case"? No one comes forward to say that the "fine, manly, red-blooded youth is nothing but a male prostitute who can be found in one of the gay bars or parks any night of the week, sitting and talking with homosexuals and drinking all he can cadge from them. No one questions the murderer's claim that "he didn't know the other was a queer"-what? After sitting and drinking with him most of the evening? What did he think he was being invited to the apartment for? to discuss politics? What really innocent youth would sit and drink at another man's expense all evening and then accompany him to his apartment at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning? No indeed, there were many interesting details that the Chief neglected to mention to the Commission.

"The saddest feature of all, however, is that homosexuals corrupt others and are constantly recruiting youths of previous good character into their fraternity": isn't this a masterpiece of distortion and libel? "The saddest feature of all": even sadder than seeing a defenseless homosexual beaten, murdered and robbed and his killer get off? "Homosexuals corrupt others": not, you will note, "some homosexuals" but "homosexuals" every single one of them "constantly" corrupt others by recruiting." If they are "constantly" corrupting others, when do they find time to work, eat, sleep or even to be beaten up and robbed? Even if we allow a little exaggeration here for the righteous indignation that fills the Chief's bosom, upon what (unnamed) authority does he so assuredly state that homosexuals are capable of "corrupting" others and of recruiting them into the fraternity? Note also, that once "recruited" the youths (now presumably homosexuals) were of "previous" good character a state quite foreign, of course, to all homosexuals. I can only say that if the

one

Chief really believed all this guff then he had scant confidence in the power of the heterosexual impulse and even less in the stability and will-power of the normal youths-who, surely, were as capable at least of defending their virtue as is the normal girl who must receive many more offers of "recruitment" in the course of a week than the youth would receive in a year.

"Some people go so far as to almost morally justify the misconduct of the homosexual": who are the mysterious "some people?" Why "almost?" What is meant by "misconduct"? Does "misconduct" mean sex acts performed between adults, in private? Is it the action of an adult who sexually abuses a youngster? The Chief, obviously, draws no distinction between the two. That a great distinction exists should be obvious to a mule. Thus, "some people" obviously homosexuals-"almost morally justify" molestation of youngsters as well as sex between adults and this is nothing but arrant nonsense as the Chief must have known. A pity he didn't name the "some people" who held this point of view.

"The inference being in some quarters, that because men of intellect and culture (that's a dangerous admission, Chief) have been homosexuals, such behaviour is to be excused, condoned and even accepted in the community": you can see that what is slyly being implied here (in conjunction with the previous quote) is that homosexual "quarters" not only justify every kind of homosexual sex acts, but are trying to have them "excused, condoned and accepted." Were the matter not so serious, it could be almost amusing to think that any group would be so utterly bereft of all reason, decency, common-sense and propriety as to actually attempt to influence society to excuse, condone and accept the molestation of its children, or any manifestation of homosex-

12