 HARPER HATES HOMOS / HARPER HARBOURS HOMOS: STEPHEN HARPER & THE GREAT HOMOSEXERY DEBATE.
To watch Canadian news and read the Canadian political blogosphere over the last two weeks, you'd think that gay people were the single largest issue facing the country. There's pretty much only one thing we can all agree on: Tom Lukiwski sure knows how to make an impression.
This is one of those stories that Very Serious People demand that we have Very Serious Opinions on, despite the fact that the story couldn't be more fucking ridiculous. For those reasons, I couldn't love it more. There are few things as precious as watching stupid people put their serious hats on.
In a nutshell, here's what happened. Lukiwski said something dumb and shockingly unoriginal ( language warning) nearly twenty years ago, and the people of Canada have had their panties in knot for two weeks running. The entire country is acting like a cabal of old queens. Hopefully, somebody will help straighten out our collective tiara and get over it soon.
Canada has a disturbingly shallow history in regard to sex scandals. The Minister of Defence in the Mulroney government, Robert Coates, was forced to resign after it was discovered that he liked German strippers, but not enough to fuck them. Then Chretien's Minister of Defence, Art Eggleton, had to quit when we learned that he was throwing government contracts to a woman he used to fuck.
And that's pretty much it. Our guys never get bounced for actual sex. My theory is that Canadians are so goddamned good in the sack that no one ever complains. No complaints, no scandal.  Homosexual sex doesn't bother us a whole lot either. We've had openly gay men in Parliament since the 1980s. It isn't that big a deal because Canada has no Republicans, who are seemingly all queer. Like every civilized country in the world that isn't the United States, sex really doesn't enter our politics all that often. Gay marriage, which most Americans actually think will destroy the Bill of Rights, was a story here for about two weeks after it was legalized. Even most of our conservatives don't give a shit about it. We just happen to be more secure in our masculinity than American conservatives, who apparently have very good reasons to be concerned about theirs. The level of titilation over fucking in American politics often has me concerned that Congress lowered the voting age to 12 and I missed the story. Granted, I'm as guilty as everybody else because I write about those stories constantly. But I do so because I'm in love with stupidity and think that fucking is desperately funny. Most Americans are actually dumb enough to take the Larry Craig story seriously. But the Tom Lukiwski story is subtly changing something that Canadians should be proud of. We're backing away from our long-held belief that where you put your penis isn't the goddamned public's business. I first noticed the trend when I was reading Jason Cherniak last week. Jason's a hyper-partisan Liberal who believes that everyone - including even small children - is engaged in devious conspiracy to prematurely end Stephane Dion's reign of error. He doesn't like Conservatives much at all. But I was surprised at how fair he was in l'affaire Lukiwski. He was probably much more fair than I was, but it should be remembered that Jason isn't burdened with having to be funny and I am. Fair is rarely funny, folks. But then Mr. Cherniak started scaring me pretty quickly. Is homosexuality still so controvercial a subject that public figures have a right to keep it hidden? Nobody would argue that a politician's religion should be secret, so why sexual orientation? In particular, most political observers are aware of a federal cabinet minister who is gay, yet not "out" in public (although he is "out" if you see him at the right party). By keeping that secret from the non-political public, is the media doing him a favour? Are they doing society a favour?
Firstly, I think that the world would be a much better place if politicians were more secretive about their religion. I talk about my cock a lot and I understand that this is obnoxious. However, most people's god-talk is a whole lot more obnoxious, if only because the public expectations of my mighty wang happen to be far more limited than those of your god.
Secondly, the media isn't in the business of doing politicians and the public favours and anyone who thinks that they are should be sterilized soon. Jason's fixation with a fantasy media conspiracy against Dion is evidence that he knows that.
Being against anonymous sources as Mr. Cherniak constantly proclaims that he is, it seems apparent that the decision to "out" someone rests with the person being outed alone. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the creation of a seperate class of politicians for either gays and lesbians or Stephane Dion.
