|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ATTACKING OUR MORAL LAWS
Does anyone believe that now that the homosexual
activists have had their way over the same-sex marriage issue,
that they will be satisfied and quietly go away?
Not on your life. Their objective is to fundamentally
and permanently restructure Canadian society by forcing it
to adapt to their subculture.
The homosexual subculture, according to the
homosexual newspaper Capital Xtra (April 7, 2005), is built
on "a world defined by erotic pleasure" and activists
want absolutely no restrictions placed on this. They want
their sexual pleasure whenever and wherever they find it,
including in public parks, public washrooms and, in particular,
in bathhouses.
According to this same Capital Xtra article,
homosexual bathhouses are "… safe, regulated places
where gay men meet, socialize and share physical intimacy…"
This is a polite way of saying that gay bathhouses are used
for anonymous sex. Bathhouses cannot accurately be characterized
as "safe" as they are a major source of the increasing
incidence of HIV and AIDS in Canada, as well as a host of
other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
Homosexual activists regard police raids of
their bathhouses as attacks on "gay sexuality".
Not that the police have made a habit of raiding the bathhouses
operating around the country. The police raided one in Toronto
in 1999 at the Bijou pornography theatre, and also raided
a lesbian bathhouse in Toronto, called the Pussy Palace in
2000. In Calgary, a police raid took place against a gay bathhouse
called Goliath in December 2002. Another raid against a Hamilton
bathhouse took place in 2004.
After these raids, the police laid charges
for the keeping of a common bawdy house or being a "found-in"
a bawdy house, contrary to s. 210 of the Criminal Code. Under
the Criminal Code provisions, a bawdy house is defined as
a place where prostitution or "acts of indecency"
occur. The latter term is undefined in the Code and the activists
are planning to argue in court that their consensual sex acts
are not "indecent" acts and that, therefore, gay
bathhouses are exempt from the bawdy house provisions in the
Code.
The bawdy house provisions in the Code also
prohibit acts of prostitution from taking place and, because
of this, since last January, the provisions are currently
being reviewed by a sub-committee of the Justice Committee.
(See REALity, March / April, 2005, Legalized Prostitution
- Next on the Liberal Agenda, p.9) Homosexual activists are
hoping the Committee will recommend the removal of the provisions
entirely from the Code.
This Parliamentary review was instigated by
lesbian NDP MP, Libby Davis (Vancouver East). The purpose
of this review was supposedly to protect prostitutes by providing
safe places to operate by making these establishments legal.
This review however was just another part of a carefully staged
campaign by homosexual activists to have their bathhouses
licensed to operate freely without police obstruction.
Some homosexual activists appeared before
the Justice sub-committee in Vancouver, on March 29, 2005,
making their submission on behalf of Pink Triangle Press,
publishers of the homosexual newspaper Capital Xtra, in Toronto
and Xtra West in Vancouver in which they proposed that these
bathhouses be made legal.
Further, because of homosexual political pressure, politically
correct Crown prosecutors in the Toronto Pussy Palace case
and in the Calgary bathhouse raid have either withdrawn charges
or had the charges stayed (remain on the books but not pursued)
on the grounds that there is no substantial likelihood of
obtaining a conviction, since the acts may not be contrary
to "community standards of tolerance ". On what
planet do the provincial Attorney Generals, who instruct the
Crown prosecutor, live? The "community standards of tolerance"
are supposed to be according to standards of the public as
a whole, not those of the homosexual/lesbian community! In
this regard, it is significant that the Toronto Crown prosecutor
stayed charges against the Toronto men marching nude in the
Gay Parade in 2003, contrary to s 174 of the Criminal Code,
on the grounds that their nudity was not against community
standards of tolerance. A nice precedent for the bawdy house
court challenge. (See REALity, September / October, 2004 p.
11)
It is of significance that one of the individuals
charged in the Calgary bathhouse raid, Terry Haldane (against
whom of course, the police dropped the charges), has now been
funded by the ever ready to assist homosexual activists, the
federal tax funded, Court Challenges Programme. As a result,
he is now bringing a civil suit against the Calgary police
for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution for the charges
laid against him after the bathhouse raid. The activists fully
expect the liberal courts to throw out the bawdy house offence
provision in the Code, as a result of this legal challenge.
How else do homosexuals in Canada achieve their objectives,
other than by using the tax payers' money, via the Court Challenges
Programme, to provide appointed, unaccountable judges with
the opportunity to grant them their every wish?
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
