Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Canada Says ***NO*** LGBT event at United Nations

A recent star-studded LGBT event at the United Nations featuring Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Ricky Martin and South African singer Yvonne Chaka Chaka had the support of many countries, but Canada sat on the sidelines.

Representatives from the United States, Japan, Israel, Britain and several other European countries helped organize the panel, Leadership in the Fight against Homophobia, held on Dec 11.

Canada was conspicuously absent from the list of organizing countries.

When asked why Canada was not involved with the event, a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada offered this statement:

"Canada was not involved in the organization of this particular UN event... but Canada supports action to combat homophobia."

Whatever that means

by Anonymousreply 5412/27/2012

Canada's new government doesn't like "The Gays".

by Anonymousreply 112/20/2012

Surprised Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird didn't attend.

by Anonymousreply 212/20/2012

It's such a shame. I always attend concerts where Ban Ki-moon performs.

by Anonymousreply 312/20/2012

Canada is like the klan...they like their hate to be hidden under a hood not out in the open.

by Anonymousreply 412/20/2012

Canada is changing it's name to New Texas.

by Anonymousreply 512/20/2012

or North Oklahoma

by Anonymousreply 612/20/2012

I would not be so quick to judge Baird. He may be a conservative but he was the first foreign affairs minister (our secretary of state) to state to other countries that we would not tolerate homophobia. Just because he was not part of this event, does not mean they didnt care about it. He stuck his neck about this, even before hilary did.

And no im not a tory flack. i vote NDP.

by Anonymousreply 712/20/2012

Baird helped bring the anti-gay Conservative party to majority power.

Baird is the "Jewish Nazi" of Canadian politics.

by Anonymousreply 812/20/2012

I actually think this has more to do with the government's current disdain for the UN than with anything else.

by Anonymousreply 912/20/2012

They have disdain for gays, the UN, the environment, Canada's natural resources, etc etc but there is a tax rebate if you put you kid in sports.

by Anonymousreply 1012/20/2012

Prime Minister Harper holds a less than enthusiastic view of the UN. He has made no secret of this. It has nothing to do with homophobia, however if you prefer to make a mountain out af a molehill then by all means, proceed..

by Anonymousreply 1112/20/2012

Dumbshit R11, Harper is virulently antigay. He is not really against the UN because it is the source of Canada's engagement in the world.

by Anonymousreply 1212/20/2012

This is Harper backdooring his anti-gay agenda. It has nothing to do with the UN.

by Anonymousreply 1312/20/2012

yes, it is for local consumption

by Anonymousreply 1412/20/2012

I find it ironic that the current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, rejects Gay Equality, while the current Prime Minister of England, Cameron, supports Gay Equality as does the current President of the United States, Barrack Obama and Leader of France, François Hollande.

Outside of that anti-gay German Nazi bitch Angela Merkel, who else does the Canadian PM get along with in the G7?

by Anonymousreply 1512/20/2012

Harper is in a snit with the UN because of the recent recognition of Palestine and this is his petulant payback.

R15, whatever the Presidents of US and France may think, gays cannot marry in most of the US or in all of France. Whatever Harper may think, gays have been happily marrying in Canada for the last ten years. It's actions, not thoughts that count, non?

You are correct that Harper and Merkel are besties.

by Anonymousreply 1612/20/2012

Canadians have been able to get married since 2005, which is only 7 years and Harper has already once tried to reverse that in Parliament.

by Anonymousreply 1712/20/2012

Stephen Harper, Angela Merkel and Pope Ratzinger are in a joint anti-gay campaign world wide.

by Anonymousreply 1812/21/2012

[quote] Harper is virulently antigay.

Except that his government has been more vocal about combating homophobia in the commonwealth than any other Canadian government. His right hand man is gay (open secret) and his wife is currently in a lesbian affair (another open secret in Ottawa). Not attending this event is all about Canada being pissed at the UN. Nothing else.

by Anonymousreply 1912/21/2012

The Conservatives only mildly speak out against homophobia world wide, to soften their anti-gay National image. They are achieving nothing, just shooting hot air for political spin purposes, but even so, speaking out against international violence is still not supporting Gay equality at home, which the Conservatives officially do not.

