Montreal gay bar can't discriminate against women - will Lorne Gunter complain about this case too?

Somehow I doubt that National Post columnst Lorne Gunter, who loves to disparage human rights rulings that favour LGBT citizens, will now come to the defense of Bar Le Stud in Montreal.

The leather bar has settled with a woman who claimed the bar discriminated against her. Audrey Vachon filed a complaint to Quebec's human rights commission last May after she was asked to leave the establishment because she is a woman. She was sitting at the bar with her father, Gilles Vachon.

In a statement released today, the human rights commission said the two parties had reached a settlement, but refused to provide specific details. Commission spokesperson Robert Sylvestre, however, said the bar must respect the charter of rights, which means it has no right to refuse people entry because of their gender or sexual preference.

Oh, the powerful hand of the secular state strikes again, telling private businesses they must serve all members of the public, not just some members of the public of their choosing! I'll look forward to Gunter's outrage in a future column, like the one he wrote yesterday lamenting the inability of a Christian organization to fire a lesbian simply because she was lesbian. (I won't be holding my breath, however.)

But seriously, I agree with the Quebec commission. This kind of discrimination is wrong no matter who does it.

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

In other news, one of my favourite musicians, Rufus Wainwright (pictured), has once again been honoured by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media Awards, this time for his work promoting gay rights. Wainwright received the Stephen F. Kolzak Award, which was named after a Los Angeles director known for devoting the last part of his life to fighting AIDS-phobia and homophobia.

Yay for Rufus!

Why should gays and lesbians tolerate discrimination anywhere, Lorne Gunter?

Check out yet another alarmist column by National Post writer Lorne Gunter, now crying foul of the decision last week by Ontario's Human Rights Commission against Christian Horizons for discriminating against Connie Heintz because she's a lesbian.

Hidden between the lines of Lorne Gunter's column (and many others like it) is the assumption somehow that LGBT citizens don't deserve protection from discrimination under the law. Otherwise, why the need to publish such a piece?

Gunter writes: "I have no doubt the OHRC's ruling would have been exactly the same if CH had been running its residential homes completely privately having raised its entire annual budget without any help from taxpayers. After all, in 1999 the OHRC forced Toronto Christian printer Scott Brockie to do print jobs for gay and lesbian customers even though his print business was private and not under any contract with Queen's Park to provide print services. "

So let's see, Lorne - a private company provides services to the public, makes money in our society, yet can decide it won't do business with gays and lesbians, and this is completely okay?

If the same company decided it wouldn't serve Jews, would that be okay too, Lorne?

Of course, Gunter at least admits that because this religious organization was taking public funds, it should be forced to conform its practises to public laws.

As for the commission-ordered sensitivity training that goes along with the employment ruling against Christian Horizons being "very dangerous", as Gunter puts it, it would seem, based on what I've read of Ms. Heintz's case, the people at this organization desperately need this training.

Heintz quit her job at Christian Horizons in September 2000 after employees and supervisors made her final months there "the worst time of [her] life." After revealing she was a lesbian, Heintz said some co-workers made unfounded accusations that she abused residents.

It's sadly typical that people who claim to be loving Christians regularly lie and defame gays and lesbians as being sexual offenders, diseased or otherwise.

It's unfortunate that Gunter and his ilk consider weeding out this kind of systemic and vile hatred within such organizations so "dangerous". I would suggest that such sensitivity training is designed to change behaviour and outward action, not "police thought" as Gunter alleges.

Those at Christian Horizons or similar organizations have every right to maintain any vile bigotries their faith may inspire them to hold. There's nothing any Human Rights Commission or sensitivity training can do to change that.

I support Canada's first Africentric alternative school

News today that the Toronto Public School Board has found a location for its controversial Africentric alternative school. It will be a school within a school – not a free-standing building – and is being proposed for a wing of sprawling Sheppard Public School near the northwest corner of Sheppard Avenue West and Keele Street in Toronto.

There was a lot of knee-jerk opposition to this when it was first proposed. I do admit, I wasn't overly crazy about the idea at first. I chose to wait until plans were more fully fleshed out before commenting on it here.

But comments like this from school trustee James Pasternak, who represents the area where the new school will be located, are reassuring: "There's this misconception of two solitudes running down the halls, but that's incorrect – these kids (in the regular school and the Africentric wing) would be together in the schoolyard, together in the playground, together in the lunchroom," said Pasternak.

The new school won't only be open to black students; students of all races will be welcome. The school will also be open to all qualified staff, although it is "expected to become a magnet for black educators wishing to serve as role models, and those with a background in Africentric curriculum."

According to the Toronto Star Q&A at the bottom of today's article, "Students will follow the Ontario curriculum, but lessons will focus where possible on contributions made by Africans and black Canadians, and issues relevant to the African-Canadians' experience."

I think this is a positive step. Will it have much of an impact on the 40% dropout rate for black students in Toronto? It's too soon to tell, but it certainly won't make that number worse. If it saves even a handful of youth from falling out of the system, then it's a good investment, I say.

In many ways, the new school will be similar to the longstanding Triangle Program, which provides an alternative school setting for queer students in Toronto. The aim of the Triangle program has never been to replace existing mainstream schools, but to provide queer students with a LGBT-positive space, free from bullying and harassment so they can learn in peace. The ultimate goal of the Triangle Program has been to arm their students with stronger self-esteem so that they can eventually return to the mainstream school system.

The purpose of alternative schools like the Africentric school or the Triangle Program is to help marginalized students whose needs aren't being met by the mainstream system. The alternate programs are integrated within the existing public school system, showing that public system's ability to meet the needs of students under one large umbrella.

These programs are entirely different from separate religious schools, where the goal is not to assist students back into the mainstream, but to keep them "safely" separated from that mainstream for their entire educational experience (because, implicitly, there's something inherently wrong or immoral with that mainstream, some believe.)

Instead of having separate religious school boards for various faiths across Ontario (as some, including PC Leader John Tory, have proposed), we could and should set up equivalent religious programs within the existing public system (where numbers warrant) to ensure students of particular faiths see their values reflected in what they learn. I would have no problem with this at all, as long as all such programs were integrated within one public system and all students and staff would be eligible to participate.

TTC Union Chief Bob Kinnear: "The dangers of...angry and irrational members of the public"

TTC Union head honcho Bob Kinnear will never live this one down, I'm predicting: "We will not expose our members to the dangers of assaults from angry and irrational members of the public."

Whether or not TTC employees have a decent case that they need additional protections and the ability not to lose pay if they are injured or assaulted on the job is beside the point.

For a guy leading up the public fight for a better deal, calling Torontonians "angry and irrational" isn't going to go over well in the ongoing PR battle over this surprise strike. Nor is the "irrational" way in which this surprise strike was launched, just before midnight last night, stranding many people downtown with no way of getting home except an overly expensive cab ride.

Kinnear's blunder will make legislating them back to work all the more easy for Dalton McGuinty, unless NDP Leader Howard Hampton gives Toronto yet another slap in the face and backs the union in the legislature tomorrow. If the TTC isn't back in operation by Monday, there'll be hell to pay.

April 25: Day of Silence

Congrats to the organizers of today's Day of Silence, which brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. This year’s event is held in memory of Lawrence King, a California 8th-grader who was shot and killed Feb. 12 this year by a classmate because of his sexual orientation and gender expression.

My friend and fellow blogger Montreal Simon writes eloquently about the issue today.

Fired lesbian employee wins human rights case against Christian Horizons

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled today in favour of Connie Heintz, a lesbian employee who was forced to leave her job at Christian Horizons. For five years, Heintz was a support worker at a Waterloo residential home for five developmentally delayed adults. She quit her job in September 2000, after employees and supervisors made her final months there "the worst time of my life."

After revealing she was a lesbian, "they said this would be grounds for dismissal," she said. "On a regular basis, I was told to look elsewhere for work...I was harassed. I constantly had to watch my back," Heintz said in an interview with the Kitchener-Waterloo Record.

"They made allegations about me." Heintz said some co-workers made unfounded accusations that she abused residents. How truly Christian of them (not)!

This news release from the Tribunal gives more background on the case and the Tribunal's decision:

"Ms. Heintz, an individual of deep Christian faith, and a model employee for five years with Christian Horizons, was providing care and support to individuals with developmental disabilities. Like other employees, when first hired, Ms. Heintz was required to sign a Lifestyle and Morality Statement, which prohibits, among other things, homosexual relationships. After several years, Ms. Heintz came to terms with her sexual orientation as a lesbian. When Christian Horizons discovered this, they advised her that she was not complying with the Statement and required her to leave the organization."

"The Tribunal ruled that Christian Horizons could not require its employees to sign [such a] Statement. It found that Christian Horizons is primarily engaged in serving the disability-related needs of its clients, and the prohibition on homosexual relationships was not a legitimate job requirement for providing quality care and support to disabled residents.

"Christian Horizons describes itself as an Evangelical Christian Ministry that provides care and residential services to 1,400 developmentally disabled individuals of all races, creeds and sexual orientations. With over 180 residential homes across Ontario, and 2,500 employees, Christian Horizons is the largest provider of community living services in the province, funded almost exclusively by the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services.

"This decision is important," commented Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall, "because it sets out that when faith-based and other organizations move beyond serving the interests of their particular community to serving the general public, the rights of others, including employees, must be respected."

This decision makes perfect sense. Any organization or business, religious or otherwise, that provides services to the public has no right to practise this kind of discrimination.

I'm sure many Christian groups will howl this is yet another example of the state undermining religious freedom, ignoring the impact this kind of discrimination has on its LGBT victims, let alone the clients they purport to serve. Shame on those who do.

Great post by James Bowie: "Blogs are a liability"

Check out this beautifully-written ode to blogging by James Bowie.

Cinematic male nudity should be sexy, not just funny...

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS FULL FRONTAL MALE NUDITY.

One of two male shower scenes in 'Grande école'

The French know how to depict male nudity on the big screen; Americans, for the most part, do not (or cannot.)

The 2004 French film 'Grande école,' about a young man who struggles with his sexuality, wasn't one of the greatest films ever made. But it, like many features aimed toward a gay male audience, showed a generous and sexy amount of male nudity (including the above locker room shower scene). Hence, it's North American DVD release (it failed to win even a limited theatrical run over here in 2004, not surprising because the male nudity in it was the only thing I'd describe as exceptional.)

Actor Salim Kechiouche in 'Grande école'

'The French aren't the only ones willing to depict frankly and without apology the male nude in an erotic light. Many filmmakers from most Western countries have been willing to show a little skin, both male and female. Take 'Y tu mamá también' by straight Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón.

Sadly, the closer we get to mainstream American fare, the less we've seen of the naked male body. There's no denying that every inch of womanhood has been on display in some of the greatest American films over the years. We've gotten a little puritan in recent years due to the rising strength of the evangelical right in America, thus onscreen nudity has slowly become more rare. When it does appear, it's still usually female only. If we're lucky, we get one quick male butt shot surrounded by more generous amounts of female nudity.

All the talk this weekend about the new Judd Apatow film, 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall', and in particular, the graphic male nudity on display by star Jason Segel, got me thinking. It's interesting that a mainstream comedy in America is only willing to depict male nudity through the narrow prism of the heterosexual male point of view. Male nudity is supposed to get us laughing, they figure. It's a way to humiliate the straight guy, it's most definitely not meant to arouse the audience. Jason Segel isn't terrible looking, but from the pics I've seen online, he'd hardly qualify as hunk material, his body is average. No, this is nudity meant to make you giggle, and Segel himself agrees: "I think naked men are hilarious," Segel told reporters earlier this month. "It's so different than female nudity. One of the great things about female nudity is the comfort of knowing that men have all sorts of different preferences; big breasts, small breasts, fat women, skinny women. There's not that many women out there who just love small penises."

Check out this article, written by two women nonetheless, who complain about Segel's nudity and talk about needing to fast-forward through any depiction of male skin on the screen. They don't want to even sit through Viggo Mortensen's infamous nude fight scene in David Cronenberg's Eastern Promises. Man, these girls need to lighten up (or rent some hot French films asap...lol.)

Another memorable example of male-nudity-only-for-laughs on the screen was 'Borat', not exactly the kind of male nudity any gay man or straight woman needed to see. In this film, we couldn't miss Sasha Baron Cohen (pictured on the right) wrestle in the nude with co-star Ken Davitian. While funny, it was anything but erotic.

I've long believed the absence of male nudity in American movies has allowed most straight guys to remain uncomfortably homophobic. By the same token, the abundance of female sensuality on the big screen, in my view, has allowed most straight women to be pretty comfortable with their bodies. Most people today don't flinch when we see a pair of naked breasts during an onscreen love scene. Show a penis during the same love scene, and I can guarantee you you're not watching an American movie.

Still I can't really complain. We used to hear howls of outrage and disgust from straight guys if a male butt or penis made its way into a mainstream flick. Seeing the naked male body as funny is certainly an improvement over seeing it as disgusting. If 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' helps move the ball forward, no pun intended, in terms of what a mainstream audience is willing to accept in North America, then we're better for it.

Actor Daniel Radcliffe in 'Equus' publicity shot

Heck, maybe we'll even see Daniel Radcliffe (seen in a publicity shot for his stage performance in Equus) in his birthday suit on the big screen soon.

If he's willing to appear naked for ten minutes in front of London and New York theatre crowds, surely he'd be willing to do so in front of a film camera (assuming of course he can find a willing film director.)

****2018 UPDATE: Years later, it's clear he found several directors as we've gotten to enjoy Mr. Radcliffe in the buff on screen in several of his adult roles including What If, Kill Your Darlings (which included his nudity in a steamy gay sex scene), and Jungle, so it seems clear as long as his butt remains firm, Daniel will be gifting us with his nudity for some time to come, no pun intended.

No mistake: Why same-sex marriage is important

Columnist Michael Coren wrote yesterday in the National Post why legalizing same-sex marriage is Canada's biggest policy mistake. For a social conservative to ignore the abortion issue and level this charge against loving same-sex couples is truly revealing. How much venom do you harbour, Mr. Coren?

Let me first deconstruct Coren's re-hashed and flawed arguments. For one, he never fully explains why same-sex marriage (or SSM) is such a mistake. Instead he first trots out the new, "I'm a Christian and I'm a victim" argument, the now oft-heard refrain from the free world's former oppressors.

"Although this is a valid and vital debate about social policy, anyone critiquing the [SSM] status quo is likely to be marginalized as hateful, extreme or simply mad...The discussion, we are told, is over. Which is what triumphalist bullies have said for centuries after they win a battle. In this case, the intention is to marginalize anyone who dares to still speak out. In other words, to silence them."

Sounds like how Christians like Coren treated gays for centuries if you ask me. Yet of course Coren's ability to publish such an article in a national newspaper is proof itself that he and others like him are hardly being "silenced."

He uses very slippery reasoning when he writes, "Indeed, the deconstruction of marriage began not with the gay community asking for the right to marry but with the heterosexual world rejecting it. The term "common-law marriage" said it all. Marriage is many things, but it is never common. Yet with this semantic and legal revolution, desire and convenience replaced commitment and dedication. The qualifications, so to speak, were lowered."

With this, Coren implies that "common law marriage" somehow led to same-sex marriage. But this is false history. In fact, common law marriages paved the way in the 1990s for same sex spousal rights and responsibilities. Judges and even some politicians rightly deduced that to provide spousal benefits to non-married heterosexuals living together in conjugal relationships, or as "common law couples", but not provide such benefits to equivalent same-sex couples, was discriminatory and violated equality guarantees in the Charter of Rights.

Yes, that pesky Charter of Rights that forces lawmakers to treat all citizens, including LGBT citizens, equally.

So yes, straight common law relationships made it possible for same-sex couples to attain some status in Canadian society, but they didn't necessarily lead to same-sex marriage. That came later after lengthy court fights.

Coren later writes, "As for polygamy, it's making something of a comeback -- and here begin the objections. Whenever this is mentioned by critics of same-sex marriage we are accused of using the slippery-slope argument. Sorry, some slopes are slippery. Polygamy is an ancient tradition within Islam -- and was in Sephardic Judaism and some Asian cultures. When the precedent of gay marriage is combined with the freedom of religion defence, the courts will have a difficult time rejecting it."

Coren seems to think that courts will rule on polygamy simply based on theory, that judges will look past the inherent inequality and abuse involved in real-life polygamous relationships and deem them legal marriages under the law. Maybe in theory Coren has a point, but in reality, Charter cases like Coren implies are coming must be led by living, breathing people, individuals who claim their rights are being denied them unfairly. Coren, himself, admits that no one in this country currently is willing to lead this legal fight.

Despite this, he assumes polygamy is inevitable. I assume this is why Coren believes SSM was Canada's biggest policy mistake. But Coren's doomsday scenario is foolhardy: "If love is the only criterion for marriage who are we to judge the love between a man and his wives?" Again, because it's impossible for such relationships to be anything but sexist and abusive. It's like arguing that the pedophile loves his young victims (yet Coren wisely doesn't go there yet.)

This brings me back to the essential issue here: that marriage is a unique commitment between two adults who love each other. Most Canadians embrace this definition and have for quite some time. While most heterosexuals I know believe that children are best raised within a committed and loving marriage, most also believe that marriages without children are just as valid and worthy of equal recognition.

Coren raises the false argument that common law relationships somehow undermined traditional marriages, lowered the standards, as he put it. What he should've written is that the notion that childless straight marriages are equal to other straight marriages has undermined the traditional definition, or at least his traditional definition. Many heterosexuals incapable or unwilling to raise children are still able to marry and meet the standards of traditional marriage.

Coren assumes that marriage is only about the children. Most Canadians disagree with him. Hence the inherent flaw in his argument.

He talks about the dangers of slippery slopes. But he ignores the dangerous slippery slope in his own argument: if marriage is only about the children, this would invalidate all straight marriages without children. Heterosexuals of a certain age, long past their child-rearing years, would also be ineligible for marriage, by Coren's definition. If we're not willing to ban all heterosexuals who can't or won't have children within marriage, how can we ban same-sex couples (who normally don't have their own children either) from marriage?

This contradiction continues to be ignored by Coren and others like him. I do agree that the best place to raise children is within a loving, committed marriage. But I, like most Canadians, don't believe that children are essential to marriage.

In the end, Coren's circular arguments don't amount to much. He still hates gays and resents the gains we have made in this society.

To me, same sex marriage is a sign of Canada's generosity of spirit. It means that LGBT citizens are equally valued. It means we too can and should seek out love and lifetime commitment, should we want it. It means we should be able to live lives as full and happy as any heterosexual.

Gays and lesbians are born that way. We didn't choose to be who and what we are. We've struggled greatly on the fringes for too long. Same-sex marriage is a message to all LGBT citizens that our government believes we are truly equal with others.

Discrimination in law, as Coren proposes, has grave consequences, as we know. If we are to tolerate such discrimination, it better be for good reasons. Coren provides none in his column against same-sex couples.

Memo to Rogers Cable: PVRs should record the selected program, not the channel/time

On Friday, I encouraged readers to consider watching the documentary 'Cure for Love' that aired this past Saturday night on Global TV. I was out of town visiting family this weekend, so I programmed my Rogers PVR to record the doc that was set to air at 7 pm on said channel and watch it last night when I got back.

Unfortunately for me, I didn't realize Global was also broadcasting the Masters golf tournament just before its 7 pm-scheduled 'Global Currents' show, which was airing a shortened version of filmmaker Christina Willings's film. And of course, the Masters ran overtime, pushing the starting time of 'Cure for Love' to something like 7:40 pm or so. And of course, when you choose to record a program that's supposed to air on Global at 7 pm on your PVR, you really are scheduling only to record Global at 7 pm, regardless of what's airing at that time. Thus my PVR recording mostly missed the doc.

Still what I managed to see seemed well-produced and the portraits poignant and conflicted. There was much discussion among the subjects of agony over sexual orientation, of previous self-abuse and suffering. Just as one ex-gay man discussed how his old struggles led him to consider suicide, my PVR recording ended (on the dot at 8 pm.) I certainly want to see the full feature-length documentary, so perhaps I'll have a chance later on DVD or soon at a LGBT festival. I'll reserve judgment on the documentary until that time.

I've had this problem before with my Rogers PVR when taping other shows that either start late (due to some preceding sports coverage or other coverage) or run late (like awards shows which always run late or even 'Lost' which occasionally runs for an extra five or 10 minutes.) PVR recordings miss portions of desired programs.

MEMO to Rogers: The next time you upgrade your PVR technology, please make it possible for users to record the actual shows when they air, not just the station and time selected, and perhaps make it possible for PVR to record the actual show in its entirety, not just its scheduled length which is frequently incorrect. Perhaps this is impossible, but it would definitely be an improvement. Also, it would be nice to be able to record more than just two shows at a time, but perhaps I'm asking too much...lol

'Cure For Love' to air Saturday night on Global TV

I just heard about a documentary set to air on Global TV on Saturday, April 12 at 7pm. Cure For Love is a new film about the "ex-gay" religious movement. The film profiles two couples: one couple has “renounced” their sexuality and is apparently happily married and another couple has ceased questioning their gayness and accepted it.

Cure For Love was co-produced by Earth to Sky Pictures Inc. and the National Film Board of Canada. For more info, check out an interview with filmmaker Christina Willings on the NFB website.

Personally, I don't believe that it's possible to turn gay people straight, or vice versa. Our sexual orientation is inborn and, I believe, part of God's design for humanity (and the sooner mainstream religions accept this reality, the better). Based on my research over the years, it seems that the only homosexuals who claim they have been "cured" are those also still employed by such ex-gay ministries or churches. Nevertheless, Cure should make for interesting viewing.

Another excellent documentary worth checking out is 'For the Bible Tells Me So' by director Daniel G. Karslake. I posted about it earlier this year. It's now available on DVD.

Obama talks queer issues with the Advocate

Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama sat down recently with the U.S.-based queer publication, The Advocate, to discuss various issues of interest to the LGBT community, including "Don't ask, don't tell," Rev. Wright, and same sex marriage. As always with Obama, it makes for very compelling reading.

Here's Obama's take on same sex marriage versus civil unions:

ADVOCATE: Both you and your wife speak eloquently about being told to wait your turn and how if you had done that, you might not have gone to law school or run for Senate or even president. To some extent, isn’t that what you’re asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage -- to wait their turn?

OBAMA: I don’t ask them that. Anybody who’s been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It’s not my place to tell the LGBT community, "Wait your turn." I’m very mindful of Dr. King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” where he says to the white clergy, "Don’t tell me to wait for my freedom."

So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating. And I’ve said this before -- I’m the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn’t mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward.

That’s a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That’s not a decision for me to make.

ADVOCATE: Is it fair for the LGBT community to ask for leadership? In 1963, President Kennedy made civil rights a moral issue for the country.

OBAMA: But he didn’t overturn antimiscegenation. Right?

ADVOCATE: True enough.

OBAMA: As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

Canadian stars take fight against Bill C-10 to Ottawa

Kudos to the stars and filmmakers for taking their fight against the industry-destroying Bill C-10 to Ottawa today. Stories here, here and here.

As stated here previously, what's most offensive and confusing about these proposed changes is the double standard when it comes to American or other foreign productions made in Canada.

Currently, Canadian producers that receive an indigenous tax credit can offset 25% of their labour costs, while foreign producers that tap the production services tax credit can offset 16% of labour costs. While the percentage is smaller, the dollar figure is generally much higher due to the larger budgets involved with U.S. productions.

The new rules will only threaten Canadian productions, while foreign productions won't have to worry about losing their lucrative tax credits.

"If you're going to have a double standard, at least have a double standard that gives the Canadian industry a leg up," says director Martin Gero, whose debut film Young People Fucking has been a lightning rod during the current debate, said in an interview this week.

"Why would you limit the industry you should be supporting, while helping the industry that doesn't need it? Everyone wants to make it about censorship, but really, it's just terrible business, ill-conceived from start to finish."

To me, this double standard undermines the entire intent of these new proposals. It appears tax credits will still flow to "offensive" American productions that are "contrary to Canadian public policy" and in greater amounts. So Charles McVety's tax dollars will still go to productions he deems offensive.

These provisions in Bill C-10 do nothing more than threaten to destroy the domestic Canadian film and TV industry.

"I know very few filmmakers that would risk trying to try to make a film that was controversial or pushed the envelope or was even interesting in any way if this bill was in place," filmmaker Sarah Polley said today.

Not cool: Copenhagen cemetery designates special space for dead gays

This is lunacy. I'm not sure what point this makes or why any LGBTs would want to be buried in their own separate space. I certainly wouldn't.

iTunes.ca pulls anti-gay dancehall songs from its online store

This is a good move by iTunes Canada. It sends the right message.

The songs — by Jamaican dancehall artists Buju Banton, Elephant Man and TOK — contain lyrics that promote the violent killing of gays, including the lyrics, "Dance wi a dance and a bun out a freaky man" (Join our dance and let's burn out the queer man).

To all the free-speech literalists out there, how exactly does, "let's burn queer men to death," contribute to the marketplace of ideas?

I hope HMV, Archambault Inc, and Amazon.ca follow suit.

*******UPDATE*******

Slap Upside The Head agrees with me, I'm happy to say.

Jonathan Kay: "Gay or straight, sexual orientation is in your blood"

Wow! On this issue, Jonathan Kay's my kind of conservative. Required reading for sure.

Here's his best paragraph from the column:

"Notwithstanding church programs that promise to de-program gay kids, the APA has declared that sexual orientation is "not changeable." According to the United States Surgeon General, "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." Not surprisingly, the "ex-gay" men who find Christ and declare themselves "cured" of homosexuality usually wind up not so "ex" in the long run (much to the disappointment and mortification of their God-fearing spouses). As others have noted, the truest test of a person's belief that a gay man can be turned straight is whether you would let such a convert marry your daughter. If there's a reader out there who can say yes to that, [he]'d like to hear from him..."

Chantal Hébert launches new book: "Détester Stéphane Dion"

Détester Stéphane Dion (Hating Stéphane Dion)
by Chantal Hébert (Author) L. Ian MacDonald (Translator)
List Price: CDN$ 27.99
Availability: In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Queer-Liberal.blogspot.com.
Gift-wrap available.

BOOK DESCRIPTION AND REVIEWS:

Finally, renowned columnist Chantal Hébert has put together all of her thoughts about Stéphane Dion into one glorious volume that chronicles the bumbling, flaky meanders of the former professor from his early days as a treacherous cabinet minister charged with undermining Quebec's hopes and dreams, to his failings as Minister of the Environment under Paul Martin, to his huge belly flop as leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Reactions are in:

"C'est magnifique! An incredibly delicious documentation of the bumbling failure of federalism, er sorry, of Mr. Dion, that is" - Jacques Parizeau, former PQ Premier.

"Hébert expertly details Dion's machinations aimed at destroying the dreams of the modern Quebec population. Her work should be applauded and read by all Canadians before they vote in the next election." - Lucien Bouchard, former PQ Premier and founder of the Bloc Québécois.

"I bought it, I returned it, I bought it again. It's a good read." - Gilles Duceppe, current leader of the Bloc Québécois, and one-day candidate for the leadership of the PQ in 2007.

"This book makes it very clear that Stéphane Dion is not a leader." - Sen. Michael Fortier, Conservative Minister of Public Works.

"A fucking masterpiece!" - Thomas Mulcair, NDP MP for Outremont.

"I'm not sure what to say. I read it. I enjoyed it." - Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal MP for Honoré-Mercier.

"Je ne peux pas attendre pour obtenir une copie." - Denis Coderre, Liberal MP for Bourassa.

JUST KIDDING, CHANTAL AND EVERYONE ELSE FICTITIOUSLY QUOTED ABOVE. HAPPY APRIL 1ST, DEAR READERS. ;-)