Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Conservatives lead in Atlantic Canada | Main | Confession time »

Friday, June 18, 2004

Paging Scott Brockie...

"Vancouver businessman Jimmy Pattison's billboard company has refused to run Canada's first national AIDS ad campaign targeting gay men.

"The Health Canada posters, depicting gay men in suggestive poses, are aimed at reducing the high rate of unprotected sex in the gay community."

OK, does this mean Twin Peaks is back on the air? No? Oh, I thought it was 1985 all over again, sorry. Why are my tax dollars paying for posters of "gay men in suggestive poses"? More importantly, if there are still gay men out there barebacking after 20 years of non-stop "safe sex" propaganda, then frankly I just don't care. And they obviously don't care about themselves either. So we both agree on something.

If they were "breeders" they'd all be up for Darwin Awards. So they'd rather have fun and indulge their every little groin stirring than live to be 50 -- why does the government care? I thought we heteros were all supposed to "just mind our own business" about what goes on in the bedrooms of the nation.

Posted by Kathy Shaidle on June 18, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83456329d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paging Scott Brockie...:

» Bigotry is not conservatism from Ghost of a flea
Or at least it should not be.... [Read More]

Tracked on 2004-06-19 8:51:35 AM

» Bigotry is not conservatism from Ghost of a flea
Or at least it should not be. Liberty and democracy are under assault by maniacs who would kill or convert us all. Some folks want to stick their heads in the sand, some want to blame the all powerful father... [Read More]

Tracked on 2004-06-19 9:11:33 AM

Comments

find pertinent links here
http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=node/view/223

jon

Posted by: jonathan | 2004-06-18 7:36:20 AM


Thanks (I think) Jon; those ads are worse that I thought!

So, will anybody sue Pattison for not running the ads or something? Of course not, because the Gay & Lesbian Archives can only afford to pick on little guys like Brockie. Discrimination, I say!

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-06-18 8:11:46 AM


Kathy you said it right, as usual. We are supposed to stay out of the bedrooms of the nation, instead the bedrooms of the Gay Nation are forever shoved in our face. What a revolting,
sickening display.

Posted by: Mike P | 2004-06-18 8:21:12 AM


Pattison's sign company is run by BC's former NDP premier, Glen Clark; I kid you not.

Posted by: Norman Spector | 2004-06-18 8:32:20 AM


I care. Why? Because anti-retroviral therapy is bloody expensive and the cost of treating these morons is going to come out of my (and your) pocket. It's cheaper to keep hammering them over the head with the "safe sex" message than to treat them later.

That being said, I'm not sure I want to be commuting across town with a van full of children trying to explain what "the men on the sign are doing". Sheesh! There must be a better way.

Posted by: boudica | 2004-06-18 8:39:39 AM


OK Norman, I am officially at a total loss for words. Put a mark on the wall, somebody!

Except... Boudica: ok, but that's too much like that old Catskills joke about the food being so bad -- and such small portions, too. "It's cheaper but it still doesn't work" just isn't striking me as a great ROI argument or inspiring policy slogan. If they ain't listening then they ain't listening.

Why should countless kids have to suffer confusion and a premature loss of innocence because a minute percentage of the adult population are self-centered, narcissistic idiots intent on doing harm to themselves even though they know better already?

Gay men can (or should) be able to control what they do. Children have no such ability to control what they see on the streets.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-06-18 9:10:02 AM


"...self-centered, narcissistic idiots intent on doing harm to themselves even though they know better already?"

You'll be in maximum trouble with the Thought Police, Kathy, but then I imagine you're used to that.

Does it strike anyone as incongruous that psychologists and psychiatrists no longer define homosexuality as a mental illness on the grounds that it is not self-destructive? Surely it's time to revisit that conclusion in light of experience with AIDS.

Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2004-06-18 9:47:23 AM


"...self-centered, narcissistic idiots intent on doing harm to themselves even though they know better already?"

You'll be in maximum trouble with the Thought Police, Kathy, but then I imagine you're used to that.

Does it strike anyone as incongruous that psychologists and psychiatrists no longer define homosexuality as a mental illness on the grounds that it is not self-destructive? Surely it's time to revisit that conclusion in light of experience with AIDS.

Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2004-06-18 9:48:04 AM


Betcha Pattison will be forced to run the ads. Do not underestimate the power of the left/collectivists.

Posted by: tn | 2004-06-18 10:32:05 AM


"I care. Why? Because anti-retroviral therapy is bloody expensive and the cost of treating these morons is going to come out of my (and your) pocket. It's cheaper to keep hammering them over the head with the "safe sex" message than to treat them later."

Shouldn't we be encouraging gay marriage, then? Sex is much safer in a faithful monogamous relationship between a loving couple, (gay or straight).

Posted by: Sean | 2004-06-18 10:36:54 AM


Sean: what many gay men mean by "marriage" is different than what many straight people mean. They mean "being able to get on the boyfriend's health plan at work". Monogamy is often considered a silly "breeder" affectation. Yes, there are straights with "open marriages" but they are not in the majority.

And you are so right Charles: The Thought Police have me on speed dial :-).

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-06-18 10:52:52 AM


So... if gay marriage were as monogamous and committed as traditional marriages are we could expect Kathy Shaidle to support it? Fantastic! I mean, it's not like the obsession some folks around here have with gay sex has a hidden agenda or some such. Ahh... but that would make the people who don't like these ads the "thought police" so I must have missed a point of logic.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-06-18 11:15:06 AM


"Sean: what many gay men mean by "marriage" is different than what many straight people mean. They mean "being able to get on the boyfriend's health plan at work". Monogamy is often considered a silly "breeder" affectation."

I personally know three gay couples and they all take their relationships seriously. More seriously than most straight couples, in fact. Their opinion of gays who "slut around" is about as nice as yours is. They just want to live together happily and receive the same recognition under the law as straight couples do.

For what it's worth, the majority of straight people I know are either in common-law relationships or are busy slutting around. Granted, I don't go to church, but I have better uses for my time.

Posted by: Sean | 2004-06-18 12:12:44 PM


Flea: no, I wouldn't support gay "marriage" because gay people cannot get "married". They are free to get dressed up and have pretend wedding ceremonies, as long as they don't insist (and you know this is coming any year now) that these imaginary make-belive rituals happen inside an unwilling church building.

But they will never really be married in God's eyes, no matter how they try to twist the language around, or hold their breath until their widdle cheeks turn all wed.

As for gay sex and a hidden agenda, aka Getting Gay with Kids, it really is not so hidden:
http://cathyseipp.journalspace.com/?entryid=57 (scroll down to "Then during the Q&A")
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/956808/posts
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/school/wente.html

GLSEN recommends the picture book The Harvey Milk Story for grades Kindergarten to 6:
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/K-6.html
Sounds like yet another reason to home school.

Do you really think the government should be paying for posters that say "I came inside him" that are intended, not for the walls of the Hassle Free Clinic, but bus shelters where kids can see them? I don't like lots of commercial billboards I see but they at least aren't paid for by my extorted tax dollars.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-06-18 12:47:49 PM


"I wouldn't support gay 'marriage' because gay people cannot get 'married'."

Can you offer any non-religious reasons as to why gay people can't get married that can be understood by a church avoiding left-footer like myself?

"as long as they don't insist (and you know this is coming any year now) that these imaginary make-belive rituals happen inside an unwilling church building."

Would you be in favour of gay marriage if gays formed their own organized religion that is separate from yours?

FWIW, I back Jim Pattison's decision to not display the ads. Everyone has a right to their beliefs. My personal belief is that gay marriage is a lot less harmful to society than common-law straight relationships are.

Posted by: Sean | 2004-06-18 1:10:19 PM


IMHO the issue here is not whether gays should marry (or whether in doing so they would be a beacon of monogomy). The primary issue is whether or not these posters/billboards are appropriate for display in a public place.

In case I didn't make myself clear in my earlier post - I don't beleive they are. I'd be equally offended if they pictured heterosexual sex with some pouty teenage girl saying, "he came inside me".

As Kathy noted, they might be effecitve and appropriate in the Hassel Free Clinic or the walls of the bathroom in a gay bar but a public street???

Posted by: Boudica | 2004-06-18 1:14:23 PM


Oddly I'm with Kathy on this one. Pattison has a perfect right not to put up material he objects to on whatever grounds.

This is really not about gay sex/marriage/burning in hell for all eternity - it is about property rights and the asshats at Health Canada putting up gay sex pics in public places, what were they thinking.

The bedrooms of the nation, not the billboards.

{And yes Flea, I know Kathy has an agenda...as do we all.)

Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-06-18 1:56:05 PM


Sean: there already is the Metropolitan Community Church, which was started in San Francisco. They will always be a fringe group and seem essentially harmless if heretical.

Liberals in mainline churches like the Anglicans are trying to declare gay marriage aok but are meeting unexpected and virulent opposition from more orthodox Anglicans in Africa. Hence the law of unintended consequences bites the Great White Missionary on the butt, generations later... Ha ha. See Philip Jenkins New Christianty thesis (book and Atlantic Monthly article)

Actually, for a religous person, there are no non-religious reasons. If you believe that marriage is a sacrament or at the very least "instituted by God" exclusively for men and women, then that is pretty much that. God's laws are not "fair" but then "fairness" is mostly a concern of petulant children who want to stay longer in the swimming pool. Grown ups recognize the unfairness of life and try to live life on life's terms.

Some of us see an inherent absurdity with the idea of "gay marriage" along the lines of Reg, the fellow in Life of Brian, who wants his "right to have babies" recognized. Well, ok, the gang of radicals plays along to keep the peace, but his "right to have babies" is ridiculous on the face of it. To social conservatives or conservative religious folks, the idea of "gay marriage" is just as obviously silly, but of course that "obviousness" isn't apparent to non-religious people. Worldview is everything.

Again, to return to the original point, per Boudica: does anyone (that is libertarians) think the government should sponsor ads like this, even though you may even personally support the overall agenda?

And what are the chances of Mr. Rich Guy getting slapped with a Human Rights violation like (Non-Rich Guy Without Powerful Friends and Lawyers Scott Brockie) did?

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-06-18 2:07:32 PM


And of course, as you know Jay, property rights are not protected under the Charter.

Although according to the Supreme Court and Paul Martin (at least this is what he said in the debate), gay marriage is in the Charter! Even though nobody can find the phrase gay marriage anywhere.

Of course, the founders didn't use the word "abortion" in the US Bill of Rights. My rather limited imagination can't quite picture Jefferson or whoever meaning to do so and then just "forgetting". But, oddly enough, abortion was "read in" by America's Wise Robed Masters, under the Right to Privacy.

Must go wipe the white foamy stuff of my keyboard now...

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-06-18 2:14:58 PM


Can I just add that I have no opinion about who may or may not be burning in hell. The Catholic view is that no one, not even the Pope, can say or know who is or isn't in hell, even (Godwin's Law alert) Hitler. We trust in God's mercy while trying to remain constantly aware of his justice. Here Jesus parable of the day labourers is helpful.

I am a persistant, public mortal sinner. However, I am not trying to get my sins recognized as "sacraments", and this is what many gay activists are trying to do. This is what galls many religious people at the end of the day.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-06-18 2:21:10 PM


I looked at the ads. I would not want them on main street in Red Deer, but they would be fine with me in an area composed mainly of bars and clubs. The pictures seem fairly inocuous as these things go. I'd like to see a variation of the ads with a het couple, as HIV/AIDS is not the gay disease some people think it is.

The ads seem a great deal like the ones that have been used in the UK and Europe for some time now. If I remember what I read (and darned if I can find it now--net ephemera syndrome at work) they have been judged to be effective there.

Posted by: Vicki Smith | 2004-06-18 3:41:00 PM


"I would not want them on main street in Red Deer, but they would be fine with me in an area composed mainly of bars and clubs."

If the ads were relegated to the *interiors* of clubs and bars, I could live with it. Unfortunately, even if one does not patronize those types of establishments one occasionally winds up driving through that type of neighbourhood with one's family.

I'm not really looking forward to the day that I have to explain sex to my daughter, let alone gay anal sex, so I'd be quite happy if this sort of thing wasn't plastered around the outdoors on billboards where my kid will see it and ask me questions about it.

And I support Mr. Pattison's right not to display the ads even if I don't share his religious beliefs.

Posted by: Sean | 2004-06-18 4:31:07 PM


actually Vicki, it is the gay disease people think it is.

Posted by: Kathy | 2004-06-19 7:06:52 AM


Equality before the law and in the receipt of public benefits is, however, in the Charter. Marriage registration is a public benefit. End of story.

(Wouldn't it be fun if Harper siad he would put property rights in....just dreaming.)

Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-06-19 1:43:24 PM


"Marriage registration is a public benefit."

Fine, Jay. Specify what difference having one's marriage registered makes in terms of personal status or legally enforceable rights. The availability of recourse under the Divorce Act, Matrimonial Property Act, etc., rather than a constructive trust mechanism is pretty thin gruel.

The next step is to argue under provincial human rights legislation that marriage is a service customarily provided to the public, just like booking a hotel room for the night; hence any given church must provide the service without discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation. So much for fundamental freedoms.

Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2004-06-19 2:27:05 PM


"actually Vicki, it is the gay disease people think it is"

So all the millions of people in Africa dying from AIDS are gay then? Who knew! I guess they deserve everything they're getting and more.

"Actually, for a religous person, there are no non-religious reasons. If you believe that marriage is a sacrament or at the very least "instituted by God" exclusively for men and women, then that is pretty much that. God's laws are not "fair" but then "fairness" is mostly a concern of petulant children who want to stay longer in the swimming pool. Grown ups recognize the unfairness of life and try to live life on life's terms."

Erf. The next time you see God please let Him know that I've spent the last 35 years looking for Him. There are a few issues we need to discuss. (And they're not just about the ridiculous size of the pits in avocados...)

"I am a persistant, public mortal sinner. However, I am not trying to get my sins recognized as "sacraments", and this is what many gay activists are trying to do. This is what galls many religious people at the end of the day."

You say it's a sin. I say that an international organization shaking down little old ladies for money every Sunday with threats of eternal damnation for noncompliance is a sin. Incidentally, the law says it's a sin when a mobster does something similar to a business owner, only they are threatened in this life rather than the next one.

I guess sin is like ice cream in that everyone has their favorite flavour.

Posted by: Sean | 2004-06-19 10:43:54 PM


Actually Sean, some feel the number of AIDS cases in Africa have been exaggerated:
See this widely quoted Spectator article
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec192.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/may/00050403.html

One reason AIDS is spreading in Africa is the practice of "cleansing". When a husband dies it is common in some areas for the brother in law to have sex with the widow. And of course prostitution is a problem too. Monogamy is not a big social value. Condoms are as popular there as they are here, for the same reasons (they're annoying!)

You may not care much for Christianity and sometimes I can't say I blame you. However, at least Christian ideas about sexual morality if followed would have helped prevent the problem from starting in the first place.

I'm sorry that your quest for God has been unsuccessful, at least from your point of view (and no, I am not being sarcastic). Would you accept a word of advice, not from me but from Simone Weil? "Stop looking. Sit still. God will find you."

The notion that little old ladies are being extorted sounds very HL Menken. It is just as old fashioned and stereotypical as you think my ideas are! But if it makes you happy to think that, nothing I can say will change your mind. Good luck in your quest.

Posted by: Kathy | 2004-06-20 7:29:50 AM


Charles, I completely agree that the benefits of marriage registration are minimal given the evolution of the law regarding constructive trusts and its application to same sex partnerships. However, that misses the point. Where the state, and I emphasize the state, is offering a benefit basic equality rights require that it be offered to citizens without discrimination.

It would be grand fun to see a provincial human rights tribunal attempt to force a Church to marry a gay couple. Here there is no compelling state interest, in fact there is a compelling interest in freedom of religion which would almost certainly trump whatever equality argument is advanced.

Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-06-20 12:17:55 PM


You may be right, Jay, and I hope you are. As always, time will tell.

Compelling interests for the government are protean, changeable and unreliable. "Beware of rulers, for they befriend someone only for their own benefit; they act friendly when it benefits them, but do not stand by someone in his time of need" (Avot 2:3). I wonder how many Doukhobor elders relied on the compelling government interest in their freedom of religion trumping other concerns.

Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2004-06-20 1:33:27 PM


Nothing gets the juices flowing like a good morality debate. I would concur that not one nickel of our taxes should be spent on these ads. Why don't they just leave it to the condom manufacturers who have an interest in promoting "safe-sex"? Instead of the government spending our money on this, let Trojan do it.

Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2004-06-20 6:11:36 PM


http://souvenir.biz.tc/index.htm
http://astrology.biz.tc/index.htm
http://cosmetics.biz.tc/index.htm
http://find-horoscope.biz.tc/index.htm
http://psyhologist.biz.tc/index.htm

Posted by: Souvenir | 2006-05-18 1:39:45 PM


The Best patch souvenir travel. Cool, souvenir on any taste!: http://souvenir.biz.tc/index.htm
Best and full astrology information http://astrology.biz.tc/index.htm
All about cosmetics http://cosmetics.biz.tc/index.htm
Horoscope for everebody http://find-horoscope.biz.tc/index.htm
Psyhology and psylologist http://psyhologist.biz.tc/index.htm

Posted by: Psyhologist | 2006-05-19 9:33:23 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.