Verbatim
So I'm told that the Conservatives are really tolerant of gay people. No really! *ahem* From my comments section:
"Is Baird realy a fag he should lose his cabinet post if he is. Homo's always have an alterier motive and can only complain." (sic)
This is of course in reference to the President of the Treasury Board, John Baird (or "Uncle Tom" as he is known to some.)
Two questions:
1) Does the fact that Baird is still semi-closeted have anything to do with what party he's in? (Given comments like that, I think it does!)
2) Will he be speaking on this fall's anti-gay legislation, perhaps make an appeal to his fellow Conservatives that he deserves the same rights that they enjoy? (I'll bet not.)
posted by Ryan Ringer @ 6/03/2006 07:07:00 p.m.
13 comments
13 Comments:
"1) Does the fact that Baird is still semi-closeted have anything to do with what party he's in? (Given comments like that, I think it does!)"
Oh that's just funny.
Ryan, I present to you three names:
1) Dominic Agostino (late)
2) Bill Graham
3) Pierre Pettigrew
All of the above were/are even further in the closet than John Baird, and none of them were Conservative.
Frankly, Mr. Baird would probably face more harrassment from the Gay Liberal Toronto mafia (I'm gay and live in Toronto, so I know of what I speak...) than he would from within his party.
Honestly, do you really think that Prime Minister Harper and his Cabinet don't know that Baird is gay? And what difference does it make if Baird chooses not to disclose his sexuality to the media?
Someone is totally out to lunch or off his meds if he figgers Harper would appoint a known gay man to Baird's position (hehehe).
And then let the world know about it?
roflmao
The difference is that Agostino, Graham and Pettigrew aren't/weren't members of a party whose official policy on gays is homophobic discrimination.
Also, I find that given your loathing of gay people who don't share your affinity for a homophobic party to be highly hypocritical given you're complaining about them doing the same thing in reverse.
Mr. Baird simply by being gay is a de facto representative of the gay community in that House, just like Jean Augustine is a de facto representative for black people, or Gary Merasty for Natives, and by refusing to stand up to his party on these issues he's betraying every person like him to his own ambition. Do you honestly think a black person could get away with standing by as a member of a cabinet which seeks to impose a ban on interracial marriage?
I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay and right wing on economic issues. In the Ontario PCs, the party didn't have a formal position on gay rights issues so I could see him fitting in there. However, I agree that it would be tough for a gay person to be a Conservative. Even I as a straight person couldn't stand be in the Conservative Party due to their attitude towards gays. I don't want to be in a party that is intolerant towards any segment of society.
"Someone is totally out to lunch or off his meds if he figgers Harper would appoint a known gay man to Baird's position (hehehe)."
Er, have you been living under a rock for the past 10 years?
John Baird is about as "out" as they come, short of holding a press conference to declare his sexuality. He has given interviews in the past in which he referred to his male partner. He is well-known and visible in the Toronto gay community (I just spotted him at Woody's a few weeks ago).
Everybody who knows him knows that he is gay, including Prime Minister Harper. Do I know this for a fact? No. But I highly doubt Harper has not been with you under that rock for the past 10 years.
Correction - last line should have read "But I highly doubt Harper has been with you under that rock for the past 10 years."
I've never said that all Conservatives are homophobes. (Jim Prentice is one of my favourite politicians.)
But it's a little bit absurd to pretend that the party which is OFFICIALLY OPPOSED to gay rights is gay-friendly; and I have this self-hating type in here claiming to be gay, while at the same time denigrating the efforts of those who fought for gay rights in the past, and claiming that there is no moral equivalence between racism and homophobia. Let's get real, I'd be more than happy to drop this issue. It's the CONSERVATIVE PARTY and their prime minister who refuse to drop it.
Nice of Gay&Right to make sure those of us who weren't aware of it now know which politicians prefer to leave their sexuality out of their politics. I could have done without that information.
I have no respect for people - gays especially - who find it necessary to "out" each other.
Your sexuality may be an issue for you, GR, but I don't care about it, and I don't need to know, any more than you need to know about mine.
One reason I am supporting Scott Brison who, as we all know, is openly gay his platform is for ALL Canadians.
Some time later, and I'm regretting being quite so snarly in my last comment. My apologies.
After all, I only just discovered this blog and am not familiar with the background of the discussion.
That said, I thought that in the 21st Century, and in Canada, most of us had stopped thinking of others as "gays" or "straights" and just see each other as people. And I thought "outings" and such things were relics of the 80s...
I agreed with Pierre Trudaeu that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation, and I believe that the nation has no business in the bedrooms of their elected representatives, either.
As far as I know, the few people who consider sexuality to be an issue, in politics or anywhere else, are mostly funadmentalist Christians - of whom I know quite a few - and they do tend to vote Conservative, because they think Stephen Harper is a Christian and will banish gays to the outer darkness.
However, there's no doubt there are people on both sides of the floor who are opposed to SSM. Heck I know some gays who are opposed to it too.
Back to Brison, and I'll say it again. His sexuality will not be an issue with most heteros in this country, because it doesn't seem to be an issue for him, and I hope that gays who vote for him do so, not because they expect him to be their spokesman, but because he's the best man for the job.
Penny:
It was our host, I remind you, that had a problem with John Baird not showcasing his sexuality to ensure that as many people know about it as possible.
When I brought up well-known Liberal politicians who are also part of the gay community, and who also keep their sexuality quiet, he responded by saying that that's okay, since they aren't in "homophobic parties".
A disingenuous nonsensical response, to be sure, but I've gotten used to that from people like him.
So I ask our host: don't you think that these gay Liberal politcians would be doing a lot for the gay-marriage cause if they had a heart-to-heart with the media about their sexuality, their struggles etc? why aren't they doing it? I think many would find it inspiring, adding a further human element to the issue.
re: Scott Brison...
Your absolutely right, Penny. Scott's sexuality should have nothing to do whatsoever with his fitness for leadership.
I personally find him arrogant, vain, and insufferable, who clearly thinks way too highly of himself.
Perhaps once he comes back down to planet earth - and learns french...his pronounciation is worse than Preston Manning's, for cryin out loud - then he'll be a real contender.
oops...your=you're...should really make use of the "Preview" feature
Well, I met Scott a week ago and found him bright, focussed and in charge. And damned good looking. (It's OK, apart from "that", I'm old enough to be his mother.) He is quite different in person than he seems to be in the House at QP, where I find him a lot of fun to watch - very quick on his feet and good with the rhetoric.
But then I also happen to agree with his platform. I can see how it might go over with someone who doesn't!
Apart from that G&R, more mea culpas for jumping in in the middle of the discussion. I think we are on the same page, apart from politics!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home