Edited by Alloe Mak

During the Red Scare of the 1960s, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) worked on developing a “fruit machine,” their colloquial term for several different experiments used to identify homosexuals under government employ. These included questioning, pupil dilation tests and pseudoscientific lie detectors.

What follows is an instruction manual for the deployment of the fruit machine, from which valuable insights on the nature of the Canadian surveillance regime may be gleaned.

How to Use the Fruit Machine: A Guide for Those Working in Service of Our Great Nation

These pre-screening questions are intended for the brave Canadian warriors who manage employment in government positions. In these trying times, when movements for equity and an equal distribution of resources are a growing threat, you are on the frontlines of the battle to maintain our values.

In service of this cause, you may come across a type of people known as “homosexuals.” These are depraved and ghastly individuals who experience sexual attraction to those of the same sex, upon which they then act. This is, of course, unacceptable. Indulgences like pleasure, love, and belonging are the weapons of the enemies of our nation. 

Because stodginess, prejudice and celibacy are the Canadian values necessary to occupy government positions, the Federal Committee for the Nonproliferation of Happiness (FCNH) has put together the following questions to ask in order to determine whether a potential employee needs to be subjected to the fruit machine tests.

If a member of the same sex hit on you, would you:

a. Report them to the authorities

b. Tell them they’re disgusting and walk away

c. Flirt back?

If they pick option b, they are a good candidate for the job. If they pick option a, they are decent but weak-willed and lily-livered, and cannot handle the pressures of the job. If they choose c, they are abhorrent and must be subjected to the next stages of the fruit machine.

Have you ever made physical contact with a member of the same sex?

a. No

b. Yes, but accidentally, in contexts such as gentlemanly sport

c. Contact was intentional and/or they do not experience remorse

If no, they are a perfect employee. If physical contact was made by accident but they seem remorseful, use your best judgement. If they are not remorseful or contact was intentional, then they are definitely a homosexual and must be removed immediately. Confusion in response to this question is a clear sign of perversion.

When you see a good-looking member of the same sex, do you feel:

a. Indifferent

b. Burning rage and malice

c. Interest and/or attraction?

The only acceptable answer is “a.” While “c” may seem even more in line with Canadian values, feeling any emotion upon seeing a member of the same sex is homosexual behaviour.

If a police officer asked to search your pockets, would you:

a. Respond with a prompt “Yes, sir,” or “Yes, ma’am”

b. Hesitate, and then co-operate

c. Question the officer on why they need to search your pockets?

If the interviewee indicates any type of hesitation or questioning of the officer, this is a bad sign and may point to queer behaviour. Ideally, every Canadian citizen should be ready and willing to assume any position the officer requires, and submit to any level of touch.

If you were Prime Minister, would you prioritize feeding the hungry or the overly full?

a. People should feed themselves

b. I would feed everyone equally

c. Feed the hungry

The Prime Minister is not a nanny. The only acceptable response is that people should feed themselves. 

If your toddler asks for a swirly lollipop, would you give it to them?

Under no circumstances should this be allowed. All colourful foods are gateway drugs to poppers.

Do you believe war is good?

a. Yes

b. Yes, but the loss of human life is always a tragedy/It’s a necessary evil

c. No, I wish for world peace

A dislike for violence and death does not suit a government employee. Our nation is strong because our government welcomes the violence necessary for its existence.

Would you give a dollar to a homeless person asking for spare change?

Revolting premise. If they let you finish the question, fruit machine.

Do you think grocery stores should determine who lives and who dies?

a. Yes

b. I don’t understand the question

c. No

Confusion indicates incompetence, and a “no” is extremely disrespectful to the grocery CEOs whose hard-earned dollars run our proud nation.

Ask them various iterations of the “trolley problem.” I.e. there are five people tied to train tracks and a trolley is hurtling towards them. You can pull a lever to divert the trolley to another track with only one person tied to it. What do you do?

a. I am not interested in hypotheticals like this

b. I’m not entirely sure/It’s a tricky question

c. Pull the lever

The appropriate response to this is derision. There must be a good reason those people are tied to train tracks, and strangers do not need to stick their noses where they are not wanted. These types of quandaries are only of interest to so-called intellectuals in their ivory towers, which, we have on good authority, are filled with homosexual depravity. It’s the fruit machine for anyone who engages seriously with this question.

Poverty: yes or no?

If “yes,” they are hired! If “no,” fruit machine.

Congratulations, you have reached the end of the Fruit Machine Screening Questions. While there is no quantitative manner of making this decision as human beings are incredibly complex and cannot be reduced to statistics, this top-of-the-line questionnaire comes very close. 

Those who answered mostly “a” are good candidates for government employment. It is ambiguous if those who responded mostly with “b” are homosexual or not, and as such they should undergo pupil dilation testing or lie detector tests. If they answered mostly “c,” they are definitely homosexual and the only recourse is aversion electroshock therapy.

For any reasonable Canadian, it is not too difficult to identify fairies and dykes. Above all, your guiding principle should be a firm grasp of the knowledge that any and all displays of whimsy or noncompliance are treasonous threats to national security.