Archive | March 7, 2015

From Child Trafficking to Head of U.N. Ops. in Haiti

From Child Trafficking to Head of U.N. Ops. in Haiti*

By Dady Chery

Latin America is beginning to reap the fruits that it sowed in Haiti during the last decade. Its armies have become so fat as to control, either by quiet coups or default, the superficial democracies in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, and Uruguay, and the outright dictatorships in Honduras and Paraguay. The most obvious consequence has been the return home to roost of the “peacekeepers”: soldiers of fortune who are so inured to urban warfare against black and brown people that they can, as part of their armies and militarized police, cheerfully participate in domestic “pacification”.

Today, we have a big shot returning from the United Nations Mission for the Stabilization of Haiti (MINUSTAH), one who descends from the Guatemala of Efrain Rios Montt (1982-1983), the genocidal dictator whose sentence was annulled in 2013 after a hopeful court case turned into a project to demoralize an entire population: we have Edmond Mulet, the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations at the UN and probably Guatemala’s next president.

Edmond Mulet and Clinton puppet Haitian President Martelly

On January 30, 2015, investigative journalists Pilar Crespo and Sebastian Escalon of Plaza Publica published a thorough and comprehensive report alleging that Mulet had been part of a child-trafficking operation in the early 1980s when he was a young lawyer in Guatemala taking his tentative first steps into politics. In 2010, the same report would have caused some major changes in Haiti. For one, the spotlight on international adoptions might have exposed the machinations of adoptive services, like the French “SOS Haiti”, after the earthquake, to have their governments tie emergency aid to a relaxation of controls on international adoptions, or to the legalization ex post facto of the kidnapping of children. For another, the allegations might have prevented Mulet, together with Hillary Clinton, from installing the Michel Martelly regime. The results of Plaza Publica’s investigations were not published, however, until Mulet began to eye the Guatemalan presidency. It is already too late. Mulet will almost certainly rise to the presidency of Guatemala, where he will be well positioned to grow the country’s repressive army by expanding its “peacekeeping” operations. He might even experiment with UN nation building at home.

The 6,800-word story about Mulet’s export of children exploded after it got picked up and summarized as a Boston Globe editorial. I will not recount either the full report or its summary here but rather limit myself to the most salient points of the original report and focus on some implications that have been ignored or poorly elaborated.

It all began around 1977, when Mulet, a 26-year-old lawyer in Guatemala, went to a party at the home of Mrs. Louise Depocas de Morel and met Jean and Lise Francoeur, a Canadian couple who had come to the country to adopt a child. Mulet and the Francoeurs immediately became such good friends that Mulet served as the witness to their “decency and integrity” for the adoption of a baby girl. Seven months after the first baby’s adoption, the Francoeurs returned for a boy from the same Guatemalan orphanage. They also became chummy with the orphanage’s director and soon thereafter founded Les Enfants du Soleil (Los Ninos del Sol, or Children of the Sun) a supposed “non-profit organization for information on international adoption.” Thus a partnership was struck in which Louise Depocas de Morel served as the president of Les Enfants du Soleil in Guatemala, Jean Francoeur as the legal adviser in Montreal, and Edmond Mulet as the lawyer and notary in Guatemala.

Other players in Les Enfants du Soleil and more details of its operation came to light when four Canadian women were arrested in Guatemala City’s luxurious Camino Real hotel on November 24, 1981, for intent to remove several children from the country. In the ensuing court inquiries, the testimonies pointed to a well-organized network, with a woman called Ofelia Rosal de Gamas being the person who tracked down, in the city’s parks and markets, the impoverished pregnant women who might consent to give up their children for adoption. Ms. de Gamas was the sister of General Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores, who became the de facto president of Guatemala from 1983 to 1985 and has been charged with genocide. From de Gamas, the biological mothers were turned over to a midwife called Hilda Alvarez Leal who delivered the children. Shortly after the births, the mothers were taken to Mulet’s office to sign notarized deeds consenting to the children’s adoption. Subsequently the children were taken to the Elisa Martinez State Orphanage, where they remained until the adoption proceedings were complete.

The Canadian women from the raid at Camino Real hotel had come to take away five Guatemalan children. Lise Francoeur, from Les Enfants du Soleil, and her mother, Simone Bedard, had with them two children for two adoptive Canadian couples who could not travel because of work. Another Canadian woman, Monique M. had picked up her three-year-old adoptive son and an infant of less than two months for a couple of friends; Diane W. had collected her own adoptive newborn. All the adoptive parents had initially contacted Les Enfants du Soleil in Montreal, Canada, which had advised them to hire Edmond Mulet as their lawyer in Guatemala.

In 1981, for an adoption to be legitimate in Guatemala, a social worker would have had to attest to the suitability of the adopters to take charge of a minor; the office of the attorney general (PGN) would have had to approve the adoption; two witnesses would have had to testify that the adopters were honourable and moral people; a deed of adoption would have had to be drafted in the presence of the birth and adoptive parents; finally, only after forwarding this deed to the civil registry so that the child could be renamed by the adoptive parents, would the Guatemalan immigration authorities issue a passport for the child to travel with its new parents. This process typically took about one year.

As the lawyer and notary for all five adoptions, Edmond Mulet was also arrested because he had followed none of these steps. Instead, the police investigator found five requests signed by Mulet for the issuance of expedited passports to the children. Every request gave the reason for travel as being “tourism” and the child’s address in Guatemala as being Mulet’s law firm. Apart from this, Mulet had prepared only the deed of consent of the biological parents and another document that gave the children to Les Enfants du Soleil. Mulet’s fast-track procedure for adoption took as little as two months for some adoptive parents, and the detective who interrogated him attributed to him the creation of “system for the export of minors.”

It is noteworthy that in legitimate adoptions the new identities of the children are known to Guatemalan authorities, as well as the identities of the adoptive parents, who leave the country, together with their children, as a family. By contrast, in the Mulet adoptions, the children were shipped abroad as Guatemalan “tourists”, in fact as so many parcels, sometimes with strangers as their courriers, to become lost to all oversight from their birth country.

For various reasons, the most important one being that child trafficking was not yet recognized as a crime in Guatemala in 1981, the women from the hotel were released from jail after 15 days and the case against them was dismissed. The biological mothers were also released after a short detention. Mulet, who was then also starting his political career by running for Member of Parliament in the National Renewal Party (PNR), was freed after a single day’s detention when he brought some political pressure to bear on the police. Even a promised misdemeanour charge for acting against the interests of his clients did not see the light of day after Rios Montt came to power. One of Mulet’s major supporters then was Alejandro Maldonado Aguirre, one of the judges of the Constitutional Court that, in 2013, anulled Efrain Rios Montt’s sentence for genocide.

Mulet has expressed no remorse about his past conduct. Indeed, in a 2015 interview he argued that

“If children are abandoned and there is someone who wants to adopt, educate them, give them a chance in life,… it is something to be thankful for. Adoption has saved the lives of many children not only in Guatemala, but also around the world…. Over the years, I could follow the development of these children, and this has given me great satisfaction, because if they had remained in Guatemala, orphaned, abandoned, they would have starved, had been street children, who knows what would have happened to them.”

This all sounds rather altruistic, but it paints an unrealistic picture of his fast-track adoption system. It is highly improbable that Mulet could follow up on any significant fraction of the children that he had shipped to Canada and other places, given that it has been impossible even to count their number. The fact remains that the main purpose of expedited international adoptions, and the reason why some “adoptive parents” pay so handsomely for them, is precisely to dodge oversight. In such clandestine arrangements, children are not transferred to impatient loving parents by overzealous humanitarians, as Mulet would have us believe. At best, the prospective parents do not qualify in their home countries as adoptive parents because of criminal records or physical or mental disabilities. At worst, the children are transferred from one illegal network to another more nefarious ones, such as the organized-crime networks for child prostitution or even organ donation, where the newborns are used for parts and thrown away.

More than anything, this sordid story exposes the predatory “humanitarianism” of the UN mission in Haiti, which has so far treated its cases of child prostitution and trafficking as mere aberrations despite harbouring alleged criminals at its highest levels. After the discovery on January 29, 2010 that Baptist missionaries had tried to kidnap 33 Haitian children during the confusion of the earthquake, then Haitian Prime Minister Jean Max Bellerive called a moratorium on international adoptions, and in an uncharacteristic ballsy move, said in a televised interview that children were being trafficked from Haiti for their organs. Around the same time, Edmond Mulet proposed instead that all adoptions should require the Prime Minister’s approval. The idea that someone with Mulet’s history could have any authority on decisions about international adoption would be laughable if it was not tragic.

The outstanding investigation by Plaza Publica will likely be of no consequence to Mulet. He cannot be convicted for acts that were not criminal in Guatemala in 1981. Furthermore, many of the main actors in the network from 34 years ago (such as the recruiter, midwife, and adoptive parents) have either died, disappeared, or signed documents to renounce all legal action against Mulet. Finally and sadly, despite these revelations, in a presidential race many Guatemalans would consider Mulet, who is famous in his country because of his prominence in the UN, to be the lesser evil.

During the past decade, Haiti has become a gathering place for the corruptible: a pasture where they are grown before being returned to their home feedlots for finishing. Given the greater incentives to investigate veteran “humanitarians” as they gain prominence, we are bound to learn a lot more about them while they make their way home to become major political players. But if they are to be neutralized, it is before they reach this stage that they must be exposed. As things stand, Edmond Mulet, an expert on misery’s stabilization, is set to promote a climate in Guatemala where the likes of Efrain Rios Montt will be comfortable. If Mulet had been disgraced in 2010 or 2011, both Haiti and Guatemala would have been spared his rule. We must do better. Truth is all well and good, but the timing of truth matters.

Efrain Rios Montt

Efrain Rios Montt


Related Topics:

UN “Peace” Forces Preying on Haitians*

From Selma to Ferguson: Renewing the Right to Vote*

From Selma to Ferguson: Renewing the Right to Vote*

This week marks the 50th anniversary of the voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery and it seems as though it is time to fight again. Restrictions on voting are still taking place in many states today.

By Isaiah J. Poole

Don’t think of the ceremonies that will take place this weekend on the 50th anniversary of the voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Ala. as a commemoration of a victory won. Let’s use them instead as a call to renew fight for voting rights that are being eroded under a sustained conservative assault.

Consider this: Since 2010, 22 states have passed restrictions on the right to vote, affecting nearly half of the nation’s population, according to “The State of Voting in 2014″ chapter in the latest annual Democracy and Justice report by the Brennan Center for Justice. And that half was more likely to include voters who were brown or black: Of the 11 states with the highest African-American voter turnout in 2008, seven of those states put new voting restrictions in place, according to the Brennan Center. So did nine of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic population growth. As a general rule, the higher the percentage of black or Hispanic voters in a Republican-led state, the more likely the state would have restrictive voting laws.

Welcome to Jim Crow, circa 2015.

These restrictions often don’t stop at voter-ID requirements, which disproportionately harm low-income people, students, seniors and people with disabilities, and have a demonstrable discriminatory racial impact. In the past three years, in response to successful drives to register African-American voters in 2008, the Brennan Center found that nine states also passed laws making it harder for citizens to register to vote. Eight states passed laws cutting back on early voting days and hours. Three states made it harder to restore voting rights to people with past criminal convictions, another measure that disproportionately affects African Americans.

Then there are at-large voting schemes used by counties and municipalities to make it difficult, if not impossible, for communities of colour to elect candidates who would represent their interests. Think Progress this week highlights the struggle of Hispanics in several cities to overcome these at-large voting set-ups. “The tactic used to be popular in the South to discriminate against neighbourhoods with large African-American communities but is now targeting a new threat: Latinos,” the website reports, noting that one such arrangement, in Yakima, Wash., was struck down as discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act.

This is a national disgrace, but it is not getting the national attention and the sense of urgency that it deserves.

The rush to dismantle the hard-won gains of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, led by the progeny of the Confederacy, underscores the travesty of the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling invalidating Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. That ruling eliminated the requirement that states with a history of racial discrimination have changes to their election laws pre-cleared by the Justice Department, so their racial impact can first be assessed.

With that ruling, the burden shifted to prospective voters to prove racial intent, instead of states and counties to prove non-discriminatory impact. It opened the door wide to measures that appear superficially race-neutral but are anything but in the real world.

That’s why the Voting Rights Amendment of 2015, sponsored by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), must be a top-priority item for this session of Congress. The measure would restore and update the ability of a federal court to review the voting laws of jurisdictions with a pattern and practice of discrimination.

Selma to Montgomery March 21, 1965. The march that mobilized the nation

But the 50 years of history since Martin Luther King Jr. led marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge has taught us that a voting rights law, however buttressed against the damage done by conservatives in courts and legislatures, is not enough.

A country serious about the right to vote as a cornerstone of democracy would enshrine that right in the Constitution. It is true that the 15th Amendment declares that

“the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

But today’s dividing lines are not only race; it is students who are told that their student IDs might be good enough for a beer at the bar or even a purchase at a gun show, but not for access to a voting booth. It is low-wage workers who can ill afford to take a day off from work and spend several hours’ worth of wages in order to jump barriers to the ballot. It is church-goers who are inspired to vote by a Sunday sermon but are denied the opportunity to act on that inspiration by registering to vote at the church fellowship hall afterward.

That’s why Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) are leading the “Protect Your Vote” campaign, with the goal of ratifying a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote.

The 15th Amendment did not prevent the use of poll taxes and literacy tests against black people who tried to vote, but it was the foundation upon which the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. Making the right to vote explicit in the Constitution is ultimately the best way to arm ourselves against this new wave of voter restrictions. And that should be the ultimate destination of the march beyond Selma and Montgomery.


An estimated 70,000 people have taken part in the 50th anniversary commemorations of the 1965 Bloody Sunday march across a bridge in Selma, Alabama – an event which marked a turning point in the US civil rights movement against racial discrimination.

Singing hymns and holding signs bearing slogans such as “black lives matter, all lives matter,” the crowd slowly made their way across the symbolic Rubicon on Sunday. The rally was so large that many appeared barely able to move as the stream carried them across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Related Topics:

The Truth Behind the Emancipation Proclamation!*

Katrina: A Reason to be Angry*

Wall Street Bypasses the Vote for Direct Rule over Detroit*

The Three Hundred: Free Democratic US Elections – Did they ever Exist!*

Kill A Black Teen And Make Six Figures Soon After

Get Out of Jail Free Card for Cop Involved in 100+ Tortures of Black Men*

Canada Forcing the Indigenous to Give Up their Land*

Canada Forcing the Indigenous to Give Up their Land*

The Harper government is trying to win support for its pipelines and resource agenda by pushing First Nations to sideline their aboriginal rights in exchange for business opportunities, documents reveal.

The news that Canada’s Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is working to this end by collaborating with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is sparking strong criticism from grassroots Indigenous people.

Funded by the federal government, the Working Group on Natural Resource Development held private meetings in Toronto and Edmonton in the fall of 2014 that were attended by several invited Chiefs and representatives from Enbridge, Syncrude and other oil corporations, as well as mining companies and business lobby groups.

In one email, a government official writes that it was “widely agreed” at the meetings that “unlocking resource development projects is squarely in the national interest,” a suggestion that will be contested by many First Nations involved in mounting protests against pipelines and other industrial projects around the country.

It was “noted repeatedly” that “we can no longer afford the investment uncertainty created by issues around Aboriginal participation,” the official writes. The transcripts of the meetings were redacted in the documents, which were obtained through access-to-information.

The documents cite $600 billion of investment that the Harper government hopes will flow in the next decade into mining, forestry, gas and oil projects. As of March 2013, 94 of 105 projects under federal review were “located on reserve, within an historic treaty area, or in a settled or unsettled claims area”.

In response to these pressures, considerations for the groups’ mandate include “reducing uncertainty and investment risk” and “advancing business-to-business partnerships rather than through a rights-based agenda.”

The federal government has been criticized for trying to minimize or ignore the land rights of First Nations, including refusing to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It has been doing extensive risk evaluations, increasingly worried that the growing power of indigenous rights could hamper its aggressive resource extraction plans.

One document suggests that “case studies have shown that separating rights-based agenda (politics) from economic development (business) is key to wealth generation in First Nations communities.”

The case studies cited from “expert bodies” include a Fraser Institute report entitled “Opportunities for First Nations Prosperity Through Oil and Gas Development.” The right-wing think tank has been heavily funded by the American Koch brothers, who are one of the largest owners, purchasers and refiners of the Alberta tar sands.

Also referenced is a report by envoy Douglas Eyford, whose appointment by Harper in late 2013 was seen as strategic shift to increasingly woo First Nations in the path of planned pipelines in British Columbia with an economic stake in resource plans. Eyford warned that the federal government’s failure to build good relationships with First Nations had set back the chances for their energy projects.

“Opposition to these projects by aboriginal groups may doom the development of oil, and natural gas pipelines and related infrastructure because neither industry nor our trading partners are prepared to idly stand by to wait out the results of judicial proceedings that can take a generation to complete,” Eyford said in a speech last year.

