| Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves

Correspondance with Advocacy Organizations For Rights Of Homosexuals

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.

Table of contents

1) PFLAG Canada Inc

1) PFLAG Canada Inc

-----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

| Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves