January 14, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

The Australian - Blog
14 January 2009

Rights charter is from 2009 BC
By Janet Albrechtsen

Here I am in Canada again. And once again I am receiving a few free lessons about a charter of rights. Just about every time I am in this otherwise great country, its Charter of Rights and Freedoms is making headlines for all the wrong reasons. Reasons that Australians should be digesting as the push for an Australian charter of rights unfolds this year.

This time in Canada it’s a cracker of a story about a preacher man who has had 26 wives and more than 106 children. Clearly a sucker for punishment, 52-year-old Winston Blackmore, from the aptly named town of Bountiful in British Columbia, was arrested last Wednesday amid much media hoopla and charged with breaching BC’s criminal prohibition on polygamy.

Not taking a backward step, Blackmore says his fundamentalist Mormon beliefs on polygamy are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the charter overrides BC’s criminal code….(Full Story)

______________

F4L:  Polygamy has been illegal in Canada since many years before Pierre Elliot Trudeau “brought the Constitution home” in 1982.  That no cases prosecuting polygamy by some in a few Mormon communities were ever brought to bear is for a good reason.  The authorities wanting to launch such an action always feared that they would run the risk that they would lose such a case.

The time is now ripe to bring such a case against polygamy into the court system, where it will most likely make it up to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), whereupon it stands a good chance to be lost and for polygamy to become legal, as that appears to fit in with the agenda for social engineering that the SCC actively promoted since 1982.

SCC justices had always had large powers to engage in social engineering, but they did not have the legal power to do so and to be necessarily successful in trying.  Since 1982 they assumed the legal power to usurp the power to legislate (that is, the power to make laws) from our lawfully elected legislators (lawgivers) in provincial and federal elected bodies of government.  Since 1982 there has also been a great escalation of rulings by the SCC that illustrate what its agenda for social engineering is and will be.

Since 1982 the SCC justices assumed the power to overrule, by hook and by crook, the wishes of our elected representatives.  Ted Byfield, the publisher of the now defunct news magazine, The Report, extensively commented on the growth over the powers of the SCC justices over the years and was given to call the SCC justices “judicial activists” and the “nine kings in purple robes.”

There is absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone in Canada holding conservative opinions that the SCC is out to re-engineer Canadian society, so as to extinguish and replace the set of moral standards we once held sacred and adhered to.  Going by the evidence of the SCC’s decisions since shortly after 1982, the SCC’s agenda promotes: world government; socialism; equality of outcomes; income equalization regardless of the merits earned by achievements; the abolition of the traditional nuclear family; Atheism; Paganism; the abrogation of individual rights for men; supremacy for women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities; the abrogation of traditional moral standards based on the code of ethics of Christian churches, and of the right of men to own and enjoy property and to be able to be the fathers and teachers of their children.

In short, the SCC is the major force driving the conversion of Canada to a socialist state that is to be incorporated into the global socialist world regime.  Igor Shafarevich, a Russian and world-renowned mathematician who became a historian in the absence of the historians that were exterminated through the purges that took place in the USSR, summed up the agenda of socialism as follows:

It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been indicated above. They are:

• Abolition of private property.
• Abolition of the family.
• Abolition of religion.
• Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.

The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently, by a clearly discernible overall thrust. (Igor Shafarevich, in The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 200)

In writing that, he aptly described the goals for the agenda of our SCC justices.

Our Supreme Court of Canada justices do not consider our Constitution to be a set of laws that they must live by, administer, interpret and apply, but that the Constitution is a living document to be changed as required so that it can be used as the tool by which to implement their agenda for social engineering. Seeing that most of our Supreme Court justices promote judicial advocacy for social changes such as those indicated above, one is forced to ask: By what law did the SCC justices assume the right to become judicial activists and to impose their world view on the Canadian people? (E. g.: SCC Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s speeches identified below.)

1. The [Canadian] Charter — a judicial coup d’etat
   By Joanne Byfield, 2003 03 03
   If voters don’t support change, government can pay to take it to court

2. Speech by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, “UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES: What is Going On?” (Dec. 1, 2005, NZ), in which she argues that the rights of judges must transcend common law, constitutions (it follows that the principles to be overcome by judicial advocacy also include the supremacy of God) and parliamentary principles.
3. Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C.
   Chief Justice of Canada:  Reaction and Pro-action: Bringing Family Law Advocacy Into the 21st Century (Family Law Dinner, Ontario Bar Association, Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, January 24, 2002)

Beverley McLachlin is by no means the only SCC justice who promoted the role of SCC justices as being the purveyor of radical social change in Canada, with the aim to impose socialism.  Nevertheless, neither the people nor their elected representatives ever gave the SCC justices such powers.  Our Constitution most certainly never gave them those powers; other than that the SCC justices busily engaged themselves in writing the consequences of their judicial activism into the Constitution.

Given that the SCC justices of Canada are re-writing our Constitution, thereby turning it, step by step and cut by cut, into something the Constitution was not meant to be, the conclusion appears to be unavoidable that our SCC justices are revolutionaries and traitors to our country.  They are captives and apostles of the ideology they promote and are no longer the servants of our country but made themselves its masters and tyrants.

Posted in Abortion, Divorce, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Child Support, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Feminism, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Gay issues, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

January 6, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Touchstone - A journal of mere Christianity

January 2009

“We’re from the Government, and We’re Here to End Your Marriage.”

by Stephen Baskerville

The decline of the family has now reached critical and truly dangerous proportions. Family breakdown touches virtually every family and every American. It is not only the major source of social instability in the Western world today but also seriously threatens civic freedom and constitutional government.

G. K. Chesterton once observed that the family serves as the principal check on government power, and he suggested that someday the family and the state would confront one another. That day has arrived.

Chesterton was writing about divorce, and despite extensive public attention to almost every other threat to the family, divorce remains the most direct and serious. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers writes that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.”

Most Americans would be deeply shocked if they knew what goes on today under the name of divorce. Indeed, many are devastated to discover that they can be forced into divorce by procedures entirely beyond their control. Divorce licenses unprecedented government intrusion into family life, including the power to sunder families, seize children, loot family wealth, and incarcerate parents without trial. Comprised of family courts and vast, federally funded social services bureaucracies that wield what amount to police powers, the divorce machinery has become the most predatory and repressive sector of government ever created in the United States and is today’s greatest threat to constitutional freedom….(Full Story)

__________________

F4L: Related story:  A history of the decline and fall of the family

A search of the website of Fathers for Life for “the planned destruction of the family” provides more reading on the subject of Stephen Baskerville’s article.

More articles by Stephen Baskerville at Fathers for Life.

Posted in Paternal Rights, Divorce, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Child Support, Health, Child Murder, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, Gay issues, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 26, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The New York Times

August 18, 2008, 3:16 pm

Lawyer Files Antifeminist Suit Against Columbia

By Corey Kilgannon

Roy Den Hollander is a Manhattan lawyer and a self-described antifeminist. Over the past year, he has sued Manhattan nightclubs for favoring women by offering ladies’ night discounts and has sued the federal government over a law that protects women from violence.

And now Columbia University has come within his sights. On Monday, he filed a lawsuit in United States District Court in Manhattan against Columbia for offering women’s studies courses, which Mr. Den Hollander sees as discriminatory toward men. His class-action suit accuses Columbia of using government aid to preach a “religionist belief system called feminism.”….(Full Story)

Here is a related story:

The Straits Times (Singapore)
25 October 2008

Columbia uni’s ‘parody’ lawsuit

AP - New York - Columbia University urged a judge on Friday to toss out a lawsuit that claims a women’s studies programme is unconstitutional because there is no similar men’s programme, saying the lawsuit ‘reads like a parody’.

In papers filed in US District Court in Manhattan, the school said the judge should reject the demand in an August lawsuit that women’s studies courses be prohibited….(Full Story)

That article mentions that Columbia University noted that “thousands of courses throughout the university teach about the experiences and accomplishments of men in every period of history.”

Yes, it is difficult to deny the fact that there have been some but relatively few notable experiences and accomplishments by women in every period of history, but is that enough reason for Columbia University for rejecting Mr. den Hollander’s demand to establish a men’s studies program?

Columbia University argues that to give in to such a demand “would be like saying the existence of African-American studies courses required the establishment of a white curriculum, or that an institute devoted to gay and lesbian studies should be balanced with an institute that studies heterosexuality”.  That is of course a very objective and accurate point of view, but Columbia University does not see things that way.

