Media covers up Bill Graham's sodomy of a 15 year old boy

Our national media, academia and courts are biased. Talk about it here!

Should Bill Graham face a criminal investigation for sodomizing a 15 year old male prostitute?

Poll runs till Fri May 05, 2045 11:48 am

yes
5
83%
no
1
17%
Unsure
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 6

Media covers up Bill Graham's sodomy of a 15 year old boy

Postby MsDmeanor » Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:13 pm

\"Banned_from_FD\" wrote:
I respect your right to disagree but if you will insist in ignoring evidence to deflect an investigation into a pedophile then I have to regard you as evil.


What evidence?

One person saying it happened 25 years later.

Why is he not charged then?


I have to say that I'm inclined to go with this and ask the question that if it did indeed happen, then why hasn't anything been done about it?
"No-one beneath me can offend me. No-one my equal would dare."
MsDmeanor
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Media covers up Bill Graham's sodomy of a 15 year old boy

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:14 am

\"MsDmeanor\" wrote:
\"Banned_from_FD\" wrote:
I respect your right to disagree but if you will insist in ignoring evidence to deflect an investigation into a pedophile then I have to regard you as evil.


What evidence?

One person saying it happened 25 years later.

Why is he not charged then?


I have to say that I'm inclined to go with this and ask the question that if it did indeed happen, then why hasn't anything been done about it?


Because Bill Graham was a Liberal out and proud bisexual cabinet minister serving Toronto's homosexual district...............
:cross:Christ is the answer!
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6769
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Media covers up Bill Graham's sodomy of a 15 year old boy

Postby MsDmeanor » Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:45 pm

And? Politicians are no more above the law than anyone else. If they commit a crime, they pay the consequences, just like anyone else.
"No-one beneath me can offend me. No-one my equal would dare."
MsDmeanor
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Media covers up Bill Graham's sodomy of a 15 year old boy

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:41 pm

\"MsDmeanor\" wrote:And? Politicians are no more above the law than anyone else. If they commit a crime, they pay the consequences, just like anyone else.


They should. It sounds like you and I agree on that????? :icon_eek:
Didn't happen in Graham's case and thats a real problem......
:cross:Christ is the answer!
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6769
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Media covers up Bill Graham's sodomy of a 15 year old boy

Postby Banned_from_FD » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:18 pm

Bill, you have no idea if there even was a crime commited.

You apparently have more faith in what convicted gay prostitutes say than I do.

I am sure if the guy walked into a police station and filed a complaint, the police would be obliged to investigate. For all we know a complaint was filed and dismissed as nonsense. Hence the reason no charges have ever been laid.
User avatar
Banned_from_FD
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:13 pm

Media covers up Bill Graham's sodomy of a 15 year old boy

Postby Ben Kenobi » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:37 pm

I have a bridge you might be interested in. :-)

Can you imagine if it were Mr. Harper who did the same thing? We would be hearing about it night and day.
You got a dream, you gotta protect it. People can't do something themselves, they wanna tell you that you can't do it. You want something? Go get it. Period.
User avatar
Ben Kenobi
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:26 am
Location: Ho Ho Ho

Media covers up Bill Graham's sodomy of a 15 year old boy

Postby Bill Whatcott » Thu May 08, 2008 6:11 pm

The sodomites admit Graham sexually abused a boy. Many people know this is true.
Bill Whatcott

The Sky’s the limit
Between the Lines
Par : Richard Burnett [23-03-2002]

‘’I am probably the most despised person in Toronto’s gay community’’, Toronto playwright Sky Gilbert told me a couple of years ago. But at least he too is loathed for a good reason. You see, Gilbert has a knack for speaking his mind, not just in private but in public, and usually in print where everyone can read him a second time, unsure if they actually read what they think they read the first time.

Well, it happened again just last month (Feb 19) after the Canadian family-values, right-wing www.lifesite.ca website screeched, ’’Canada’s newly appointed Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham is a darling of the homosexual activist community having constantly supported pro-homosexuality initiatives including homosexual marriage. However, last year a Toronto-based homosexual magazine called Fab [which occasionally reprints my column Three Dollar Bill] published an interview with Lawrence Metheral, a former male prostitute, who claimed to have had a sexual relationship with Graham, dating back to 1980 when Metheral was 15.’’

But Gilbert, bless him, seized the moment just days before Lifesite did.

In his Feb 14 Pink Panther column in Toronto’s alternative Eye weekly, Sky succinctly bitches, ‘’The first thing you need to know is that Bill Graham is gay. There, I said it. Is it so very hard to say the word gay? After all, you just have to put your lips together and blow. ‘’

‘’I’m certainly not outing the man. (I don’t believe anyone has the right to drag someone out of the closet who hasn’t already confirmed it themselves.) Almost everyone in [Toronto’s] gay community knows that Graham is gay - even if he is married - but mostly the press is not willing to say it in plain English. Admittedly, Graham, instead of admitting his sexuality, deftly (in true diplomat fashion) evades the topic.’’

Gilbert saves the real vitriol for Toronto’s self-dubbed ‘’national’’ media and also has several choice words for that city’s local gay press.

‘’The result is that the press must drag out old reliable adjectives - like flamboyant - to describe him (we all know what flamboyant means, eh?),’’ Gilbert writes. ‘’After his appointment, the Toronto Star could only bring itself to mention that Graham was a member of the ‘’pink caucus,’’ which supported changing the definition of spouse to include homosexual relationships. Unbelievably, even [gay newspaper] Xtra! could only manage to describe the cabinet minister as ‘’gay friendly.’’

Then Sky goes in for the kill.

‘’The tabloids have not been so shy,’’ he writes. ‘’You see, fab (the magazine for homosexuals who hate themselves) published an interview with an ex-boyfriend of Graham’s last year, featuring the spurned lover’s lurid accusations against the respected MP. In my opinion, this was a disgusting piece of yellow journalism. I remember thinking - after using the article to drain the grease off my breakfast bacon - that fab had finally sunk as low as any supermarket tabloid. And Frank [magazine], true to sleazy form, reprinted fab’s bilge after Graham’s appointment.’’

Those I have spoken with agree with Gilbert when he concludes, ‘’The newspapers have finally got an admitted homosexual in a position of enormous power, and they are just itching to destroy him.’’

Well, I too graduated from the Malcolm X school of rhetoric and, quite honestly, I think Sky gets a passing grade.
No, I don’t believe there is a Christian-right conspiracy to destroy everything and everyone gay. I do, however, believe that homophobia is so deeply ingrained in Canadian society that few Canadians have paused to sit back and consider that what Graham does in his private life is his business, and his business alone. That 15-year-old hustler Graham paid 20 years ago for sex took Graham’s money because he wanted to. In other words, it was consensual sex. End of drama, end of story.

Meanwhile, I too had to sit back and reread another op-ed twice before I realized it wasn‚t anti-gay. In his ‘’Hahvud Gets Sillier: Queer Studies Comes To Romper Room’’ rant on www.fredoneverything.net, writer Fred XXX laments Harvard University’s new Queer Studies courses. The Bill Graham story is an example of how Queer Studies can help explain how homophobia created gay culture and queer theory, so at first I resisted Fred’s rant.

‘’Why, you might ask, does Harvard want to study queers?’’ Fred asks rhetorically. ‘’It doesn’t, methinks. I suspect that the adolescents of Harvard, a category which also includes many of the students, merely want to behave disagreeably - to shock their partners or, in the case of the faculty, society. Queer Studies serves nicely. Next year it will be S&M Studies, Pedophile Studies, or a Department of Cannibalism.’’
Feathers ruffled - Pedophile studies, my ass - I read on ready to be fully offended.

‘’Which brings us to an important point,’’ Fred says. ‘’The objection to Queer Studies is not that queers are reprehensible - I think they are not - but that the subject is too narrow for a major. Queers are a tiny group of a few percent of the population and of no great importance as a group. Yes, they have contributed much to civilization. So have people with warts. We do not have Wart Studies. Yet.’’

I guess even bleeding-heart liberal ‘’I love gays more than they love themselves’’ straight folk can’t admit queers got it going on.

But Fred does strike a chord.

‘’As best I can tell, the quality of study, and of faculty, in departments varies inversely with the degree of politicization,’’ Fred states. ‘’Black Studies and Women’s Studies are scholastically absurd, as many know and few say. (They are also wildly militant, which is why they continue to exist.) Departments of Literature and of ‘’social sciences’’ (as in ‘’cosmetology science’’) are nearly as political, and as vacuous. Schools of chemistry and engineering remain healthy: No one has yet suggested that all equations should have the same answer so as to avoid invidious distinctions.’’

But I bet straight folks would suggest just that if it would keep those studies, well, heterosexual.

Because, bottom line, most straight folks just want to read about themselves and a world that is, for the most part, straight as an arrow. Which is also why I’d rather read an entertaining columnist like Sky Gilbert dissect gay issues in a thoughtful, well-reasoned rant, especially in an alt-weekly where most readers are probably straight.
Then I came across a Sydney Morning Herald op-ed (March 1) on Mardi Gras by a straight middle-aged woman, Julie Fewster, who states, ‘’I hate Mardi Gras time. I hate it even though I live in the Cross, in hissing distance of Oxford Street, and I avoid it like the plague. I hate that while trying to get a leg wax the week before march day there are more men than women at Ella Baché getting the apparently infamous march day special ‘’back, sac and crack.’’

Fewster also hates ‘’that normally boring straight suburban people ask their boring straight friends (like me) to babysit ALL night so they can go to the ball (and could little Sarah and Justin stay for lunch the next day so we can get some sleep, please?).’’

Fewster goes on and on, but in her final graphs admits what’s really eating at her. ‘’So, yes, I really hate Mardi Gras,’’ she says. ‘’Because I’m jealous. Really jealous. I want smooth skin, smooth, tanned skin, Botoxed or otherwise. I want to know where to get such a good haircut and what hair product is best for this humidity. I want good abs (actually, I’d be happy with good pecs), I want to be looked at and yes, even whistled at. I want to be part of something exciting and fun. And I want to look the part.’’

Now that’s why straight folks have always hated queers - they’ve always wanted to BE us.

Richard Burnett’s national queer-issues column Three Dollar Bill can be read locally in Hour magazine as well as on the web at www.hour.ca and www.pridevisiontv.com (click on the ‘’issues’’ link and scroll down to Three Dollar
http://fugues.vortex.qc.ca/main.cfm?p=1 ... le_ID=1023
:cross:Christ is the answer!
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6769
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Media covers up Bill Graham's sodomy of a 15 year old boy

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:54 pm

Bill Graham: Canada's Latest Shame
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 14, 2002


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Pr ... asp?ID=221

SOMETIMES I am so embarrassed to live in Canada. I really think I might have to move to the U.S. soon.

We just had a new Minister of Foreign Affairs appointed by the Liberal government. His name is Bill Graham.

Guess who Bill Graham is?

He is a Member of Parliament and a former Law Professor at the University of Toronto who is notorious for having been involved in the gay sex trade. And he engaged in this activity as a married man with two children.

Lawrence Metherel, a former teen male prostitute, has long ago disclosed that he had a sexual relationship with Graham dating back to 1980, when Metherel was 15 years old.In a recent interview with a Canadian magazine, Metherel said that, for 15 years, Graham provided him with regular support payments of up to $1,500 a month.

Like how do you even take a guy like Graham seriously?

How does an individual like this even get appointed to his position?

Does the Prime Minister sit in Cabinet and say: "Ok, we need Bill Graham to be the new Foreign Affairs Minister."

And then someone says, "You mean Bill Graham who was involved in the gay sex trade?"

And then the Prime Minister says, "Yeah."

And then everyone nods and agrees?

I don't get it.

Oh yeah, I forgot: Canada is really tolerant.

What I still respect about America is that, despite the reality of Bill Clinton, Bill Graham would never be appointed Secretary of State. Graham knows that and that's why he hates America. That explains why, immediately upon taking office, he announced that Americans were bad and Canadians were good. He boasted that, "We have been able to become a multicultural society where we are able to be more tolerant with one another than the Americans ever have had to do, inside their own country, and when it comes to outside they feel that they can have their will."

Wow, I bet that old Bill never minds when someone tries to interfere in his personal will in his private life, right?

Canada now has a Foreign Affairs Minister whose credentials basically involve an undying obsession with promoting same-sex marriage legislation. In his latest round of activism, Graham supported a same-sex marriage bill that emphasized that Valentine's Day was "a perfect time to remind Parliament that the relationships of gay and lesbian people are just as strong, just as loving, just as worthy of full recognition and respect and celebration as those of heterosexuals."

Let me get this straight: Valentine's Day is a "perfect" time to trivialize the sacredness of the nuclear family unit? It's a perfect time to minimize the importance of children having, as an optimum ideal, both a father and a mother in their lives?

I just don't get it.

So who is actually going to take Graham seriously? Picture being the President of the United States and meeting with this guy to discuss some international crisis. When Graham starts talking about Palestine or something, could you even pay attention to what he was saying? How seriously can you take an old man who is married and has two children but has simultaneously had, and still might have, a 15-year-old boyfriend?

If you were sitting in a room with Graham and he was going on about nuclear weapons proliferation, wouldn't you be nervously eyeing the various emergency exits just in case you had to make a run for it if, well, you know, Bill made a move on you or something like that? Wouldn't it also be ridiculous that you had to wear running shoes with your suit? And you'd have to wear running shoes because, well, you know, just to make sure that you got away as fast as you could in case Billy ran after you.

And what kind of small talk would you make with this guy between foreign policy talks? If he asked you about your wife and kids, would you ask him about his wife and kids or about some guy named Jerome? What if he actually started talking about Jerome? Would you want to hear it?

I can see it now, Bill saying to Colin Powell, "Oh, I kicked Jerome out. I didn't feel he was contributing enough, and besides, he was very verbally abusive."

What would Powell say after Graham said this? Would he nod like he understood?

I just don't know.

But Canada has a new Foreign Affairs Minister.

Wonderful.
_________________
:cross:Christ is the answer!
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6769
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Media covers up Bill Graham's sodomy of a 15 year old bo

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:01 am

Image

Between the Lines
The Sky’s the limit

Par : Richard Burnett [23-03-2002]
http://www.fugues.com/main.cfm?l=fr&p=1 ... le_ID=1023

’I am probably the most despised person in Toronto’s gay community’’, Toronto playwright Sky Gilbert told me a couple of years ago. But at least he too is loathed for a good reason. You see, Gilbert has a knack for speaking his mind, not just in private but in public, and usually in print where everyone can read him a second time, unsure if they actually read what they think they read the first time.

Well, it happened again just last month (Feb 19) after the Canadian family-values, right-wing www.lifesite.ca website screeched, ’’Canada’s newly appointed Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham is a darling of the homosexual activist community having constantly supported pro-homosexuality initiatives including homosexual marriage. However, last year a Toronto-based homosexual magazine called Fab [which occasionally reprints my column Three Dollar Bill] published an interview with Lawrence Metheral, a former male prostitute, who claimed to have had a sexual relationship with Graham, dating back to 1980 when Metheral was 15.’’

But Gilbert, bless him, seized the moment just days before Lifesite did.

In his Feb 14 Pink Panther column in Toronto’s alternative Eye weekly, Sky succinctly bitches, ‘’The first thing you need to know is that Bill Graham is gay. There, I said it. Is it so very hard to say the word gay? After all, you just have to put your lips together and blow. ‘’

‘’I’m certainly not outing the man. (I don’t believe anyone has the right to drag someone out of the closet who hasn’t already confirmed it themselves.) Almost everyone in [Toronto’s] gay community knows that Graham is gay - even if he is married - but mostly the press is not willing to say it in plain English. Admittedly, Graham, instead of admitting his sexuality, deftly (in true diplomat fashion) evades the topic.’’

Gilbert saves the real vitriol for Toronto’s self-dubbed ‘’national’’ media and also has several choice words for that city’s local gay press.

‘’The result is that the press must drag out old reliable adjectives - like flamboyant - to describe him (we all know what flamboyant means, eh?),’’ Gilbert writes. ‘’After his appointment, the Toronto Star could only bring itself to mention that Graham was a member of the ‘’pink caucus,’’ which supported changing the definition of spouse to include homosexual relationships. Unbelievably, even [gay newspaper] Xtra! could only manage to describe the cabinet minister as ‘’gay friendly.’’

Then Sky goes in for the kill.

‘’The tabloids have not been so shy,’’ he writes. ‘’You see, fab (the magazine for homosexuals who hate themselves) published an interview with an ex-boyfriend of Graham’s last year, featuring the spurned lover’s lurid accusations against the respected MP. In my opinion, this was a disgusting piece of yellow journalism. I remember thinking - after using the article to drain the grease off my breakfast bacon - that fab had finally sunk as low as any supermarket tabloid. And Frank [magazine], true to sleazy form, reprinted fab’s bilge after Graham’s appointment.’’

Those I have spoken with agree with Gilbert when he concludes, ‘’The newspapers have finally got an admitted homosexual in a position of enormous power, and they are just itching to destroy him.’’

