I know I'm probably going to take heat for deviating from the Liberal Line here.
First of all, No matter who you are, Tom Lukiwski's comments were offensive, disgusting and repugnant. That being said he should at the very least resign from his parliamentary secretary job. That being said I want to delve into the tape and talk about why Mr. Lukiwski said the things he said.
Number One, I know Mr. Lukiwski's record on Gay Rights are not good. He's voted against Gay Marriage three times.
Number Two, I'm not somebody who is going to call people a homophobe for voting against Gay Marriage unless they said some really despicable things during a debate in the House of Commons.
Number Three, You have to realize the time, this is 1991 we are talking about. At that time Homosexuality was still not as accepted as it is today, secondly, you have to watch the Video's Context, this guy was likely drunk off his ass (see the beer bottle in his hand), I'm not saying that gets him off scot-free, but I truly do think the alcohol in his system was a contributing factor.
Personally, I think this is just Mr. Lukiwski being an idiot, If you watch the entire video you can easily tell these are people just having a little too much fun and having had way too much to drink. Now I've never been drunk, but I can definitely tell you that people do not act the way they normally do when they are (Trust me, I've been around people that are drunk, and while they may say things that aren't normal, I don't believe they aren't the people who they truly are for a second). The video in my opinion is pretty much a drunken frat party.
And I know Gay Rights groups want to make a big deal out of this and I understand why, but look, if the Prime Minister will Repudiate the comments then I will consider the matter case closed.
Even though I'm a liberal, I think Mr. Lukiwski, the person himself has been raked through the coals enough, he should still have the decency to resign his Secretary post.
8 comments:
Sorry, I have to disagree. 1991 wasn't that long ago. Several Canadian provinces had already passed anti-discrimination law. The United Church of Canada had been ordaining openly gay ministers for a couple years. Gay people were appearing on TV.
But even if it was, it certainly doesn't make hate speech any less hateful. He didn't say that homosexual acts are dirty and spread disease, he said that "homosexual faggots.. spread disease". That is regarded as hate speech as it is directed against people, not actions. The man was 40 years old. He's an adult. He knew what he was saying.
Maybe he showed terribly bad judgement by getting drunk at the office and saying stupid things. Getting drunk tends to make people say how they feel anyway. And maybe he showed even worse judgement by hanging on to the tape instead of destroying it years ago. Why would someone carry around such a tape as they moved from office to office anyway? What should we make of someone with that kind of judgement in parliament?
If Lukiwski said that aboriginals, Quebecers or Jews were dirty and spread disease would there be any debate here, even with an apology?
I don't think he's been raked over the coals enough. This only broke yesterday. He has a lot of fences to men. Whether he should resign or not, I don't know.
"Number Two, I'm not somebody who is going to call people a homophobe for voting against Gay Marriage unless they said some really despicable things during a debate in the House of Commons."
Your definition of homophobia is pretty lenient. Why is an irrational fear of gay marriage not a phobia? What business is it to anyone else if two women want to get married?
I generally concur. I do though think the issue is whether Lukiwski still holds those views or not. I believe people can evolve and so I am all for giving forgiveness to people whose views have changed. But if he is just sorry because he got caught, then he should be turfed. A good move for him would be to sit down and meet with some gay rights groups and maybe even attend a gay pride parade. Michael Richards after his racist rant agreed to meet with Jesse Jackson and although I had a tough time forgiving him for what he did, if someone like Jesse Jackson who is probably one of the strongest defenders of African-American rights can, they it was probably heartfelt. The same can be said with Lukiwski. Part of the reason I take the time into account is my Grand-parents 40 years ago were in many ways quite racist, but today have many minority friends and would have absolutely no problem if a I married a person of a different race. Simply their views changed with the times.
The drunk part I don't excuse though as from my experience of being drunk, you usually say what you feel but when sober have enough sense not too. Essentially you lose your inhibitions.
I still want everyone to note that I do not support what this man said. He was incredibly idiotic.
As terribly idiotic as his comments were....I definitely think he should resign from his current post. That said...I can't for the life of me some of the arguments. For instance...
Mills lunn (and apparently Robert Fife) talk about Lukiwski's age as if to suggest people are incapable of changing their views after a certain age. Liberals are, for the most part, the biggest advocates for rehabilitation...and I would have to agree with that view.
But what message does this send? What would happen if we extended that view outside of the political realm. What if, just as as an example, criminals and drug addicts were cast in the same light when their offences occured after a "liberal determined" age?
Is that the message? I sure hope not....or the political landscape in this country is in real trouble.
I'm not for a second excusing the remarks of someone acting "stupid" almost 2 decades ago. However, I do agree with the author....he has paid for this comment and will have to live with it for the rest of his life. I for one and going to give him the benefit of the doubt and actually believe he is sorry...
I think you are so wrong. I am in the same age group as Lukiswski and we grew up in the era of "change" - Civil Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, etc.
He was "40" - he didn't look drunk and looked oh so serious.
There are jokes and there are nasty statements - this was no joke.
He is what he is.
Well said toujoursdan --
Homosexuality is a perversion of sexuality no different than beastiality or incest or pedophilia. Homosexuals are obsessed with putting their genitals where they don't belong. It's a sin.
Right and wrong is NOT determined by popular opinion nor personal opinion. Homosexuality is wrong and that's a universal, immutable, objective truth.
Post a Comment