in His Globe and Mail Article
by Stephen Gray
"We shall sodomize your sons...We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups...wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image.... "All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men."
( Michael Swift, "Gay Revolutionary" in the February 15, 1987 issue of the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News and was reprinted in the 15-21 February 1987 Congressional Record.)
Legislation is now being considered that legalizes "love between men." A vote supporting this aberration called "same-sex marriage" has been passed in parliament and it will soon be a "hate crime" to criticize this.
We already have legislation in the criminal code that protects everyone from crimes against the person. Yet M.P. Svend Robinson has succeeded in having a special law passed for homosexuals. His Bill C-250 has won approval in parliament and will soon become law. Mr. Robinson in an article in the Globe and Mail of May 27, 2003, used some evidence of violence against homosexuals as to why his Bill C-250, also known as the "hate crime legislation" should be passed into law. Was Mr. Robinson being selective with his evidence?
Since Mr. Robinson selectively quotes attacks on homosexuals in his article then surely evidence of attacks by homosexuals on innocent children should also be exposed. After all, we are a land of "equality" and all evidence should be given equal time. One such case was the murder of shoeshine boy Emanuel Jaques in Ontario a number of years ago. An editorial headlined "Murder and History" stated about the murder of Emanuel Jaques:
"Twenty-five years ago,three men conspired to lure the 12-year-old Portugese-Canadian boy away from his older brother on the corner of Yonge and Dundas. They then raped him, drowned him in a sink and tossed his body under some lumber on the roof of 245 Yonge... Saul Betesh, the man who did the actual luring, was part of the city’s then-increasingly vibrant gay population." Source from http://www.eye.net October 24, 2002, issue.
In fact, the judge in this case was quoted as saying to one of the killers, Saul Betesh: "There as those who would seek legal protection for homosexuals in the Human Rights Code. You make me wonder if they are not misguided." (page 46, Politically Incorrect by George Jonas)
Another boy tortured and murdered by homosexuals was 13 year-old Jesse Dirkhising of Arkansas, though the mainstream media in North America gave this atrocity very little coverage. In fact, an article headlined "Mainstream Media are Advocates When They Cover Gays" by John Leo, April 16, 2001.at http://www.townhall.com said: "For nearly 18 months now, the news media have been trying to brush off complaints about their non-coverage of the Jessie Dirkising murder. The article went on to say: "Dirkhising is the 13-year old Arkansas boy who was drugged, tied to a bed, raped, tortured and suffocated in September of 1999. Both accused killers are homosexual men."
When homosexuals are assaulted the news media give it saturation exposure and Mr. Robinson uses the publicity to promote his political agenda. Which begs the question: If Mr. Robinson can have a Bill passed giving special protection to homosexuals, shouldn’t the non-homosexual population have a bill passed protecting children from the "hate crimes" committed by homosexuals? A crime is a crime no matter who commits it and should be punished severely. Homosexuals and heterosexuals already have protection in the criminal code. Yet the way Mr. Robinson portrays his Bill C-250 is that homosexuals need special laws; He states in his Globe and Mail article: "We have waited too long for justice." If that is the case, do we need a special law to protect children from homosexual killers as in the murders of Emanuel Jaques and Jesse Dirkising? In fact do we need a special law to protect the public from the consequences of homosexual behaviour as in the case of the tainted blood scandal. All medical evidence and statistics show this behaviour is dangerous and can kill. Innocent people infected by contaminated blood from a disease ridden lifestyle have every right to protection. Is giving contaminated blood not a dangerous act? Have we, the heterosexual population in Canada, to use the words of Mr. Robinson, "waited too long for justice?"
Do we also need a special law to protect us from some politicians who want to suppress free speech? Mr. Robinson professes to be against violence, yet this is the same Mr. Robinson who grabbed the sign of a peaceful protestor on parliament hill and threw it away. Was this not an act of violence? And if Mr. Robinson is against hate and violence, why did he not write in his article in the Globe and Mail about the violence and hate committed by homosexuals?
"All homosexuals must stand together as brothers;we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically, and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy."(Michael Swift, "Gay Revolutionary")
Mr. Robinson has succeeded in making any criticism of homosexual behaviour into a "hate crime." Does this now mean, to expose the crimes committed by homosexuals - as in the cases already mentioned - they could be classed as "hate crimes?" Questions have to be asked in this country as to why Svend Robinson can have his agenda approved in the courts, in the media and in parliament? No other politician seems to have such political success. Is he getting special treatment? We already have laws protecting everyone from criminal acts. We cannot pass a decent law on child pornography but the political powers that be can pass special laws for deviant behavior. Homosexuals just like heterosexuals commit crimes so why the special political treatment?
Stephen Gray
October 2003