Media covers up for Baird once again

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm
Media covers up for Baird once again

...

Stockholm

I just saw this fascinating column in Ian Capsticks blog

http://www.mediastyle.ca/2010/09/john-baird-is-really-gay/

"An Ontario cabinet minister has outed one of his federal counterparts as a gay man and the Ottawa Citizen twisted itself in knots not to mention it  – all while managing giving the story prominent placement."

The Ottawa Citizen dutifully "protects" Baird by writing "Byzantium is a Toronto bar and restaurant famous for its food, cocktails, but mostly for its glittering setting for the city’s glamourati; in other words, it’s a hot spot for Toronto’s elite".

A slight contrast to how Byzantium actually describes itself. As a quick visit to their website reveals, the establishment proudly proclaims their status as “the grand matriarch of the gay village” and points to a quote suggesting it’s “the Chic-est Gay Drenched Dining Room” in Toronto.

It’s a hot spot for gays because it’s a restaurant that is famous for being gay. Had Murray only wanted to point out a few elite places that both he and Baird can be seen, he could have just said the Albany Club and likely mentioned that “Rusty” drinks white wine – not the tres gay cosmos he tweeted about. No, Murray tweeted carefully and deliberately.

The Ottawa Citizen kind of knew this, didn’t they? They played coy this morning. The reporter made a point of mentioning Murray’s sexual orientation, but she neglects to mention the Byzantium’s prominent location in the heart of Canada’s largest gay village?

Some will no doubt suggest that Murray’s tweet only implies Baird has some rich, gay Toronto friends that he sometimes hangs out with at Byzantium. They can live in that dream world, but this is reality."

I post this because I find it fascinating how the media will go to such extraordinary lengths to protect John Baird from being made outed as a "hypocrit".

 

KenS

Everybody in Ottawa knew that Scott Brison was gay by not long after he got to Ottawa. He was pretty open about it before he got there.

I dont see any reasin to think Baird is getting special treatment. I think its just a thankful remnant of common Canadian decency staying on top of the other inoxerable tendencies against that.

Cueball Cueball's picture

OOhhh. So sorry. The corporate media being unfair to you again? I am so shocked! I'm shocked. I really am.

6079_Smith_W

I question Capstick's charge that Murray outed Baird as gay. I don't think I'd appreciate someone throwing that accusation at me.

In the first place the implication may certainly have been there, but the only thing he actually made reference to is elitism. It may have been an easily-broken code, but it was code nonetheless.

And secondly, I think the cat is out of the bag already, so Murray didn't betray anyone's secrets:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/OPEN_SECRET_Conservative_cabinet_mini...

Stockholm

What's "decency" got to do with it. There is nothing wrong with being gay. Its not a scandal. The media never think twice about exposing all kinds of embarrassing things about people all the time that they don't necessarily want known. Its this weird contortion they make in this case to avoid reporting the news and whihc makes them complicit in Baird's hypocrisy.

A senior Ontario cabinet minister and former mayor of a major city announced that John Baird casts aspersions on "Toronto elites" yet he frequently drinks Cosmopolitans in a bar named Byzantium which is a GAY BAR. There is no shame in that. It's a simple fact. I just find it intersting that they edit out what is a matter of public record just so that poor John Baird doesn't have to answer any awkward questions about where he (as someone who frequents Byzantium - a gay bar) would have to defend the viciously homophobic policies of the party he belongs to.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I'm much more interested in seeing Baird get outed as a fascist.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Stockholm, dude.... get over it. This is turning into an unhealthy fixation on your part. Trust Dr. Bagkitty. Baird's orientation is so totally NOT important in connection to his comments in this case. And any self-respecting "elite" would blackball his application for membership from the get go... I think it falls under the "loud mouthed, bullying 'frat-boy' personas are not welcome" clause - and it wouldn't just be an urban elite that would do it... I think the rural elite would recognize him as part of the barnyard (braying ass) crowd.

On a more serious note... you are crossing into the territory that is analogous to anti-semitic slurs about "cosmopolitain Jewry". I would suggest you stop and start thinking seriously about what Maysie cautioned you about over in the firearms thread. Your remarks are coming across as pandering to stereotypes.

Stockholm

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I question Capstick's charge that Murray outed Baird as gay. I don't think I'd appreciate someone throwing that accusation at me.

In the first place the implication may certainly have been there, but the only thing he actually made reference to is elitism. It may have been an easily-broken code, but it was code nonetheless.

And secondly, I think the cat is out of the bag already, so Murray didn't betray anyone's secrets:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/OPEN_SECRET_Conservative_cabinet_mini...

Calling it an "accusation" is a homophobic remark. You are implying that being gay is something criminal that can be juxtaposed with being a sexual predator. We "accuse" people of having committed a crime or of being or doing something bad. We don't "accuse" someone of having blue eyes or of having Jewish parents. By even using that language you are exposing yourself as a "latent homophobe"

The "cat is out of the bag" to readers of Xtra and to people who are politicaly connected, but the cat is not "out of the bag" to the general public - partly because publications like the Ottawa Citizen keep going to such extraordinafry lengths to help revolting human beings like John Baird in his little cover up.

Stockholm

What stereotype are you referring to? Ontario Cabinet Minister Glen Murray says that John Baird likes to drink "cosmopolitans". Is there anything wrong with that? They are a nice drink and i enjoy them from time to time myself.

KenS

There is an acknowledged taboo against outing gay people.

There is an argument against that taboo, but you arent making that case here Stock. So the taboo exists, and isnt question by journalists.

Where do you see Baird getting treatment Scott Brison did not also get?

Stockholm

I don't think Baird is getting "special treatment". I think that the "elites" as in the media, business and political elites tend to look out for each other. Similarly, I don't expect L'Osservatore Romano to casually mention that Cardinal so-and-so hires male prostitutes.

But I think that there is a deep pit of homophobia underlying the "taboo" against identifying gay people in public life as being gay. It basically send out a message that being gay is so horrible, so scandalous, so beneath contempt - that it just would be "too cruel" to let it be known that a prominent person is gay.

Its a good question. Why is it so "taboo" for the media to say that someone who is gay is gay? It doesn't seem to be taboo to report on people being straight or to report on their gender or their religious affiliation or whether they have ever shot a gun or not.

We all now know far more than we ever wanted to know about Adam Giambrone having sex with more than one woman - I wonder why that wasn't taboo? If only Giambrone had had sex with a guy instead of a girl in his office and city hall and sent a few taudry text messages about it - I guess the Toronto Star would have decided "Stop the presses! We can't publish this story because its TABOO to expose someone as being gay" - and there would have been no scandal and Giambrone would be a leading candidate for mayor of Toronto right now!

KenS

Then make your case against the taboo.

Otherwise, it just looks like your fixation with Baird in particular. which looks creepy, if nothing else.

Stargazer

@6079, for what it is worth that is exactly what I thought you were talking about as well.

6079_Smith_W

Stockholm wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I question Capstick's charge that Murray outed Baird as gay. I don't think I'd appreciate someone throwing that accusation at me.

In the first place the implication may certainly have been there, but the only thing he actually made reference to is elitism. It may have been an easily-broken code, but it was code nonetheless.

And secondly, I think the cat is out of the bag already, so Murray didn't betray anyone's secrets:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/OPEN_SECRET_Conservative_cabinet_mini...

Calling it an "accusation" is a homophobic remark. You are implying that being gay is something criminal that can be juxtaposed with being a sexual predator. We "accuse" people of having committed a crime or of being or doing something bad. We don't "accuse" someone of having blue eyes or of having Jewish parents. By even using that language you are exposing yourself as a "latent homophobe"

The "cat is out of the bag" to readers of Xtra and to people who are politicaly connected, but the cat is not "out of the bag" to the general public - partly because publications like the Ottawa Citizen keep going to such extraordinafry lengths to help revolting human beings like John Baird in his little cover up.

@ Stockholm

 

I think it has been pointed out, but I was talking about the accusation of outing, something I take a dim view of. I would be pretty pissed off if someone accused me falsely of doing that, and it has nothing to do with orientation.

Secondly, it wasn't the Xtra story I was refering to.  If you read that story you'd find the transcript of the CBC Toronto morning show in which Baird is identified by name as being gay. I suspect a few people might have heard that.

(edit) 

read your last comment. Like it or not, the choice to be public about one's personal life is just that - personal. I know there are people who are in favour of outing public figures, but the fact remains it is not anyone else's decision to make.

And regardless of where one stands on that dispute, the accusation of betraying a person is a pretty clear thing in itself.

 

 

Stockholm

Its true that a handful or "Toronto elites" (sic.) would have heard that remark by the Tory candidate in Toronto-Centre on Metro Morning - but interestingly only La Presse reported on it. If you are a gun-toting, evangelical church-going member of the Conservative party "base" in rural and western Canada - you are probably still blissfully unaware that there is at least one (and probably more) ACTIVE, PRACTISING HOMOSEXUAL in the Conservative government that you love so much.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Stockholm wrote:

We all now know far more than we ever wanted to know about Adam Giambrone having sex with more than one woman - I wonder why that wasn't taboo? If only Giambrone had had sex with a guy instead of a girl in his office and city hall and sent a few taudry text messages about it - I guess the Toronto Star would have decided "Stop the presses! We can't publish this story because its TABOO to expose someone as being gay" - and there would have been no scandal and Giambrone would be a leading candidate for mayor of Toronto right now!

Because Adam Giambrone isn't Rob Ford, whose every misdeed when reported in the press must be prefaced with an official disclaimer that no matter what he does, he is like Teflon. See, we are now reporting that he was convicted for DUI, and the poll numbers from last week have not changed at all.

Whereas with Giambrone, the fact that he is an unmarried man who is sleeping with two women in the same time frame must be reported as being severly damaging.

6079_Smith_W

KenS

Sorry... are you talking to me?

And Stargazer, are you saying that you understood my meaning or not? 

 just want to be clear about this.

(ooops. I see it. Nevermind. Time to go do some yardwork)

Stargazer

@6079 hahaha, yes, I got your meaning.

Stockholm

KenS wrote:

Then make your case against the taboo.

Otherwise, it just looks like your fixation with Baird in particular. which looks creepy, if nothing else.

I think I made that case in post 11

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Taboo? Damn, some people have a very short memory as to the history of libel law in Canada.

Quote:

At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame.

[emphasis added]

Now, I will acknowledge up front that I haven't taken the time to do a thorough search of whether or not Canadian courts still consider identification of non-heteronormative sexuality as something that "tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public"* - but I am damn sure that Journalism programs hammer in a very conservative understanding of how libel law applies, and this is reinforced by the old guard of editors and publishers (and I don't think there is a lot of controversy as to whether or not decision making at the Ottawa Citizen is in the hands of the "old guard"). While the journalistic practice of inserting "self-professed", "avowed" or "acknowledged" in front of any reference to a lesbain or gay man is on the decline, it is still prevalent. Short of the individual self-identifying, or identification being a matter of record or finding of fact, the MSM is going to continue to play coy on a lot of matters... given how prone certain elements of the right are to defamation litigation, it is just as fair to characterize this coyness as enlightened self interest as it is following a taboo.

___________

*Would love to hear from any legal types who have definitive answers to how the courts currently view this.

Stockholm

I don't think fear of litigation is an issue here. Seriously, if the media was suddenly afraid of being sued for "defamation" anytime they published  "any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public" - then we would have no mass media and there would cease to be any critical news stories about any individual!

On top of that, do you seriously think that John Baird is going to sue the Ottawa Citizen for "defamation" because they published an article saying he was gay - let alone simply mentioning that the bar that he frequents with Glen Murray is a gay bar?? He dosn't seem to have sued La Presse or Xtra or the Tory candidate in Toronto Centre for "defamation" and it remains to be seen whether he plans a lawsuit against Glen Murray and/or Ian Capstick for defamation.

This is not London 1958 where Liberace sued the Daily Mirror for defamation because their gossip columnist "Cassandra" described him as "fruit-flavoured" and where Liberace won his case after he took the witness stand and lied through his teeth by declaring that he was not a homosexual and that he felt that homosexuality was "an affront against nature".

Then again, if the definition of defamation is really that broad - maybe Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton should sue John Baird for defamation because he caled them "Toronto elitists".

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

 

Innocent

Cueball Cueball's picture

A rock?

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Some people would call it a boulder.Wink

Debater

Cueball wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

We all now know far more than we ever wanted to know about Adam Giambrone having sex with more than one woman - I wonder why that wasn't taboo? If only Giambrone had had sex with a guy instead of a girl in his office and city hall and sent a few taudry text messages about it - I guess the Toronto Star would have decided "Stop the presses! We can't publish this story because its TABOO to expose someone as being gay" - and there would have been no scandal and Giambrone would be a leading candidate for mayor of Toronto right now!

Because Adam Giambrone isn't Rob Ford, whose every misdeed when reported in the press must be prefaced with an official disclaimer that no matter what he does, he is like Teflon. See, we are now reporting that he was convicted for DUI, and the poll numbers from last week have not changed at all.

Whereas with Giambrone, the fact that he is an unmarried man who is sleeping with two women in the same time frame must be reported as being severly damaging.

From what I can tell, Gimabrone's personal life became relevant because he had a public girlfriend that he was putting out there as part of his campaign and it appeared that he was using her for political reasons to come across as a family man the way many hypocritical social conservatives do.  At that point I think some felt that it crossed the line from being a personal issue into the public's business to question his suitability for office.

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

Debater wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

We all now know far more than we ever wanted to know about Adam Giambrone having sex with more than one woman - I wonder why that wasn't taboo? If only Giambrone had had sex with a guy instead of a girl in his office and city hall and sent a few taudry text messages about it - I guess the Toronto Star would have decided "Stop the presses! We can't publish this story because its TABOO to expose someone as being gay" - and there would have been no scandal and Giambrone would be a leading candidate for mayor of Toronto right now!

Because Adam Giambrone isn't Rob Ford, whose every misdeed when reported in the press must be prefaced with an official disclaimer that no matter what he does, he is like Teflon. See, we are now reporting that he was convicted for DUI, and the poll numbers from last week have not changed at all.

Whereas with Giambrone, the fact that he is an unmarried man who is sleeping with two women in the same time frame must be reported as being severly damaging.

From what I can tell, Gimabrone's personal life became relevant because he had a public girlfriend that he was putting out there as part of his campaign and it appeared that he was using her for political reasons to come across as a family man the way many hypocritical social conservatives do.  At that point I think some felt that it crossed the line from being a personal issue into the public's business to question his suitability for office.

He also lied to the media - a no, no if there ever was one.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Oh please. Ford lied to the media too. But he is teflon, doncha know.

 

Stockholm

Debater wrote:

From what I can tell, Gimabrone's personal life became relevant because he had a public girlfriend that he was putting out there as part of his campaign and it appeared that he was using her for political reasons to come across as a family man the way many hypocritical social conservatives do.  At that point I think some felt that it crossed the line from being a personal issue into the public's business to question his suitability for office.

...and think of how many other politicians have a "public wife" that they use in their campaign while they busy themselves diddling their mistresses etc... Mike Harris went through the whole 1999 election campaign using his wife Janet as a prop - even though it was cvommon knowledge that he was screwing other women and that their marriage was basically dead - I don't recall the media making that into an issue. In every election campaign, Bill Graham would dutifully use his "wife in name only" as a prop in his campaign brochures even though its pretty common knowledge that he's been gay for the last 20-odd years - no one ever pronounced him unfit for public office. Let's not even get into the Clintons.

I think its pretty hypocritical to be a gay man who hates himself so much that he runs for public office as a candidate of a party that is viciously homophobic and I question whether someone with such deep psychological issues of self-hate is suited for public office. What if his finger is on the trigger at some point and he starts a war or something just to prove how much of a "man" he is??? I also wonder how "suitable for public office" someone is if they were addicted to "party drugs" just a few years ago - as Smitherman has told the world he was.

In the case of Giambrone, it was patently obvious that the Toronto Star had it in for him - they have spent the past two years in an obsessive quest to make George Smitherman mayor of Toronto and they were willing to do and say ANYTHING to make it happen. The only reason the Star decided that Giambrone's sex life was such a big issue is that they thought it would help Smitherman, if Giambrone was knocked out of the race - that's all. Ergo the thinly veiled character assassination.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Come now Stockholm! Surely you are not suggesting that the owners of the Toronto Star would allow their political views to shape the editorial stance of the newspaper.

What is really amazing, given Slitherman's gold seal of approval from everyone from the Toronto Star to Harris Tory cabinet ministers, no one is going to touch that louzy lying scoundrel with a 10 foot pole, and he is going to loose badly to the right wing piker from Rexdale, who everyone likes because he isn't pretending to be something that he isn't.

Stockholm

actually Ford IS pretending to be something he isn't. He pretends to be a "man of the people" when he is actually from an extremely rich old money family and he is worth millions. He also pretends to be some "good ole boy" family man, yet his wife is conspicuous by her absence on the campaign trail and a few years ago she pressed charges against him for spousal abuse which she later withdrew. But no one seems to care!

Funny Cueball how at the municipal level we seem to suddenly see eye to eye.

Cueball Cueball's picture

The real scandal is screwing your groupies, not beating up your wife, driving drunk and getting charged with possession of controlled substances.

WingNut

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

I'm much more interested in seeing Baird get outed as a fascist.

In Canada's Harper-Cum-Tea-Bagger Movement, being gay is far less tolerable than a brown shirted fashion statement.

George Victor

bagkitty wrote:

 

Innocent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An "erratic" (glacial).

Sean in Ottawa

I recognize the delicious nature of pointing out private life hypocrisy. But is it worth it?

There is an idea that a private life should be kept private in part in order to attract more people to public life and in part so that we concentrate on their policy positions. It is also a principle to avoid using other people's bigoted views against a targeted group. I am very uncomfortable with this-- isn't anyone else?

If we can't get rid of that man because of the public face he has shown us and the policies he supports do we really want to get rid of him because of his sexual orientation? Whatever that says about him being in a homophobic party is nothing compared to the idea that we would use sexual orientation against a public figure. Further the idea that we are just doing this because of hypocrisy is not honest in my view. There is a lot of hypocrisy out there. This one is not worth it and I think it smells of hypocrisy to want to use it.

Let's get Baird replaced based on what he says and does publicly. I really don't like the precedent of making his personal life open season.

This is not new and I have thought about it a lot-- I can't stand Baird and I wish I could justify this but I just can't.

Pogo Pogo's picture

well said

Stockholm

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If we can't get rid of that man because of the public face he has shown us and the policies he supports do we really want to get rid of him because of his sexual orientation? Whatever that says about him being in a homophobic party is nothing compared to the idea that we would use sexual orientation against a public figure.

I see your point - but who said anything about "getting rid of him"? Quite frankly, if Baird actually did hold a press conference to say "I am gay" I suspect that it would not harm his political career one iota. This is no longer about him as an individual, I think though that this whole incident around the Ottawa Citizen's reporting that is described in Ian Capstick's blog leads us to a more wide-ranging discussion about why it is that the mainstream media is so complicit in keeping people's gayness a state secret. That is what i want to discuss. I mean they go to the trouble of writing an article filled with innuendo referencing Glen Murray's tweet about sharing cosmopolitans with John Baird at Byzantium, THEN they "educate" their readers in Ottawa (who don't know Toronto bars) that Byzantium is just any old bar where a lot of hoity-toity Toronto elites hang-out - conveniently avoiding mentioning the fact that Byzantium is first and foremost a GAY BAR. Why??? We are not talking about a married man who is rumoured to be sucking dicks in public washrooms like that senator from Idaho. We are also not talking about an "intensely private bachelor" with no social life whatsoever who has rent boys chauffered to his home in a limo with tinted windows. We are talking about an openly gay man who apparently goes to gay bars and parties and makes out with people in public (as nauseating an image as that is to conjure up) and makes no attempt to keep his personal life a secret - so why does the media turn themsleves into a pretzle trying to avoid just saying it??

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

Quite frankly, if Baird actually did hold a press conference to say "I am gay" I suspect that it would not harm his political career one iota. 

Perhaps not, but it's hard to know for sure.  The Conservative Party of Canada does not seem to be the most gay-friendly environment.  There is not a single openly-gay MP in the whole party.  Why is that?  All the other parties (Liberal, NDP, BQ) have openly gay MP's, so why not the Conservatives?  Can that just be coincidental?  It has the largest number of MP's, and yet not a single openly-gay one.  I'd like to know why the journalists in this country haven't asked Stephen Harper and the other Conservatives some questions about this.  Even the Conservative Party in the UK has openly-gay MP's.  I just saw an article last week that listed about half a dozen examples.

Stockholm

I suppose that if Baird had leadership ambitions in the Tory party - it might be an issue. But I doubt if he's delusional enough to think he'd have any chance at that in the first place and in any case - whether he officially announced he was gay or not - the Tories base would never tolerate a leader who has never been married and is the subject of a lot of innuendo.

6079_Smith_W

@ Stockholm

The other thing to remember here is that Murray made a tweet about Baird's status as one of the "elite" presumably to point out the hypocrisy in Baird's use of the term "elite" as a slur in a news conference. It seems to me if there is a news story there that is the meat of it, and that is how the Ottawa Citizen reported it.

Murray did mention a nickname and a bar. If, as you imply, a politician's orientation shouldn't be a big deal it begs the question of why anyone would consider it newsworthy at all. After all, we don't talk about other bars as "straight" bars.

(edit) And for that matter, the media don't generally make a point of mentioning if a politician is straight.

Capstick made his own inferences, but given the flimsiness of his accusation it has more than a whiff of gossip and scandalmongering about it.  I can see why the newspaper decided to take a slightly more professional slant and focus on what was actually said - and what was actually news.

 

Stockholm

"If, as you imply, a politician's orientation shouldn't be a big deal it begs the question of why anyone would consider it newsworthy at all."

I think its newsworthy that someone gay would be a member of a government that is hostile to gay people and that he has a responsibility to explain himself.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well, this is a good point. In fact, one really has to wonder what all the gutter level journalism is all about really. At some point people's private lives should be their private lives. One really wonders why anyone really cared at all who an unmarried man like Adam Giambroni was screwing at all. It's not as if there was a paternity suit or anything.

6079_Smith_W

@ Stockholm

Well Paul Martin brought in marriage equality even though he is a devout member of a church that condemns homosexuality. Presumably he figures out a way to balance his professional life and his private values just like every other person who has a job. My guess it is the same for Mr. Baird.

If the Citizen wanted to run a big exposee about discrepancies between politicians' private lives and their party policies that would be their choice. The fact is however, they don't have anything from Glen Murray to build that piece on.

If Murray had called a press conference or sent a letter outing Baird then it might - might -  have been a legitimate news story. In fact he did not do that; he was making a comment about Baird's slur from the day before. That's the story. Capstick's interences are just his own opinion, and I am not surprised that the Citizen didn't touch it.

 

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

I suppose that if Baird had leadership ambitions in the Tory party - it might be an issue. But I doubt if he's delusional enough to think he'd have any chance at that in the first place and in any case - whether he officially announced he was gay or not - the Tories base would never tolerate a leader who has never been married and is the subject of a lot of innuendo.

But it may be the case that in the Conservative Party you can't become even a cabinet minister if you are openly gay.

All the other parties have openly-gay MP's, so why hasn't the Conservative Party been asked by journalists why they are the only ones who don't?

For example:

 

Liberal MP's

Rob Oliphant (Don Valley West)

Mario Silva (Davenport)

Scott Brison (Kings-Hants)

 

NDP MP's

Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas)

Libby Davies (Vancouver East)

 

BQ MP's

Real Menard (Hocheloga)

Raymond Gravel (Repentigny)

(The last 2 MP's recently left the BQ.)

 

Why are there no Conservatives on this list?  It's time the CPC was asked about this issue.

Doug

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

I'm much more interested in seeing Baird get outed as a fascist.

 

I suppose we could hope to see him in an SS uniform but I don't suppose he's into that. I'd probably know by now if he were.

Doug

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Stockholm

The other thing to remember here is that Murray made a tweet about Baird's status as one of the "elite" presumably to point out the hypocrisy in Baird's use of the term "elite" as a slur in a news conference. It seems to me if there is a news story there that is the meat of it, and that is how the Ottawa Citizen reported it.

 

Quite so. How the hell does a cabinet minister get off using "elite" as a pejorative? I expect you'd find not a few other elite people - from Toronto or otherwise - on his meeting calendar.

George Victor

"Elite" is one of the most powerful words in a populist's arsenal.  However, its use is not restricted to politicians appealing to (maneuvering) the average masses, or "revolutionary" levellers, those strident voices chastising anyone or anything uppity.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Hey Stockholm. Your obsession with Baird is getting creepy, but there are no rules about not being creepy on babble. Yet. Wink

In terms of "there's nothing wrong with being gay and it's homophobic to act otherwise", I need to say something that's so patently obvious I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet. 

Society is STILL homophobic, and there are still people, of any and all ages, who feel shame about being gay, queer, lesbian, bi, and are closeted.

Yes, even people from cities. Yes, even people who go to Byzantium.

 

.... waits a moment before continuing....

 

To be clear, I hate John Baird, his person and his politics. Whatever his particular idiot reasons for not being out (I assume pressure from Mr. Big Daddy Controlling Dom Harper rather than individual reasons) are bullshit given that he's a proud member of the homophobic Conservative Party. At the same time, I'm fine with not claiming him as a friend of Dorothy's, since, well, he's just so despicable.

And, um, just a reminder regarding all this talk of "cover up" by the media. Not that they aren't doing it, and yeah, they will probably do it inconsistently, either with an anti-homo bias, or in the example of Giambrone that everyone keeps talking about, an anti-left bias. But, y'all have heard about this cool thing I invented called the interwebs, eh? A quick google search finds mention of John's gayness at hit #9. But you have to scroll past some very scary images of his face first.

And pul-lease.....Cosmopolitans are like, sooooo 2003.

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

Cueball wrote:

Oh please. Ford lied to the media too. But he is teflon, doncha know.

Sure, and there's absolutely no evidence of New Democrats ever being held to a higher standard than other politicians.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Fussy, Hysterical, Wine-Sipping Pols: A history of political gay-baiting. Not that anyone here would do anything like that...

Cueball Cueball's picture

MUN Prof. wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Oh please. Ford lied to the media too. But he is teflon, doncha know.

Sure, and there's absolutely no evidence of New Democrats ever being held to a higher standard than other politicians.

False.

Pages

Topic locked