Well, I too graduated from the Malcolm X school of rhetoric and, quite honestly, I think Sky gets a passing grade.
No, I don’t believe there is a Christian-right conspiracy to destroy everything and everyone gay. I do, however, believe that homophobia is so deeply ingrained in Canadian society that few Canadians have paused to sit back and consider that what Graham does in his private life is his business, and his business alone. That 15-year-old hustler Graham paid 20 years ago for sex took Graham’s money because he wanted to. In other words, it was consensual sex. End of drama, end of story.

Meanwhile, I too had to sit back and reread another op-ed twice before I realized it wasn‚t anti-gay. In his ‘’Hahvud Gets Sillier: Queer Studies Comes To Romper Room’’ rant on www.fredoneverything.net, writer Fred XXX laments Harvard University’s new Queer Studies courses. The Bill Graham story is an example of how Queer Studies can help explain how homophobia created gay culture and queer theory, so at first I resisted Fred’s rant.

‘’Why, you might ask, does Harvard want to study queers?’’ Fred asks rhetorically. ‘’It doesn’t, methinks. I suspect that the adolescents of Harvard, a category which also includes many of the students, merely want to behave disagreeably - to shock their partners or, in the case of the faculty, society. Queer Studies serves nicely. Next year it will be S&M Studies, Pedophile Studies, or a Department of Cannibalism.’’
Feathers ruffled - Pedophile studies, my ass - I read on ready to be fully offended.

‘’Which brings us to an important point,’’ Fred says. ‘’The objection to Queer Studies is not that queers are reprehensible - I think they are not - but that the subject is too narrow for a major. Queers are a tiny group of a few percent of the population and of no great importance as a group. Yes, they have contributed much to civilization. So have people with warts. We do not have Wart Studies. Yet.’’

I guess even bleeding-heart liberal ‘’I love gays more than they love themselves’’ straight folk can’t admit queers got it going on.

But Fred does strike a chord.

‘’As best I can tell, the quality of study, and of faculty, in departments varies inversely with the degree of politicization,’’ Fred states. ‘’Black Studies and Women’s Studies are scholastically absurd, as many know and few say. (They are also wildly militant, which is why they continue to exist.) Departments of Literature and of ‘’social sciences’’ (as in ‘’cosmetology science’’) are nearly as political, and as vacuous. Schools of chemistry and engineering remain healthy: No one has yet suggested that all equations should have the same answer so as to avoid invidious distinctions.’’

But I bet straight folks would suggest just that if it would keep those studies, well, heterosexual.

Because, bottom line, most straight folks just want to read about themselves and a world that is, for the most part, straight as an arrow. Which is also why I’d rather read an entertaining columnist like Sky Gilbert dissect gay issues in a thoughtful, well-reasoned rant, especially in an alt-weekly where most readers are probably straight.
Then I came across a Sydney Morning Herald op-ed (March 1) on Mardi Gras by a straight middle-aged woman, Julie Fewster, who states, ‘’I hate Mardi Gras time. I hate it even though I live in the Cross, in hissing distance of Oxford Street, and I avoid it like the plague. I hate that while trying to get a leg wax the week before march day there are more men than women at Ella Baché getting the apparently infamous march day special ‘’back, sac and crack.’’

Fewster also hates ‘’that normally boring straight suburban people ask their boring straight friends (like me) to babysit ALL night so they can go to the ball (and could little Sarah and Justin stay for lunch the next day so we can get some sleep, please?).’’

Fewster goes on and on, but in her final graphs admits what’s really eating at her. ‘’So, yes, I really hate Mardi Gras,’’ she says. ‘’Because I’m jealous. Really jealous. I want smooth skin, smooth, tanned skin, Botoxed or otherwise. I want to know where to get such a good haircut and what hair product is best for this humidity. I want good abs (actually, I’d be happy with good pecs), I want to be looked at and yes, even whistled at. I want to be part of something exciting and fun. And I want to look the part.’’

Now that’s why straight folks have always hated queers - they’ve always wanted to BE us.


Richard Burnett’s national queer-issues column Three Dollar Bill can be read locally in Hour magazine as well as on the web at www.hour.ca and www.pridevisiontv.com (click on the ‘’issues’’ link and scroll down to Three Dollar.
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6769
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Previous

Return to Left Wing Bias

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest