Gay bars that discriminate; Poland and the Teletubbies; Gaynewswatch.com

There's a strange controversy brewing in Montreal over a gay bar that apparently bars women from entry. This story is similar to another from Australia in which a gay bar won the right to exclude heterosexuals from its premises. Personally I've never been comfortable with the idea of banning anyone in such ways. I don't feel uncomfortable hanging out in a gay club if women or heterosexuals are also present. I'm sure most gay men would agree with me, at least when it comes to a regular pub or club. Plus such discrimination sends out a hypocritical message: how can we demand others end discrimination against gay men when we're guilty of it ourselves?

This is a delicate issue as there are some reasonable examples of discrimination out there. Gay strip bars routinely bar women except on special women's nights. Many gyms cater exclusively to women and bar men from entry. Sexually active gay men can't donate blood to Canadian Blood Services.

Is this story such a big deal? Probably not, except that it gives anti-gay bigots extra ammunition to justify their continued calls for discrimination against gays. Their excuse will be, 'Hey gays discriminate so why shouldn't we?'

************

A hilarious story from Poland about Tinky Winky and his alleged homosexuality seems to have been resolved. Polish child rights ombudsman Ewa Sowinska mused recently the popular U.K. children's show 'The Teletubbies' promoted homosexuality. Sowinska's fears mimicked those of the late Jerry Falwell, who made similar comments in 1999. But now Sowinska admits her fears have been allayed by one of her country's leading sexologists.

"The opinion of a leading sexologist, who maintained that this series has no negative effects on a child's psychology, is perfectly credible," she said in a statement today.

All parents in Poland I'm sure will be very relieved.

************

There's a new one-stop website for queer news junkies. Chris Crain, the longtime editor of the Washington Blade and six other gay and lesbian publications, recently announced the launch of GayNewsWatch.com, which promises a compilation of news, entertainment and viewpoints of interest to lesbians and gay men, mostly from an American perspective, but also containing many other international stories. It'll certainly be worth checking out on a regular basis.

30 Years of Star Wars; John Tory courts 'Friends of Dorothy'

Lots of talk about how Quebec Premier Jean Charest is about to fall on his tax-cutting sword in this weekend's papers. I'll leave comment about that to other folks, except to say that I think if Charest finds himself defeated in the Quebec National Assembly over his budget, it's probably best for Mario Dumont's ADQ to be asked to form a government rather than force another election so soon after the last one. Plus it would be amusing to watch Dumont struggle with his caucus of amateurs deal with governing a real province.

But my mind is instead on the movies this weekend.

It's been 30 years this weekend since I was a five-year-old boy enjoying the very first Star Wars movie. I still have clear memories of my first screening, including the gibberish scrolling upwards on the screen at the beginning of the movie. I was five so of course was not yet able to read. My dad next to me whispered in my ear, "It's a dark time in the universe, someone has stolen the plans to the Death Star, Princess Leia is racing back to her home planet..."

I still remember the light saber scene between Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi and how shocked I was to see Kenobi let Vader strike him down. And how relieved I was seconds later when Luke could hear Kenobi's voice from beyond telling him to run.

I was hooked. I've been a Star Wars fanatic ever since, as I'm sure you can tell. This film changed movie-making probably forever. I aspire to such greatness in my own budding career.

Also on the subject of films, it seems Ontario PC Leader John Tory will be attending a special screening today at Toronto's Inside Out Gay & Lesbian Film & Video Festival. I read this story in today's Toronto Star, but can't find the online equivalent for some reason. This is Tory's attempt to court the likes of people like me, the 'Friends of Dorothy.' (Although 'Friends of Dorothy' has usually only been used to describe gay men, as far as I can tell, I'm sure Tory wants both gay and lesbian votes.)

It's true this is a nice change from previous Conservative leaders like Mike Harris and current PM Stephen Harper, who wouldn't be caught dead publicly acknowledging the existence of gays and lesbians. On that front, I'm pleased that Tory is so open-minded. I do think his openness is genuine.

The problem is that Tory leads a party that is still, at best, indifferent and, at worst, hostile, to urban/queer issues, and the arts in general. Such a visit to Inside Out has huge symbolic value, but I'm not sure what this means in real terms. It's an election year so it's easy to be cynical about such gestures.

After all, the bulk of the Ontario PC caucus remains a rural rump which includes the likes of Bob Runciman and other leftovers from the Mike Harris era. Added to the Tory slate recently was none other than rural extremist Randy Hillier, running for John Tory's party in Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, who has long attacked what he calls, "multiculturalism, urbanization, and absolute cultural tolerance."

What's this "absolute cultural tolerance" Hillier is talking about? I wonder what Hillier thinks of Tory's attendance at Inside Out today. I'm sure he won't have too many nice things to say in private, that's for sure.

Why won't electoral reform work, Richard?

It's hard to return to work after a glorious and relaxing long weekend.

It's even harder to open the Toronto Star and read drivel like this.

Richard Gwyn never explains why electoral reform won't work. He also never explains why he's chosen to reject Dalton McGuinty's Liberals in this fall's provincial election in Ontario. He's not voting for the Tories or the NDP either.

If this article represents the best the anti-electoral reform naysayers can come up with, then we're in good shape for real change come this October's referendum.

Tinky Winky Breaks Silence On Jerry Falwell

Moving words this morning from Tinky Winky on the passing of his arch nemesis Jerry Falwell this week. Very well spoken, I must say.

Opponents of 'list MPPs' should get educated before attacking...

I've been a huge advocate for electoral reform for years. Seeing majority governments elected with far less than 50% of the vote has always made my blood boil.

There's something perverse about how status-quo-lovers will defend the current 'first-past-the-post' system. Most point to the alleged 'stability' the current system brings. I'm quick to remind such people that the PQ got an extra five years in power in Quebec after winning less support than the Liberals in 1998 (43% to 44%.) How did our current system produce a more 'stabile' country in that case?

MMP, or Mixed-Member-Proportional, where the make-up of legislatures actually resembles the wishes of the electorate, seems to be the best alternative to our current system. It preserves the best of our current system, allowing for local representation, while bringing in an element of proportionality.

But there has been much talk about the proposal's use of so-called list MPPs to top up party results to ensure party representation roughly matches its popular vote (provided the party wins more than 3% of the vote.) Parties that win fewer seats among the 90 ridings in Ontario than their vote would allow them will be topped up by a number of list-MPPs to ensure they are adequately represented.

This element will likely be the biggest stumbling block to getting the MMP proposal approved in this October's referendum. It is controversial, but it represents the best alternative to our unacceptable status quo, in my opinion.

We are already hearing warnings from electoral reform doubters about list MPPs.

However, most of the naysayers have displayed little understanding about how list MPPs will actually work in practice. Take for example this Chatham Daily News editorial. The newspaper frets that party leaders and cabinet ministers would seek refuge from the electorate by putting themselves on these party lists rather than run in ridings.

However, based on how list MPPs will actually be chosen, this fear is unfounded. List MPPs will almost exclusively be opposition MPPs, not government MPPs.

Under Ontario's proposal, winning parties will likely win more of the 90 ridings than their popular vote would allow them overall, as per usual. Thus the party forming the government would be allowed few, if any list MPPs to top up their legislative representation.

Instead, opposition parties would grab most if not all list MPP positions.

Perhaps this will be a built-in check and balance on list MPPs as most will simply be stuck in opposition.

Parties that look well-positioned to form a government in future elections will suddenly find their lists unattractive to prospective candidates as those list candidates will almost surely fail to get into the legislature via the list.

Instead, those ambitious folks will have to seek an actual riding in which to run if they wish to participate in the government. Ironically, parties that look certain to lose elections will have the easiest time attracting quality folks to their lists, although those list candidates will seem destined for opposition.

Thus party leaders and prospective cabinet ministers will have to run in a riding if they want to have a chance to be in the government.

This is going to be a very interesting debate and I look forward to future posts as the issues begin to heat up.

The fate of Andre Boisclair

I've been a keen observer of Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair's roller coaster leadership, mostly because Boisclair is the first openly gay leader of a major political party, at least in North America.

His fall from grace has been largely predictable. Even during the 2005 PQ leadership race, in which Boisclair gave up a promising career on Toronto's Bay Street (strange career move for a Quebec separatist) to run for his party's top job, he showed poor judgment and an inability to connect well with ordinary people.

I wrote a handful of articles about Boisclair that year for Toronto's Xtra magazine, an English-language gay and lesbian bi-weekly. It seemed at that time that Boisclair's support was largely based on the false assumption that electing such a cool/edgy/gay, cosmopolitan and youthful leader, the PQ would open itself up to a new generation of voters. (Plus Boisclair's opponents simply weren't all that great.) PQ party members ignored the controversy over Boisclair's use of cocaine while serving as a cabinet minister in the 1990s, as well as his amateurish reaction to the controversy, shutting down scrums, hiding from the media, refusing to take interviews or criticism.

It now seems clear that Boisclair was completely wrong for the job. The reasons for his failure to connect with Quebec voters were multi-faceted, mostly a combination of Boisclair's arrogance and obvious political immaturity. But his open sexuality was also a factor. His appearance in a tasteless 'Brokeback Mountain' TV parody last fall merely confirmed his poor judgment, and reinforced his gay "ickiness". In the end, he was too 'Montreal' to sell in the Quebec hinterland.

I am certain that Boisclair's homosexuality had much to do with his inability to connect with ordinary Quebecers. It seems the general public needs little reason to fail to connect with political leaders from outside the typical mold.

White, male, heterosexual, conventional leaders normally are cut much more slack than leaders who don't embody these normalities.

If Stephane Dion were gay, he would be finished as a leader (who are we kidding, if Dion were gay, he would never have been elected leader of the federal Liberal Party.)

Like numerous female leadership candidates or other leaders from outside the traditional norm, Boisclair failed because he was not perfect. Boisclair wasn't a walking disaster during the recent Quebec election campaign, but that didn't matter. References to 'family values' by both Quebec Premier Jean Charest and ADQ leader Mario Dumont in their campaigns helped reinforce the subtle point that Boisclair simply wasn't an ordinary Quebecer.

Boisclair's homosexuality simply irritated a large number of heterosexual Quebecers. Add to this Boisclair's leadership shortcomings and the PQ had a disaster in the making. They're lucky they got 28% of the vote.

Of course, most Quebecers, like most Canadians, would never admit they wouldn't vote for someone because they're gay. When confronted with open homophobia, Quebecers and other Canadians typically give a knee-jerk reaction like, "Of course I'm not homophobic."

The election of PQ MNA Sylvain Gaudreault in Jonquière is an interesting case. Gaudreault, like his leader, is openly gay. A local radio shock jock, Louis Champagne, attacked Gaudreault's homosexuality on the air during the campaign, saying factory workers in the Saguenay would never vote for a "tapette," the French slang equivalent of "fag." Champagne suffered a huge backlash for his comments, and in the end local voters proved him wrong by giving Gaudreault a local victory.

At times, voters will go out of their way to prove the bigots wrong.

But when unchallenged, or when given no particular reason to favour a gay candidate, it seems voters will gravitate more to straight leaders or candidates.

It seems that Boisclair's leadership was doomed from the very beginning. I'm sure many PQ supporters will take a collective sigh of relief when he is finally removed (or quits) and is replaced by a more "normal" leader like Gilles Duceppe.