It is remarkable that Columbia University does not see the irony in its argument against not only formal men’s studies programs but also against programs that study heterosexuality, unless it truly advocates that being a white, heterosexual man with wife and family is politically incorrect and that therefore not only that state of existence but all knowledge of it must be eradicated.

“Jezebel” emphasizes and illuminates the sort of reasoning used by Columbia University. Read that and become fully informed through feminist rhetoric. If you lean toward her approach that all men need to be “f….d” over (yes, she minces no words), you will be inclined to agree with her.   You will then also be inclined to vote for Barack Obama, so as to give “Jezebel’s” views the necessary clout.

On the other hand, you may rather wish to take in Roy den Hollander’s views, first hand, through his website.

Posted in Men's Issues, Education, Civil Rights, Gay issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

September 23, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

CHRONWATCH

2008 09 22

The Consequences of Homosexual Marriage

By Karen England

In the next few weeks, Californians will be inundated with media messages about the importance of allowing same-sex marriages.  Voters will see television ads telling them that homosexual love deserves “equality” with heterosexual love.  Voters will hear radio reports about how all gays and lesbians want is to have the same “rights” as all married couples.

And the main message that will be repeated is that allowing homosexuals to marry will have no impact on your marriage or your family–so what’s the harm in giving gays their chance to marry?….(Full Story)

Posted in Civil Rights, Gay issues, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

September 21, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

From Dale O’Leary:

I will be speaking on the Marriage Amendment in California. Here is the schedule.

Dale O’Leary
author of One Man, One Woman

Mon. Sept. 22 7pm Talk at St. Mel’s Church in Sacramento

Wed. Sept. 24 7pm Talk at San Diego Diocesan Pastoral Center

Thurs Sept. 25 7pm Talk at St. Joseph Communication Center in Covina

Posted in Organizational News, Health, Gay issues, Family | Print | No Comments »

September 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

From the mail box of Fathers for Life:

I live in the U.S. But I’m hoping that you might know where I can get some help. Last year my son was fondled by another boy. This year he yelled at the boy, calling him gay, and pushed him. The supervisor saw it and now my son is in BIG trouble, probably a hate “crime.” The assistant principal and I had agreed that my son was honest and well-raised. He implied that he’d have done the same thing. I thought I was done with this and was surprised when the school sent me a letter outlining my son’s unacceptable behavior without acknowledging what led up to it. This is a “politically correct” situation and my son’s caught in the middle.

Do you have any information or experiences that can help guide me? Is there an organization in the States that can help?

[The father of a sexually assaulted boy]

Does anyone have advice for the father of the sexually assaulted boy?

Posted in Civil Rights, Gay issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

September 11, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

A few comments (inserted between the lines of and after the article from Statistics Canada that is quoted in the following) are in order.

Gay pride. by the numbers

By Statistics Canada
http://www42.statcan.ca/smr08/smr08_118-eng.htm

Each summer, gay and lesbian pride festivities are celebrated in towns and cities across Canada.

The rainbow flag that symbolizes gay and lesbian pride is just as colourful as the individuals who make up the community. Like all people in Canada, gays and lesbians are of many ethnicities, cultures and backgrounds, and have various education levels and occupations.

That those “gay and lesbian pride festivities…in towns and cities across Canada” are being celebrated each summer is not entirely a voluntary circumstance.  The festivities and gay-pride parades are being imposed under influence of the full force of the federal government, whenever a mayor of  a city dares to refuse to declare a gay-pride week or -parade.  Costs of fines and legal fees incurred for failure to comply or for simply contesting the diktat by the federal government typically ranged from about $20,000 to about $65,000.

Mind you, the majority of Canadian mayors play along without urging by the State.  Statistic Canada fails to identify whether that is because a given mayor does so entirely voluntarily or on account of fear of punishment. Still, although some Canadian mayors (e. g.: London, Kelowna, and Edmonton) resisted the federal pressure, they eventually buckled and followed the federal mandate to declare gay-pride festivities.

Still, some private organizations, that at first glance and logically appear to be pro-heterosexual, most definitely and eagerly participate because their sympathies openly lean in that direction.  Take, for example, Fathers 4 Justice (Canada) with the rainbow-coloured background in their side-bar menu, who for three years in a row entered a float in the Vancouver Gay Pride parade.  Of course, that carries a price.  The popularity ranking for their website is a dismally low 12,466,650th place of all websites in the world (three-month average ranking as of 2008 09 10).

Rainbow colours are common.  They show up in every rainbow and are most definitely not a gay monopoly.  The presence of a rainbow as part of the display on a parade float is not necessarily a sign of support for gay pride, as shown in the photo of the float of the Bruderheim Moravian Church in the parade that was part of the Bruderheim Centennial celebrating the hundredth year of the incorporation of the village (now a town) of Bruderheim.

Here are some selected numbers on assorted topics related to gay life in Canada.

Same-sex couples across Canada

How many gay, lesbian and bisexual persons are there in Canada?

Statistics Canada does not have the definitive number of people whose sexual orientation is “gay” or “lesbian” or “bi”, but the agency does attempt to quantify some estimates in various surveys.

Nevertheless, a little farther down in their article, Statistic Canada do identify percentage figures for Canadians in the age range of 18 to 59 who declared themselves to be either gay or bi-sexual (1% and 0.7%, respectively).

Given that, a little farther down in its article, StatCan also identifies that of all Canadians 18 and older 1.5 percent identify themselves as being homosexual (gay or lesbian), it would seem that homosexual orientation is for a substantial portion of the gay population a matter of choice that is not necessarily fixed at birth but varies with age.

The Census, however, does count same-sex couples, both married and common-law.

Half of all same-sex couples in Canada lived in the three largest census metropolitan areas (CMA):

21.2% — The proportion of all same-sex couples who resided in Toronto in 2006.

18.4% — The proportion of all same-sex couples who resided in Montréal in 2006.

10.3% — The proportion of all same-sex couples who resided in Vancouver in 2006.

Source: “2006 Census: Families, marital status, households and dwelling characteristics”, The Daily, Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

That StatCan publication identifies that “In 2006, same-sex couples represented 0.6% of all couples in Canada. This is comparable to data from New Zealand (0.7%) and Australia (0.6%).”

Want to know how many same-sex couples (both married and common-law) are in your province, territory or CMA? Consult this 2006 Census Highlight table on Families and households:

Same-sex couples by type of union (married, common-law) and sex, 2006 Census - 20% sample data.

See also: “Table 3: Persons in same-sex unions by broad age groups and sex” in Families and Households Highlight Tables, 2006 Census.

---

Same-sex spouses

45,300 — The number of same-sex couples in 2006. Of these, about 7,500 (16.5%) were married couples and 37,900 (83.5%) were common-law couples.

53.7% — The proportion of same-sex married spouses who were men.

46.3% — The proportion of same-sex married spouses who were women.

Source: 2006 Census, Family Portrait: Continuity and Change in Canadian Families and Households in 2006.

See also: 2006 Census information on same-sex common-law and married couples; 2006 Census, Marital status.

774 — The approximate number of same-sex marriages in British Columbia in 2003, representing 3.5% of all marriages in the province that year. Nearly 55% were female couples and roughly 46% were male couples.

Source: Spotlight on Same-sex marriages in the Media Room.

---

A Canadian first

The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), Cycle 2.1, was the first Statistics Canada survey to include a question on sexual orientation.

1.0% — The percentage of Canadians aged 18 to 59 who reported that they consider themselves to be homosexual (gay or lesbian).

0.7% — The percentage of Canadians aged 18 to 59 who reported that they consider themselves to be bisexual.

Several concepts can be used to measure sexual orientation. These include behaviour, that is, whether a person’s partner or partners are of the same or the opposite sex, and identity, that is, whether a person considers himself or herself to be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

The CCHS uses the concept of identity. Data from other countries suggest that the number of people who consider themselves to be homosexual is much smaller than the number who report having had sexual relations with someone of the same sex. However, people are more willing to answer questions about identity than about behaviour.

Source: “Canadian Community Health Survey”, The Daily, Tuesday June 15, 2004.

---

Sexual orientation and victimization

According to the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS), gays, lesbians and bisexuals reported experiencing higher rates of violent victimization including sexual assault, robbery and physical assault, than did their heterosexual counterparts.

The number of gays, lesbians and bisexuals who felt they had experienced discrimination was about 3 times higher than that of heterosexuals. Furthermore, 78% of gays and lesbians who experienced discrimination believed it was because of their sexual orientation compared to 29% of bisexuals and 2% of heterosexuals.

1.5% — The proportion of Canadians aged 18 years and over who identified themselves in the GSS as being homosexual (gay or lesbian).

94% — The proportion of Canadians aged 18 years and over who identified themselves in the GSS as being heterosexual.

5% — The percentage of respondents to the GSS who did not state their sexual orientation.

Source: Sexual orientation and victimization, 2004.

1 in 10 — The proportion of hate crimes that were motivated by sexual orientation.

56% — The proportion of all hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation that are marked by violence. This percentage was higher than the proportion of incidents motivated by race/ethnicity (38%) or religion (26%). Common assault was the most frequent type of violent offence.

As a result, incidents motivated by sexual orientation were more likely than other types of hate crime incidents to result in physical injury to victims.

Source: “Study: Hate-motivated crime”, The Daily, Monday, June 9, 2008.

---

Health

More likely — The probability that gay men, when compared with heterosexual men, would have consulted a medical specialist or mental health service provider.

Less likely — The probability that lesbians, when compared with heterosexual women, would see a family doctor or undergo a Pap test.

Source: “Study: Health care use among gay, lesbian and bisexual Canadians”, The Daily, Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

---

Physically active

31.4% — The proportion of homosexuals and bisexuals who reported that they were physically active in 2003, compared with 25.4% of heterosexuals.

According to the Canadian Community Health Survey, homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to find life stressful.

Source: “Canadian Community Health Survey”, The Daily, Tuesday, June 15, 2004.

---

Gay parents

3% — The percentage of all male same-sex couples who had children aged 24 and under living in the home in 2006.

16% —The percentage of all female same-sex couples who had children aged 24 and under living in the home in 2006.

Same-sex couples represented less than 1% of all couples (married and common-law) in Canada.

Source: “2006 Census: Families, marital status, households and dwelling characteristics”, The Daily, Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

Less “than 1% of all couples (married and common-law) in Canada” is a bit of an overstatement.  StatCan could easily have been more precise, as its figures presented in their article and related documentation quite clearly permit to calculate that, given that there were 7,059,830 couple families, 45,300 same-sex families comprise 0.64% or two-thirds of one percent of all couple families.  It would have been more appropriate for StatCan to mention that same-sex couples represented the far more precise two-thirds of one percent than the imprecise “less than 1% of all couples (married and common-law) in Canada.”

9% — The percentage of married same-sex male couples who had children in the home in 2006. Less than 2% of men in same-sex common-law unions had children.

24.5% — The percentage of married same-sex female couples who had children in the home in 2006. Less than 15% of women in same-sex common-law unions had children.

Source: 2006 Census, Family portrait: Continuity and change in Canadian families and households in 2006: National portrait: Census families.

---

You want to know what?!?

Times change… and so do the questions asked by Canada’s national statistical agency.

• The 2001 Census was the first census in Canada to provide data on same-sex partnerships.
• The 2003 Vital Statistics - Marriage Database was the first source of data on same-sex married couples in Canada.
• The 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey (Cycle 2.1) was the first Statistics Canada survey to include a question on sexual orientation.
• The 2006 Census also included a question on same-sex common-law partnerships.
• Consultations are under way for the content of the 2011 Census, including the questions on same-sex married couples.

Statistics Canada goes to great lengths in assuring its questions—including those questions related to sexual orientation—are relevant and feasible.

In testing questions targeted to specialized populations, Statistics Canada found that the positive rapport between the agency and with various groups and individuals, coupled with assurances of anonymity, contribute to respondents feeling very comfortable with the interviewing arrangements.

This trust has led to a situation where respondents are willing to reveal personal details about their lives, and to answer questions honestly.

The consultations on questions with specialized populations also provided many useful insights into the issues being investigated.

Source: Experiences in testing questionnaires with specialized populations.

---

For information on this page or more data, contact Media Relations.

At any rate, it appears that, all official claims, assertions and expectations to the contrary, concerns about Canada becoming more and more a homosexual nation or that homosexuals represent an important, very influential and rapidly growing sector of the electorate are vastly overrated.  It is recommended to read the document identified by the second-last link in the StatCan article, Experiences in testing questionnaires with specialized populations.

It is difficult and even impossible to understand why Canada’s gays should require “Innovative Methods for Surveying Difficult-to-reach Populations“.  Given that census forms and Gay-Pride parades have become ubiquitous in Canada, the assumption that Canada’s gays are difficult to reach is incredulous and appears to be a figment of StatCan’s imagination. Canadian Gays are no more difficult to reach than are any other Canadians.  In fact, it seems that they are somewhat easier to reach than other Canadians.

The methods described for sample selection as per Innovative Methods for Surveying Difficult-to-reach Populations raise concern that a selected population sample is not representative of the general population of Canadian gays.  Even though any survey results will reflect attributes of the selected survey sample, the rules of the mathematics of statistics do not permit to draw from them any conclusions about the population from which the sample was selected.  The fact that such a sample is not randomly selected does not permit the projection of any survey results found in the sample to the population from which the sample was selected.

Posted in Paternal Rights, Shared Parenting, Gay issues, Family | Print | 4 Comments »

July 16, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Warwick and Alison Marsh at Fatherhood.org in Australia wrote:

….This document has been born out of the Australian Fatherhood Movement. Feel free to use it on your own website. [It is now available for downloading from the website of Fathers for Life , 954kb PDF file –WHS] The document argues the support case that the healthy celebration of the male and female gender is foundational to Marriage, and family and Gender Disorientation Pathology is a painful departure for all concerned from the societal norm. We embrace Gender Disorientation Pathology (homosexuality) as a society at our peril and our children pay the price if we do. The Natural biological family is the best protective mechanism for our children and deserves maximum support from our legal system and our governments.’21 Reasons Why Gender Matters’ has 34 authors and contributors, some of whom come from the USA, like noted academic Dr. Judith Reisman and well known author Dale O’Leary. Three of the authors are former homosexuals. Many others are noted Academics.

‘21 Reasons Why Gender Matters’ has also had contributions from 5 medical doctors and a whole host of leaders and researchers from within the Australian marriage- and family-friendly men’s and fathers movement. With 178 referenced footnotes and 34 authors, ‘21 Reasons Why Gender Matters’ has been released to the Family movement world wide as a resource document to be placed on family-friendly web sites, printed out and used for the greater good of families around the world. Please pass it around your networks and use the www.gendermatters.org.au as a family-based resource for all concerned. PDF downloads of ‘21 Reasons Why Gender Matters’ are available at the website. We encourage you to make use of the document in any way you can, as together we make a stand for our children.

Yours for the Families of the World

Warwick & Alison Marsh

Fatherhood Foundation
PO Box 542
UNANDERRA NSW 2526
Ph: 61 2 4272 6677
Fax: 61 2 4272 6680
Email: info@fatherhood.org.au
Web: www.fatherhood.org.au

______________
See also:

• Excerpts from Dr. Judith Reisman’s “Kinsey : Crime & Consequences“
• Dale O’Leary’s collection of research material for those who are interested in promoting the truth about homosexuality.

Posted in Health, Gay issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

July 2, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Such safety is relative, but the impressions of what is relatively safe are being distorted through lying with statistics to promote a political agenda. Take the following article.

my.pinknews.com

Gay blood ban is lawful, says Finnish official

June 30, 2008

The Finnish Red Cross policy of banning men who have sex with men from donating blood should not be considered unlawful.

The country’s parliamentary ombudsman announced today that she had based her decision on expert opinions….(Full Story)

The article discusses not only the Finnish ban on blood donations by homosexual Finnish men, it also discusses a corresponding ban on blood donations from homosexual men in the U.K.

The pinknews article decries those bans, suggesting that they are discriminatory against homosexual men, using an argument that turns logic on its head, namely that U.K. vegetarians who never ate meat are likely to be as offended by being banned from donating blood in the US (on account of the danger that their blood may be infected with the BSE virus) as homosexual men are bound to be.

The fallacy of that argument is that vegetarians are virtually certain to consume foods that are not likely to be sources of BSE infections, while homosexual men with virtual certainty engage in sexual practices that are very likely to ensure the transmission of deadly and incurable sexual diseases.

In another misleading use of statistics that distorts the truth, the pinknews article conveys the impression that the blood of homosexual men in the U.K. is not as much at risk to contain HIV as the blood of heterosexual men is. To that end the article identifies that,

The latest Health Protection Agency findings released by National AIDS Trust show diagnoses of heterosexuals infected in the UK have increased by 50 per cent since 2003.

However, it fails to provide the information that is necessary to make that statistic useful in determining whether the blood from homosexual men poses a greater or smaller risk of being a source of infections than does the blood from individuals (men and women) who are not men who have sex with men. The article fails to identify the actual number of incidents of HIV infection that illustrate the respective HIV infections for men who have sex with men vs. HIV infections for the portion of the population comprised of individuals who are not men who have sex with men.

That is a very important but curious omission, given that the source of the quote provides that information. The U.K. Health Protection Agency identifies that in 2006 there were 69,400 adults (15-59) living with HIV. Of those, 39,300 (56.6) percent were heterosexuals (out of 99 percent of the population that can be considered to be heterosexual) and 30,100 (43.6%) were men who have sex with men (out of about 1 percent of the population who are men who have sex with men). (See Testing Times : HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United Kingdom: 2007; Figures 2.1.1 and 2.1.9)

That means that the average individual in the UK who is man who has sex with men is about 75.8 times more likely to be infected with HIV than is the average individual who is not a man who has had sex with men.

Another statistic that permits a comparison is presented by pinknews in such a fashion that it leads the majority of those who read it to come to the conclusion that the blood donated by men who have sex with men would pose only about half the risk of infection than does the blood of men who engage solely in sexual practices with members of the opposite sex.

Figures for the Health Protection Surveillance Centre for 2007 also reveal that of the newly diagnosed cases of HIV in 2007, 53% were acquired through heterosexual contact while only 21% were through male-to-male sexual contact.

It is important to quote the full paragraph from which the information in the preceding quote was taken:

HPSC officials were able to determine the mode of transmission for 150 of the new cases. Of the 150, 53% were transmitted through heterosexual contact, while 23% were transmitted among injection drug users and 21% were transmitted among men who have sex with men. More than 50% of the new cases were diagnosed among men, and 39% were diagnosed among women (Kelpie, Irish Examiner, 2/27). Gender was not available for 7% of the cases (Taylor, Irish Times, 2/26). The average age of people newly diagnosed with the virus was 33, the Examiner reports. (Source, Medical News Today)

A very important piece of information is contained in the very first sentence in that paragraph, namely the total of the new HIV cases being 150 for those cases for which the route of transmission had been determined.

What those figures do not identify is that 98 percent of the population is inclined to engage in heterosexual contact, that quite possibly homosexuals do have sexual contact with heterosexuals, and that only about one percent of the population is comprised of homosexual men.

Those figures permit to estimate something that the pinknews article omitted to identify, namely that the blood of homosexual men is many times more likely to be a source of infection of sexually transmitted diseases than is the blood of heterosexuals. The important thing to keep in mind is what can be concluded about the statistics identified above:

In Ireland, of the 150 new cases of HIV diagnosed and for which the route of transmission of the infection is known, 31 cases were contracted by members of the one percent of the population who are men who have sex with men, while the remaining 119 cases of HIV infections whose route of infections were known were contracted by the remaining 99 percent of the population. Therefore, based on those proportions of the incidents of HIV infections, Irish men who have sex with men are about 26 times more likely to have become infected with HIV than are other Irish, and all men in the U.K. who have sex with men are about 75.8 times more likely to have become infected with HIV than are all other individuals in the U.K.

Given those relative risks, it is very easy to understand why blood-banks are very reluctant to accept them, as they should. Common sense and experiences such as that resulting from the Canadian blood bank disaster should prevail in refusing blood donations from high risk sources. (See also: Blood Trail and AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases among men who have sex with men)

Posted in Health, Gay issues, Propaganda Exposed | Print | 2 Comments »

June 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Age [Australia]
10 June 2008

Oral sex blamed for throat cancer rise

For five gruelling months in 2006 and 2007, Carol Kanga suffered through treatment for a life-threatening case of throat cancer linked to an unlikely source: a sexually transmitted viral infection.

Unable to swallow food or water during chemotherapy and radiation treatment, Kanga was fed through a stomach tube. Her one respite came on Thanksgiving, when she savoured a single spoonful of weak broth….

….concern among some researchers who think [HPV infections are] … causing a small-scale epidemic of throat cancer….

With 6,000 cases per year [in the US] and an annual increase of up to 10 per cent in men younger than 60, some researchers say the HPV-linked throat cancers could overtake cervical cancer in the next decade….(Full Story)

Posted in Health, Men's Issues, Gay issues | Print | No Comments »