# Homophobic Tory apologized for his remarks



## sgf (4 Apr 2008)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080403.wMPontape0403/BNStory/National/home



> OTTAWA AND TORONTO — Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski apologized Thursday after the Saskatchewan NDP released a 16-year-old videotape featuring him and a young Brad Wall that contains sexist, racist and homophobic comments.
> 
> The video was taped in 1991, inside the Progressive Conservative campaign headquarters of Grant Devine who was making an unsuccessful bid for re-election as Saskatchewan premier. It was released by the Saskatchewan NDP Thursday, after it was found in an office.
> 
> It features several shots of a young staff clowning around. In it Mr. Lukiwski tells the camera: “There's A's and there's B's. The A's are guys like me. The B's are homosexual faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases.”



Lukiwski appeared to be a  a smart man, too bad he clueless about video cameras...


----------



## GAP (4 Apr 2008)

If we all had to be jacked up for the young/dumb things we did 15-20 years ago when we were partying and showing off, this site would be sparsely populated....


----------



## MG34 (4 Apr 2008)

So one joke and he's a homophobe??? I guess most of the population in Canada are then.  :


----------



## midgetcop (4 Apr 2008)

I consider that qualifies as more than just a joke. Plus, I'm not sure where the humour lies in that comment.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Apr 2008)

Many of us criticize others for things we did 16 years ago. GAP is correct, as is MG34. This was a snippet of a video at a party by the look of it. 
A wise man once said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". It appears to me that the Opposition parties are attempting to make political hay over a 16 year old video tape. I wonder what video of who will pop up next?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2008)

Acts of desperation by the desperate opposition. Plain and simple.


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Apr 2008)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2008/04/03/lukiwski-video.html




> Lukiwski's derogatory comment is made early in the recording after the cameraman makes a comment about him being old.
> 
> "As we say on tour, I may be old but I'm fucking A," Lukiwski responds.
> 
> ...



This is not a joke. He went out of his way to bring up homosexuality. The way he describes homosexuals suggests he has (or at least had) a deep hatred for them. Anyone trying to excuse this away as a tasteless joke needs their head checked. What if he made an equally disturbing comment about race? Would people be saying "oh he was drinking at a party, no big deal"? If you're a politician, you have to be ready to have everything about you examined, especially your past. Unless this guy has had an epiphany in the last 16 years, he shouldn't be in office.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Apr 2008)

Kilo if any of us were held to account for stupid things we said when at a party or where ever none of us would have a job. The context of the times (1992) have to be kept in mind. Hind sight is 20/20.


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Apr 2008)

Luckily my job doesn't include representing Canadians in his riding (some of whom are probably homosexual), or holding a political office. Obviously we have all said stupid things at a party (or outside of parties on numerous occasions in my case). But read what he said closely. It doesn't seem like an offhand tasteless remark to me. Again, if he had a made a comment about a racial minority group, would we be so quick to use the "party" excuse? I am merely saying that serious questions should be asked as to whether or not he still feels that way.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Apr 2008)

I wonder how the Liberals or NDP would react if it were one of their members put under the microscope for something they said 16 years ago?
I can tell you right now, there would be a great deal of hand wringing, apologies and consternation over it. Then the inevidable question: Why are you making such a big deal of this,,,it was 16 years ago!!
This is ridiculous. He's apologized. Move on. It's done.


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Apr 2008)

Funny when I read his quote I think he is implying that he is gay

"As we say on tour, I may be old but I'm ******* A," Lukiwski responds.     <--- He says he is F*cking "A"

The camerman retorts: "And who is this A person?"   <--------   Who is A?

"Well let me put it to you this way. There's As and there's Bs. The As are guys like me. The Bs are homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases," Lukiwski says

A's are guys like him!  So essentially he is F*cking guys like himself, or in this case he has totally F*cked himself


----------



## midgetcop (4 Apr 2008)

That's funny. When I read that quote, it sounds like an incredibly offensive homophobic remark. 

I'm not speculating or commenting on Lukiwski's viewpoints now 16 years down the road. But just taking it as it was....yep, pretty brutal thing to say. I've told a few 'newfie' jokes in my day, but *please*. If this is the kind of banter that is still considered just a "joke" amongst the majority, then I'm extremely worried. 

Not to mention, these comments were made *at* campaign headquarters while knowingly being videotaped *and* in direct response to a comment made by the cameraman. He was general manager for the PC's at the time. We're not exactly talking about 18-year old frat boy talk at a kegger that's come back to haunt him. I don't feel sorry for him now that he has to answer for these comments. 

Either way, it's not like he got sacked. He's apologized, so fair enough. Let's move on...

**edited for spelling**


----------



## scoutfinch (4 Apr 2008)

C'mon people... get real.  I don't care when or why or how these comments were said.... they are offensive.  Even the guy who said it recognizes it and had the stones to make a pretty far reaching apology.  To post here and defend the making of these comments is asinine.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (4 Apr 2008)

It could be very easy to chalk this up as simply something stupid done when someone was "young and foolish" in a time when this was the norm.  But thinking back to the early 90's, if something similar had been said in public by a politician there would have have been a like uproar.  Seventeen years ago was not the "dark ages" and acceptable public behaviour did not include racist, homophobic or misogynist comments.  While the internet, cellular phone cameras and other technology that can almost instantly broadcast your most embarrassing moments worldwide were not there in the early 90's, more than one celebrity , politician, police department or military (can anyone say Somalia) had been embarrassed by video of compromising behaviour.

As well, what does such behaviour say about a man, who was then 39 or 40 years old, who, though not yet elected to office, had many years experience in the political arena.  It is said that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".  Obviously no one taught that old dog any usefull tricks, even when he was young.


----------



## Jed (4 Apr 2008)

Lighten up folks! No one condones the crass comments made by individuals many years ago during a party where, no doubt, a few wobbly pops were consumed. We, as a society, should be able to cut some slack to anyone who has some minor lapses in judgement. No need to turn something like this into some major drama.


----------



## Yrys (4 Apr 2008)

Jed said:
			
		

> Lighten up folks! No one condones the crass comments made by individuals many years ago during a party where, no doubt, a few wobbly pops were consumed. We, as a society, should be able to cut some slack to anyone who has some minor lapses in judgement. No need to turn something like this into some major drama.



Major drama would be picketing in front of his office or providing example of letter to send to him. Not there yet. People are just expressing theirs opinions 
of what that person said.

Since when alcohol can make it OK to be homophobic ? And since when being homophobic is a minor lapse in judgement ?  He make offensive ignorants comments 
(that's not a joke, some homophobic jokes are funny, that ain't fun, that is just plenty crass ignorant sh*t), in front of a camera, in a party headquarter, in an era ("90) at an age (past 40) when he knew better.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Apr 2008)

I guess I'm one of the politically incorrect then. I think its time to lock this up. Maybe if we drag a skeleton out of everyone's closet....and I'm sure that most of you have one or two that couldn't bear public scrutiny. 
He's apologised. Leave it at that.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (4 Apr 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> . . . Maybe if we drag a skeleton out of everyone's closet....and I'm sure that most of you have one or two that couldn't bear public scrutiny.  He's apologised. Leave it at that.



However, the difference is that he is not "everyone".  He is a politician by choice.  He sought and accepted nomination and campaigned for "public" office.  With that comes the expectation that everything he has done, is doing and will do in the future will be subject to public scrutiny.  I already judge all politicians as hypocrites.  It is the microscopic examination of their public lives (everything they do when there is anyone else around) that allows the electorate to judge the scale of their hypocrisy.


----------



## sgf (4 Apr 2008)

perhaps if this guy is truly repent, in addition to his apology, he could do a bit of work with the gay community or aids victims.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (4 Apr 2008)

Its offensive.
He said he is sorry.
If the voters want to turf him they should, but honestly he has shown himself to be (in this situation) an ignorant homophobic moron, he shouldnt be forced to resign or have legal things happen to him for god sakes!
Its not like he is the only person who says homophobic things, a lot of people can say homophobic things and not be homophobic, its part of the broader culture that makes it difficult to be gay.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-003-XIE/2008001/article/10532/findings-en.htm

As to if he is really homophobic, who knows.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Apr 2008)

Yes! In today's PC Culture it is offensive.  It was, however, almost two decades ago when the PC movement was no where what it is today.  It was at a social function that included alcohol, at a time before alcohol became tabu and no longer an excuse.  It was no doubt run through several digitalizers to upgrade the quality of the tape (Has anyone ever kept Video tapes at home, not properly stored, and had good quality video after ten years?) by an "Opposition Party" whose objective is questionable.  

I wonder what we would find on old tapes of NDP'ers out for a few ales, from two decades ago?

The man has apologized publicly.  The Gay and Lesbian Community has accepted his apology, but do not forgive him (as stated on the  CTV news by one of their representatives.)

Time to move on to our next Political Controversy.   :


----------



## sgf (4 Apr 2008)

Here's the thing, I dont think there is any time limit on bad behaviour  - 16 months, or 16 years.  If he is truly changed, I would like to know how he has since behaved towards Gay and Lesbian Canadians and what is his position on their legal rights.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Here's the thing, I dont think there is any time limit on bad behaviour  - 16 months, or 16 years.  If he is truly changed, I would like to know how he has since behaved towards Gay and Lesbian Canadians and what is his position on their legal rights.



Although I would like to think people will change over a decade or two, as I have witnessed on this site, some just never do.  You may have a point; and you may not.


----------



## Yrys (4 Apr 2008)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2008/04/04/tape-follow.html



> I was stupid, thougthless and insensitive.



Yes, he was. I however have to say that his apology is one of the best of these last few years.
He didn't hid in a coin, give a 5 minutes statement made by professional and recognise that
his comments were made (didn't try a they blink the tape).

I like his apology. didn't change my mind on his comments...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2008)

If the voters don't like him, or what he said, they'll have opportunity soon enough to vote him back in or turf him. 

The morally outraged had better take a long stare in the mirror before they presume to judge others.

If the opposition wants to set the campaign bar for the election by starting down low in the mud, they had better watch their step. It will come back and bite them in the ass.


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Apr 2008)

Homosexuality was still a condition for which you could be removed from service in the CF right up till 1991.  Perhaps all of us Neanderthals that served at that time as well as all those in government should publicly apologize for our implicit support of that directive.

Was it wrong of him to hold those views, sure it was and is, has he changed?  Surely that would be easy enough to confirm or deny.

The voters will have their say.

This brings me to a thought though.  Within our PC, white bread world where everyone knows and or understands that there are things that "you just shouldn't say" or beliefs that are too distasteful to voice we are allowing the homophobe, racist and biggot and chauvinist to exist, to hide beneath a PC veneer.

I know a guy who came back from Germany at the same time as I did.  When We got to pet we began to hang out a little, everything seemed fine.  then one day he's at my house for a coffee and he starts going on about "those people" and "nig-nogs" and all sorts of other racial slurs.  I was floored.  I kicked him out of my home and I've never spoken to him again.

The reason I tell this story is because had it not been for PC I would have known just what a piece of crap this guy was.  I and everyone else would have been able to ostracize and condemn him publicly and viscerally at every turn every time he opened his mouth and spouted his crap.

Instead we insist on politically correct speech, and like rats these people are able to live, some even thrive in the sewer just beyond our reach.



> “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Apr 2008)

We get closer to 1984 every day.


----------



## xo31@711ret (5 Apr 2008)

Well said Mike.


----------



## midgetcop (5 Apr 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Homosexuality was still a condition for which you could be removed from service in the CF right up till 1991.  Perhaps all of us Neanderthals that served at that time as well as all those in government should publicly apologize for our implicit support of that directive.



I'm sure gays in the military are simply happy to be able to fully and openly serve their country, unlike our U.S. counterparts.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Here's the thing, I dont think there is any time limit on bad behaviour  - 16 months, or 16 years.  .



Here's the thing,......your a moron. I was in big trouble 32 years ago and I guess your world I'm still a pathetic criminal.

No I'm sure you would forgive me since I'm not a card carrying Conservative. :


MOD PART OF POST:

Folks, don't let your political stripe make a complete idiot out of you. 
THAT GOES FOR EVERYONE!!!!


----------



## sgf (5 Apr 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Here's the thing,......your a moron. I was in big trouble 32 years ago and I guess your world I'm still a pathetic criminal.
> 
> No I'm sure you would forgive me since I'm not a card carrying Conservative. :
> 
> ...



I meant what I said about there is no time limit on bad behaviour, its all part of what makes a person. I certainly do realize that everyone has made bad mistakes, spoken out of turn, etc.. I also realize that people do change and learn from their mistakes. I am just really not buying that this guy has changed his feelings all that much. He certainly has said he was sorry, but I have to wonder if hes truly sorry or sorry that the tape came out. I would be more inclined to believe him if he would step up and do a bit of work with Aids Victims, donate some of his time and use his position to ensure that the message gets out that its not correct to call Gays a faggot. Frankly I could care less if hes a Lib or a Con, I would think the same of anyone in this position.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I meant what I said about there is no time limit on bad behaviour, its all part of what makes a person. I certainly do realize that everyone has made bad mistakes, spoken out of turn, etc.. I also realize that people do change and learn from their mistakes. I am just really not buying that this guy has changed his feelings all that much. He certainly has said he was sorry, but I have to wonder if hes truly sorry or sorry that the tape came out. I would be more inclined to believe him if he would step up and do a bit of work with Aids Victims, donate some of his time and use his position to ensure that the message gets out that its not correct to call Gays a faggot. Frankly I could care less if hes a Lib or a Con, I would think the same of anyone in this position.


Well, I for one, think he is sincere, and he needn't prove it further. I guess I just take people at face value till they prove otherwise.

Opinions are like assholes................


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Frankly I could care less if hes a Lib or a Con, I would think the same of anyone in this position.



Bullshit,.....if this was a Liberal or an NDP instead of a Conservative this whole thread would have the exact same posts, the only difference would be whom was posting them. 

Its no wonder we send mindless plonkers to Ottawa, they just evolve from the mindless wannabe plonkers whom post in threads like this.

Ya know, I'm starting to think most of those whom only post in the political parts of this forum would have followed Hitler had he been "their" party leader.
Sad.


----------



## sgf (5 Apr 2008)

One thing that I do agree with is this



> MOD PART OF POST:
> 
> Folks, don't let your political stripe make a complete idiot out of you.
> THAT GOES FOR EVERYONE!!!!


----------



## Armymedic (5 Apr 2008)

One thing the media and population forget is how people grow and opinions change as time goes on.

Let me see, what did I believe in 1991?
-Women had no place in the Cbt Arms and,
-Gays have no place in our military....

But times have changed, my opinions and beliefs with them to the point where I think that what I used to believe 15-20 years ago were not correct to the point of idiocy.

That video was a grand attempt to brand certian politicians. Too bad for those lower life forms who made it public, the effects will not last until the next election.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> One thing that I do agree with is this



Then let's pay attention to it shall we?


----------



## midgetcop (5 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Opinions are like assholes................



DAMN those people on forums that have opinions...


----------



## Flip (5 Apr 2008)

There is no condoning the MP's words........however, 

If the tape had quietly stayed on the shelf, who would be offended?

The words are offensive, so we broadcast them far and wide and make sure we are all offended by them?

In a sense the NDP have employed a double standard. Their motive was of course to embarrass the government. Maybe the MP doesn't get re-elected. Maybe he shouldn't.
But, trotting crap out of the past to offend everyone with, does nothing at all to further the values they are trying to defend. As such, my frail sensibilities were offended by the actions of the NDP.  That they made a stooge out of a Conservative was no great thing.

Just a thought....


----------



## midgetcop (5 Apr 2008)

Ultimately it will backfire on the opposition if they keep pushing for his resignation, and constantly harping about it in the Commons. It will become more and more obvious that this whole hoopla was never about concern for gays and lesbians, and more about gaining cheap political points. How can anyone be sure what prejudices lay in the hearts and minds of any politician, really? Isn't it perfectly possible for a politician to pretend to be sympathetic cause, just for the sake of gaining votes (this is a question that doesn't even *need* to be answered)?

The apology has been given, and if he decides to do anything further to show his change of heart, that should be his decision and he shouldn't be forced into anything to save face. It should be genuine, or else it's a useless gesture. 

Beyond that, I say that Ottawa should return to business as usual (if they ever really do it in the first place, instead of useless bickering).


----------



## sgf (5 Apr 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> There is no condoning the MP's words........however,
> 
> If the tape had quietly stayed on the shelf, who would be offended?
> 
> ...



but the NDP could have saved this tape until the middle of an election.. and didnt.


----------



## Flip (5 Apr 2008)

Midge,


> It will become more and more obvious that this whole hoopla was never about concern for gays and lesbians, and more about gaining cheap political points.


Exactly! Thankyou for making my point.
What the opposition are doing is exploitive and insulting.

It's no great revelation that you can catch a guy on tape at a moment when he wasn't thinking.  It seems pretty clear that he had not thought out what he was saying.
He hasn't been given a chance ( by the NDP ) to reconsider his position.
At the time he didn't hold office and perhaps didn't foresee that he would.
Do we judge a man by the current content of his character or by what evidence is left laying around?

I seem to recall someone saying on the news something to the effect that 
"this is the kind of people that the conservatives are".
They are creating the one kind of prejudice by protesting another.

A double standard and an indignity to all.


----------



## armyvern (5 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> but the NDP could have saved this tape until the middle of an election.. and didnt.



Perhaps they need to do it -- in an attempt to first _cause_ an election?  

They're _are_ grasping at anything these days, so that would certainly _not_ be unheard of (as in _that's_ politics) ...


----------



## Flip (5 Apr 2008)

> but the NDP could have saved this tape until the middle of an election.. and didnt.



This brings me to another point.......

When did this tape show up? And how?
What are the rules for presenting "evidence" like this?
Sitting on the tape until an election could be construed as un-ethical.

Just another thought...


----------



## midgetcop (5 Apr 2008)

It was found in an old cardboard box, along with the Belinda & Peter sex tape.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> but the NDP could have saved this tape until the middle of an election.. and didnt.



But then it would have been looked at for exactly what it is. Muckracking. It would have lost all value, except to the most shallow of voters (yeah, there's lots out there). This likely won't be the last we see. Laying the groundwork for a constant barrage of minuscule faux pas is more likely. In this case, and others sure to come, it's not about content. It's about keeping a parties name in the MSM with 'oh, look how unsuitable to govern, and 'another scandal has just broken'. It keeps the instigators, and their lame politics, off the front page and gets pseudo voters to go 'Geez, not again'

And these, will be the first ones to try and take the moral high ground by complaining about dirty politics and attack ads when something breaks about them.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (5 Apr 2008)

> This brings me to a thought though.  Within our PC, white bread world where everyone knows and or understands that there are things that "you just shouldn't say" or beliefs that are too distasteful to voice we are allowing the homophobe, racist and biggot and chauvinist to exist, to hide beneath a PC veneer.



So true. A lot of people I thought were fine have shown there true colours when there was only men, white people, or people they assumed were hetrosexual were around.



> if this was a Liberal or an NDP instead of a Conservative this whole thread would have the exact same posts, the only difference would be whom was posting them.



There are def homophobes in the NDP, Bloc and the Liberal Party. From my experince I feel there are (and I say this as a Conservative supporter and someone who doesnt know if the person who spoke is or was homophobic) probably more homophobes in the CPC. Dont worry though, there is a log cabin type LGBTQ CPC group coming out soon (not that the gay cabinet member will come out even though its an open secret in ottawa). 
But yeah, whenever I tell my LGBTQ friends im voting CPC they dont get me. None of the LGBTQ people I know in real life vote CPC (I know a few online).
Its my mission to get it to the point where gays dont think twice about supporting the CPC and a CPC tent at pride in Toronto would not cause waves. Its going to take about 10 years I think......


----------



## midgetcop (5 Apr 2008)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> But yeah, whenever I tell my LGBTQ friends im voting CPC they dont get me. None of the LGBTQ people I know in real life vote CPC (I know a few online).
> Its my mission to get it to the point where gays dont think twice about supporting the CPC and a CPC tent at pride in Toronto would not cause waves. Its going to take about 10 years I think......



It will take some time...actually, probably a *lot* of time before the gay community feels that the Conservatives genuinely accept and support their causes. I'm sure that this incident doesn't help them any, and I bet that's exactly what the NDP was gunning for.


----------



## sgf (5 Apr 2008)

I just read the following article

http://www.eastottawa.ca/article-cp43654024-Tory-MP-feared-gay-marriage-would-mean-adverse-social-change-polygamy.html



> OTTAWA - Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski says the toxic anti-gay comments he made 17 years ago weren't really his views, but he warned less than three years ago that same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy and social decline.
> "I firmly believe that by passing this legislation, we start on a very slippery slope which could affect societal change in a very adverse way," he told the House of Commons on June 28, 2005.
> It was the last passionate moment of debate on a landmark bill that would see Canada become one of the first countries in the world to legalize gay weddings.
> "I see things that have been expressed before that could come down the pike, things like polygamy and others, while hiding behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Lukiwski is recorded as saying in the official Hansard transcript. "I am fearful that societal change could happen."
> ...



These remarks were made three years ago

The following remarks were also made by Lukiwski



> Lukiwski was one of the very last MPs to speak on the landmark bill to legalize same-sex marriage. He was among many Conservative and Liberal MPs who spoke, at times vehemently, against the move. But he went farther than most.
> He concluded by pointing a rhetorical finger at those MPs whose support would allow the bill to pass moments later.
> "Let that be on their heads, not anyone else's head," he said. "It is the members opposite who made that choice and shame on them."
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2008)

To many, and for many, he voiced what are considered genuine concerns. Not everyone was (is) for gay marriage. That is his, and many others, opinion, and he shouldn't be chastised for it. It doesn't necessarily connect to his previous statement through a core belief. Just because the bill passed, doesn't mean everyone HAS to accept it as morally right, and not agreeing with it doesn't make someone a homophobic monster, not fit to live in Canada.

They're really starting to stretch this story, and I think it's already losing steam, hence the reach of the supposed journalists quoted.


----------



## armyvern (5 Apr 2008)

sgf,

Since when does concerns about societal change (expressed by MANY Canadians during that debate I'd point out) = strict homophobia?

After all,

Liberal Comuzzi the minister of state for economic development in Northern Ontario resigned from cabinet so he could vote against it. Is he therefore homophobic?

What about these ones?

Party                For                 Against             Absentees            Total*

Liberals             95                      *32*                        4                   131
Conservatives      3                      *93 *                       2                    98
Bloc                  43                       *5 *                        6                    54
NDP                  17                       * 1*                        1                    19 
Independents      0                        * 2 *                        2                     4

Surely 133 (& 32 Liberals) of them aren't simply homophobics?

Being that Prime Minister Martin made it a free vote for back-benchers, yet felt it necessary to put his cabinet ministers under order to vote "for" same-sex marriage ... apparently more than a few citizens (and Liberals) had concerns with it. That doesn't make them homophobic.


*http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/same-sex-marriage-canada


----------



## midgetcop (5 Apr 2008)

Oy, let's please *not* let this turn into a thread about gay marriage. I'm sure this road is already well traveled on these forums.


----------



## armyvern (5 Apr 2008)

the_midge said:
			
		

> Oy, let's please *not* let this turn into a thread about gay marriage. I'm sure this road is already well traveled on these forums.



Just pointing out her erroneous linking of the Gay marriage debate and one's concerns with that particular issue (and their vote) to EQUALS homophobic.


----------



## midgetcop (5 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Just pointing out her erroneous linking of the Gay marriage debate and one's concerns with that particular issue (and their vote) to EQUALS homophobic.



Understood. Just didn't want this to go any further than it already has....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2008)

Back inside page of today's (here) paper. The story is dead.


----------



## Gimpy (5 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Back inside page of today's (here) paper. The story is dead.



Is it really? I highly doubt it when one of, if not, the largest conservative-leaning papers in the country (Toronto Sun) has 3/4 of a page for the story within the first 10 pages. It might also help people if you actually told us where "here" is because there is no paper called " The Here 'Sun/Star/Post' " in Canada.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Is it really? I highly doubt it when one of, if not, the largest conservative-leaning papers in the country (Toronto Sun) has 3/4 of a page for the story within the first 10 pages. It might also help people if you actually told us where "here" is because there is no paper called " The Here 'Sun/Star/Post' " in Canada.



Here = One of Izzy Asper's Canwest Global papers. The world knows of his vehement support to the Liberals, including firing editors of local papers that question people like Chretien

Being carried in the Tor Sun makes sense being produced in the Liberal Centre of the Universe., and *I* certainly wouldn't classify them as a conservative leaning paper.


perhaps to mollify the critics I should have stated 'I think the story is dead here', and this area hates conservatives.


----------



## Gimpy (5 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Here = One of Izzy Asper's Canwest Global papers. The world knows of his vehement support to the Liberals, including firing editors of local papers that question people like Chretien
> 
> Being carried in the Tor Sun makes sense being produced in the Liberal Centre of the Universe., and *I* certainly wouldn't classify them as a conservative leaning paper.



Would you not classify a conservative paper as one when they print a headline "Joe Blows" after Joe Clark said he would support the Liberal Party over the newly founded CPC? How about extensively criticizing the Liberals over the Sponsorship scandal while the Star did nothing at all? Don't let your disdain of Toronto get in the way of the facts. The Toronto Sun is a conservative paper, if you read it everyday (which I do) you might come to realize just how conservative it is.

And did I miss something or is Izzy Asper overseeing the printing of these papers from his grave? I really don't think Izzy Asper has any issues or knows anything about the  current conservative government because he died 2 and a half years before they were elected so its a moot point.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2008)

The legacy lives! Potatoes, tomatoes. Matter of opinion. Cherry picked articles for obviously, and deserved unmissable targets don't sway mine. I don't read it every day because of their stance to some issues near and dear to me are opposite of my personal beliefs. 

However, enough of the hijack.


----------



## stegner (6 Apr 2008)

Saw CTV Question Period today. This issue is by no means dead when the premiere Canadian sunday political show talks about it. 

[urlhttp://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080406/politics_poll_080406/20080406?hub=QPeriod[/url]   

I found it ironic that that the Conservatives sent Jay Hill to the show considering that he was accused of making a racist comment about Nova Scotia MP Gordon Earle back in 1999 when he was with the Reform Party.

It is interesting that Brad Wall's anti-Ukranian comments in the video have not received nearly as much publicity.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2008)

Really, the only reason this story has "legs" is the MSM and opposition parties want to try and stick the CPC with something, anything in the way of a scandal.

If they can go back 16 years to find a videotape of a person who was then a private citizen, I wonder why they can't seem to investigate where the $40 million unaccounted for ADSCAM dollars went, or who really owns that hotel and golf course in Shawinigan, or who leaked the information about Trust Funds in 2005? You know, *real* scandals with *real* financial consequences to taxpaying Canadians........


----------



## sgf (7 Apr 2008)

I would hazard a guess that being subjected to the verbal abuse from Lukiwski is scandalous  and hurtful to a lot of Canadians.  There is also a financial concern, in the areas of SSM, regarding pension and health benefits. It may be small potatoes to a lot of people but there is a real concern.


----------



## stegner (7 Apr 2008)

Luikiwiski was not a private citizen.  Saskatchewan tax dollars paid his salary at that time because he worked for a party which receives its funding from the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.  I guess we can consider this a scandal now because money was misused.  Apparently for some anything that does not involve money is not a real scandal :

The funny thing about the sponsorship scandal is that the actual amount of money missing was far less than 40 and that the Gomery Commission cost way more than that.   You state some pretty obvious Liberal scandals that have already been beaten to death on this site in numerous threads and have amounted in no criminal charges for any Liberal politician.   Let's not make this another one of those threads.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (7 Apr 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I guess we can consider this a scandal now because money was misused.  Apparently for some anything that does not involve money is not a real scandal :



I wouldn't call this a scandal, I'd go ahead and call it human. I'm sure that just about everybody on here, myself included, has said some things they they would normally not say when either joking around with friends or drinking, or both. Jokes are a part of human nature, not scandalous behavior. Anybody who has heard Mr.Lulkiwiski's apology could probably see that it was heartfelt, and he felt genuinely ashamed of his twenty-year-old remarks said in jest in a private party (that's a party with balloons, not politics).

Humans say things. Humans say mean things from time to time. Humans do not always mean what they say.

Midget


----------



## stegner (7 Apr 2008)

I can agree to some degree.  Though drunk or not these comments represent some underlying belief and go further than the average drunken your momma comment.  Drunkenness is not an excuse for racism or those kind of comments.   What should be kept in mind is that these comments were made in a public place: the Saskatchewan Legislature.   I suspect that any young private saying something like this in view of the public would be punished.  Heck were some recruit to say something like this in the CF interview process  his/her application will be rejected.    I am by no means pro gay marriage, but I believe that fundamentally humans must respect one another.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Apr 2008)

It.....was......16......years.......ago!!!!!!!

Do we have to dredge up all the nasty things said, by ALL, politicians for the last 16 years? If we did, I'm sure we could find a lot worse, from all parties, that would make this look like the simple mistake it was. No one is defending him, he made a mistake, when times were different, he's apologized. Let it go already.

If people insist on blowing this out of proportion, wait until the NDP or liberals get caught. They'll get it back in spades. People in glass houses and all that.

The persistence in this is becoming childish.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (7 Apr 2008)

> I suspect that any young private saying something like this in view of the public would be punished.  Heck were some recruit to say something like this in the CF interview process  his/her application will be rejected.



True enough, but to keep with the new recruit analogy, and sticking my devil's advocate hat on, imagine this scenario:

 Two good friends are sitting in a waiting room after an interview by a gay soldier. After the interview is complete, one friend says in jest to the other _"Man, what a fa***t."_

  Twenty years passes and the recruit who made the comment leads a very successful and very respectful career. The recruit, who has now become a RSM has made an enemy or two over the years, and there are some who have a grudge to dig at.

  After digging through endless security tapes from when the RSM was beginning his career, or just accidentally falling upon it, one of these disgruntled people finds a tape in which the RSM calls whomever is doing the interview a 'fa***t.' 

  This tape is brought to the Regiment's Commanding Officer, who after viewing knows full well that it is an attempt to blacken the image of this very respectful RSM by a disgruntled individual. What action, if any, should the CO take?


Well, that's about enough 'what if' for me. I've already stated my opinion on the matter: He was a human then, and still is. He made a very humane apology, and remains to be human.    

Midget


----------



## stegner (7 Apr 2008)

Uncle midget boyd. Good point.   Though, the CO should ask the RSM to apologize to the soldier he disparaged, if going along with your analogy, they know who the person was.  Never hurts to apologize even 16 years later.   There is no statute of limitations on good manners.


----------



## sgf (7 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It.....was......16......years.......ago!!!!!!!
> 
> Do we have to dredge up all the nasty things said, by ALL, politicians for the last 16 years? If we did, I'm sure we could find a lot worse, from all parties, that would make this look like the simple mistake it was. No one is defending him, he made a mistake, when times were different, he's apologized. Let it go already.
> 
> ...



Actually just three short years ago Lukiwski said this:



> Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski says the toxic anti-gay comments he made 17 years ago weren't really his views, but he warned less than three years ago that same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy and social decline.
> "I firmly believe that by passing this legislation, we start on a very slippery slope which could affect societal change in a very adverse way," he told the House of Commons on June 28, 2005.



Those comments, combined with the taped comments lead me to believe he hasnt changed that much.


----------



## Trinity (7 Apr 2008)

> Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski says the toxic anti-gay comments he made 17 years ago weren't really his views, but he warned less than three years ago that same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy and social decline.
> "I firmly believe that by passing this legislation, we start on a very slippery slope which could affect societal change in a very adverse way," he told the House of Commons on June 28, 2005.





			
				sgf said:
			
		

> Actually just three short years ago Lukiwski said this:
> 
> Those comments, combined with the taped comments lead me to believe he hasnt changed that much.



He's not *equating  *gays and lesbians to Polygamy and social decline.  *I Believe he's saying* if we allow (same sex) marriage for one special interest group
then there is nothing stopping  *other *special interest groups which may have questionable moral character to ask for the same.  If we make allowances
for one we might be stuck to make allowances for others.

There is nothing homophobic about his remark.  Nothing says anti gay.  As pointed out by someone else, many MP's voted against it on both sides.  I'm sure this was a serious concearn
at the time.

edit: lack of clear thought whilst typing


----------



## sgf (7 Apr 2008)

All good point, however I disagree! Now if this guy would do some work with the gay community, attend a few gay parades, volunteer to work with Aids victims, I may be more inclined to buy into his apology.


----------



## Trinity (7 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> All good point, however I disagree! Now if this guy would do some work with the gay community, attend a few gay parades, volunteer to work with Aids victims, I may be more inclined to buy into his apology.



To be honest, I don't think he cares to sell this apology to you, or me or to others.

Honestly, think about it.  If he does do what you suggest, would you honestly believe he has changed his mind or would this
just be a stunt to pretend he's reformed?  Most people would call it a media/political stunt. 

It's a no win situation whether he does or doesn't make a show of apology.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (7 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Now if this guy would do some work with the gay community, attend a few gay parades, volunteer to work with Aids victims, I may be more inclined to buy into his apology.



To me this seems like that would be nothing more than one of those:   "I'm not a racist, because I have black friends." comments.
He made a very heartfelt apology, and I believe this should (of course I know it won't) blow away to nothing, like a fart in a tornado, so the politicians can get back to... well ... find something else to throw mud with, as that seems to be the norm lately. 

Midget


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Actually just three short years ago Lukiwski said this:
> 
> "I firmly believe that by passing this legislation, we start on a very slippery slope which could affect societal change in a very adverse way," he told the House of Commons on June 28, 2005.
> 
> Those comments, combined with the taped comments lead me to believe he hasnt changed that much.



So what?? We already covered the SSM issue, and it has no bearing on the issue at hand. Just because it passed Parliament doesn't mean everyone agrees with it, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's not against the law, and it isn't hate speech just because you don't like what he and others are saying. What if I don't like it either. What if I think it's wrong. Too bad. My opinion

You don't have an argument here with it. It's a straw man, and you can't keep trying to steer the thread off base with it. Quit trying to bring it up as something relevent and germain to the discussion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> All good point, however I disagree! Now if this guy would do some work with the gay community, attend a few gay parades, volunteer to work with Aids victims, I may be more inclined to buy into his apology.



You're just regurgitating what you've already opined about. You're starting to sound like the kid that thinks that if he screams loud & long enough, people will give in. You're going in circles with the same tired stuff and nothing new to debate.

If he did as you suggest, you'd likely come back saying it was a stunt. I know your stripe and I don't buy your neutrality in this.

The repetition is no longer thought provoking, but mind numbing and boring.


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Apr 2008)

If you care what the guy said, don't vote for him.  

I applaud him for speaking his mind. I applaud him for being unambiguous in his views.  I applaud him for telling it like he thinks it is so that I can decide based on his real, honest and true feelings on the subject whether _*I *_will ever vote for the man. 

Man, I wonder just how many homophobes remain hidden in the closet.   I also wonder what John Baird thinks of his colleague.  ^-^


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Apr 2008)

And with that folks,

I shall lock this.

If anyone has anything of relevance, by all means PM a moderator and we shall reopen the thread

dileas

tess

army.ca staff


----------

