Clarifications by My MP Regarding Bill C-415p

The following is a summary of an in-office discussion I had with my local MP Beth Phinney who is the Liberal MP for Hamilton Mountain Riding.

Dear Beth:

Thank you for agreeing to sit and meet with my colleague and I on September 19th 2002 during which we discussed same-sex unions and Bill C-415. The specific purpose of this letter is to summarize our discussion on Bill C-415.

We did confirm that the Bill reads as follows:

“Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows : 1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following: (4) In this section “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

We did acknowledge that Svend Robinson’s rationale for presenting this Bill was as described in his correspondence to me September 11, 2002 which stated :

“My bill is intended to protect those targeted for their sexual orientation from hate propaganda. For example, an American named Fred Phelps runs a web-site called which is full of virulently hateful material. This web-site contains, among other things, an image of a young man named Matthew Sheppard burning in hell, and announcing the number of days he is supposed to have been in hell since his brutal murder in 1998. Matthew Sheppard was beaten, tortured, and left to die on a fence in Wyoming, because he was gay."

Following this ground work I asked for clarification in 2 areas:

1. What is the definition of sexual orientation?
2. What is the definition of hate propaganda?

With regard to sexual orientation I posed the following question:

Does sexual orientation include heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, trisexual, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, sadomasochism etc.?

It was disturbing to hear you confirm that all of these sexual behaviors would be included under the category of sexual orientation.

With regard to hate propaganda I offered many different scenarios starting at a low level and working my way up, asking you to indicate when I had reached what might be considered hate propaganda. I was not at all impressed by your immediate decline to participate in the exercise. You stated that you were just there to listen.

I continued to offer the scenarios as follows:

Does hate propaganda include:

1. holding a different point of view?
2. expressing a different point of view?
3. writing a different point of view?
4. publishing a different point of view?
5. broadcasting a different point of vie?w
6. a parent teaching his children that homosexuality is sexually deviant?
7. a parent forbidding a school to teach their child that homosexuality is normal and\or acceptable?
8. having the knowledge that homosexual activity is destructive?
9. equipping others of this same knowledge?
10. publishing this factual information in a newspaper, book or on a website?
11. a printer refusing to produce letterhead for an agency whose mandate is to produce propaganda which promotes homosexuality as something which is good and something to be proud of?
12. a pastor who preaches the Biblical truth that homosexuality is an abomination to God?

I again asked you to identify which of the above is hate propaganda? You sat silently.

As you will recall Beth, I then posed the following question:

How about the Laboratory Centre for Disease control which published that 83% of all reported male HIV/AIDS cases in Canada were attributed to only 2% of the male population. Which 2 %? Males who participate in homosexual/bisexual activities? The fact is that the incidence rate of HIV/AIDS in homosexual/bisexual males is 814 times greater than heterosexual males.

I then asked:

Is the CDC guilty of hate propaganda for publishing this factual evidence?

Once again you refused to respond.

I then took the scenario one step further and asked:

Is instructing others in this knowledge deemed hate propaganda?

Once again you refused to respond.

I then made the following statement as you sat politically silent:

What is truly cruel and hateful is concealing the truth about the destructiveness of homosexuality while promoting it to children as good, normal and healthy. That is a lie and the most vicious hate propaganda I can imagine.

Lastly, I brought up the issue of the Canadian Blood Services questionnaire and question 16 which asks;

16. Male donors: Have you had sex with a man even once since 1977?

I stated the fact that if the male answers yes he is rejected as a donor and then posed the following question:

Does this questionnaire represent hate propaganda against the male or would accepting his blood be hateful toward the recipient of that blood?

Finally you responded by stating,

It would not be hateful provided it was asked in secret!

In summary, in your opinion it is acceptable to have accurate knowledge of the high risks involved in various sexual oriented behaviors provided it was kept secret and not shared with others. You went on to state that it is acceptable to understand the related health risks but it would be unacceptable to declare any of them as wrong behaviors.

In closing, according to your own statements it would be acceptable for me to understand the high cost of adult to consenting child sex but it would not be acceptable to tell others or publicly declare that the sexual orientation of pedophilia is wrong. To take this one step further, could day care centers be forced to hire their quota of pedophiles or face criminal charges for their hatred?

Bill C-415 has the very real potential to make a strong case for public endorsement and public embracing of all sexual deviants by putting their feelings above the well being of the public at large. Let us not quickly forget the tainted blood scandal.

I urge you once again to seriously consider the very real implications of Bill C-415 and to point out these implications to your fellow MP’s.

Jim Enos
Chair, Healthy Living Committee
Vice-President
Hamilton-Wentworth Family Action Council
905-383-2282
enosjim@yahoo.com