No Rainbow for Queer People: A Right-Wing Support for Russia Roundup

While much of the attention surrounding Russia’s “homosexual propaganda” law has been about whether there should be a boycott of the Sochi Olympics, the saga has continued to ripple outward in several directions, including statements being made in support of the law by Canadian and American far-right spokespeople.  Here is a round-up of several developments outside the Olympics debate, and some thoughts about what these statements of support are actually saying.

(And before proceeding, I do want to make an important point clear.  While many anti-gay / anti-trans groups phrase their revulsion for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans — a.k.a. LGBT — people as being a Christian position, it’s worth noting that not all Christians subscribe to it, and many argue that the framing of this struggle as one of “gay rights versus religious freedoms” is un-Christian, and abuses faith to justify bigotry.  An online project has been started for affirming people of faith to let their views be known, and is worth checking out.  For this reason, I refer to these groups as being far right groups, as opposed to being Christian groups)

1. R.E.A.L. Women of Canada and the Collective Letter of Support

Since making national headlines by speaking out against Foreign Affairs minister John Baird’s support for LGBT people in Russia, Uganda and other hotbeds of violence, R.E.A.L. Women of Canada (RWoC) has joined over 100 international anti-LGBT groups to sign a statement expressing support for Russia’s “Homosexual Propaganda” law.

The letter characterizes Russia’s Federal Law 135-FZ passed on June 29th as “[protecting] innocence and moral formation of children by prohibiting propaganda of “non-traditional sexual relationships” among them.” What the law effectively does, though, is to ban any public affirmation or support toward LGBT people, including public Pride events, LGBT community support services and more.

The organizations claim that they are defending families in the name of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 16 (3)).  R.E.A.L. Women of Canada has special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

The organizations go on to make it clear that they refuse to acknowledge the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people, which they consider “fabricated”:

“With its new law Russia is protecting genuine and universally recognized human rights against artificial and fabricated “values” aggressively imposed in many modern societies. We also note that the concepts of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are not outlined in the existing binding international treaties and agreements…”

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada faced a backlash over dismissing violence in Uganda during their previous statement of support.  After receiving criticism from even traditional right-wing supporters, RWoC went to great lengths to state that they oppose violence against LGBT people.  They then blamed the CBC for RWoC leader Gwen Landolt’s dismissive comments.

Yet, not once in this new letter of support for Russia do the organizations condemn the violence and the volatile situation that has arisen in the wake of the law.  That decision wasn’t entirely RWoC’s, of course, but they certainly had a choice about whether to raise the issue with other signatories, and / or whether to sign on to a statement in which this wasn’t addressed at all.

2. C-FAM Claims “Human Rights Groups” Support Russia’s Law

The letter that RWoC added their organization’s support to was also signed by Mission: America, GrasstopsUSA, the World Congress of Families, a few Islamic groups, and many Eurasian organizations, some of whom are lobbying for similar laws in their countries, or have such laws in development.

C-FAM and Population Research International (PRI), who are regular contributors at the Canadian website LifeSiteNews, also signed on.  Both C-FAM and PRI are offshoots of Human Life International (HLI), an organization that was indicated as being one of the major groups stirring up anti-LGBT sentiment in Africa.  HLI itself is not listed as a signatory. C-FAM wrote about the letter of support for Russia as though it were a news item, under the headline of “Human rights groups support Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law,” and without disclosing to readers that they’re one of the groups on board:

“A statement from civil society affirms the recently enacted Russian law, which imposes fines on individuals and groups that promote homosexuality among minors, as important steps towards fulfilling international obligations towards the family and minors…”

I previously challenged LifeSiteNews both publicly and privately to clarify its partnership with HLI, and its stance on the latter group’s alleged fomenting of anti-LGBT hatred in Uganda.  While there has been no response to that challenge, there appears to be a marked shift of public advocacy from HLI to its subsidiaries (C-FAM and PRI), possibly because of the report that identified their activities in Africa.

3. Scott Lively Even Wants to Take Away Your Rainbow

Scott Lively, the Massachusetts author, lawyer and activist who gladly takes credit for being the self-described “human rights consultant” who lobbied Russia, Uganda and others to ramp up their anti-LGBT laws, also wrote an open letter to Vladimir Putin, in which he repeatedly compared LGBT people to Nazis (which isn’t new to him), and urged Putin to stand firm against international pressure to undo the law:

“The battle to protect your society from homosexualization has only just begun, and you may be surprised to discover in the coming months and years just how aggressively many world leaders will work to try to intimidate and coerce you to capitulate to homosexualist demands…”

In 2006 and 2007, Lively toured Russia and some Baltic states, lobbying for several laws, of which the propaganda law was only one part:

During that tour, which began in the Russian Far East city of Blagoveschensk and ended in St. Petersburg, I lectured in a variety of venues including numerous universities, churches and conference halls, and met with numerous government leaders at various levels of influence.  The entire tour spanned approximately 50 cities in seven countries: Russia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, and Belarus (we also passed through Kazakhstan but didn‘t speak there).

With Lively’s encouragement, the first “homosexual propaganda” ban was enacted by the City of St. Petersburg, Russia, and several other cities, states and countries that Lively lobbied are in some stage of considering or enacting a ban, including Ukraine, Moldova and Lithuania.  Lately, he’s been pushing for the opportunity to lobby the conservative governments in Australia and Britain.

And his latest strategy suggestion to Russia?  Sabotage any attempt by athletes to make a small visible gesture of support for LGBT people, by taking away the rainbow:

This article is a call to Christians and Jews (and Moslems — who also revere the book of Genesis ) to take back the rainbow from the “gays.”  I am urging pro-family leaders and advocates everywhere to start using the rainbow again, especially in ways that clearly link the symbol to Biblical opposition to the “gay” agenda, or which remind the world of its true meaning.  One way to do this is to create our own rainbow flags and banners bearing the slogan “The Rainbow Belongs to God: Genesis 6-9, 19” or a similar message.

4. LifeSiteNews’ Sensational Scoop

LifeSiteNews is also attempting to make issue of the concerns that LGBT-positive athletes have, and discussions about the possibility of showing some gesture of support for lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans people in Russia during the Olympic Games.  To this end, LSN is fixating on an audio recording made by MassResistance in which Patrick Burke acknowledged that some athletes do intend to show some gesture of support, and are still considering how.  LSN frames the discussion as being about smuggling LGBT pride symbols and propaganda:

“Here at a journalism conference someone gives a presentation on how they’re planning on disrupting the Olympics, and it’s not news,” Brian Camenker, director of MassResistance, told LifeSiteNews.com. “CBS News was there, CNN was there, Fox News, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Time-Warner, National Public Radio – all of these people were there, and it’s not news.”

“It’s an international incident, and no one seemed to think” it is newsworthy, he said in disbelief. “There’s been a lag time for somebody to say something on this, and nobody seemed interested in reporting this.”

“You’re the first people who have called on this,” Camenker told LifeSiteNews.

If LSN’s and MassResistance’s efforts result in athletes or teams being refused admittance to Russia for the Games, of course, it appears to be of no consequence to them, just as long as support for LGBT people is silenced.

5. What Other Far-Right Spokespeople Are Saying

These have hardly been the only far-right ideologues to voice support for Russia’s bill.  Some other examples:

Bob Vander Plaats, head of the group The Family Leader:

Vander Plaats praised Putin for taking a stand and saying “don’t bring this homosexual propaganda into my country for the Olympics; we believe in one man, one woman marriage; there is no homosexual marriage in Russia.”

Linda Harvey of Mission America (another of the signatories of the aforementioned letter):

In our country the sexual anarchists are whaling [sic] because Russian children and teens will not be allowed to hear homosexual propaganda. Children won’t be told, falsely, that some are born to be homosexual. They won’t be encouraged to declare themselves homosexual at age twelve or thirteen and label themselves for the rest of their school years. Russian children won’t be taught that they are victims of the mainstream, straight world, that they should develop deep resentments and hostiles and shouldn’t trust anything tradition-minded people say or do. The risks of same-sex relationships won’t be carefully hidden from them, as they are here, and they just might have healthier, more stable lives as a result.

They won’t be told that biblical moral standards are hateful and harmful; that abstinence until marriage is impossible and recommending it is discrimination; nor that sex as a young teen is perfectly normal, constructive and manageable with latex. They won’t learn that two men or two women should be seen as a married couple and that no one should ever blink an eye at the terms ‘her wife’ or ‘his husband.’ They won’t be taught that Jesus now suddenly accepts homosexuality and always did and that modern, enlightened theologians have discovered pro-homosexual meanings in Scripture that no one else did over several thousand years and that all those verses that call homosexuality sin really mean something else. In other words, the kids in Russia may get to live lives as kids and not be weighed down with adult agendas laced with adult deception.

Now I would never give a stamp of approval on all that might be going on in Russia but this is one area where it seems I agree with them. They have apparently observed the harm being done to kids in the West as a result of homosexual exploitation and are pursuing a much wiser course before global gay activism gets a foothold there. If there is room in our prayers for the people of Russia friends, and I’m sure there is, let’s pray that children there continue to be allowed protection in this way and in every other way God would want as well.

Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association:

They understand that homosexual behavior is a moral evil among teenagers.  Now, they need to get to the point where they realize that it’s a moral evil for anybody, but at least they’re ahead of us on recognizing that it’s a moral evil to propagandize this lifestyle among teenagers…

… in my mind, we ought to be celebrating this, and I don’t know what the timidity is, why there is such a hesitancy in the pro-family community to support this law… but this is public policy that we’ve been advocating and here is a nation in the world that is actually putting it into practice.

Peter LaBarbera, of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality:

Folks, I’m afraid that the lessons that the United States of America has to teach the world on homosexuality these days are mostly negative: Avoid our mistakes. Don’t become like us. Don’t foster the promotion of radical sexual and gender agendas to your young people. Don’t allow your government schools to become ‘pro-homosexuality zones’ for impressionable students. Don’t treat unhealthly sexual perversions and gender confusion as a “civil right” or “human right,” etc.

Ron Gray, of the Canadian podcast, Roadkill Radio, and former leader of the Christian Heritage Party:

You know, that makes good sense.  People who take children to watch a gay Pride parade, for example, or in any way push such propaganda on innocent children are inmy mind actually guilty of child abuse.  And that goes for teachers, politicians and media types who tell children the lie that homosexuality is praiseworthy.  Look, lying to our kids in any form is shameful and wrong.  

Homosexual behaviour is, in fact, dangerous.  And that doesn’t mean that homosexual people should be persecuted or maligned.  They’re unfortunate, and they should be helped to overcome their dangerous addiction to unnatural behaviour.  But we shouldn’t tell children that homosexuality is commendable or admirable.  It’s not.  It’s dangerous.  It’s a vector for diseases that have become epidemic among homosexuals and among other sexually promiscuous people…

We’ll discuss Ron Gray’s emphasis on conflating homosexuality with disease and harm, in a moment.

The Ripple Effect

The “Homosexual Propaganda” law has been at the centre of controversy since it was passed, and has sparked an enormous wave of violence against LGBT persons.

It’s an issue that seems to take a new twist every day, and in several directions — with the question of Russia’s hosting the Olympic games only being one.  The Russian lawmaker who proposed the bill has been having authorities investigate her critics. A prominent LGBT activist unfortunately also caused controversy when he apparently made abhorrent anti-Semitic comments on Facebook and Twitter.  A number of Russian citizens have sought refugee status in order to avoid returning to the country, and the Deputy General Director of the Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (RTR) has declared that the hearts of LGBT people “should be buried in the ground or burned as unsuitable for the continuation of life.”

The controversy has even spilled over into western nations, such as with a UK Department for Education policy ban on affirming LGBT students, which drew comparisons to the Russia’s law.

Several videos of beatings of gay and trans people have surfaced since the law was enacted.  One group oddly co-opted the naming and language of the “Occupy” movement, has conflated those targeted by the law with pedophiles, and advocates for violence:

Martsinkevich, who sports a mohawk and often appears bare-chested in his videos, founded Occupy Pedophilia and encouraged his followers to pour urine over their victims’ heads to “cure” them of homosexuality.

Never Mind the Violence.  Or the Hypocrisy.

The support for Russia has revealed several hypocrisies among the ideological far right.

Several of the organizations that have signed the letter have previously complained that having to respect LGBT human rights violates their freedom of speech and conscience.  Yet they have clearly supported restricting LGBT-positive speech to the point of banning it from public view and discourse entirely.

Many have also complained that their nations have not done enough to safeguard the human rights and safety of Christians around the world.  But when it comes to LGBT people, their concern is that attempting to do so would violate nations’ sovereignty.

Why Anti-LGBT Laws are Proving Popular Overseas

The comment on sovereignty is key to understanding why bans laws like Russia’s are proving popular.

Discussions about colonialism and sovereignty are the means by which American Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have successfully swayed discussion in many African, Asian, South American and European nations.  Given that some of those countries suffered under colonial rule and others fought pressures by western corporate and political interests, it is an accusation that resonates with many nations, who still resist western influence and wish to assert their own power.

By phrasing homosexuality and transsexuality to sound like western inventions and a plot, attitudes like Lively’s have found fertile ground.

What Anti_LGBT Groups Are Actually Saying In Supporting Them

If it’s not already obvious, it’s important to recognize that “protecting” children from anything that might affirm and validate LGBT people is simply seen as a stepping stone to “protecting” anyone from that message.  If not, re-read the quotes above.

The far right has realized that in the modern world, people have largely started to realize that people don’t simply choose to become gay on a lark (or transition between sexes on a whim), and that the old mythic characterizations of LGBT people have failed as more friends, relatives, co-workers, celebrities and more have come out of the closet.  The first strategy for the far right, now, is to shame, intimidate and silence the next generation back into hiding, and then try to extend that to the rest of society.

This is why education is such a major fight.  I previously noted (parts 1, 2, 3) how the far right conflates anything that supports and affirms LGBT students with indoctrinating propaganda.  Much of this argument requires the public to believe that schools are encouraging kids to try same-sex encounters, when what they’re really concerned about is anything that contradicts the far right message that homosexuality, transsexuality and such are abominations and unacceptable.  It’s what resides between the lines of what many of the aforementioned folks say on the subject, such as this comment from Linda Harvey of Mission America:

Why are we in such a place friends where children learn that homosexual behavior is noble, that amputating healthy body parts [Harvey’s way of referring to sex reassignment surgery] is admirable but the mention of Jesus Christ during a graduation ceremony is controversial? I’ll tell you how: it’s because not enough of us are calling this lunacy what it is. We need to have a clear idea about what is evil and speak up about it in order to preserve the good. These actions are pure evil and should be declared child abuse. This all starts with the lie that homosexuality can ever be a good thing or that changing one’s gender can ever be in the child’s long-term best interest when it’s easy to demonstrate that it’s not.

It also requires the public to believe that simply being gay or trans is harmful, and not in the public good… because that is the far right’s second strategy, and it’s easier for them to simply state it over and over as though it were factual, in hopes that the public will follow that lead, rather than to have to quantify it with anything more substantial than pointing to HIV and some faulty or cherry-picked studies that fall apart with a few questions.

Allegations of Harm

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada has not satisfied itself with merely signing a letter to support the Russian law.  The group has also posted a brief by an anti-LGBT legal organization which regularly embroils itself in attempts to fight or overturn LGBT human rights advances, Alliance Defending Freedom.

In the brief, ADF claims that Russia’s “propaganda” law is not discrimination, does not ban organizing, does not silence LGBT persons or groups, and does not result in detentions of LGBT people… even though these things have already been evidenced in the way that Russia has applied the law. ADF’s lead author, Roger Kiska, can’t be said to be without bias either, since he has previously signed onto similar letters, including this protest of American support of a Pride Parade in the Czech Republic.  ADF does curiously and correctly note that another law passed in Russia calls for sentences of up to three years for “offending religious feelings,” and has not garnered the same response from international media — but ADF attributes this to hypocrisy rather than a failure of reporting and public response.

ADF’s brief, says RWoC, is evidence that the “propaganda” law is not discrimination, and is merely protecting children.  To accept this argument, you have to accept their premise that if children hear anything positive or accepting of LGBT people, or are in their proximity, then that is inherently harmful to them.

In 2011, B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman’s polygamy ruling stated that rights and freedoms — including religious freedom — could be limited, provided harm could be demonstrated:

“In my view, the salutary effects of the prohibition far outweigh the deleterious. The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times. It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.”

Some far right critics have already seized upon this as being contrary to Canada’s rulings legalizing same-sex marriage, and an indication that it could be re-criminalized if enough “harms” could be raised to justify doing so.  In applauding Russia’s “propaganda” law, RWoC is expecting Canadians to accept the premise of harm caused by children merely hearing or seeing anything that affirms LGBT people, but without having to quantify that harm.

Russia Isn’t Sitting Still, Either

Russia is now proposing a law to remove children from the homes of LGBT families, in order to protect them.  The bill’s author, Alexei Zhuravlev, said that the ban on homosexual “propaganda” should not simply be applied in public spaces, “but also in the family.”  He was later asked if a child should be taken from a single mother if she were discovered to be lesbian:

‘Of course she should definitely be deprived of her rights to the child,’ he said.

‘Homosexuals must not raise children. They corrupt them. They do them much more harm than if the child were in an orphanage. I am deeply convinced of this.’

One would expect organizations that claim to be standing up for families and the best interests of children to oppose this new proposal, regardless of what they thought about the parents in question.

But then, you never know.

REAL Women of Canada, and the naked far-right truth.

¹⁵ “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
¹⁶ You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
¹⁷ Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
¹⁸ A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
¹⁹ Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
²⁰ Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
— Matthew 7:15 – 20

Gwen Landolt, of R.E.A.L. Women of Canada (RWoC), has drawn fire for a press release she sent out last week, in which she condemned Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird’s support for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in highly oppressive nations like Uganda and Russia.  Landolt takes issue with government agencies advocating for their safety both publicly and behind the scenes.

What her action has really done, though, was to expose the naked truth about the attitudes held by some of the leaders and spokespeople of some of Canada’s far-right organizations, and the depths of their intolerance.

What remains to be seen is whether Canadians will sit up and take notice of what has in fact been a growing trend.

The press release criticizes Baird for “[abusing] his position as a cabinet minister to impose his own special interests in the foreign countries of Uganda, Kenya and Russia,” saying:

“He awarded $200,000 of Canadian taxpayers’ money by way of the Department of Foreign Affairs to special interest groups in Uganda and Kenya to further his own perspective on homosexuality.  He also insulted the speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, at a meeting of the International Parliamentary Union in Quebec City when he criticized Uganda for its position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage…

“Last week, Baird admitted working extensively behind the scenes to prevent Russia from passing legislation designated to protect Russian minors from homosexual propaganda.  Baird blasted these laws as hateful, anti-gay and intolerant.  Russia has also restricted foreign adoption of Russian children after incidents of horrendous child abuse; for example, adoptive “fathers” in Australia together with other men, sexually abused a 6 year old boy, starting at 22 months of age, born of a Russian surrogate mother…”

“Pro-Life” Apparently has an Exception

What Landolt is deliberately omitting is the fact that the attention being paid to Uganda specifically has to do with its Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which had at its genesis included a death penalty for homosexuality.  While this death penalty may or may not still be in the bill (which is awaiting reintroduction and being kept somewhat secret, at the moment), homosexuality is already criminalized in Uganda with sentences of up to 14 years in prison, and the bill would add several alarming new dimensions, including:

• A definition of “homosexuality” which is so vague that almost anyone could be convicted of it;
• A definition of “aggravated homosexuality” which is overly-broad, and includes “serial” offences.  If the death sentence remains in the bill, then aggravated homosexuality is the charge to which it would apply;
• A weird “intent to commit” clause that could open any physical contact to interpretation;
• A financial incentive for people to accuse others of trying to seduce them;
• The targeting of friends, family and landowners for aiding / abetting LGBT people, for failing to report LGBT people, and for renting a room to LGBT people;
• The criminalization of advocacy for or even defending an LGBT person, with a sentence of 5 – 7 years (criminalization of LGBT advocacy has also been an objective in recent bills proposed in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among others); and
• The criminalization of anyone who fails to report in under 24 hours anyone who is gay, who witnessed a same-sex wedding (it’s unclear if said wedding had to occur in Uganda), who rents a room to a gay person, and more, with a sentence of up to 3 years.

Landolt’s characterization of Russia’s “homosexual propaganda” bill is no better.  She repeats the Russian claim that the bill is to protect minors, even though the law applies to virtually any positive portrayal of LGBT people, and in any public or Internet space.  Emboldened by the passage of the legislation and the sentiment surrounding it, violence and predation has surged dramatically.

More importantly, Gwen Landolt demonstrated that she is aware of the facts she is omitting… and doesn’t care.  In an interview with CBC, she made a weird argument that a human rights issue isn’t a human rights issue if the nation in which it is occurring doesn’t consider it to be a human rights issue.  And then, she went further:

When asked about reports that Uganda has considered the death penalty as punishment for having homosexual relations, Landolt said, “It may be unwise by Western standards, but who are we to interfere in a sovereign country?”

A Far Right Group Implodes

This was too much for even Canada’s ideological right, drawing criticism from Barbara Kay, of the National Post, who said that Landolt “set at an unbridgeable distance well-wishers and occasional collaborators,” herself included:

Does  she realize the implications of what she has said? And from whose moral-relativist playbook she has drawn this leaf?

… If Ms. Landolt believes it is justifiable to ignore the persecution of people whose beliefs or behaviours she is unsympathetic to, as long as it is happening elsewhere, she has lost the moral authority to criticize persecution in other countries of those whose beliefs and behaviours she *is* sympathetic to.

Kay closed by speculating that R.E.A.L. Women of Canada “may just have imploded,” while other conservative writers are dismissively writing off RWoC with characterizations like “a housewives’ advocacy group that’s view of women was frozen in time around 1958.”

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada presents itself as “one of Canada’s leading women’s organizations,” but has for decades has been directly opposed to feminism and womens’ issues that they find theologically offensive, such as abortion, contraception, sex work, affirmative action and even unions (which have driven several of the gains that women have made in the workplace).  RWoC also has a reputation for trying to stymie international initiatives to better the lives of women, if those initiatives include reproductive rights (i.e. contraception), LGBT rights, feminist objectives and more.  They have acted as legal interveners on nearly every major social issue that has come before Canadian high courts, including a 1993 attempt to prohibit abortion, the 1999 ruling that gave same-sex couples the same legal and economic rights as opposite-sex couples, the legal battle over whether spanking was child abuse, a court decision on whether safe injection sites could be legalized, a few different cases where they attempted to establish legal personhood for the foetus, and the Supreme Court’s hearing on the sex work.  Gwen Landolt is famous for apologizing to the world on Canada’s behalf when Canada legalized same-sex marriage, and earlier this year, R.E.A.L. Women of Canada claimed that extending human rights protections to trans people was a plot to normalize pedophilia.

It remains to be seen if the group’s special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations will be affected by Landolt’s antics.

