Homosexuals and Equality

[Ipberg]

Here's my reply to Calgary Herald column posted below it. It's been submitted to the Herald's editorial department for their consideration.

Re Naomi Lakritz. Homosexuals ask for more than
equality nowadays. They want society to condone
their immoral lifestyles. They want us to
redefine marriage. Anyone who dares criticize
homosexuality is immediately smeared as a gay
basher. It is the price of standing up for what
is right in Canada today.



<b>Spencer not the only gay-basher in Alliance </b>
Naomi Lakritz
<a href="http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/columnists/story.asp?id=F554B846-B5BA-4EA5-8DD9-8C834B11FFC0">Calgary Herald </a>
Thursday, December 04, 2003


Thank you, Larry Spencer, for speaking out. Thank you for reminding Canadians why the Alliance party should never run this country. Thank you for joining a roster that includes Grant Hill, Bob Ringma, Dave Chatters and, most recently, Rob Anders, who do Canadians a favour by opening their yaps every now and then and showing their true colours.

Ringma was the guy who said it might be acceptable to relegate gay employees "to the back of the shop." Hill said gay rights legislation would encourage people to participate in an unhealthy lifestyle. Right, Grant. Once that gay rights stuff gets passed, we'll see heterosexuals lining up three deep to get into Goliath's, Calgary's gay bathhouse. The only way to keep those straight guys at home with their wives is to make sure gays are denied equal rights. There's logic for you.

Chatters chattered how in certain areas, "it's in the interest of society to have the right to discriminate against (gays)." Former Reform leader Preston Manning once said he agreed with Liberal backbencher Roseanne Skoke that gays are "a faction in our society which is undermining and destroying our Canadian values and Christian morality." Manning also wanted gays banned from the military.

What is this thing the Alliance has about gays? They seem abnormally obsessed with the sexual activities of consenting adults who are law-abiding Canadians. Substitute the word "blacks" for "gays" in all of the above utterances and this party's vision for Canada would be Alabama north.

After Spencer said he thought homosexuality should be illegal, Stephen Harper was under pressure to repair the damage. Harper, however, has had his own problem with optics. During his leadership campaign, he hired John Collison as his chief spokesman, even though he knew Collison had been fired as a radio talk-show host for making homophobic remarks about Winnipeg Mayor Glen Murray. Besides, Harper can't fix the ingrained ideas of members of his caucus; he can only tell these people to shut up, which doesn't make their thoughts go away.

But, let's get to Rob Anders, because he's been overlooked in all the hoopla about Spencer. Anders recently circulated his own little poll to his Calgary West constituents, asking them what they think of Bill C-250, which was passed in the Commons in September. The bill adds gays to the list of identifiable groups which can be targeted for hate crimes, as defined in the Criminal Code.

Ignoring that religious freedoms are protected and that the bill doesn't interfere with that, Anders's brochure bears a large photo of the Bible covered by a circle with a line through it. He calls Bill C-250 an "attack on free speech," as though free speech means homophobes have a God-given right to insist gays be treated as if they were sub-human.

Anders rants that the Bible will be criminalized and that religious publications could be subject to censorship or banishment, while faith-based schools won't be allowed to transmit their values to their pupils. He even appeals to Muslims and Jews to rally round his flag.

Someone throw Anders a life preserver, please. He's so far off the deep end that he's gone down for the third time and is drowning in the froth of his own hyperbole.

It will never be a crime to express disapproval of homosexual behaviour. It will, however, be a crime to say gays should be imprisoned, shot, beaten to a pulp, run out of town or denied housing, employment and other rights and privileges. Is that what some members of the Alliance want to be free to say?

Anders's brochure calls Bill C-250 an "ill-conceived proposal" which barters away the rights and freedoms of one group "to advance the special interests of another group."

Gays do have a special interest -- they want to be treated the same as everyone else. The real crime is bigoted politicians sneering at equal rights as something "special."

nlakritz@theherald.canwest.com

[Trouble]

But, let's get to Rob Anders, because he's been overlooked in all the hoopla about Spencer. Anders recently circulated his own little poll to his Calgary West constituents, asking them what they think of Bill C-250, which was passed in the Commons in September. The bill adds gays to the list of identifiable groups which can be targeted for hate crimes, as defined in the Criminal Code.

Ignoring that religious freedoms are protected and that the bill doesn't interfere with that, Anders's brochure bears a large photo of the Bible covered by a circle with a line through it. He calls Bill C-250 an "attack on free speech," as though free speech means homophobes have a God-given right to insist gays be treated as if they were sub-human.

Anders rants that the Bible will be criminalized and that religious publications could be subject to censorship or banishment, while faith-based schools won't be allowed to transmit their values to their pupils. He even appeals to Muslims and Jews to rally round his flag.

Someone throw Anders a life preserver, please. He's so far off the deep end that he's gone down for the third time and is drowning in the froth of his own hyperbole.

It will never be a crime to express disapproval of homosexual behaviour. It will, however, be a crime to say gays should be imprisoned, shot, beaten to a pulp, run out of town or denied housing, employment and other rights and privileges. Is that what some members of the Alliance want to be free to say?

Anders's brochure calls Bill C-250 an "ill-conceived proposal" which barters away the rights and freedoms of one group "to advance the special interests of another group."

Rob Anders did this? That is amazing! Look at the amount of space this social-Liberal used to describe this poll!

This is fantastic!

They are now openly condeming democracy, taking an anati-democrat out is easy as pie.

It is a slam dunk!

Go Rob.

[Ipberg]

Trouble: Rob Anders has been my Member of Parliament since September, 2003 when I moved from another location within Calgary in Ablonczy's riding.

Sweet.

[HeywoodFloyd]

Anders is on Rutherford right now

[Gabby Jay]

Substitute the word "blacks" for "gays" in all of the above utterances and this party's vision for Canada would be Alabama north.

Substitute the word "Jews" for "gays" in all of the above utterances and this party's vision for Canada would be Palestine West.

Who sounds like a bigot now?

[LondonLady]

I tire of this fallacious leftist argument. Jews and blacks can't change their race. No one in the CA has ever or will ever suggest that a particular race should be a basis for discrimination.
Homosexuals can choose to change and many have. They can also choose not to express their sexuality.
Even if homosexuality were inate (and there is no proof of it being so) so what? Not every genetically inherited behavior is desirable or should be acted upon (pedophilia, wife beating, alcoholism, other addictive behaviors)

It will never be a crime to express disapproval of homosexual behaviour.

Someone should give this lady a clue. The names Hugh Owen and Scott Brockie might help her out some.

[Ipberg]

My letter was published in the Calgary Herald on Saturday.

[Greg McNeely]

I tire of this fallacious leftist argument. Jews and blacks can't change their race. No one in the CA has ever or will ever suggest that a particular race should be a basis for discrimination.
Homosexuals can choose to change and many have. They can also choose not to express their sexuality.

Well said. Gays in our society are not treated as "sub-human". They, in fact have demographic advantages beyond the average but continue to push for more and more priveleges based solely on their sexual practices (sodomy etc.).

The current debate is not about taking away, or denying gays any rights, it is about not trying to over-ride the natural definition of marriage. It is about not providing further special priveleges to gays based on their sexual practices.

[Wlyonmackenzie]

This article has such infantile reasoning and understanding of the issue that it could have been penned by 5th grade student under the tutelage of a gay rights authoritarian teacher.

Grant Hill's statement on the sodomite lifestyle has been proven correct by professional medical studies and many gay activists are saying the same thing. There is a whole new generation of "bug chasers" and "gift givers" out there right now who have been emboldened into this risky behavior by the precise encouragements Hill has cited. Gay community activists feel this wanton behavior will be responsible for decimating the homosexual community with disease and shortened life spans. ....but oh no, this Naomi person equates this to effecting the hetero community wanting in on this joyous lifestyle

Chatters, Ringma and Anders comments were all dissected out of context and spun into the desired Racist-Bigot-Homophobe tripe that is always the left's last resort when they have no factual argument.

Again, the left media slams the messenger and fails to discredit the message....that the sodomy lifestyle is risky and not "normal" in any rational sense and that its lobby is a minority which wants to dominate the political agenda of majority.

Personally, I don't care if you sleep with your mule....just don't expect me to accept this as normal or of equal value to society as a natural family....and when you try to use the coercive repressive power of the state to stifle my opinion, then you enter the murky waters of uncivil society. If you have a right to say that risky recreational sex with the same gender is normal, then I have the right to say it is not normal and neither group has the right to repress the other in the ensuing debate. That's called social harmony.....something the sodomy lobby does not understand. Their idea of social justice is repression of dissent.

So Naomi; If gays want to be treated like everyone else they will have to learn to live in a society with people who disagree with them......just like the rest of us. Your pathetic juvinile name calling and shallow thinking on the issue throws the cause of rational public discourse back to the dark ages of social taboos…the very thing you accuse your targets of doing......but that was the intent wasn't it?