Prosecution and imprisonment do not change the offender. He comes out of prison and goes straight back to repeat his "crime" until caught again. The only difference is that he is now more wary, more desperately determined not to be again found out.

The point is that what Society is stubbornly calling "criminal" behaviour in the belief that the homosexual acts that way out of malice or spite, is the only natural behaviour to him. He was born with blue eyes!

Sex deviates know the harsh punishment that is in store for them if they are detected. They have seen other deviates crucified, ruined socially and financially for following their nature.

So the deviate must lead two lives or do the impossible and stifle his sex urge. If the heterosexual man or woman was ordered by law to give up his sex or her sex urge, the heterosexual would fight to the death to defy that order. Yet Society coolly demands that the homosexual give up one of his strongest instincts with never a protest.

It is a cruel demand and an unfair one. It is an impossible demand. But it is made by law. A savage law. A law which compels thousands of human beings to live in constant terror of discovery and makes them the prize target of blackmailers. For to be even accused, let alone convicted, means utter ruin.

And the unending strain of leading a double life is too much for many individuals. There is grim irony in the fact that the Society whose unrealistic laws drive many sexual deviates to nervous breakdowns, often winds up paying the bill for their treatment in insane asylums for life.

This is what the British Royal Commission has found out and this is what the American Bar Association has echoed. The Royal Commission declared that so long as both parties were of age, both consented and their conduct was private, their conduct was no concern of the police or the courts. The American Bar Association flatly declared that if deviates were harming no one ise, they should not be harmed themselves.

But both of these authoritative groups except only cases which fall within the above terms. Homosexual attacks on minors or attacks with violence on anyone, must still be punished severely.

In line with this expert opinion FLASH will no longer report court charges or trials where the three elements of age, consent and privacy are present. But this newspaper will go farther than that.

The present sections of the Canadian Criminal Code dealing with sex deviation need revision in the light of modern medical knowledge. Public opinion must be aroused to change these sections as it was once aroused to change the laws which imprisoned people for debt or hung them for stealing a loaf of bread.

And so FLASH will campaign for those changes and report what both top authorities and our readers have to say on the subject. For only when those changes are made will thousands of Canadian men and women now living in constant fear of ugly, senseless persecution be relieved. This campaign may not be popular but it will be right. That's good enough for FLASH!

THEN THE SOUND AND FURY BROKE LOOSE...

Sir: If we, who have a normal desire for the opposite sex, are required by Society to suppress our sexual urge until we are legally married, why should we make

homosexuals a privileged group by condoning their sexual relations without demanding that they be wed?

If, on the basis of the findings

mattachine REVIEW

of the British Royal Commission and the American Bar Association, this country should ever sanction

the practice of homosexualism without requiring the parties involved to tie some marital knot, it must also sanction free sexual love between single men and women. Such a thing would, of course, lead to complete chaos, but it would be the only proper line of action if homosexuals enjoyed such privileges.

Should the activities of homosexuals ever be sanctioned inCanada, a special contract should be devised whereby homosexuals could be bound together as legal marital couples; and the same laws concerning age, consent, adultery and divorce should be applicable to such a union as it is to present marriages-with some revision, of course, in view of the unusual nature of such a union.

If homosexuals decline the possibility of binding themselves together in wedlock, it would be obvious that they didn't want to limit their sexual pleasures to any one party in the same way a husband and wife are limited; hence, we would be justified in concluding that their so-called "love" was actually a degenerate farce and should be considered no less reprehensible than promiscuous sexual activity on behalf of normal men and women who aren't married.

Back issues of FLASH clearly demonstrate that, unlike unlike most normal lovers, homosexuals pass from one partner to another and sometimes even accept payment for their services like common prostitutes. Some are married men and women, widowers and widows and some even have children.

If we are to elevate that unnatural brand of love to the same plane as love between man and woman, let them be subject to the same laws and ethics that a husband and wife are subject to

and that means no promiscuity by either partner, FRANK

Halifax

(Editor's Note: Despite "laws and ethics," heterosexual unions are by no means free of promiscuity or adultery as a rising divorce rate shows).

Sir: Never did I expect to find myself in complete agreement with any article appearing in FLASH, but I feel I must offer you my sincere and heartfelt congratulations on your courageous and able editorial entitled "NEW DEAL FOR DEVIATES," as set forth in your Oct. 1 issue. That your opinion on this vital topic, so lucidly expressed, was timely, there can be no doubt, but that this very necessary mission of pleading the cause of the "normal" homosexual before an indifferent and very often biased public was not undertaken by one of the major publications in order to reach a wider reading public, is a matter for regret.

Still, your paper has paved the way for frank discussions of a subject which, through agitating the minds of more people each year, will eventually lead to a public demand for a change in our archaic penal code dealing with sex deviates.

As a congenital homosexual I vehemently protest against the barbaric injustice of imprisoning adults found guilty of homosexual practices in private with a consenting adult partner. If a prison term were to ensure a cure, no grounds for complaint would be valid; but it has been more than amply proven that those who have been confined to our penitentiaries for this offense have invariably been released with their so-called "vicious" "vicious" propensities unchecked or aggravated, plus a bitter resentment, against society for punishing them for a trait which is part of their nature and