The coming election in Ontario affords the voter the opportunity to rate the moral character of the government and opposing parties.  Shall we, in Ontario, continue to apologize to our friends, neighbours and co-workers for speaking up as the voice of reason?  Is there any need to apologize for rebuking the legislative nonsense going on around us?  Do right and wrong exist or have we truly fallen captive to the purveyors of “Human Rights” and “Equality?”  Should we not be able to expect a better understanding on the part of politicians for the virtues of a moral society?  Or must we be satisfied with a government that will lead us into a moral wasteland?

Without significant opposition in the Legislature, the homosexual rights lobby has managed to legislate special privileges for its practitioners.  It appear that such legislation was but the first step in campaign to make homosexual rights an acceptable alternative.

Bill 7, prohibiting discrimination in housing, services and employment on the basis of “Sexual orientation,” was introduced by the NDP and passed with the cooperation of the Liberals.  Those who expressed their concern in countless telegrams, letters and phone calls, which flooded Queen’s Park, were ignored by the Peterson government.  In recent weeks rumours that a Liberal cabinet Minister is an active homosexual, have finally come to light in the legislature and area newspapers.  If these rumours are indeed true, they may indicate a conflict-of-interest on the part of the Minister involved.

Political homosexualism

We may soon lose the right to speak against the unnatural practice of sodomy, for the word is out that Attorney General Ian Scott is quietly reworking existing guidelines for hate literature, in order to include anti-homosexual material.  The end result would be a muzzling of any opposition to “political homosexualism,” which today is decidedly at the left-liberal end of the spectrum.

Father Albert Lalonde, then editor of the Catholic magazine, Our Family, has already been labeled a “purveyor of hate literature,” by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for an article he published.  IN a letter of April 23, 1986, the Commission stated that “A Psychoanalytic Look at Homosexuality and AIDS,” by noted psychoanalyst Dr. Melvin Anchell, depicted “gay people, and people physically disabled by AIDS, in hateful terms and in ways calculated to arouse in the reader feelings of revulsion and disgust.

Shortly after Bill 7 became law in Ontario, gay rights literature announced that legalization of homosexual marriage was the next item on their agenda.

At present, Canada’s largest union CUPE, has gone before the courts to force OHIP to treat homosexual couples as “families.”  Toronto library worker, Karen Andrews, 27, is a lesbian seeking family OHIP overage for her female partner and two children.  Ontario Ombudsman Daniel Hill has supported Ms. Andrews’ case in stating that non-traditional families should have the same OHIP rates as heterosexual couples.  In response to Mr. Hill, Health Minister Murray Elston stated: “At this point we do not agree with his recommendations.”  Frankly, Mr. Elston’s opinion may not carry much weight.  With passage of Bill 7, Ms. Andrews may have the law (or the courts) on her side.  Should Ms. Andrews win her case, legalization of homosexual marriage is just around the corner.  The battle to redefine the family is underway.

Passage of Pay Equity (Bill 154) or Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value, in June of this year, was another triumph for Ian Scott.  As the Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues (perhaps more correctly “Feminist Issues”), Mr. Scott remarked upon passage of the Pay Equity Act that: “If there was ever a day that separated our generation of Ontario from the generations that have gone before us, it is this day.  It is here today that we will be passing pay equity…”  Yes, June 15 will indeed be a day recorded in the annals of infamy.

In their eagerness to placate feminist lobby groups, the Liberals again in co-operation with the NDP rationalized the need for Pay Equity.  There is a world of difference between Pay Equity and Equal Work for Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value.  The key to understanding this concept lies in the phrase “equal value.”

Essentially, government evaluators will have to set up a point system in order to “rate” jobs, while ignoring all marketplace factors in doing so.  The subjectivity of the evaluator is one hazard within the system.  For example, a feminist evaluator, looking at the “mental demands” of various jobs came up with the following rating: a nurse was awarded 122 points; an electrician 30 points; and a truck driver scored only 10 points.  Would the electrician and truck driver agree with such an assessment?

Critics of pay discrimination argue the Pay Equity is a red-tape nightmare and would result in job losses for women.  With the wages of their female employees artificially over-priced by pay equity, businesses would have the option of (1) going out of business; (2) subcontracting; (3) layoffs; or (4) automation.  The overall effect would be increased unemployment and that is something Ontario does not need!

Pay equity is a form of wage control, manipulated by government.  It seems ironic that the Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues is setting up a system which will discriminate against women and at the same time, flood the unemployment lines.  Seems like killing two birds with one stone, doesn’t it?  All this to end the wage discrimination suffered by women.  Proponents of Pay Equity constantly tell us that women earn 64 cents for every $1.00 earned by men.  A 1982, Statistics Canada report reveals that when single university-educated men and women are compared, the women earn 91.3 per cent of their male counterparts.  StatsCan is comparing oranges with oranges, if you will.  Feminist statistics on this subject usually compare oranges with apples, in order to manipulate the statistics in their favour.

So, where is this enormous wage gap?  Pay Equity is a dangerous solution to non-existent problem.  Feminists lobbied long and hard for Bill 154.  They also lobbied for easy divorce legislation.  Only now, are they acknowledging that women are paying the price for the easy road to the divorce courts  Will they wake up  – too late – to find the same scenario in Pay Equity.

As Ontario goes to the polls on September 10, the choice of a candidate will be a difficult one.  None of the three major parties has demonstrated a strong pro-life stand.  The Liberals have chosen to protect Henry Morgentaler and friends.  The NDP and Liberals have promoted and legislated special rights for homosexuals and lesbians.  Only the Conservative members opposed Bill 7, en masse.  Pay Equity is the haunting legacy which Mr. Peterson leaves us.

When will the voice of reason be heard in the halls of government?  Who will speak for a disenfranchised people?  When election is upon us, we shall remember Morgentaler and Scott clinics, the flaunting of homosexual rights and the coming nightmare of Pay Equity.

For those fortunate enough to have a pro-family, pro-life candidate in their riding, the choice is easy.  The rest of us have no choice.  Then September 10 arrives, choose carefully – and with a thought to the future.