Homosexual Strategy: Intimidation

Activists within the homosexual community have driven their campaign by the wielding of one major tool -- intimidation.

This tactic was again put into play in January when a homosexual organization called Foundation for Equal Families announced the launching of a court case to challenge 58 federal laws including the Canada Pension Act, The Firearms Act, The RCMP Act, The Insurance Companies Act and the Criminal Code, to name just a few. It alleges that all 58 laws discriminate against homosexuals.

It is very doubtful, however, that such a legal challenge will actually stand up in court. It will most likely be thrown out because of a requirement that the court must consider each of the 58 laws separately. Since each piece of legislation serves a different purpose and has a different objective, a judge must make a determination as to whether each law sets a "reasonable" limit in a democratic society. This overwhelming task is the reason this legal challenge will not be successful.

The homosexual lawyers behind this case are well aware that such legal technicalities and impediments make their court challenge an extremely weak one. However, that seems to be inconsequential. According to the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra (January 22, 1999), the real reason for bringing this risky omnibus challenge before the court is not to settle the issue, but merely to use it as part of a larger political campaign to keep the heat on the federal government to change its laws. According to homosexual lawyer, David Corbett, as reported in the January 22 Capital Xtra article, each individual court challenge from beginning to its end in the Supreme Court of Canada, will cost the government (read, "the taxpayer") $1 million and he believes this financial pressure may prove a political liability for the government, which will then bow to their demands. What is particularly galling about this strategy is that not only are taxpayers being bled dry to defend the law against these homosexual challenges, but we are also paying for the launching of these law suits in the first place, because the federal Court Challenges Program is generously funding them all. Talk about a Catch-22!

Even though the Department of Justice is obviously aware of the improbability of the case being successfully heard by the courts, Justice Minister Anne MacLellan has nonetheless stated that this court challenge is one of the reasons why she has to bring in same-sex benefits. (See Reality, January/February 1999, ATrial Balloon on Same-Sex Benefits,@ p. 1) Such dishonesty is appalling.

MP Svend Robinson

Homosexual MP, Svend Robinson, regularly uses intimidation as his weapon of choice. Of course, he never follows through with his many threats to bring legal action. The most recent manifestation of his technique arose just prior to the federal budget. Mr. Robinson, 46 years of age, threatened that if the budget didn=t include same-sex pension benefits for his 26-year-old lover, Max (whom he brought from Cuba, last year), he would sue the federal government. His statement was accompanied by a picture of Mr. Robinson and Max together, holding hands. The public didn=t appreciate his latest "threat" one bit. A series of letters appeared in newspapers which had carried the story, blasting Mr. Robinson and raising reasonable questions as to why Mr. Robinson=s able-bodied young lover should live off the public for the rest of his days. Why shouldn=t young Max work to support himself like everyone else? Some writers were helpful in suggesting to Mr. Robinson that he should take out an insurance policy if he actually wanted to provide for his lover. (Mr. Robinson claims that is beside the point.)

Homosexuals Threaten REAL Women

Over the years, REAL Women has received obscene and threatening letters from homosexuals C all of which we obligingly turned over to the police.

This occurred again in March, when REAL Women submitted a complaint to the Judicial Council against Supreme Court Judge, Madame Justice L=Heureux Dubé for her personal attack against Mr. Justice John McClung in the Ewanchuk case. (See "The Unravelling of Canada's Justice System,", p2.) We received several e-mails from homosexuals at the time, which included their usual insults. We also received a hate phone call at our head office in Ottawa in which the caller stated, interestingly, that once the hate law was amended (see Reality, January/February 1999, "Hate Law Becomes an Obscenity, p. 7), we wouldn=t be able to continue speaking out as we are doing. This call was followed by four more where the caller remained silent. We had these calls traced and within 15 minutes we learned the name of the culprit, who turned out to be an individual who had written a long letter, published in the Ottawa Citizen, supporting same-sex benefits -- a letter we had effectively refuted. We have also turned this matter over to the Ottawa Police for investigation.

We are not surprised by the fact that homosexuals are obviously annoyed that we have raised a complaint with the Judicial Council against Madame Justice Claire L'Heureux Dubé. She, of course, has been unfailing in her judgements in favour of homosexual rights and righteous in her indignation against Mr. Justice John McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal who had, incidentally, not supported the homosexual arguments in the Alberta homosexual Vriend case.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS