Definitely a TV report on the Kentucky primary everyone should see.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
May 17th: International Day Against Homophobia
On 17 May 1990, the General Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders. But the fight for the recognition of equal rights for lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender people did not end there.Today around 80 countries in the world still criminalize homosexuality and condemn consensual same sex acts with imprisonment, of these 9 (Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen) still have the death penalty. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is still not recognized formally by the member states of the United Nations (even though human rights mechanisms such as the Human Rights Committee have repeatedly condemned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity).
The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) has been fighting against discrimination and for the recognition of equal rights of lesbian, gays, bisexual and transgender people since its creation in 1978. That is why ILGA is strongly committed to celebrating this second International Day Against Homophobia, launched one year ago by the International Day Against Homophobia Committee (IDAHO).
For more information, go to IDAHO's website.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Ontario to re-instate funding for sex change operations
I think this is the right move. Delisting OHIP funding for sex change operations 10 years ago seemed vindictive and petty, considering the tiny cost to the provincial treasury, and more inspired by the "Us versus Them" approach to public policy under Mike Harris.
A good friend of mine is a F-M transsexual. I met him when he was female and we both worked for one of the worst employers we both ever had. Despite the working conditions, we hit it off and became good friends. Several years ago, he took me aside and told me he'd always thought of himself as male, even though he had been born female (and was still at that time). He told me how he used to look in the mirror before puberty hit and see himself as a boy. Once puberty hit, it was downhill from there, depression set in and many years of anxiety and confusion. For him, sex re-assignment surgery was very necessary for his mental health.
For me, this is an issue of compassion and acceptance of reality. While $20,000 in one-time funding isn't much for the province to provide, it is a huge expense for individuals struggling to make ends meet.
There are, of course, many other urgent health care needs that the province should fund for the mental health and betterment of all Ontarians (IBI programming for autistic children being one that easily comes to mind, which the McGuinty government has shamefully failed to improve as promised).
But a good policy decision should be applauded and this is one.
A good friend of mine is a F-M transsexual. I met him when he was female and we both worked for one of the worst employers we both ever had. Despite the working conditions, we hit it off and became good friends. Several years ago, he took me aside and told me he'd always thought of himself as male, even though he had been born female (and was still at that time). He told me how he used to look in the mirror before puberty hit and see himself as a boy. Once puberty hit, it was downhill from there, depression set in and many years of anxiety and confusion. For him, sex re-assignment surgery was very necessary for his mental health.
For me, this is an issue of compassion and acceptance of reality. While $20,000 in one-time funding isn't much for the province to provide, it is a huge expense for individuals struggling to make ends meet.
There are, of course, many other urgent health care needs that the province should fund for the mental health and betterment of all Ontarians (IBI programming for autistic children being one that easily comes to mind, which the McGuinty government has shamefully failed to improve as promised).
But a good policy decision should be applauded and this is one.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Equal marriage wins (for now) in California!
Wonderful and historic news from California's Supreme Court, which ruled today that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.
In an opinion that analysts say could have U.S.-wide implications for the issue, the court panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
"... limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.
Before Thursday only one U.S. state - Massachusetts - allowed gay marriage, although California, New Jersey and Vermont have legislation which grants same-sex partners many of the same legal rights as married couples.
This decision could no doubt throw a wrench into this year's presidential race. All three major candidates for President are on record opposing gay marriage. It remains to be seen if the American public will react as it did in 2004 after a similar court ruling in Massachusetts, or if Republican John McCain will attempt to use this issue to bolster his support among U.S. evangelicals, who will no doubt be horrified by today's ruling.
Equality opponents are already preparing for a possible referendum on the issue in California this November to try to write discrimination into California's constitution and overturn today's decision. To counter these moves, the Human Rights Campaign has already sent out an email to supporters calling for donations to a special fund – the HRC California Marriage PAC – to fight against the anti-equal marriage ballot initiative. You can donate directly to this fund here.
In recent years, California lawmakers have also voted in favor of gay marriage but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said that the matter is for the state's court system to decide on.
Today, Schwarzenegger released this statement: “I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
Legal analysts say Thursday's court ruling could have wide-ranging implications for other US states, noting the California Supreme Court's history of landmark rulings.
"The California Supreme Court's example is often emulated and it often is sort of a groundbreaker," said David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California and an expert in constitutional law. "In the 20th century California was the first state to strike down laws against inter-racial marriage. They did that 19 years before the US Supreme Court got around to it."
In an opinion that analysts say could have U.S.-wide implications for the issue, the court panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
"... limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.
Before Thursday only one U.S. state - Massachusetts - allowed gay marriage, although California, New Jersey and Vermont have legislation which grants same-sex partners many of the same legal rights as married couples.
This decision could no doubt throw a wrench into this year's presidential race. All three major candidates for President are on record opposing gay marriage. It remains to be seen if the American public will react as it did in 2004 after a similar court ruling in Massachusetts, or if Republican John McCain will attempt to use this issue to bolster his support among U.S. evangelicals, who will no doubt be horrified by today's ruling.
Equality opponents are already preparing for a possible referendum on the issue in California this November to try to write discrimination into California's constitution and overturn today's decision. To counter these moves, the Human Rights Campaign has already sent out an email to supporters calling for donations to a special fund – the HRC California Marriage PAC – to fight against the anti-equal marriage ballot initiative. You can donate directly to this fund here.
In recent years, California lawmakers have also voted in favor of gay marriage but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said that the matter is for the state's court system to decide on.
Today, Schwarzenegger released this statement: “I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
Legal analysts say Thursday's court ruling could have wide-ranging implications for other US states, noting the California Supreme Court's history of landmark rulings.
"The California Supreme Court's example is often emulated and it often is sort of a groundbreaker," said David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California and an expert in constitutional law. "In the 20th century California was the first state to strike down laws against inter-racial marriage. They did that 19 years before the US Supreme Court got around to it."
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Proud Canuck strips for U.K. Cosmo Charity Naked Edition 2008
Ouch, hot! That's certainly what I thought when I came across this pic of Canadian actor/heartthrob Shawn Ashmore posing for England's Cosmopolitan June 2008 edition (out May 12, across the pond.) Every year, the mag gets a variety of male celebs, mostly British, to pose tastefully in the buff to help raise money and awareness for Everyman, the U.K.'s leading male cancer charity.
Heck, I can't be serious all the time, can I?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
No gay kissing allowed in the Cayman Islands?
It's clear that queers in Canada enjoy a bit of an oasis, an open-minded paradise in a world still largely homophobic and hostile to our human rights. It's easy to take that for granted, only to occasionally be reminded of different, more hateful attitudes still prevalent in many other places. Take the Cayman Islands, a place I wouldn't have assumed would be so homophobic. But this incident last week seems to have shone a rather negative light on the British territory.
Twenty-three-year–old Aaron Chandler from Amherst, Massachusetts was dancing at a local club, the Royal Palms, with his partner last Wednesday night. His partner’s sister and brother–in–law also came along to the popular nightspot. The two gay men were showing each other some affection on the dance floor and, to their surprise, were asked to stop.
"I do display affection when I’m with my boyfriend, publicly," said Mr. Chandler. "It’s never anything most people would consider obscene however; usually it’s in the form of holding hands or a quick kiss."
Mr. Chandler and his partner ignored the requests to stop and continued dancing and showing affection. About a half hour later – about 11pm – an unidentified woman approached the two men and asked Mr. Chandler to follow her to meet a friend. The friend turned out to be an off–duty police officer.
"He told me he did not want me to show public displays of affection," Mr. Chandler said. "He said it was against the law for two people of the same sex."
Later on, just before his party was going to leave the Royal Palms, Mr. Chandler said he kissed his partner again.
"The officer grabbed my wrist and told me he was placing me under arrest."
Mr. Chandler and his partner were detained for a while by the police, but were never charged.
You can also read about this story here and here.
Now of course any gay men who showed open affection in a place notoriously homophobic as Jamaica, Egypt or Saudi Arabia could be accused of stupidity. But Chandler and his partner were on vacation in a British territory. This story struck a chord with me due to the fact I could easily picture myself in Chandler's shoes. How would I react if strangers in a bar on vacation demanded I stop showing open affection to the love of my life and threatened to arrest us? It's hard to say.
Most gay men in Canada use a certain amount of discretion when it comes to public displays of affection. For me, I don't typically hold my partner's hand in public anywhere, except during Pride festivities once a year in the downtown Toronto core. I simply don't like the stares we receive the rest of the time, so we don't do it. Call it internalized homophobia, if you will. However, we will on occasion hug and kiss in public and no one in Toronto (or anywhere in Canada, as far as I can tell) really seems to mind such quick displays of affection.
This incident shows how lucky we are in Canada and how far the rest of the world still has to come to catch up with us. It's one thing to succumb to one's internalized homophobia, it's quite another to be forced under alleged power of law to stop showing one's partner the affection he deserves. Sad, indeed.
***************UPDATE (May 7, 2008)*****************
Good news: Aaron Chandler received this week a written letter of apology from the Cayman Islands's Director of Tourism, Ms. Pilar Bush.
"On behalf of the entire Department of Tourism, I apologise for your upsetting experience and want to assure you that the Cayman Islands is a welcoming jurisdiction to all people," Ms Bush wrote to Mr. Chandler. "What happened to you was an isolated incident, and is not representative of Cayman. We know that thousands of gay and lesbian visitors travel to the Cayman Islands every year and enjoy their vacation."
Twenty-three-year–old Aaron Chandler from Amherst, Massachusetts was dancing at a local club, the Royal Palms, with his partner last Wednesday night. His partner’s sister and brother–in–law also came along to the popular nightspot. The two gay men were showing each other some affection on the dance floor and, to their surprise, were asked to stop.
"I do display affection when I’m with my boyfriend, publicly," said Mr. Chandler. "It’s never anything most people would consider obscene however; usually it’s in the form of holding hands or a quick kiss."
Mr. Chandler and his partner ignored the requests to stop and continued dancing and showing affection. About a half hour later – about 11pm – an unidentified woman approached the two men and asked Mr. Chandler to follow her to meet a friend. The friend turned out to be an off–duty police officer.
"He told me he did not want me to show public displays of affection," Mr. Chandler said. "He said it was against the law for two people of the same sex."
Later on, just before his party was going to leave the Royal Palms, Mr. Chandler said he kissed his partner again.
"The officer grabbed my wrist and told me he was placing me under arrest."
Mr. Chandler and his partner were detained for a while by the police, but were never charged.
You can also read about this story here and here.
Now of course any gay men who showed open affection in a place notoriously homophobic as Jamaica, Egypt or Saudi Arabia could be accused of stupidity. But Chandler and his partner were on vacation in a British territory. This story struck a chord with me due to the fact I could easily picture myself in Chandler's shoes. How would I react if strangers in a bar on vacation demanded I stop showing open affection to the love of my life and threatened to arrest us? It's hard to say.
Most gay men in Canada use a certain amount of discretion when it comes to public displays of affection. For me, I don't typically hold my partner's hand in public anywhere, except during Pride festivities once a year in the downtown Toronto core. I simply don't like the stares we receive the rest of the time, so we don't do it. Call it internalized homophobia, if you will. However, we will on occasion hug and kiss in public and no one in Toronto (or anywhere in Canada, as far as I can tell) really seems to mind such quick displays of affection.
This incident shows how lucky we are in Canada and how far the rest of the world still has to come to catch up with us. It's one thing to succumb to one's internalized homophobia, it's quite another to be forced under alleged power of law to stop showing one's partner the affection he deserves. Sad, indeed.
***************UPDATE (May 7, 2008)*****************
Good news: Aaron Chandler received this week a written letter of apology from the Cayman Islands's Director of Tourism, Ms. Pilar Bush.
"On behalf of the entire Department of Tourism, I apologise for your upsetting experience and want to assure you that the Cayman Islands is a welcoming jurisdiction to all people," Ms Bush wrote to Mr. Chandler. "What happened to you was an isolated incident, and is not representative of Cayman. We know that thousands of gay and lesbian visitors travel to the Cayman Islands every year and enjoy their vacation."
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Toronto's Inside Out fest, Lesbos fight Lesbians and Aussies take baby steps toward equality
Toronto's Inside Out Lesbian and Gay Film & Video Festival opens its box office to the general public tomorrow. The festival, now in its 18th year, takes place from May 15 to the 25th. Glancing at this year's schedule, there seem to be a few interesting features worth checking out. Meanwhile, a friend sent me a link to this amusing news story today. It seems some residents of the island of Lesbos are resentful over the use of the term "lesbians" to denote women who like other women.
Lesbos, of course, is home of the ancient poet Sappho, who praised love between women. Now a group of Lesbos residents have taken a local gay rights group to court for using the word lesbian in its name. One of the plaintiffs said yesterday that the name of the association, 'Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece', "insults the identity" of the people of Lesbos, who are also known as Lesbians.
"My sister can't say she is a Lesbian," said Dimitris Lambrou. "Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos," he said.
I'll watch to see how this amusing court action plays out, but surely they're fighting a losing battle?
And finally, the new Labour government in Australia under Kevin Rudd is taking action to weed out some discrimination against gay couples left on the books by Stephen Harper's conservative buddy, former P.M. John Howard. Still, Rudd's changes fall short of giving Aussie queers full equality under the country's marriage laws. That's a pity.
I haven't seen any Australian polling on the subject of gay marriage, but I imagine opinions are similar to those in the U.S. Like America, it seems that Australia is about 10 or so years behind countries like Canada when it comes to equality. Still, incremental progress is incremental progress. We queers in Canada didn't move from second-class citizenship to full and equal marriage rights in one swoop - we had gradual change too.
I predict we'll see gay marriage in Australia within five to ten years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)