Media covers up for Baird once again

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

I think he was being sarcastic

Stockholm

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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.

The difference is that the media never tried to cover up or hide the fact that Paul Martin was Catholic and in many interviews he gave at the time when SSM was a big issue he had to explain how he balanced his professional life and his private values. So far John Baird has never been forced to do that because of this "conspiracy of silence" around his exuality.

6079_Smith_W

@ Stockholm

I think I am almost done trying to explain. I am not talking about the fact that some people are closeted about their sexuality I was responding to this comment AT #40:

"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."

We don't expect every woman Conservative MP to get up in front of a tribunal and explain her traitorous allegiance. Same thing for Aboriginal and FN, people of colour , immigrant and other people who have qualities and values that have come under attack by  Conservative Party policy.

Why single out a gay person and expect him to fight your battles like that is the only thing that defines who he is as a person? Clearly he is there because he LIKES it there. For that matter, I assume there are one or two gay people who actually VOTE conservative because they are in line with their political values. It's not your business and it's not mine how someone balances that one quality with the rest of his or her values.

 

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

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

[...]

Well, perhaps the mods can enlighten us on when the line gets crossed into active baiting... Forgive me for being all cynical and shit, but if this discussion was centered around a female Con cabinet minister who had terminated a pregnancy (and let's assume that somehow her medical records were floating around the fringes of the popular domain) and this was consistently being brought up here in discussion because there was a "conspiracy of silence" on the part of the mainstream media to not actively report on this supposedly verifiable medical procedure... while, I can imagine what the reaction would be.

It's not the greatest analogy in the world, but hey, there is nothing illegal about terminating a pregnancy, and I would read the polls to indicate that it is not something that would "tend to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public" so what the hell, open season on someone's private life.

Since Baird is not actively engaged in promoting any specific anti-LGBT legislation, the justifications behind "outing" (a practice that I have few [if any] problems with in the appropriate circumstances) do not apply in much the same way as "outing" a female Con cabinet minister as to whether or not she had ever had an abortion would only be contemplatable if she was actively promoting legislation that would interfere with a woman's right to control her own body. That either Baird or this hypothetical cabinet minister belonged to a party that is objectively homophobic and anti-choice is not itself reason to invade their privacy.

While a number of posters have made a laudable effort to bring this discussion into a critical perspective (particularly with reference to the Giambrone story), it is rooted in baiting.

Sineed

Stockholm seems to be drawing a parallel between Baird, and those Republican closet cases state-side who actively promote anti-gay legislation and a viciously homophobic Christian fundamentalist agenda while hiring rent boys to "carry luggage."  

But I'm not certain that John Baird is guilty of hypocrisy at such a personal level.  Has he personally taken a stand against SSM?  I don't recall.  

When a female conservative MP claims to be a "feminist," it makes me choke on my linguini, but I don't single her out for attack on that basis alone - I'd look at her policies rather than her identity.

 

6079_Smith_W

Time to dust off my old VHS copy of "Advise and Consent". Creepy 60s gay stereotypes aside, that movie at least wound up with a moral that was in the right ballpark of not exploiting a public figure's private life.

Interesting too, that even though the character was a guy from Utah named Brigham, they never came right out and outed him as gay AND Mormon.

 

Debater

Sineed wrote:

Stockholm seems to be drawing a parallel between Baird, and those Republican closet cases state-side who actively promote anti-gay legislation and a viciously homophobic Christian fundamentalist agenda while hiring rent boys to "carry luggage."  

But I'm not certain that John Baird is guilty of hypocrisy at such a personal level.  Has he personally taken a stand against SSM?  I don't recall.  

I agree that it's important not to lump Baird in the same category as the Republican closet cases who vote against gay rights.  Baird doesn't seem to have that type of voting record since he seems to be in favour of SSM.  He voted against the Conservative motion to re-open the debate.

writer writer's picture

bagkitty, I am strongly with you on this one. Strongly.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Thank you bagkitty. I apologize for being inappropriately glib.

Stockholm, knock it off about Baird, and no more threads on this issue.

Closing.

Pages

Topic locked