THE INDOLENCE OF THE FOURTH ESTATE
According to Census Canada, homosexuals account for one percent of the Canadian population. Not surprisingly, homosexual political advocates (politicos) say that ten times this number make up the homosexual population of Canada.
Some homosexual politicos are now threatening Canadian Churches with loss of tax-exempt status if they refuse, as their religion mandates, to conduct homosexual marriages. Since a Church cannot go against its religion which is what makes it a Church, homosexual politicos are saying that Churches are to lose tax-exempt status because they are a Church.
Just as feminist politicos do not represent the majority of women, and native politicos do not represent the majority of native people, so homosexual politicos do not represent the majority of homosexuals. Yet, because of the lassitude of the Canadian press and political caste, these politico spokespeople keep getting the headline treatment as speaking for these jurisdictions.
According to the media-driven play of these special identity- interest politicos, our Churches are to lose their tax-exempt status unless they fall in line with the homosexual politicos’ special interest agenda. The ‘national’ press, presumably representing the other 99% of Canadians as well, then leaves it at that, rather than investigating and publishing other opinions on this matter.
Inevitably, in a pluralistic society, aggressive politicos of all sorts will try to use the press to highlight their particular self-interest agenda. A lethargic press devoid of investigative sinews will rest content to publish every self-interest group’s politicos’ extreme rhetoric without research to provide context, thinking that by publishing all and sundry without responsibility of contextual analysis, they thereby are reflective of objective reporting. Clearly, if the same reportage were given to the one percent of white supremacist politicos with their agenda with the same lack of contextual analysis, this ‘objective’ lack of responsibility on the part of the press would be seen in a different light.
In England, once homosexual agenda MP’s were elected, they immediately demanded that the age of homosexual consent be reduced from 18 to 16 and then to 14. This sounds reasonable and fine within the particular interests and agendas of this particular interest group, representing, by Census, one percent of the populace. It may sound less reasonable and fine when viewed from the context of parents and their hopes for their children. From the point of view of the particular interest of this homosexual group, reducing the age of consent for their preferred sexual activities might make sense, but does this make sense for the interests of the other 99% of the population as well?
Similarly, does the feminist agenda of disempowering males through the courts help the sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and grand- mothers and fathers and next wives of these males thus destroyed by legal disempowerment? Do aggressive self-serving politicos, representing their special interest group only according to their own rhetoric, ever serve any agenda except the narrow self interest of these politicos riding an identity group as a personal bandwagon for personal self-importance, myopia, and profit?
Yet, the day to day indolence and intellectual sloth of our press has been content to let the various interest group politicos with their self-serving particular agendas having little to do with the collective interest of the whole, rule the pages of the debate that makes up the direction of our society. The indolence of the Fourth Estate may well be the mistake that costs us our civilization.