“It is a marvelous day for gay,” explained George Hislop, founder of a 100-member homosexual business-owners’ group in Toronto, in the Toronto Sun on May 6. He had just been told that the Justice Committee of The Ontario legislature (with a vote of eight to two) had recommended placing “sexual orientation” under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

If the Committee’s recommendation passed by the Legislature, homosexual activity will be recognized by law as perfectly normal and acceptable.

Homosexuals will have the right to sue any individual, business, or organization (including Church institutions), which reject their way of life and refuse them accommodation or employment.

Since the summer of 1985, The Interim has attempted to point out the fallacy in the so-called “discrimination against sexual orientation” argument. Many people still do not understand that “orientation” is directly connected to “activity” and do not realize that objecting to homosexual activity in principle is very different from attacking an individual. To ask for legal and political protection of “sexual orientation” is, quite simply, seeking special protection for the “gay lifestyle,” over and beyond the legal rights accorded to all citizens under existing laws.


Over the last two decades, “gay” militants have conducted a systematic campaign to convince the public that their “lifestyle” is as natural as the color of one’s skin. The success of this campaign has been that many now see homosexual activity as normal and legitimate, while many others feel uneasy in voicing their objections for fear of accusations of “homophobia” and “gay-bashing.”

Recent victories in New York and other U.S. cities (and the “advances” in Canada), are even more remarkable, coming in the teeth of widespread predictions of an “AIDS backlash,” which homosexuals themselves feared would reverse the gains already won. One reason there is no backlash is because officialdom and the media have been playing down the spread of AIDS, and also attempting to shift attention away from the largest group pf AIDS carriers – promiscuous homosexuals.

There also seems to be deliberate attempt to keep political advances low key, perhaps in order to rouse as little opposition as possible, Both the Toronto Sun and the Star buried the Justice Committee recommendation on sexual orientation in a story headlined “MPPs vote to ban adult-only buildings, made at the same session.


In February 1986 the Ontario public got a first glimpse of what legalization of the homosexual “lifestyle” implies. The chairman of the AIDS Committee of Toronto urged Justice Committee members to ensure that “sexual orientation” is not a basis for discrimination.” He asked for the legal recognition of homosexual lovers as spouses; for an amendment in the Public Hospital Act, so that a homosexual “spouse” could have next-of-kin privileges in determining treatment of the AIDS patient; that the family of deceased homosexuals would be prohibited from challenging wills which have a homosexual lover as benefactor; that companies be prohibited from screening homosexual employees for AIDS victims “fairly and fully.”

Homosexual acts in private between persons 21 years and older were “legalized” by the Trudeau-Turner Liberal team in 1969 (the same year the abortion law was changed), principally on the grounds that the law against such acts could not be enforced. But, since that time, homosexuals have built a network of public places: parks, washrooms, hotels, bath houses and bars, where they meet to solicit new partners and indulge ion sexual activity. Newspapers and civil libertarians regularly denounce efforts by police to stop such activity, even though it is still illegal. (The same forces also defend the illegal activity of Morgentaler and the other abortionists.)

Civil libertarians are usually supporters of the homosexual “lifestyle.” The feminist slogan of the “freedom of choice,” for example, not only supports abortion, common-law “marriage,” no-fault divorce, euthanasia, pornography and so on, but it demands freedom and protection for all “lifestyles.” Because many people are revolted when they find out what homosexual acts are all about, the tactic is to speak only about “sexual orientation” as if to suggest a condition only, and one about which nothing can be done.


Needless to say, homosexuality activity is anti-life, and child and anti-family.  Throughout history, homosexual behaviour has been regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.  All religious traditions, above all the Christian one, teach that such activity is a moral disorder, while teaching compassion and charity for the individual involved.  Tradition, common sense and modern science together find no proof that homosexual activity is anything but acquired behaviour.

Last October, a House of Commons Committee, headed by Patrick Oyer (P.C., Etobicoke-Lakeshore) studying the equal rights sections of the Charter, recommended that homosexual activity—described an “sexual orientation”—be protected under the

Canadian Human Rights Act.

While John Crosby, the Minister of Justice, has not, as yet, accepted this recommendation, he has moved in that direction.  In March, he announced his intention of changing federal regulations to require the Armed Forces, the RCMP and the federal civil service to hire those who openly state their “sexual orientation.”  The logical next step will be to provide legal protection under the Human Rights Act, and, once this preliminary move has been accepted, then to have it declared protected under the 1981 Charter of Rights.


Ontario politicians have seized the opportunity provided by federal Conservative government to make their own move. Attorney General Ian Scott, who is said to have a direct interest in the proposed legislation, was quoted by the Toronto Star,  (May 7th) as saying that he expects many P.C.s who voted against the proposal were Noble Villeneuve P.C, (Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry) and Peter Partingtan  (Brock).  In addition, to Gigantes, the following members of the Committee voted in favour.  Andy Brandt (P.C. Sarnia), Susan Fish   (P.C. St. George), Robert Callahan (L. Brampton), David Cooke (L. Kitchener), Terry O’Connor P.C. (Oakville) Claudio Polsinelli (L. Yorkview) and David Warner (N.D.P. Scarborough-Ellesmere).

Several pro-life groups have taken a stand against special protection for homosexual activity.  The newly formed Toronto group, Catholics pointed out in a February press release that active homosexuals are those who seek protection for the homosexual way of life cannot be considered to be pro –life or pro-family.

The call upon pro-life supporters across the country to take hold on this issue

and write to their local MP or MLAs or MPs asking them to refuse to go along with this campaign. Ontario pro—lifers they suggest may begin by contacting the  Justice Committee.

Real Women of Canada, the pro-family women’s group, is also urging supporters to contact the MPs, provincial representatives and Justice Minister Crosbie, objecting to proposed legislation.  In a recently published pamphlet.   Real women call homosexuality “One of-gravest   threats to society in the last two decades of the twentieth century.”

The pamphlet points out that everybody will be attracted by the “sexual orientation”, legislation. Athletic Associations, colleges, university campuses, churches, parents of school-age children, schools, day-care centers, boys’ clubs, parents of school-age children, Children’s Aid Societies, counseling agencies and all professions in physical contact with the public.

“The Charter of Rights protects citizens on the basis of identity, not behaviour. Alcoholism, or compulsive gambling, for example, do not qualify for such protection, neither should other deviant behaviour such as homosexual activity,” the pamphlet points out.