Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve

In 2011, I attended Toronto Pride, but I couldn’t stomach showing you what I saw, until now

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

WARNING: Some of the descriptions and photos included in this story, though censored, are nevertheless graphic. Viewer discretion strongly advised.

TORONTO, March 17, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In 2011, I attended the Toronto Gay Pride Parade with the intention of taking photos on behalf of LifeSiteNews.

For many years I had resisted performing this particularly nauseating journalistic task, lest it spoil my annual wedding anniversary weekend. Still, in 2011, the parade date did not fall on the weekend of our July 1 anniversary date, and I realized that the deed finally had to be done.

Even so, since then I have avoided the disturbing task of going through and organizing all those photos and censoring the exposed genitals in many of the photos.

But our recent reports on Toronto, Canada’s hosting of the upcoming 2014 Homosexual “World Pride” Event and the province’s Catholic teachers’ announcement that they will march in the Pride parade, have prompted me to finally do something with the 116 usable photos I took of the 2011 Toronto parade.

Given the growing influence of the gay activist movement and the increasing number of these parades, we are all obliged to learn what goes on in them. The public needs better to understand the danger these events present to children and youths lured to participate in them. They also need to know how extensively many of our government-funded institutions are actively involved in this radical social change movement, without your permission and without you having voted to approve any of this.

Last September, LifeSiteNews published Patrick Craine’s slideshow and column about his attendance at the smaller Ottawa, Canada Pride parade. That woke up a lot of our readers. The Toronto parade that you will see in today’s slideshow is touted as supposedly the largest such parades in the world, although organizers and supportive mainstream media estimates of the size of the crowd are always impossibly inflated to way beyond the number of people that could possibly fit in the space available along the short parade route.

I caution that the photos are rather explicit, even though they have been edited to block out the more objectionable aspects. This slideshow reveals only some of what takes place during these so-called Pride weeks in various cities across North America. There is a lot more that happens, such as the Dyke March the day before, that would not be appropriate for LifeSiteNews to publish.

Upon arriving at the parade in 2011 I went to the end-point of the route and joined the crowd there anticipating the arrival of the first marchers. I could not help but notice that a shocking number of families had brought their children along to watch this debauchery.

Looking around, I strongly sensed that most Pride Parade watchers are not there to support whatever is being promoted in the parades. They were there for a sensational show - the more outrageous and kinky the better. You've heard of "bread and circuses"? There will always be a percentage of the population with poor moral judgement who will come out to watch any spectacle for sheer personal entertainment.

As the disturbingly dead-eyed transvestites approached throughout the parade, various women spectators became all giddy and dragged their husbands or boyfriends into standing for a photo beside each of the more outrageously attired and made-up transvestites (men dressed and made-up to look and act like women). That, I could not comprehend.

It was also disturbing to see many civil service branches, including all the various police forces and military branches, march in the parade in full uniform. They have now been co-opted into being enthusiastic supporters and protectors of the activities of individuals who for many years they used to treat or even arrest for dangerously unhealthy, public and often anonymous sexual activity that had been illegal.

I missed taking photos of the black-leather-clad, whip-holding, sado-masochist contingent in the parade.

Also missed near the very beginning, because I was so startled, was a photo of a young man in a bathing suit, in the back of a pickup truck leaning against the truck and jerking his hips as though he was engaged in homosexual intercourse with another man. It appeared that he had been doing this the entire length of the parade route. He was clearly exhausted from this at the end of the parade route.

A huge open tractor-trailer platform sponsored by the Toronto District School Board and filled with students and teachers, followed shortly afterwards. There were many teachers and students in the parade, including a large contingent of Catholic school students.

The Catholic students were undoubtedly, from my experience, encouraged or guided in most instances by certain of their teachers to reject the serious moral teachings of their faith. I doubt they had any idea that marching in the parade was a grave moral wrong and violation of the precepts of their faith. But then, in Ontario, very, very few teachers or even clergy have explained or preached Catholic teaching on homosexuality. It has been a seemingly forbidden subject, except for those who disagree with the Church on the issue.

For decades, there has been almost no effort by Catholic leaders to explain the love and charity of authentic Christian teaching on all sexual matters. So is it any wonder that some youth, missing strong parental guidance, would march in the Gay Pride parade?

Almost every float had strangely dressed and mostly undressed people making sexually provocative poses and movements.

The sado-masochist group was followed by a large contingent of totally nude men and women wearing only the legally required shoes and perhaps a little bit of leather here and there. One had to wonder what the lasting impression of all of this would be for the many children watching along the parade route. A bigger question perhaps, was what kind of parent would bring their children to this?

Immediately following the nude marchers was a contingent of VIPs, some openly declared homosexuals, and others who were not, all waving to the crowd and smiling as though this was just a nice country fair parade. They seemed to be having a grand time. One of them was the ever-so-tolerant, openly homosexual Ontario Liberal MPP and Cabinet Minister, Glen Murray. He stated in 2012 that Ontario Catholic schools will no longer be allowed to teach the Catechism’s doctrine that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.”

These crass political opportunists who join the parade could care less that their participation might be a shame to their families and their parents and/or grandparents. For them it’s all about gaining new political allies and more power. And homosexual activists have proven to be very skillful political tacticians-for-hire, often having the talents and personal circumstances to work more intensely and for longer hours than most others with families. But no politicians who march in these parades, in my view, can be trusted to genuinely act on behalf of their constituents’ families, their community and their nation.

In 2011 - as in the years since then - much of the focus of the parade was the non-participation of the now-(in)famous Toronto Mayor, Rob Ford. 

Most LSN readers have probably heard a lot about Ford’s recent crazy antics. But in 2011, in his first year as mayor, Ford did his best to try to stop the city from spending several hundred thousand dollars of taxpayers’ money to fund the parade. Ford also proved to be the first Toronto mayor in a long time to refuse the mandatory mayoral participation, with squirt gun in hand, in the parade. He has gone to the cottage with his family for their usual holiday every year on that July 1st Canada Day long holiday weekend.

I knew what would happen to Ford for snubbing the annual gay extravaganza. He became the most hated mayor ever in Toronto’s history for not going along with the homosexual program. Nobody, no matter who they are, is allowed to get away with that, and so began a never-ending relentless and very personal persecution of the first mayor with the guts to stand up to what has proven to be a vicious gay mob. One has to wonder if this concerted backlash against Ford hasn't in some way contributed to his recent problems.

As you will see from the photos, there clearly was an unofficial theme for the parade that year. That theme was, “we hate Rob Ford”. The message also appeared to be, “Don’t mess with us, you politicians, or we will do everything that we can to destroy you.”

When the parade was finally over, thousands of people choked the carnival-like Church St, Toronto gay village. There were lots of food vendors, while the totally nude marchers from the parade sauntered or stood around eating an ice cream cone or whatever as though it was the most normal thing in the world. To me, they were sad and pitiful.

So now World Pride is coming to Toronto. A trip away that weekend is looking like a really good idea for my family.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

,

Arguments don’t have genitals

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

“As soon as he grows his own uterus, he can have an opinion.”

That was a comment left on The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s Facebook page by a woman who presumably opposes men speaking out against misogyny, domestic abuse, rape culture, and female genital mutilation as well. Apparently, you see, male genitals disqualify people from speaking out on various human rights issues deemed by women who define themselves by their uteruses while protesting angrily against being defined by their uteruses as “women’s issues.”

Which abortion isn’t, by the way. It’s a human rights issue.

To break it down really simply for our confused “feminist” friends: Human beings have human rights. Human rights begin when the human being begins, or we are simply choosing some random and arbitrary point at which human beings get their human rights. If we do not grant human rights to all human beings, inevitably some sub-set of human beings gets denied protection by another group with conflicting interests. In this case, of course, it is the abortion crowd, who want to be able to kill pre-born children in the womb whenever they want, for any reason they want.

Science tells us when human life begins. Pro-abortion dogma is at worst a cynical manoeuvre to sacrifice the lives of pre-born human beings for self-interest, and at best an outdated view that collapsed feebly under the weight of new discoveries in science and embryology. But the abortion cabal wants to preserve their bloody status quo at all costs, and so they make ludicrous claims about needing a uterus to qualify for a discussion on science and human rights.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In fact, feminists love it when men speak up on abortion, as long as we’re reading from their script, which is why the carnivorous feminists have such a support system among the Deadbeat Dads for Dead Babies set and the No Strings Attached Club.

Male abortion activists have even begun to complain about “forced fatherhood,” a new cultural injustice in which they are expected to bear some responsibility for fathering children with women they didn’t love enough to want to father children with, but did appreciate enough to use for sex. Casual fluid swaps, they whine, should not result in custody hearings.

This is not to mention a genuine social tragedy that has men forcing or pressuring women to have abortions or abandoning them when they discover that the woman is, indeed, pregnant.

Or the fact that abortion has assisted pimps, rapists, and misogynists in continuing the crimes of sex trafficking, sexual abuse, and sex-selection abortion.

And coming against these disgusting trends are thousands of men in the pro-life movement who believe that shared humanity means shared responsibility, and that when the weak and vulnerable are robbed of their rights, we have to stand up and speak out.

We are not at all convinced by the feminist argument that people should think with their reproductive organs or genitals. We think that the number of people currently doing that has perhaps contributed to the problems we face. And we refuse to be told that protecting the human rights of all human beings is “none of our business” and “outside of our interests.”

Arguments don’t have genitals, feminists. It’s a stupid argument trying to protect a bloody ideology.

Reprinted with permission from CCBR.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Rachel Daly

,

Gvmt strikes UK Catholic school admission policy that prefers Mass attendees

Rachel Daly
By Rachel Daly

St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School in Epsom, England, was ordered to change its admissions policy after it was ruled discriminatory by the nation's Office of Schools Adjudicator, according to Your Local Guardian. St. Joseph's reportedly had been granting preferred acceptance to students whose families attended Mass at the affiliated church.

St. Joseph’s School is for students from age 4 to 11 and describes itself as “enjoy[ing] a high level of academic success.” The school furthermore places high priority on its Catholic identity, affirming on its homepage that “We place prayer and worship at the center of everything we do.”

The school states in its current admissions policy that it was "set up primarily to serve the Catholic community in St Joseph’s Parish" and that when the applicant pool exceeds 60 students, its criteria for prioritizing students includes "the strength of evidence of practice of the faith as demonstrated by the level of the family's Mass attendance on Sundays." 

Opponents of this policy reportedly argue that since donations are asked for at Mass, it could allow donation amounts to influence acceptance, and that forcing non-accepted local students to seek education elsewhere imposes a financial burden upon their families. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

As Your Local Guardian reports, the adjudicators dismissed claims that donation amounts were affecting school acceptance, given that it is impossible to track donations. Nonetheless, the adjudicators maintained that "discrimination ... potentially arises from requiring attendance at the church rather than residency in the parish."

The Office of Schools Adjudicators, according to its website, is appointed by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State of Education, to perform such functions as mediating disputes over school acceptances. The Office's ruling on St. Joseph's will require the school to release a revised admissions policy, which is expected in the next few days.

Reprinted with permission from the Cardinal Newman Society.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Carolyn Moynihan

African women at risk of HIV, hostages to birth control

Carolyn Moynihan
By Carolyn Moynihan

Which should be the priority for a health organisation: preventing an incurable disease, or preventing a natural function that might have adverse physical consequences?

Preventing the disease, you would think. But the World Health Organisation would rather expose African women to HIV-AIDS than withdraw its support from a suspect method of birth control, arguing that childbirth is also risky in Africa. Riskier, apparently, than the said contraceptive. And at least one of WHO’s major partners agrees.

This is one of the stories you will not have read in coverage of the International AIDS Conference held in Melbourne last week, despite the fact that WHO made an announcement about it during the conference and the findings of a highly relevant study were presented there.

The story is this: there is increasing evidence that the method of contraception preferred by family planning organisations working in Africa (and elsewhere) facilitates the transmission of HIV. The method is the progesterone injection in the form of either DMPA (Depo Provera, the most common) or NET-En (Noristerat).

Millions of women in sub-Saharan Africa receive the injection every three months. The method overcomes problems of access. It can be given by nurses or health workers. A wife need not bother her husband for any special consideration; the teenage girl need not remember to take a pill.

But for 30 years evidence has been accumulating that, for all its “effectiveness” in controlling the number of births, the jab may also be very effective in increasing the number of people with HIV.

Three years ago at another AIDS conference in Rome, researchers who had analysed data from a number of previous studies delivered the disturbing news that injectables at least doubled the risk of infection with HIV for women and their male partners.

That study had its weaknesses but one of the experts present in Rome, Charles Morrison of FHI 360 (formerly Family Health International, a family planning organisation that also works in AIDS prevention), considered it a “good study” and subsequently led another meta-analysis that addressed some of the issues with previous research.

Last week at the Melbourne conference he presented the results. His team had re-analysed raw data on the contraceptive use of more than 37,000 women in 18 prospective observational studies. Of these women, 28 percent reported using DMPA, 8 percent NET-En, 19 percent a combined oral contraceptive pill, and 43 percent no form of hormonal contraception. A total of 1830 women had acquired HIV while in a study.

The analysis showed that both injectables raised the risk of infection by 50 percent:

Compared to non-users [of any hormonal contraceptive], women using DMPA had an elevated risk of infection (hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.31-1.86), as did women using NET-En (1.51, 95% CI 1.21-1.90). There was no increased risk for women using oral contraceptives.

Similarly, comparing women using injections with those using oral contraceptives, there was an elevated risk associated with DMPA (1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.67) and NET-En (1.30, 95% CI 0.99-1.71).

Morrison also noted:

The results were consistent in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. However, when only studies which were judged to be methodologically more reliable were included, the increased risk appeared smaller.

Morrison acknowledged that observational studies such as the FHI analysis depended on have their limitations. He is looking for funding to conduct a randomised controlled study – something that, after 30 years of suspicions and evidence, still has not been done.

So what is his advice to the birth control industry? Stop using this stuff in regions with a high prevalence of HIV until we are sure that we are not feeding an epidemic?

No.

One reason is that FHI is at least as interested in contraception as it is in HIV prevention. Though its website reflects a broad range of development activities, its core business is integrating birth control programmes with HIV prevention. The WHO – one of its partners -- describes the US based, 83 percent US government funded non-profit as “a global health and development organization working on family planning, reproductive health and HIV/AIDS.”

Another reason is that FHI 360 has a vital stake in precisely the kind of contraceptives that are under suspicion. Its annual report refers to:

Our trailblazing work in contraceptive research and development continues, as we develop and introduce high-quality and affordable long-acting contraceptives for women in low-income countries. Research is under way to develop a new biodegradable contraceptive implant that would eliminate the need for removal services. We are also working with partners to develop an injectable contraceptive that would last for up to six months. Currently available injectables require reinjections monthly or quarterly, which can be challenging where health services are limited.

That project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID.

So Morrison did not argue in Melbourne for restrictions on the use of injectables, and neither did the WHO, whose representative at the conference outlined the UN body’s new guidelines on contraception and HIV. Mary Lyn Gaffield said a review of studies up to – but not including Morrison’s – did not warrant a change to WHO’s policy that DMPA and NET-En should be available, without restriction, in areas of high HIV prevalence.

The most WHO will advise is that women should be informed of the risk:

“Women at high risk of HIV infection should be informed that progestogen-only injectables may or may not increase their risk of HIV acquisition. Women and couples at high risk of HIV acquisition considering progestogen-only injectables should also be informed about and have access to HIV preventive measures, including male and female condoms.”

Condoms? How do they defend such cynicism? By equating the risk of HIV with the risks of motherhood – complications of pregnancy or childbirth, maternal death and the effect on infants... And yet motherhood remains risky precisely because 90 percent of the world’s effort is going into contraception!

Seven years ago a meeting of technical experts convened by WHO to study the injectables-HIV link showed the reproductive health establishment worried about that issue, to be sure, but also concerned that funding was flowing disproportionately to HIV-AIDS programmes, setting back the cause of birth control. The integration of family planning and HIV prevention spearheaded by FHI 360 looks like they have found an answer to that problem.

Whether African women are any better off is very doubtful. They remain pawns in a game that is, above all, about controlling their fertility. They and their partners are encouraged to take risks with their health, if not their lives, while researchers scout for funds to do the definitive study.

FHI had an income of $674 million last year, most of it from the US government. Couldn’t it give Charles Morrison the money to do his research today?

Reprinted with permission from Mercatornet.com.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook