Saturday, April 05, 2008

Tom Lukiwski: "Until The Day I Die"

"I was brought up in that environment and I will continue to believe that until the day I die."
- Tom Lukiwski June 28th 2005.
Recently, in light of 1991 video footage of himself making disgraceful comments about homosexuals, Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski has publicly apologized and has emphasized he is no longer the same man he was then. Today, the Canadian Press has uncovered statements made by Tom Lukiwski that illustrate just how much he has changed.

On June 28th 2005, just prior to the vote on same-sex marriage, Lukiwski made the following statement, it is available in Hansard (approximately 2/3 down):
"I firmly believe that by passing this legislation, we start on a very slippery slope which could affect societal change in a very adverse way. I see things which have been expressed before that could come down the pike, things like polygamy and others, while hiding behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am fearful that societal change could happen.

I also am a firm believer in the fundamental definition of marriage as we have known it all our lives. Marriage is and should continue to be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. I was brought up in that environment and I will continue to believe that until the day I die."
Tom Lukiwski, in suggesting same-sex marriage would provide a basis for legalizing polygamy (and other things, of which he leaves vague) was either illustrating ignorance or attempting to perpetuate fear. In either situation the similarity exists between his comments in 1991 to his more recent in 2005.

In 1991 Tom Lukiwski made hateful remarks about homosexuals. In 2005 he stated that same-sex marriage would open the door to polygamy not to mention other things. This statement not only contains the irrationality of Lukiwski to believe something no matter what until he dies, but it illustrates that's exactly what he's doing.


Anonymous said...

You're not going to start stalking him are you?

Skinny Dipper said...

The whole polygamy mess started with the unofficial ménage of Sharon, Lois, and Bram who corrupted the minds of our Canadian children in the 1980s. Things got worse when they included the antics of a beastial elephant.

The SLB trio corrupted Canadian children with their trademark song: Skinnamarink-a-DINK, I love you in the morning...afternoon...and underneath the moon. They promoted corrupt polygamous bestial love-making at all times of the day either with the focus on Bram's doodle or on the elephant's phallic trunk.

I support Tom Lukiwski 100%. Keep up the good foreplay. Now, go after Ernie and Bert, and dirty finger Tinky-winky!

Cherniak_WTF said...

Too many seem ready to forgive Lukiwski but ready to condemn an Indian who said similar remarks about Jews.

I'd say that a double-standard is alive and well...

wilson said...

And under the liberal big tent, 12liberal MPs also voted against SSM.
They represented their constituants, who did not want SSM.
Why not take it to the same degree you take Lukiwski.
Should all ridings that did not want SSM, as voted by their MPs, have their rights to any representation removed, because you don't like what they think?,

Are you saying that people have no right to have an opinion other than be pro-Gay rights?
Citizens should relinquish any rights they have when those rights are contrary to Gay rights...?

And what about privacy rights?
Should a camera be installed at the next Young Liberals party? Just incase one of those young folk, in 16 years, is elected to office.
Big Brother is watching you.

Anonymous said...

Wilson: Those 12 Liberal MPs didn't say in 1991 discriminatory hateful remarks about homosexuals. They did not say in 2005 gay people marrying is similar to polygamy or would provide the basis for it. They then did not say in 2008 that they weren't the same people as they were in 1991 when in 2005 it clearly showed he at least misunderstood ssm.

I'm not saying no one has a right to opinion other then gay rights, I'm saying people suggesting gay marriage provides the basis for legalizing polygamy are either ignorant or trying to play up to fears which in either case wouldn't show he changed.

To suggest installing a camera at a YLC party is ridiculous. First the camera wasn't installed, Tom talked right into it. It's not big brother when you choose to be on camera. Second, Tom was 40 years old, middle aged when he said those comments.

Jay said...

Wilson says...
"Are you saying that people have no right to have an opinion other than be pro-Gay rights?"

NO they have no right to. Do they have a right to make racial slur? No and it works the same for homosexuals. Do you think you actually have a right to malign people?

Skinny Dipper said...

For those politicians who vote in favour of or opposed to gay marriage, I congratulate their service in Parliament. Afterall, Canada is a democracy.

Where I do have a problem is will derogatory name-calling with the use of the word, faggots. It is Lukiwski's democratic right to oppose gay marriage--even if I diagree with him. Where he crosses my line is when he denigrates another group of people.

To me, Lukiwski's comment represents what the Conservative may become if they receive a majority of the seats in the next federal election. They are not going to care about other people--only themselves.

wilson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wilson said...

''Do you think you actually have a right to malign people?''
I watch it every day in Question period.
You tell me if you think it is right.

My point is, being gay does not give you anymore or less rights than straight people.
That was the goal of SSM, was it not?

So why is it, on that same tape, Linda Haverstock (a fantastic prov. Liberal leader, who I met and was very impressed) was called a 'slut' and not a peep from anyone on your side of the politcal spectrum??
Perhaps if she had been a lesbian she would have deserved defending...

those Libloggers who allowed Ti-Guy on your blogs, to lauch unprovoked vulgar attacks on women, have absolutely NO room to condemn anyone

Anonymous said...


I don't think you understand the differences between the two situations. With the Haverstock comment there was an expression of dislike for one individual. In the lukiwski comments there was an expression of dislike for a group of people based on one characteristic.

This is further exemplified if the language they used was made benign. For if they simply said they didn't like Joan there would be nothing wrong with that. However if Tom simply said I don't like gay people there would still be something extremely wrong with that. This shows that its not so much the specific hateful words Tom used such as "faggots" but his discriminatory message.

You could not suggest calling someone you know a name is as bad as making comment about a group based on one character, be it homophobic or racist or whatever.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Anon: Homosexuality is natural. Its as natural as being straight. No one is born wanting to pursue bestiality, incest, or pedophilia, those people are conditioned through their environment and through their own decisions. This is not opinion this is scientifically proven.

For you to liken homosexuality not only to illegal acts, but to those of the most disgusting you are either ignorantly making a mistake or are doing so out of purpose and if so I find it offensive.

I agree right or wrong is not decided by popular opinion, that's why I rely on scientific evidence, of which the Bible is not, (in regards to your comment of "sin").

Anonymous said...

One day you'll have to apologize for saying such hateful things about polygamy. Bigot.