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.

Red alert! Only 2 days left.

Support pro-life news. Help us reach our critical spring fundraising goal by April 1!


Advertisement
Featured Image
Newsbusters Staff

,

Disney ABC embraces X-rated anti-Christian bigot Dan Savage in new prime time show

Newsbusters Staff
By

March 30, 2015 (NewsBusters.org) -- Media Research Center (MRC) and Family Research Council (FRC) are launching a joint national campaign to educate the public about a Disney ABC sitcom pilot based on the life of bigoted activist Dan Savage. MRC and FRC contacted Ben Sherwood, president of Disney/ABC Television Group, more than two weeks ago urging him to put a stop to this atrocity but received no response. [Read the full letter]

A perusal of Dan Savage’s work reveals a career built on advocating violence — even murder — and spewing hatred against people of faith. Savage has spared no one with whom he disagrees from his vitriolic hate speech. Despite his extremism, vulgarity, and unabashed encouragement of dangerous sexual practices, Disney ABC is moving forward with this show, disgustingly titled “Family of the Year.”

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacts:

“Disney ABC’s decision to effectively advance Dan Savage’s calls for violence against conservatives and his extremist attacks against people of faith, particularly evangelicals and Catholics, is appalling and outrageous. If hate speech were a crime, this man would be charged with a felony. Disney ABC giving Dan Savage a platform for his anti-religious bigotry is mind-boggling and their silence is deafening.

“By creating a pilot based on the life of this hatemonger and bringing him on as a producer, Disney ABC is sending a signal that they endorse Dan Savage’s wish that a man be murdered. He has stated, ‘Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.’ ABC knows this. We told them explicitly.

“If the production of ‘Family of the Year’ is allowed to continue, not just Christians but all people of goodwill can only surmise that the company Walt Disney created is endorsing violence.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins reacts:

“Does ABC really want to produce a pilot show based on a vile bully like Dan Savage?  Do Dan Savage’s over-the top-obscenity, intimidation of teenagers and even violent rhetoric reflect the values of Disney?  Partnering with Dan Savage and endorsing his x-rated message will be abandoning the wholesome values that have attracted millions of families to Walt Disney.”

Dan Savage has made numerous comments about conservatives, evangelicals, and Catholics that offend basic standards of decency. They include:

  • Proclaiming that he sometimes thinks about “f****ing the shit out of” Senator Rick Santorum

  • Calling for Christians at a high school conference to “ignore the bull**** in the Bible”

  • Saying that “the only thing that stands between my d*** and Brad Pitt’s mouth is a piece of paper” when expressing his feelings on Pope Benedict’s opposition to gay marriage

  • Promoting marital infidelity

  • Saying “Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.”

  • Telling Bill Maher that he wished Republicans “were all f***ing dead”

  • Telling Dr. Ben Carson to “suck my d***. Name the time and place and I’ll bring my d*** and a camera crew and you can s*** me off and win the argument.”

Reprinted with permission from Newsbusters

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jacqueline Harvey

Ending the end-of-life impasse: Texas is poised to ban doctor-imposed death by starvation

Jacqueline Harvey
By Jacqueline Harvey

AUSTIN, Texas, March 30, 2015 (TexasInsider.org)  After five consecutive sessions of bitter battles over end-of-life bills, the Texas Legislature is finally poised to pass the first reform to the Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) in 12 years. An issue that created uncanny adversaries out of natural allies, and equally odd bedfellows, has finally found common ground in H.B. 3074 by State Rep. Drew Springer.  

H.B. 3074 simply prohibits doctor-imposed euthanasia by starvation and dehydration.

Since H.B. 3074 includes only those provisions and language that all major organizations are on record as having deemed acceptable in previous legislative sessions, there is finally hope of ending the end-of-life impasse in the Texas Capitol.

Many would be surprised to learn that Texas law allows physicians to forcibly remove a feeding tube against the will of the patient and their family. In fact, there is a greater legal penalty for failing to feed or water an animal than for a hospital to deny a human being food and water through a tube.

This is because there is no penalty whatsoever for a healthcare provider who wishes to deny artificially-administered nutrition and hydration (AANH). According to Texas Health and Safety Code, “every living dumb creature” is legally entitled access to suitable food and water.

Denying an animal food and water, like in this January case in San Antonio, is punishable by civil fines up to $10,000 and criminal penalties up to two years in jail per offense. Yet Texas law allows health care providers to forcibly deny food and water from human beings – what they would not be able to legally do to their housecat. And healthcare providers are immune from civil and criminal penalties for denial of food and water to human beings as long as they follow the current statutory process which is sorely lacking in safeguards.

Therefore, while it is surprising that Texas has the only state law that explicitly mentions food and water delivered artificially for the purpose of completely permitting its forced denial (the other six states mention AANH explicitly for the opposite purpose, to limit or prohibit its refusal), it is not at all surprising that the issue of protecting a patient’s right to food and water is perhaps the one point of consensus across all major stakeholders.

H.B. 3074 is the first TADA reform bill to include only this provision that is agreed upon across all major players in previous legislative sessions.

There are irreconcilable ideological differences between two major right-to-life organizations that should supposedly be like-minded: Texas Alliance for Life and Texas Right to Life. Each faction (along with their respective allies) have previously sponsored broad and ambitious bills to either preserve but reform the current law (Texas Alliance for Life’s position) or overturn it altogether as Texas Right to Life aims to do.

Prior to H.B. 3074, bills filed by major advocacy organizations have often included AANH, but also a host of other provisions that were so contentious and unacceptable to other organizations that each bill ultimately died, and this mutually-agreed-upon and vital reform always died along with it.

2011 & 2013 Legislative Sessions present prime example

This 2011 media report shows the clear consensus on need for legislation to simply address the need to protect patients’ rights to food and water:

“Hughes [bill sponsor for Texas Right to Life] has widespread support for one of his bill’s goals: making food and water a necessary part of treatment and not something that can be discontinued, unless providing it would harm the patient.”

Nonetheless, in 2013, both organizations and their allies filed complicated, contentious opposing bills, both of which would have protected a patient’s right to food and water but each bill also included provisions the rival group saw as contrary to their goals. Both bills were ultimately defeated and neither group was able to achieve protections for patients at risk of forced starvation and dehydration – a mutual goal that could have been met through a third, narrow bill like H.B. 3074.

H.B. 3074 finally focuses on what unites the organizations involved rather than what divides them, since these differences have resulted in a 12 year standoff with no progress whatsoever.

H.B. 3074 is progress that is pre-negotiated and pre-approved.

It is not a fertile springboard for negotiations on an area of mutual agreement. Rather it is the culmination of years of previous negotiations on bills that all came too late, either due to the complexnature of rival bills, the controversy involved, or even both.

On the contrary, H.B. 3074 is not just simply an area of agreement; moreover, it is has already been negotiated. It should not be stymied by disagreements on language, since Texas Alliance for Life and Texas Right to Life (along with their allies) were able to agree on language in 2007 with C.S.S.B. 439. C.S.S.B. 439 reads that, unlike the status quo that places no legal conditions on when food and water may be withdrawn, it would be permitted for those in a terminal condition if,

“reasonable medical evidence indicates the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration may hasten the patient’s death or seriously exacerbate other major medical problems and the risk of serious medical pain or discomfort that cannot be alleviated based on reasonable medical judgment outweighs the benefit of continued artificial nutrition and hydration.”

This language is strikingly similar to H.B. 3074 which states, “except that artificially administered nutrition and hydration must be provided unless, based on reasonable medical judgment, providingartificially administered nutrition and hydration would:

  1. Hasten the patient’s death;
  2. Seriously exacerbate other major medical problems not outweighed by the benefit of the provision of the treatment;
  3. Result in substantial irremediable physical pain, suffering, or discomfort not outweighed by the benefit of the provision of the treatment;
  4. Be medically ineffective; or
  5. Be contrary to the patient’s clearly stated desire not to receive artificially administered nutrition or hydration.”

With minimal exceptions (the explicit mention of the word terminal, the issue of medical effectiveness and the patient’s right to refuse), the language is virtually identical, and in 2007 Texas Right to Life affirmed this language as clarifying that “ANH can only be withdrawn if the risk of providing ANH is greater than the benefit of continuing it.”

Texas Right to Life would support the language in H.B. 3074 that already has Texas Alliance for Life’s endorsement. Any reconciliation on the minor differences in language would therefore be minimal and could be made by either side, but ultimately, both sides and their allies would gain a huge victory – the first victory in 12 years on this vital issue.

It seems that the Texas Advance Directive Act, even among its sympathizers, has something for everyone to oppose.

The passage of H.B. 3074 and the legal restoration of rights to feeding tubes for Texas patients will not begin to satisfy critics of the Texas Advance Directives Act who desire much greater changes to the law and will assuredly continue to pursue them. H.B. 3074 in no way marks the end for healthcare reform, but perhaps a shift from the belief that anything short of sweeping changes is an endorsement of the status quo.

Rather, we can look at H.B. 3074 as breaking a barrier and indicating larger changes are possible.

And if nothing else, by passing H.B. 3074 introduced by State Rep. Drew Springer, we afford human beings in Texas the same legal access to food and water that we give to our horses. What is cruel to do to an animal remains legal to do to humans in Texas if organizations continue to insist on the whole of their agenda rather than agreeing to smaller bills like H.B. 3074.

The question is, can twelve years of bad blood and bickering be set aside for even this most noble of causes?

Reprinted from TexasInsider.org with the author's permission. 

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Only 3 Days Left!
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

Only 3 Days Left!

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

I can’t believe how quickly our annual Spring campaign has flown by. Now,with only 3 days remaining, we still have $96,000 left to raise to meet our absolute minimum goal.

That’s why I must challenge you to stop everything, right now, and make a donation of whatever amount you can afford to support the pro-life and pro-family investigative reporting of LifeSite!

I simply cannot overemphasize how important your donation, no matter how large or small, is to the continued existence of LifeSite. 

For 17 years, we have relied almost exclusively on the donations of our growing army of everyday readers like you: readers who are tired of the anti-life and anti-family bias of the mainstream media, and who are looking for a different kind of news agency.

We at LifeSite have always striven to be that news agency, and your ever-faithful support has encouraged us to forge ahead fearlessly in this mission to promote the Culture of Life through investigative news reporting.

You will find our donation page is incredibly simple and easy to use. Making your donation will take less than two minutes, and then you can get back to the pressing duties scheduled for your day. But those two minutes means the world to us!

If you have not had the opportunity to see the video message from the Benham Brothers to all of our readers, I encourage you to do so (click here to view).

The Benham Brothers are only one of many, many pro-life and family leaders, media personalities, politicians, and activists around the world who rely on LifeSite on a daily basis!

Since our humble beginnings in the late 90s, LifeSite has gone from a small non-profit to an international force in the battle for life and family, read by over 5 million people every month

This is thanks only to the leaders, activists, and ordinary readers just like you who have recognized the importance truth plays in turning the tides of the Culture.

I want to thank the many readers who helped bring us within striking distance of our minimum goal with their donations over the weekend. 

But though we have made great strides in the past few days, we still need many more donations if we are going to have any hope of making it all the way by April 1st.

In these final, anxious days of our quarterly campaigns, I am always tempted to give in to fear, imagining what will happen if we don’t reach our goal.

In these moments, however, I instead turn to prayer, remembering that God in his providence has never yet let us down. With His help we have always been given precisely what we need to carry on!

You can also donate by phone or mail. We would love to hear from you!

Thank you so much for your support. 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook