As discussed in the previous two blogs, the CLGA is loaded with a seemingly infinite number of transcripts commemorating negative-to-nasty things people had to say about gays and lesbians. In almost every case, these records exist because the people being quoted — some dating as far back as the early 1800s — were speaking in some sort of official capacity. They were law enforcers, politicians, community or religious leaders, journalist, legal witnesses, and so on. So, we took particular interest when a rare stash of letters and notes from private citizens expressing their distaste for homosexuals came to our attention a couple of weeks ago. Like so many of our finds, these records sat undocumented in one of the rows upon rows of boxes sitting in storage at the CLGA just waiting to be discovered and made public.
Before we say more about this find, a bit of context. In 1978, the Right to Privacy Committee (RTPC) was created by activists in Toronto to respond to bathhouse raids being conducted by police. The RTPC played a leading role in defending hundreds of men arrested in the historic 1981 bathhouse raids (see December blog “From the Mouth of Gays”). The organization was also active in lobbying politicians. In 1982, its members submitted a brief to the federal government outlining their case for revising sections of the Criminal Code used by law enforcement to justify their raids. The group argued that vague and archaic laws were being unfairly applied to portray homosexual acts conducted in private — not just in bathhouses but in some cases in people’s homes —as indecent. The RTPC cautioned that not only did these laws leave members of the gay community open to criminal prosecution, but they threatened the right of all consenting adults to sexual privacy.
To help support their case, the RTPC decided to run a full-page ad nationally in the Globe and Mail demonstrating that thousands of Canadians agreed with their position. The RTPC mailed donation request cards to people across the country with a letter asking them to fund the initiative and agree to have their names added — petition-style — to the ad. The cards were distributed through mailing lists belonging to organizations sympathetic to RTPC’s cause, which included the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Criminal Lawyer’s Association. The response was overwhelmingly positive. The ad ran on June 2, 1982. It contained an estimated 1,600 names of people and groups from all walks of life — not just gays and lesbians — willing to speak out against a “law that threatens the right to privacy of all Canadians.”
In addition to a pile of donations, the RTPC received written objections, either scribbled on returned donation cards or carefully typed out. Comments ranged from polite to belligerent. We noticed that regardless of the tone taken, these remarks clearly came from well-educated people. They were able to convey their thoughts with nary a spelling or grammar mistake and those who handwrote their notes crafted them in elegant cursive. Further, in most cases, people happily signed their names. They obviously did not feel they needed to hide behind anonymity when expressing their contempt. All of this says something about the era in which the bathhouse raids were taking place. Clearly, regular members of society, rather than those on the margins, felt comfortable uttering thoughts that veered into territory that today would be considered hate speech.
Those who took a civil tone provided a range of arguments that at least attempted to debate the issue. The not-so-intellectually-inclined declared points of view that could be categorized as follows:
Violent:
· “As far as I’m concerned, the next time the police raid a bunch of sodomists [sic], they can use a machine gun.”
· “I would give to cut your pricks off.”
· “I hate queers fags gays and all other homosexual idiots. They should be shot.”
Insulting:
· “If the police need help, they can count on me to rid society of you filthy mentally sick non-humans.”
· “All homosexuals or gays should go back into the woodwork and get lost!!”
· “We would welcome the destruction of all so-called ‘gay’ gathering places as well as the flaming faggots that frequent these cesspools.”
Judgmental:
· I have feelings of profound revulsion about what goes on in this kind of privacy [bathhouses]. How can I support something which degrades human potential so shockingly?”
· “Do not try to deceive anybody: homosexual individuals are not ‘gay’ — they rather are ‘sad.’”
Pseudoscientific:
· Homosexuality is a self-cleansing process designed by nature to protect harmonious development of species. You should not try to interfere with natural, healthy processes by demanding special rights for deviants.”
· “Get wise! Biologically and sociologically, homosexuality is an aberration or worse. Its end result is moral disintegration and ultimately, extinction of the human race.”
Humorously demeaning:
· “There is nothing ‘gay’ about sick people. Sickees are suckees.”
· “I object to the use of the word ‘gay’ referring to homosexuals. Why murder a good word?”
The last quote was our favourite. Its author struck an admittedly clever balance between put down and humour.
There was one letter however that stood out for positive reasons. It was from a mother who did not support the ad but had the grace to defer to new perspectives and understandings. She wrote “My children 16 and 19 years old decided to reply to your letter. This is okay with me, because they belong to the younger generation and they will have to live in tomorrow’s society.”
One individual used a copy of the ad to communicate their disgust. They mailed it to the RTPC with the following statement: “I hope you paid dearly for this ad! Good show — homos make me ill!” We wondered if they realized that they were providing a compelling visual metaphor for the power of reason over ignorance. Looking at this yellowed, fading clipping one sees a single venomous voice drowned out by thousands willing to stand publicly in solidarity with gays and lesbians.
Before we say more about this find, a bit of context. In 1978, the Right to Privacy Committee (RTPC) was created by activists in Toronto to respond to bathhouse raids being conducted by police. The RTPC played a leading role in defending hundreds of men arrested in the historic 1981 bathhouse raids (see December blog “From the Mouth of Gays”). The organization was also active in lobbying politicians. In 1982, its members submitted a brief to the federal government outlining their case for revising sections of the Criminal Code used by law enforcement to justify their raids. The group argued that vague and archaic laws were being unfairly applied to portray homosexual acts conducted in private — not just in bathhouses but in some cases in people’s homes —as indecent. The RTPC cautioned that not only did these laws leave members of the gay community open to criminal prosecution, but they threatened the right of all consenting adults to sexual privacy.
To help support their case, the RTPC decided to run a full-page ad nationally in the Globe and Mail demonstrating that thousands of Canadians agreed with their position. The RTPC mailed donation request cards to people across the country with a letter asking them to fund the initiative and agree to have their names added — petition-style — to the ad. The cards were distributed through mailing lists belonging to organizations sympathetic to RTPC’s cause, which included the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Criminal Lawyer’s Association. The response was overwhelmingly positive. The ad ran on June 2, 1982. It contained an estimated 1,600 names of people and groups from all walks of life — not just gays and lesbians — willing to speak out against a “law that threatens the right to privacy of all Canadians.”
In addition to a pile of donations, the RTPC received written objections, either scribbled on returned donation cards or carefully typed out. Comments ranged from polite to belligerent. We noticed that regardless of the tone taken, these remarks clearly came from well-educated people. They were able to convey their thoughts with nary a spelling or grammar mistake and those who handwrote their notes crafted them in elegant cursive. Further, in most cases, people happily signed their names. They obviously did not feel they needed to hide behind anonymity when expressing their contempt. All of this says something about the era in which the bathhouse raids were taking place. Clearly, regular members of society, rather than those on the margins, felt comfortable uttering thoughts that veered into territory that today would be considered hate speech.
Those who took a civil tone provided a range of arguments that at least attempted to debate the issue. The not-so-intellectually-inclined declared points of view that could be categorized as follows:
Violent:
· “As far as I’m concerned, the next time the police raid a bunch of sodomists [sic], they can use a machine gun.”
· “I would give to cut your pricks off.”
· “I hate queers fags gays and all other homosexual idiots. They should be shot.”
Insulting:
· “If the police need help, they can count on me to rid society of you filthy mentally sick non-humans.”
· “All homosexuals or gays should go back into the woodwork and get lost!!”
· “We would welcome the destruction of all so-called ‘gay’ gathering places as well as the flaming faggots that frequent these cesspools.”
Judgmental:
· I have feelings of profound revulsion about what goes on in this kind of privacy [bathhouses]. How can I support something which degrades human potential so shockingly?”
· “Do not try to deceive anybody: homosexual individuals are not ‘gay’ — they rather are ‘sad.’”
Pseudoscientific:
· Homosexuality is a self-cleansing process designed by nature to protect harmonious development of species. You should not try to interfere with natural, healthy processes by demanding special rights for deviants.”
· “Get wise! Biologically and sociologically, homosexuality is an aberration or worse. Its end result is moral disintegration and ultimately, extinction of the human race.”
Humorously demeaning:
· “There is nothing ‘gay’ about sick people. Sickees are suckees.”
· “I object to the use of the word ‘gay’ referring to homosexuals. Why murder a good word?”
The last quote was our favourite. Its author struck an admittedly clever balance between put down and humour.
There was one letter however that stood out for positive reasons. It was from a mother who did not support the ad but had the grace to defer to new perspectives and understandings. She wrote “My children 16 and 19 years old decided to reply to your letter. This is okay with me, because they belong to the younger generation and they will have to live in tomorrow’s society.”
One individual used a copy of the ad to communicate their disgust. They mailed it to the RTPC with the following statement: “I hope you paid dearly for this ad! Good show — homos make me ill!” We wondered if they realized that they were providing a compelling visual metaphor for the power of reason over ignorance. Looking at this yellowed, fading clipping one sees a single venomous voice drowned out by thousands willing to stand publicly in solidarity with gays and lesbians.