Monday, August 13, 2007

A website on gay rights

Gay rights issues have been swirling in my head again. Personally I am glad that I am pro-gay marriage. I couldn’t live with myself if I were anti-gay marriage. I have come across a site created and maintained by Bill Myers from Ohio. It is called GAY RIGHTS INFO. Bill cares passionately about gay rights believes strongly in the expansion of gay rights. So he has compiled voting records of politicians in the US and around the world on gay rights issues. He also gives the status of gay rights in all US states and various other countries including Canada. Bill’s site includes a page that gives a table of voting records for all MPs in the current Canadian House of Commons, those from the 38th House of Commons, and most of those who were in the 37th House of Commons. The reason I say “most” is because the table does not include MPs like Brian Tobin who resigned mid-way through the 37th House of Commons and whose ridings were filled in a by-election. It DOES, however, include MPs such as Jean Chrétien who resigned near the end of the 37th House of Commons and whose seats were vacant at dissolution. Here is a link to the table: http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/canhoc.html

This table for the Canadian House of Commons has 16 Commons votes that Myers considers to be a “homosexual issue”. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “pro-gay” position on the issue, they get a + sign for that vote. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “anti-gay” position on the issue, they get a – sign for that vote. If they did not vote, they get a question mark. If they were not MPs at the time of the vote, they get an “I”. The problem with this table is that it has many flaws to it. Another feature of the table is that MPs who are outspokenly pro-gay get a + sign next to their name. MPs who are outspokenly anti-gay get a – sign next to their name. Stephen Harper has, correctly in my opinion, a – sign next to his name put there by Myers. However, there is one error among the + signs and – signs next to peoples names. There is a glaringly incorrect anti-gay – sign next to the name of Conservative MP James Moore. James Moore supports same-sex marriage and has voted for it. What’s more, look at this quote from James Moore (http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/canada/canews018.htm):

“The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And it is no business of any politician to even comment, let alone legislate, let alone preach, about the consenting behaviour of two adults behind closed doors,” Moore said.

“And Larry Spencer was way over the top and I think his comments were ridiculous.”

Clearly the anti-gay – sign did not belong next to James Moore’s name. Myers probably meant to put the – sign one line down next to Conservative MP Rob Moore’s name. Rob Moore is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. I think this is where that – sign belonged, and putting it next to James Moore’s name was a technical mistake.

But the flaws in the table go far deeper than that. Some of the issues voted on that Myers considers to be “homosexual issues” I do not consider to be homosexual issues at all. Votes on Canada’s age of consent could be argued to be a homosexual issue because none of the proposals being voted on equalized the homosexual age of consent. However, I consider the age of consent votes in question to be too specific to warrant being called a vote on “homosexual issues”. Therefore I don’t think the age of consent votes should have been included in the table. There are also two votes that have NOTHING to do with “homosexual issues”. They are a vote on a child pornography Bill and a vote on a Bill that proposed to “increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of using the internet to lure a child for sexual purposes from five years to 10.” I am appalled that these two votes are included in the table and that a vote for either Bill is considered an “anti-gay vote” and a vote against either Bill is considered a “pro-gay vote” In both cases homosexuality may be indirectly involved. However, homosexually-oriented child porn is equally as reprehensible as heterosexually-oriented child porn. So this vote should not have been included in any way in the table. The vote on the internet luring Bill should clearly also never have been included in the table.

It is also appalling how much of an emphasis Myers places on the internet luring Bill. He considers a vote for this Bill to be “anti-gay” and in some cases penalizes the most pro-gay MPs in the House very heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill. For example, MPs first elected in 2006 are only graded on voting on two issues – the internet luring Bill and Harper’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. This gives several MPs (including newly elected pro-gay NDPers) a C grade when they in fact deserve an A+. For example, Michael Ignatieff’s vote in favour of the internet luring Bill causes Ignatieff to be given only a C grade despite his outspoken support for gay rights. What’s more, Myers gives other MPs like Jack Layton, who have a perfect voting record on gay rights, an A instead of an A+ simply because they voted for the internet luring Bill. None of this is in the remotest way right. As I have explained, several MPs who have a C deserve an A+, and several with an A also deserve an A+. It makes ZERO sense to include the internet luring Bill in the table. And WHY does Myers penalize MPs so heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill? This is a Bill that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gay rights. Just look at the age group mentioned. The Bill covers the luring of children from the ages of 5 to 10. This has nothing to do with gay rights because having gay sex with a 10 year old is EQUALLY as reprehensible as having heterosexual sex with a 10 year old. NO GAY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. Including this vote distorts the grades of several of the most gay-positive MPs in the House. Inquiring minds want to know why Bill Myers included the internet luring Bill in the table and why he included the age of consent votes and the child porn vote in the table.
Bill Myers says that the site will be shut down on January 1, 2008 because he no longer has time to update the site. He says all data will disappear so readers have to save the data beforehand. I plan to do just that because generally it is a very informative site. But I am baffled in particular by the child porn vote and the internet luring vote being included in the table and distorting the grades of some of the finest pro-gay MPs in the House.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Having some personal connection with Ohio, I think what you are witnessing is what I like to call " American gay-shock."

After a while gays in many rural areas of the US midwest and notorious bible belt grow so used to seeing seemingly innocent, reasonable-sounding bills or government policies (local, state, and federal) turn out to be just thinly-guised attacks at homosexuals that their radar actually begins to suspect nefarious underpinnings when hearing of things like suggested changes to membership policies at the community center, new procedures to apply for public parades and rallies, or book approval procedures for the local school board.

I kid you not.

So my suspicion is he really does, through that mindset, suspect the intention of the bills you mention goes beyond the stated intention and instead contains overtly anti-gay provisions. Realize, as well, that it is increasingly common in the US to name bills in such a way in direct opposition of their true intent, which is why something called "the clean water bill" may actually contain provisions that essentially gut the EPA's ability to regulate or enforce policies to promote clean water.

My point is that your assessment is probably correct, but that he isn't used to seeing these type of bills at face value and instinctly assumes they are a threat to gay rights.

He might actually appreciate you pointing out that we are talking about Canada here, which hasn't quite fallen down the Orwellian wormhole that the US has, at least at this point in time.

J@ckp1ne said...

I don't understand why bills having to do with protecting children are even included in this table.As far as I am concerned they have nothing to do with gays at all.

Brendan said...

Exactly, J@ckp1ne. That's exactly what I said in my blog.

Anonymous said...

Gee, I hope you weren't thinking my post was to disagree with you. I don't think those bills belong on the table either.

I was just trying to point out how suspicious and seemingly paranoid a gay person can become in some rural areas and why they *might* think they had something to fear from a piece of legislation - even if that was a totally false assumption.

In my experience in the US, I have seen many local, state, and federal laws or policies whose stated intention appeared to have nothing to do with gays at all, but when you read the fine print or discovered the intent on how they would be implemented, you realized they were in some cases just very deceptive ways of attacking gays or putting them under a web of suspicion. My first experience of that was in Cincinatti Ohio, where they basically passed a law to erase gay discrimination protections from the law.

I was NOT saying that was the case here; I was just pointing out. I really think you should contact him and point out your knowledge on those bills. He might appreciate it. If he's really tabulating that much data - and is from the US - he may not pay as close attention to the Canadian legislation.

It's just a thought.

Be well - and have a good day.

Brendan said...

anonymous, never did I indicate that your post was to disagree with me. I could always tell you agreed with me totally. I was adressing J@ckp1ne, whoever they are when I said:

"Exactly, J@ckp1ne. That's exactly what I said in my blog. "

I was concurring with J@ckp1ne and pointing out I said the same thing as J@ckp1ne in my blog. Never did I think that anyone posting on this particular blog disagreed with me nor do I think so now. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Have a good day,
Brendan