Monday, July 20, 2009

Statistical Falsehoods And Wasteful Spending

Sheila Copps believes there's nothing wrong with the government providing a $400,000 grant to homosexual "pride" event which she claims attracts 1.2 million spectators. Cecilia Forsyth, National President of the REAL Women of Canada responds to those claims, dispelling the "million plus turnout" myth among other things:
To argue that this grant has an economic and tourism benefit is to naively accept the homosexual propaganda that over a million individuals actually attend the event. This is not possible because, if this figure were correct, the crowds would have had to be 80 deep along the 3.1 kilometer parade route. This is an absurdity. The crowd density was, on average 4-6 people deep and the total number of people can be generously set, at most, at approximately 154,000 persons: far fewer than attend Toronto’s annual Caribana Parade each August. It is also highly questionable that the “celebrations” that week contribute millions to the economy, as alleged, as this figure again appears to be part of the air of unreality surrounding the event.

There can be no long-term stimulus by giving taxpayers’ money to homosexual groups. Such individuals do not make a substantive contribution to society by producing and raising children – essential for the future of our country. Instead, their high medical and social costs are not a public benefit. Canadian families are struggling in these difficult economic times, and a grant of this magnitude, to promote a hedonistic lifestyle, serves only to devalue their struggle.
As the Life Site News release shows, the ill-famous $400,000 grant to a perverse event was by no means a one-time occurrence. Sure, all those grants put together won't even amount to $1 million - which is peanuts compared to a $50 billion deficit. (And it's probably a lot less than a Liberal/NDP coalition government would have given to them.) Still, in a recession, when a budget deficit breaks one record after the other, it's quite frustrating to see the government missing the opportunity to cut back on wasteful ideologically-driven spending. Not to mention that a socially and medically hazardous lifestyle is not something that should be promoted with taxpayers' money.

No comments: