Brian Clowes

The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion

Brian Clowes
By Brian Clowes
Image

May 31, 2012 (HLIWorldWatch.org) - Anyone who is concerned about the influence of the homosexual agenda on reshaping traditional values must become intimately familiar with the major tactics that homophiles commonly employ in order to anticipate them and respond in charity and truth. Homophile strategists are very adept at manipulating public opinion with an arsenal of six tactics that are based upon deceptions and half‑truths:

  • Exploit the “victim” status;
  • Use the sympathetic media;
  • Confuse and neutralize the churches;
  • Slander and stereotype Christians;
  • Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
  • Intimidation.

One reason these tactics have worked so well is that homophile activists have succeeded in marketing a harmless and friendly image of their movement. They have lulled people into thinking that the wider society will not be adversely affected by their radical social agenda. Homosexual strategists have, in many cases, toned down their extreme rhetoric and have cloaked their agenda in soothing language. Over time, however, many have begun to think of themselves and others as “homophobes” or “haters” if they oppose any aspect of the homosexual rights agenda — or, incredibly, even if they question it in their own minds.

Generals and attorneys often wish that their opponents would write a book. Interestingly, leaders of the “homosexual rights” movement did exactly that. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen clearly laid out this agenda in the marching orders of the movement, After the Ball:  How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s.[1] This volume is an absolute treasure chest of information for those pro-family stalwarts who are actively engaged against the homosexual rights agenda.

By far the most popular homophile tactic is the claim to victim status, which is a very powerful, almost paralyzing, weapon that gives them a distinct advantage in the public square. Kirk and Madsen summarize the potent effectiveness of the victim status:

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. … The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status. … the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. … gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice.

Does this sound familiar? It does if one pays attention to any mainstream media coverage of these controversial issues as they play out in law and society. But the victim status requires a story to back it up. Thus, perhaps the most common lament of the garden-variety homophile revolves around the alleged “tidal wave of anti-gay” hate crimes.

An analysis of FBI statistics on hate crimes committed against homosexuals during the time period 2000-2008 shows that the probability of any individual homosexual being the victim of a hate crime during his or her entire life span is slightly more than one percent.[2] Interestingly, “gays” are more likely to commit hate crimes against “straights” than “straights” are to commit hate crimes against “gays.” According to the FBI, there are 3.98 hate crimes committed by each million heterosexuals annually against homosexuals, and there are 4.44 hate crimes committed by each million homosexuals annually against heterosexuals.[3]

Violence against homosexuals by others gets all the press, but it is interesting to note that the great majority of anti-”gay” violence is committed by other “gays.” The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) is the leading tracker of violence against “gays” in the United States. According to the NCAVP’s statistics on anti-”gay” violence, 83 percent of all violence committed against “gays” is carried out by other “gays” in domestic situations. This does not even count “gay-on-gay” violence committed outside the home.[4]

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

This confusion is now pervasive in society, and questioning the agenda is simply not to be tolerated – especially among America’s youth.

For example, the classical notion that universities should be “arenas for the free exchange of ideas” has been completely discarded in the United States. More than three-fourths of U.S. colleges and universities now possess codes of conduct that ban behavior and speech based upon, including many other things, “homophobia.” The danger that these codes represent to academic freedom far outweighs their usefulness. This has already been amply demonstrated, as many colleges have severely punished students for merely desiring to debate the topic of homosexuality.

The squashing of dissenting views on homosexuality in the classroom has been going on for decades now. In 1991, a student at the University of Michigan announced his intention to establish a counseling program to help homosexuals leave their lifestyle. He was dragged before a panel of university administrators, unanimously found guilty of “sexual harassment,” and was thrown out of the university.[5] In 2000, the Student Judiciary of Tufts University voted officially to “derecognize” the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) club for taking into account, for purposes of selecting leaders, the beliefs of a member whose views of Scripture and homosexuality were opposed to their own.[6] The TCF was stripped of funding, not permitted to use the Tufts name, not permitted to meet in any room that required a reservation, and not allowed to advertise or announce any of their events or meetings. In 2011, a Fort Worth, Texas high school student was suspended from school for reportedly saying, “I’m a Christian, and I don’t think being gay is right,” during a class discussion.[7] And teachers don’t have it any easier. In 2010 a professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign was accused of “hate speech” and relieved of his teaching duties for teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in his Introduction to Catholicism class.[8]

Political science professor Jean Betheke Elshtain, while highlighting the dangers presented by codes against racism, also points out the difficulties associated with all punitive codes of this nature: “My hunch is that, over the long haul, the upshot of such endeavors [college speech codes] will not be a purified, racist-free, collective student consciousness, but a simmering backlog of resentment at being labeled as a racist, even if one has never committed a racist act or uttered a racist slur.”[9]

No one should attempt to deny homosexuals their basic human rights; which are the same basic rights that we all have as being sons and daughters of God. But it has gotten to the point where we have to fight to preserve our own basic rights — the rights to free speech, religion, assembly, and teaching our own children our values – in order to protect our own families and institutions.

Those who promote homosexuality are forcibly tearing away more and more of the rights of Christians, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. Who could have possibly imagined just a few years ago that companies would start firing people for writing pro-family articles on their own time, or business owners would be sued for refusing to participate in homosexual union ceremonies?

Now is the time to draw the line, to stand and defend our families and our rights without apology in the public square.

[1] Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.  After the Ball:  How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s [New York City:  Plume Books], 1989.

[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) annual report entitled “Hate Crime Statistics.”  Table 1, “Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Bias Motivation.”  http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.

[3] Ibid.

[4] The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP).  Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Domestic Violence:  2003 Supplement.

[5] Paul Weyrich.  “Politically Correct Fascism on Our Campuses.”  New Dimensions Magazine, June 1991, page 44.

[6] Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. “Victory At Tufts; Evangelical Christian Group Regains Recognition.” May 16, 2000. http://thefire.org/article/137.html.

[7] “Student’s Homosexuality Comment Leads To Suspension.” CBSDFW.com, September 21, 2011. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/21/students-homosexuality-comments-lead-to-suspension-first-amendment-discussion/.

[8] Adam Cassandra. “University Reinstates Professor Terminated for Teaching Catholic Doctrine on Homosexuality.” CNSNews.com, August 1, 2010. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/university-reinstates-professor-terminated-teaching-catholic-doctrine-homosexuality.

[9] Stephen Goode.  “Efforts to Deal With Diversity Can Go Astray.” Insight Magazine, September 10, 1990, pages 15 to 19.

This article was adapted from its original version in the Spring 2012 issue of FrontLines, the official magazine of Human Life International. You can sign up to receive FrontLines here. Dr. Brian Clowes is the director of education and research at Human Life International (HLI).


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook