This is not America. La la la la la
Jan. 30th, 2006 06:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcI sometimes wonder if one of the downsides of cyberspace is that Canadian queers all too often transpose the current state of (lesbigaytransqueeryadayada) affairs to the Great White North...without really considering the degree to which it's approrpriate.
Take, for example, our recent election. In 2004 the Liberals did a very good job of raising the spectre of Stephen Harpee, Satan's evangelical spawn. Harpee's said some shockingly neocon things in the past--things that make it impossible for me to ever trust him.
But I never would have. Nor would I trust Scott Brison, our ghey du Liberal (we can't count Bill Graham, since his silence is deafening) who when he was a Tory campaigned for more privatized health care. On the content of what either man has said in the past, I just won't give them the benefit of the doubt. Even if they blew me. Really well. But I suspect Scott's one of those not-very-good-at-it phags. Or a total bottom. Maybe even fisting: Ottawa is alleged to be the fisting capital du Canada ya know. Something about uptight civil servants?
But I digress.
In Canada, in our current political circumstance, Harpee is certainly a right winger. But in rest-of-the-world terms, his recent campaign has been solidly centre-right--not unlike how Chretien ruled for his first 2 mandates. The Cons platform was about as radically right as Mulroney's ever was...who, in case we've forgotten, ran up deficits galore. Not exactly small government, eh? During this most recent campaign Harpee promised not to open abortion to debate in the House and not to use the Notwithstanding Clause to eviscerate same-sex marriage--though he will have a free vote (for his caucus, anyway) on whether "to revisit the issue". He did, however, promise to lower taxes. That's the closest he got to traditional conservative ideology. Still not what I want or support, but not exactly a theocracy.
Unlike what our friends in the US are fighting. Federally and often at the local and state level, there is a genuine culture war in the US about secularity. And often these battles are around issues of sexuality, reproductive freedom, and notions of family. Even in "progressive" states like California, some queer rights initiatives have been scuttled as of late. If I were (still) living in the States, I too would be choked, frantic and worked up. Well, actually I'd try to channel those negatives into positive action--and surround myself with others doing the same. But I'd be scared and angry, you betcha.
We Canadian queers aren't facing anything like that. Nor will we. We have protections as individuals at the federal and provincial/territorial levels against discrimination based on sexual orientation; some legal experts think protections based on sex/gender therefore protect trans folks, which I don't believe, but that's on the horizon now too. These protections have come about through court precedents at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) level. They're not going anywhere. We--most of us, again excepting trans folks--don't have argue whether we should be protected from discrimination as individuals. C'est fait.
On the family side, our protections in most areas of law are almost as strong. Pre-same-sex marriage (SSM) we were afforded equal consideration under the law with respect to common-law opposite sex couples. Nearly every province & territory allows for same-sex couples to jointly adopt. Again, we're not facing an uphill battle in getting our families to be protected. We aren't protected from homophobia, but we have the law on our side in seeking redress. Something that is only available in the US on a patchwork basis. Sadly.
We're not out of the woods though. We still have some stoopid, offensive, dangerous sex laws about age of consent, sex work, sex on premise venues and the like. Most of which aren't (often) enacted, but still--we need to get rid of them. And we will, in time, either via the courts or via the odd ballsy government. As someone who quite enjoys buggery and fellatio with other guys in saunas, I have a particular interest in seeing this happen. In fact, I'd love to be arrested by some fuckwit constable...just so my name is added to the canon of Canadian queers who've stepped up and sorted this shite out at the SCC.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jawnbc the Sodomite v. MacKay. Woo hoo!
Here's the deal: Harper has a weak majority government...one of the weakest in Canadian history. He has no ideological ally in the house when it comes to the other parties. If he's stoopid enough to try and foist a neocon agenda on the country (after campaigning differently) his government will fall and his party will get trounced. More likely he'll steer a more moderate course...in fact, one similar to the Liberals save a few smoke-and-mirrors initiatives like a reduced GST. And, perhaps, a quick vote on SSM that will probably fail--putting it to rest for good.
So be unhappy about him being Prime Minister. But don't panic. This isn't the US and he's not George W. Bush. If he were he wouldn't've been elected. And even if he were (and were), most of our protections are iron-clad. If I skipped lunch today I'm hungry, not starving. I'm annoyed by Harpee, not disempowered.
Take, for example, our recent election. In 2004 the Liberals did a very good job of raising the spectre of Stephen Harpee, Satan's evangelical spawn. Harpee's said some shockingly neocon things in the past--things that make it impossible for me to ever trust him.
But I never would have. Nor would I trust Scott Brison, our ghey du Liberal (we can't count Bill Graham, since his silence is deafening) who when he was a Tory campaigned for more privatized health care. On the content of what either man has said in the past, I just won't give them the benefit of the doubt. Even if they blew me. Really well. But I suspect Scott's one of those not-very-good-at-it phags. Or a total bottom. Maybe even fisting: Ottawa is alleged to be the fisting capital du Canada ya know. Something about uptight civil servants?
But I digress.
In Canada, in our current political circumstance, Harpee is certainly a right winger. But in rest-of-the-world terms, his recent campaign has been solidly centre-right--not unlike how Chretien ruled for his first 2 mandates. The Cons platform was about as radically right as Mulroney's ever was...who, in case we've forgotten, ran up deficits galore. Not exactly small government, eh? During this most recent campaign Harpee promised not to open abortion to debate in the House and not to use the Notwithstanding Clause to eviscerate same-sex marriage--though he will have a free vote (for his caucus, anyway) on whether "to revisit the issue". He did, however, promise to lower taxes. That's the closest he got to traditional conservative ideology. Still not what I want or support, but not exactly a theocracy.
Unlike what our friends in the US are fighting. Federally and often at the local and state level, there is a genuine culture war in the US about secularity. And often these battles are around issues of sexuality, reproductive freedom, and notions of family. Even in "progressive" states like California, some queer rights initiatives have been scuttled as of late. If I were (still) living in the States, I too would be choked, frantic and worked up. Well, actually I'd try to channel those negatives into positive action--and surround myself with others doing the same. But I'd be scared and angry, you betcha.
We Canadian queers aren't facing anything like that. Nor will we. We have protections as individuals at the federal and provincial/territorial levels against discrimination based on sexual orientation; some legal experts think protections based on sex/gender therefore protect trans folks, which I don't believe, but that's on the horizon now too. These protections have come about through court precedents at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) level. They're not going anywhere. We--most of us, again excepting trans folks--don't have argue whether we should be protected from discrimination as individuals. C'est fait.
On the family side, our protections in most areas of law are almost as strong. Pre-same-sex marriage (SSM) we were afforded equal consideration under the law with respect to common-law opposite sex couples. Nearly every province & territory allows for same-sex couples to jointly adopt. Again, we're not facing an uphill battle in getting our families to be protected. We aren't protected from homophobia, but we have the law on our side in seeking redress. Something that is only available in the US on a patchwork basis. Sadly.
We're not out of the woods though. We still have some stoopid, offensive, dangerous sex laws about age of consent, sex work, sex on premise venues and the like. Most of which aren't (often) enacted, but still--we need to get rid of them. And we will, in time, either via the courts or via the odd ballsy government. As someone who quite enjoys buggery and fellatio with other guys in saunas, I have a particular interest in seeing this happen. In fact, I'd love to be arrested by some fuckwit constable...just so my name is added to the canon of Canadian queers who've stepped up and sorted this shite out at the SCC.
jawnbc the Sodomite v. MacKay. Woo hoo!Here's the deal: Harper has a weak majority government...one of the weakest in Canadian history. He has no ideological ally in the house when it comes to the other parties. If he's stoopid enough to try and foist a neocon agenda on the country (after campaigning differently) his government will fall and his party will get trounced. More likely he'll steer a more moderate course...in fact, one similar to the Liberals save a few smoke-and-mirrors initiatives like a reduced GST. And, perhaps, a quick vote on SSM that will probably fail--putting it to rest for good.
So be unhappy about him being Prime Minister. But don't panic. This isn't the US and he's not George W. Bush. If he were he wouldn't've been elected. And even if he were (and were), most of our protections are iron-clad. If I skipped lunch today I'm hungry, not starving. I'm annoyed by Harpee, not disempowered.
