Inside Out film festival wraps: My favourite flicks this year.

The 23rd Inside Out Toronto LGBT Film Festival wraps today. I've been a patron of the festival since I moved to Toronto in the 1990s. This year was a great success on many fronts with many good films getting a Toronto or Canadian premiere.

I took in seven programs which included a handful of short films and five new feature films. I missed the opening night feature, 'In the Name of,' and also the Centrepiece gala feature, 'Pit Stop,' due to schedule conflicts and the steep price for tickets. I'll get a chance to see both in the future, I'm sure.

But here's my take on what I did see:

My favourite feature film in the festival: 'The Go Doc Project,' by director Cory James Krueckeberg. This mockumentary about a cute, young New Yorker who concocts his own fake documentary film to get closer to the object of his obsession, a hot go-go boy, charmed me with its technical ingenuity and solid story telling, not to mention the charming and surprising love story between the boys. The title is a play on the two lead characters' names, Go, the go-go boy, and Doc, the socially awkward soon-to-be college graduate. The two lead actors, Tanner Cohen and Matthew Camp (who is a real life go-go boy), are adorable and deliver surprisingly decent performances. The film is by the same team who brought us the wonderful 'Were the World Mine' a few years back, which also starred Cohen.

For an independent gay feature, 'The Go Doc Project' delivers everything one wants: cute boys, an engaging love story and beautiful imagery, including a very hot sex scene and much nudity (see the hot pic above). It was shot entirely using low-end cameras by the actors themselves, but still looked terrific! I especially loved the long montage of the boys kissing in several famous NYC locations, obviously filmed in guerrilla style and probably without the usual permits. This sends a delightful message to other independent queer filmmakers: get a good concept, hire some talented and adorable leads and you can make a hit film for pennies compared to Hollywood's big budgets and still find an audience. You can find out more about the film here.

I also saw and loved director Alan Brown's latest 'Five Dances.' (pictured). It's a close second place in my estimation of the features I saw this past week. This film concerns a young man, played by Ryan Steele, with zero support from his family struggling to make it as a dancer in New York City. Not out of the closet, he gets hired to take part in a five-person show where he meets a fellow male dancer with whom he begins a hot affair. It, too, was remarkably romantic and sweet, themes I definitely noticed in several films at Inside Out this year.

I saw and enjoyed the German feature 'Free Fall,' about a cop trainee who falls in love with another gay man on the force despite having a pregnant wife. The two male leads were exceedingly easy on the eyes, and the story was compelling if not overly original. Also interesting was the Spanish film, 'Animals,' about a troubled 17-year-old boy who can't seem to let go of his childhood fears. The Donnie Darko ripoff was beautifully shot and well-acted, but left me confused and disappointed. Perhaps my own need to see troubled characters find some kind of redemption or resolution is clouding my feelings about this interesting failure of a film. But I can't say that I recommend it.

I also finally got to see James Franco's hybrid drama-documentary 'Interior. Leather Bar,' (pictured.) Written and co-directed by Travis Mathews, it was a fascinating experiment that explored issues around homophobia in general, and in Hollywood in particular, using the re-enactment of 40 minutes of censored footage from William Friedkin's 1980 homophobic classic 'Cruising' as a launching pad. Franco's film isn't so much concerned with actually re-enacting the missing footage that was apparently cut from 'Cruising' because it was too risque. Instead, Franco and Mathews are more concerned with emphasizing the anxieties of their recruited group of handsome, mostly-straight actors, led by sexy Val Lauren (playing the Al Pacino character), about playing it gay in a film containing explicit gay sex. Some of the scenes in the film were apparently scripted, others completely improvised. In one key scene between Lauren and Franco, the director explains that he's trying, with this project, to turn around the despicable homophobia on display in the original 'Cruising' into something that is instead "beautiful" and positive. On that score, Franco and Mathews largely succeed. The result is an interesting statement and wonderful antidote to the original film which inspired it. Although I'm sure this film won't be to everyone's liking.

