The push to force the LGBT agenda -- gay rights -- down the throats of the straight majority [Block that metaphor! Ed.] intensifies every day. It has become politically incorrect to dare even to question the idea that gays and wannabe-gays deserve to have their "rights" protected by the law, just like other put-upon minorities.
In Canada, last month, a super-PC bill sponsored by a pinkish MP, was passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate. Bill C-389 would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect the rights of transgender or transsexual citizens. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” or “gender expression” in the workplace or elsewhere, and would amend the Criminal Code so that crimes committed against people because they are transgender or transsexual would be treated as hate crime.
Because it is a private member’s bill, C-389 should have had little chance of clearing the House of Commons. But On February 10th, MPs from all parties, in a display of united hypocrisy rare even for Canada, rallied behind the legislation, which passed by the narrow vote of 143 to 135. The bill is now before the Senate, where it will likely die when the government falls on Friday. (Lifetime pct: .973)
Which brings us to Joe Hvilivitsky, a member of the Niagara Falls (Canada) Review's Community Editorial Board. Mr. H. (as he shall hereinafter be known) had the temerity to suggest in his column that the "bathroom bill", as he called it, should not pass. He also argued that the MPs' vote in favour did not reflect the wishes of the majority of Canadians. Here's the most telling bit of his article.
As is so often the case when we attempt to create rights to accommodate the needs of a few, it is accomplished at the expense of the majority. In this case, we're saying that the rights of a minuscule number of disordered people trump those of females whose dignity and modesty could be compromised by being forced to share space with a "woman" still in possession of male equipment.
Mr. H. was referring to the fact that if the Human Rights Act were amended as C-389 proposes, it would be against the law to deny a transgendered or otherwise not-originally-female person access to ladies' restrooms. To Mr. H. (as to Walt) this is unthinkable, but LGBT activists hail C-389 as "a great victory for the trans community," citing discrimination faced by "trans men and trans women" [not "trannies" any more? Ed.] in jobs, housing and "just being out in a social setting."
Well, you should have seen the outcry against Mr. H. If you click on the link to the article, you'll find just one comment supporting his argument. By contrast, there are five hissy fits from Friends of Fudgepackers accusing Mr. H. of "fear-mongering" and "inducing hysteria".
Since when was it forbidden to speak out in opposition to the current moral disorder? This question was posed this week at the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the delegate of the Holy See.
Archbishop Tomasi argued that respect for fundamental human rights should not be used as a pretext for forcing public acceptance of homosexual activity.
The prelate condemned “all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviours.” But he also urged the UN to recognize a “disturbing trend” toward intolerance of those who express moral opposition to homosexual behavior. Like Mr. H.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," said the archbishop. Those who voice opposition to homosexual acts can be stigmatized, harassed, and even prosecuted, he added. "These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances."
Archbishop Tomasi insisted on a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. “A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings,” he said. “But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors.”
For a more complete report on the archbishop's address, click here to read "Vatican addresses UN debate on sexual orientation", from Vatican Radio.
No comments:
Post a Comment