Black Dog

That's not an example, that's hearsay. Indeed, that is the key distinction. But could it be that your discomfort with the CBC's "bias" is primarily becaus eits a bias you do not share? In other words, were CBC (which, in my mind, seems to do a decent job of balancing opinions from across the spectrum) more like CanWest in its slant, would you still be complaining?

Funny, but Bush's recent shift in Iraq policy (Iraqification, increasing multinational involvement, disengagement) came on the heels of k\Kerry's proposed strategy of Iraqification, increasing multinational involvement and disengagement. More progressives would vote for Nader if he actually stood a chance. However, the U.S. political system is hopelessly slanted against third-party or independant candidates. In a two party state, you are always forced into a choice between the lesser of two evils. Kerry, in this case, is an unknown, but people seem to be operating on the assumption that he could not possibly be worse than the Bush, one of the most hypocritical presidents in history, and his perfidious cadre of neocon slugs.

That the CBC has a left-wing bias is a canard that's as old as the hills. What I don't see are any examples of this bias (that's not to ay bias does not exist. As has already been pointed out, there's no such animal as unbiased journalism) in action. Furthermore, is CBC any more biased than, say, CanWestGlobal? However, even if such bias does, in fact, exist, the next question is whether the bias is institutional or the product of the sensibilities of individual reporters and commentators.

I don't see this happen, as the possibility of Bush ever doing anything positive is remote at best.

I'm pretty much out of puff on this topic. However, I do find it sad that we live in a society where natural human sexuality and displays of affection like a three or four second kiss are considered affronts to "community values". After all, we're not talking about a public orgy here.

But there would be every reason to lead people to belive that WMD did exist. Otherwise it would look like a superpower bitch slapping a two-bit dictatorship that posed no threat at all. Remember, this was as much a media war as it was one of armies. I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever (beyond the daily pronoucements from the CPA and the Pentagon denouncing the insurgents as "terrorists"). Averag eIraqi sentiment seems to be that they don't like Saddam, they don';t like the insurgents, but neither do they like the U.S. To a country with experience in such matters, the U.S. is just another colonial power. In the meantime, U.S. displays of force (like their campaign in Fallujah) is feeding into the growing anger Iraqis have for their occupiers. They feel the U.S. doesn't listen and doesn't understand the need sof Iraqis. They want the U.S. out, which is why the insurgency is growing, and will continue to grow, especially if the U.S. continues to rely on its abiding faith in force. And access to oil and the prospect of a permenant military prescnce in Central Asia had nothing to do with it at all, right? Again, I'd like to see some support for this. I've read tons of comments by average Iraqis that say someting to the effect of that saddam was bad, but he kept society stable and that the U.S. occupation has made Iraq more dangerous than before. Well, as the recent U.S. backed coup in Haiti shows, old habits die hard. Iraq, however is a unique case in that it was the first exercise of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war and regime change (concepts that fly in the face of accepted international law). By attacking a country and overthrowing a regime that did not first attack them, the U.S. is setting a new precedent and making thei rown set of rules as they go. As a result, the eyes of the world, especially the already hostile, Arab/Muslim world are on this venture, which would make replacing Saddam with a U.S. chosen Saddam Lite a more difficult task. That means the invasion and occupation had to be dressed up in terms of bringing freedom to Iraq, even if the results have fallen well short of the stated goals (leading one to believe that the stated goals weren't the actual ones at all). My predicition? The U.S will maintain a large force and control over Iraqi affairs until the completion of the four plus permenant bases in Iraq, at which point the U.S will withdraw to these basis and leave Iraq in the hands of a lame duck government. If such a government (which would invariably be seen as a U.S. puppet) the U.S. would be in a position to bring in a Murabek or Mushareff style "strongman", to rule in an authoritarian fashion while still giving lip service to the democractic process. But then, I'm an optimist. I think the problem is, KK, that the anti-USA crowd (more accurately, the anti-imperialism crowd) simply doesn;t buy it. By your own admission, the U.S. has a poor track record in foreign affairs. People on my side of the fence don't have any reason to belive the leopard has changed its spots, especially considering the group in charge. We hear the rhetoric coming from Bush, Rummy, et al. We just don't buy it.

