I read in a book called the Assassin’s Quest, a couple of comments that touched me and they went like this, “Honor, courtesy and justice… they are not real. We all pretend to have them and hold them up like shields, but they guard only folk that carry the same shields. Against those who have discarded them they are no shields at all, but only additional weapons to be used against them”. Another read, “That is one thing that in all my years among your folk I have never become accustomed to. The great importance that you attach to what gender one is.”
It is being argued by nations like Canada and the USA that the anti gay laws and crackdown on gays and gay activists by the Russian, Ugandan and Kenyan governments is a violation of freedom and expression, but it is the Russian governments actions of late that is concerning the so-called democratic governments of the world right now. I think that it is partially because the next Olympic Games were awarded to the Russians and because the Western alliance will not be able to bully, threaten the Russians into compliance, like they have tried to do in the cases of Uganda and Kenya. Canada, the USA and most of the so-called civilised world used to feel the same way about Gay rights and homosexuality as the Russians, Kenyans and Ugandans and in fact only lately have shifted their laws to try appear to be doing something change things for gays and lesbians. Canada is struggling with how to accommodate Gays and Lesbians within the legal framework that guaranties all Canadians certain inalienable rights; with only marginal success, because they are trying to write them into the law as if they were a special kind of Canadian and not just Canadians.
It is argued by one side that the international law trumps the law of a sovereign nation to enact and uphold laws that counter mind the decisions made and based in international laws, treaties and agreements. It is argued by the other side that the right of a nation to enact and enforce its own laws as a nation and to determine for itself its own values, its own culture and make its own decisions is what makes for a democracy and more importantly determines it as a sovereign nation and that no matter how distasteful they may seem to the rest of the world, it is none of the rest of the world’s business.
I do not put much stock in international treaties and laws, because as George W Bush put it when discussing his violation of certain agreements with the Russians, “There comes a time when certain treaties and international agreements need to be put aside or rethought” In other words international treaties are for the moment and after the crisis has been met and averted the agreements can be nullified to meet the stronger nations objectives. On the issue of gay rights and who gets to determine what they are from a global perspective there seem to be 2 trends of thought and I think these people express these trends clearly and without reservation, so here is what they have to say:
Real Women of Canada’s Position
REAL Women of Canada, a privately funded socially conservative group says that Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is imposing his own views on Uganda, Kenya and Russia when he criticizes those countries for passing legislation targeting homosexuals. The group, which describes itself as a “pro-family conservative women’s movement,” issued a press release Wednesday decrying what it called Baird’s “abuse of office” and his awarding of a $200,000 grant to “special interest groups” in Uganda and Kenya “to further his own perspective on homosexuality.” REAL Women also lambasted Baird for admitting he worked extensively behind the scenes to persuade Russia not to pass laws restricting foreign adoption of Russian children by gay couples and cracking down on gay rights activism to control the spread of “homosexual propaganda.” Finally, the press release states, “Mr. Baird’s actions are destructive to the conservative base in Canada and causing collateral damage to his party.” Gwendolyn Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, disputed that defending the rights of gays and lesbians is a human rights issue in other countries. “According to the culture and the religion of, Uganda it’s not a human rights issue. You can’t imply that every country has to take our human rights issues and plunk it down in another country. And particularly when you’re spending all that taxpayers’ money to implement a standard which is not that of that country,” she said. Last year, REAL Women of Canada was one of the groups invited by the government to select recipients of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee medals.
John Baird’s Position
Baird’s office said in a statement, “The promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canada’s foreign policy. “Canada stands up for human rights and takes principled positions on important issues to promote freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Roth compared the criminalization of homosexuality to the suppression of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression. He continued, “This is not a left versus right issue. This is a position that is supported by a vast majority of Canadians.” 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?” The Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment.
Alex Neve of Amnesty International’s Position
Alex Neve of Amnesty International said Baird is making a clear and principled statement. “This is not about Canadian values and Canadian interests, this is about international human rights standards,” Neve told CBC News. “The kinds of issues that Mr. Baird has been flagging in countries like Russia and Uganda contravene not only our laws and principles here in Canada, they contravene standards that are guaranteed under international treaties.” Uganda, which has laws that impose 14-year sentences for homosexual behaviour, has not yet passed even harsher legislation that could include life sentences and penalties for Ugandans who don’t report homosexual activity.
In a statement issued in February, the group said, “Crossroads supports the Canadian government’s position that strongly opposes the criminalization of homosexuality and violence on the basis of sexual orientation.” This was after The Canadian Press pointed out Crossroads’ website referred to homosexuality as a “perversion” and a “sin” while at the same time the organization was accepting a half-million dollar grant from CIDA. Crossroads explained that the section of the website was there inadvertently and was meant to be taken down.
I am not gay, I believe in the right to choice and that all people should be treated equally under the law. It is this belief that makes me wonder the why and the what of Russia’s decision to make being gay, or even the supporting of gay rights illegal. Since I do not believe that the government in Russia is reacting on any religious pressure, or is driven by the masses of a demanding populace calling for the end of gays or gay activism in Russia, I wonder what is the cause, or the force that is driving the persecution of gays in Russia? I wonder if this is a political pushing back by Russia against what it is perceiving as the Western Alliances push to have its religious ideology, its form of democracy and its way of life and culture forced on the world through militarily force, with sanctions and embargoes, or by withholding needed financial support for foreign aid, until nations get onboard with what they determine should be happening in the world, ideologically, religiously, culturally and morally. It is for this reason and definitely not in support of Russia’s decision to get tough in its enforcement where gays are concerned that I ask the question, “Does a sovereign nation have the right to make being gay illegal”?
Is this a reaction to countries such as Canada who have sent pit bulls the like of John Baird to deliver their foreign policy statements? Could it be the aggressive, confrontational, tasteless and non diplomatic manner being used by diplomats such as John Baird the reason for the aggressive behaviour towards gays in countries like Uganda, Kenya and Russia? Has Canada’s attacking approach to this situation and aggressive talk to countries who do not believe that being gay is normal and who have always denounced it in their culture and forbidden it in their culture caused some sort of anti gay backlash designed to prove that these will not have their country’s sovereignty diminished? Is the gay issue really the primary argument or is it just the smoke covering up the real fight, the fight for the sanctity of sovereignty?
I believe that the Canadian government with their token gay politicians who are still hiding in the closet about their being gay, are a bunch of hypocrites for attacking a sovereign nations decision to enforce the laws about something that they openly have always had laws against and highlights Canada’s lack of credibility on this issue. Canadian politicians like John Baird call it their choice to be coy and non-committal when it comes to whether they are gay or not, but I say that as long as they do not come out of the closet, they know that they do not actively have to fight openly for pro gay causes on a political level.(Putting forth legislation aimed at getting gays equal rights under the law for example) Politicians like John Baird of Canada know that to come out of the closet and stand up and say I am gay publicly could be a career stunting, or even a career ending move and so they choose to stay in the closet. They do this in fear of something they say no longer exists in Canada.(The persecution and unfair treatment of homosexuals) The press and the people that they represent are kept guessing about whether or not they are gay, not because of a privacy issue, but for fear of discrimination. They will back a bill for instance that gives gays more rights, but they will not bring one forward themselves for fear that they will be labeled gay.
What Canada and other hypocritical gay bashing countries of the west have decided to do is go after countries that have always maintained throughout their history for their belief that they saw being gay as either offensive to their religion, morals, ideological beliefs, or some other way fundamentally not normal. Canada still refuses to come out of the closet and give gays total equality with the rest of Canadians. Even if we did, by what right do we seek to impose our decision on the rest of the world and tell them to scrap their religious beliefs, culture and ideology, because we as a nation, or league of nations determined that this should be the new norm for the world?
This is the train of thought that made me ask the question, “Does a sovereign nation have the right to make being gay illegal”? Is their such a thing as sovereignty anymore if a majority of nations can force their will on a country and force said nation to give up its beliefs no matter how distasteful? I think that there is no such thing as a sovereign nation if a country looses its right to govern by its own laws, its own beliefs, its own values and we then should put and end to then hypocrisy of democracy and freedom of choice and erase all borders and all governments save one all governing body that would make the rules for the whole world.
I will leave you with this questions:
1.If a person makes a choice to be gay, knowing that they will never be able to conceive children, is not having children a direct consequence of their freedom of choice and expression and if it is why should the laws of a country, the religion of a country, or the beliefs of a country be changed to accommodate a consequence of a person or persons choices?
2.The question of what is normal when it comes to being gay, or lesbian always seems to pop up, but is only ever addressed in a politically correct way, but what is meant by normal, is this not the answer we must answer before trying to take away the sovereign rights of a nation to decide what is normal for them?
3.Is normal using the sexual apparatus that enables a man and a woman to reproduce in that correct manner what is to be considered normal, or is enjoying the sexual activity above all else to be considered normal?
4.Our laws, religion and culture were founded on certain ideologies and principles and out of them sprang our culture and the belief that in the eyes of the creator that the primary purpose for sex was to make the next generation. In that light are we trying to normalise something that is not normal, because we are afraid of being called anti anything and does being anti something make one a bad person, or people?
5.I watched a documentary about how gays who had adopted children in Canada were doing as a family and in every case their children were facing discrimination and isolation from their peers, so the question is now that we have been fair to the gay couple, who is worrying about what is fair to that generation of children who did not have a choice in the adoption process?
I ask these questions because in no other species on this planet have these questions come up. It is as if the focal point of our existence has changed. Sex is no longer the only way to have children for the human race and so now it seems to me that we seek to rewrite creation, making sex a pleasure vehicle only and babies the products of the laboratory. If you are a bird and can not have children, there is no adoption agency and enjoying sex does not seem to be an issue, or a criteria, but making the next generation, by utilising the only reproduction method available to them in the end is all that matters. I would also point out that no other species of animal is born gay or lesbian that I know of.