May 3, 2011
Conservatives Win a Majority in Canada - Queer Rights In For a Bumpy Ride

Stephen Harper and his conservatives have won a majority - 167 seats (155 were needed for majority). Unfortunately this casts an uncertain future for Queer rights in Canada.

Though Stephen Harper has said that he won’t reopen the same-sex marriage debate he has refused to answer what he would do if/when a private member’s bill is introduced to rescind same-sex (or equal) marriage. Based on the party’s previous history with Queer rights (which I have posted in within this post) I think it’s safe to say we know what the out come of this would be.  

Some have argued that the courts would not allow the government to take away same-sex marriage but any court intervention would take months or possibly a year to over-rule a vote a in parliament. The Conservatives could also put into place the not-withstanding clause that would suspend same-sex marriage for 2 years. Furthermore the supreme court never really ruled on same-sex marriage in the first place. They only said that allowing it would be constitutional and then put the onus on parliament to vote on the matter.

People must also take into account the fact that Stephen Harper has already appointed 2 Conservative leaning judges to the Supreme Court of Canada and by the time the next election occurs can appoint 4 four more, meaning that conservative judges would control the supreme court and they would ultimately end up making the decision on whether or not banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, or in even hearing the case to begin with.

Another equally scary issue is the fact that nowhere in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms does is explicitly state that sexual orientation is part of it. Courts have only stated that it’s inclusion could be implied. However this leaves the door open for the Conservatives to introduce legislation that would specifically exclude sexual orientation from the Charter as there is nothing in the Charter currently regarding sexual orientation this wouldn’t involve ratifying it.

If you doubt that this party will try to remove rights from the Queer community I ask you to consider the actions and stances they have taken below.

1. The Conservative party, and I’m not talking about the old Progressive Conservatives they don’t exist anymore aside from Provincial realms, has NEVER in it’s history (under their current name, the Canadian Alliance, or the Reform party) supported any of the legislature that furthered Queer rights. I mean NEVER EVER EVER. In fact the only thing they have tried to do with the rights of the Queer community is to TAKE THEM AWAY.

2. The leader of the Conservative Party (Stephen Harper) went to anti-gay rallies during the same-sex marriage debate before it was made legal, and then again after it was made legal and the Conservative Party was trying to TAKE RIGHTS AWAY from the Queer community. Stephen Harper (as Prime Minister of Canada) stood beside men and women who think Queer people can be “cured”, who believe we are the spawn of Satan. He shock hands and basked in the company of people who don’t think we should be allowed to teach, or to raise a family. Stephen Harper actually belongs to a church that believe homosexuality to be one of the gravest of sins, akin to murder, rape, and incest (source).

3. Examples of rights the Conservative Party (then Reform and Canadian Alliance) tried to stop or take away in the 1990’s.

  • Voted against the amendment of the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. They wanted people to be allowed to discriminate against Queer people (fire them, deny them services, expell them from schools) simply because of their sexual orientation. - This applies to the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
  • Voted against the Amendment of the Criminal Code to provide more severe penalties for hate crimes against gays and lesbians.
  • They introduced a motion to exclusively define the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman.

4. Examples of rights the Conservative Party (aka Canadian Alliance) tried to stop or take away in the 2000’s

  • Voted against recognizing same-sex partnerships equally.
  • Voted against providing same-sex couples with equal status as opposite-sex couples in 68 federal laws.
  • Canadian Alliance motion to define marriage in exclusively opposite-sex terms, ultimately by invoking the notwithstanding clause.
  • Voted against amending the Criminal Code to provide more severe penalties for hate speech and hate literature against gays and lesbians.
  • Conservative Party motion to withdraw Bill C-38 (which would extend marriage to same-sex couples).
  • VAST majority of Conservatives voted against extending marriage to same-sex couples.
  • Conservative Party motion to TAKE AWAY marriage from same-sex couples.

5. Examples of homophobia by the Conservative party:

  • After Pride Toronto (Toronto’s largest money making event) is awarded roughly $400,000 there is highly vocal Conservative MP opposition. Montreal’s Pride or Divers-Cite (which received Federal funding for the past several years) is stripped of Federal funding.
  • Kulenthiran Amirthalingam a Gay man from Malaysia seeking refugee status in Canada on the grounds of his sexual orientation (he faces prison or public beating in Malaysia for being homosexual) is deported by the Conservative immigration minister. When the deportation is brought up in Parliament by NDP MP Real Menard the Conservatives laugh it off. - The man was publicly beaten upon his return to Malaysia. It is also reported that the then Minister of Immigration and her office stated refugee claimants couldn’t be Lesbian because they have long hair and wear dresses (source).
  • As mentioned before Stephen Harper, along with Stockwell Day and many other Conservative MP’s are televised and photographed standing next to anti-gay groups and leaders. Many whome call homosexuality a disease and relate it to pedophilia. Video evidence of Harper speaking at such a rally is here.
  • Stockwell Day states in parliament that homosexuality goes against the natural order of things (during the 2nd same-sex marriage debate December 2006). Also states it will harm families.
  • The Conservative Party attempted bury a research report, conducted for Canada’s Department of Justice, that says Lesbian or Gay parents are just as good, or even a little better, at developing and raising their children, compared to heterosexual parents.  (source)
  • A plethora of anti-gay statements made by numerous Conservative MP’s ranging from comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, to statements that we are sick, to saying we shouldn’t raise children.
  • Both Harper and Ottawa MP Cheryl Gallant tormented Bill Graham with anti-gay comments — in the House of Commons, no less — until he retired in 2007 (source)

6. Except for John Baird (who must to be into masochism being involved with that ilk) the upper echelon (well really any part) of the Conservative Party has time and time again shown that it does not support the rights of the Queer community. Aside from provincial parties it blows my mind away how any Queer person could possibly vote Conservative (they’re not even fiscally conservative, they’ve put the country further into debt AND have cut social programs, then they spend public money essentially advertising their party on Trains, websites, and pamphlets).

Every action this party has taken in relation to the Queer community spells out one thing… The Conservative Party hates Queer people.

I would like to solace in the fact that should the Conservatives rescind Queer rights in Canada that Canadians would show their displeasure in 4-5 years at the next election. However, considering how the majority of Canadian were quite upset over a number of other things the Conservatives have done in the past (election spending misuse and scandals, misuse of tax payers money for advertising for their own party, removal of the long census, purchasing 30 fight jets, purchasing ships for the artic that don’t have appropriate ice breaking ability, renaming the Government of Canada “Harper’s Government”, dismantaling women’s centre’s across the country, reaction to Canadians stuck in Lebanon during Israel’s offensive, spending on the G8/G20, etc) yet it didn’t affect them at election time, in fact they gained seat. So I fail to see how this would be any different were they to remove our rights. Unfortunately the Canadian public has shown it tends to forget about the qualms it has with the Conservatives once they’re given a few month (or even weeks) to simmer down.

Time will tell and I hope very much that I am wrong on this, but given all the evidence that hope I’m clinging to is quite small.

Troubling times indeed.

August 10, 2010
Australia blocks gay couples from marrying overseas

myholigay:

shelikesher:

queerwatch:

There will be no change in Australia’s policy of attempting to block its gay citizens from getting married in other countries, the government recently.

Australia will continue to withhold the Certificates of Non-Impediment to Marriage that sometimes are needed before foreigners are allowed to marry in other nations.

In a 2 August media release, the group Australian Marriage Equality called the policy “mean-spirited” and said AME is contemplating a challenge before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

“As if it’s not bad enough that the government’s ban on same-sex marriages forces hundreds of Australians to marry overseas every year, often at great expense and without their families and friends present, the government still wants to reach around the world in an effort to stop these Australians marrying,” said AME convener Alex Greenwich.

this makes me angry!! :( grrr! what we need is the greens to govern australia! i sure would love bob brown to be mr. gay prime minister :D 

July 14, 2010
Homosexuality In Birds

March 17, 2010
New series V to address homosexuality?

Ever since the first 4 episodes of the new series V were released last fall a question has been on my mind. Will the writers address how the aliens, or visitors, in the show view homosexuality?

One may wonder; why on earth would they? My answer? Because were it the real world this question would most certainly be posed toward the visitors.

On another level a marginalized segment of the population could be an easy target for the V’s to attack, or alternatively the queer influence in pop culture could serve to their advantage. It is certainly an issue that would be a difficult one for the visitors to tackle and it would be interesting to see how they decide to approach it.

It would also be nice to see another mainstream sci-fi show, besides BSG and Caprica, that actually acknowledges the existence of homosexuals.

Just a thought :)

12:52pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZaxRWyR6Yhw
Filed under: V homosexuality queer Sci-fi TV 
January 4, 2010
Gay Muslim Scholar challenging how Islam should view Homosexuality

Hats go off to Junaid Bin Jahangir.

December 17, 2009
The 3 Michigan Churches Who Are Quitting the Homeless Because Another Church Dares Tolerate LGBTs

3xgay:

homelessjesus

While the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington D.C has reneged on its promise to halt its social services programs in the city after the City Council passed gay marriage legislation, three…

December 2, 2009
Examining the Causes Homosexuality/Sexual Orientation

                                

It’s a topic that has caused a lot of debate, even within the Queer community. What causes someones sexual orientation? Is it nature? Nurture? both?

I’ve decided to explore a few ideas on the issue. First I’ll look at the Nurture side.

Nurture 

  1. Freud: Who doesn’t love Freud? The pioneer of psycho-analysis thought that an overbearing mother and absent father caused men to be gay. However, if this were the case there would be lot more men out there who were raised solely by there mother who are gay. It would also mean that gay men wouldn’t come from families where the mother was either absent or withdrawn, and they do. So unfortunately Freud’s thoughts on the matter don’t add up.
  2. Traumatic Experience: This is a favourite of evangelicals. That homosexuals must have had some childhood trauma that led them to be gay, and that the ones that deny it are just repressing some experience. Well it’s sort of hard to argue that one hasn’t been abused to someone who is dead set on the idea that you have been. It’s sort of like trying to explain to them (the evangelicals) that the Earth has to be older than 10,000 years because science proves it. They simply argue back that the devil has made it appear that way to trick us. Logic like this is ridiculous. In anycase obviously Homosexuality is not the cause of childhood abuse because a) no where near all Queer people were abused as a child and b) there are loads of straight people who were abused as a child and they’re still straight.
  3. Unpleasant Experience with the Opposite-sex: This by very definition is odd. Yes if I were to have sex with a woman it would be an upleasant experience - likely for both of us - BECAUSE I’M GAY! Obviously I’m not going to enjoy throwing my junk into something I want nothing to do with. Also some homosexuals who have had sex with opposite sex have enjoyed the experience but were simply not really attracted to their partners (like having sex with a pillow) - or they are a little bi. In any case this idea doesn’t hold up because people have had good experiences with the opposite sex, and also because straight people have had really bad experiences with the opposite sex and they’re still straight. Similarly Queer people have sure had their fair share of bad experiences with the same-sex but guess what? Still Queer.
  4. Parents Allowed Child to do Non Gender Conforming Activities: Examples: Boy puts on mom’s make-up, high heels, or plays with dolls. Girl plays baseball, wears pants, plays with trucks. I’ll refute this using myself as an example. I played a number of sports, had trucks and cars galore, G.I. Joes, and loved anything that went bang/crash/smash/boom and I’m Gay. This is the case with many Queer people. Also a number of straight and Queer people didn’t gender conform when they were young.
  5. Couldn’t Get a Member of the Opposite-Sex: A) Portia de Rossi B) Neil Patrick Harris C) All the hot Queers out there. It’s not a matter of can’t get. It’s that we just don’t want.

Nature

  1. It’s in the Genes (DNA): This is the favourite arguement of many within the Queer community and of those who support it. Basically the theory is that sexual orientation is determined by our genetic make-up. A combination of a number of different genes that play a role in who we are attacted to - even down to whether we prefer blondes or brunettes. A number of studies have shown some genetic link to sexual orientation including an increased likelihood of having a homosexual child if there is a history of homosexuals on the mother’s side, an increased prevelance of homosexuality among deaf people, dramatic increase in prevelance among identical twins (70%), and an increased prevelance of homosexuality among those who are left handed. While I personally agree that genes play a role in sexual orientation I don’t believe it is in the same way that most people do, but I’ll get into that later.
  2. It’s Natural: Homosexual relationships can be seen in hundreds of different species across the planet. It is quite prevelant within birds and mammals. Swans, who mate for life, will mate with a member of the same sex and at a percentage higher than the 10% often cited for humans. Dolphins, Chimps, Penguins, Cats, Dogs, Horses, the list literally goes on and on. This isn’t something that is “unnatural”. For more on this see either my Oh My Gayvolution or Queer Animals, It’s a Big Gay Old World posts.
  3. Hormone Imbalance: This theory was popular in the mid 1900’s but was quickly discredited when hormone injections into homosexual patients didn’t work. - Oh the good old days when we were subjected to barbaric experiments.
  4. Prenatal Hormones: My personal favourite theory goes like this; Prenatal Hormones released between the 3rd and 5th month of pregnancy cause/influence ones sexual orientation. The hormones released can vary causing someone to be mostly straight, bi, totally homosexual, etc. This theory accounts for the varying sexual orienations (or fluidity) that we have today (it’s not just heterosexual, bi, and homosexual). It also accounts for why in some cases one identical twin is heterosexual but then the other is homosexual. Each twin has their own amniotic sac in the whom and is subjected to different levels of prenatal hormones and this accounts for difference in sexual oriention. Now I mentioned before I still think genes play a role, and I do… with the mother. I believe the reason we can see an increased prevelance of homosexuality on the mothers side if there have been relatives who are homosexual is because genetically the mother is more likely to produce prenatal hormones that would cause one to be homosexual. Genes may also play a role in how susceptible the fetus is to those hormones as well. So it would appear sexual orientation is very complex - and that’s because it is.

Most importantly in this debate is while every single Nurture argument can be refuted by simple examples of real people who don’t fit into it the Nature side of the coin is much harder to refute or disprove.

Whatever the cause of sexual orientation ends up being it will be very complex guaranteed. In the end we shouldn’t be so concerned as to why or how but instead accept ones sexual orienation for what it is and move on.

Slainte!

December 1, 2009
Anti-Homosexuality Bill and British Aid to Uganda
Ryan Ross: Are you likely to write about the Ugandan situation http://moderntosh.com/2009/11/ugandas-war-on-homosexuality/
Johann Hari: At some point yes - it's horrific. In was challenging Gordon brown about this on Wednesday... We give Uganda so much aid. If they were killing (say) Jews or all the white people in Uganda, we'd strip it away in a second...
Luke Burke: It is horrific Johann. But the selfsame Gordon Brown presides over a labour government which denies asylum to LGBT people from places such as Uganda and Iran, on the pretext that they can live safely in such countries if they are 'discreet' (see http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/31/in-a-major-victory-for-lgbt-asylum-ugandan-john-bosco-defeats-the-home-office/) That makes me view with suspicion the claim that the government really cares about LGBT people in Uganda.
Ryan Ross: I look forward to reading what you have to say. The Guardian aside, the mainstream press have been very quiet on this issue
Johann Hari: You're very right Luke - I made exactly that point to him! His answer was pretty weak...
Dave Cafferty: Is it fair to pull aid from Ugandan citizens though? I have just come back from working out in Uganda for an indigenous HIV/Aids organisation, who are criminally underfunded and in need of international support. With the new laws, they will not be able to address homosexuality as an issue at all, because if they fail to disclose the sexuality of their clients, they risk losing their license. There was a general opposition to the bill that was put to parliament two weeks after I got there, despite the near unanimous support from the Ugandan press. I can see the inevitable impact that the Act will have on international aid, but I feel the answer surely lies in the International community putting pressure on Uganda rather than denying the help that can be distributed to its civilians.
Ryan Ross: You can't have it both ways. You either sponsor this sort of homophobic nonsense or say enough is enough. Invariably the people who pay most are those most in need, and that's an issue in itself, but it's not our responsibility to be providing unconditional aid to each and every nation with a need. They need to drop this bill or face the consequences. International "pressure" is nothing without collateral action.
Johann Hari: Its difficult, though, Ryan, because a lot of the people who die if we withdraw aid would be children, or people who don't support this evil law. It's a genuine dilemma. The question for me is - if we threaten to withdraw aid, is it likely to, in practice, make the Ugandan government change it position, or not? I'm not qualified to answer that and I need to talk to people who are.
Shane Fairhead: I've just read this post, I think the idea of withdrawing Aid is beyond evil. The President of Uganda is an evil man and would like to enforce a ban on same-sex relationships along with many of his fellow colleagues this does not therefore mean that the Ugandan people should therefore suffer. It is inevitable that countries which are in their own form of a dark age will introduce laws that are beyond sanity but I guess it is to be predicted, these countries have not passed through social or democratic revolutions like most, if not all western countries and should be allowed to evolve without pressure from countries that provide Aid. Many of the Ugandan population are uneducated, and ignorant surely education is better than the threat of death.
Ryan Ross: What utter garbage.
Johann Hari: I think its would be worth threateneing to withdraw aid if there was a very significant chance the law would be withdrawn, and therefore (a) we would save lives, and (b) the aid wouldn't actually have to be taken away. But I don't know enough about Uganda to say.
Ryan Ross: Oh I don't dispute that, withdrawing the aid may not be the most effective way of pressuring Ugandan law makers anyway. I'm just pretty astounded that Shane believes this is a right of passage for the country, " if not all western countries and should be allowed to evolve without pressure from countries that provide Aid." The only thing stupider than withdrawing aid and levelling punishment on the ordinary people of Uganda (assuming that it does already) is unconditional aid.
Johann Hari: I don't think Shane is advocating that though... and he's certainly not stupid.
Ryan Ross: "It is inevitable that countries which are in their own form of a dark age will introduce laws that are beyond sanity but I guess it is to be predicted, these countries have not passed through social or democratic revolutions like most, if not all western countries and should be allowed to evolve without pressure from countries that provide Aid."
Shane Fairhead: Oh, Im not advocating it as a right for them to pass this law that would be garbage as you said. I was just saying that withdrawing would perhaps be worse than the law itself. I don't think threatening to withdraw aid would work either, I can guess some-what that the Ugandan president does not care all that much about the general population, I mean that is quite clear from the laws he wants passing therefore withdrawing provided aid would perhaps just be an incentive for him to do worse things. I actually resent sending that comment now, I should have re-worded it more effectively.
Ryan Ross: It could be worse, you're right, it may be a case of the best of two evils, but you have to consider the principle involved. It reminds me a little of the Iraq invasion argument (an argument I tend to have to defend on a daily basis) that is usually fought by those opposed on the basis of balance. One argument I had yesterday was that the reconstruction plan was in such dire straights (and according to BBC news' story today, it was) that it may have been best to keep Saddam in his box and grant the people a little less chaos. That argument, to me, is perverse and misleading. It may be true that Iraqis have a worse state of life now than they had pre-invasion, but the difference is that they are now free to rebuild a life, without the threat of dictatorship or thought crime. To advocate sustaining aid in the face of public executions of this sort seems to me a fairly meek response to what should be a grave concern. What sort of message are we sending here? You can do what you want and we'll grin and bare it because you are likely to inflict more suffering if we don't? It's not a very strong argument, and paves the way for tyranny by accommodating the worst parts of the human condition.
November 30, 2009
Harper Warns Ugandan President on Anti-Gay Law

Stephen Harper, as reported by the Advocate (article), apparently spoke to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni regarding the proposed law that would make Homosexuality punishable by death in Uganda.

“’It was not discussed multilaterally; however I did raise it directly with the president of Uganda and indicated Canada’s deep concern, strong opposition and the fact we deplore these kinds of measures,’” said Harper during a news conference on Sunday, the Toronto Star reported.

While Stephen Harper has now denounced the proposed law his own party has made it more difficult for Canadians imprisoned or sentanced in other countries to be sent back to Canada.

In a Metro news article entitled Harder to come home published Friday Nov. 27th. The new rules for prisoners wanting a transfer to Canadian jail would have to satisfy the govenment that:

  • They pose no threat to public safety
  • They’ve taken part in rehabilitation programs
  • They have co-operated with law enforcement agencies
  • They accept responsibility for their crimes

So while Harper and the Conservatives may denounce the proposed Ugandan law all they want if that law were to pass and a Canadian finds themselves being charged with homosexuality in Uganda they are S.O.L according to the Conservatives new rules. While they will be able to fulfill the first point (although some conservative MP’s may argue otherwise) they more than likely will not have taken part rehabilitation programs for their sexual orientation, and likely don’t consider homosexuality to be a crime so don’t take responsibility for it. I would also assume that they haven’t exactly co-operated with the law enforcement agencies (I know I wouldn’t if I were arrested simply because I’m Gay).

This is also the case in a number of other countries where homosexuality is considered a crime that comes with imprisonment or death (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, Jamaica, and the list goes on). So while Harper is saying one thing his government policy is doing another.

Beware the man who holds an apple in front of him and a sword behind his back.

Slainte!

November 26, 2009

LOL Martha’s so angry.