Tom Lukiwski, What's Wrong With You?

So Saskatchewan Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski was embroiled over some controversy in the past week over some comments that he made on videotape 16 years ago, comments that were considered by the press as "anti-gay". Lukiwski made an impassioned apology this past week for his comments, citing that he was not then, nor is he now homophobic (a laughable term, at best). Prime Minister Stephen Harper has since stated that the case is closed, and he will not be seeking Lukiwski's resignation.

I shook my head upon hearing the news reports, followed by Lukiwski's very public apology. I don't get it - why does he have to apologize for something he said 16 years ago? Sure, some have mentioned to me that well, he is an MP, and as an MP, he has a responsibility to represent his constituents, some of which may be gay. OK, but all that being said, he wasn't an MP 16 years ago. And unless he has said something recently along the lines of his "faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases", I don't see the need for him to apologize, unless he has caved in to pressure from special interest groups. He said that he was not anti-gay then and he is not now.

Why does he need to apologize? Even if he has such opinions, he is entitled to have them, living in the free society as do - I suppose if in the course of his public duties as member of parliament for his riding, if he were to espouse such views, it may cause him trouble with his gay constituents (if he has any). Besides, it was 16 years ago... I certainly don't feel the need to apologize for anything I said 16 years ago, even if I did say some pretty stupid things. And honestly, even if he is not pro-gay, he should be entitled to his opinions, as not everyone will agree with one's personal convictions. I am sure I have lost a few acquaintances or so over the years due to the fact that I refuse to accept or embrace homosexuality as being normal. I don't and while people are free to disagree with me, I'm not going to bow to pressure simply because the fashionable thing to do these days is to spout the word "tolerance", just like it is fashionable to be a tree hugger and be on the anti-global warming bandwagon (which is quite a questionable ride to begin with).

In my view, it would have been better for Lukiwski to simply acknowledge that he made such remarks in the past, but suggest that unless he is not serving his constituents properly in his current role, his past (or even present) personal opinions shouldn't be scrutinized to the point where people are asking for his resignation. It's no different than me working with a admitted racist or bigot. As long as his personal views are not causing problems in his/her work, what business do I have asking them to be terminated from their job, upon learning their affiliation with a racist organization outside the workplace? If it doesn't affect their working relationship with their colleagues job-wise, he/she should be left alone, no matter how abhorrent we may find their views.

I practice this principle in my daily life. I have worked with gays before in my job, and while I am vehemently opposed to their lifestyle and such, I still am required to work with them and show them the same workplace courtesy as everyone else. As long as they are not pushing for special treatment or flaunting gay sexuality at work, I have no reason to ask them to resign, even though I may have personal philosophical and moral differences with them. In this case, people should just leave Lukiwski alone. The past is the past. And if he still harbours the same views, who cares? It's not impacting his job.