It is important to counter act Republican inspired spin tactics, like R19 spews. The Conservative Party of Canada and its leader PM, Stephen Harper are still very much a threat to LGBT persons, in Canada and in other Western Countries, where Gay citizens are finally getting gay equality.

by Anonymousreply 2012/21/2012

And was he successful, R17? No, he was not. He lost his first election over the gay marriage issue and has never risked touching it since.

What's fascinating about Harper is how much of his actual beliefs he has been forced to reign in because they run counter to the beliefs of the the majority of Canadians. So although he's a successful politician, it's been at the cost of his own personal credo and by dropping almost all of what the Reform party stood for. This is why many in his own party consider him the ultimate sell-out.

by Anonymousreply 2112/21/2012

Harper hasn't "reigned in his own beliefs", he has just found sneaky, back door ways to continue them.

There is a reason why Harper blocks the media. (Well he doesn't have to block CTV/Globe Media, because they are his biggest supporters)

by Anonymousreply 2212/21/2012

How can a man like Stephen Harper come to power in such a supposedly liberal nation like Canada? Canadians DLers always like to rub it in about how Canada is oh so progressive, but then you have a conservative shit bag like Harper as your head of government? Please. I'm glad you Canucks are brought low.

by Anonymousreply 2312/21/2012

But the point is, R22, what has he actually been able to change as regards to gay & lesbian rights? Nothing. The country has taken a step backwards in other ways (eliminating the long form census) but despite whatever shit Harper thinks, Canada has only progressed towards further acceptance of gays & lesbians in the last 10 years.

You seem to argue that mere good intentions from Mr. Obama and Mr. Hollande make the US and France more progressive than Canada at the moment - that's not true. If the southern states have legalized gay marriage 50 years from now, I'll be amazed & delighted. And France has displayed huge resistance to the proposed gay marriage law.

So dis Harper all you want, I'll agree with you, but don't equate his ideas with those held by the vast majority of Canadians.

by Anonymousreply 2412/21/2012

It's called vote splitting, dildo @r23. We have 3 viable parties plus the Green Party.

We don't have the choice between 2 parties (which are essentially the same).

by Anonymousreply 2512/21/2012

Canadian DLers typically overstate the Conservatives and the gays.

The truth is something else.

by Anonymousreply 2612/21/2012

I don't get some of the anti-Canadian sentiment on this board. In contrast to the US (and in some respects, the UK), gays have full equality under the law in Canada, and the public overwhelmingly supports this. The Conservative government could have done a lot in the way of diminishing this equality, but they haven't.

Yes, it's unfortunate that the Conservative government isn't as receptive to LGBT concerns as they should be, but there is no credible movement to eliminate the rights LGBT people enjoy in Canada. While the Democrats in the US are certainly more progressive than the Conservatives in Canada in terms of gay rights, when it comes to actual day-to-day life among gay people, the difference between the US and Canada is like night and day. While the current federal government in Canada is more conservative than the government in Washington, there is no question that Canadians are more progressive than Americans, and government at the local level is much more supportive of gays in Canada than it is in the US.

Yes, it's a shame that Canada isn't participating, but it's not the big deal that people try to make it in on DL.

by Anonymousreply 2712/21/2012

I don't think the conservatives ever got a majority government ever since they got elected. And people didn't vote for Harper directly. Canada uses a parliamentary system and vote for their MPs. Which ever party has the most elected members, the party's leader becomes PM.

by Anonymousreply 2812/21/2012

And Canada only has one main right-wing party, while it has two separate left-wing parties (Lib and NDP). Or four if you count Bloc Quebecois and Green. So voters had the choice between one right-wing and 4 left-wing parties. If you combine the 4 left-wing parties into one big party and have a two-party system, the left-wing party will always dominate.

by Anonymousreply 2912/21/2012

There's a couple of Canada-bashing posters on here, R27, who pop up in every thread to explain how Canada is going downhill. The sad thing is, I think these posters are Canadian.

Harper and the conservatives may suck in many ways but as a gay man, I feel very lucky to be living in Canada. We're due for a change next election though.

by Anonymousreply 3012/21/2012

[quote]And was he successful, [R17]? No, he was not. He lost his first election over the gay marriage issue and has never risked touching it since.

Oh, brother, what a delusional idiot you are.

by Anonymousreply 3112/22/2012

[quote]Canada uses a parliamentary system and vote for their MPs.

No shit.

by Anonymousreply 3212/22/2012

Harper isn't going anywhere, r30.

by Anonymousreply 3312/22/2012

The movement to eliminate LGBT equality doesn't have to be hardcore, to be dangerous. It just has to continue to be sponsored by the Federal Government to be dangerous, which it is in Canada.

A dirty and sneaky politician like Stephen Harper, who got elected from on drumming up hatred of a minority group, can not survive the test of time. Yes he has a Gestapo like control of his people right now, but as history shows, draconian leaderships always fail, eventually.

by Anonymousreply 3412/22/2012

So, R31 and R34 - in what ways has Harper instituted his anti-gay agenda in Canada?

From the (conservative) National Post:

"The Tories have explicitly stated that they consider gay marriage to be the law of the land, and will not seek to change that, despite a strong parliamentary majority and control of the Senate. They are moving quickly to amend Canadian law to make sure that gay marriages entered into by non-residents are protected, and the divorce rights of those same couples clarified and strengthened. And they are using Canada’s diplomatic clout to improve (or outright save) the lives of homosexuals living abroad."

Hate on Harper all you like, I don't like him either, but he's not stupid enough to tank his party by taking on an issue Canada considers "settled." Ditto on abortion.

by Anonymousreply 3512/22/2012

Quoting the National Post??? They make FoxNews look like a gaggle of hippie Lesbian vegans. You need a credible source to make that point. But even if you find one (CTV is almost as bad as FoxNews), when Stephen Harper decided to hold a vote to reverse gay equality in 2006, he made history. Harper is the only PM in all Canadian history, who has ever, called for a vote in Parliament, to take away basic human rights from any group of Canadians.

The only other G8 heads of state who ever did this were Adolf Hitler and Joesph Stalin. Both succeeded in their votes. Harper failed to win his vote, but he still tried take basic human rights away from Gay Canadians. History will hang him for that. Not today, but one day.

by Anonymousreply 3612/22/2012

And R36, he failed. That's the point. He tried to do a shitty thing and he failed. Canada said no. So he's not stupid enough to try again because he cares about staying in power more than his own (dubious) moral code.

by Anonymousreply 3712/22/2012

So somebody who tries to kill another person and fails, is off the hook, because they never succeeded? The law doesn't see it that way. The law imprisons them for attempted murder, to prevent them from trying again.

by Anonymousreply 3812/22/2012

[quote]when Stephen Harper decided to hold a vote to reverse gay equality in 2006,

He never did that. The vote was on a simple question. "Does Parliament wish to revisit the issue of gay marriage?" and it was a free vote that failed because of Conservative MPs who voted 'no'. Harper could have easily made it a party vote and insisted all his MPs vote yes, but he didn't because as much as he wants his christian base to see him as attacking the gay community, he does not want urban swing voters to see him as a hater.

[quote]Harper is the only PM in all Canadian history, who has ever, called for a vote in Parliament, to take away basic human rights from any group of Canadians.

I suppose an ignoramus might say something like this but it's not true. One need only consider the Indian act, any of the the Chinese immigration acts, the 1948 Citizenship act or the war measures act.

by Anonymousreply 3912/22/2012

R38, the point is not whether or not Harper is a bad person (I'd never vote for his party) but whether Canada is a liberal country. And it is.

R39 explains it well.

by Anonymousreply 4012/22/2012

R39, the Conservative PR guy, got it wrong again.

The Indian act or any of the immigration acts never took rights away, it just denied rights in the first place.

PM Harper actually tried to take rights away from citizens who already had those rights and that is a first in Canadian history.

by Anonymousreply 4112/23/2012

If Canada is so pro-gay why so many Canadians are in the closet?

by Anonymousreply 4212/23/2012

[quote]The Indian act or any of the immigration acts never took rights away, it just denied rights in the first place.

Not so. Before the Indian act many natives had the right to vote(taken away) and the right to dispose of their treaty lands as they wished (taken away)

The Immigration acts stripped citizenship (well, Canadian Subject of HM) from people ALREADY in Canada, even born here.

Nice try though. I can't blame a hysterical chicken little for getting it's facts wrong.

by Anonymousreply 4312/23/2012

Identifying yourself as Conservative Party PR, not that there was any doubt, negates any cred you have with the Gay community, because the Canadian Conservative Party has positioned itself as the enemy of the Gay community. Kinda like telling the world you are a Nazi and then trying to negotiate with Jewish people.

But....Fifty years ago, the Canadian government granted First Nations people the right to vote in federal elections ** without losing their treaty status **. Is NOT taking away their right to vote. They never had it in the first place. Awarding citizenship rights conditionally, is not taking rights away either.

Many Canadians have been stripped of citizenship, for treason, criminal activity etc. But never an entire minority group.

You still lose your argument, because no PM has ever voted, in all of Canadian history, to take rights, already awarded, away from a group of existing Canadian citizens ---- Except the current PM, Stephen Harper, who voted in 2006 to take rights away from Gay Canadians.

The Conservative Party of Canada and its leader, Stephen Harper, have written themselves into the history books, as the main Canadian enemy of the Gay community.

by Anonymousreply 4412/23/2012

[quote]hey never had it in the first place.

Prior to the Indian act of 1875 many of them DID have the right to vote. Alexander MacKenzie, PM at the time, voted in favour of the act.

In 1885 John A MacDonald voted in favour of amending the act to ban certain religious ceremonies even though these had been guaranteed by treaty.

In 1914 Robert Borden voted to amend the indian act to forbid natives from wearing native costume without government permission.

It's nice that you're so earnest and cute that you think I'm a PC shill (and using words like 'cred' make you about as hip and cool as Jason Kenny) but really, give it up. I'm sure there's a nice thread about Graxy or Honey Boo Boo that would be more your speed.

by Anonymousreply 4512/23/2012

Banning religious ceremonies and dress code are not basic human rights.

Belittling the gay community is what we expect of Conservatives, which is why we are not going to let your buddy Steve Harper win in 2015.

Nice to know the Conservative-Reform party thinks like it is 1875. Exactly what I would expect from these Republican wannabes.

by Anonymousreply 4612/23/2012

[quote]Banning religious ceremonies and dress code are not basic human rights.

Religious observance and freedom of expression (as defined by clothing) are human rights.

[quote]Belittling the gay community is

oh honey... your very existence belittles the gay community. Stop trying. Just. Stop.

by Anonymousreply 4712/23/2012

The Harper voter keeps saying it's law, Harper won't touch it etc. FIRST thing Harper govt thing when it got it's majority was to say that certain gay marriages (with people from other countries) were invalid.

Only a fool or a liar would trust Harper on this (or anything). He is very clear about following an extreme Republican agenda in everything.

To those who wonder how he got in, it is indeed vote splitting, regional voting - the elections are not representative of the public's wishes. He should never have gotten in, more people vote against him, but he managed to sneak in and it's gross. Unfortunately I think he will get elected again and again and Canada will be ruined. They gave new electoral seats to the West so that will ensure it. RIP Decent Canada.

by Anonymousreply 4812/23/2012

He has a block of Alberta support and he just built on that.

by Anonymousreply 4912/23/2012

Maybe all the Gay Canadians can move to Quebec and then Quebec can separate away from the new Texas North.

by Anonymousreply 5012/23/2012

It might happen, R50.

by Anonymousreply 5112/23/2012

We need to take back Alberta from all those conservative freaks.

by Anonymousreply 5212/26/2012

Canada needs to take back the Greater Toronto Area from all those Conservative freaks. This is why Harper is in charge.

by Anonymousreply 5312/27/2012

It would be ironic if Canada actually separated not because of English/French but because of right wing/left wing politics.

by Anonymousreply 5412/27/2012
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!