REAL Women of Canada - Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life

Our decadent times today, to put it bluntly, can be traced directly to Prime Minister Trudeau, who, in 1969, used his majority to bring in a destructive bill on abortion and homosexuality: in addition to their legalization and the terrible aftermath to humanity, the bill also brought two other tragic consequences, from which Canada is still reeling.

One of these tragedies is that this bill fundamentally changed our political system so that Parliament has now become a travesty of democracy. That is, MPs today vote according to the precedent set in 1969 on this bill by Mr. Trudeau – namely, they now vote as they are told, not in accordance with their consciences, or the views of their constituents.

The second tragedy was that it began the long journey to our country’s moral decay: there is now little resistance to immoral behaviour – any behaviour is now tolerated.

Although the horrors of abortion and homosexuality were both included in the bill, we will limit this article to the homosexual aspect of the bill, which legalized homosexual acts (referred to as “buggery” in the 1969 Criminal Code) for all consenting adults 21 years and older.

The bill in question (C-150) was an omnibus bill, with 120 clauses dealing with a number of wide ranging issues: abortion, contraception, homosexuality, gambling, gun control, driving under the influence, cruelty to animals and others. The was introduced into Parliament by Justice Minister John Turner in December 1968, but it was the initiative of Mr. Trudeau, who drafted it when he was the Minister of Justice, just prior to his election as Prime Minister upon Lester Pearson’s retirement.

Justice Minister John Turner admitted in the House of Commons on January 23, 1969, that the bill bore Trudeau’s “indelible imprint”, since it was Trudeau:

Who had the courage to assemble it, to introduce it into Parliament and to defend it across the land

It is a government bill, bears the government stamp and will be supported by the government.

We feel bound to the bill as the principal item of social reform in this session of Parliament. It is identified with our Prime Minister and party.

We believe, therefore, that on the one hand, we have the right and, on the other hand, the duty to stand behind the bill in all stages of debate that will follow.

Not one Liberal member rose in the House of Commons to speak against the homosexual aspect of the bill and only one Liberal, Gordon Sullivan (Hamilton Mountain, ON), broke ranks with his party to vote against the bill.

However, Professor Dalton McGuinty, (father of present Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty), who was then president of the Ottawa-Carleton Liberal Association, did disassociate himself from the Liberal Party over the bill, particularly the abortion clause.

The homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra, published an article, in May 2009, celebrating the 40^th anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality by this bill. Entitled “Trudeau’s ‘indelible imprint’”, this very revealing article was written by retired Liberal Senator Laurier LaPierre, a self-identified homosexual, previously married and the father of two adult children.

LaPierre writes that Trudeau aide and Liberal Cabinet Minister, Marc Lalonde, believed that the omnibus bill was a “personal initiative of Mr. Trudeau”. Tim Porteous, Trudeau’s executive assistant, said the bill suited Trudeau’s concept of the “just society” and his “sense of mischief”, and that “he liked to provoke people”. Porteous referred to Trudeau’s awareness of homosexuals “working in professions that might be helpful to him – for example, in the broadcast business – who would be much more likely to support him because he’d been the author of that bill.”

Don McLeod, author of the homosexual friendly book Lesbian and Gay Liberation in Canada, according to Laurier LaPierre:

…believes that if the amendment decriminalizing gay sex had stood alone, it would not have passed.

We would have had to wait until the 1970s or so. But since it was lumped in with lotteries, it passed.

LaPierre probes Trudeau’s methods in the article. He quotes Trudeau’s memoirs:

I needed first of all to persuade my Cabinet colleagues that it was appropriate to put these controversial subjects on the order paper in the Commons. Several of them objected strenuously, some for political reasons, some for moral ones. But I held my ground until finally, tired of arguing, even the opponents ended up saying, ‘íf you want to risk destroying yourself, it’s up to you.’ And I had carte blanche.

Homosexuality was not particularly high on the priorities of the government of the day.

LaPierre sums up the event: Trudeau’s omnibus strategy, combined with party discipline and a majority government, ensured that the more controversial aspects of Bill C-150 would ultimately be adopted. The Edmonton Journal described the government’s process on this bill as:

I speak this afternoon with the confidence that this legislation is the most important and all-embracing reform of the criminal and penal law ever attempted at one time in this country. The omnibus measure contains matters of deep social significance which, in the course of time, will affect the lives of most of us, perhaps each one of us, in varying degrees.

The Progressive Conservatives (PC) and Ralliement Creditistes (RC) who were the opposition members in Parliament, made it clear that they did not want the debate. For example:

The Honourable John Flemming (Carleton-Charlotte, NB,) PC stated in the House of Commons:

Why should we wrap all these measures together? I assume the government is trying to hide something…[the homosexuality clause] is repugnant to the majority of the people of Canada… This provision should not be in the bill.

Other opposition members noted that there had been no great public pressure or public clamor for the amendments on buggery and bestiality (as homosexuality was then referred to in the Criminal Code).

I must confess, I am a little ashamed to talk about that problem in this house, in such dignified surroundings. When I say this, I express an opinion of the great majority of my constituents. It is almost scandalous to see that the representatives of the people must presently discuss these matters.

If homosexuality were practiced on a widespread scale, society would break down. If it were universally practiced, the human race in a matter of time would become extinct. Obviously, therefore, it cannot be said to be conducive to social progress…

The bill gives legal recognition to a practice that is basically anti-social. If I voted for the bill, it would mean that I am condoning that which I feel if carried out on an unrestricted basis would destroy the way of life we have painfully built up over the centuries.

Just as we worked for the alcoholics' rehabilitation, we must try to rehabilitate the homosexuals since they have a disease, a sexual deviation.

The minister knows quite well that, in general, homosexuals do not wait until they are attracted by persons of age.... Homosexuals are mostly inclined to pervert youngsters and the minister opens the door even wider.... Instead of voting legislation to help homosexuals cure themselves since they are really sick, the way is cleared for them to act more freely.... [The government] shirks its duty because the first obligation of a government is to legislate in order to protect society as a whole.

I do not think... that we help society by making certain sexual aberrations permissible under the code. This might allow any pervert who molests children to think if his neighbour down the street can be a homosexual and mingle with his kind he himself has the right to follow his own inclination to savage young children.

Trudeau, however, made clear in the Calgary Herald (December 20, 1967) why he decided to make all these startling changes by way of an omnibus bill:

These amendments would have a better chance of passing if they were included in a bigger, diverse bill with its obvious advantages of psychological inertia.

We will never know whether Trudeau confused private and public morality in order to deliberately confuse the public about the implications of his bill, or whether he himself misunderstood the difference between private and public morality when he made his famous statement that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Trudeau, then Justice Minister, stated, in a scrum outside the House of Commons, on December 21, 1967, as follows:

It's bringing the laws of the land up to contemporary society I think. Take this thing on homosexuality. I think the view we take here is that there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. I think that what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public, this is a different matter. (http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/rights_freedoms/clips/2671)

Justice Minister Turner reiterated the concept when he stated, on April 17, 1969, during the debate:

In the same way, acts between people who suffer under a sexual deviation — as long as it doesn't involve the corruption of a minor, as long as it doesn't involve force, as long as it is not done in public — if in fact it consists of adult, mature, private behaviour, however repugnant as I've said to most of us, these are matters for personal conscience and should not be in the public criminal domain… We are not for a moment conceding that homosexual acts are in any way to be equated to ordinary, normal acts of intercourse,

I resent very much the argument... that this legalizes homosexuality... It surely does nothing of the kind.... The clause does not promote such acts.... It does not even legalize this kind of conduct.

All it does is recognize what those of us who support the bill recognize that there are areas of private behaviour which, however repugnant, however immoral, if they do not directly involve public order should not properly be within the criminal law of Canada. (http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/rights_freedoms/clips/2699)

These statements by Turner and Trudeau about private and public morality were spoken in the midst of a family-oriented nation, then protected by law from such travesties as lewd Gay Pride Parades and pride weeks in major cities across Canada, the CRTC approved gay television channels, swingers’ clubs, with wife swapping, gaining Supreme Court sanction, parental rights being overturned by preferential treatment for homosexuals, and homosexual couples overseeing curriculum content for students from kindergarten to high school, such as happened in British Columbia. Private indeed!

Progressive Conservative Walter Dinsdale had these prophetic words to say in the House of Commons, on April 17, 1969, about Trudeau's famous quip about the bedrooms of the nation:

...murder your wife in the bedroom and you will see how fast the state will deal with that problem. But if you become involved in spiritual and psychological degradation of this kind you are actually committing an act that involves spiritual and even sociological death because... this is not an act that involves only the individual concerned. It has widespread sociological implications.

The new morality is merely the old permissiveness that has dragged down men and nations from the dawn of creation as the result of a complete reversal of values, with evil becoming good and good becoming evil.

That is precisely the philosophy the minister was supporting this afternoon.... we are dealing with the gross perversion of a very high and noble function which is involved in perpetuating the species.... It strikes at the heart of our basic social institution, the family.... Homosexuals prey on juveniles. It is something that spreads like a plague, for there is no more destructive drive than the sexual impulse running wild.... It is a psychological and deep-seated spiritual disease which requires therapeutic rather than punitive treatment, but there is nothing in the amendment to the code that deals with the therapeutic aspect of the problem

After intense opposition from the Progressive Conservative and the Ralliement Creditiste members, and a filibuster led by the latter’s leader, Real Caouette (Temiscamingue, QC), Bill C-150 passed in the House of Commons on May 14, 1969 by a vote of 149 to 55: 119 Liberals, 18 NDP and 12 PC voted in favour of the bill. As mentioned above, one Liberal broke ranks and voted against it, joining 43 PC’s, MP’s and 11 RC.

The ever obedient, Liberal-dominated Senate quickly passed the bill which received Royal Assent on Aug 26, 1969.

Pierre Trudeau is one of the first “progressives” to be inducted into the Queer Hall of Fame, which opened in Vancouver this September, for being active in bringing about changes in human rights. His son, Justin Trudeau (Liberal, Papineau, QC), expressed appreciation of the honour on behalf of his family in a recent letter to the Queer Hall of Fame in which he stated

I know that the decriminalization of homosexuality 40 years ago was something that my father was very proud of. (Toronto Star, September 20, 2009)

It is evident from the quotes included in this article that, in 1969, Members of Parliament exercised their freedom of speech to a far greater extent than is the case today. Because of a chill on speech, Parliamentarians today are fearful to offend, even with statements of truth which clearly represent the convictions of their constituents. Rarely, if ever, do MPs openly defy their party’s policy on any issue.

In contrast, amid ridicule, Ralliement Creditiste leader Real Caouette, correctly prophesied that homosexual marriage was on the horizon.

Honourable Hugh John Flemming (Carleton-Charlotte, BC) PC objected to the clauses on homosexuality when he stated:

It makes respectable and legal something the effect of which would be to destroy, cut down and reduce the morals of our country. This is not a good thing.

I cannot vote to place a stamp of respectability on something that is degrading and demoralizing.

Bernard Dumont (Frontenac, QC) RC quoted a letter from the Association of Graduate Nurses of Saint Henri, Levis:

As for homosexuals, it is possible some of them are suffering from mental illness which the state must detect and cure, but it is not the majority. You know quite well, the more the law will be permissive in that respect, the more corrupters there will be who will endeavor to take our youth along the road to perdition and moral depravity.

This is just a small sample of the objections made by the Conservative and Creditiste MPs, but with no objections from the Liberals or NDP, to the homosexual amendment in this omnibus bill.

This debate demonstrates that, unfiltered by media selection, Canadians, far from being boring and submissive, were part of a very vibrant culture, founded on sound social norms, which were eloquently defended in Parliament by their representatives.

Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau imposed his will on Canadians in 1969. Therefore, Pierre Trudeau is very much responsible for the negative consequences of his bill. Canadians have paid a terrible price for one man’s arrogance and insolence.