10.27.2010 11:45 AM

Tim Hudak, by the numbers

Here are the facts:

1.  Ontario cabinet minister Glen Murray re-tweeted something he shouldn’t have.

2.  Ontario Conservative boss Tim Hudak demanded Murray apologize.

3.  Murray apologized.

4.  Hudak is demanding another apology, because he’s mad that Murray asked that Hudak condemn the homophobia that is sometimes associated with his Conservatives.

5.  Hudak says some of his best friends are gay, and that his party isn’t the least bit anti-gay, and that he won’t do what Murray asks, and that he still wants yet another apology.

6.  Hudak’s Labour critic – a member of his shadow cabinet, in effect – is Randy Hillier.

7.  Here are some of the things Hillier has said he’s against, quote unquote: “Using taxpayer’s dollars, our governments support and promote Quebec, Native, Arts, Homosexual, Urban and Multi-cultures.”

8.  Tristan Emmanel is Hillier’s campaign manager and a very senior Ontario Conservative adviser, and he has said that gays are, quote unquote, “sexual deviants.”

9.  Hudak hasn’t fired or in any way disciplined Messrs. Hillier and Emmanuel for their statements – he has, in fact, promoted them.

10.  Tim Hudak is full of crap.


  1. Tim from Alberta says:

    If “gays” are not sexual “deviants”,how should we describe them……sexually speaking,that is???

    • Robin says:

      If you really want an answer to your question, you first have to finish high school because it takes a minimal amount of knowledge (only slightly, though) to develop moral reasoning.

    • Derek Pearce says:

      Ah my dear Tim, you’re confusing “common” for “normal.” Being straight is quite common, and being gay is quite normal. They are not mutually exclusive.

    • Kevin says:

      If left-handers aren’t handed “deviants”, how should we describe them… handedly speaking, that is???

  2. smelter rat says:

    @Tim…the obvious answer is “why would they need to be sexually described” at all?

    • Tim from Alberta says:

      Would the word,”homoSEXUAL” be the reason?Would watching the antics and dress(or lack of) of a “gay pride” parade perhaps be the reason?Same sex couples?Same sex marriage?
      Deviant is someone else’s word….not mine.
      Give me another one and I may both accept and use it.

      • Namesake says:

        The point, which smelter rat may have meant, is that “Homosexual” is ALREADY a descriptive word, pertaining to one’s romantic &/or sexual orientation (as are “Asexual,” “Bisexual,” and “Heterosexual), which already has a complete, widely understood meaning, so why is any additional descriptive term needed to complement it?

        E.g., doesn’t it suffice to describe you as you have yourself do, as an ‘Albertan,’ without demanding that it be accompanied by some sort of normative, evaluative, or pejorative term (like ‘rednecked’ or ‘homophobic’)?

        • Troy says:

          Namesake. Would you then argue that pedophile or necrophiliac have complete, widely understood meaning and therefore exclude additional descriptive terms to complement them?

          • Namesake says:

            Figures, that someone who want to pursue this topic would read the word “exclude” into what was said.

            In point of fact, I _didn’t_ say that the fact that “homosexual” is already a fully descriptive term thereby excludes using any other word with it:

            I merely questioned why Tim thinks another term is needed in addition to that, to define “gay.” Particularly one with negative moral connotations, like “deviant.”

            Feel free to write or speak as you will, within the legal bounds of hate speech: I was just observing that there was a perfectly clear definition of “gay” which doesn’t need to add how prevalent or societally acceptable it is.

            And, no, I don’t like pedophiles or necrophiliacs any more than you, but, yes, sorry, those terms have stand-alone meanings, too.

        • Troy says:

          Namesake. That is the point. The fact that a term has stand alone meaning does not preclude the use of additional terms or phrases for further characterization or description. I would argue that it is implied in Tim’s dialogue that he agrees with Tristan Emmanel’s characterization of homosexuality as being sexually deviant, hence the inclusion of an additional term.

          • Namesake says:

            Well, d’uh! And I think it’s implied in my response that I think he’s a bigot. But he went through the pretense of defending “sexual deviant” as a neutral characterization of gay,” and that he would use an alternative one if offered, so I pointed out that he had one in hand, so he need look no further.

        • Troy says:

          I’m sorry; I missed that pretence and if you belive him to be a bigot I don’t see why you would have thought as such either.

          I would say that sexual deviant is in no way a neutral characterization but rather specifically intended to describe homosexuality as deviant. I do not see neutrality in that, nor do I suspect a neutral term is possible if you are of the opinion that homosexuality is a form of sexual deviancy. I suppose that may have been your point and it could be I misunderstood the pretence.

          What is it that makes him a bigot then? That is, on what grounds do you make that charge?

  3. Paul R Martin says:

    1) Are you certain that Mr. Hudak has not had a bowel movement today?

    2) In my opinion, the comments by Mr. Murray were slanderous. He is lucky that they were not directed at WK, otherwise he might be sued.

    • Warren says:

      No, I know that truth is a defence. Hudak has too many caucus members who have made too many intolerant statements.

      • Paul R Martin says:

        You are the expert; however, I believe that his statement included Ford, Hudak and Harper. It was completely out of line and was in my opinion inaccurate. Where did his statement include caucus members?

  4. krw says:

    As the person who originally tweeted the ‘trifecta’ tweet. I believe that all three men are bigots, either through their demonization of immigrants (i.e. the tamils), their intolerance of gays (being against gay marriage is bigoted-if you think that marriage is between a man and woman, then you think that gay people are unequal and not worthy of the same status of straight persons.).

    Frankly, Rob Ford is the worst one of the lot, he perfectly fits both the ignorant and bigoted labels I assigned.

  5. Derek Pearce says:

    The happy side effect of this little brouhaha is that we have Tories falling over themselves to insist they are not homophobic. Therefore if another instance of Tory homophobia rears its head in future, we can be sure the leadership will smack it down pronto or look like major liars.

  6. Michael Reintjes says:

    “The happy side effect of this little brouhaha is that we have Tories falling over themselves to insist they are not homophobic.”

    Kind of a reckless generalization don’t you think?.Why don’t you ask John Baird if he’s homophobic?

  7. peter plumley says:

    Mr. Hiller was acclaimed for the PC nomination.

    Ontario PC Leader Tim Hadak (exact spelling from newspaper) said “I’m very proud to have Randy on our PC team. While the McGuinty Liberals have grown increasingly out of touch, the hard working families in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington can count on Randy to fight for their priorities”

    Bancroft Times Thursday October 28 2010 Page 9.

  8. DL says:

    “Why don?t you ask John Baird if he?s homophobic?”

    I have a better idea, Why don?t you ask John Baird if he?s homosexual?

    There must be some reason why no Tory MP or MPP has ever come out of the closet? Any theories?
    I know Sue Anne Levy was open about being lesbian when she ran in the St. Paul byelection, but by all accounts most Tory MPPs refused to be seen in public with her and Hudak always had an uncomfortable frozen smile when he was anywhere near her.

  9. “I never called anybody a biological error,” Schlessinger tells the Hollywood Reporter. “What I said, very clearly — and to GLAAD’s credit they put it on their website — I said, gays and lesbians have as much compassion, intelligence, ability, warmth as anybody else — comma — the inability to sexually match up male and female is a biological error.

    That’s it. I didn’t say people were a biological error. I said male parts and female parts make babies. I was talking biologically. The interesting thing is that gay groups have made the point that it’s not a moral issue, it’s a biological issue. I was really supporting their point of view.”


  10. Rebecca says:

    THANK YOU! I don’t care what they’re promising, monetarily speaking. Even if they were telling the truth, I only feel comfortable with a leader who lives in the 21st century! These kinds of ignorance and intolerance are not qualities I would like an elected official to have.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.