Fringe ≠ Alone

Gwen Landolt’s devil-may-care attitude is far from unique among the Canadian far right.  (And it is at this point that I need to clarify why I use the phrase “far right” so much, and “Christian” not at all.  Although many of the ideological far right phrase their perspective as being Christian, it is not truly representative of Christian faiths, at least a few of whom are LGBT-affirming.  I believe it’s important to make that distinction for many reasons, including the fact that this clarification dispels the belief that there is an inherent and irreconcilable conflict between LGBT human rights and religious freedom).

Indeed, it takes little time to find other far-right figures sharing similar perspectives.

RWoC’s frequent collaborator, LifeSiteNews (the media arm of Campaign Life Coalition), has lauded Nigeria for its anti-LGBT legislative proposals, and also applauded Uganda’s refusal to bow to pressure to drop the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, in 2009.  They later softened the stance on Uganda’s bill, but continue to collaborate with an organization singled out as one of three key groups fomenting anti-gay hatred in Africa.  LSN and C-FAM have also portrayed Russia’s anti-gay law as one of protecting children from the promotion of “deviant sexual behaviors,” saying that the suggestion that the law is a form of discrimination “appears to be more hyperbole than anything else.” LSN even recently attacked American televangelist Pat Robertson for not being extreme enough.  Naturally, the website has also posted a more-or-less one-sided article echoing Gwen Landolt’s sentiments, and posting the Prime Minister’s office information so that readers can flood him with same.

Although less known, Ron Gray, RoadKill Radio host and former leader of the Christian Heritage Party, also touted Russia’s anti-gay law as something that Canada should strive for, adding (barely a minute into the video):

“People who take children to watch a gay pride parade, for example, or in any way put such propaganda on innocent children are in my mind actually guilty of child abuse.  And that goes for teachers, politicians, and media types who tell children the lie that homosexuality is praiseworthy…”

RKR has also campaigned against LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying education, networked with Scott Lively (an architect of both Uganda’s and Russia’s infamous laws), and has also been guilty of obscuring facts about Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

When Was the Last Time an American Conservative Wanted to Emulate Russia?

Gwen Landolt’s comments also come at a time when American far right groups are trumpeting Russia’s law in similar fashion, and encouraging developing something similar on this continent, such as this declaration from a National Organization for Marriage spokesman:

With the battle for the family waging across this nation, instead of condemning a sovereign nation for its laws we need to be changing ours. The family unit is under attack and we must stand against those who want to redefine and destroy it. The family is the foundation of a society and the glue that holds it together. I applaud the Russians for taking a stand for children!

The day may be coming soon in which Canadians will need to decide whether these things are truly representative of the Christian perspective, or whether “Christian” is being exploited as an excuse to hate.

While it is tempting to dismiss Gwen Landolt and R.E.A.L. Women of Canada as being “fringe,” it’s important to realize that their ambivalence toward the lives and well-being of LGBT people is not occurring in a vacuum.  It’s also important to know that given the group’s seeming ability to regularly circumvent Parliamentary process so that they can be added on to committee and Senatorial meetings (as happened on at least two occasions with the recent trans human rights bill C-279), it has not been without its influence.  Indeed, the press release was just starting to appear on news sites’ front pages, when senior Foreign Affairs officials already met with RWoC representatives to hear their grievances.  “Fringe” isn’t supposed to have government departments on speed dial.

They Hypocrisy of Crying Colonialism

And what’s more, Canada’s ideological far right seems to be unable to recognize that these attitudes are indeed hateful, and out-of-step with Canadians.  Instead, Landolt says:

Mr. Baird’s actions are highly offensive to conservative taxpayers.  He cannot and must not undermine other countries’ sovereignty and dignity, rooted in stable family structures and religious faith, in order to impose his own value system on them.

Incidentally, Landolt’s discussion of sovereignty and accusation of colonialism is curious, in that this tactic is the means by which American Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have successfully swayed discussion in many African nations.  Given that many countries on that continent suffered under colonial rule and are still relatively recent to sovereign status, it is an accusation that resonates with many African peoples, who still desire to resist western influence and remain self-determining.

Ironically, the tactic is being used to deflect attention from the fact that those same Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are attempting to export their homophobia to Africa, a continent where anti-gay sentiment and rhetoric was not previously of any significance.

And if RWoC is aware of and careful to use similar talking points, then it’s safe to say that their — and Landolt’s — attitudes have not developed in a vacuum.

Right-Wing Group Claims Trans Human Rights are a Plot to Normalize Pedophilia.

It has long been a practice of American far-right spokespeople and organizations that when sensationalistic rhetoric starts to fail, rather than try to polish it up and make it look more convincing, they often switch to something more sensationalistic and absurd, as a way of getting attention and scaring folks. The thinking seems to be that the public isn’t interested in anything beyond the tl;dr headline / soundbyte, so if something is said often enough and assertively enough, people will think it to be true.

Canadian far-right spokespeople and organizations are usually craftier, but when they aren’t, it’s revealing.  It demonstrates plainly just how much hate exists, just how irrational a form it can take, and just how impervious to logic and truth it can be.

And I can only guess that it is because of American far-right inspiration that Gwen Landolt of REAL Women of Canada has switched focus from bathroom fear to alleging that the trans human rights bill is really a NAMBLA plot to normalize pedophilia.

REAL’s own action alert insinuates:

Why, then, has this transgendered bill been placed before Parliament?

The answer appears to be that the bill is intended to be interpreted by the human rights tribunals and the courts in order to extend its reach to a number of other problematic sexual activities, including pedophilia.  That is, the broad definition of the expression, “gender identity”, included in this bill, will eventually have to be interpreted by the appointed human rights tribunal and courts to determine the meaning of these words.  This intention was confirmed by MP Randall Garrison, who introduced the bill, when he stated in the homosexual newspaper, Xtra (June 5, 2012), “Once gender identity is in the human rights code, the courts and human rights commissions will interpret what that means.”

Randall Garrison’s comment was actually made in reference to the controversial decision to drop “gender expression” from the bill, opening up concerns that only some trans people (i.e. those who medically transition) will be covered, as well as fears that failing to include gender expression could result in it being designated as separate and not covered, and of lower priority to policies based on physical sex.  For trans people, the latter could take the form of “I didn’t fire him because he’s trans, I fired him because our dress code says if he has a vagina, he’s supposed to wear a dress.”

In an interview with the equally radicalized LifeSiteNews, Landolt takes the insinuation further:

Landolt said that a movement already exists that is lobbying western governments to enshrine adult sexual activity with children as the next “sexual orientation”.

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a prominent pedophilia advocacy group, exists to “end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships”…

Landolt’s argument, unsurprisingly, stems from American far-right groups’ wide interpretation of “sexual orientation,” used to oppose the possible inclusion of that characteristic in human rights legislation.  This can be traced to a 2009 olympian feat of spin from the Traditional Values Coalition, (who curiously no longer host their own report on their own website), claiming that the thirty paraphilias included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) from the American Psychiatric Association (and which include things like pedophilia, voyeurism and necrophilia) can all be considered “sexual orientations.”

To be fair, NAMBLA has apparently also tried to argue this, themselves.  But this argument failed in 2009, both because it strained reason, and because it also failed to take into account important considerations like mature, informed consent.  It has also failed to materialize in the actual application of laws that already do include sexual orientation, like Canada’s human rights laws.

The way that REAL has tried to retool the “30 sexual orientations” argument has led some to assert that the organization and its figurehead are deliberately fearmongering.

REAL Women of Canada presents itself as “one of Canada’s leading women’s organizations,” but has for decades has been directly opposed to feminism and womens’ issues that they find theologically offensive, such as abortion, contraception, sex work, affirmative action and even unions (which have driven several of the gains that women have made in the workplace).  REAL  stands for “Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life,” and doesn’t discourage women from working (that’s not an economic possibility for many families, anyway), but has a mandate that allows it while still favouring homemaking and idealizing domesticity where possible (and don’t get me wrong, I respect women who are dedicated to their families: however, that is not the only place for women in society).

REAL is an NGO in special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, and has regularly used this status to stymie international initiatives to better the lives of women, if those initiatives include reproductive rights, LGBT rights, feminist objectives and more.  They have acted as legal interveners on nearly every major social issue that has come before the high courts, including a 1993 attempt to prohibit abortion, the 1999 ruling that gave same-sex couples the same legal and economic rights as opposite-sex couples, the legal battle over whether spanking was child abuse, a court decision on whether safe injection sites could be legalized, a few different cases where they attempted to establish legal personhood for the foetus, and are currently acting as intervenors in the Supreme Court’s hearing on the sex work ruling from Ontario.  REAL Women of Canada feigns support for equality for women, while asserting that being a homemaker is a woman’s ideal calling, claiming that “the rights of men… have been marginalized while feminist special interest groups have taken center stage in Canadian policy,” and even supporting the abolition of divorce.  Because it’s easier for far right conservatives to oppose womens’ rights and needs when they can point to women who do the same.

Gwen Landolt is famous for apologizing to the world on Canada’s behalf when Canada legalized same-sex marriage.  Now, Ms. Landolt is attempting to retool the “30 sexual orientations” argument as a way of opposing extending human rights protections to trans people, in Bill C-279.

