You have to read the whole story. It is really, really important. Quote:
This puts all of us to shame.
And it shames us all that our premier is leaving these women in their hellish nightmare, instead of simply saying we are sorry.”
Wynne, Gerretson, the system: all will deeply regret not dealing with this before now. An historic wrong. Mark my words.
The best and worst of the Liberal Party of Canada were on full display in the past week.
On the one hand, there was the “race” to be the Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre, which became available when Bob Rae decided to retire from politics.
The behind-the-scenes machinations in Toronto Centre suggest, among other things, that the entire affair has been rigged to favour one candidate over the others.
Even before the race has run its course, in fact, Toronto Centre feels like it has been decided already — and it has left many wondering if Justin Trudeau’s much-celebrated “open nominations” pledge was, among other things, a bit of spin, maybe even a fib.
And then, on the other hand, there was something else entirely, something to make us proud.
There was the selfsame Trudeau, being the first political leader to raise his voice against Parti Quebecois’ despicable plan to prevent public employees — bureaucrats, but also doctors, nurses and teachers — from wearing religious garb and insignia in public.
While Stephen Harper remained silent, and the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair refused to criticize the PQ’s bigoted initiative — calling it only “a trial balloon” — Trudeau excoriated the separatists’ planned stunt, raising it with Premier Pauline Marois, and saying it would render Quebec a laughingstock.
“I don’t think it’s who we are,” Trudeau said, correctly. “I don’t think it honours us to have a government that does not represent our generosity and openness of spirit as a people.”
It was hard to square that Trudeau — the one who has opposed a hateful, undemocratic measure in Quebec — with the one who is muddying democratic principles down in Toronto Centre.
They do not seem like the same person, even though they apparently are.
The Toronto Centre contest, which really isn’t one, recalls the bad old days of the once-great Grits, when earnest and hard-working locals were pushed aside — and out-of-touch aristocrats made their entrance, trumpets heralding their arrival, and the leader’s minions throwing rose petals ahead of them.
The aristocrat, in this case, isn’t Michael Ignatieff, although you could be forgiven for remembering him right about now.
It is Chrystia Freeland, who (like Ignatieff) has lived and worked for years in the U.S., who (like Ignatieff) passed some time at Harvard, who has written books (like Ignatieff) about Russia and the plight of people from a lower station in life, and who (like Ignatieff) is being heralded as a political star by the finest minds of deepest Rosedale.
Trudeau claims, with a straight face, that he is not attempting to engineer the nomination for Freeland — who does not even live in Canada, let alone Toronto Centre. But there is not a Liberal alive who believes him.
The fact that Trudeau professed to favour “open nominations” has made the odour emanating from Toronto Centre even more pungent. His caucus, who have had to endure plenty of indignities in recent years, have been told they must all fight to keep their nominations. No favourites, they were told.
All except Freeland, that is, whose book Trudeau rather fancied.
She therefore gets to have one of the most coveted Liberal nominations in the country. Without, you know, even living in the country.
As we say, it is as disappointing as it is puzzling. There were two Trudeaus stalking the land last week, and one of them we do not like, at all.
We need more of the one who protested courageously a scheme he knows will be popular with many in Quebec.
We need more of the young man who pointed out — unlike Harper and Mulcair — that the Parti Quebecois’ legislated bigotry is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
What we don’t need, at all, is Michael Ignatieff in pearls — and Trudeau looking the other way, while some of his BMW-driving fixers maul democracy to orchestrate her debut in Parliament.
Early impressions are important, in politics as in life.
The impression Justin Trudeau left us with in the appalling Quebec case was inspiring — even prime ministerial. We applaud you, Mr. Trudeau.
Meanwhile, the impression left by the sordid manipulations in Toronto Centre? It all stinks.
And for that, Mr. Trudeau, we say shame on you.
The Liberal standard bearer has tried pot a few times and doesn’t drink coffee.
Two of the top Conservative icons, meanwhile, haven’t sued anyone for stating one of them smokes crack and the other was a major drug dealer.
I like the Liberal’s chances.
I am taking Daughter and Son One to Boston today. They are flying back to Toronto. Son One is starting hockey camp, and daughter is going to be packing for her first year at Dalhousie.
And so, I have a little boy, Son Three, who is so, so sad that his big sister is going away. You have never met a little boy who loves his big sister as much as mine does. For him, this is such a huge deal.
For anyone getting harassed by a lunatic threatening to sue them for linking to another web site, note this:
Hyperlinks are simply references to other content. Think of them as fast footnotes. The reader has to do something to get to the content: by going to the library in an earlier era; or, more easily now, by clicking on a link.
In essence they are content neutral. They don’t express opinion, nor control the site to which they refer. In fact, the content can and often does change after the link is created.”
…at ce moment.
The Bush family are off to the left, which I bet is the first time somebody has ever said that about them.
Circa 1977 at my Calgary Catholic high school, most of my friends — charter members of the drama/music/poetry/punk rock subculture — were gay.
So, even in arch-conservative Calgary, being gay wasn’t a big deal to us. We went to gay clubs like the Parkside Continental, and we wrote and sang songs that were sexually ambiguous. My band’s biggest hit, in fact, featured Yours Truly hollering about making “sweet passionate love” to another guy.
(That song is now covered by Britain’s hottest band, the Palma Violets, by the by. Their decision to do so has unleashed neither critical acclaim nor a torrent of homophobia.)
Arriving in supposedly progressive Ottawa to study journalism in 1980, then, was a bit of a shock. Nobody, in those days, was out of the closet. I had surmised that NDP MP Svend Robinson was in one, so I went to see him to do a story about being gay in public life.
It was 1982, and Robinson was plainly nervous when I met with him. He even brought along an assistant to tape record the exchange. I wasn’t interested in outing Robinson — he would do that all by himself not so long afterwards — but in understanding gayness and public life.
That was then, this is now. These days, being gay and a politician isn’t such a big deal anymore. New Democrats, then Liberals, came around to the view that gays and lesbians are (a) electable and (b) not qualitatively different than straight politicians.
So, Robinson blazed a proud trail for many others. Mario Silva, Libby Davies, Bill Siksay, Real Menard and Scott Brison got elected federally. Provincially, Kathleen Wynne is Canada’s first openly gay premier and no one has said they care (apart from Wynne’s leadership team, that is, who regarded every criticism as homophobia, but that’s a story for another day).
And municipally, there have been not a few openly gay mayors and councillors, too, mostly of the New Democrat and Liberal variety.
But what of Conservatives and conservatives? Well, I can verily attest to the fact that there are as many — if not more — gay folks nestled in the bosom of conservativism. Gay men, in particular, seem to be disproportionately inclined towards fiscal conservatism.
But a thin blue line of homophobia persists in conservative politics, at least in respect of social policy. Conservatives held out against gay marriage, gay adoption and gay pension rights longer than any other party. Gay and conservative isn’t as incompatible as it once was — but a tension remains, nonetheless.
Conservatives will point out at this point that Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has recently criticized the plainly gay-hating dictatorship of Russia’s Vladimir Putin. But Baird doesn’t deserve credit for doing so — opposing bigotry should be part of his job description.
The reaction of Conservatives to Baird’s stance on Russian homophobia is telling. By hailing what Baird said in year 2013 AD, they are implicitly acknowledging their party still has a way to go.
They are headed in the right direction, but they need to go faster. When human rights are at issue, delay is almost as bad as denial.
And, to those Conservatives who worry they will alienate their base, I say worry not. If a bunch of Calgary misfits could openly celebrate gay causes in the 70s — and live — well, arch-conservatives can, too.
You’re welcome.
Beach house, outhouse, old punk louse.
