Most men who talk like that are closeted gays trying to make it look like they hate gays so people won't think that they are gay when in fact they are.
Twenty years ago, before I grew up (even though I was legally an adult), I said some pretty stupid things to my friends as well. People change. Give them a chance.
This is homophobic at best. HATE SPEECH must be a good thing for Canadian politicians, though. This neo-nazi is now a prominent Canadian Government leader!
This is Canada? Now wonder the neanderthals were denied the UN Security Council seat, eh!? Shameful.....
Now Youtube must confront the fact that they allow the Koran to be disseminated on youtube. The Koran is hate speech, by definition, because it advocates the killing of those who don't wish to buy into its principles. This advocating of killing has actually induced people to kill others. It is not even, therefore, a potential threat, it is a fulfilled threat.
Wow! This guy is another prime example of hateful syphilitic RepubliCON trash.
Tom's joined the "Extreme Hateful Trash-Dumpster" group of Cry-on-Cue Wet Brain Glenn Beck, Bulimic Drag-Queen Man Coulter, Drug-Addict Flush Dimbaugh & Rep Moo Bachmann.
"The road to hell is paved with RepubliCONs!" ~Single-Digit IQ Scarah Phalin
Good job on your stereotyping. Hate-filled speeches like this stem from stereotypes. He says they all have diseases and you say they're all hate filled. Both negatives and broad generalizations of entire groups of people. I think you just pulled a Tom Lukwiski.
First, you are saying all conservatives are like this. That's stereotyping no matter if its chosen or not. That's like me saying all communinsts are completely unrealistic and radical in their views.
Second, is there anything saying some don't choose to be gay. Not everyone does of course but just like people who might be gay and choose to be straight there probably are some that choose to be gay. Conservatism is often the way those people were raised. Do they choose their upbringing?
I'm with RazaeFury. Even though I'm not a conservative member (Stuck in between), saying that they are all backward bigots is screwed-up. If we didnt have them all these liberals would go for this weird 'liberation' and people would be gay and women would get ding-dongs and men would get the opposite and everyone would be messed up, etc.
Ironically, there is a portion of conservatives that are very pro-liberation. They believe in freedom(without government intervention). There is another side that believes in freedom for only a portion of society. However, this happens on both ends. Example : Carleton university cutting sponsorship and donations to fight a disease on the grounds that it primarily affects "caucasian males".
Point is, extreme views stem from such stereotypes, not the party you belong to.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Conservatives choose to have their backward, idiotic ideology."
Said by someone who celebrates morons like Marx and Bakunin in his name. Marxism is a failed ideology so why don't you get over the 20th century first and then you can non-hypocritically comment on the ideologies of others as being backwards.
But marxism never failed it was never even attempted. Lennin drastically changed marxism in order for the whole process to be faster and anything after that was even farther from the original ideology.
Oh no--not more old white guys trying to hold on to power. Wise up, you racist bastards: the world is getting darker and ain't nothing you can do about it. Enjoy your power WHILE YOU STILL CAN.
Funny, but the early christians didn't consider homosexuality deviant. More revisionism eh? I think it's great that all the christian denominations can't get along (how un-christian!). Jesus accepted all types of people today we would consider "deviant." Again, you just twist his words to suit your own selfish ends! Shmucks!
homosexuality has always been blasphamy in the 1st covanent it was mentioned plenty of times, jesus would love them "the deviant" but it doesnt mean that he can force them to repent, and it doesnt mean they would get into the kingdom you need to re-up on some of the scriptures. you might read the word but you have know knowledge of how it works, god bless you
thats the middle east this is canada u stupid fuck that doesnt mean we have to do it to do we walk around with bombs strapped around our waist because we think we will get 40 virgins when we die no that is the stupidest thing ive ever heard
There is no reason for Tom Lukiwski to resign or get fired, he was just expressing his thoughts and beliefs, he did not do anything illegal, and besides in some parts of the world such as the Middle East gay people get executed.
And I KNOW I'll get the better end of the deal because I KNOW you won't take back your words, even when they're backed with half-truths. You didn't offer any evidence regarding Trudeau, so I shouldn't expect you to offer any for Tom. Moreover, G+M is a trusted, respected newspaper, and I doubt they'd print that article without concrete proof.
Good luck trying to weasel your way out of this one, buddy. Until BOTH of the aboved stated events happen, forget about hearing a retraction from me!
That's why this will be my last post here, not because I'm conceding, but because I felt I've done everything I can to convince you with my evidence, only to have you shoot them down without logic or reason.
In the end, I have no ill feelings for you. I still wish you the best, but I really hope you don't bring this style of debating into an actual election campaign, especially with you as the Liberal candidate for a riding. With faulty arguments like that, I know I won't be voting for you.
I fully admit you've made some good points in your arguments, but the fact that you refuse to address other opinions, even when they're backed up with evidence, goes to show you're not taking this debate seriously. You only talk about your ideas, but are unprepared to defend them against criticism. Just the fact you posted the "Tom's had 40 years of experience..." statement about 5 or 6 times clearly show you have no good ideas, and can only rely on bombarding us with that line like propaganda.
This is why I agree with some reviewers from a past video of yours: debating you is a zero-sum game. You claim to debate with logic and reason, as consistent with the Liberals. But really, you base your arguments on half-truths (Tom's drunkeness), not addressing reliable evidence sources (Trudeau fascist), and muzzling me when I offer an equally legit alternate consideration (your first response after I suggested Caroline Parrish).
Thomas Wappel Liberal MP opposed the Chrétien government's decision to extend anti-discrimination protection to homosexuals in 1994, describing homosexuality as "statistically and physically abnormal and immoral". A call to expel Wappel from caucus for this remark, but no action was taken. Later Wappel described homosexuality as "not genetic, but a choice".He was an opponent of the Martin government's 2005 same-sex marriage legislation, which he described as "discriminatory, a sham, and a hoax"
I think there's a huge distinction between making a public contemporaneous statement and this situation. This was nearly 20 years ago, at a private office party, under the influence of at least a few beers while fooling around with his friend. Let's just hope your friends don't have any videos of you acting like an asshole, it might ruin your career 20 years later. Fair? I think not, especially when he admits he was being a dumbass and no longer holds the opinion.
"influence of at least a few beers" - You have no evidence to support that.
"This was nearly 20 years ago, at a private office party"- He admitted on the tape that he was quite familiar with the phrase and the camera man acted like he knew Tom would say it, it wasn't a one time deal.
"Let's just hope your friends don't have any videos of you acting like an asshole," I'm not a middle aged man who's working for a political party and should if anything be too careful.
Now, let me say quite clearly I think this is totally fair game for a campaign against him, but to want to run him off the national stage in disgrace without an election for something that happened 20 years ago while he was drinking and joking is just quite absurd. When ever you feign objections to so-called "McCarthyism," remember how you acted here, wanting to destroy a man publicly for private statements in jest, while under the influence of alcohol, some 20 years ago.
What Ludiwski said was hateful. He was 40 years old when he said it, he had 40 years of experience to come to those disgusting opinions. In the video he admits he's quite familiar with the saying that gays are fagots, dirty, and spread diseases. Other politicians have said wrong things but the difference is Tom spoke out of hate
John Locke, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson all advocated slavery and they were wrong, but at the time no one knew better. Tom made these comments when we all knew better.
Lastly, I am extremely disturbed by your statement: He showed no signs of being drunk.
Even a junior high pre-teen knows alcohol attacks the nervous system. I can be drunk out of my mind, but can still walk properly and say my ABCs without slurring. The only way to tell if I drank is via breathalyzer (sp) test.
Of course, it does not mean what Tom did was right, but you should not justify your argument with half-truths like that. My source is from 2 RNs and a paramedic. What is your source
Wrong again buddy! It's a fact that you truly CANNOT tell whether one is drunk via physical appearance. I could be drunk out of my mind but still appear normal, having no slurred speech and having the ability to balance/walk properly. You can ONLY tell whether one did drink or not by a breathalyzer test.
And this came from 2 registered nurses and a licensed paramedic, individuals who have been professionally trained in the medical field. I'd trust their judgment on this over yours any day.
Slurring your speech is a sign of being drunk. Stumbling or swaggering is a sign of being drunk. Passing out is a sign of being drunk. Ludiwski exhibited none of these signs. I never said I knew he was not drunk. I said he didn't show any signs of being drunk.
How? The fact the label is picked off the beer like he hasn't been drinking it? The fact that he spoke better then most other MPs in the house of commons? If you don't know something, you shouldn't make it up.
And you claim to argue with logic and reason in your past videos? Your argument is neither logical or reasonable here. You're right that slurring, sumbling, passing out all point to drunkennes. But the LACK of such symptoms DOESN'T mean one's sober.
And the way you used the "not one bit drunk" statement in your arguments implies that you're using this to claim he knows what he's doing (AKA sober). Based on medical knowledge, it's at best a half-truth, so to an extent YOU'RE the liar here.
Third, I feel, especially with the end of the video and lumping Harper with him, you're saying the Conservatives agree with him.
All parties, including the Liberals, have made nasty remarks, even in recent years. But yet it seems like you're picking on Tom because he's a Conservative (a party labelled as bigoted and intolerant by left-leaning people).
So aren't you being unfair by blaming the Cons while MP's from other parties, including your own, did similar things and got away with it?
There is a Liberal who made nasty comments: Caroline Parrish, who said:
1.) Americans = bastards.
2.) Those supporting the USA missile shield are coalition of idiots.
3.) Stomping on Bush doll on national TV.
It was only during the 3rd attempt that she was finally turfed. And seeing how she is a repeat offender, I say whatever her apology, if any, is remorseless at best.
Again, a double standard: why turf Tom for one private remark when Caroline made 3 public remarks equally nasty.
Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who you say it to: Americans, Europeans, Chinese, gays, natives, whatever. Tom made one private anti-gay remark and now you're asking for his head. Caroline made 3 public anti-USA remarks and got off scot-free.
In fact, Paul Martin RELUCTANTLY got rid of her after the stomping case, and even then she shows no remorse (telling those wanting her to stop it to "go to hell"). If this isn't a double standard then I don't know what you call it.
On November 18th, a day before the skit even aired, Parrish was kicked out of caucus. Discrimination is discrimination, Lukiwski should be kicked out as well.
Did I say he shouldn't be kicked out? NO! Read my first comment: Tom went overboard with his statements and something must be done about it. You just straw-man arguments into me and not address my points directly.
And you only addressed the Bush doll stomping. What about "bastards" and "coalitiong of idiots"? Caroline made the remarks PUBLICLY and got off scot-free, showing ZERO remorse whatsoever (telling those wanting her to stop it to "go to hell"). Again, a clear double standard.
You said: "Again, a double standard: why turf Tom for one private remark when Caroline made 3 public remarks equally nasty." But Parrish got booted, so what was the point of this comment?
She got booted, how is that scot free? Where was the double standard?
You said: "Again, a double standard: why turf Tom for one private remark when Caroline made 3 public remarks equally nasty." But Parrish got booted, so what was the point of this comment?
She got booted, how is that scot free? Where was the double standard?
The double standard was that she wasn't booted during her FIRST, PUBLIC remarks, the Americans are bastards one. You're booting Tom after ONE infraction. The double standard is that you're asking for Tom's head after one PRIVATE remark, all the while Caroline never got it until after 3 PUBLIC ones.
Moreover, Caroline was a sitting MP, while Tom wasn't a sitting MLA (just a party member). That makes a world's difference, given that Carolins is responsible for public office, but got 3 chances.
Second, Tom made those statements 17 years ago. If we're going to dig up old "scandals" like this, we might as well start a witch hunt.
There are cases where mature politicians made questionable remarks/allegiances. Trudeau sympathizing with Nazis, Gilles Duceppe inspired by Maoist communism, Stephane Dion siding with Quebec separatists.
But we're not hunting them down for their remarks today, so at the very least we should apply the same standard to Tom, accept his apology, and move on.
He was 40 years old when he made those statements and it was made clear on the tape Tom had said those comments before. No one dug for these comments, the Conservatives left them behind, so where was the hunt?
How is being inspired by Mao comparable to hate statements? I would openly admit Mao was very intelligent and offered a great deal to political thought. Also every politician has sided with the seperatists, how is that comparable to making hateful comments?
As for your only comparable example you are at the very least contorting Trudeau's statements and generalizing his position. I would suggest you are blatently lying. Trudeau never sympathized with the Nazi's.
"Democracy was bad and that fascism - as represented by Mussolini and Pétain - was good. Thus, even as a young man of twenty-three, Trudeau was ignoring the war in Europe and plotting a revolution to take Quebec out of Canada." (Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada).
Nonetheless, it goes back to my original point: if we do not hold Trudeau or anyone else accountable for their past words, why hammer Tom so heavily? And does this not lead to an unnecessary witch hunt?
You are a liar. Trudeau never said that. That was written on the back of one of Trudeau's books by academics Max and Monique Nemi and even then it was specifically about what was being taught in certain Quebec universities in the 50s and not what Trudeau said.
Guess again buddy! Trudeau was involved in a fascist organization throughout the 1940's (Globe and Mail, 2006), and even wrote an anti-semitic play called "Dupés" in 1938 (P. 58 of Young Trudeau).
And you can't claim "he didn't know better" because nazism and fascism have been condemned since Hitler ran roughshod on Europe in the 30's. You can't possibly claim Trudeau's unaware of it.
But either way, please address my point: we don't hold Trudeau accountable, so why hammer Tom?
Ah, so a Liberal is conveying the tactic of muzzling critics. I thought you guys hated it when Harper did that to his MP's, and now you're doing the same by blocking me?
I have 2 reliable sources (a biography and a respected newspaper) stating that he did support fascism. You claim this isn't evidence and branded me a liar. Then can you prove he DIDN'T do it? With sources as reliable as the above?
Don't bother replying unless you're willing to be fair on this, you disgusting hypocrite.
I called you a liar because you lied. Trudeau never said what you claimed he said, I'll repeat:
"You are a liar. Trudeau never said that. That was written on the back of one of Trudeau's books by academics Max and Monique Nemi and even then it was specifically about what was being taught in certain Quebec universities in the 50s and not what Trudeau said.
Ha, what a joke! I have solid, concrete evidence from 2 reliable sources saying that he had those ties. Yours, Wikipedia, is NOT reliable.
Besides, your comment "it was specifically about what was being taught in certain Quebec universities in the 50s and not what Trudeau said" is an identical situation to Tom, who was merely reflecting his anti-gay environment (Tom's quote on this is in your personal blog).
But please address my point: we don't hold Trudeau accountable, so why hammer Tom?
Wikipedia can be changed by anyone, even those without knowledge on the issue. The Globe and Mail is a respected newspaper and a generally reliable source.
Your article claims it's what Quebec universities teach in the 50's. But G+M says he held fascist views in the 40's. So you're in a different time period, meaning you're not adequately addressing my evidence.
So if you're not punishing Trudeau for reflecting anti-semitic environment, why hit Tom for reflecting anti-gay environment?
Your point is an example of either a mistake or ignorance.
First no where in mao's theory did it say kill 100 million people. Mao killed those people by his own whim.
Second, being influenced by an ideology does not mean you accept everything about it or even most. Aristotle, John Locke, Jefferson, all influenced liberal philosophy, but it doesn't mean we all are for slavery of which they all were for. Being influenced is different from accepting every word.
Duceppe was spewing Maoist ideology even as recently as the 1980 referendum. He openly said that the working classes of Quebec and Canada had to stay united to fight their common capitalist enemy.
But my point is this: this is a witch hunt in which we condemn any questionable behaviour from years past. If Tom must be punished for his actions, then so should Duceppe, or Dion, or whoever. Since we will not go after them, we should set the same standard to Tom and accept his apology and move on.
Read it again: If we are to condemn any questionable behavior from years past, and saying Tom must be punished for his actions, then so should Duceppe for his Maoist views, or Trudeau's fascist beliefs, or whoever that made or allied themselves with questionable sides.
I'm merely saying we should set one standard for all. Since we will not go after them, we should set the same standard to Tom and accept his apology and move on.
I read it again, but it has no relation to what I said:
"First no where in mao's theory did it say kill 100 million people. Mao killed those people by his own whim.
Second, being influenced by an ideology does not mean you accept everything about it or even most. Aristotle, John Locke, Jefferson, all influenced liberal philosophy, but it doesn't mean we all are for slavery of which they all were for. Being influenced is different from accepting every word."
Did Tom go overboard with his statements? Absolutely. Should something be done about this? You bet. That being said, I feel you are being a bit unfair on him. Here's why:
First, Tom said this at a private party. This was never intended to be public until it was LEAKED. Trudeau himself had said that (and I'm paraphrasing) we shouldn't legislate behaviour in people's bedrooms (AKA private situations). If we're condemning Tom's private statements, then we might as well be legislating behaviour.
First it wasn't leaked, the Conservatives left the video behind. Second he said it facing a camera, any claim to it being a private conversation is thrown out the window. Third, even if it was private that doesn't make his statements okay, and goes to show his character. Fourth, Tom's statements were intolerant and hateful, saying they were wrong has nothing to do with legislating bedroom behaviour, it only has to do with being tolerant.
They were fooling around! Isn't it obvious? He thought he was being funny among friends, while drinking some beer. I think his comments are stupid and midly hateful and he's right to be embarrassed by them. But he is human. He was just expressing some mild homophobic sentiment, which a considerable portion of heterosexual men have at same point or another.
I fully admit that the statements were wrong, but that being said, if we can't even say them in a private video, then we might as well be legislating personal behaviour.
You didn't address my point of referring to Trudeau's "We shouldn't legislate people's behaviour in bedrooms" properly. My point is this: if we cannot even make our views, no matter what they may be, privately, then we mgith as well have Big Brother around, and that is nothing short of dictatorship and tyranny.
I responded to your comment, by saying it had nothing to do with Trudeau's comment. Trudeau was talking about legislating against certain sexual practices, he was not talking about legislating hate speech.
If all the trouble we are fabricating is about 1% of our population, we should be more than ashamed, we should be embarrassed. If all gay people at a crowded ball park were to stand up, there would be fewer than 89% still seated.
Denial is the favorite tool of the paranoid bigot. You are fighting a non-battle, and you are dragging out the big guns for absolutely no real purpose.
You need to examine yourselves for human flaws instead of desperately searching for them in others.
That's the problem with some churches, then you got the downright riduculous "churches" like the Jehovahs and Morons who aren't even true Christians. (sorry to those looking in that may belong to those cults, Truth hurts you're not Christians! =). Anywho... no where in the Bible does it say to "hate" homosexuals.
Um, there is some pretty nasty stuff in there, but I don't think much if any in the New Testament. And, of course, there is all sorts of crazy stuff in the Old Testament which is just ignored.
My apology was frivelous, gee.. maybe you missed the part where I said I might have "overlooked" it, I DID LOOK... geez you really are a douche bag, you fit in good with Dion!!! =)
No I did not miss the part where you said "I may of overlooked" because even though you admitted you could have missed it you still accused me of something it was clear I didn't do. If you are gonna accuse someone of something you could at least spend 30 seconds to make sure, which you didn't.
Ellery I did not delete your comment, go to "View All Comments," look at those made "6 days ago" and you will find yours. Your apology is just as frivolous as your accusation. There was no need to accuse me of something when you didn't even look to see if I did it in the first place.
I clearly heard the oral sodomite degrade lukiwski by calling him "fucking old " AGIST punk! im surprised he didnt also call him a "polack" . Tom handled this insult appropriately . And he is drinking a legal beverage "crappy beer" not the good european stuff but then hating european foriegners has always been ok by elitist bigots
Facts from one of my Nursing textbooks, "PATHOPHYSIOLOGY-The Biologic Basic for Disease", 2nd edition 1994.
On page 288 Acquired Deficiencies-AIDS, 1989 statistics show 74% of reported cases of AIDS were homosexual men, and 19% were abusers of injected drugs. Seems like Tom was right, homosexual activity was the main reason for the spread of AIDS.
AIDS is A disease, Tom said gays transmit DISEASES (Plural). Second it would be correct to say straight people spread AIDS too, how else would straight people get it? It's pretty said you're actually trying to defend what he said when everyone admits what he said was wrong.
What he said was stupid and mildy hateful. And he should apologize, which I imagine he already has. I'm sure you've said things to a friend in jest which you won't be proud of in 20 years.
Not like it's germane, but just to clear up your confusion: other STDs are more contagious in the gay community as well. The anus/rectum bleeds much more than a vagina because it's less thick and has less elasticity, this causes all kinds of STD's to be more contagious among gays.
I'm skeptical of your statistic. Remember, we're talking about gay men not all gays, lesbians have low risk. Gay men have an extraordinary high rate of syphillis, HIV, and other STDs, many many times the rate that of their heterosexual counterparts. For example, in the US around 72% (only 15% is from heterosexual sex) of new male HIV cases are from gays, but they are only 4% of the population.
"While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24."
But this whole point is worthless. Tom never said Gay people spread the MOST diseases, he said they just spread diseases, and by that generalization everyone spreads diseases, so why did Tom say it? He said it to be hateful. Together with the statement of gays being unclean in saying they spread diseases Tom made a statement similar to how Nazi's described Jews.
Among young people includes gay young people! =) So this stats is rather useless to support your claim. I already showed that gays represent 72% of the HIV infection in American males (while being 4% of the population), which is the most serious STD. They have many, many times the rate of syphillis. Being a sexually active gay male is a dangerous thing, unfortunately. It does no good to bury the reality and pretend everybody is equally at risk because it gives you warm fuzzies.
So first you doubted by statistic, then I provided evidence now you are suggesting it doesn't matter.
Being a young person is even more dangerous then being gay by your reasoning. But again it doesn't matter because everyone spreads diseases so for Tom to say it he was specifically trying to express a specific and strong hate for gay people.
As a factual matter, gays are much more likely to carry and transmit diseases. If you are going to argue against that fact, that's just a losing proposition.
Why people are (rightly in my mind) offended by his comments is that they indicate a hatred for gays, rather than stating a factual claim (gays are more likely to carry and transmit STD's). But he's just fooling around with his friend, drinking a beer. If this is the worst thign he's ever said, he's lived a pretty good life, IMO.
No its not a losing position because you haven't said to which group you'd be comparing. 16-24 year olds are far more likely to transmit diseases then gays.
He's acknowledged he's said the phrase before and no one is suggesting thats the worst he's ever done.
Racist homophobes are the 'B's who should be removed from the power and the perks they enjoy. If they are not smart enough to avoid being videotaped making stupid derogatory comments while drinking, they do not deserve to represent their riding in Parliament. Although many Conservatives trumpet his apology and distance themselves from his message, it reminds me of a joke. "What is the definition of a 'homosexual gentleman'?" -What a Conservative MP calls a faggot when he enters the room.
I never heard the actual speech, so I tore the article out of the newspaper for the name (I never even heard of him before this) and searched it up here.
How did I know it would turn into nasty, propaganda bullshit against the Conservative party... well, I guess the internet provides a medium for COMPLETE MORONS to share their "opinions" with everyone.
Lukiwski's thoughts ***DO NOT*** reflect the entire Conservative party's... anyone who believes this is Liberal brainwashed. Plain and simple.
I never once said his views reflect the entire Conservative Party views. He is a Conservative caucus member though, and though Stephen Harper rebuked the comment, he's keeping Tom around, even keeping his higher paying job as secretary.
Omar Alghabra, President of the Canadian Arab Federation,after winning the Liberal Nomination in Mississauga-Erindale, stood and announced loudly, several times, this is a VICTORY for ISLAM, ISLAM WON, ISLAM WON, he also started talking about how Islamic power is extending in the Canadian Politics. These are chilling words to a nation that has been identified as a terrorist target by Osama Bin Laden.
That is a lie. Omar did not say that, a Mr.Khalid Usman who was in attendance said that. With the age of google it surprises me that people think they can get away with lying.