I also saw a number of short films which impressed me. 'For Dorian' by Toronto director Rodrigo Barriuso, about a single father who discovers that his adolescent, developmentally-disabled son is gay, was unbelievably beautiful. Director Alyssa Pankiw's 'Her With Me', about a young lesbian who picks up a Hollywood actress, was charming and sexy. F-T-M director Chase Joynt's 'I'm Yours' featuring himself and M-T-F transsexual activist Nina Arsenault answering a series of identical, personal questions was fascinating and illuminating. Director Ryan Levey's moving short 'The Closest Thing To Heaven' about an older gay man's reminiscing about his late partner was stellar and beautifully told. And Toronto director Steven Bereznai's 'Let's Get Soaking Wet' was a delightful exploration of gay male anxieties around participating in group sports, something I can relate to. I'm hoping to program all of these shorts into the Canadian Media Guild's 2nd annual Pride Week LGBT Short Film Festival later this month. Stay tuned for more on that soon!

Lessons learned after the B.C. election: the NDP can't win in most parts of English Canada...

This article by Chantal Hebert sums up some of my feelings about the NDP in the face of their stunning defeat in British Columbia last night.

Here are my lessons learned from the B.C. election campaign:

1) Canadian pollsters have no real idea which way Canadian voters are going to vote.

2) Parties that listen too much to pollsters who say they are 20 points ahead and assume they merely have to "not make mistakes" while on cruise control in order to win are probably headed to defeat.

3) If English Canadian voters have to choose between a flawed Liberal/Conservative and a flawed New Democrat, they'll pick the flawed Liberal/Conservative every time.

4) Running a "positive" campaign in the face of a massively negative campaign by your opponents, will lead to your defeat and victory for your opponents.

5) The 2011 result for the federal NDP was a fluke. The engineers of that 2011 result ran the BC NDP campaign in 2013 and failed miserably. In 2011, during the so-called Orange Crush, it's worth noting the NDP won only a handful more seats in English Canada. Only in fickle Quebec were they quite successful.

6) The attack that the NDP is bad at managing the economy resonates deeply with mainstream, English Canadians, even out on the west coast.

7) With a united conservative option under the BC Liberals, the BC NDP seems incapable of winning. Only when the conservative vote was divided in 1972, 1991 and 1996 did the BC NDP win.

8) Progressive voters interested in replacing conservative governments had better find another party than the NDP. Even after 12 years of BC Liberal rule, the BC NDP actually lost support.

I truly hope that Justin Trudeau continues to grow as a leader of the federal Liberals. Thus far, he's impressed me on a number of fronts. But there is much more work for him to do. The most important is probably learning Lesson #4.

'The Golden Pin': Cuando las tradiciones se interponen en el amor / 'The Golden Pin': When traditions stand in the way of love

I recently did an interview with the Latino queer website UniversoGay about my short film, 'The Golden Pin,' which has turned into a hit on YouTube. I posted the 16-minute short film there on October 24, 2012, and in six short months, it's attracted over 900,000 views! At this rate, we might be at 1 million views by the middle of June!

UniversoGay translated my answers into Spanish for their website. I offer the English version of my Q&A below.

How did you came up with the idea of the short film at the first place?

Director Cuong Ngo and myself decided we wanted to work together on a short film for his final year in film studies at York University in 2008. We decided to tackle a love story idea in which one closeted man was involved with an openly gay man. At one point, Cuong recommended to me that I write in a swim scene and the result was the first draft of 'The Golden Pin.' He and I worked back and forth on the script for several weeks until it was ready and we shot it in December 2008.

The idea was a short film and then become a movie?

Yes, we wrote the short film's script with the idea that one day we'd expand the story into a feature film.

It was based in a real story that you know or someone told you?

Cuong Ngo is Vietnamese, so he wanted to explore an Asian male character who was struggling in the closet under pressure to marry a woman and have children to continue the family line. The story we came up with wasn't based on any one person in particular, but more about a general struggle many young queer people face in their lives.

In many countries they are debating gay marriage. Do you think that with the topic installed at the society will change the mentality, like the father´s main character?

I do agree as same sex marriage becomes legalized in more and more countries, it will slowly continue to change the cultures of those countries. Canada has had equal marriage since 2003. Queer people do have the option of lifelong partnership formalized in marriage. The passage of equal marriage signifies that the society has embraced true equality in law for all people, including queer people. It also means the culture doesn't denigrate queer people and instead gives them the freedom to be happy as they see fit.

The short film had an open ending. At least I think that. Was it on purpose to make a movie later to complete the story?

Yes, it was on purpose leaving the ending of the short film open-ended. The short is just 16 minutes, so we didn't feel it was right to present an entire character arc including a full resolution in such a short time. We simply wanted to present a character caught in a dilemma that many queer people face. We also wanted to universalize the dilemma somewhat by showing the mother character having also been unhappy in her own life choices. In the short film, we simply wanted to ask the audience the question, "What would you do in these circumstances?" We didn't want to give the audience the answer as well. We want the audience to decide for themselves.

