Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism
John McKellar
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 preferences.
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 philosophy.
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 it!
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'.
John McKellar
National Director, HOPE
Source: http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx/PnSx/HSx/MckellarJ%20HOPE01.htm
hopenow@hotmail.com
Copyright | Contact us | Top | Next
