And Bruce nailed it right there! 17 years ago , Lukiwski made that awful comment on a video.
Now, yes it is possible to change ones stripes. Intelligent people do have the ability to do that. But….lol. (That’s not what we dealing with here)
Deeds count too.
He may not be saying that absolutely unacceptable crap anymore, but deeds speak louder than words.

For the reasons I’ve stated I don’t see the two episodes as similar so the hypocrisy doesn’t jump out at me. Also, I suppose, I’m a little inured to hypocrisy in politics.

Lukiwski and Ahenekew may or may not be sincere in their late life conversions but such conversions are not impossible or all that uncommon. Many middle aged parents are forced to re-examine their ideas and beliefs when confronted with a gay child or a son/daughter-in-law from a different race or ethnicity.

JB

I will understand if he was a kid, or even a young man. But 40 is too much. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

Those guys were in their forties when they made those sophomoric, idiotic comments and they were gunning for public office, old enough that their personal social conscience was already well established. 1991 wasn’t that long ago, the dinosaurs had already died off and anybody with half a brain considering a life in politics should have known better.

This is indicative of a conservative mindframe that haunts us all to this day. So I have to ask the question: If the tables were turned, would Lukiwski or Wall be so charitable to you as to place it in historical context?

Oh please, don’t be so quick to jump on the hate bandwagon and lets keep the straw men with the tin men.

It was a time of transition as you note. What percentage of males do you think have never made a statement more offensive that Lekiwiski’s. 10%? 5%?

In the early 1990’s I had two friends who were gay and even before that I was generally respectful. Still I’m pretty sure I used the word faggot and homo. I certainly used homo in the same way that offend Jim Bob (ie as a synonym for lame). It never occurred to me to inspect their fingernails.

The point beneath the hyperbole is that this sanctimonious fascination we seem to have developed of trolling through a person’s history to find remarks that are by todays standards intemperate and then demanding they resign is the real hypocrisy here.

A good chunk of out-from-the-start adult gay males may not have to quit under your statement, and they’re men. I know a bunch of straight dudes who as early as high school were members of friends of GBLT groups; and a bunch who experimented; and a bunch of folks whose families include queer or trans folks; and there were lots of straight dudes out with me on Queer Patrol; etc., etc. Go to a theatre and make a hilarious homophobic joke in the green room and watch your ass hit the pavement outside before your joke finishes sullying the air.

There is more than one way to be a man. Standing firm against hatred is one way. Don’t lump all men under the same banner – y’gotta hate to be a dude – because it’s simply not true. Nothing sexy nor sexed about hate.

(And I don’t think all homophobes should have to quit.)

As it is, I don’t get it, and it scares me.

That’s what it comes right down to. This kind of language scares me; I’m not going to be unscared by an apology that could be for political expedience.

The blogoverse has been an education for me. Nowhere is the bigotry and hate of the right so proudly on display as it is in right-wing land online. What I find even more amazing is that these people are so very very comfortable with their bigotry and prejudices that it never even occurs to them that there is a huge segment of the Canadian population that simply does NOT believe in their point of view.

Clearly the fact that this Lukiwski character could make these kind of remarks to the giggling and chuckling audience in the film and not be taken to task for it speaks not only volumes about him, but about the zeitgeist of the Conservative “culture” at that time.

I take it as read that all the “It was 17 years ago… get over it.. bleh bleh bleh” remarks are rationalizing sick behavior. They don’t care that homosexuals were being attacked in this fashion. They regret only that one of their own was caught out.

“It’s hypocritical political b/s based on nothing more than party affiliation and favour – the current foundation of party politics in Canada.”

It is very hypocritical, I agree fully. I think it goes deeper than party loyalty, though.

There is still plenty of homophobia that goes either unnoticed or we let it slide. A popular schoolyard taunt in the 50’s and 60’s when I was alad was to call someone a “queer” or a “fag.”

Today, things haven’t changed much. I don’t frequent schoolyards but even I’ve heard the derogatory exclamation, “That’s so gay!” I’ve even heard parents of teenagers use this expression. And, yes, I did react with, “What do you have against gays?” Shocked silence and then they never speak to you again. In 2008.

Males in my generation were given a negative portrayal of homosexuals from the very time we learned such people existed. In fact, we learned of their existence by asking just what it meant when the big boys called someone a fag or a queer. Anti-gay prejudice lives on today and has been far more acceptable than racial or religious prejudice.

JB

Is it reasonable to draw a direct comparison of the consequences and ignore the differences of the actions? Can that still be hypocracy?

If we made everyone quit who uttered anti-gay words it would be the end of the male workforce.