40 years ago today

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

40 years ago today

Post by Scooter »

Canada’s Stonewall – February 5, 1981: Toronto’s Brutal “Operation Soap” Bathhouse Raids, Over 300 Gay Men Arrested

On February 5th, 1981 more than 200 plainclothes police officers raided four Toronto bathhouses leading to the largest mass arrest since the October Crisis ten years earlier. In total, 289 gay men were charged with being “found-ins of a bawdyhouse” and two were charged with “buggery”.

Men speaking out in the aftermath of the raids described severe misconduct on the part of the police. Some reported being photographed naked, others said police took down their employers’ names and phone numbers and several men stated that police had referred to them as “queers, faggots and fairies”. Moreover, one man reported that several officers used sledgehammers and crowbars with abandon, smashing windows and breaking down doors. This last fact is corroborated by the $38,000 in damages reported by the four bathhouses after the raid (nearly $175,000 in 2020 dollars). In contrast, the police report stated that the officers behaved in a “professional manner.”

A documentary on the bathhouse raids and the ensuing protests quotes Duncan McLaren, one of the men who was charged as a found-in at the Barracks bathhouse.

McLaren describes his victimization by the police:
We ended up in the shower room and we were all told to strip… But I think one of the most chilling things was… one of the cops said, looking at all the showers and the pipes going into the shower room; he said ‘Gee, it’s too bad we can’t hook this up to gas’.
The following evening, over 3000 members and supporters of Toronto’s gay community united to demonstrate against these raids. A second protest was held on Feb. 20 at Queen’s Park, with over 4000 people gathering to call for increased rights and protection for gays and lesbians in Canada. In the aftermath of the raids, the Toronto City Council commissioned an investigation into community relations between the police and the gay community.

The event marked a major turning point in the history of the gay and lesbian community in Canada; the raids and their aftermath are today widely considered to be the Canadian equivalent of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City. Mass protests and rallies were held denouncing the incident. These evolved into Toronto’s current Pride Week, which is now one of the world’s largest gay pride festivals.

Almost ALL the charges against those arrested were later dropped in court.

In June of 2016 speaking before Toronto Mayor John Tory and leaders within the gay community Toronto police chief Mark Saunders issued a long overdue apology for the bathhouse raids of 1981.

“The 35th anniversary of the 1981 raids is a time when the Toronto Police service expresses its regret for those very actions,” and called the raids “one of the largest mass arrests in Canadian history” and acknowledged the “destructiveness” of the police action.

“It is also an occasion to acknowledge the lessons learned about the risks of treating any part of Toronto’s many communities as not fully a part of society.”
I was not quite 16 when the news was flooded with stories about the bath raids. Stories that often listed the names of those arrested, and that recounted the brutality of the police action that night, as well as the lack of sympathy and sometimes outright contempt that was shown by civic leaders towards the victims. As I was then in the process of coming to terms with being gay, it was scary to think that this was the sort of violence and hostility that I could expect to face. But in the ensuing months and years as I learned of how the community came together to respond (through surreptitiously reading LGBT newspapers at the public library), I saw a glimpse of a world in which I would be accepted and could feel secure. And in the longer run, the community mobilization spurred by the raids was a prelude to and contributed to the success of the even larger community effort in response to the AIDS epidemic.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Your comment about your own reaction at the time gives the lie to the 'lifestyle choice' people: no-one would choose that life - being gay - if they had any sort of say in the matter. To me it continues to be amazing that many (by no means all) of those who believe that God made us, refuse to believe that God made some of us gay or bi or transgender.

The cop's remark about the shower room is chilling.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Well, you don't understand classic Christianity then*. Them creed things. All humans partake of sin nature. Not because God "made" us that way but because there was a choice permitted. Something to do with non-compulsion and a free choice to love and obey. God doesn't make people thieves, or liars, or dishonest, or gossips, or Arsenal supporters (especially that), or short a limb, or auburn haired, or bald and so on. That's the way the imperfect world is. No one is righteous - not one*.

*mind, a lot of Christians don't understand either of those asterisked bits while many simply reject them. Especially those who can't articulate any idea of what God means or if there is such a being.

PS God doesn't make Christians righteous either.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Big RR »

Perhaps Meade, but then where does Original Sin enter in? You know, the sin that is inherent in everyone from birth? I never quite bought it, but many Christian denominations do, and even say baptism is required to wash it away. I even recall learning a saying when I was very young, In Adam's fall, we sinned all. The belief is pretty pervasive.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13927
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Joe Guy »

Don't mess with a missionary man.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Not following your banter, old boy. "Where does Original sin enter in"? Are you looking for geography, physiology, a particular minute/hour/day/ etc.?

All Christian denominations acknowledge original sin, to varying degrees; those that don't, aren't.

All Christian denominations believe that salvation is by grace through faith and not through our own work. Those that don't, aren't. I've been baptized and know by full experience that my sins have not been "washed away". They are still there. It is the due-bill that has been cancelled, and that not by splashing about in the pond either.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Big RR »

And original sin means that we are created from birth (if not before) with a sinful nature and are (or may be) condemned because of it. Choice does not enter into it--we just receive that sin and we must turn from and repudiate it (or according to some denominations, must be baptiszd to be cleansed of it). For those that cannot, like infants, they may or may not be saved--some invented a place where unbaptized children went called limbo because they could not enter heaven with that stain of original sin, others trust these souls to the grace of god; Calvinists will say if those souls were to be saved (were among the "elect") then god would save them (and if not, he will not) and it is not our business to inquire how. But the very essence of original sin is that we are created sinful (or inherited it from Adam, which is pretty much the same). If you have a different view that supports your statement "Not because God "made" us that way but because there was a choice permitted." I'd love to hear it. Personally< I cannot correlate the concept of original sin with a merciful god, but then you'd say I'm not a Christian, so explain your "Christian" view.

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by dales »

All have fallen short of the Glory of God,

Amen.

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Econoline »

I'm just gonna drop this here...

Image
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13927
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Joe Guy »

Secretary of Cabinet Levelers?

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Thanks, Big RR (and dales for adding to the Romans 3 quote). This puzzled me at first: "the very essence of original sin is that we are created sinful (or inherited it from Adam, which is pretty much the same)" followed by your asking me for my view, which you appeared to think was different.

I thought this was a clear reference to Adam/Eve: "because there was a choice permitted. Something to do with non-compulsion and a free choice to love and obey". Guess I was too obscure, eh? Although I'll bet Christians would understand it :nana

I do not accept that "created sinful" means the same thing as "inherited it from Adam" (because under your breath you are adding "by God" to the first clause).

Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

That's the free will; the ability to choose; the ability to love God and each other without fear or compulsion; all the good stuff of how we could be.

Genesis 5:3 When Adam was 130 years old, he had a son in his own likeness, after his own image; and he named him Seth

And that's the sin nature; the fallen state that we inherit; our inability to be our best selves.

Adam and Eve - created in God's image (not physically - to avoid that tiresome topic).

Seth - created in man's (generic) image, inheriting his being from Adam and Eve. It's reasonable to apply that to Cain as well, since he too was a creation of natural origin.

The original sin was Adam's, using his God-given freedom to take the wrong path. Separated from God (and the Garden), humankind can only produce humankind.

Whether one views Genesis as cast-iron fact or explanatory myth, the conclusion remains. 1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

We are not punished for being sinners or for committing sin. The problem is that because we are sinners, we will remain separated from God and that is very not good for us. Who will rescue me from this body of death? (See entire rest of the Bible).

Does that comport with your understanding? Edited to add: I'm not asking if you agree to the propositions. But have I stated the case as you've heard it?

PS "Myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events". I tend toward that view of Genesis. A myth is not something which we can safely categorize as "untrue".
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Gob »

Big RR wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:00 pm
And original sin means that we are created from birth (if not before) with a sinful nature and are (or may be) condemned because of it.
What sort of omnipotent being would be so petty as to do that?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

None, Gob. I guess you didn't bother to read my post responding to Big RR. You prefer to shoot down a false narrative - much easier.
:nana

PS don't bother with "they're all false narratives". Since you and I agree that an omnipotent being would not be as petty as that, and since there is no branch of Christianity that asserts such a thing, don't wriggle off the hook
Last edited by MajGenl.Meade on Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Gob »

I saw yours Meade, I commented on Big RR's.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Big RR »

The original sin was Adam's, using his God-given freedom to take the wrong path. Separated from God (and the Garden), humankind can only produce humankind.
Meade--and that is what I do not understand; if Adam and Eve made a choice to disobey god, what does that have to do with me? Have I inherited their sin? Why have I somehow been stained with their disobedience? It's either one or the other; god is either rejecting humankind because of what one person did, or he somehow is passing that sin on to all humanity (which is, presumably, the reasoning behind the RC doctrine of the immaculate conception --that jesus, being born of Mary, could not be born without that stain of sin because Mary would pass it on to him (sin is passed from mother to child (much as judaism is, at least according to to some judaic scholars)), so she was born without that stain (which makes you wonder why god could just do the same with jesus, but then I am not a catholic so perhaps someone else could comment). There is no choice involved; even if you take the Adam and Eve account as real and 100% accurate, where is the justice in blaming a newborn who is incapable of making a choice for the choice a man and woman made thousands of years ago?

I understand your point about humankind being sinful, but if forgiveness to have any point, we must also conclude adhering to that sinfulness is a choice that we are given as freely as Adam was; we will fall short, but that is our choice.

Now I have no doubt that everyone would choose sin at some time in their lives, but I do not buy original sin as a corruption of blood god is holding over mankind; I believe god is much more just and merciful than that. We are told that the wages of sin are death, but such punishment only makes sense (if we also envision god to be merciful) if we make a choice, and are not facing punishment for something in our blood or nature. Indeed, it is that ability to choose that makes us different from the animals, if through some sort of metaphysical machinations we are born as sinful (and god will punish us for that), then choice is meaningless and we no more deserve punishment for sin than the beasts do (indeed, the concept of sin is meaningless).

Again, saying man has a sinful nature or proclivity toward sin is very different from saying that an infant is sinful from the moment it takes its first breath, and however you package it, that is the ultimate result of original sin, whether you believe the account of Adam and Eve is accurate or otherwise.

Gob--I answered your question above, " Personally, I cannot correlate the concept of original sin with a merciful god, but then you'd say I'm not a Christian."

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by BoSoxGal »

Fairy tales.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Scooter »

"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6717
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Long Run »

Interesting history, thanks for sharing, including the personal impact it had.

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Guinevere »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:12 pm
Well, you don't understand classic Christianity then*. Them creed things. All humans partake of sin nature. Not because God "made" us that way but because there was a choice permitted. Something to do with non-compulsion and a free choice to love and obey. God doesn't make people thieves, or liars, or dishonest, or gossips, or Arsenal supporters (especially that), or short a limb, or auburn haired, or bald and so on. That's the way the imperfect world is. No one is righteous - not one*.

*mind, a lot of Christians don't understand either of those asterisked bits while many simply reject them. Especially those who can't articulate any idea of what God means or if there is such a being.

PS God doesn't make Christians righteous either.
So being gay is akin to being a thief, or a liar, or a dishonest gossip? No, that’s not true, that’s not God, and that’s not science. That’s simply judgment wrapped up in a cross. And it’s flat out wrong.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: 40 years ago today

Post by Gob »

Nailed it. It's bigotry, prejudice, and "ooh I don't like sex like that, it's icky what them people do" given the seal of approval by an invisible pink unicorn.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Post Reply