Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves
Note: This page is a catch-all for all correspondance I've exchanged concerning the article: Open Letter To Advocacy Organizations For Rights Of Homosexuals.
-----Original Message----- From: PFLAG Canada Executive Director execdirector (at sign) pflagcanada.ca Sent: 2007-February-22 10:27 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: Re: Open Letter To Advocacy Organizations For Rights Of Homosexuals Hi Stefan, I do not have a great of time to look, but I will do what I can. Off the top, many gay and lesbian people do not wish to be called homosexual persons. The term is clinical. Even gay identity is not recognized by many lesbian women. Please give me a couple of days and I will take a quick browse through. Cherie **************************************************-------- Cherie MacLeod Executive Director - PFLAG Canada Inc. 1633 Mountain Road Box 29211 Moncton, NB E1G 4R3 1-888-530-6777 toll-free (506) 869-8191 local (506) 387-8349 fax www.pflagcanada.ca
-----Original Message----- From: PFLAG Canada Executive Director Sent: 2007-February-22 14:57 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: Re: Open Letter To Advocacy Organizations For Rights Of Homosexuals Dear Stefan, I had a look at your material and realized there is more here than I can personally digest at this point in time. I am the only staff member working for PFLAG Canada and as you can imagine, my days are very long and busy. As such, I have passed your request on to our Director of Operations, Wayne Harrison. Wayne assists our organization in a volunteer capacity and though he is leaving for a southern holiday on Sunday, he has offered to review your material on our behalf. There is however, one catch. He will not be near a computer until March 12th, so you may have to wait until mid-March for his reply. I wish to clarify an incorrect assumption you have made about our organization. As a registered charity, we are bound by CCRA rules that impose strong limitations on work that could be considered advocacy. As such, we are not involved with legislative changes or lobbying. We advocate on behalf individuals who have been harassed, such as students or children of same-sex partners. We've also done so for an individual that was mocked by kitchen staff in a restaurant where she attended as a paying customer. Our answer is always one of education which we have offered for free. We are not involved with anything that seeks financial restitution. I ask that you represent us appropriately on your website. We are a support and education group, not an advocacy organization. Kind thanks, Cherie
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: 2007-February-24 13:15 To: PFLAG Canada Executive Director Subject: RE: Open Letter To Advocacy Organizations For Rights Of Homosexuals Hello Ms. Cherie MacLeod, OK, finally I have some time! >> Off the >> top, many gay and lesbian people do not wish to be called homosexual >> persons. Yes, I admit I don't really know what word to use. I was using "homosexual" mostly to use the the most common word that wasn't too "loaded". For example, the word "gay" is common, but it also implies the whole gay agenda, while "sodomite" implies the whole Christian agenda, etc. "Homosexual" seemed like a acceptable compromise for the title, after which I try to use the expression "person with SSA (Same-Sex Attractions)" >> I had a look at your material and realized there is more here than I can >> personally digest at this point in time. I am the only staff >> member working for PFLAG Canada and as you can imagine, my days are very long >> and busy. No problem. I'm pretty well alone too! >> As >> such, I have passed your request on to our Director of Operations, Wayne >> Harrison. [...] He will not be >> near a computer until March 12th, so you may have to wait until >> mid-March for his reply. No problem, elections are supposed to start a few weeks after that, so I should have time to fix my article. >> We advocate >> on behalf individuals who have been harassed, such as students >> or children of same-sex partners. Yes, that is exactly why I contacted you! I want my article to be factual, dispassionate and respectful, so I need to "have it approved", well, at least checked by people who don't agree with my fundamental positions. The word "advocacy" in my title might be confusing. Maybe I didn't translate my title properly (I'm French-Canadian, not anglo) The French title says, literally: "Open letter to organisations that defend the rights of homosexuals" Maybe I should change my translation? >> We've also done so for an individual that was mocked >> by kitchen staff in a restaurant where she attended as a paying >> customer. Yes, that is exactly what I need. Suppose my article was a member of that kitchen staff, would it be harassing anybody? >> Our answer is always one of education which we have offered for >> free. We are >> not involved with anything that seeks financial restitution. I >> ask that you >> represent us appropriately on your website. We are a support and >> education >> group, not an advocacy organization. If I quoted exactly that, just what you said, on my web site beneath the PFLAG contact info, would that be OK with you? Thanks! Stefan Jetchick
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: PFLAG Canada Executive Director >> Sent: 2007-February-24 11:07 >> To: Stefan Jetchick >> Subject: Re: Open Letter To Advocacy Organizations For Rights Of >> Homosexuals Hi Stefan, We do come to these issues from opposing views and I respect that. As such, we have differing views on which words are considered loaded. For many connected to our organization, the word homosexual is definitely loaded. It is considered by many as too clinical, implying that being gay is merely about sexual acts, which it is not. It would be the same as saying being Italian, Chinese, or any other cultural identity is merely about where you are born, and of course we know that culture transcends mere geography. With respect to quoting me, no I'd rather you did not, but thank you for asking. In the wrong context, those words may appear to indicate that we do not agree with those engaged in advocacy, which is certainly not the case. PFLAG Canada certainly agrees with the need for advocacy, but it is not our area of focus. When you hear from Wayne Harrison, there may be material you wish to quote and I encourage you to ask his permission before doing so. On the word 'advocacy', with GLBT organizations, it is most often considered in the political and legal contexts and as mentioned, we are not involved with this type of work. The situations I described around harassment would be considered support, not true advocacy. In the case of the restaurant, we were supporting all persons involved, including the employees who were acting out of ignorance. The support we provided them involved providing a safe space that was free of judgment where they could explain their feelings and discuss their understanding of the issues at hand. As it was, these two individuals were of a cultural minority and the situation paralleled some of their own experiences which we were also able to talk through. Likewise, when there is an incident of harassment at school, all members of the student body are in someway affected and our role is to support their growth in light of the incident. Prejudice and bigotry create shame and fear in all and our goal is to promote an environment where all can thrive and learn equally - including the perpetrators. The world is in desperate need of more compassion - both for one another and for ourselves. I hope this helps clarify my points. As mentioned, I really cannot devote much time to this however, if you wish to speak by telephone, I would certainly take your call - please just give me the weekend. I recognize you must do what you feel is right by your own views; I respect that, but I would really prefer that you not use our organization as a stepping-stone along the path. We work very hard at what we do, with limited resources and quashing your ideas is not part of our agenda. We are simply here to support people who are on a path towards greater understanding of themselves and those they love in the truest sense of how God put them on this earth. You should know that I too am a devote Christian who is in church every Sunday, volunteering my time there as well. In fact, just about all members of our board are practicing members of the Christian faith. Wayne may have time to answer any additional questions you have by email, but I must take my leave at this point unless of course you wish to continue by telephone. All the best, Cherie
-----Original Message----- From: PFLAG Operations Sent: 2007-February-24 11:54 To: stefan.jetchick Cc: ***ED Subject: Re:Open Letter To Advocacy Organizations For Rights Of Homosexuals Hi Stefan, I have been asked by the Executive Director of PFLAG Canada, Cherie MacLeod, to look into your request. I will be away on vacation for 2 weeks without computer access and will be looking into this when I am back at a computer after March 11th. In the meantime I would like you to consider the points I am about to make. These points came to mind as I was reviewing this request and the web addresses you supplied. These are first gut reactions that I believe will affect the result you are seeking from this activity: 1. To have abortion and same-gender marriage lumped together in one discussion is not any way to encourage open dialogue on either topic. Both topics stand on their own with no correlation to each other so why do they exist in the same document? There are people in support of abortions who are against same-gender marriages and people who support same-gender marriage who are against abortion so there should definitely be 2 discussion streams. Separating the streams would allow open and honest discussion without prejudicing one topic with the other. Having them discussed together will not be an effective way to deal with either topic - they must be separate. 2. Your party states outright that it supports marriage as only between a man and a woman. The 3 premises your party has are pro-life, pro- family and pro-God which in no way eliminates same-gender partners in a marriage. Many same-gender couples I know who are married, have (or want) children and have a belief in God would support those 3 premises. I think the issue that needs to be addressed is the belief your party has that a same-gender couple could not possibly be a family and raise children. The gender of the partners in no way dictates the love and harmony that is shared in a family - it is more a product of the emotional wholeness of the people involved. What beliefs about same- gender couples does your party have that would have your party deny family status to a same-gender family? This premise is what needs to be understood before a discussion can effectively get to the bottom of this issue. The discussion needs to begin with your party's foundational beliefs about people in same-gender marriages and that they and their children do not constitute a family in your party's eyes. I would contend that if your party would undertake a discussion by putting those foundational beliefs on the table, each belief could then be discussed and understood by all parties taking part in the discussion. This is where this needs to start because same-gender marriage is law in Canada today and will not be (and should not be) easily undone by any political party. To even suggest this (and your party implies this in their belief of marriage as a union only between a man and a woman) tells me that your party does not understand the effect on the Canadian families with same-gender spouses. Current law has provided many of these families with the first time they have been equal to the rest of the families in Canada. Denying these families would be very destructive to the fabric of Canada. 3. Your website specifically states - "homosexual persons. This is too clinical and cold" and if you want people to open up and join the discussion, drop the clinical lingo and speak about gays & lesbians. I would also challenge that your party would have similar concerns (and probably some different concerns) with others dealing with issues of sexual orientation and gender identity who are not gay or lesbian but some other sexual orientation and the variety of "families" they create with their unions. It would be more appropriate and worthwhile to have the "family" issues for people of all sexual orientations and gender identities be part of this valuable discussion. To exclude these issues from the discussion would ultimately make your results flawed and not inclusive of all of the options that are available in the full scope of human sexuality. Those are from a "first glance" perspective and I will be in touch after March 11th. Take care, Wayne Wayne Harrison Director of Operations - PFLAG Canada 55 Clinton Drive, Willow Grove NB E2S 3G8 (506) 648-9700
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stefan Jetchick >> Sent: 2007-February-25 12:52 >> To: operations (at sign) pflagcanada.ca; execdirector(at sign) pflagcanada.ca >> Subject: A reading list for <expression to be improved> Good day Ms. Cherie MacLeod and Mr. Wayne Harrison, I hope you don't mind if I answer to you both at the same time. I want to thank you both very much. I am reading your feedback very carefully, and I will re-read it carefully again, and hopefully improve the statement of my position (and, God willing, my position itself!). Ms. Cherie MacLeod: Don't worry if you don't have any more time. I should be the one paying you for this feedback. If I had the money, I would actually hire people who totally disagree with me, so they could scrutinize all my writings. Mr. Wayne Harrison: Same as with Ms. MacLeod: I'm the one indebted to you, so don't worry if you don't have the time, or take more time. I will now try to go fix my text, based on your feedback. I'll try to then send you a summary of what I changed, unless of course you don't want me to. In Christ, Stefan Jetchick
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: PFLAG Canada Executive Director >> Sent: 2007-February-25 10:45 >> To: Stefan Jetchick; operations pflagcanada.ca >> Subject: Re: A reading list for [expression to be improved] Hi Stefan, Thank you for your note. Feel free to send an updated version, but as mentioned, I must turn my attention back toward my work. Stefan, the dialogue we've initiated here is a conversation. Though we come to these issues from differing points, it is a conversation nonetheless. I hope you are not scrutinizing our every word for we are not doing so with yours, with the exception of the prepared text you have asked PFLAG Canada to review. In light of the good faith shown on our part, I ask that you remove the PFLAG Canada logo from your internet posted letter. It is not going to draw more interest than we have already shown and we would appreciate you not challenging us in the public eye. There is no need to reply. Wishing you the very best, Cherie
Good day Mrs. Cherie MacLeod and Mr. Wayne Harrison, You don't need to read this e-mail. It's mostly to make sure I at least **try** to learn from your nice feedback! I'm also answering both of you at the same time. >> In light of the good faith shown on our part, I ask >> that you remove the PFLAG Canada logo from your >> internet posted letter. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but on the other hand I want to show I tried to contact all the listed organizations, and showing their logos seems like "fair use", as the copyright lawyers might say. I did add the following disclaimer just below the logos: "Disclaimer: All the logos here above are property of their respective organisations. Their appearance here doesn't imply a consent with the contents of this letter." www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/egale.htm I guess that is probably not enough to satisfy you, but I need to balance that with free speech. Sorry. >> On the word 'advocacy', with GLBT organizations, it is most often >> considered in the political and legal contexts and as mentioned, we are >> not involved with this type of work. I removed the word 'advocacy'. I also added another disclaimer before the list of organizations: "I don't know if this list is complete, or even if the organizations listed here consider themselves to be involved with the "defense of the rights of homosexual persons" >> [homosexual] is considered by many as too clinical, implying that being >> gay is merely about sexual acts, which it is not. and >> Your website specifically states - "homosexuals". This is too >> clinical and cold and if you want people to open up and join the >> discussion, drop the clinical lingo and speak about gays & lesbians. I'm trying a slightly different approach, which probably won't satisfy you, but at least I tried to explain why I use the expression I use. See Section #1 of: "Snippets Of Debates With Homosexual Persons" www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/homo_polemique.htm#s1 >> I encourage you to ask his >> permission before doing so [quoting him]. To avoid problems, if I need to quote one of you, I'll use "generalized" quotes, without saying where I got them, like the ones for the "Snippets Of Debates With Homosexual Persons". That way nobody knows where I got those quotes. >> In the case >> of the restaurant, we were supporting all persons involved, including >> the employees who were acting out of ignorance. The support we provided >> them involved providing a safe space that was free of judgment where >> they could explain their feelings and discuss their understanding of >> the issues at hand. Well, said that way, I totally agree with the work you do! >> Prejudice and bigotry create shame and fear in all and >> our goal is to promote an environment where all can thrive and learn >> equally - including the perpetrators. The world is in desperate need of >> more compassion - both for one another and for ourselves. AMEN! >> As mentioned, I really cannot >> devote much time to this however Feel free to ignore my e-mails. As I've said, they are very profitable for me, even if nobody reads them. >> if you wish to speak by telephone, I >> would certainly take your call Same here. But I normally prefer e-mail. I can let an e-mail sit in my inbox for weeks while I do other stuff. Not very polite to put a caller on hold for weeks! :-) >> I would really prefer that you not use our >> organization as a stepping-stone along the path. >> [and] we would appreciate you not >> challenging us in the public eye. Well, if it makes you feel any better, I step on many other toes, apart from yours. For example, I've taken potshots at Stephen Harper: www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/stephen_harper.htm and a bunch of local politicians: www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/petit_lemieux.htm www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/jean_talon.htm and I also take potshots at my own political party (the CHP) and right-wing Christians in general: www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/rechauffement.htm That might not be any consolation to you, but at least I try to be equally annoying to everybody. ;-) >> You should know that I >> too am a devote Christian who is in church every Sunday, volunteering >> my time there as well. Great! Don't stop! I also added that argument here, #2: "Snippets Of Debates With Homosexual Persons" www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/homo_polemique.htm#s2 >> I hope you are not scrutinizing our every word No, but I do try to give as much time reading what you write, than the time you took to write what you wrote! >> 1. To have abortion and same-gender marriage lumped together in one >> discussion is not any way to encourage open dialogue on either topic. Sorry, I didn't explain why I was lumping. Here's another try: "FAQ for the Declaration of Common Ground" www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/decl/faq.htm#s2 >> 2. Your party states outright that it supports marriage as only between >> a man and a woman. Yes. >> The 3 premises your party has are pro-life, pro-family and pro-God >> which in no way eliminates same-gender partners in a marriage. Well, of course, it depends on how you define "marriage". Obviously, we are going to partially agree, and partially disagree on how to define that word. For example, we probably both agree that you can't "marry" your pickup truck! :-) We would probably also agree that well-raised, balanced, happy children need to be brought into the world in "a sanctuary of life and a cradle of love". Maybe we even agree that polygamy is not good, etc. >> I think the issue that needs to be addressed is the belief your party >> Well, if it's a "belief", based on pure faith, then I couldn't care less about it! "Beliefs" belong in church, and then only some beliefs. Politics is the realm of reason, logic, science and facts. (Or at least it should be.) Not beliefs. >> The gender of the partners in no way dictates the love and >> harmony that is shared in a family - it is more a product of the >> emotional wholeness of the people involved. In a way, I totally agree with you. See #3: "Snippets Of Debates With Homosexual Persons" www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/homo_polemique.htm#s3 >> I would contend that if your party would undertake a discussion >> by putting those foundational beliefs on the table, each belief could >> then be discussed and understood by all parties taking part in the >> discussion. As I've said, if it's a "belief", it sucks. I'm interested in Science, not "beliefs". If my facts are wrong, then I want to change my mind! I'm not a scientist or a physician, so I have to rely on others. See for example #4: "Snippets Of Debates With Homosexual Persons" www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/homo_polemique.htm#s4 >> same-gender marriage is law in Canada today >> I tried to talk about that in #6: "Snippets Of Debates With Homosexual Persons" www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/homo_polemique.htm#s6 >> Current law >> has provided many of these families with the first time they have been >> equal to the rest of the families in Canada. Denying these families >> would be very destructive to the fabric of Canada. I like your expression of "very destructive to the fabric" of society. I guess we are going to disagree on who is doing the destroying! :-) See #5: "Snippets Of Debates With Homosexual Persons" www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/homo_polemique.htm#s5 >> It would be more appropriate and worthwhile to have >> the "family" issues for people of all sexual orientations and gender >> identities be part of this valuable discussion. To exclude these >> issues from the discussion would ultimately make your results flawed >> and not inclusive of all of the options that are available in the full >> scope of human sexuality. Sure, I'm all in favor of including everybody who should be included. Well, take care, and thanks again for helping me think about these issues some more. I can't claim my position is now perfect, but at least it's getting clearer. I guess, seen from your point of view, it's like removing a bandage from a wound. It might look worse, but it's just because before, you didn't really see how bad it was. Take care, Stefan Jetchick
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves