Friday, January 18, 2008

Tories Booted Mark Warner For Being Gay-Friendly

Two sources, from the man himself via Montreal Simon, which hints at some of the problems Mr. Warner was having with the CPoC Powers That Be:

"On my bio it references the fact that I had attended the International AIDS Conference in August of last year.

My riding has as you know a large population of lesbian and gay people...and also people across the board who are interested in that issue. And I felt it was important to signal to them that this is an issue I've done a lot of work on, and I think it's important

.For some reason when my bio went up to Ottawa it (the AIDS reference) was excluded when it came back down.I had heard at various times THAT THEY HAD OBJECTED TO IT. PEOPLE HAD OBJECTED TO IT BEING IN MY LITERATURE.

And the clincher, from Xtra, in which it is reported that Warner believes he was ousted as Tory candidate in October because he was too supportive of gay issues.

Not something I was aware of.

And the thing is, from the Xtra interview, the guy they got to replace Mark Warner, Rev Don Meredith, is almost as Liberal on these issues (supports SSM, would extend add the trans-gendered to Canada's hate crimes legislation). Which makes you wonder what the point of the whole exercise was. Did the Tories think they would be able to find a black red-neck in T.O.? Not bloody likely.


Reality Bites said...

The guy they replaced him with is in no way as liberal on gay issues as Mark Warner. That interview was full of coded homophobia - as xtra points out, he's not in any danger of being ousted for being too gay-friendly. He's sticking to a careful script of basic support for the status quo people like him fought tooth and nail against our achieving in the first place.

He remains in favour of a discriminatory age of consent for gays versus straights - something that has been found to be a Charter violation by the highest courts in three provinces.

Ti-Guy said...

Which makes you wonder what the point of the whole exercise was.

Who knows. The Connies' "principled stands" on everything change every two weeks. At the time Mark Warner was ousted, some little fundy redneck probably went ballistic, the CPC decided on a course of action, and just simply couldn't back down from it, and refuses to explain it or discuss it.

One of the key elements of the Harpie strategy is that you never equivocate and never revisit your decisions, unless absolutely necessary. And even then, all you have to do is provide a plausible story that Connies, with their wide mouths and extremely accommodating gullets can swallow in one milky, salty, protein-rich bolus. As with Harper's explanation for why he supported the Iraq invasion.

Anonymous said...

Does it matter that I saw MP John Baird at the entrance of the Ottawa Pride Festival last summer, shaking people's hands? If that's not "gay friendly", I dunno what is. Should Baird be booted too?

Reality Bites said...

Baird won't be booted because he's a well-behaved homo who knows his place and won't ever stand up for his own rights, let alone anyone else's.

Someone like Mark Warner, a red tory who will speak his mind, can't be tolerated.

In my opinion they were fine with having him around as a sacrificial lamb in a general election where no one would pay the slightest attention to him, but once they knew there wouldn't be a fall election they didn't want him around for a high-profile by-election.

Believe me, Meredith isn't going to rock the boat in the slightest. And the really funny thing is, as a Liberal Mark Warner will certainly be an MP and quite possibly a cabinet minister someday. Meredith's political career will be over in March - as indeed Warner's would have been had he remained the CPC candidate.

Anonymous said...

"Tories Booted Mark Warner For Being Gay-Friendly"

Yikes. That comment is as actionable as it gets. But that's your problem.

Jay said...

Mr. Baird is gay, and like his cousins the log cabin republican is repugnant in the way he cannibalizes his own community to score political points with the conservative (read bigoted) voters for dear leader.

Ti-Guy said...

Although this is never really clear with me, the CPC's official position on social issues (sexuality, poverty, criminality, etc.) is that they are manifestations of spiritual poverty rather than the product of circumstances that might be largely beyond any individual's control.

Lucky us that we have to go through this pseudo-scientific approach to reality at the exact same time the evidence from the US conclusively shows that it's fucked up.

Anonymous said...

Since when is sodomy amongst 1% of the population a mainstream issue for people? We have infrastructure which has been neglected for the last 35 years which is now crumbling apart. We have communities which no longer have safe drinking water, let alone reserves which NEVER had it, we have problems with drugs, smuggling, violent crime, gangs, property rights issues, provincial equalization payment problems, energy independance goals, REAL pollution to be addressed, and on and on. When are people going to stop looking at the stupid "People" Magazine issues of the day and focus on the hard subjects?

Raphael Alexander said...

It'll be difficult to win that riding without having a politician who doesn't concern himself with gay issues.

Jay said...

"Since when is sodomy amongst 1% of the population a mainstream issue for people?"


You are quite mistaken if you think the gay community constitutes just 1% of the population.

Where did you get that ridiculous number?

The accepted numbers are 1 in 10 or about 10% of the population. Statistics in this area are very difficult to deal with

First, not all LGBT people identify as LGBT. Some people choose not to label themselves, which leads to the next factor.

Some choose not to while others are not out.

Others use more fluid definitions of sexuality that go beyond "gay or straight"; or they are simply bi or gay-curious. (See Kinsey Scale)

Third, not all LGBT people that do identify as LGBT feel comfortable disclosing their sexual identity.

Last, same-sex statistics are only as accurate as those surveyed and their willingness to disclose what many consider private information.

Many consider the number could be as high as 25% of the population when you take into consideration the entire spectrum that is homosexuality/bisexuality.

But by all means keep underestimating to help you sleep at night. You attribute quite a bit of clout to just 1% of the population. The cool thing is by under estimating our numbers you live it open for us to come up the middle to get what we want.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Red Tory said...

The Libs need to get this guy into their camp somehow or other. He's gold. It speaks volumes to the stupidity of the Conservatives that they didn't realize what a tremendous asset they had in Warner. Idiots.

Anonymous said...

A little birdie told me that a poll was coming out showing a Conservative breakthrough in the GTA region. Stay tuned.

Ti-Guy said...

A little birdie told me that a poll was coming out showing a Conservative breakthrough in the GTA region. Stay tuned.

You're not that "roundhead" operative trolling from CPC Central again, are you?

Reality Bites said...

Red Tory, he may run against Sam Bulte for the nomination in Don Valley West, vacated by John Godfrey.

"I am told Don Valley West will be a crowded field," Warner said. "I have not ruled out a run for the Liberals in Toronto if they are seriously interested and if a `good fit' riding becomes available. ... At this stage, I don't have any announcements to make, but continue to be flattered by the expressions of interest that I continue to receive ... in support of my running as a Liberal in the next election."

The biggest obstacle against him running is that the Liberals already hold almost every seat in Toronto, and running against Jack Layton is a waste of time.

Dante said...

It's all rather stupid that "Gay" or "anti-gay" credentials are still required.

The idiots come out from all sides (see Rommey and Red Tory as examples).
The government should really strike any reference to marriage (to anyone) in all legislation and get out of the marriage business. Leave the institution to religion, community, cults, sports teams, knitting clubs...I don't really care. Just please spare me from the
idiocy of pro vs. con.