Since we have always planned to make a feature film, we are planning a longer storyline that does answer the main character's dilemma. So stay tuned with the feature film.

How was the casting, the locations, etc? The movie will be with the same people?

Cuong Ngo chose the actors to be in the short film and they did a wonderful job! Our team worked together to find the right locations all of them in Toronto. The feature film version will likely also be shot in Toronto. But we have made no casting choices about the feature film at this point.

Oriental and Occidental society and culture are different. Was different to the reaction in that places to the short movie?

The short film has resonated in many Asian countries and played in many festivals in those regions. Currently, the short film has almost 900,000 hits on YouTube and a huge number of views have come from Asian countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as Japan, Singapore, Taiwan. The YouTube video is banned in China where it's only had 16 hits. But the response from the rest of Asia to it has been strong.

Incidentally, the short film also has a large following in Saudi Arabia and Mexico, and the audience is building nicely in India as well. Of course, the most views are in the United States. The short film has struck a chord right across the world and we're very proud of that.

Any memories, funny for example or significant, that you can tell us about the filming?

The costume designers noticed the night we were shooting the swimming pool scenes with the very handsome swimmers that their Speedos were a bit loose. We worried they wouldn't stay on the swimmers in the water, so we drove quickly to a nearby Shoppers Drug Mart in order to buy safety pins. The costume people used the safety pins to tighten the Speedos on our swimmers to make sure they didn't fall off in the pool. And they mostly worked, although one swimmer has a slight problem in one shot that you can see in the short film.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau fights back with 'Channel Change' TV ad

Canadians are fair people.  They understand that 40-somethings just elected to new, massively challenging leadership roles need time to continue to grow and do their jobs. 

In response to Trudeau's overwhelming popularity with Canadians, the fearful Conservatives under Stephen Harper launched TV attack ads last week trying to undercut that popularity by claiming Trudeau is in "way over his head."  They used in their sleazy ads video footage stolen from Huffington Post of a brief moment when Trudeau cheekily took off his shirt while trying to raise more money for a charity.  They even included an old 1999 clip in an ad of a 28-year-old Justin summarizing something Pierre Trudeau once said to him, but implied Justin was sharing his own thoughts about Quebec. 

Dishonest and sleazy.  That's the type of Conservative government we have in Ottawa nowadays. 

This ad is a very nice response by Justin Trudeau.  While I didn't vote for him as my first choice in the Liberal leadership race (in order to make a point, see my last post), I was pleased with his victory and I'm very certain that Justin Trudeau will continue to reach out to Canadians with a new style of leadership that this country is clearly craving. 

The Conservatives want to continue winning by simply smashing down their opponents and offering to Canadians the fewest choices possible.   We're seeing it in the Labrador byelection in which Peter Penashue, the Conservative candidate who broke the law in order to steal the seat in 2011, is now throwing mud at his Liberal opponent.  If Penashue couldn't even account for his own spending in the 2011 election, how can he expect anyone to believe he's figured out the accounting of his Liberal opponent going back years in provincial politics in that province?  Liberal Yvonne Jones is slamming Penashue's attacks as complete lies. Facing crushing defeat on May 13th, Penashue is despicably desperate, much like his bosses in Ottawa. Click here to learn more. 

It's starting to feel like Canadians are simply being held captive by a bunch of immature, sleazy Conservatives who brutally protect their entitlements and their power to the benefit of only their base (the rich, the establishment, the bigoted, etc.)  And make no mistake, Stephen Harper is only looking out for big oil companies, who continue to get billions in tax giveaways every year from Harper, while my own modest, middle class income continues to shrink under the weight of higher Harper payroll taxes.

After Tom Mulcair's less than inspiring first year as leader of the federal NDP, it's finally nice to see a leader in Justin Trudeau who has the potential to knock these so-cons out of office and bring back a progressive Liberal government to Ottawa.  It will take time and much hard work, but Trudeau seems more than up to the challenge.  Conservatives know he's a threat and that's why they're attacking him.

I'm happy to give Justin Trudeau's new ad some more publicity here.  I urge everyone to donate to the Liberal Party so they can run these widely across all platforms. 

I'll be voting for Joyce Murray even though I hope Justin Trudeau wins Liberal leadership...

I've always been a left-leaning Liberal. I've always been slightly anti-establishment. Since I was a recently out university student, I've always wanted to push the Liberal Party to be more activist, more open and more progressive. Those blue Liberals who believe in little more than lower taxes, deregulation and the colour red have always pissed me off. The folks who seized power and did nothing with it but cut corporate taxes and ignore their promises to strengthen public services and health care had little business calling themselves Liberals, in my estimation.

But in recent years I've been questioning my instincts. The establishment that elected Jean Chretien was mostly right. The establishment that first elected Dalton McGuinty (over my choice of Gerard Kennedy) in 1996 and then insisted that Dalton stay after blowing the 1999 election were also quite right.

But then again, the establishment was dead wrong when they hoisted Paul Martin on the country. They were also wrong when they forced Liberals to choose between Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae in 2006. In the end, Liberals including myself rebelled and voted for the best alternative we could find, Stephane Dion, who turned out to be quite disastrous. That choice forced me to reconsider my instincts. In 2008, I decided to backtrack and supported Ignatieff's acclamation as leader. That proved to be even more disastrous.

I continued to question my old instincts in the Ontario Liberal leadership race this year. It's true that I knew Sandra Pupatello and all of her staff quite well from my days at Queen's Park (1999 to 2004.) That personal connection, as well as Pupatello's strong performance during the campaign, made the difference for me in endorsing her over rival and eventual winner Kathleen Wynne. I had no personal connection with Wynne as she had only been elected in 2003. I had heard great things about her from those who worked with her. But I had never experienced that greatness personally. Thus, her ascendancy to the leadership in January surprised me. I had never seen what she was capable of until she won the leadership. Since then, Wynne has massively impressed me and I've become quite the Wynne fan.

Had I not had a personal connection to the Pupatello campaign, and had I decided to trust my old anti-establishment instincts, I might have endorsed Wynne instead in that leadership race. As experience is now proving, voting for Wynne would've been the right choice.

Which brings me to the current federal Liberal leadership race. Justin Trudeau is probably going to win this thing on the first round of balloting. This has never been much of a contest. And it seems he's the right person for the times. He's passionate and has no trouble drawing huge crowds and money to his campaign. He's done the hard work of going across the country and speaking in church basements and elsewhere for years. In this race, he has taken nuanced policy stances that indicate fresh thinking mixed with pragmatic and reasoned judgment. I like his stance on preferential balloting in general elections. I like his stance on marijuana. I like his focus on helping out the middle class who are the lifeblood of the economy. He's casting himself as a new generation of dynamic leadership for a country growing bored of the same-old-same-old of Stephen Harper.

Justin is very green, of course. He still comes across occasionally as a guy in slightly over his head. But he's shown growth over the course of this leadership race. Like Wynne said shortly after winning the Ontario Liberal leadership, leaders are "forged" in the battle to become leader. There is little life and work experience that can adequately prepare you for the role of national or provincial leader. It's very much showing the potential for growth and earning the position, after which you continue to grow and hopefully soar. Justin Trudeau looks quite capable of such growth. If things go his way, and they just might, he may eventually lead the federal Liberals back into contention for government.

But this time, I'm going to trust my instincts and vote for Joyce Murray (pictured) as my first choice. Trudeau will likely be my second choice on my preferential ballot. Electoral reform has long been a passion of mine, even though I think the cause for proportional representation in Canada is largely a dead one. Four referendums on the subject have all but killed the various PR options on the table, in my mind. To me, moving to preferential balloting would be the type of reform Canadians might embrace, but nothing more radical (hence, perhaps, why Trudeau has endorsed such a reform.)

But I quite like how Murray has focused her campaign on some really meaty, leftie issues like electoral cooperation, the environment, marijuana and a number of other issues. While she's never been a high profile MP, Murray has been able to seize a lot of attention in this race and is hitting her stride at the perfect time. I got the chance to meet her briefly at the Ontario Liberal leadership convention in Toronto in January and was impressed with her. She's the only candidate I have actually gotten to meet in person in this race.

Other also-rans like Martha Hall Findlay, Martin Cauchon and even Marc Garneau failed to impress me much. Garneau's a nice guy, I liked his stance on opening up the telecommunications industry to more competition, but a 63-year-old, charisma-challenged dude is not what the Liberal party needs this time. We need an energetic, exciting fighter who has at least 10 years to offer to do the grueling work of rebuilding and re-connecting with Canadians. Garneau saw the writing on the wall and dropped out of the race.

Cauchon's campaign this time has been boring and, true to his history, launched way too late to have much of an impact. Cauchon should've stuck around as an MP in 2004 instead of quitting when Paul Martin took over. If Cauchon had been still around, he would've spared us the unfortunate return of Jean Lapierre to federal politics. He would've also spared us the Outremont byelection forced after Lapierre abandoned the party yet again and made way for Thomas Mulcair's NDP win in that riding. Cauchon should've run in the 2006 federal Liberal leadership. Liberals that year were desperately looking for alternatives to Ignatieff and Rae. So they chose the only francophone in that race, Stephane Dion. If Cauchon had been on the ballot, he might've even kept Dion out of that race and won the whole thing as the compromise francophone candidate. And history would've been different. However, Cauchon made his choices and the rest is history. He missed the boat long ago. Timing is everything in politics and Cauchon has the worst timing.

In truth, I think the best future for progressive politics in Canada would be to see the federal Liberals and NDP merge into one new party. It would be called the "New Liberal Democratic Party of Canada" or NLDP. It would combine the untainted history of the NDP, with strong support in parts of the west and now Quebec, with the traditional support of the Liberal Party in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. If viewed as moderate, but still authentically progressive, it could be the equivalent of the Democratic Party in the U.S.

To that end, I view a vote for Joyce Murray in this race as the best way to voice my position. A vote for the electoral cooperation candidate is the best vote in favour of the progressive forces in this country coming together under one banner. In truth, I accept the fact that a merger is not in the cards anytime soon. Tom Mulcair and the NDP remain convinced they can still beat the Conservatives on their own. The road back to a federal Liberal government seems more long-term and perhaps even more naive. Once both parties become convinced they can never win on their own against a united conservative party, they will decide to merge into one, just like the old Canadian Alliance did with the Progressive Conservatives. Until then, I will be voting for those who voice support for working together and coming together for common cause. A divided centre-left in Canada is simply a recipe for more Conservative governments. And that is not a tolerable option for Canada anymore.

Joyce Murray might make a terrible leader, but I'm voting for the causes she has championed, not so much for her personally. I fully expect Justin Trudeau to prevail on April 14th. I just hope that support for cooperation is strong enough to be noticed amid that victory and not forgotten as we move forward.

Canadian House of Commons approves transgendered rights bill

I'm really glad this bill passed the House of Commons today. But the close vote - 149 in favour, 137 against - is slightly disturbing. But then again, we have a strong, stable, secure Conservative majority under Stephen Harper, who regrettably was among the 137 opposed. I guess we're lucky to get this passed under these circumstances.

On one side, we had the NDP, most Liberals, Elizabeth May, the Bloc Quebecois, an independent and a handful of Conservatives (including cabinet ministers John Baird, Jim Flaherty, Lisa Raitt and James Moore) in favour of allowing transgendered and transsexual people to live free from 'gender identity-based' discrimination. On the other side, we had the so-cons, including Rob Anders and Stephen Harper.

When Rob Anders is voting with you, you have a major problem! Anders' attacks on this bill were complete misinformation designed to whip up ancient fears against people who are different. A good friend of mine was transgendered. I'm thinking of him tonight as I smile at the result in the Commons today.

This is a largely symbolic change to the federal anti-discrimination laws but it sends a much-needed message.

Canadian Supreme Court upholds anti-hate speech laws in case against Bill Whatcott

I'm quite pleased with this morning's ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada against Bill Whatcott's dissemination of hateful, anti-gay flyers in Saskatchewan in 2001 and 2002. Whatcott had been found guilty of breaking the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code's hate speech provisions and fined thousands of dollars in penalties. However, an appeal court overrruled that finding in 2010. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission then appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which heard the case in October 2011. I wrote about this case then.

Today's ruling is a great read. I hope the media editorialists who defended Whatcott's ability to publish and distribute these hateful flyers (one of which used the words "Kill the Homosexuals") take the time to read it and get educated about the harmful effects of hate speech.

The Supreme Court ruled today the Human Rights Code's ban on speech that exposes an identifiable group to hatred as valid. In so doing, it likely reinforced similar anti-hate speech provisions elsewhere in Canada's laws. The Court also ruled that other vague wording in Saskatchewan’s hate law, which bans speech that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of,” was constitutionally invalid.

The Supreme Court concluded that two of Whatcott's flyers constituted prohibited hate speech and he must now pay $7,500 of his original $17,500 in fines. In the judgment, Justice Rothstein writes: "Passages of these flyers combine many of the hallmarks of hatred identified in the case law...The expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that threatens the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources in an effort to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred.”

The SCOC also awarded the Saskatchewan Commission "costs throughout, including costs of the application for leave to appeal in this Court."

In the past, I've argued that only speech that objectively "incites violence" against an identifiable and protected group should constitute illegal hate speech. The Supreme Court seems to argue that simply exposing such groups to "hatred" as they define clearly in the ruling is sufficient for finding the speech illegal. This is broader than my own definition. But I see the great wisdom in it. I support today's ruling. It will greatly instruct the ongoing debate about what actions governments may take to prevent the harmful and very real effects of hate speech in our free and democratic society.

Media should re-think term "openly gay", perhaps use the term "out" to describe Kathleen Wynne...

When Kathleen Wynne won the leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party in late January, it was historic. Not only would Ontario have its first female premier, Canada would also have its first "openly gay" premier.

They didn't refer to her as Canada's first "gay" premier because, in fact, she wasn't. We know that former New Brunswick premier Richard Hatfield was most likely gay, but not out of the closet. For all we know, there were probably other premiers and even prime ministers in Canada who were gay. We just have no idea as they didn't publicly confirm such things in the past.

Mid-February, the media are using 'Ontario's first woman premier' or 'Ontario's first openly gay premier' less to describe Wynne and simply are calling her 'Premier Kathleen Wynne.' I hope that continues.

A queer colleague and friend commented to me this week that she's getting irritated by the media's constant refrain 'Ontario's first openly gay premier' to describe Wynne. Why can't they simply use the term 'Ontario's first out premier,' she pondered. I agreed with her.

She sent me this article which dealt with the same subject a few years ago. Author Stephen Elliott warned about the persistent use of the term 'openly gay' in quite an insightful way:

“We should take care with this phrase, which is useful in certain limited contexts but unnecessary and potentially offensive in others.

"For starters, of course, we note someone’s sexual orientation only when it is pertinent and the pertinence is clear to the reader. In those cases, we should describe someone as “openly” gay only to distinguish him or her from others who may be gay but are not open about their orientation. For example, it makes sense to say “so-and-so was the state’s first openly gay legislator,” because there may well have been other gay legislators who did not reveal that fact.

"But in most other contexts where sexual orientation is relevant, we can simply state that someone is gay without the “openly.” Using the modifier when it’s not necessary suggests that there is still something surprising about not concealing one’s orientation.”

Do we call Joe Oliver Canada's first openly Jewish minister of natural resources? Do we call Alison Redford Alberta's first "openly female" premier? Then why must we still refer to Wynne as 'Canada's first openly gay premier'? I would suggest that the media soon drop this description and simply, if they must, call her 'Canada's first out premier.'

If readers don't know what "out" means, they can always do a little research to find out.

Special message to state broadcaster Sun Media & Brian Lilley: Evangelicals and Catholics are not the same...

Canada's state broadcaster Sun Media has been going to bat for the Conservative Party this week against their political enemies. Conservative Party spokesman Brian Lilley has been obsessively attacking NDP Leader Tom Mulcair this week for questioning the government's funding of Crossroads Christian Communications.

This evangelical group has been receiving hundreds of thousands of Canadian tax dollars for aid projects in Uganda, a country currently considering killing its homosexuals. The Canadian group has reportedly been providing water to Ugandan citizens. This kind of work is admirable, even in a place as backwards as Uganda.

But Crossroads is an evangelical group that believes some abhorrent things about people who are born LGBT, including myself. Reportedly this group used to advertise on its website that "homosexuality and transvestism" are perversions along the lines of pedophilia and bestiality. This is hateful and completely wrong.

The federal government froze funding for the group for one day after this week's media controversy, but then re-affirmed it as the group's position on homosexuality didn't factor into its work in Uganda. I tend to agree.

But I disagree with Brian Lilley in this column that because Tom Mulcair is a Catholic and his church's catechism condemns homosexuality that Mulcair is a hypocrite for calling the group's opinions "un-Canadian".

Being Catholic (or any other form of moderate Christianity) is not the same thing as being Evangelical. Especially in Canada. Full stop.

Evangelicals take every word that was written by bigoted men centuries ago in both the Old and New Testaments as the unquestionable word of God, Herself. Doing so means that Evangelicals are forced to believe some very strange things, as we know. I won't get into all of them. But of course, these include supporting violence against women, murder, slavery and many other forms of crimes against humanity.

Evangelicals cling to every single word in their Bibles out of fear of eternal damnation. And they condemn the rest of us to hell for not joining them.

Other moderate Christians like most Canadian Catholics take a different approach. They don't believe every word in the Bible. They also don't believe every utterance from church leadership including in the Catholic catechism. Catholics like most religious people form their own conclusions and think for themselves. They can reference the church's beliefs or statements, but they are not beholden to them. They are not forced to believe every single word written by old bigots centuries ago simply because someone in power in their church told them to do so.

The vast majority of Canadian Catholics have beliefs that contradict the beliefs of outgoing Pope Benedict. The core of their beliefs are to be found in their interpretations of the Gospels and the loving, inclusive, socialist messages of Christ.

This feeble attempt by Lilley and others to equate Evangelicals with other reasonable, thoughtful Christians simply won't wash.

Mulcair can call himself a Catholic, go to church as often as he wants and still call the hateful comments of Evangelicals "un-Canadian". Because they are.

Ontario News Watch Op Ed: Backroom Negotiations By Party Elites Chose Wynne As Liberal Leader. But Is That Really The Best Way To Choose A Premier For All Of Ontario?

I was very proud to be asked by ONW Editor Susanna Kelley to write today's op ed piece on the recent Ontario Liberal leadership election process. Please check it out here today or read below:

Op Ed: Backroom Negotiations By Party Elites Chose Wynne As Liberal Leader.

But Is That Really The Best Way To Choose A Premier For All Of Ontario?

The recent Ontario Liberal leadership convention won by Kathleen Wynne, who is being sworn in today with her new cabinet, was a classic example of the delegated leadership selection process in which the elites of a political party determined the outcome.

The backroom negotiations between the candidates and their senior advisers played a pivotal role in deciding who would be governing Ontario.

Sandra Pupatello is on record saying she had expected rival Eric Hoskins to endorse her after the first ballot (based on a conversation she had with Hoskins and his wife at their home earlier that week).

But something happened to change Hoskins' mind on the Saturday and he endorsed Wynne instead, giving her crucial momentum.

While Harinder Takhar's endorsement of Pupatello gave her a bit of a boost, once rival candidates Charles Sousa and Gerard Kennedy endorsed Wynne, the final result was sealed. Their delegates largely followed them en masse to put Wynne over the top.

The drama made for great television and got a lot of public attention on a cold Saturday in January.

But is this the best way to choose a Premier?

The elites would say yes.

I'm sure the leadership candidates who fell off the ballot early would also say yes.

After all, such candidates spent weeks traipsing across the province meeting party members, spending money and raising their profiles.

After all that, they probably thought, should they not emerge victorious, they should at least have the right to help determine the eventual winner.

If doing so helped ensure a nice promotion in the winner's cabinet, all the better.

But does a political party belong to its members, or to those who happen to put their names forth for the leadership?

Contrast the 2013 Ontario Liberal race with the 2012 federal NDP leadership race, which used a much more open and democratic process.

All federal NDP members got a chance to vote to determine the final outcome, unlike the Ontario Liberal process, which only allowed elected delegates and about 400 party elites to attend the convention and make the final decision.

However, the NDP process was not without its drawbacks. Most votes in the NDP race were cast by members across the country using a preferential ballot in advance of the final convention in Toronto.

Thus, when NDP leadership candidates gave their big speeches to the convention, they had almost no impact on the final results.

Many argue that candidate Nathan Cullen had the strongest convention performance while eventual winner Tom Mulcair had a lousy presentation in which he rushed through his speech.

Indeed, Pundit Guide determined that amongst the votes that were cast live at the convention that weekend, Cullen led on every ballot on which his name appeared. But the votes already cast for Mulcair and Brian Topp outflanked him.

Most of the NDP leadership candidates declined to endorse any rivals after falling off the ballot probably because they knew such moves would have no impact. The power of elites to determine the outcome in the NDP race was completely undermined.

The federal Liberals have also opened up their leadership race this year, with members and even supporters making the final choice.

But instead of repeating the NDP's mistakes, the federal party has wisely decided to showcase the candidates' final speeches on April 6th, with all voting taking place after that date with final results announced on April 14th. The exciting drama of a convention will be lost, but the result will include all Liberals across the country, not an elite of elected delegates and party bigwigs.

While I supported Pupatello, I am now quite happy to fully support Wynne's leadership. Her performance leading up to and since the convention has been stellar and she has won me over. I'll be fighting to ensure she gets re-elected with a majority.

But as a democrat, I'll also be fighting to make sure Ontario Liberals open up their leadership process to allow all party members to have a say in the final result.

For me, delegated leadership conventions make politics more about the insiders and less about the people.

The public hopes and expects political parties to run themselves in open, transparent and fair ways.

It's unfortunate the Ontario Liberals failed to modernize their leadership process in recent years.

I suspect that was largely due to Dalton McGuinty's preference for the system which allowed him to move from fourth place to first with the help of fellow candidates.

The big question now will be if Kathleen Wynne, who was once shunned by party elites and generally is known for her love of fair process, but also benefited from the current system to win power, agrees to keep the status quo for next time, or chooses instead to bring her party into the 21st century.

Party elites, not grassroots members, chose Wynne for Ontario Liberal Leader...

The recent Ontario Liberal leadership convention in Toronto was enjoyable to attend. It gave me the opportunity to re-connect with dozens of Liberals I've known over the years. It also provided great drama as it produced a new leader and premier for Ontario, Kathleen Wynne.

This story today by Ontario Newswatch's Susanna Kelley fleshes out some of the shenanigans carried out by party elites in and around the various candidates to determine the outcome. It appears from the article that last-place finisher Eric Hoskins may have been promised the Health ministry in exchange for his support for Wynne after the second ballot. That move shocked rival candidate Sandra Pupatello and her supporters who had expected Hoskins to come to her, based on a meeting she had with Hoskins and his wife earlier that week.

As a Pupatello supporter, I volunteered my Saturday morning at the convention to don a Pupatello t-shirt, hat and sign to help support her during her convention speech along with dozens of others. Pupatello aides gave us instructions that morning to take an extra Pupatello sign to hand to Hoskins supporters when they entered the convention floor after us. We were told also to take a Hoskins sign back in a show of solidarity between the candidates. It was clear that they all believed Hoskins was coming over to Pupatello.

That's why this story by Kelley rings true to me. Hoskins' move to Wynne signalled that Wynne's campaign was seizing momentum, particularly after the closeness of the two leading candidates on the first ballot (599 for Pupatello and 597 for Wynne.)

Other elites like Hazel McCallion and Greg Sorbara also played major roles in helping to determine the outcome. The article alludes to McCallion's wish for $1.5 billion in provincial money for Mississauga's new LRT. Her sudden support for Wynne at the convention just days after pledging neutrality is interesting. It seems her support for Wynne had a lot to do with Charles Sousa's decision to also support Wynne at the convention, a move which shocked supporters of Sandra Pupatello who had thought Sousa's centre-right/business-friendly mentality would make Pupatello a more natural fit.

Now that she's won, I support Kathleen Wynne 100 percent. I hope for the best for her government and I'll be praying she gets re-elected. It's one thing to earn a victory based on hard work and merit. It's quite another when backroom deals are struck to help determine an outcome. The pressure cooker of a convention in which hundreds of delegates are easily swayed by the moves of their candidates remains the easiest way for party elites to determine the leadership outcome. If the result is left up to thousands of members scattered throughout the province who rely solely on their own judgment rather than those of the elites, the final results can be quite different. If those members' votes have already been cast in a preferential balloting system (like the federal NDP undertook last year), the power of the elites to determine the outcome between ballots is completely undermined.

I fully expect the powers-that-be in the Ontario Liberal Party who once again used the archaic convention system to get their way to fight tooth-and-nail to keep that convention system for future leaderships. The big question will be if Wynne, who was once shunned by those party elites and generally is known for her love of fair process, but also benefited from the current system to win power, agrees to keep the status quo for choosing leaders in the Ontario Liberal Party for next time.

Great day as British House of Commons votes in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Britain's Parliament voted today 400 to 175 to legalize equal marriage in the United Kingdom.

The government-proposed bill would enable same-sex couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies, provided that the religious institution consents. The bill bitterly divided David Cameron's ruling Conservative Party, but enjoyed huge support from the opposition, allowing it to pass handily in the House of Commons. The bill now goes to the House of Lords.

Congrats to Great Britain on this great step toward equality! Here's a video of the moment the bill's passage was announced today: