Not only the Vatican opposes woke gender ideology (+ bonus VIDEO)

Yes, Virginia, there really is a conspiracy of the WEF/Davos/one-worlders to destroy Western civilization, "that all may be one".  They do it by insinuating their queer, secular humanist, ultra-woke ideology into every possible medium for social intercourse, to the point where their perverted ideas and ideals have now become the accepted orthodoxy.

Accepted, that is, in the Woke West -- the AABC countries and western Europe. You don't hear the "influencers" and thought leaders in places like Hungary, Russia, China, India, Africa and Latin America pushing the DEI agenda. or giving platforms to drag queens (see video) or queers preaching against the morality of the Bible or the Quran.  

Say what you will about Islam, Sikhism, even Hinduism, their holy books as well as the Bible give us a moral compass, a way to live, a code of proper behaviour that will please -- not offend -- God. And there are believers, even in the West, who look to the scriptures for guidance, and reject the amorality of the New World Order.

Because the One-Worlders keep pushing their amoral ideologies and decadent culture on the rest of the world, the clash between the "old values" and the New World Order comes up in every international conference or gathering, particularly those organized by the Disunited Nations. We see that right now at COP30, the 30th annual United Nations climate change conference, where the unwoke (read: non-Western) rejection of gender ideology risks complicating the outcome.

Six governments -- Paraguay, Argentina, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia as well as the Holy See -- have moved to attach to a key text their own interpretations which (according to the apostles of queerness) would block recognition of trans and non-binary people, and set a "harmful precedent" that could "seep into other shared decisions" taken by the UN’s climate body. 

A reliable source (who wisely chose to remain anonymous) told an international press agency yesterday that "There is 'frustration within rooms' because they were not authorized to discuss the sensitive issue. It’s become a bit ridiculous — we have six footnotes right now; should we have 90?"

At stake is a revamped "Gender Action Plan" (seriously... GAP) meant to guide work for the next decade. The GAP includes commandments to "mainstream gender across climate programs". Climate change, it seems, is no longer as important as the rights of wimmin... and those who identify as any of the other 90-odd genders besides "male".

The GAP was adopted in 2017 and strengthened in 2019. COP30 is now working on a new, even more woke version. The footnotes proposed by those who believe there are only two genders -- M and F -- reveal their proponents' red lines around the term "gender", some longstanding, others part of the rising tide of anti-wokeism.

The Holy See, for example, says it understands gender as "grounded on the biological sexual identity that is male and female." Pretty straightforward, eh. Argentina, a majority-Catholic country led by President Trump's ally Javier Milei has rolled back DEI policies and LGBTQ(etc) rights, and attacked the cancer of wokeism.

A source on the other side of the gender ideology divide contends there is no need to reopen the definition, because parties can already interpret decisions according to their national circumstances. "Allowing countries to attach their own interpretations to agreed language does not protect national sovereignty. It undermines multilateralism itself." Aha! That word -- multilateralism -- is the shibboleth of the New World Order! 

Here's another quote that reveals the not-so-well-hidden agenda. Bridget Burns, executive director of the Women’s Environment and Development Organization, told AFP, "If every Party could footnote core terms like finance, ambition or equity, we would have no negotiation left -- only fragmentation. Gender equality is an agreed principle under this Convention. It needs no qualification." Let there be no dissent!

How to square the circle? One possible off-ramp, said the anonymous source first referred to, would be for the opposing countries to deliver statements after a decision is adopted, ensuring their positions are reflected in the official record. Walt thinks that's a fine idea, since COP30, GAP, and the whole steaming pile of bullshit will be largely ignored by everyone except, perhaps, our woke Western government.

And now for a video on a not-unrelated subject. Here's our old friend Gavin McInnes -- good to see ya, Gavin! -- talking about the insufferable wokeness of the BBC, where it seems female (real female) staffers have had enough of the Corpse's trans dogma. The state-run media doesn't just crowbar gender-neutral weirdoes into every programme, they also deny murderers are male if the guy is wearing a dress. Sez Gavin "It's as ridiculous as it is dangerous." Give a listen.

 

VIDEO: Carolyn Burjoski - Canuck anti-woke heroine

Walt's nominee for Canadian hero of the year is Carolyn Burjoski, then a teacher in the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), who was silenced in 2022 after expressing to the board her concerns about library books with content supporting gender transitions (read: sex change operations) for young people.

Board Chair Scott Piatkowski halted Ms Burjoski's presentation at a WRDSB meeting for comments she rnade which he alleged violated the Ontario Human Rights Code. He later described the teacher's comments as "transphobic" and "questioning trans people's right to exist."

Ms Burjoski fought back -- a shining example of the kind of "resistance" which is Walt's theme today. In May 2022, she filed a defamation lawsuit against the WRDSB and Chairman Scott. The board responded by bringing a motion to have the suit thrown out. In this short video, Ms Burjoski speaks about what happened.

    

On November 23rd of this year, Mr Justice James Ramsay of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the WRDSB's motion, and ordered the Board to pay Ms Burjoski's costs in the amount of C$30,000 (nearly $22,000 in real money). 

Judge Ramsay ruled that Ms Burjoski's lawsuit against the school board should be allowed to proceed, and... yes, there's more... called the comments made against her "defamatory." Said the judge, "They accused her of breaching the Human Rights Code, questioning the right of trans persons to exist and engaging in speech that included hate. She did not do any of those things. 

"The chairman of the board acted with malice or at least, with a reckless disregard for the truth. He had made an embarrassingly erroneous and arbitrary decision to silence a legitimate expression of opinion and he was widely criticized for it. It is not a stretch to infer that, realizing that, he tried to justiff himself with the public by assassinating the plaintiff s character." 

Furthermore, the judge said, human rights legislation "does not prohibit public discussion of anything," and "what happened here should not happen in a democratic society." 

Ms Burjoski's legal victory shows that parents who want to speak up at school board meetings to voice their concerns need not fear being silenced. After this excellent start to her ongoing legal battle to hold the WRDSB accountable, Ms Burjoski will now continue with her defamation suit. But she will need your help. 

In legal affairs such as this, the process is the punishment. The stress of the litigation forced her to go on leave from her teaching position, and the money she's supposed to get from the Board doesn't even cover her actual costs so far. Ms Burjoski.

But Ms Burjoski believes she must press on. Her victory (so far) shows that parents who want to speak up at school board meetings to voice their concerns need not fear being silenced. Click here to visit her website, and please lend whatever support you can. And tell her Walt sent ya!

Would you believe "queer ecology"?

Wokeism rules!

Welcome to Biden's America, and Trudeau's Canada, where it's now mandatory to fly the Nazi 2SLGBTQQIA+++ flag. If some other flag, like Old Glory or the Maple Leaf Flag, is to be flown on the same pole or building, the New Nazi flag must have the place of honour. So it is in the Land of the Queer and Home of the Perve.

 Flag design scraped from Blazing Cat Fur. Well done, Arnie.

G&M readers comment on "Caitlyn Jenner is a woman..."

Last Sunday, in "What's wrong with this picture?", I gave you my take on the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner non-story, said take being: if an aging queer having a sex-change op and becoming the ugliest ever Vanity Fair cover "girl" is the most important issue Americans have to think about, God save the USA!

The following day, I realized I hadn't really answered my own question, as expressed in the headline, so posted "Answer to 'What's wrong with this picture?'", in which I said that changing or attempting to change your gender from whichever one God created you is wrong. Period.

In the latter post, I mentioned I referred to "op-ed pieces with titles like 'Caitlyn Jenner is a woman and deserves to be described as such' (posted by the Groan and Wail's Pubic Editor)." Let me make a couple of corrections. The newspaper in question is actually the Globe and Mail, and the piece was by the G&M's Public Editor. Must have been a Freudian slip...

The gist of "Caitlyn Jenner is a woman and should be described as such" is evident from the headline. Sylvia Stead, the Pubic Editor in question, tells G&M readers [Sid and Doris Bonkers. Ed.] in no uncertain terms that it's politically incorrect to refer to Jenner's operation, or her rather unwomanly appearance or anything else which would suggest that "she" had ever been anything other than a woman, yada yada yada.

To my surprise, the paper allowed comments on Ms Stead's masterpiece of homofascism. Here are three of them. Click here to read the rest.

AnnoyedTory: The last time I looked the Charter says Freedom of speech, not dictatorial demands. Bruce Jenner is Bruce Jenner whatever he thinks he is now he is still Bruce Jenner. I am tired of all you ultra left wing people telling me what I can and cannot say. Just because someone says one thing or does something does not mean we all have to agree with it. That is what freedom of speech is all about. There is no hatred here just belief and opinion which we are all entitled to.

David J C Cooper1: Whatever Jenner is is not on my "to do"list. The media likes sparkly things that make loud noises. That hardly seems like any kind of compass, moral or otherwise.

maree: How can you tell us, in effect, to fight against gender stereotypes (as you do elsewhere in this publication) when the media is agog over a practice that glorifies and seeks to legalizes gender stereotypes, and shames and blames those who refuse to take part in the mass hysteria to sanction a practise that fetishizes the elements of women's oppression? Make up your mind.

Prof calls new ON sex ed curriculum "lethal for the health of society"

Another voice has been raised against the LGBT-positive sex education curriculum being forced on the people of Ontario by that province's Liberal government and its lesbian Premier Kathleen Wynne. In "Why the Critics of the Ontario Sex-Ed Curriculum are Right" Professor Scott Masson, of Tyndale College in Toronto, argues that the new sex-ed curriculum vastly expands the teaching role of the state at the expense of parental authority.

Prof. Masson accuses the new curriculum of promoting a libertine attitude toward adolescent sex, which is lethal for the health of any society. From the beginning of the disciplines of anthropology and sociology up to now, he says, studies have concluded time and again that societies thrive to the extent that they nurture sexual restraint and monogamous marriage.

Here are some of the very strong points made by Prof. Masson, with emphasis by Walt.

The critics of this curriculum are right because it is nothing other than an experiment on their children by the children of the sexual revolution. Without any consideration for love or marriage - there is nary a mention of either in this infamous 244 page document - it speaks of sex in the anodyne consumerist terms of choice, of sex without moral, religious or societal consequences.

It is the teaching not of a just society, but of a perverted individualism that separates children not only from the values of the parents that bore, love and nurture them, but the idea that they too will one day be responsible for children when this government and its philosopher-kings lie on the ash heap of history.

At least since Plato, philosophers have argued that parents are naturally unfit to educate their children. In an ideal state, philosopher-kings such as he ought to usurp their role. Plato had no children. But the enlightened Rousseau, whose ideas ground modern educational theory, was so enamoured with the idea of the state’s responsibility in administering social justice, and in absolving himself of parental responsibility, that he placed the five children he conceived out of wedlock in state orphanages.

In his 1935 BBC radio debate with another statist educator, philosopher Bertrand Russell, G.K. Chesterton wryly retorted what every reasonable person recognizes. The immoral example of exceptional men like Rousseau proves the rule: Parents are by nature best positioned to bring up their children. They don’t raise themselves.

In the United Nations' declaration on Rights of the Child (1959), parents were declared to have primary responsibility in educating their children. The declaration was meant to set a hedge of protection for families against the totalitarian impulse of philosopher-kings.

Cambridge anthropologist J.D. Unwin's monumental work Sex and Culture (1934) studied 80 primitive tribes and six known civilizations over 5000 years of history. It strongly correlated the success of a civilization to the degree of sexual restraint it observed. "Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation."

The life or death of a civilization, which is at stake in the Christian teaching of natural sexual monogamy [argues] in favour of teaching that monogamy [is] essential to the health of the individual and to creating a more just society.

[Chesterton and Russell debated] the age-old question of which adults, which individuals capable of moral responsibility, were fit to do the task of creating a just society. Was it parents in the natural family unit, or the experts, the philosopher-kings?

This brings us to the Ontario sexual education curriculum, whose convictions on human sexual health are not liberating but deleterious. Once again, the debate lies between parental and state jurisdiction in creating a just society. But at the heart of the Ontario sex-ed curriculum is buried the perverse claim that children raise themselves.

This is explicit from the very outset of the curriculum, which commences with the teaching of consent to six-year-olds. To teach children what consent means, even in the rudimentary terms the premier gives of “reading facial expressions and emotions,” is to assume that they have the capacity for moral responsibility to exercise it. This is why the legal age of consent is connected to the moral responsibility of adults.... [Yet] by six, the human eye has not even fully developed.

"Consent" is...to be understood in the cultural Marxist terms of autonomous sexual freedom, and even sexual identity. They are the terms of men from Herbert Marcuse to Michel Foucault, the favourites of the philosopher-kings of our day, whose autonomy is declared precisely against the natural family.

It must not be imposed on the only people whose consent is required, the parents of children in Ontario.

In case you missed it: "VIDEO: What's really in Ontario's new sex ed curriculum", explained by Ezra Levant

VIDEO: What's really in Ontario's new sex ed curriculum

Is it sex-ed -- or grooming? Ezra Levant walks Ontario parents through the Wynne-Sandals-Levin sex-ed curriculum, from the "anal fluids" to the "nine different genders." Direct quotes from the published curriculum give the answer. But are Ontarians paying attention?



This video was recorded before Benjamin Levin pled guilty to three kiddy porn charges. As Mr. Levant says, Dr. Levin was one of the movers and shakers behind the new curriculum.

And yes, there's a petition, one of several now circulating on the Net. Click here to visit the Protect Our Kids website and sign the petition. Walt recommends doing so!

A reader wrote to me yesterday to say that the new curriculum seems almost certain to be implemented unchanged. If I were a betting man, that would be the way I'd bet. BUT... that doesn't mean that the majority who are opposed to forcing the LGBT agenda on innocent children should accept in silence the perverted notions of those who, like Kathleen Wynne and Lez Sandals and Ben Levin, think they know better!

Canada's Foreign Minister finally comes out of the...errr... cabinet

The agenda of Canada's LGBT community -- to make being queer not just acceptable but admirable -- will receive a huge blow job [just "blow", surely! Ed.] this morning when John "Nancy" Baird, the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs [sic] will announce his resignation from the federal cabinet. He will say that he does not intend to run again in the election scheduled for October, and wants to give Canada's Dear Leader (Steve Harper) plenty of time to groom [word? Ed.] a successor.

Walt suspects that the real reason for the sudden departure of Canada's leading closet homosexual -- he's the one on the right -- is that he was about to be outed, at last, by the lamestream media. Nancy's gender preference has been an open secret on Parliament Hill for years, and the Gay Pride types were hoping that he would come out on his own, and thus be a credit to the community and a scold to straight white guys. However, Mr. Baird has chosen to keep his mouth shut.

Poletical ("The Gay Word") describes Mr. Baird as "a warrior for the gay and lesbian community. He has consistently avoided voting with many of his fellow Tories against legislation that advances gay rights. It also turns out that John Baird is revered and respected by Ottawa's gay community. Baird not only attends annual gay pride events, he has publicly condemned gay rights abuses in Africa. He has also been known to frequent Byzantium, a Toronto cocktail lounge that prides itself for being 'the grand matriarch of the gay village'."

Mr. Baird is only 45 years old. He is getting off the federal payroll just ahead of a change in the pension rules, so as to be entitled to suck off the taxpayers' teat for decades (and millions of dollars) to come. He is expected to be welcomed into the private sector, where lucrative but undemanding positions await on the boards of such organizations as the Gay Pride Parade, the United Jewish Appeal, and... just possibly... the CBC.

Further reading from Daily Xtra ("Everything gay, every day!")
"Glass Closet"
"Why is the CBC censoring Canadians to protect John Baird?"

Further reading -- same picture though -- on WWW: "Gay Canuck foreign minister condemned by REAL Women"

Mark Steyn talks about Benedict Cumberbatch, coloured people and pro-LGBT sex education as child abuse

Just a heads-up so you don't miss Mark Steyn's in-studio appearance (Tuesday) with John Oakley on Toronto's AM640 talkfest. Mr. Steyn was in Toronto to promote his new book The [Un]documented Mark Steyn. Walt is awaiting a review copy from the publisher, but if it doesn't arrive soon will order one (autographed) no less, from Mr. Steyn's website.

On the way to the book signing, Mr. Steyn discussed with his radio host a number of matters of current interest, including the enforced public recanting by Benedict Cumberbatch, who accidentally referred to people of colour as "coloured people", or vice-versa. Of particular interest to parents with children in Ontario schools will be his remarks on the so-called "sex education" curriculum being pushed by Kathleen Wynne, Ontario's lesbian premier. Mr. Steyn calls it "the appalling and evil hyper-sexualization of childhood as a matter of state policy". Wow!

Click here to listen. And if you want to buy The [Un]documented Mark Steyn, here's the link. Tell `em Walt sent ya!

Political orthodoxy on same-sex marriage, pro-queer sex education harms parental rights, freedom of speech and religion

Who says so? None other than the Honourable Bradley W. Miller, a professor at the University of Western Ontario, who Canada's Conservative government has just appointed to the bench of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice.

Since he doesn't become a judge until next month, we'll just call him "Professor Miller" for now. "Progressive thinkers" and the liberal media in Canada are already pissing and moaning about his appointment. Why? Because Prof. Miller had the temerity to say, in "Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada" that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has harmed religious freedom and free speech, and led to the indoctrination of children in public schools.

In his article, Professor Miller writes that the "new orthodoxy" about gay marriage in Canada means that those who object to it are treated  [by the media, "human rights tribunals", and, worse, the courts - Walt] as bigots. They are denied their rights as parents, workers, pamphleteers or religious believers.

He also said that parents who do not want their children hearing discussions on the subject would have to pull them out of public schools. And this was written two years ago, before Kathleen Wynne (North America's first openly lesbian government leader) reintroduced her controversial "modernized" sex education bill.

Referring to her previous attempt to push the pro-LGBT agenda down the throats of children as young as 8, Prof. Miller wrote, "The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one's children from the public school system entirely."

Walt notes with alarm that in Ontario the term "public schools" includes all schools receiving government funding, including "Catholic" schools. Thus the only options for parents who don't want their kids to be persuaded to "re-examine their gender choices" is to send them to private schools or home-school them.

Prof. Miller said that while the goal of promoting tolerance of all people is laudable, "the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children's best interests."

The chattering classes are already branding Prof. Miller as a homophobic right-wing religious nut, and demanding that his appointment to the bench be rescinded. Too bad for them that the Canadian system doesn't require any kind of confirmation process. Once the appointment is made, that's it. So, beginning on January 15th, there will be at least one voice of liberty... and sanity... in Ontario's Superior Court.

Congratulations to Mr. Justice Miller (as he then will be)... and good luck to him!

Last gay toon standing? - Part 3

Having considered three openly gay characters from Family Guy and South Park, we turn now to The Simpsons, the oldest show of the three leading cartoon series, and the only one to have no character who is openly gay. The operative word there is "openly", and the one person that everyone suspects is a homosexual has not yet come out of the closet. Waylon Smithers, Jr., is not "open" about his gender preference. Let's just say he's "ajar".

What? You think this picture -- Smithers is on the right -- contradicts what I just said? Well, you have to see it in context. Smithers is the very willing and eager executive assistant, factotum and self-proclaimed best friend of C. Montgomery Burns, the owner of Springfield's nuclear power plant. That's Mr. Burns on the left.

Smithers worships the radioactive ground on which Mr. Burns walks. He has a picture of his boss as wallpaper on his computer, and even dreams about him flying in through the open bedroom window. Yes, Smithers loves Mr. Burns, but perhaps not in the way a man loves a woman... or a man loves a man... or, errr, you know what I mean!

On the other hand, perhaps Smithers' feelings for Mr. Burns are of a sexual nature. According to The Simpsons Wiki, most of the people of Springfield know that Smithers' is a "closeted gay man". Smithers is a confirmed bachelor, although he was once married to a woman. Sadly, the marriage fell apart when she wanted to have sex with him, and also referred to Mr. Burns as "awful".

Smithers has had a crush on Mr. Burns for as long as he's worked for him, but his love is never requited. The kiss pictured above is from "Lisa the Skeptic", in which, when the people of Springfield believe that the apocalypse is upon them, Smithers takes the opportunity to show Mr. Burns how he really feels. However, when it becomes apparent the "apocalypse" was just a hoax, Burns still remains oblivious to Smithers' feelings.

Ten years ago -- time flies so quickly in the wacky world of TV -- the producers of The Simpsons announced that one of the characters was going to come out of the closet, thus setting set off a firestorm of speculation in every English-speaking country, even the USA. Despite the Irish Independent calling Smithers "too obvious" a choice, 97% of the respondents in an online poll by PlanetOut thought Smithers would be the one to reveal his true colours. Imagine their surprise when it turned out to be Marge's sister, Patty Bouvier.

Unlike Mr. Slave, Herbert Garrison, and John Herbert, Waylon Smithers still appears regularly in The Simpsons -- a sympathetic and popular character. Star News Online named "Smithers' fey way" as one of the four hundred reasons why they loved The Simpsons. And in 2007, Entertainment Weekly named Smithers the sixteenth greatest sidekick of all time. They also described Smithers and Mr. Burns as being "TV's most functional dysfunctional couple".

What lesson do we learn from this, boys and girls? Walt suggests it's the wisdom of the US military's policy on gays in the armed forces -- don't ask, don't tell! Perhaps instead of proudly proclaiming their queerness and demanding to be respected if not, errr, loved, the LGBT crowd would be better advised to just shut up about it! 

Pro-LGBT sex ed coming back to Ontario schools

Here we go again, skipping gayly (geddit?) down the road to "gender diversity" and the "education" of children as young as eight in the benefits of the LGBT lifestyle!

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, having won a new mandate for her ultra-liberal, ultra-PC policies, is set to re-introduce a bill to mandate pro-gay sex education in Ontario elementary schools -- Catholic as well as "public" -- beginning in the fall of 2015.

Depending on how you count, this is the second or third time Ms Wynne has tried to push the LGBT agenda down the throats of Ontarians. She first trotted out the new curriculum in 2010, when she was the province's education minister. The reaction of the non-gay 90% of the population was so fierce that her boss, Dalton McGuinty, cancelled its implementation just hours after his own cabinet ministers had vigorously defended it.

Why were average citizens, especially the parents of school-age children, so horrified? Because the new curriculum called for teacher-led discussions of topics such as masturbation, oral and anal sex and homosexuality by Grade 8, and the general topic of sex and where babies come from as early as Grade 3!

Mr. McGuinty said the province "hadn’t consulted enough with parents", even though his own ministers insisted they'd been "having a conversation" with the public for two years. And so the pro-gay curriculum was quietly buried. But after Mr. McGuinty resigned and the premiership was handed over to Ms. Wynne, it was resurrected again! See "WARNING to Ontarians: queer sex ed is back on the table!" (WWW 14/10/13) and "Are perverts pushing Ontario's sex education curriculum? Could be!" (WWW 10/7/13).

But then Ms. Wynne, who headed a minority government, was forced to call an election, which she won, thanks to the ineptitude of Ontario's oxymoronically-named Progressive Conservatives. And so, as surely as "shoes" follows "sensible", the bill requiring the "updating" of Ontario's education curriculum is to be brought forward yet again.

This time, Ms. Wynne’s government says it will use an online survey to consult with parents before the new curriculum is rolled out. Do they mean all Ontario parents? Errr, no. They'll be asking the opinion of 4000 parents -- possibly including same-sex couples who have somehow acquired a child -- hand-picked by school principals to participate.

Let's see now. Who do the school principals work for? That's right. The Ministry of Education which is determined to get its new programme approved. Walt thinks it not unlikely that most of the parents selected will be the chairs and members of school councils who can be relied on to rubber stamp the proposed curriculum.

So sure of that is the Wynne government that Education Minister Liz [sic] Sandals has already said that the survey process is unlikely to lead to any changes. Nor will the province inform all parents about the contents of the new curriculum, which will be left up to individual schools. So much for "meaningful consultation".

Opposition to the new curriculum is being led by Parents As First Educators (PAFE), which has launched a petition objecting to the "graphic" revision of the sex education curriculum.

In "No input from Ontario parents, school trustees on Kathleen Wynne's new sex-ed curriculum: what are the Liberals trying to hide?", PAFE makes a good argument that what Ms. Wynne and her good friend Ms. Sandals want is to appear to be consulting with parents in the manner of the Jesuits of old -- letting the parents find their own way to a conclusion which has already been determined.

Enough, already! Pushback against LGBT agenda gains momentum

Former speaker of the House or Representatives Newt Gingrich yesterday joined the growing chorus of supporters of suspended Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson. Mr. Robertson was booted off the show by A&E after making "anti-gay remarks" to GQ magazine. But, on his Crossfire show on CNN, Newt likened Robertson to Pope Francis!

"If you read the whole interview," Mr. Gingrich said, "he talks very specifically about loving everybody. He talks about not being judgmental towards anybody. That's God' decision, not his."

A&E has not commented officially on the removal of the star of the popular show. But Mr. Robertson put out a statement saying that his comments to GQ were in line with his Christian faith, while pointing out that he "would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they're different from me."

His family released a statement on the Duck Commander website in which they expressed thanks for the outpouring of support and prayers. The statement said Phil's "beliefs are grounded in the Bible" and he "is a Godly man."

"We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith," the family says. "We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm."

A&E has followed a time-honoured tradition of the lamestream media, by quickly silencing those who dare to speak their mind -- or proclaim their faith -- when their opinions and beliefs run contrary to the prevailing orthodoxies of secular humanism and the superiority of all things and people gay.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who had her picture taken with Mr. Robertson just last month, complained that his rights to freedom of speech were being trampled. Lousiaiana Governor Bobby Jindal, complained that Miley Cyrus got a pass for twerking on TV while Phil got shown the door. (Duck Dynasty is filmed in LA.)

One of the programme's many outraged fans, Rick Peter, of Vernon BC, told Associated Press, "It's a show that is promoting clean living and good moral values, and that's something we need more of today."

What did Phil Robertson say?!

In the GQ interview, when asked his definition of sinful behaviour, Mr. Robertson replied, "Start with homosexual behaviour and just go from there.... Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

And that's exactly what you'll find in the Bible, in St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10, DRV)

People like Rick Peter say conservative views like his are not just overlooked but ignored by Hollywood and the lamestream media, relentless in their disparagement of Christian values and glorification of perversion.

"I think we're getting a little bit tired of that pro-gay sentiment that's out there in the media and it's time to fight back," said Mr. Peter. And A.P. quotes Randy Schmidt of Illinois, who agrees, saying that while gay people can be happy that some states have granted them the right to marry, "I find it unnecessary to flaunt it all over the media."

Dear readers, Walt begs you, be silent no longer! If you are sick, sore and tired of having the LGBT agenda and other types of political correctness crammed down your throat (or other orifice), speak up!

Use the comments feature of online news sites. Vote in online polls and opinion forums. Use the power of the social media. Don't "rail", but don't be afraid to send your expressions of righteous indignation to the press and the politicians. It's time for majority opinion to be heard!

WARNING to Ontarians: queer sex ed is back on the table!

This post is going to have a lot of links, because we've seen this movie before. But, dear readers in the "Province of Opportunity" (LOL), it's coming again to a cinema -- make that a school! -- near you. Yes, it's the "OK to be gay" sex education curriculum, which the Liberal government of Kathleen "I'm queer and I'm here" Wynne is going to try once again to force down Ontario schoolkids' throats.

Thanksgiving weekend is a good time to make controversial announcements, because no-one's paying attention. Sure enough, Ontario's new Minister of Education, Lez Sandals, appeared on TV to say that she'd been hearing from many concerned citizens, teachers and other "progressive thinkers" that Ontario's sex ed curriculum is "15 years out of date" and badly in need of revision to keep up with trends in modern society.

That's code for swallowing the LGBT pro-queer agenda. [That's the second time you've come close to using the same old joke. Ed.] And the "group of educators pushing the government to make changes" turns out to be a new pressure group called "Ophea" -- "a non-profit association that advises on health and physical education".

Last week Ophea launched a campaign for funds to buy newspaper ads warning the public that what students are learning "does not address the range of issues impacting today's youth". The propaganda will urge the government to implement a new curriculum. That would be the one introduced four years ago by Minister of Education Kathleen Wynne (surprise, surprise!), which was shelved after an outcry from a group of parents and religious leaders who objected to bombarding elementary students with "information" validating and encouraging homosexual and other deviant sexual conduct.

What, specifically, was the problem with the new pro-queer curriculum? Click here to read excerpts, taken straight out of the 2010 curriculum, as published by Campaign Life Coalition. Prepare to be shocked. You'll see that words like "penis" and "vagina" are to be taught to Grade 1 students, and the concept of "different gender identities" introduced to children in Grade 3!

The part about "gender identity" enraged the Institute for Canadian Values, among many others, and led to the famous "Don't confuse me! I'm a girl!" ad campaign, which drew the ire of the lamestream media and the chattering classes of Toronto. The TV ad was even better and if Ed. can find it again we'll put it up here ASAP.

The "Don't confuse me!" campaign was successful, too... thank God! With an election in the offing, the Liberal government quickly sent the pro-queer curriculum back to consultants for further study. But it resurfaced almost immediately after the Gliberals won re-election. This time, though, they called it an "anti-bullying" initiative, and managed to force government-funded schools to set up (or at least accommodate) "Gay-Straight Alliances", which students quickly dubbed "Queer Clubs".

The LGBT crowd were content with that. The camel's nose was in the tent flap, so to speak. [Stop there! Ed.] But once the proudly lesbian Minister of Education became proudly lesbian Premier of Ontario, it was only a matter of time until the queer agenda was brought forth again in the pink sandstone palace at Queen's Park.

One of those who would be happy to see the adoption of a "new, modern, relevant" -- code for "gay-oriented" -- curriculum would be Benjamin Levin. As reported in July, Prof. Levin was one of many "progressive thinkers" consulted by Ms Wynne and her department in the shaping of the new syllabus.

Dr. Levin awaits trial on charges of possessing child pornography and accessing child pornography. He was earlier charged with two counts of distributing child pornography and one count each of making child pornography, counselling to commit an indictable offence and agreeing to or arranging for a sexual offence against a child under 16. See "Are perverts pushing Ontario's sex education curriculum? Could be!".

Agent 3, a former lawyer, wonders if teaching the new "whatever floats your boat" sex education curriculum would open a teacher up to charges of "counselling to commit an indictable offence" contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Is bestiality (for instance) still an indictable offence in the Great Not-so-white North? Hmmm...

Follow-up: Canadian Conservatives' base divided over government's pushing "gay rights"

A short follow-up to our post of August 7th about REAL Women of Canada's calling out Canada's light-in-the-loafers foreign minister, John Baird. The conservative (with a small "c") women's group is upset with Johnboy for his strident criticism of Russia and Uganda for laws curbing the spread of pro-homosexual propaganda and deviant sexual acts.

The next day Canuck PM Steve "Stephen" Harper joined the war of words. Mr. Harpoon always stands behind his Foreign Minister, which is probably smarter than standing (or bending over) in front of him. Anyway, Steve made it clear that he is all in favour of treating queers just the same as other people. Why, he even has one or two in his cabinet! See today's Huffington Post article, "John Baird's Gay Rights Stance Nothing New For Harper Tories". [What's with the capitalization of every word in the headline? Does no-one follow Strunk & Whyte any more? Ed.]

Also today, Canada's self-styled National Post says "Canadian conservatives divided over Harper government's defence of gay rights". This is news? [Got the capitalization right though. Ed.] We think that if a poll were taken of all Canadians -- not just those of bluish hue -- a majority would agree that Minister Baird is pushing the LGBT agenda more than a bit too hard.

But why would he do that? What we don't understand is how neither the HuffPost nor the NatPost could get through a rather lengthy piece on the controversy without even alluding to Minister Baird's sexual preference. Which brings us back to Wednesday's post. Does no-one in the lamestream media know Mr. Baird's dirty little secret? Or is it just one of those things that we can no longer talk about because we don't want to be accused of being homophobic? Perhaps Mr. Baird should -- as they say in politics -- declare his interest.

Same-sex "marriage" fine for some, not for Africa and Asia?

What can you say about a country that earlier this week had a grand total of $217 in its national bank? You can say that it's poor. You can say that its government is a kleptocracy. You can say that it must be in Africa. All those things are true of Comrade Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, last on the list of members of the Disunited Nations, and last on just about every other list you can think of.

Comrade Bob, however, doesn't care about how his country looks in the eyes of the rest of the world. He will go his own way, and the West and the rest be damned. And many of his subjects agree with him.

One thing "Bob's-your-uncle" is adamant about is the immorality of homosexuality. He goes way beyond the stance of the Roman Catholic Church, of which he is nominally a member. The Church calls homosexuality "objectively disordered" but asks that gays be treated with understanding and compassion, and given pastoral help not to change their sexual orientation but to live with it in conformity to God's commandments.

Where that becomes difficult is in matters like same-sex "marriage". The Church, along with every other religion in the world, has always maintained that marriage is a solemn and sanctified bond between a man and a woman. It has been so since Adam and Eve. Until lately, that is.

Now we have the wimmin's libbers and gay activists clamouring for "equal rights", by which they mean licence to do whatever they damn well please, no matter what God or mere mortals may think, and no matter what damage is done to the fabric of society. Christianity is now so weak, and the LGBT agenda -- see WWW passim -- is being pushed so hard and so successfully that same-sex "marriage" is now legal in large parts of the so-called Christian world. (A better term would be "post-Christian West".)

The rest of the world -- Asia, the Middle East and Africa -- is different, and intends to remain so. You don't see people agitating for same-sex "marriage" in China or Japan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Uganda or... wait for it... Zimbabwe.

In fact, Zimbabwe proposes to make same-sex "marriage" illegal! Its leaders -- not just Bob but leaders of the opposition -- have approved the draft of a new constitution, to be tabled in the Zimbabwean Parliament on February 8th.

According to an article in NewsDay, Section 4.78 of the draft, on marriage rights, prohibits forced marriages, marriages of people under the age of 18 and between people of the same sex.

One of the co-chairthingies of the drafting committee called the clause a clear statement that Zimbabwe does not condone homosexuality. Said Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana, "This is the first time we have this clause in our constitution.... There will be other legal instruments to enforce it, such as the Sexual Offences Act. It's clear sexual relationships between people of the same sex are prohibited."

Mugabe has long been a fierce critic of homosexuality. He has often criticised it as unAfrican and branded gays and lesbians as "worse than pigs and dogs". He has also said, as the Church says, that same-sex relationships are ungodly -- not according to God's law or natural law.

Douglas Mwonzora, the other co-chair, said homosexuality was a criminal offence in Zimbabwe, as it is in many other Asian and African countries. "The constitution cannot prescribe a crime, but the issue of homosexuality can be covered under the criminal law of sodomy," Mwonzora said. "Same-sex marriages are prohibited and homosexuality is a crime under the country's criminal laws."

What should Western "gay rights" campaigners and same-sex "marriage" advocates make of third-world opposition to their agenda? Are the countries where marriage is still just for men and women backward and uncivilized?

Once upon a time the Christian nations sent missionaries to places like Zimbabwe to preach the gospel which says that homosexual acts are evil. (See St. Paul's epistle to the Romans.) Should we now send missionaries to say that those who came a century ago were wrong, and that what was once regarded as evil is now to be not just tolerated but encouraged? Don't be surprised...

Archbishop besieged at home for opposing LGBT agenda

Still more on the bullying and persecution of those opposing the LGBT agenda. Today we learn from the Italian newspaper Tempi that Most Rev. Giampaolo Crepaldi, Archbishop of Trieste (Italy) was besieged in his own home earlier this month by a gang of "gay rights" activists.

The demonstration was organized by a queer crypto-Fascist group known as ArciGay. They accuse the prelate of being a homophobe -- afraid of homosexuals -- and, sure enough, racist too.

Archbishop Crepaldi said that the protest was organized against him because of “the false and very grave accusation of being intolerant and racist.” He said that gay-rights activists are determined to gain approval for same-sex marriage, and toward that end will accuse all opponents of “homophobia.”

Their agenda is clear enough. In Italy as in North America the goal of the LGBT gang is to get “homophobia” defined as a crime -- some sort of "hate crime -- under which Christians (and non-Christians too) "who say publicly -- as the Catholic Church has always done -- that the real family is only that founded on marriage between a man and a woman" would be subject to prosecution under not just "human rights" legislation, but the criminal law as well.

Will they win? In Italy as in North America, politicians courting the gay lobby and its bloc of voters are running to get on the rainbow-striped bandwagon. Until now, Italian media outlets have ignored the incident, and some city officials in Trieste actually showed their support for the clearly illegal demonstration.

Two members of the local city council reportedly joined in placing the archbishop under virtual house arrest. In Italy. Can you imagine? Is there nowhere in the so-called Christian West where people, even clerics, can stand up for Christian values without fear of demonization and persecution? Queers rule, boys and girls... queers rule.

Canucks choose world's first lezzie governor

Agent 3 has recovered from a dreadful hangover -- the kind where your hair hurts,  your teeth itch and your mouth tastes like the Chinese army has run through it with muddy feet. So he writes from Toronto, where he was driven to drink (he claims) by the selection of one of these two lovely ladies (?) as the new leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.

The Liberals have the largest number of seats in the Ontario Legislature. Under the Canadian parliamentary system of government, the leader of the party with the largest number of seats becomes the premier -- the head of the provincial government, akin to being a state governor in the USA. So that makes Kathleen Wynne -- the less butch-looking of the two -- the new premier. She is Ontario's first female premier, and the first openly gay woman to head any government in any state or province or any country anywhere! Isn't that great?

Agent 3 doesn't think so. What's the problem with that, one might ask. Sexual orientation (or whatever the PC term is today) shouldn't be an issue in this day and age. Right? Well, that depends. Sexual orientation is a bit like religion. What works for me may not necessarily work for you, and if I try to force my beliefs and practices on you, you have every right (it seems to me) to tell me to go to my own chosen hell.

And that's the problem with Kathleen Wynne. It's not that she's a proud lesbian. It's that she wants to force the gay agenda down the throats of everyone else in the province which she now governs. [You used that metaphor a couple of days ago. Ed.]

Let it not be forgotten that Kathleen Wynne was Ontario's Minister of Education in the government of her predecessor, Dalton McGuinty. It was she who drove the attempt to revise Ontario's curriculum for sex education so that children as young as 6 or 7 -- first graders -- would be taught that it's OK to be gay, OK to have two female parents or two male parents, and so on ad nauseam.

Public reaction to the new curriculum was so negative that the government was forced to withdraw the proposal "for further study". And the lovely Ms Wynne was quietly but quickly moved to another portfolio where she would do less damage to the Liberals' chances of re-election. Now that she's in the driver's seat, how long will it take before a new Minister of Education (Laurel Broten will be made to walk the plank for the recent teachers strike) reintroduces the LGBT-friendly curriculum?

Walt predicts lots of queer things in Ontario's future. Lifetime pct .991.

Think Walt's kidding about queer propaganda? Look here!

It has been suggested to me that, contrary to my assertion earlier today, there is no giant conspiracy to push the LGBT agenda, to make us think being homosexual is normal and acceptable and we straight people are the old-fashioned, out-of-step, homophobic fuddy-duddies.

I stand by what I wrote. [And I stand beside Walt! Ed.] And as luck would have it, we have some proof from, of all places, Las Vegas. Check this out!

Yes, folks, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority wants you to know that in Sin City "Everyone's welcome, even straight people." Yessiree Bob! The city of all night gambling binges, group weddings, and free booze has plenty of other activities for you even if you don't enjoy fudge-packing and sushi-eating.

The LVCVA's latest flight of ads feature modelesque same-sex couples in fabulously fashionably outfits cavorting by pools and in swanky restaurants, while dowdy straight couples in polo shirts and sneakers happily observe the glamourous LGBT throngs in thongs. [The straights look kind of like Mr. and Mrs.Walt, don't they. Ed.]

In one image, a lot of buff men in very small bathing suits [but no moustaches? Ed.] splash water on one another and laugh while sipping cocktails, or possibly Shirley Temples. Observing the handsome scene with a look of wonder is a frumpy straight couple in awful tourist gear complete with Tilly hats. They're holding a camcorder, of course.

Another ad features a similar pool party, only this time it's sexy lesbians that are filling every corner of the page with their taut bikini-clad bodies. Again, a very square and very unfashionable straight couple looks on. The husband is wearing baggy khakis...with runners!

Now then, about the propaganda. The creators of the ads -- Las Vegas agency R&R Partners -- admit, "LGBT advertising is nothing new." For decades, the madmen explain, brands have told us they're "gay-friendly", and shown same-sex couples. All that's new here, they add, is asking people "to imagine a world where we have to remind the heteros that Las Vegas still belongs to them, too…so long as they're willing to share." Exactly Walt's point.

Russia set to ban queer propaganda

How do you feel about this photo, gentle reader? Call me a homophobe if you will, but it fills me with revulsion. In plain words, it makes me want to puke. But we -- and our children -- are exposed to images like this every day. 1000s of them. In the print media, on TV, in movies, on billboards -- everywhere you look.

It's all LGBT propaganda, designed and published by the queers -- they don't mind being called that, nowadays -- to force their "gay rights" agenda down or throats or up our nether orifices.

In this, they have the support and encouragement of very powerful people. There's the lamestream media, the liberal "intelligentsia" and the "progressive thinkers", dominated by members of a certain religion which I must not name for fear of an attack by the JDL. And then there are the politicians who are not members of the tribe, but who know whose asses to kiss to get elected.

Or re-elected. Just today I heard the Prez rabbitting on again about how "we" are going to finish what "we" started, including the strengthening of "gay marriage rights".

In Ontario, former education minister Kathleen Wynne -- a proud lesbian mentioned here before -- is regarded (by the Toronto Red Star, of course) as a serious contender to take over the leadership of the governing Liberal Party. She would thus become Canada's first openly lesbian premier. One of her first priorities would doubtless be to reinstate her pro-LGBT curriculum for Ontario's schools, so that little straight children can be taught that it's not just OK, but desirable to be queer. Yes, and have sex with vegetables too.
What is the goal of all this? Dear readers, it's not just to make deviant behaviour legal and socially acceptable. The aim is nothing less than the destruction of western society. That is what those controlling the media and "popular opinion" really want.

Don't believe me? Consider the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. One of the great themes of Edward Gibbon's classic work is that the greatest empire the world had ever known succumbed to barbarian invasions due to the gradual loss of virtue -- civic, military and personal -- among its citizens. The Rome of the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. was rife with corruption and depravity. It was not just immoral but amoral. No-one cared about anything except the pursuit of pleasure. Thus it was ripe and ready for the scourge of the barbarian hordes.

The West finds itself in the same position today -- prone -- and America is no exception. Nor is the mainstream Church, which some would say has already been corrupted by the very same vices which we are told are not really sinful at all. Just "alternative lifestyles" or "different strokes for different strokes" -- that's all.

The government of one -- just one -- nominally Christian country has finally decided that enough is enough. That nation is Russia, whose rulers, with the support of the Orthodox Church, have introduced legislation which will make it illegal to provide minors with "propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality and transgenderism." If it happened in Ontario -- wishful thinking -- it would be called the Anti-Wynne Act.

The proposed law, which is all but certain of enactment, includes a ban on holding public events that promote gay rights. St. Petersburg and a number of other Russian cities recently put similar statutes on the books to prohibit "Gay Pride parades", long promoted in the West but still something of a novelty in the former Communist bloc.

The bill is part of an effort to promote traditional Russian values as opposed to Western liberalism, which the Kremlin and church see as corrupting Russian youth. "Progressive thinkers" inside and outside Russia are already wringing their hands and hissing with horror, but (Associated Press reports) most "average Russians" are reacting with either indifference or open enthusiasm.

Polls conducted last year show that almost two-thirds of Russians find homosexuality "morally unacceptable and worth condemning." About half are against gay rallies and same-sex marriage. Almost a third think homosexuality is the result of "a sickness or a psychological trauma,".

Unlike in America, Britain and Canada, Russia's political and religious elite share Ivan Sixpack's hostility to homosexuality. Lawmakers have accused gays of decreasing Russia's already low birth rates and said they should be barred from government jobs, undergo forced medical treatment or be exiled.

Orthodox activists have criticized PepsiCo for using a "gay" rainbow on cartons of its dairy products. An executive with a government-run TV network said in a nationally televised talk show that gays should be prohibited from donating blood, sperm and organs for transplants, while after death their hearts should be burned or buried.

The sponsors of the bill say minors need to be protected from "homosexual propaganda" because they are unable to evaluate the information critically. In the words of the bill, "This propaganda goes through the mass media and public events that propagate homosexuality as normal behavior."

Our last word on the subject -- for today -- comes from Rev. Sergiy Rybko, an Orthodox priest. Although Ed. has not been able to track down the original quote, AP says Father Rybko told the online magazine Orthodoxy and World, "Until this scum gets off of Russian land, I fully share the views of those who are trying to purge our motherland of it. We either become a tolerant Western state where everything is allowed – and lose our Christianity and moral foundations – or we will be a Christian people who live in our God-protected land in purity and godliness."

Now there's a strong and thoroughly un-PC statement. I wish I'd said it. Better yet, I wish our Catholic bishops would say it. Amen.