At that point, it gets downright horrifying. I can understand why media don't talk about older gay men who may be married and truthful to their wives. I also understand why they might keep sexual orientation secret if a person is insistent that he does not want it spoken of. However, I can also understand why some media would refuse to do a person that favour. It might be standard now, but one day being gay will no longer be treated by so many politicians as a dirty little secret. I can't wait. Jason's a political professional. Would he be just as comfortable having his sexual practices in the public domain for people like me to scrutinize? And if his sexual practices are somehow noteworthy, why wouldn't those of his partners be? And why precisely would he understand a fucking journalist having a reason to "refuse a person that favour?" Would that person be somehow engaged in a crime or something that would impact their public duties? And why then would journalists and bloggers be so special to warrant a zone of privacy that they wouldn't extend to their subjects? That's an important question, because the Nova Scotia News decided to jump on Jason's bandwagon.ONE OF Stephen Harper’s senior cabinet ministers is a closeted homosexual.
Because the minister’s desire to keep his or her sex life private outweighs whatever public interest there might be in letting readers know about that sex life, reporters never write about it. Similarly, reporters in the gallery never reported on a married Liberal cabinet minister who had a much younger same-sex lover.
Do I really need to know that? Is that what I'm expected to vote on? Really? If so, why? Politicians should be able to have whatever kind of sex they like, so long as they don’t do it in the street and scare the horses. But it is worth pointing out that there is a homosexual minister in Mr. Harper’s government, because it shows that there are gay people everywhere and also shows that Mr. Harper is not personally hostile to gays and lesbians.
He truly does not seem to be. Obviously, Stephen Maher knows something that I don't because I was of the mind that it was a politician's policies that were supposed to inform what those feelings were. Apparently I was wrong and democracy is more about gossip than governance. Who gives a shit if Mr. Harper is personally hostile to gays and lesbians or not? Canadians didn't get together in January of 2006 to elect Dr. Phil. Christ, Harper doesn't seem to like people all that much, but that doesn't impact my vote one way or another. If anything, I approve of the fact that he doesn't pretend to be anything but a misanthropist.
And I really don't think that the country is best served by distinguishing it's citizens on who they fuck and how they go about doing it. Representative government is just that, representative.
Having said that, I'm not going to pretend that people frequently vote based on issues that aren't anybody's business. This is because voters are almost universially busybodies, assholes and idiots.
But the question remains: If the privacy of politicians is no longer relevant, what makes journalists and commentators so goddamn precious? And since Jason Cherniak and Stephen Maher are seemingly dying to tell me about the sexual proclivities of federal cabinet ministers past and present, why shouldn't I know about theirs? Why am I not supposed to know if they have a much younger or older same-sex lover? Should I not know if there's assplay involved? And if not, why not?
I know thar Messers Cherniak and Maher will tell you that they're not on any ballot and that their personal lives are of no consequence. But if public declarations of sexuality is the issue, why limit it to politics? It seems to me that our opinion shapers seem to hold themselves on the same plane of importance as our elected leaders, so why not hold them to the same standard?
Mr. Cherniak is a dual case in that he is both an influential Canadian political blogger and an elected executive of the Liberal Party of Canada. I'm not all that interested in his sex life, but more vindictive partisans might be. Can he not also wait for the day when a rival party begins investigating his private life and publishing the results?
I'm not suggesting that Jason is for invasion of privacy, necessarily. I think he sincerly believes that he has taken a moral position. But I think that he didn't think that position through very well before publishing it. Politicians are public figures on one front, Jason Cherniak is a public figure on two. As for Stephen Maher, he's a journalist and ghoul. And journalists have gotten a free ride on far too many things for far too long. You don't get to put your face and name in the newspaper everyday and suggest that you're still a private citizen, particularly when you're trafficking in other people's secrets.
I'm pretty upfront about my love of a sexy time, but there is a line that I draw. I'm not going to invade the privacy of anyone that I'm currently or have been involved with. That's just common decency. If I write about a specific incident, I'm awfully careful to make sure that I don't identify who else was involved. If they want to identify themselves in my comments, that's their right. But I'm not going to do it on my own, even if the young lady in question wants me to. Sleeping with me doesn't necessarily equate to putting on a show for my readers.
I would suggest that a person's private sexuality isn't a "dirty little secret," as much as it is part of everyone's private lives. And people, regardless of their motives, should keep that in mind. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows that privacy invasions aren't long limited to a certain professional or social class. Eventually, it bites everybody.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Fingerprint File By: The Rolling Stones From: It's Only Rock N' Roll Labels: Fun With Politics, Journalists Are Swine, O Canada
| 