Lukiwski is a member of the Conservative Party, Harper isn't kicking Tom out, nor penalizing him one bit. Its not me whose associating Lukiwski with Harper, it's Stephen Harper. I'm not suggesting Lukiwski's views reflect the Party, thats why I said "a message FROM Tom Lukiwski."
If you have a problem with Lukiwski being associated with the Conservatives, then you should want him kicked out. But until he is, he is a Conservative and Harper wants him to be.
This is truly ignorant, but if we were all held to account for everything we said while drunk 17 years ago or more, it wouldn't be fair. I don't support his party, I just think of all the kids today with their webcams. If this guy with the bizarre moustache is hung out to dry today, what will happen to today's kids when their webcam drunken party pics surface 17 years from now? Something to think about.
He did not just say it once, he said in the video its a common phrase for him. The camera guy also knew that's why he set it up by asking "whats an A person?" And besides the fact he didn't look one bit drunk. If people say hateful things we shouldn't ignore it.
He should resign. Though he made these comments 17 years ago, he was an adult when he did. An apology is worth complete shit when its made after the person has been found out - escpecially if that person is in public office. Furthermore these comments are indicitive of his world view and character.
Um I didn't say saying it was right, or okay, or condoned. In fact, I specifically said it wasn't. But what is "okay" to say and what isn't has certainly evolved in time. You don't think in 1991 a bunch of drunk guys would commonly throw homophobic epithets around? Because drunk people do it all the time today, in a much different environment.
I said in 1991 it was not okay to say those things in response to you suggesting it was quite common. He did not just say it once, he said in the video its a common phrase for him. The camera guy also knew that's why he set it up by asking "whats an A person?" And besides the fact he didn't look one bit drunk, it wasn't funny then and it sure ain't now.
Hmm... no good, but it WAS from 17 years ago. That doesn't make what was said okay, but to deny that didn't play a role would be a little naive. To be blunt, we've made a lot of progress in the past 2 decades on minority rights, particularly gay rights. I don't think too many people would even bat an eyelash if something like this was said in public 25 years ago, now it's a scandal. He apologized, personally I'd accept it and move on.
Most men who talk like that are closeted gays trying to make it look like they hate gays so people won't think that they are gay when in fact they are.
BewareOfDogma59 10 months ago
This guy is making our laws!
Let's vote him out!
nojegr 10 months ago
OH DEAR LORD This guy was at my school today!
tangofizz77 10 months ago
Twenty years ago, before I grew up (even though I was legally an adult), I said some pretty stupid things to my friends as well. People change. Give them a chance.
PRIMAL88 10 months ago
Tom wasn't asked about his stance on gay-rights; he was given a silly question from some clown behind a camera.
His hate-speech was unprovoked. Either he's a closeted man or a complete sociopath...or both.
WheresPoochie 10 months ago
Pleeeeze ...this is nothing compared to all the slander I have heard from Liberals and NDP... and he is cute ;-)
remsearch 10 months ago
Wow ... and this guy is still with the Conservative Party?
garymichaelwilson 11 months ago
He's so ugly, I can't believe he seems to think he's good looking.
somewhatlongdong 11 months ago
This is homophobic at best. HATE SPEECH must be a good thing for Canadian politicians, though. This neo-nazi is now a prominent Canadian Government leader!
This is Canada? Now wonder the neanderthals were denied the UN Security Council seat, eh!? Shameful.....
Veltanschaung 11 months ago 4
Now Youtube must confront the fact that they allow the Koran to be disseminated on youtube. The Koran is hate speech, by definition, because it advocates the killing of those who don't wish to buy into its principles. This advocating of killing has actually induced people to kill others. It is not even, therefore, a potential threat, it is a fulfilled threat.
wizardoflawz 1 year ago
@wizardoflawz So does The Bible, do you plan on going after that too? You should.
BoredomCorner 11 months ago
That's hilarious!!
TheMuddyRiver 1 year ago
Wow! This guy is another prime example of hateful syphilitic RepubliCON trash.
Tom's joined the "Extreme Hateful Trash-Dumpster" group of Cry-on-Cue Wet Brain Glenn Beck, Bulimic Drag-Queen Man Coulter, Drug-Addict Flush Dimbaugh & Rep Moo Bachmann.
"The road to hell is paved with RepubliCONs!" ~Single-Digit IQ Scarah Phalin
mavrek47 1 year ago 9
I have no idea how people like this get elected
somewhatlongdong 2 years ago 3
@somewhatlongdong Apparently enough people in his riding agree with him.
BoredomCorner 11 months ago
This message brought to you buy another drunk-ass blindly following religion.
gamingsoul11 2 years ago 2
i have one thing to say about him, fucking eh!
StalinSalute 2 years ago
Now that's sexy! More sexy than isotopes!
paidoc 2 years ago
Hilarious!!
brojulien 2 years ago
Only in America?
biltboard 3 years ago
funny thing, he actually gained votes in each election after that video came out
StalinSalute 3 years ago
hell yah! finally a conservative who's not afraid to speak the truth. god damn fucking faggots
StalinSalute 3 years ago
Conservatives are all the same . . . hate filled bigots, from Saudi Arabia to Toronto.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Good job on your stereotyping. Hate-filled speeches like this stem from stereotypes. He says they all have diseases and you say they're all hate filled. Both negatives and broad generalizations of entire groups of people. I think you just pulled a Tom Lukwiski.
RazaeFury 3 years ago 2
No, I didn't. Conservatives choose to have their backward, idiotic ideology. Gay people do not choose to be gay.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
First, you are saying all conservatives are like this. That's stereotyping no matter if its chosen or not. That's like me saying all communinsts are completely unrealistic and radical in their views.
Second, is there anything saying some don't choose to be gay. Not everyone does of course but just like people who might be gay and choose to be straight there probably are some that choose to be gay. Conservatism is often the way those people were raised. Do they choose their upbringing?
RazaeFury 3 years ago
I'm with RazaeFury. Even though I'm not a conservative member (Stuck in between), saying that they are all backward bigots is screwed-up. If we didnt have them all these liberals would go for this weird 'liberation' and people would be gay and women would get ding-dongs and men would get the opposite and everyone would be messed up, etc.
Sulyaman 3 years ago
Ironically, there is a portion of conservatives that are very pro-liberation. They believe in freedom(without government intervention). There is another side that believes in freedom for only a portion of society. However, this happens on both ends. Example : Carleton university cutting sponsorship and donations to fight a disease on the grounds that it primarily affects "caucasian males".
Point is, extreme views stem from such stereotypes, not the party you belong to.
RazaeFury 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Conservatives choose to have their backward, idiotic ideology."
Said by someone who celebrates morons like Marx and Bakunin in his name. Marxism is a failed ideology so why don't you get over the 20th century first and then you can non-hypocritically comment on the ideologies of others as being backwards.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
I'm not a Marxist.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Ok well that's good to know, but I'm awfully curious as to why you picked that username then.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
I picked it because Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin have both had great influence over my political views (which I suppose are a kind of synthesis.)
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
But marxism never failed it was never even attempted. Lennin drastically changed marxism in order for the whole process to be faster and anything after that was even farther from the original ideology.
menijoe 2 years ago 2
Hahaha he got re-elected!!!!
RazaeFury 3 years ago
Guess there was alot of A people in his riding i guess :) Still, I voted for Ralph Goodale! Go Ralph go!
Riceslayer 3 years ago
i will throw shoes at a him... idiot.
collegeguy2009 3 years ago
Oh no--not more old white guys trying to hold on to power. Wise up, you racist bastards: the world is getting darker and ain't nothing you can do about it. Enjoy your power WHILE YOU STILL CAN.
monster4josh 3 years ago
this seems to have be over
johnowenD 3 years ago
This stuff rules!!
theshadowrules 3 years ago
There was a man named Tom
Who made his feelings be known.
It was like throwing a bomb,
On guys who prefer the bone.. 2
In an upside down society,
Where morals have gone amuck.
It's nice to see honesty,
And heterosexuality, fuck!
brojulien 3 years ago
Hitler also showed his honesty. Does that make him right? Better put down your rhyming pen and stop with the nonsensacle tripe.
ourvinylcollection 3 years ago
Great video Tom!! You let the faggots know what you think!!
brojulien 3 years ago
Oh boo hoo. We should have international hate speech day just to piss off all of the PC memebots.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
Weather its Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion, homosexuality is not authorized in any relgion.
There is not a single religion that says its okay to be gay or lesbian, therefore all homosexuals can go to hell.
crew101soldia 3 years ago
There's actually even a gay deity in Shintoism.
It's comforting to know monotheism's foundation is refuted by evidence.
LetsGetGroovy 3 years ago
Funny, but the early christians didn't consider homosexuality deviant. More revisionism eh? I think it's great that all the christian denominations can't get along (how un-christian!). Jesus accepted all types of people today we would consider "deviant." Again, you just twist his words to suit your own selfish ends! Shmucks!
monster4josh 3 years ago 2
homosexuality has always been blasphamy in the 1st covanent it was mentioned plenty of times, jesus would love them "the deviant" but it doesnt mean that he can force them to repent, and it doesnt mean they would get into the kingdom you need to re-up on some of the scriptures. you might read the word but you have know knowledge of how it works, god bless you
trinope 3 years ago
thats the middle east this is canada u stupid fuck that doesnt mean we have to do it to do we walk around with bombs strapped around our waist because we think we will get 40 virgins when we die no that is the stupidest thing ive ever heard
jbourne1 3 years ago
Hinduism
Says nothign against it
I don't think paganism does either
LegnakandBoniTech 3 years ago
There is no reason for Tom Lukiwski to resign or get fired, he was just expressing his thoughts and beliefs, he did not do anything illegal, and besides in some parts of the world such as the Middle East gay people get executed.
crew101soldia 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The original didn't post, so I'll re-write it here. I'll retract my remarks on Trudeau and admit I lied on two conditions:
1.) G+M retracts its 2006 article on Trudeau's fascist past
2.) You retract your half-truths on "not one bit drunk" and using it to imply Tom knows what he's doing.
Again, BOTH MUST HAPPEN before I retract, or else forget about it. The ball's in your court, play it however you want.
lkcwu 3 years ago
GM never quoted Trudeau as saying what you said he said, so that has nothing to do with anything.
I said there's no evidence to say he was drunk and by ALL APEARANCES HE DID TALK PERFECTLY fine.
You lied. Plain and simple.
scottyross00 3 years ago 4
well he did walk away with a beer in his hand lol. nevertheless he should have been kicked out of that parliamentary sec. position
one199 3 years ago 2
@lkcwu Telling the truth isn't conditional, you jackass.
BoredomCorner 11 months ago
@lkcwu You don't seem to get how ethics work -- if you've fucked up, you own up to it UNCONDITIONALLY, and WITHOUT PROMPTING.
BoredomCorner 11 months ago
And I KNOW I'll get the better end of the deal because I KNOW you won't take back your words, even when they're backed with half-truths. You didn't offer any evidence regarding Trudeau, so I shouldn't expect you to offer any for Tom. Moreover, G+M is a trusted, respected newspaper, and I doubt they'd print that article without concrete proof.
Good luck trying to weasel your way out of this one, buddy. Until BOTH of the aboved stated events happen, forget about hearing a retraction from me!
lkcwu 3 years ago
I don't care if you retract or don't. The facts are there you are a liar. Go make up a blog, you're rants are clogging up this comment section.
scottyross00 3 years ago 5
This guy is a complete idiot. If I talked this way at work i would lose my job.
zionschurch 3 years ago 12
That's why this will be my last post here, not because I'm conceding, but because I felt I've done everything I can to convince you with my evidence, only to have you shoot them down without logic or reason.
In the end, I have no ill feelings for you. I still wish you the best, but I really hope you don't bring this style of debating into an actual election campaign, especially with you as the Liberal candidate for a riding. With faulty arguments like that, I know I won't be voting for you.
lkcwu 3 years ago
Look at your rant, seriously go do a blog.
scottyross00 3 years ago
I'm not going to play with you any more. I'm going to take my toys and go home.
joengracie 3 years ago
I fully admit you've made some good points in your arguments, but the fact that you refuse to address other opinions, even when they're backed up with evidence, goes to show you're not taking this debate seriously. You only talk about your ideas, but are unprepared to defend them against criticism. Just the fact you posted the "Tom's had 40 years of experience..." statement about 5 or 6 times clearly show you have no good ideas, and can only rely on bombarding us with that line like propaganda.
lkcwu 3 years ago
This is why I agree with some reviewers from a past video of yours: debating you is a zero-sum game. You claim to debate with logic and reason, as consistent with the Liberals. But really, you base your arguments on half-truths (Tom's drunkeness), not addressing reliable evidence sources (Trudeau fascist), and muzzling me when I offer an equally legit alternate consideration (your first response after I suggested Caroline Parrish).
lkcwu 3 years ago
Thomas Wappel Liberal MP opposed the Chrétien government's decision to extend anti-discrimination protection to homosexuals in 1994, describing homosexuality as "statistically and physically abnormal and immoral". A call to expel Wappel from caucus for this remark, but no action was taken. Later Wappel described homosexuality as "not genetic, but a choice".He was an opponent of the Martin government's 2005 same-sex marriage legislation, which he described as "discriminatory, a sham, and a hoax"
joengracie 3 years ago
Tom Wappel should have been kicked out for what he said.
scottyross00 3 years ago
I think there's a huge distinction between making a public contemporaneous statement and this situation. This was nearly 20 years ago, at a private office party, under the influence of at least a few beers while fooling around with his friend. Let's just hope your friends don't have any videos of you acting like an asshole, it might ruin your career 20 years later. Fair? I think not, especially when he admits he was being a dumbass and no longer holds the opinion.
politicalmind 3 years ago
"influence of at least a few beers" - You have no evidence to support that.
"This was nearly 20 years ago, at a private office party"- He admitted on the tape that he was quite familiar with the phrase and the camera man acted like he knew Tom would say it, it wasn't a one time deal.
"Let's just hope your friends don't have any videos of you acting like an asshole," I'm not a middle aged man who's working for a political party and should if anything be too careful.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Now, let me say quite clearly I think this is totally fair game for a campaign against him, but to want to run him off the national stage in disgrace without an election for something that happened 20 years ago while he was drinking and joking is just quite absurd. When ever you feign objections to so-called "McCarthyism," remember how you acted here, wanting to destroy a man publicly for private statements in jest, while under the influence of alcohol, some 20 years ago.
politicalmind 3 years ago
What are you talking about? I said I want him out of the Conservative Caucus, you sure exaggerate much.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Reference Thomas Wappel, but was "he was 40 years old when he made those statements". OMG he was 54.
But this happen 17 years ago. OMG it happened 4 years ago.
But was he disiplined. OMG he wasn't and is still a member of Dions Lyberals.
jsixpack2 3 years ago
What Ludiwski said was hateful. He was 40 years old when he said it, he had 40 years of experience to come to those disgusting opinions. In the video he admits he's quite familiar with the saying that gays are fagots, dirty, and spread diseases. Other politicians have said wrong things but the difference is Tom spoke out of hate
John Locke, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson all advocated slavery and they were wrong, but at the time no one knew better. Tom made these comments when we all knew better.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Lastly, I am extremely disturbed by your statement: He showed no signs of being drunk.
Even a junior high pre-teen knows alcohol attacks the nervous system. I can be drunk out of my mind, but can still walk properly and say my ABCs without slurring. The only way to tell if I drank is via breathalyzer (sp) test.
Of course, it does not mean what Tom did was right, but you should not justify your argument with half-truths like that. My source is from 2 RNs and a paramedic. What is your source
lkcwu 3 years ago
You're disturbed by me making a factual statement? He did show no signs of being drunk. Thats a fact.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Wrong again buddy! It's a fact that you truly CANNOT tell whether one is drunk via physical appearance. I could be drunk out of my mind but still appear normal, having no slurred speech and having the ability to balance/walk properly. You can ONLY tell whether one did drink or not by a breathalyzer test.
