and
natural law, then everything becomes legal and everything becomes moral, and
civilization descends into chaos.
Last December, I wrote an
article for Ethics and Medics entitled, 'The Irony of
Same-Sex Marriage'. And the irony that seems to be lost among most media and
politicians is that for a long time the gay press has been replete with articles, letters
and editorials sneering at the whole concept of gay marriage. Clearly, most of us
don't want anything to do with it. Even lesbian icons, such as Jane Rule, stridently
dis the entire notion. We neither need nor want the state in our bedrooms. We
neither need nor want to be shackled by rules regulations or paperwork. We've
already won the same-sex benefits battle, so there's no longer concern over matters
of pensions or estates. And other than the legal radicals, who hone their skills
contesting these issues. the right to marry is being fought by a tiny minority, most
of whom are already hitched, their youth gone, their kids growing or grown, and
their parents shrinking before their very eyes. So for the sake of 'choice and diversity'
for a few, a lot of time, energy and money that should be going to help the truly
disenfranchised, is being wasted.
Well, I began today with
Svend Robinson, so I may as well end with him - or, at least,
Svend's private member's bill, a.k.a. C-250 and whatever it was before. It really doesn't
matter what you call it or how many times you try to revise or euphemize it. It's sole
purpose is to shut people up. So let's just call it 'Svend's Shut Your Mouth Bill'. Sorry
Svend, I won't shut my mouth! In fact, I'm ready and willing to be your first test case,
your first 'hate crime' prosecution. So come and get me, Svend. There's nothing more
I would love than to face you across a courtroom or a tribunal and watch your face turn
a hundred shades of red. Oops, there's my pride and arrogance showing, so I'd better cool
Anyhow, I've either heard
directly or read transcripts of the cross-country interviews
that Svend has been conducting to promote his agenda. And there's one name that
constantly and consistently gets mentioned by Svend - and that name is Fred Phelps.
It's so amusing to observe the love/hate relationship that Svend has with this character.
Of course, he hates the venom Phelps spews, as we all should. But he loves the fact
that he exists. He needs Phelps to create his chimera of religious bigotry. Now if you
confront Svend and ask him if he really thinks that Phelps typifies most religious
fundamentalists, he will say with great alacrity, oh, no, no, of course not! But Svend
is as sharp and as smooth as they come. He understands the suble art of suggestion
and the psychology of repetition. He knows that he can get a substantial portion of
the population to think that there is a little bit of Phelps in all religious fundamentalists.
But Svend's hippocrasy is exposed by the fact that Phelps comes into Canada every
now and again and, in fact, he was in BC last November. And we all know that Svend
isn't bashful about getting what he wants. A few years ago, he vigorously petitioned
the department of immigration to get his 25 year old Cuban boy-toy landed status. So
Svend could easily raise a fuss about letting Phelps into Canada, but don't hold your
breath. No way is he about to spoil this convenient Mephistophelian alliance.
And speaking of dancing with
the devil, let me give equal and well-deserved reproach
to our purported leader of the opposition. At least with Svend, there are no surprises
- you're getting exactly what you expect. But look, fellow Canadians. See how hopeless
Harper hides when the angry dogs bark 'homophobia'. And see how easily Svend's
Bill passes second reading. If this assault on our freedom becomes law, I'm placing
the blame squarely on Stephen Harper's shoulders. Come on, Mr Harper, it's time to
stop meandering in the morass of moderation and show some gumption and some
leadership. Otherwise, you and your Alliance Party may as well join the Pink Triangle
Brigade, hoist the rainbow flag and shout with belligerent confidence, 'We're here,
we're queer, so stick it in your ear!'
Ladies and gentlemen, real affliction out there is not 'homophobia', but rather, 'truthphobia'.
National Director, HOPE
[COMMENT: It really is amazing how God has His people (truth-seekers) smuggled away in the darnest places. We need to find how to reach out gracefully to these folks with the news that they can be free of a terrible addiction, and find peace in the love of God through Jesus Christ. E. Fox]
Go to: => Other McKeller Article & a 3rd
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Go to: => TOP Page; => Sexuality LIbrary; => ROAD MAP