My fellow Canadian free speechers, do note:
Describing Bill Whatcott as “a lone nut who nobody pays any attention to” etc. to bolster your arguments (whether you truly believe that or are just using it as a wimpy fig leaf of respectability) now collides with these statements about homosexuality by Lech Walesa, who is neither “lone” nor a universally acknowledged “nut,” and who is certainly capable of getting lots of attention.
Now what do you do?
But, you see, that’s the Canadian Way. Free speech is fine…but only to a point. Property Rights are fine, but of course, there has to be ‘reasonable’ limits.
And with all this relenting, along comes the considerable apparatus of The State to not only geefully fill the vacancy created by the freedom roll-back, but redoubling its efforts to create more.
I have given up on Canadians – they will never, never get this liberty thing.
They act with all the trappings of a beaten, whipped and utterly subjugated people.
So if you are against totalitarianism, that’s not ‘good enough’.
Ostracism, it’s the new chic…! Off to the ideological gulag!
If your against communism, you might be catholic…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Ten years ago ,the shrill cry of the oppressed homo-activist was that all they wanted was to be equal and their private lifestyle tolerated.
Now,they demand to be celebrated,and anyone who doesn’t think that they are the best thing to come down the highway since Astroglide must be punished. Politicians must attend their parades or they will be vilified. The politician’s opinion does not matter. The general public cannot point out the obvious,or they will be labelled as homophobic,which must be a mental illness.
Gay activits have become the oppressors that they railed about a few years ago. It makes one wish that they find the gay gene,if there is one.
Personally,I don’t care where you put your privates if I’m not involved,but I will not praise you for being with someone of the same sex,just as I will not praise a friend that goes out with someone I find abhorrent.
I’ll tolerate it,maybe even speak my opinion. If that upsets you,too bad,suck it up buttercup.
I used the “lone nut” argument just to point out to those gleeful over the Whatcott decision that the irony of how Whatcott and his views are now well-known. In that instance, I used only part of my overall argument against the SC decision, not the crux.
Personally, I don’t find much to agree with respect to most of what Whatcott or Walesa believe, except to the extent that much of our society is bullied into accepting no dissent whatsoever in the debate on homosexual rights, and I disagree with introducing the overt sexuality in schools without parental consent or involvement.
Yet, I also don’t have a problem with gay marriage or what consenting adults do with each other, but that doesn’t mean I feel Whatcott doesn’t have the right to express his beliefs, and Walesa similarly.
I guess I’m not sure what Shaidle’s point is. That in every argument we have to express our entire point of view irrespective of the intended audience? That because Walesa believes something Whatcott said renders invalid the fact that the SC decision made Whatcott a known public figure?
Praising Walesa for his efforts to end communism does not exclude condemning him for homophobia.
Having faced down the full wrath of the Soviets and not only survived, but triumphed, I doubt very much, LAS, that Walesa is “afraid” of homosexuals, which is what “homophobia” literally means.
I suspect that, like many of us, he is, rather, homonauseous — sick of watching 1% of the population campaign for imaginary rights because they fancy themselves an enlightened, elite avant guard rather than the shallow, sex-fixated narcissists they really are.
He faced down the Soviets but facing down the gaystopo united with the feral left is another thing entirely different.
There is a difference between condemning and not embracing. Because someone does not embrace the homosexual lifestyle does not make him homophobic. It just makes him not politically correct.
If there ever was an inapt word to describe Walesa, it’s homophobic. I’m pretty sure he’s not afraid of much. Especially homos.
Interesting to see the drug addled tie themselves in knots praising and condemning a person at the same time.
While on its face this SCOC judgement seems ludicrous (what’s next – be found guilty of being “likely” to rob a bank?). Allowing third partys’ judgement/feelings/prejudice to be substituted with actual conduct is ultra dangerous and we’ve already seen chrc sect 13 used to attempt to censor others (Steyn, Levant). Will this embolden human “rights” activists to stamp out any view they don’t like/find offensive merely having to demonstrate that some nutbar out there might do something illegal. There is no basis here in common law which make this latest scoc ruling particularly troubling.
I wonder though if the court was sending a message to the Harper government. After all if they were simply to repeal sect 13’s offending others likely to do violence provision, then their ruling would simply be academic with no/little (I hope) chance of its repealing being deemed “unconstitutional.”
In any event given this ridiculous reading of our constitution, the charter and the law, does the Harper government have any choice but to repeal/change the wording of sect. 13?
They asked me if I was leaving because open homosexuality was being allowed. I said, ‘No, I am leaving before they make it mandatory!’
Thank you for that word,”homonauseous” ,Kathy. I think that describes the feeling a lot of Canadians have toward an activist group that won all the important battles long ago but just can’t quit bitching.
The “bullied” have become the bullies.
“Homonauseous” sums it up nicely. What consenting adults chose to do sexually in private is none of my business. Don’t care, don’t want to know. STFU already and quite waving your nuts/vagina’s around while calling it “Pride”…
And THAT is why I always make a daily run to FFoF.
Thanks Kathy for the “homonauseous” term. I have very little to do with queers because they tend to be self-centered, sex-obsessed, hypersensitive mentally unstable idiots generally buying in fully to the marxist weltanschauung and feeling entitled to their entitlements. From a Libertarian viewpoint, I see them as a group to be ignored. However, when they attempt to force their perverted view of reality on the majority of the population then they are deserving of ridicule at the very least and, a boot to the nuts if that’s what it takes to make them aware of the existence of an external reality different than theirs.
The SCOC ruling is self-destructive. Right now I’ve got to get to the hospital so I’m not going to look it up again, but when I read it last week, it struck me that the section on anything that was published causing distress to an identified group is banned. The SCOC decision makes a good number of the readers of SDA fantasize about dragging SCOC justices behind their jeep down dirt roads until there’s just a chain left bouncing on the road surface. Obviously a document which engenders such violent thoughts in its readers must be banned and hence the SCOC decision must be burned and all digital copies extirpated and the authors silenced. Just applying a bit of logic here (that form of reasoning which the leftists hate since they are incapable of understanding it).
Waiting in line at the grocery store yesterday I picked up the National Enquirer and started leafing through it. There’s this outrageously funny doctored picture of Ellen’s wife Portia oogling this buxom woman’s cleavage…Ellen has her shocked gaze starring straight at the cleavage too…you’ve just got to see it. There’s actually laws against publishing this so I wouldn”t get to bent out of shape about sect 13…the more attempts at censorship the easier it becomes to get one’s message out. The silk stocking socialists always end up choking on their polish sausage.
Write the Poles off along with the rest of Catholic Europe.
Anybody who seriously believes the Poles had any better moral character than the rest of mankind in the first place needs to be informed about how they slaughtered their Jews with even greater zeal than the Germans. Even Pope John Paul preferred to swan about the world giving fine sermons rather than do something about the sodomites and pedophiles that infested the Church of Rome.
The Roman Church has been exposed as a den of perverts in Poland as it has been in Ireland, and as that Church was the only church most of them knew, it was child’s play to get the Poles to cheerfully give up even the pretense of Christianity, just like the Teigs have. These days only about half of them bother going to mass, and the number drops every day. The sodomites themselves no longer need the Church as a lace where they could escape answering for perversions not tolerated in laymen even by the communists. The Poles, like the Teigs, have no God now but money. To get that in modern Europe you please Brussels and Berlon, and you do that by tolerating sodomy.
Consider this—Walesa’s own son turned against him in the Polish press, condemning him for daring to condemn perverts in high places. A nation whom God delivered from the godless Russians and Germans, in spite of their sins against His people, so ungrateful for His mercy that they can forget in a single generation His command to honor one’s father—never mind His commands against sodomy—will not much longer survive, and does not deserve to. If Walesa does not deserve honour from his son for his part in freeing his family and nation from communism, what father does?
Ten years ago ,the shrill cry of the oppressed homo-activist was that all they wanted was to be equal and their private lifestyle tolerated.
Now,they demand to be celebrated,and anyone who doesn’t think that they are the best thing to come down the highway since Astroglide must be punished. Politicians must attend their parades or they will be vilified. The politician’s opinion does not matter. The general public cannot point out the obvious,or they will be labelled as homophobic,which must be a mental illness.
Gay activits have become the oppressors that they railed about a few years ago. It makes one wish that they find the gay gene,if there is one.
Personally,I don’t care where you put your privates if I’m not involved,but I will not praise you for being with someone of the same gender,just as I will not praise a friend that goes out with someone I find abhorrent.
I’ll tolerate it,maybe even speak my opinion. If that upsets you,too bad,suck it up buttercup.
BTW,this comment was held earlier.I don’t know why but I changed one word to ‘gender’.Maybe this time…. I
Now that is VERY well said thank you Kathy
Yep wallyj 8:34pm.
Just leave us alone. Do not persecute us. Do not ostracise us. Live and let live. The plea of many homosexuals. I will say that there are some of these people who quietly go about their lives.
The others are venomous and spiteful.
I would go to the case of Oscar Wilde in London over 120 years ago. For he sued the Marquis of Queensbury (boxing rules fame). Queensbury was distraught because Wilde had seduced his son. The staff of the hotel where Wilde had paid off street boys (the damn fools) for sex where called as witnesses.
The descriptions of the clean sheets after Wilde had been at work would make the average person retch.
I would like to have the Supreme Court listen to a graphic description of the activities they so defend. Ask THEM about their sex lives.
Homosexuals should even sit behind a wall, and not somewhere at the front.
“They must know they are a minority and adapt themselves to smaller things.” -Walesa
You can hit it with the pedantry bat all you want Kathy, but if you substituted ‘homosexuals’ with Jews we all know how you and others here would react. It was homophobic and wrong end of story.
Also, in Poland, homosexual couples can’t even get limited legal rights. So contrary to your ignorance, they are not fighting for ‘imaginary’ rights but very real ones.
Is there a rule saying that SoCons can’t know what they’re talking about? That their responses must be strings of buzzwords like ‘elitist’ and ‘avant-garde’?
Good line Kathy and great word “homonauseous”. The only reason such a small percentage of people have such a “footprint” is because a lot of people in media and government/bureaucracy are driving the agenda and causing the homonauseous. The public are clamoring for none of this “agenda”.
Gays may be smug about the rights coerced via the Charter, but what the Courts grant the Courts can reverse on a whim.
I’m sure Lech Walesa can’t help it, he was born that way…
“…but if you substituted ‘homosexuals’ with Jews we all know how you and others here would react.”
Substitute it with Blacks, Jews, Atheists, Indians, Women or Polyamorous one-legged transgendered Leprechauns, I wouldn’t care. Free speech is free speech. Moreover, if a society doesn’t wish to subsidize a behavioral trait I care even less.
Isn’t it …tax to modify, subsidize to stimulate…oh wait…
I don’t know what Walesa said, and I can’t be bothered to look it up. If it got LAS’s shorts in a knot and stirred up the Lefty grievance mongers, its probably A-Ok. I may not even agree with it, but it torqued off all the right people so yee haw, giddy up.
And now, I believe I feel some serious rantage coming on.
On the whole, in the grand scheme of things, I think equality before the law and the right before God and Man to tell pretty much everybody to f- off out of our business is the best we can hope for. We here in Canada are a long way from that ideal and getting further every day. This SCOC decision is EXACTLY what I expected the stupid blackbirds to do, because its 100% the wrong thing. Couldn’t be more wrong if they thought for six more months how to make it worse.
In truth I think Rev. Bill Whatcott is a busybody blowhard with some pretty frigged up ideas. If he came to my door I’d tell him to p1ss off at the high port. Same as I do with GreenPeace or the Moonies.
However.
My personal opinion of him, his beliefs and his public statements ought to have no bearing on his pursuit of them, because its none of my d@mn business what Bill Whatcott says or does unless he’s up in my personal space on my personal doorstep. In a free society, it is NOBODY’S business. Not mine, not some mental case Lefty gay “activist” cretin’s, and most particularly, most especially, not the Crown’s.
The Blackbirds, in their infinite wisdom, disagree. They think it IS their business. Herein lies the biggest problem we have in Canada in this dissolute modern age. Wise @ss Toronto lawyers who have got too big for their britches, throwing their weight around and telling us how to live.
To quote the Great Sage Shaidle, I must say unto the Blackbirds, the entire Government of Canada and every blowhard busybody piece of infernal activist sh1t out there, Left OR Right: “You’re not smart enough to tell me how to live.” I invite the lot of them to go pound salt at their earliest opportunity.
Here endeth the rant.
Good rant. I might add…I don’t care what orifice they pound the salt up…
Nice rant, but they are telling you how to live. What are you going to do about it?
In that department, Bill Whatcott stacks up higher than you do…in spite of your opinion of him 🙂
Homonauseous sums it up so well. And hey gays, the only “right” gay “marriage” gets you is an undeserved tax break that’s there to incentivize a replacement birth rate.
stradivarious asks the musical question: “What are you going to do about it?”
Disobey, obviously. Its what I do best. ~:D
It bears repeating: There is no such thing as homophobia. It is a made-up slur used in an effort to marginalize those people who have a normal, healthy dislike for homosexual behavior. It is intended to convey the impression that the targeted individual has some sort of mental illness.
If there really were a mental illness characterized by an unnatural and excessive fear of homosexuals, it would probably be called “sodophobia”. “Homophobia”, if you parse it out, really means “fear of like (things)”. A true homophobe would get the screaming meemies at the sight of the Doublemint Twins.
I love Kathy’s construction “homonauseous”. Pretty much nails it.
Lets just hope that PMSH stays in power long enough to appoint a “shift” in the SCOC.
Review his statement. The first part is facetious. The latter parts make perfect sense. Why should a sexual sub-culture be front and centre as if they represent Poles (or anyone else) by and large?
This man has earned his scars under communism. What have the complainers done to free Poland from tyranny? Nothing but they sure don’t mind bringing it back because they find his opinions noxious.
There is no such thing as homophobia. It is a made-up slur used in an effort to marginalize those people who have a normal, healthy dislike for homosexual behavior.
There is no such thing as a ‘normal, healthy dislike for homosexual behavior’ anymore than there is a ‘normal healthy dislike for Jewish behavior’. Again, more fighting by pedantry. And ignorance of bullying issues in school.
If it got LAS’s shorts in a knot and stirred up the Lefty grievance mongers, its probably A-Ok. I may not even agree with it, but it torqued off all the right people so yee haw, giddy up.
You are a reactionary, silly person. In other words, a conservative.
Give into the Church, Dick. It welcomes you. You’ll find any number of Romanian and Polish Catholics who fought communism and abortion. You’ll get along famously.
See you at Mass.
Are homosexuals hanged in Poland? No? Then shuttie.
Where are the “brave” activists when imams clamour for death to homosexuals or when homosexuals are publicly hanged in Iran? Lech Walesa is an easy target and not even worthy of such scorn now. He has an opinion, one that raises some very good questions about who and what we privilege in the West.
Iranian fags are obviously inferior to Israeli fags…Discuss…
I agree with LAS, if the gay people in Poland want the ability to call whatever this thing is when two people get together “marriage” go for it. And whatever benefits insurance benefits etc. stream from it, so be it.
I fail to see why I should be telling some other group of people what to do.
In fact LAS has a decent point when he inserts “jews” or whatever else into the quote from the Pole. I can easily thank him on one hand for his fight against communism, and not think much of his other comments. Maybe LAS is right, scratch a conservative, find a leftist meddler.
However, like Phantom, that means vica versa. Leave me the “F” alone. Too bad it never works that way.
LAS let me spell it out for you.
Fags have a right to be fags, but people have a right to not like them.
LAS I think you are confused. You are no libertarian but a totalitarian who wants to force everyone to approve of the homosexual lifestyle.
LAS, the majority of heterosexuals find homosexuality abhorrent. That’s just basic human nature. I consider it significant progress that we don’t instinctively pound the crap out of queers and just ignore them now.
Every fundamental drive has its perversions. In the area of eating, we have both restrictive eating disorders in the form of anorexia nervosa and hyperingestive eating disorders in the form of bulimia nervosa and morbid obesity. Curiously, while an anorectic who’s also sworn off water as she loses more weight that way can be committed in BC under the mental health act (something which I’ve done), a queer who enjoys unprotected receptive anal intercourse with HIV+ queers at a bath house can’t be. I’d like the same laws that apply to individuals infected with TB apply to HIV as it’s a lot cheaper to treat TB than HIV.
My personal opinion is that homosexuality is a perversion of the sexual drive. Homosexuality is a personal choice and, like all other personal choices, one can expect to be ridiculed for it if it’s one that the majority of people don’t make. While smokers are now the social lepers in society, queers seem to be the darlings of the loony left, many of whom are queer. In BC a smoking patient has to drag their iv pole to the limits of hospital property to enjoy a cigarette regardless of whether it’s -20 C outside. A flagrantly promiscuous faggot who catches HIV gets disability status for life and free, very expensive, antiretroviral drugs.
We rightly treat eating disorders which are perversions of the ingestive drive. We used to treat queers, but now such thoughts are verboten. Females impose a limit on male sexuality which is inherently promiscuous and, I’ve had friends who’ve gotten divorced, express the thought of turning queer as this would put them into the highly promiscuous male on male hypersexual environment. None of them have done more than voice the opinion as their natural heterosexual repugnance for homosexual behavior won out in the end.
Homosexuals are far more likely to have psychiatric disorders and, curiously, it seems the BC College of Physicians is quite ready to yank the licenses of physicians who merely hug female patients, but is strangely quiet on homosexual doctors who have sex with their patients. I’m sure if I brought this up formally the response wouldn’t be very positive.
LAS, your suggestion to substitute “homosexual” with “Jew” is completely inappropriate. Anyone who has a modicum of intelligence will realize that the Jews to be loathed are the “official Jews” who feel that Jewish suffering is of such magnitude that any attempt to look into how many Jews were killed by Hitler is to be punished by indefinite solitary confinement of those brave enough to look into the historical documents. These “official Jews” are viewed as an embarrasment by Libertarian Jews that I know. Their presence leads to anti-Semitism. Unlike the small minority of the Jewish population that make up the “official Jews”, the majority of queers that I’ve had the misfortune to deal with are entitled @ssholes. It may be that these are the just the ones who see me to try to get medical verification of their “disabilities” and don’t represent the silent majority of homosexuals.
While what constitutes a sexual perversion does change with time, for example Kraft-Ebbing in his monumental Psychopathia Sexualis considered both cunnilingus and fellatio to be perversions, they are part of modern sexuality at this time. Kraft-Ebbing considered any activity which wasn’t directly related to reproduction to be a “perversion” and I’m sure he’d view the ready availability of abortion as a perversion.
Sigh, as usual, any time that I attempt to make any comment on $exuality, my comment gets held up. While I recognize the need to block spam from the online purveyors of PDE5 inhibitors, it does make it difficult to comment on topics such as the one on this thread. If possible, it would be nice to have a more relaxed spam filter when the subject of the thread involves $exuality.
Hope this isn’t too long.
Generally a society either prohibits, permits or promotes a behavour. Most people genearlly fall into the permit group where homosexuality is concerned. The group that wants to promote doesn’t tolerate that any more than prohibiting it. They will attack you and try to make the middle ground untendable. Science, health, history and most moral systems favor prohibition. So they really have to attack as vicously and violently as they can. They don’t have any thing but statements like “it’s not fair”. Understand that’s what you’re dealing with when you converse and you can do a better job of trying to convince them of the value of the permit option. IMHO
And ignorance of bullying issues in school.
Oh well, they could have named you Sue…then you could have called everyone Suephobic, while declaring it’s normal for a boy to have a girl’s name.
Geeze, must be the drugs…
I just had to… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-hYLL7Gpos
Is anyone else amused by the juxtaposition of Kathy Shaidle misrepresenting the meaning of homophopbia by claiming it only means fear of homosexuals (the literal meaning), and then in the next sentence constucting the word homonauseous which clearly doesn’t mean that she gets sick to her stomach whenever she looks at another woman or herself in the mirror?
She even gave us an non-literal definition of homonauseous to much acclaim by other commenters. Seriously, you can’t make this sh** up.
…and then in the next sentence constucting the word homonauseous which clearly doesn’t mean…
That’s the thing with constructed words, they can mean anything you want them to mean.
The irony is too much…haha
I’ve always considered that gayness is a genetic trait, but not the kind that the left advocates. Rather, it acts like a failsafe built into our genetic code. That failsafe activates once the dna has become damaged or no longer suitable for continued reproduction.
This is, by far, a much more simple and robust argument for the gay gene than anything else that the left can come up with for justifying how a gene, which if activated, makes a clear preference for not reproducing.
But maybe somehow being gay means that you have more children……
Homonauseous is how I feel if perchance I in error see part of a news clip on the annual pride parade.
That is so gay!
Funny how these progeewogees have a penchant for deriding a “Lone” nut …. whilst reveling in an orgy of mass insanity.