And this came from 2 registered nurses and a licensed paramedic, individuals who have been professionally trained in the medical field. I'd trust their judgment on this over yours any day.
lkcwu 3 years ago
Slurring your speech is a sign of being drunk. Stumbling or swaggering is a sign of being drunk. Passing out is a sign of being drunk. Ludiwski exhibited none of these signs. I never said I knew he was not drunk. I said he didn't show any signs of being drunk.
scottyross00 3 years ago
He's not wasted, obviously. But he sorta seems drunk. =)
politicalmind 3 years ago
How? The fact the label is picked off the beer like he hasn't been drinking it? The fact that he spoke better then most other MPs in the house of commons? If you don't know something, you shouldn't make it up.
scottyross00 3 years ago
And you claim to argue with logic and reason in your past videos? Your argument is neither logical or reasonable here. You're right that slurring, sumbling, passing out all point to drunkennes. But the LACK of such symptoms DOESN'T mean one's sober.
And the way you used the "not one bit drunk" statement in your arguments implies that you're using this to claim he knows what he's doing (AKA sober). Based on medical knowledge, it's at best a half-truth, so to an extent YOU'RE the liar here.
lkcwu 3 years ago
Seems like a pretty cool guy. I'd vote for him
heynow2009 3 years ago
Third, I feel, especially with the end of the video and lumping Harper with him, you're saying the Conservatives agree with him.
All parties, including the Liberals, have made nasty remarks, even in recent years. But yet it seems like you're picking on Tom because he's a Conservative (a party labelled as bigoted and intolerant by left-leaning people).
So aren't you being unfair by blaming the Cons while MP's from other parties, including your own, did similar things and got away with it?
lkcwu 3 years ago
I didn't lump Ludiwski in with Harper, Hareper did that himself.
If other MPs said such hateful comments they should be punished.
If you have any evidence of Liberals or anyone else making similar comments please provide it.
I am not blaming the Conservative Party for what Tom said, I'm blaming them for not punishing Tom.
scottyross00 3 years ago
There is a Liberal who made nasty comments: Caroline Parrish, who said:
1.) Americans = bastards.
2.) Those supporting the USA missile shield are coalition of idiots.
3.) Stomping on Bush doll on national TV.
It was only during the 3rd attempt that she was finally turfed. And seeing how she is a repeat offender, I say whatever her apology, if any, is remorseless at best.
Again, a double standard: why turf Tom for one private remark when Caroline made 3 public remarks equally nasty.
lkcwu 3 years ago
"Caroline made 3 public remarks equally nasty." Seriously? You think those are equal? I'm done with you. I have more important things to do.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who you say it to: Americans, Europeans, Chinese, gays, natives, whatever. Tom made one private anti-gay remark and now you're asking for his head. Caroline made 3 public anti-USA remarks and got off scot-free.
In fact, Paul Martin RELUCTANTLY got rid of her after the stomping case, and even then she shows no remorse (telling those wanting her to stop it to "go to hell"). If this isn't a double standard then I don't know what you call it.
lkcwu 3 years ago
On November 18th, a day before the skit even aired, Parrish was kicked out of caucus. Discrimination is discrimination, Lukiwski should be kicked out as well.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Did I say he shouldn't be kicked out? NO! Read my first comment: Tom went overboard with his statements and something must be done about it. You just straw-man arguments into me and not address my points directly.
And you only addressed the Bush doll stomping. What about "bastards" and "coalitiong of idiots"? Caroline made the remarks PUBLICLY and got off scot-free, showing ZERO remorse whatsoever (telling those wanting her to stop it to "go to hell"). Again, a clear double standard.
lkcwu 3 years ago
You said: "Again, a double standard: why turf Tom for one private remark when Caroline made 3 public remarks equally nasty." But Parrish got booted, so what was the point of this comment?
She got booted, how is that scot free? Where was the double standard?
scottyross00 3 years ago
You said: "Again, a double standard: why turf Tom for one private remark when Caroline made 3 public remarks equally nasty." But Parrish got booted, so what was the point of this comment?
She got booted, how is that scot free? Where was the double standard?
scottyross00 3 years ago
The double standard was that she wasn't booted during her FIRST, PUBLIC remarks, the Americans are bastards one. You're booting Tom after ONE infraction. The double standard is that you're asking for Tom's head after one PRIVATE remark, all the while Caroline never got it until after 3 PUBLIC ones.
Moreover, Caroline was a sitting MP, while Tom wasn't a sitting MLA (just a party member). That makes a world's difference, given that Carolins is responsible for public office, but got 3 chances.
lkcwu 3 years ago
Second, Tom made those statements 17 years ago. If we're going to dig up old "scandals" like this, we might as well start a witch hunt.
There are cases where mature politicians made questionable remarks/allegiances. Trudeau sympathizing with Nazis, Gilles Duceppe inspired by Maoist communism, Stephane Dion siding with Quebec separatists.
But we're not hunting them down for their remarks today, so at the very least we should apply the same standard to Tom, accept his apology, and move on.
lkcwu 3 years ago
He was 40 years old when he made those statements and it was made clear on the tape Tom had said those comments before. No one dug for these comments, the Conservatives left them behind, so where was the hunt?
How is being inspired by Mao comparable to hate statements? I would openly admit Mao was very intelligent and offered a great deal to political thought. Also every politician has sided with the seperatists, how is that comparable to making hateful comments?
scottyross00 3 years ago
As for your only comparable example you are at the very least contorting Trudeau's statements and generalizing his position. I would suggest you are blatently lying. Trudeau never sympathized with the Nazi's.
scottyross00 3 years ago
"Democracy was bad and that fascism - as represented by Mussolini and Pétain - was good. Thus, even as a young man of twenty-three, Trudeau was ignoring the war in Europe and plotting a revolution to take Quebec out of Canada." (Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada).
Nonetheless, it goes back to my original point: if we do not hold Trudeau or anyone else accountable for their past words, why hammer Tom so heavily? And does this not lead to an unnecessary witch hunt?
lkcwu 3 years ago
You are a liar. Trudeau never said that. That was written on the back of one of Trudeau's books by academics Max and Monique Nemi and even then it was specifically about what was being taught in certain Quebec universities in the 50s and not what Trudeau said.
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Je_me_souviens_(film)
scottyross00 3 years ago
Guess again buddy! Trudeau was involved in a fascist organization throughout the 1940's (Globe and Mail, 2006), and even wrote an anti-semitic play called "Dupés" in 1938 (P. 58 of Young Trudeau).
And you can't claim "he didn't know better" because nazism and fascism have been condemned since Hitler ran roughshod on Europe in the 30's. You can't possibly claim Trudeau's unaware of it.
But either way, please address my point: we don't hold Trudeau accountable, so why hammer Tom?
lkcwu 3 years ago
Admit you lied or provide evidence showing Trudeau said those comments or I will block you and delete your comments.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Ah, so a Liberal is conveying the tactic of muzzling critics. I thought you guys hated it when Harper did that to his MP's, and now you're doing the same by blocking me?
I have 2 reliable sources (a biography and a respected newspaper) stating that he did support fascism. You claim this isn't evidence and branded me a liar. Then can you prove he DIDN'T do it? With sources as reliable as the above?
Don't bother replying unless you're willing to be fair on this, you disgusting hypocrite.
lkcwu 3 years ago
I called you a liar because you lied. Trudeau never said what you claimed he said, I'll repeat:
"You are a liar. Trudeau never said that. That was written on the back of one of Trudeau's books by academics Max and Monique Nemi and even then it was specifically about what was being taught in certain Quebec universities in the 50s and not what Trudeau said.
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Je_me_souviens_(film)
scottyross00 3 years ago
Ha, what a joke! I have solid, concrete evidence from 2 reliable sources saying that he had those ties. Yours, Wikipedia, is NOT reliable.
Besides, your comment "it was specifically about what was being taught in certain Quebec universities in the 50s and not what Trudeau said" is an identical situation to Tom, who was merely reflecting his anti-gay environment (Tom's quote on this is in your personal blog).
But please address my point: we don't hold Trudeau accountable, so why hammer Tom?
lkcwu 3 years ago
You are a liar. Trudeau never said those things. I don't talk to liars.
scottyross00 3 years ago
I'm not going to play with you any more. I'm going to take my toys and go home.
joengracie 3 years ago
Wikipedia can be changed by anyone, even those without knowledge on the issue. The Globe and Mail is a respected newspaper and a generally reliable source.
Your article claims it's what Quebec universities teach in the 50's. But G+M says he held fascist views in the 40's. So you're in a different time period, meaning you're not adequately addressing my evidence.
So if you're not punishing Trudeau for reflecting anti-semitic environment, why hit Tom for reflecting anti-gay environment?
lkcwu 3 years ago
"How is being inspired by Mao comparable to hate statements?"
Mao was only responsible for 100 million deaths. No reason to equate him to a sinister politician drinking a beer and expressing mild homophobia.
politicalmind 3 years ago
Your point is an example of either a mistake or ignorance.
First no where in mao's theory did it say kill 100 million people. Mao killed those people by his own whim.
Second, being influenced by an ideology does not mean you accept everything about it or even most. Aristotle, John Locke, Jefferson, all influenced liberal philosophy, but it doesn't mean we all are for slavery of which they all were for. Being influenced is different from accepting every word.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Duceppe was spewing Maoist ideology even as recently as the 1980 referendum. He openly said that the working classes of Quebec and Canada had to stay united to fight their common capitalist enemy.
But my point is this: this is a witch hunt in which we condemn any questionable behaviour from years past. If Tom must be punished for his actions, then so should Duceppe, or Dion, or whoever. Since we will not go after them, we should set the same standard to Tom and accept his apology and move on.
lkcwu 3 years ago
How is this a response to my comment? Seriously. Get a blog to do your incoherent ranting.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Read it again: If we are to condemn any questionable behavior from years past, and saying Tom must be punished for his actions, then so should Duceppe for his Maoist views, or Trudeau's fascist beliefs, or whoever that made or allied themselves with questionable sides.
I'm merely saying we should set one standard for all. Since we will not go after them, we should set the same standard to Tom and accept his apology and move on.
lkcwu 3 years ago
I read it again, but it has no relation to what I said:
"First no where in mao's theory did it say kill 100 million people. Mao killed those people by his own whim.
Second, being influenced by an ideology does not mean you accept everything about it or even most. Aristotle, John Locke, Jefferson, all influenced liberal philosophy, but it doesn't mean we all are for slavery of which they all were for. Being influenced is different from accepting every word."
scottyross00 3 years ago
Did Tom go overboard with his statements? Absolutely. Should something be done about this? You bet. That being said, I feel you are being a bit unfair on him. Here's why:
First, Tom said this at a private party. This was never intended to be public until it was LEAKED. Trudeau himself had said that (and I'm paraphrasing) we shouldn't legislate behaviour in people's bedrooms (AKA private situations). If we're condemning Tom's private statements, then we might as well be legislating behaviour.
lkcwu 3 years ago
First it wasn't leaked, the Conservatives left the video behind. Second he said it facing a camera, any claim to it being a private conversation is thrown out the window. Third, even if it was private that doesn't make his statements okay, and goes to show his character. Fourth, Tom's statements were intolerant and hateful, saying they were wrong has nothing to do with legislating bedroom behaviour, it only has to do with being tolerant.
scottyross00 3 years ago
They were fooling around! Isn't it obvious? He thought he was being funny among friends, while drinking some beer. I think his comments are stupid and midly hateful and he's right to be embarrassed by them. But he is human. He was just expressing some mild homophobic sentiment, which a considerable portion of heterosexual men have at same point or another.
politicalmind 3 years ago
They weren't mild and as I referenced before its clear he's said it before.
scottyross00 3 years ago
I fully admit that the statements were wrong, but that being said, if we can't even say them in a private video, then we might as well be legislating personal behaviour.
You didn't address my point of referring to Trudeau's "We shouldn't legislate people's behaviour in bedrooms" properly. My point is this: if we cannot even make our views, no matter what they may be, privately, then we mgith as well have Big Brother around, and that is nothing short of dictatorship and tyranny.
lkcwu 3 years ago
I responded to your comment, by saying it had nothing to do with Trudeau's comment. Trudeau was talking about legislating against certain sexual practices, he was not talking about legislating hate speech.
scottyross00 3 years ago
If all the trouble we are fabricating is about 1% of our population, we should be more than ashamed, we should be embarrassed. If all gay people at a crowded ball park were to stand up, there would be fewer than 89% still seated.
Denial is the favorite tool of the paranoid bigot. You are fighting a non-battle, and you are dragging out the big guns for absolutely no real purpose.
You need to examine yourselves for human flaws instead of desperately searching for them in others.
thursdaysrecords 3 years ago
Are you really outraged about this? It's pretty clear he's just fooling around and DRINKING. This was 17 years ago, as well.
politicalmind 3 years ago
He showed no signs of being drunk and he admits himself he's familiar with the phrase as so is the camera man with Tom saying it.
scottyross00 3 years ago
What's this phrase? Is it a Canadian thing?
politicalmind 3 years ago
The phrase was the A and B comparison. It's definitly not a Canadian phrase.
scottyross00 3 years ago
It sounded like he was drunk and was just making shit up, to be perfectly honest.
politicalmind 3 years ago
Where did he slur? Where did he stumble? Where did he show one sign of being drunk? The video clearly shows he was quite familiar with the phrase.
scottyross00 3 years ago
I said Moron, I meant Mormons... HAHA!
EllerySneed 3 years ago
That's the problem with some churches, then you got the downright riduculous "churches" like the Jehovahs and Morons who aren't even true Christians. (sorry to those looking in that may belong to those cults, Truth hurts you're not Christians! =). Anywho... no where in the Bible does it say to "hate" homosexuals.
EllerySneed 3 years ago
Um, there is some pretty nasty stuff in there, but I don't think much if any in the New Testament. And, of course, there is all sorts of crazy stuff in the Old Testament which is just ignored.
politicalmind 3 years ago
My apology was frivelous, gee.. maybe you missed the part where I said I might have "overlooked" it, I DID LOOK... geez you really are a douche bag, you fit in good with Dion!!! =)
EllerySneed 3 years ago 2
No I did not miss the part where you said "I may of overlooked" because even though you admitted you could have missed it you still accused me of something it was clear I didn't do. If you are gonna accuse someone of something you could at least spend 30 seconds to make sure, which you didn't.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Nice one deleting my comment, if I overlooked it, I apologize. I find it odd since you replied to it...
EllerySneed 3 years ago
Ellery I did not delete your comment, go to "View All Comments," look at those made "6 days ago" and you will find yours. Your apology is just as frivolous as your accusation. There was no need to accuse me of something when you didn't even look to see if I did it in the first place.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Liberal propaganda orchestrated right here on this video by a wannabe MP Scotty Ross. Stephane Dion would be proud of you Scotty.
breakerexpress 3 years ago
This guy rules!
senatormendozza 3 years ago
I clearly heard the oral sodomite degrade lukiwski by calling him "fucking old " AGIST punk! im surprised he didnt also call him a "polack" . Tom handled this insult appropriately . And he is drinking a legal beverage "crappy beer" not the good european stuff but then hating european foriegners has always been ok by elitist bigots
wiggertronix 3 years ago
Facts from one of my Nursing textbooks, "PATHOPHYSIOLOGY-The Biologic Basic for Disease", 2nd edition 1994.
On page 288 Acquired Deficiencies-AIDS, 1989 statistics show 74% of reported cases of AIDS were homosexual men, and 19% were abusers of injected drugs. Seems like Tom was right, homosexual activity was the main reason for the spread of AIDS.
joengracie 3 years ago
AIDS is A disease, Tom said gays transmit DISEASES (Plural). Second it would be correct to say straight people spread AIDS too, how else would straight people get it? It's pretty said you're actually trying to defend what he said when everyone admits what he said was wrong.
scottyross00 3 years ago
What he said was stupid and mildy hateful. And he should apologize, which I imagine he already has. I'm sure you've said things to a friend in jest which you won't be proud of in 20 years.
Not like it's germane, but just to clear up your confusion: other STDs are more contagious in the gay community as well. The anus/rectum bleeds much more than a vagina because it's less thick and has less elasticity, this causes all kinds of STD's to be more contagious among gays.
politicalmind 3 years ago
mildly hateful?
Tom was 40 years old, he had 40 years of experience and he developed hateful opinions.
If you compare age demographics 16-24 transmit are more likely to transmit STDs then gay people.
scottyross00 3 years ago
I'm skeptical of your statistic. Remember, we're talking about gay men not all gays, lesbians have low risk. Gay men have an extraordinary high rate of syphillis, HIV, and other STDs, many many times the rate that of their heterosexual counterparts. For example, in the US around 72% (only 15% is from heterosexual sex) of new male HIV cases are from gays, but they are only 4% of the population.
politicalmind 3 years ago
"While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24."
cdc(dot)gov/std/stats/trends2006(dot)htm
scottyross00 3 years ago
But this whole point is worthless. Tom never said Gay people spread the MOST diseases, he said they just spread diseases, and by that generalization everyone spreads diseases, so why did Tom say it? He said it to be hateful. Together with the statement of gays being unclean in saying they spread diseases Tom made a statement similar to how Nazi's described Jews.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Among young people includes gay young people! =) So this stats is rather useless to support your claim. I already showed that gays represent 72% of the HIV infection in American males (while being 4% of the population), which is the most serious STD. They have many, many times the rate of syphillis. Being a sexually active gay male is a dangerous thing, unfortunately. It does no good to bury the reality and pretend everybody is equally at risk because it gives you warm fuzzies.
politicalmind 3 years ago
So first you doubted by statistic, then I provided evidence now you are suggesting it doesn't matter.
Being a young person is even more dangerous then being gay by your reasoning. But again it doesn't matter because everyone spreads diseases so for Tom to say it he was specifically trying to express a specific and strong hate for gay people.
scottyross00 3 years ago
As a factual matter, gays are much more likely to carry and transmit diseases. If you are going to argue against that fact, that's just a losing proposition.
Why people are (rightly in my mind) offended by his comments is that they indicate a hatred for gays, rather than stating a factual claim (gays are more likely to carry and transmit STD's). But he's just fooling around with his friend, drinking a beer. If this is the worst thign he's ever said, he's lived a pretty good life, IMO.
politicalmind 3 years ago
No its not a losing position because you haven't said to which group you'd be comparing. 16-24 year olds are far more likely to transmit diseases then gays.
He's acknowledged he's said the phrase before and no one is suggesting thats the worst he's ever done.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Racist homophobes are the 'B's who should be removed from the power and the perks they enjoy. If they are not smart enough to avoid being videotaped making stupid derogatory comments while drinking, they do not deserve to represent their riding in Parliament. Although many Conservatives trumpet his apology and distance themselves from his message, it reminds me of a joke. "What is the definition of a 'homosexual gentleman'?" -What a Conservative MP calls a faggot when he enters the room.
MalibuGeoFF 3 years ago
I never heard the actual speech, so I tore the article out of the newspaper for the name (I never even heard of him before this) and searched it up here.
How did I know it would turn into nasty, propaganda bullshit against the Conservative party... well, I guess the internet provides a medium for COMPLETE MORONS to share their "opinions" with everyone.
Lukiwski's thoughts ***DO NOT*** reflect the entire Conservative party's... anyone who believes this is Liberal brainwashed. Plain and simple.
TheShinyDemon 3 years ago
I never once said his views reflect the entire Conservative Party views. He is a Conservative caucus member though, and though Stephen Harper rebuked the comment, he's keeping Tom around, even keeping his higher paying job as secretary.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Omar Alghabra, President of the Canadian Arab Federation,after winning the Liberal Nomination in Mississauga-Erindale, stood and announced loudly, several times, this is a VICTORY for ISLAM, ISLAM WON, ISLAM WON, he also started talking about how Islamic power is extending in the Canadian Politics. These are chilling words to a nation that has been identified as a terrorist target by Osama Bin Laden.
jsixpack2 3 years ago
That is a lie. Omar did not say that, a Mr.Khalid Usman who was in attendance said that. With the age of google it surprises me that people think they can get away with lying.
danielpipes(dot)org/blog/553
scottyross00 3 years ago
Let me get this straight, so there is no misunderstandings here.
I know you "never once said" anything... you werent even in the video! However...
The final frame of the clip is a picture of Stephen Harper and this Mr. Lukiwski, with a tagline:
"Stephen Harper and Tom Lukiwski
The Conservative Party of Canada"
and you mean to tell me it WASNT your intention to play them off each other, showing it actually DOES reflect the entire party's views..?
That is a complete joke, and you know it.
TheShinyDemon 3 years ago
Lukiwski is a member of the Conservative Party, Harper isn't kicking Tom out, nor penalizing him one bit. Its not me whose associating Lukiwski with Harper, it's Stephen Harper. I'm not suggesting Lukiwski's views reflect the Party, thats why I said "a message FROM Tom Lukiwski."
If you have a problem with Lukiwski being associated with the Conservatives, then you should want him kicked out. But until he is, he is a Conservative and Harper wants him to be.
scottyross00 3 years ago
You can believe whatever you want just have it make sense
scottyross00 3 years ago
it was 16 years ago liberal losers.... people get out of jail in less time for murder in the liberal land of canada....get over it
CrackedHalo 3 years ago
Your attitude conveys just how serious one should take your comment.
scottyross00 3 years ago
The braindead NDP bend overs for the Unions just havent got caught yet .......PC's Rule
givemeanameok 3 years ago
Funny how all the dirt scum bags hang out with the Conservatives.
a1mint 3 years ago
"A" stands for asshole.
hiwaymanx 3 years ago
This is truly ignorant, but if we were all held to account for everything we said while drunk 17 years ago or more, it wouldn't be fair. I don't support his party, I just think of all the kids today with their webcams. If this guy with the bizarre moustache is hung out to dry today, what will happen to today's kids when their webcam drunken party pics surface 17 years from now? Something to think about.
zarkoid 3 years ago
He did not just say it once, he said in the video its a common phrase for him. The camera guy also knew that's why he set it up by asking "whats an A person?" And besides the fact he didn't look one bit drunk. If people say hateful things we shouldn't ignore it.
scottyross00 3 years ago
god dam neo cons.. who ever votes conservative is destroying canada.
micro129 3 years ago
Its stuff like this that makes lbgtq people never vote CPC.
:(
*proud bisexual and CPC cardholder*
XtremeBlu62 3 years ago
He should resign. Though he made these comments 17 years ago, he was an adult when he did. An apology is worth complete shit when its made after the person has been found out - escpecially if that person is in public office. Furthermore these comments are indicitive of his world view and character.
joshtriantafilou 3 years ago
He should resign!
darksideofthenation 3 years ago
To see in 1991 saying fag was wrong, go to: newstalk650(dot)com/incoming/
20080406/offensive-then-offensive-today-and
-still-looking-answers
scottyross00 3 years ago
Um I didn't say saying it was right, or okay, or condoned. In fact, I specifically said it wasn't. But what is "okay" to say and what isn't has certainly evolved in time. You don't think in 1991 a bunch of drunk guys would commonly throw homophobic epithets around? Because drunk people do it all the time today, in a much different environment.
jimmyk1111 3 years ago
I said in 1991 it was not okay to say those things in response to you suggesting it was quite common. He did not just say it once, he said in the video its a common phrase for him. The camera guy also knew that's why he set it up by asking "whats an A person?" And besides the fact he didn't look one bit drunk, it wasn't funny then and it sure ain't now.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Hmm... no good, but it WAS from 17 years ago. That doesn't make what was said okay, but to deny that didn't play a role would be a little naive. To be blunt, we've made a lot of progress in the past 2 decades on minority rights, particularly gay rights. I don't think too many people would even bat an eyelash if something like this was said in public 25 years ago, now it's a scandal. He apologized, personally I'd accept it and move on.
jimmyk1111 3 years ago
First you say 17 years, then 2 decades, then you say 25 years in the next sentence. Time must really fly by with you.
To see in 1991 saying fag was wrong, go to: newstalk650(dot)com/incoming/
20080406/offensive-then-offensive-today-and
-still-looking-answers
scottyross00 3 years ago