The Harper government and resource corporations are keenly aware that Indigenous rights movements are standing in the way of their polluting, destructive projects,” said Clayton Thomas Mueller, Indigenous Extreme Energy Campaigner with

“Harper is desperately trying to manipulate the Assembly of First Nations and some of our Chiefs into sacrificing our rights and our lands at the altar of profit. But respect for our rights must be a basis for economic decision-making – indeed our rights offer a pathway to a more sustainable economic order for everyone in this country.”

The group was launched in December 2013, its creation among the pledges made by Prime Minister Harper at a January 2013 meeting with former National Chief Shawn Atleo, a meeting triggered by Theresa Spence’s hunger strike and the Idle No More movement.

It has two representatives from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and two from the Assembly of First Nations, an organization which has been accused of being out of touch with grassroots Indigenous concerns. According to the documents, the representatives discussed renaming the group to “downplay” the connection between the Assembly of First Nations and the government and to make clear that it operates at “arms-length.”

The documents acknowledge that Indigenous community members are increasingly resisting those Chiefs who “try to establish and advance a “business to business” relationship with industry proponents.”

Included are detailed charts of economic opportunities that some First Nations located near oil and mining operations have been able to access.

The documents say that the group may propose that Canada’s largest corporate lobby, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, be “engaged to champion a new approach including through formal statements at First Minister’s Meetings or major political events.”

Other suggestions include a “centre of expertise on resource development” and a national roundtable, emphasizing the need to get more aboriginal organizations involved.

The group is releasing a final report on Tuesday with recommendations to the federal government and the AFN.

The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs was unable to respond to a request for comment.


Related Topics:

The Soft Coup: How Canada’s PM Harper was installed by the CIA*

A Ruling that Highlights Indigenous Love of the Land and Canada’s Destruction of It*

The Case of Genocide in Canada

Disappearing and Murdered: Canada’s Indigenous Women*

Lawsuit Forces Canada to Give Up its Privately owned Central Bank*

Canada: Now Bush Reappears on the Scene

Canada under Criminal Investigation for Murders, and Child Trafficking*

The Neo-Colonial Context of Canada’s Multiculturalism*

On Trial in Canada for Speaking against Zionist Crimes*

Australia Discontinues Services to the People Whose Land It Took*

Eugenics: Kidnapping of the Indigenous Sioux in South Dakota*

Gay Commissioner Cracks Down on Churches*

Gay Commissioner Cracks Down on Churches*

By Selwyn Duke

The government official, cloaked in a disguise, carried a concealed camera. He apparently wanted to know if the group he was investigating was engaging in worship — and he wanted evidence.

Pastors in Lake Worth, Florida, say they’re being persecuted by their city, in what has been called a “Soviet-style crackdown.” And it all began, alleges one church leader, when he had an encounter with an openly homosexual city commissioner who would later tell people the pastor was “anti-gay.” Writes

Churches in Lake Worth, Florida, are being told they need to acquire permits in order to stay in business….

Several churches in the South Florida region have reported to Fox News that they’ve been ordered to obtain business permits, or face fines and closures. But one in particular has come under an egregious city attack.

Fox News reported city officials sent out a code enforcement officer, decked in a hoodie, to spy on one Southern Baptist church that had gathered in a coffee house.

Government employees are public servants and prohibited by the Constitution from inhibiting religious freedom,” said Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, a religious liberty law firm, in an interview with Fox News. “That is a far cry from sneaking around and into a church and acting like KGB agents.”

… The [Southern Baptist church] pastor, Mike Olive, said they met without trouble from the city until last month, when one commissioner, Andy Amoroso, reportedly began telling people in the community that the church was anti-gay, Fox News reported.

Amoroso is hardly an impartial observer. The first openly homosexual man elected to the Lake Worth City Council, Amoroso appears aggressive in homosexual activity and activism. He owns a business in the municipality known as “Studio 205,” which he bills as “The Fun Store” and “the only Pride store in Palm Beach County.” Also called an “LGBT store,” the establishment “sells dildos and gay porn” and “padded boxers,” but this is okay because Lake Worth “prides itself on an artsy, hippie way of life,” writes the Broward Palm Beach Times. In addition, Amoroso once opened what has been called his county’s “first gay travel agency,” which, presumably, doesn’t just mean a happy one.

And last year Amoroso organized and led a protest in favour of faux marriage on the steps of Lake Worth City Hall, saying,

“It’s really to tell Tallahassee it’s not OK that gay couples can’t get married in Florida.” Of course, in reality they may — form a matrimonial union with a member of the opposite sex — which is what marriage is, by correct definition.

But while Amoroso believes people should have the right to “undefinemarriage freely, critics say that worshiping freely is a different matter. As reports, providing more detail on the church crackdown:

Other churches in the area said they faced similar problems [to Olive’s] with the city of Lake Worth. They claim the city is forcing them to have a “business tax,” despite federal tax exceptions that have been in place for the last 40 years.

In 1970, the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York that property tax exemptions for places of worship is [sic] constitutional.

However, representatives from the First Baptist Church in Lake Worth said they paid the city around $500 for inspection and use of occupancy fees. City council members did not specify the purpose of the tax when asked by local media.

As for Olive, Fox News’ Todd Starnes spoke to the pastor and offers more information on his run-in with the city commissioner, writing:

Pastor Olive told me he tried to convey to Amoroso that the church’s message is ‘Love God, Love People.’

“Our message to the gay community is the same as it is to the straight community,” he said.

The commissioner, Olive said, did not seem to appreciate his message.

“He pointed at me and said, ‘Listen, you better not have a church down there,” Olive told me.

Shortly thereafter, in what Starnes calls the “strangest of coincidences,” the cloak-and-camera city code-enforcement officer showed up. And while Amoroso would not return Starnes’ phone call requesting comment, the officer’s “case narrative” speaks volumes. Reports Starnes:

The code enforcement officer’s notes read like something out of a KGB report.

“I walked back to the Coffee Bar and was able to visualize, in my opinion what appeared to be a ministry in progress,” he wrote in the report.

He documented how he observed “people holding what appeared to be Bibles or religious books as one had a cross on it” and “what appeared to be a ministry in progress.”

“I was approached by an unknown man with a cross around his neck,” he wrote.

(Well, as China has proven, there are ways of finding out who that man is.)

Lake Worth’s community sustainability director, William Waters, told Starnes that officials have no axe to grind with the churches. It was just a matter of treating everyone “equally,” and the city views a church as just another business — like a smut store, I suppose.

Equal or not, however, the city’s actions appear unprecedented. Joan Abell, interim part-time pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, told the Lake Worth Tribune,

“We’ve been there 99 years and we’ve never had to have a license.” She asked,

“Where do you all of a sudden say the church has to have a license to gather and pray?”

Abell also pointed out that the “licensing” process involves government inspections. Suspicious, apparently, that it may just be another vehicle through which to shutter houses of worship, “she’s very concerned that the city will demand that the church make repairs that it doesn’t have the money to make, writes the Tribune. Note that due to financial pressure from the city, Olive was forced to hold his last Christian service on February 29.

And when viewed against the backdrop of recent events — bakers and other Christian businessmen being forced into “sensitivity training” or to close shop for not servicing faux weddings — many are rightfully suspicious that Lake Worth’s actions reflect the homosexuality agenda. One might also wonder about the special treatment being demanded. After all, fornicators and adulterers have long been common in our society, but they never asked that churches and Christians dispense with sexual teaching or face persecution. And consider the implications of the homosexuality activists’ demands. As I wrote last October:

Is the church supposed to say adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, self-gratification is a sin, viewing pornography is a sin, but homosexuality is, what? A lifestyle choice, sort of like living on a houseboat?

This would be comical to anyone who didn’t fail at mastering childhood categorization problems (i.e., what things belong together?). It would be like saying that devil’s food cake didn’t belong with sugar cookies, petit fours, Napoleons, and ladyfingers in the category of desserts because it’s the favourite of some corpulent, Jabba the Hut-looking slob who’ll feel better about himself if it’s classified as a vegetable.

So in essence, what homosexuality activists are asking is that the church scrap all of its sexual teaching to accommodate their wishes.

Unfortunately, as ABC “Family’s” airing of a “romantic” same-sex kiss between 13-year-old boys evidences, the activists’ wishes are, more and more, being fulfilled.


Related Topics:

Sexual Liberation a Tool of Mass Control*

Humanity at the Crossroads: The Crisis in Spiritual Consciousness

Religious Schools Face Closure if they don’t Promote Homosexuality*

Parents Attacked for Protesting against the Sexualization of their Children*

Power and Paedophilia Rife in the US Government*

Why is the Legalization of Gay Marriage so Important to the Queen?*

Why the West Destroys and Humiliate Peoples

Why Billionaire Oligarchs Bankroll Feminism*

Kids in Same-sex Households at Greater Risk of Mental Health Problems*