Tim Hudak Wraps Up the Neanderthal Vote

THERE IS a well-known anecdote concerning the visit of some respectable citizens at the house of Samuel Johnson following the publication of his dictionary. Arriving there to congratulate him for not including “any indecent or obscene words” in his dictionary, the eminent ladies were in turn congratulated by Johnson “on being able to look them up.” Here the Doctor was making a point both about the futility of censorship (the unthinkable words are already in our heads) and the curious need of some people always to go in search of dirty bits.

As the media today report Conservative leader Tim Hudak’s defence of his “homophobic ads” (or so the Liberal leader would have us think of them), I am reminded of Johnson’s visiting ladies. In this role one may note the contemporary work of something importantly calling itself the “Institute for Canadian Values,” which of course one quickly discerns is rather the Institute of Christian values. I’ve written elsewhere about Charles McVety and his dubious works, and on the Institute’s website you will find him amply represented. But before I get too far away from the opening anecdote, I should underscore something. In the case of Johnson’s dictionary, the sought-after words were not there. In the case of the proposed 2010 Ontario curriculum they are not there either, and so the opponents of homosexuality and “diversity” have interpolated them.

Here is the government’s fittingly boring-titled document, “The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8: Health and Physical Education,” characterized by Tim Hudak as a work of “so-called experts and elite insiders” designed to promote cross-dressing for six year-olds as well as other perversities:

Believe me, pervert that I am I tried to dig up the dirty goods. What I have found is that the principal difference between the Mike Harris curriculum of 1998 (which is still in use) and the 2010 revision is the latter’s relative bulk: 208 pages versus 42. Why even feign surprise? We all know Liberals are wordy and nerdy. It happens that I found the writing balanced and thoughtful, but 99% percent of it is unremarkable — how to use a balance beam, healthy eating: that sort of thing. There’s the inevitable stuff of political correctness and educational faddishness, but the notion that Dalton McGuinty is itching to impose gayness on our youth is conventional religious paranoia. I defy the many outraged critics to provide a rational, evidence based defence of this claim. Are the Liberals “out-of-the-mainstream,” as Hudak claims? Maybe, but I will add this: no more than the folks who are feeding the Conservative leader a junk diet of highly processed speaking points. Where for instance did I first come across this cross-dressing nonsense? Oh, yes: it was here.

If the Liberals have a gay agenda then it is merely to undo the prejudice against those who are not heterosexual. I’m all for it. Sign me up for the gay agenda. I base my assessment on the actual proposal, not on what people with broad agendas (again, Charles McVety) claim about it. “Broad agendas?” Well, I notice that the Institute for Canadian Values has been trying lately to stir people into a froth over Palestine, and McVety is in charge of something called “Christians United for Israel.” This is only one of the man’s side projects, and so I suggest we make note of it every time this religious bigot and his proxies and followers mouth off, as they always seem to do, about protecting “our children” and “our families.” My agenda is to work toward a world where suicide of young gay people is no longer a common occurrence, and where “difference” is not an occasion for bullies, religious or otherwise, to claim for themselves the exclusive possession of moral values.