The recently released annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission would lead one to believe that this supposedly non-partisan government organization favors efforts by homosexual activists to redefine what the word “family” means. The report also makes it clear that the Human Rights Commission is opposed to any foreign government regulations that would require tourists to prove they are free of AIDS before being allowed to enter a country. The commission, which deals with cases of discrimination on a wide variety of grounds, cost the taxpayers of Canada over 13 million dollars in 1989.

In its annual report for 1988, the Commission stated that it would like to see discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation prohibited across Canada, not just in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the Yukon. In this year’s report, a homosexual union was described as a “familial relationship” as well as “stable and mutually supportive.” The reference concerned the Mossop Case, whereby a homosexual man successfully appealed to the Commission, stating he’d been discriminated against because he had been denied bereavement leave to attend the funeral of his homosexual lover’s father.

In a special section dealing with AIDS, the Commission stated that it “does not countenance any form of discrimination against people who are HIV positive or suffering from AIDS.” As reported above, this includes those AIDS sufferers who might travel to foreign countries and spread the dreaded disease. The Commission voiced its agreement with a statement from the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and the Law which called restrictions on AIDS carriers traveling to foreign countries “justifiable” and evidence of “wrongful discrimination.” This seemed surprising considering the fact that a homosexual Canadian, Gaetan Dugas, is widely believed to have been chiefly responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States during the earliest phase of the epidemic in that country. Although repeatedly warned that he was most likely infecting other homosexuals, Mr. Dugas remained sexually active even after his disease was far advanced.

On a more positive note, the membership of the CS Group of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPS) rejected by a 2-1 margin any future attempt by homosexuals to broaden the meaning of the expression “common-law spouse” to include homosexual partners. The CS Group includes all computer programmers and systems analysts employed by the federal government. Contacted by The Interim, a member of the CS executive said that certain CS Group members had requested the broadening of the meaning of spouse in the light of the Mossop Case cited above. According to the source, putting the question to the general union membership, which would in all likelihood reject it, would serve to strengthen the position of those who hold pro-family values.

Homosexuals living in the nation’s capital received support from Ottawa City Council who voted 9-6 to proclaim June 17th, Lesbian and Gay Pride Day. Most city aldermen were apparently unaware when they voted for the special day that June 17th is also Father’s Day. The request for the day was presented to council by Alderman Diane Holmes, a feminist of the same stamp as former mayor and defeated NDP federal MP Marion Dewar. When contacted by the Ottawa Citizen, Dewar said she would have approved of council’s action if she’d still been in office.

Public reaction to the city’s decision to sanction and promote homosexuality in the nation’s capital was largely negative. According to the Ottawa Citizen, an overwhelming number of callers who phoned their aldermen were opposed to the idea.

Ironically, in the past, pro-life requests for special recognition have been turned down. In 1986, Action Life was refused a request for the City of Ottawa to recognize Respect for Life Week. According to a report published in the Ottawa Citizen, the group was turned down because it was judged to be too “divisive” and “controversial.”