Share Button

Some further thoughts stemming from the Men’s Project paper:  23 December 2008: Men & Healing:  Theory, Research and Practise in Working with Male Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse…….

Are female victims of “domestic violence” forced to interact with male workers in homes for battered women?   I don’t believe they are.  In fact the last time I did any research on battered women’s shelters the staffing at such facilities was exclusively female, and the notion that males are always the bad guy and the females are always the victim was nurtured.  It matters not that all males are not ogres. There is tolerance for the concerns of female victims.

It seems however according to the Men’s Project Men & Healing that, when it comes to dealing with males who endured childhood sexual abuse at the hands of men who self-identify as homosexual, things change.  Whether they like it or not, male victims are compelled to interact with homosexual men.  

Furthermore judging by Men & Healing male victims of same-sex sexual abuse are vilified and labelled ‘homophobic’ if they are adverse to the pursuit of ‘healing’ in the company of homosexuals.

Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?  Why for example on the one hand should female victims of male sexual abuse be allowed to denigrate and even express disdain for men in general while, on the other hand, male victims of same sex sexual abuse who express disdain for homosexuals are derogatorily denounced as ‘homophobes’?

And for that matter why is it socially acceptable for those working with female victims of domestic violence to nurture and/or tolerate a female victim’s animosity toward and/or fear of males but not for those working with male victims of same-sex sexual abuse to nurture and/or tolerate a male victim’s animosity toward and/or fear of homosexuals?

I am not advocating one or the other, I am simply questioning why the antithetical ideologies?

With that in mind, look at the following quotes from Men & Healing:

– As Schwarzberg and Rosenberg (1998) note, men have historically been raised in a culture that is sexist (devaluing of women), heterosexist (heterosexually biased), and homophobic (fearful/hating of homosexuality). Regarding homophobia, they observe:

…fear and hatred of gay men have at its core a terror regarding homosexuality’s unconscious equation with femaleness and femininity. Male homosexuality, as epitomized by anal penetration, can stir a man’s deep fear of emasculation and “getting fucked.” As such it elicits a much sharper phobic response than female homosexuality (p. 270).

– For example, examining homophobic beliefs sometimes reveals fears about being weak or powerless, uncertainties about sexual orientation, and confusion
between homosexuality and pedophilia.

– Concerns Regarding Participation in a Group. Men who are being assessed for a group program are asked how they think they will feel being in a group with other men. This helps assess their level of apprehension and their frame of reference for group work with men. They are also asked about how they think they will feel attending a group with:

• both co-facilitators being male;

• a female facilitator;

• men who have a different sexual orientation than he;

• facilitators who have a different sexual orientation than he;

• men of other cultures or races;

• men familiar to the individual.

Many of these questions are used to anticipate sexism, racism, and homophobia. The questioning and exploration is not aimed at promoting choice
but rather informing the potential group member about possible scenarios and
preparing him to handle them. An overtly sexist, racist, or homophobic survivor may have to be declined admission to a group.

The ultimate in politically-correct prattle!

 How unfortunate that programs for male victims have become a politicized tool to advance the gay rights agenda.  How sad that a goodly number of male victims molested by homosexual predators will be excluded from treatment and thereby re-victimized by politically-correct government-funded agencies.

On another note with regard to the quotes…

Note the following:

… examining homophobic beliefs sometimes reveals fears about being weak or powerless, uncertainties about sexual orientation, and confusion between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Confusion between homosexuality and paedophilia.  Wherein lies the “confusion”?

We have heard this notion advanced in the Weave Shed.  Ron Leroux was berated on the stand for referring to certain men as paedophiles when presumably they are homosexuals.  I have heard of homosexuals who are angry that certain men are referred to as homosexuals when in their eyes the men are paedophiles. It’s sort of a no win situation.

Xtra is a publication by and for the homosexual populace. The following quote is from a February 2009 xtra.ca article regarding the allegations of a paedophile ring in Cornwall. 

… the allegations hurt the city’s gay community as the line between homosexuality and paedophilia became blurred in the minds of some of the city’s residents.

That’s the same general idea.  Allegations of a paedophile ring caused the “line” between homosexuality and paedophilia to become blurred, and “homophobia” causes confusion between homosexuality and paedophilia.

Claude McIntosh wrote much the same thing.  In a September 2007 article written for Ottawa’s homosexual publication Capital Xtra, McIntosh, a Cornwall Standard Freeholder employee, had this to say about the allegations of a paedophile ring:

The gay and lesbian community became particularly vulnerable as the line between homosexuality and paedophilia became blurred.

This takes me back to a long standing difficulty in discussing the Cornwall sex abuse scandal.  If self-declared homosexuals molest young lads why is it taboo to say that they are homosexuals?  How does that ‘blur’ lines?

Or if, for example, a self-declared or known homosexual molests a pre-pubescent boy why can the molester not be classified as a paedophile?  or as a homosexual-paedophile?

Why or how does that warrant accusations of homophobia?

That’s been the situation in Cornwall.  Mention the word “homosexual” in relation to Cornwall and child sex abuse and out comes the label of “homophobe,”  and regardless of the context the ‘homophobe’ label is always used in a derogatory fashion.

As far as I can see it if heterosexuals can be paedophiles, why not homosexuals?   Why pray tell can a homosexual not be a paedophile?  

Would it be alright to talk about an alleged paedophile ring if the alleged molesters were heterosexual males molesting young girls?  Or would that also blur the line between heterosexuality and paedophilia?  If not, why not?   What’s the difference?

Malcolm MacDonald was known to be “homosexual.” He molested young boys.  Why is that statement of fact construed as homophobic?

Father Charles MacDonald is known to be “homosexual.” He “allegedly” molested a number of young boys.

Is it ‘homophobia’ to make the above statement?  Why?

Another example…

There are countless persons who say Ken Seguin was homosexual.  And there are many men who allege they endured childhood sexual abuse at the hands of Seguin and thousands upon thousands of dollars have been paid to victims in settlements.

That’s ‘homophobic?’  Why?


Marcel Lalonde is a known homosexual.  His homosexual ‘partner’ sat behind him in court.  Lalonde is a convicted child molester.

Is it homophobic to say that? Why?

Don’t get me wrong.  No one is saying or implying that all homosexuals molest anymore than we imply that all heterosexuals are molesters because several are or allegedly are molesters.

But, it seems that’s the way it is.  To utter “molest” in the same breath as “homosexual” evokes cries of “homophobia.”

In that vein a comment posted by “Katie” on the xtra website in response to that above referenced February 2009 xtra.ca article is interesting:

I am really disappointed by the way xtra has covered this story. Many many members of the glbt community are survivors of sexual abuse & as a survivor I can tell you the LAST thing i would do is depend on the police force–notoriously unfriendly to both the glbt community & sex abuse survivors–to produce the truth in Cornwall. The fact that homophobes continue to conflate gayness & pedophilia is not the fault of survivors & should be labelled as what it is–homophobia–instead of dismissing the allegations of survivors, many of whom may themselves be gay lesbian trans or bi. It’s my opinion & the opinion of many others that this lone cop was a whistleblower & is still being made to pay for believing the testimony of survivors. I wish xtra had done better research & produced a more nuanced examination of events in Cornwall. I’m a longtime reader & …disappointed to be disappointed.

So, good enough –  Katie stands up for and takes xtra to task for berating Perry.  Hats off to Katie.  It is encouraging to hear a voice from the LGBT community speak up on Perry’s behalf. But Katie also comes out with the notion that “homophobes continue to conflate gayness and pedophilia.”

There it is again.  How do people conflate homosexuality and paedophilia by saying that one or more homosexuals molested one or more boys?  How has this become grounds to attempt to malign people by calling them ‘homophobes’?

Another thought…

You may recall that it was Citizens for Community Renewal which stated in it application for standing and funding “The events to be examined by this commission have generated a ‘homophobic virus’ which resulted in discrimination against some gay individuals.”

A “homophobic virus”? 

What in the name of goodness is a “homophobic virus”?

That aside, the notion of homophobia was obviously on the minds of Citizens for Community Renewal from the inquiry get go.  Further to that I distinctly recall CCR Presidnet Paul Scott telling people in the early 2000s that no one was to use the word “homosexual” in relation to the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up. That was in the days when there was only one community group, the Coalition for Action – before Scott founded the Citizens for Community Renewal.

This notion of discrimination against homosexuals was certainly weighing on the mind of Helen Daley (Citizens for Community Renewal) when she was cross examining Carson Chisholm

Carson testified that most of the Cornwall sex abusers he was familiar with were homosexual paedophiles.  Daley seemed intent on turning that into a case of Carson equating homosexuality and paedophilia.  That’s not at all what Carson said, but, witness the following, Daley tried to put words into Carson’s mouth to force him to say that he believes paedophiles are homosexuals:

MS. DALEY: Do you have a view — in your view, is there a relationship between pedophilia of the sort you were looking at and homosexuality?

MR. CHISHOLM: There seems to be.

MS. DALEY: What’s the relationship as you’ve come to understand it?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, most of these lads are homosexual pedophiles. I mean it’s almost all boys and almost all guys. In fact, I believe it’s exclusively guys as perpetrators and victims, 90 plus-plus percent. So there is a correlation there, it seems pretty high.

MS. DALEY: All right. So in your view, are the two things equivalent; homosexuality and pedophilia?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, hardly.

MS. DALEY: I’m asking for your —

MR. CHISHOLM: No, no, no, they’re not equivalent.

MS. DALEY: All right. Are they — how do you see them being connected?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, they seem to have been connected in this community pretty closely. Like I said, most of these guys, these pedophiles, are homosexual pedophiles, but I think there are actually more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual pedophiles, but it’s just like there’s more heterosexuals.

It’s like why do white sheep eat more than black sheep; because there’s more white sheep.

MS. DALEY: But in this town, your observation told you that the pedophiles were homosexuals?

MR. CHISHOLM: The ones we’ve come across varied, well, yes, it’s off the scale almost; almost all homosexual pedophiles.  

Another thought….

Jean Luc Leblanc is a paedophile.  He is also a homosexual.  On 30 October 1996 Dr. John Bradford diagnosed Jean Luc Leblanc as “a 42 year-old male who clearly has egocentonic homosexuality.”

Does that make Dr. Bradford a homophobe? 

A final thought….

Is it possible that the new think is that paedophiles are neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals, nor for that matter bisexuals?

Is it possible that the new think is that one is either a heterosexual, or a homosexual, or a bisexual, or a transvestite …or – a paedophile?

That would be consistent with the notion put forth by inquiry “expert” Dr. Wolfe and others that paedophilia is simply a sexual orientation, another form of sexual expression akin to homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality.

That would mean that there is no such thing as a heterosexual paedophile or a homosexual paedophile. A heterosexual would be a heterosexual.  A homosexual would be a homosexual.   A heterosexual who molests children would be a paedophile, not a heterosexual.  Ditto a homosexual who molests children – he would be a paedophile, not a homosexual.

I suppose the same would hold for bisexuals?

I don’t know where this goes if, for example, a forty- or fifty- or sixty-year-old homosexual molests a 12 or 13-year-old who is not considered pre-pubescent.  Some “experts” say that if the child is not pre-pubescent the molester is not a paedophile.   Does that mean the public can refer to the offender as a homosexual molester? Or does that too warrant the label ‘homophobe’?  Alas, I believe it does.

Where are we at? In this increasingly confused and politicized dealing of male same-sex childhood sexual abuse, where are we at?  Are the terms homosexual and paedophile mutually exclusive?  If yes, does the same hold true for heterosexual and paedophile?  If not, why not?

And, in this increasingly politically-correct world where do male victims of same sex sexual abuse go for help without being coerced to set aside any repugnance they may have for homosexual acts?  In this world of tolerance, where is the tolerance for the feelings of male victims of same-sex sexual abuse?

You may have noticed that there is nothing on the ‘healing’ plate as yet which is exclusively for male victims of same sex sexual abuse.  In other words, once again male victims have fallen through the cracks while those inspired by feminist fancies are feeding at the government trough –  and on the backs of male victims.  As I say time and again, a lot of nests are being feathered here.  But what of the victims?

This whole dirty mess started with male victims of same sex sexual abuse.  What about them?  Does anyone who’s not in it for the almighty dollar really care?

Some final questions:

(1) What handle, if any, does the gay rights lobby have on the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up? 

(2) What input, if any, did the gay rights lobby have in crafting the inquiry mandate?

(3)  What input, if any, has the gay rights lobby had in the calling of evidence and witnesses at the inquiry?

(4)  What input, if any, will the gay rights lobby have on Justice Normand Glaude’s final recommendations?

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply