Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 15:28:02 -0400 From: PMDAtropos Subject: Skoke-ing the fires of anti-gay sentiment [ Send all responses to Robert_Riley@galaxy.com only. All responses to the list or list owner will be returned! ] SKOKE-ING THE FIRES OF ANTI-GAY SENTIMENT By: Dalton Camp From: The Toronto Star (Sunday, October 2, 1994) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Liberal Member of Parliament for Central Nova, Roseanne Skoke, has declared her opposition to lesbians and gays being protected from discrimination in the Human Rights Code. In her view, homosexuality is immoral, un-Canadian, un-Christian and contrary to Canadian values. Since Skoke's opinion is contrary to the legislative intentions of the Liberal government, the Prime Minister was pressed to comment, which he did by making allowances. That is to say, homophobia, as a form of self-expression, is an okay thing in a free country; besides, Jean Chretien cannot assume responsibility for the views of all of his supporters in the House, but only for a majority of them. Implicit in the Prime Minister's endorsement of free speech was the possibility he may have disagreed with Skoke's opinion. This is reassuing, even though, it needs saying, he missed an opportunity to remind the member for Central Nova of the importance of getting it right before declaiming on what's wrong. Skoke's premise is that homosexuals are demanding "special rights" in seeking protection against discrimination in the Human Rights Code. She is wrong, and apparently willfully so. Skoke has consulted ehr constituency executive on the issue -- the wrong issue -- asking its members if they approved of "special rights" for gays and lesbians. Not surprisingly, the executive voted "No." Janet Rosenstock, a member of Skoke's executive, has written to the press to clarify the distinction between what the executive voted on and what the legislation actually proposes, between "special rights" and human rights. Skoke is a career anti-abortionist and a devout on the religious right, having fought strenuous battles against the hierarchy over changes in liturgy and rubric. When her party chose her as its candidate, it did so knowing it was proposing to send a zealot to Parliament. Skoke campaigned and won, on "family" issues, as she defined them, including the belief that gays and lesbians were threats to "the Canadian family." Excluding homosexuals from those protected against discrimination appeals to some in the Liberal party and others elsewhere. For example, half the Tory federal caucus -- which is Elsie Wayne, MP for Saint John -- would rather the subject hadn't come up. "Really and truly," Wayne is quoted as saying in my morning paper, "you've got the debt and deficit rising as we talk. These (proposals) are things we shouldn't even be talking about." Notwithstanding, Wayne went on to talk about it, saying among other things, "If two men want to live a certain life, let them go and live a certain life...But don't ask the rest of us to consent to it or to condone it." In Wayne's opinion, human rights legislation creates problems: "Now we're going to redefine what makes a family." What is interesting in all this is that neither of these public tribunes appears to have grasped the issue which is not "to consent to" or condone the homosexual lifestye, much less destroy the foundations of family life. The issue is whether to make it unlawful to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. Those who argue against the right of gays and lesbians to beprotected from discrimination by the law are fundamentally supporting gay-bashing and other acts of homophobia both overt and covert. The Prime Minister, when asked to comment on the bizarre opinions of his Liberal colleague, burbled on about democracy and free speech while waffling on the heart of the matter. Mercifully, or perhaps because it doesn't much matter, no one asked Jean Charest -- the (acting) Tory leader and the other half of the party in the House -- what he thought of his colleagues effusions on the subject. (Charest, believe it or not, had enjoyed a better week than Chretien, having been found right on the business of who owed how much to whom for federal referendum expenses in Quebec, plus a bonus by-election win in New Brunswick where he had spoken on the eve of balloting.) But his turn will come. In the fullness of time, there will be a more extended and rational debate in Parliament. Elsie Wayne is not the first authoritative voice to claim honorable members have more important business to attend than ensuring the preservation of a civil, tolerant society. The claim, of course, is always made these days in the name of extenuating circumstances, all of them having to do with debt and deficits. It would be nice to know that not all honorable members have been gulled into thinking nothing else matters but our alleged financial crisis. Surely, Parliament has no sterner duty than that of protecting the rights of Canadian citizens, especially minorities and others who are somehow different. Members of this House appear to have a problem protecting the public from the addled and uninformed opinion of some of their own. To set matters right, even if only in the context of the facts may require some political courage. Something a little more pro-active, shall we say, than that exampled by the Prime Minister. ------------------------------------------------------- Dalton Camp is a political commentator and broadcaster. His column normally appears Sunday and Wednesday in The Star. Sent via the FirstClass (R) UUCP Gateway from Galaxy Online Services (416) 515-2000 Support/(416) 515-2001 BBS/(416) 515-2020 Fax