That bill does, by the way, provide a definition for gender identity:

2. (2)”In this section, “gender identity” means, in respect of an individual, the individual’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex that the individual was assigned at birth.”

Have fun twisting your brain into a pretzel trying to find a way in which that could be interpreted to include pedophilia.

C-279 Committee Roundup: The Necessity of Inclusion

On Tuesday November 27th, the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights (JUST) met for a second of three meetings to examine the trans human rights bill, C-279. I’ll be discussing the filibuster that occurred in the third, shortly.  However, it’s worth paying attention to the discussion on the bill’s necessity in the second meeting, as it was one of the Conservatives’ key arguments for opposing the bill.

In the first hour, it heard from representatives from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT), and a representative from R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, Diane Watts.  Which, if you were listening to the webcast, was something like listening to Peter Mansbridge, Pamela Wallin, and then this person:

Watts made news because rather than speaking much about trans people and human rights issues, she mostly ranted at length about pedophiles.  Then, when she was cut off and told her remarks were offensive, the floor was turned over to a member of the committee, Robert Goguen, who bade her to continue in the same vein for another five minutes.

A lot was said about Watts testimony, although the coverage glossed over some things.  R.E.A.L.’s “lead researcher” tried to frighten the committee about inclusion leading to the correctional system having “to provide treatment for those inmates,” even though Canada already has a ruling on that in Kavanaugh v. Canada (2001). Committee members referred to it several times in that meeting, in fact.  Watts also cited the American College of Pediatricians, which is an organization founded by reparative therapists and has been repudiated by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the actual recognized authority in ACP’s field.

But the overlooked testimony of the CHRC and CHRT representatives is far more significant.

The Conservative Party argument against Bill C-279 has long been that they believed the bill was not necessary, and that the terms were not defined.  And yet, after the second meeting of the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights to discuss the bill, some of the opponents of trans human rights inclusion switched tactics by dropping the argument about necessity, and focused emphatically on defining the terms narrowly, such as by tying them to a diagnosis.  The use of the “not necessary” argument came to an end.  So what happened during the meeting?

The anti-gay spin machine LifeSiteNews has deliberately distorted the testimony of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal folks in order to validate the idea that clear human rights inclusion is unnecessary.  But it only works if you cherry-pick little snippets from Canadian Human Rights Commission acting secretary general, Ian Fine, and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal acting chairperson and chief executive officer, Susheel Gupta, out of context:

Fine, responding to Goguen, admitted that “strictly speaking, I suppose the legislation isn’t necessary…”

Gupta was more adamant about not taking a position either way, but here are full quotes from Ian Fine from the transcript.  See if you come to the same conclusion that LSN did:

“To answer your question, as I said at the outset, we currently accept complaints—and have forever—from transgendered individuals under the ground of sex, and sometimes under the ground of disability, and we will continue to do so. To answer your question, strictly speaking, I suppose the legislation isn’t necessary, but we see other reasons why it would be important to include these two grounds under our act, and we do support them.

“For one thing, it would provide the clarity that I think we believe is missing at this point, because as much as it’s true that the commission and tribunals and courts do accept transgender issues as falling under the ground of sex, parties still debate that issue before those very tribunals and courts and question whether or not transgender issues fall under sex. In one case I know of, an issue was raised as to whether or not you could even raise the issue under sex and instead should raise it under disability.

“There continue to be these debates, so for clarity reasons, we believe it would be a good thing to add these two grounds. Also, as I said at the outset, it would be a recognition of the discrimination that this group faces: the sometimes hostile and violent acts that this group faces in our society. So it would recognize the vulnerability of this group, of these individuals.

“…

“It is true that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal certainly has held that these matters fall within the existing prohibited grounds. There’s no doubt about that. Other courts and tribunals across the land have done so. As I have said, we receive complaints on transgender issues under the ground of sex and sometimes disability.

“But the reality is that even though the courts have accepted that and we accept that, parties still go before those tribunals and courts and raise arguments about whether or not they are included. So clearly there are some Canadians who aren’t in agreement with that notion, who are still fighting about it, who feel that the protection is not explicit or shouldn’t be covered by one of the other grounds.

“We’re simply suggesting to add these grounds to provide more clarity to all Canadians, to make it explicit, and then there’s no doubt.”

Spin attempts to the contrary, Conservatives can’t justifiably call clear trans human rights inclusion unnecessary, anymore.

Opponents of Social Progress (In The Bedrooms of the Nation II)

Update:

Due to a moderation queue flooded with mind-numbing racist, Islamophobic and homophobic freeps as well as a reasonable question about singling people out, this post is withdrawn for the moment, until I can decide how I should address that question and also re-examine my moderation policy.

I’m normally not that big on censorship, but apparently, I’m going to have to make exceptions.

This post will be back, although perhaps tweaked.