Not so. Protecting people from discrimination is not the am ething as legislating morality. No one has to accept homosexuals, blacks, Jews whatever, if they don't want to. But they sure as hell can't discriminate against them. Freedom of speech still includes the freedom to hate, but acting on that hate is not kosher. It has less to do with "market choice" as it does with the fact that western democracies have traditionally valued principles of equality more than others, and have enforced those values through legislation like the Bill of Rights and the Charter. That said, don't think for a second that we're even close to seeing true equality for gays even here. Yeah, like that'll happen. Also, his rather incriminating comments are also a sure sign that there is an anti-gay bias at work. I'm sure people in teh U.S. South were tired of blacks shoving their desire for equality down the "majorities" throat too (and BTW, what's with teh right's fondness for that esxpression? It's time to get a new one.) If homosexuals didn't have to contend with discriminatory actions of people like the redneck bar keep, sexual orientation wouldn't be an issue. I disagree completely, but I'll just focus on your initial statement. The victimization of gays and lesbians based upon their sexual orientation includes harassment, vandalism, robbery, assault, rape and murder. The location of these crimes is not restricted to dark streets leading from gay establishments. Violence against gays and lesbians occurs everywhere: in schools, the workplace, public places and in the home. Those who commit these acts come from all social/economic backgrounds and represent different age groups (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Safety and Fitness Exchange, Lance Bradley and Kevin Berrill, 1986.) Crimes against homosexuals often occurs because of their sexuality, versus the threat of random violence the rest of the population faces. And while there may be no "conspiracy", the prevailing social ethic of the day still deems discrimanatory behavior aganst homosexuals as mor eor less acceptable. This is what I mean. A straight couple making out on a sofa would be regarded as a public display of affection, but because the couple in question were lesbians, it was a calculated provocation. yeah, no bias here. And it gets worse. That's right, those sex-crazed homos can't control themeslves, they were all set to turn the Blarney Stone into a scene from Where the Boys Aren't: Volume 9. Again, similar behavior by heterosexuals is tolerated (I've seen some pretty steamy sessions in my time that have passed without comment). The liplock in question was no more than a few seconds long, yet you expect me to believe that it wa sa prelude to a full-on sex session? Come on. it's that kind of assumption and stereotyping that betrays an ingrained and often unconcious revulsion towards homosexuals in society, which is partly why legal human rights protections are a flawed, but necessary device.

Have you read up on the history and rationale of Gay Pride event such as parades? The whole concept of Gay Pride started after the Stonewall Riot in New York in June 1969. When police raided Stonewall, a gay and lesbian bar in New York, and tried to arrest the patrons, a riot ensued which lasted three days. Yes, pride events tend to be provocative. That's intentional, a reaction to the casual homophobia behind notions like "if people want to be gay, fine, they should just do it in their own home." or that gay people should "normalize" their lifestyles (so as not to offend the breeders, I presume). It's a public expression of a lifestyle traditionally relegated to the back of the closet. Whether you agree with pride events or not (and ther eis by no means a consensus in the gay community on the subject), it is an exercise in freedom of expression.

Frankly, F**k Kerry. A vote for the Democrats is a vote for the Republicans. They all work for the same bosses. Hell, Bush and Kerry are brothers in Skull and Bones, which say spretty much everything you need to know about diversity in American politics. Most left-wing Americans I know are smart enough to realize there is no fundamental differnce between the Democrats and Republicans (as one put it "They both screw you, the Democrats just buy you dinner first.") The only reason they're voting for Kerry is because Bush is so awful that pretty much anyone woul dbe an improvement.

Now, I've long held the opinion that Rush Limbaugh is a pustulous boil on the ass of America's cultural discourse. But the pill-popping pundits really gon eoverboard this time, stating in a recent broadcast that American GI's abuse of Iraq detainees was just "blowing off steam" and the soldiers were "having a good time." The official US Army report listed all the abuses committed at the prison. "Blowing off steam" apparently now includes: Unbelievable. :angry:

Nowhere did I accuse you of bringing up the Charter. I brougt up the Charter to show that your contention that the bartender had a legal right to kick the lesbian kissers out. I demonstrated that, under the Charter, he had no such legal right. which led to you casting asprisions on the legitimacy of the Charter and my own personal credibility. And now you're just making stuff up.

There's many problems with comparing post-war Germany and Japan with present-day Iraq. While I recongize the point is basically "these things take time", using that as a rationale to justify the invasion occupation is folly, given the enormous differences between the post WW2 Axis and post-Saddam Iraq. For starters, both Germany and Japan were relatively ethnically and religiously homogeneous, a sharp contrast to the divisions in Iraqi society. Germany, prior to the rise of Hitler, had a sembleance of democratic tradition and had much of its economic and beureaucratic infrastructure intact after hostilities. Iraq has never so much as flirted with democracy and its civil and economic infrastructure is in utter shambles after 12 years of crippling sanctions, two wars and the complete dismantling of preexisiting administrative structure under the guise of de-Baathification. As well, the post-war occupation of the Axis powers had a tremendous amount of legitimacy in the eyes of the world, unlike Bush's adventure in Iraq. Germany and Japan were aggressor states in the conflict and even the conquered people of those nations more or less accepted their defeats and the subsequent U.S. occupation. In both cases, there was no armed resistance. Compare that with the rising insurgency in Iraq, which shows little sign of slowing down as the "handover" nears. Then there's the numbers. Post war Germany harboured nearly 3 million Allied troops, Japan more than 100,000 and included thousands of civil-affairs personnel which put into place reconstruction plan sthat had been in the works for many years, unlike the slapdash U.S. policy in Iraq, which seemed to focus primarily on acheiving military victory. There's many more ways in which the parrallels fall short, but suffice it to say, that while democratization is indeed a long process, conditions in post war germany and Japan were more or less favourable to the process. The realities in Iraq are decidedly less so.

Dude, this whole thread started because of a complaint to the Human Rights Commission based on the Charter. You can't have a discussion about discrimination in this country without mentioning Charter rights. "As others have pinte dout"? Who? The voices in you're head? Notwithstanding that is the fact that I regularly post studies, reporrts, links and "objective" news articles from a variety of sources. Whereas your only citations are...yourself. What. Ever. I think the Red Deer case is a prime example. Then there's the fact that same sex couples aren't given many of the same benefits (such as health benefits) as hetero ones (though that's slowly changing, thanks in no small part to legal prohibitions on discrimination based on sexual orientation). How about the threat of violence? And what about the general disdain that most of ghetero society still has for gays (this thread is a good sampling of that). I highly doubt that. Oh? It seems to me that there are parties here who crave enforced morality, so long as that morality precludes homosxuality. Yeah, that's me: a self-hating, central Alberta cracker. No I just recognize the existence of white (male) privilege.

*throws up hands* Fine, whatever. You're right Hugo. There's no discrimination whatsoever in the world except for that put upon opressed, white, heterosexual, Christian males. I can hardly stand to walk down the street, it's so much like Disney's "It's a Small World" out ther ethat its nauseating. You know, wage discrepencies between men, women and minorities and the quality of work available is well-documented. But it seem sto me you're only interested in nit-picking and demanding "proof", when you yourself speak in nothing but blanket statements and conjecture. I asked you to back this up by providing examples. You hedged, saying "it's in the wording of the Charter", even though that is not the case. So, "show me one single example." Upon re-reading this thread, I can see your argument go from: "It's the barkeep's right to discriminate." which when shown to be wrong turned into "the Charter is stupid because it supports discrimination that I can't actually illustrate," which became "You have no credibility because you only post on gay rights' , which is incorrect and irrelevant. Now we're down to pointless meta arguments concerning documented social phemomenon. So I'm left to wonder: what's your point? What is Hugo's magic bullet for ending discrimination. I'm all ears. Oh yeah: Wages (Actually I just spen t the last 15 minutes looking for more and I've found plenty, including studies by the UN and other NGOs. ButI'm not gonna waste my time oposting them because I know they'll be shrugged off and I'm not falling for that trick again. Now I'll just sit back and await the triumphalist crowing.)

Ah, so now you just convienently ignore those threads by dissmissing them as Bush bashing. Then again I don't seee any threads started by you whatsoever, so I gues sthat means you don't give hoot about anything. Shall I start my own entire section on every single oppressed minority just to prove my credibility to a nobody like you? I think not. The answer is I don't know. Don't really care, either. The point of Pride events is for the LGBT community to celebrate their historical struggles in an overwhelmingly hertero-centric world. If straight people want to have another parade,they can go on ahead. But it amazes me that gay people get one lousy day out of the year and suddenly it's like the world is ending. You are distorting the issue and I ain't buying it. The idea behind the Charter and AA practices isn't to emphasize differences, but to correct social and institutional discrimination. And while that may unfortunately result in some discrimination against white male, the simple fact is that white, heterosexual, men have always been favored in families and schools and preferred for jobs, training, educational programs, athletic programs, military careers and job advancement and promotion. White, heterosexual, men still make more than women and members of minority groups for comparable work, are given better educational opportunities, have more leisure time and are accorded higher status in society. The solution to the relatively small amount of discrimination facing white, hetero males isn't to eliminate protections and programs for minorities, but to create more opportunities for all, educate people and provide redress for discriminatory practices. Well, you obviously missed the sarcasm in my remark, but it should be noted taht while some of the above practices were state-sanctioned, the market plays a significant role in maintaining discriminatory practices. After all, slavery was sanctioned by the state becuase the market (ie. the white-upper class) demanded it. The Constitution and Bill of Rights also protects individuals from other individuals. Quite simply they (along with their Canadian equivlents) protect idividual rights and make no distinction as to who they are being protected from.

Here's what you had to say on the Charter. Can you cite an example where an individual was denied an opportunity because of their whiteness of because they are Christian (two of the least discriminated against groups in this country)? Since the Charter prohibts discrimination based on race and religion, if such discrimination were to occur to a white Chritian outside the boundaries of specific programmes designed to "ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups", they would have every right to file a complaint to the Human Rights Commission (say, if a white person isn't served at a bar or restaurant). So your allegation that the Charter allows discrimination for certain groups is not supported by facts and is, quite frankly, nothing more than paranoid, right-wing fear mongering disguised as pseudointellectual debate. I have other pursuits outside of this forum and can't post on each and every subject. As well, there was a good spell last year (at least four months, which included the period in which both threads you linked to occurred) where I didn't even visit this board, so your feeble ad hominems only show how pathetic you really are. How many tax dollars go into pride events as oppossed to, say, the Calgary Stampede parade and other de facto celebrations of heterosexual culture? As well, there's nothing stopping anyone from holding a straight pride event. There's also plenty of examples of occassions where some radio station shock jocks or religious types have staged just the kind of event in question. [/sarcasm]But maybe your right. We should strike down the Charter. After all, there's really no such thing as racism, sexism, hompophobia or other kinds of discrimination. I mean, I'm a white male of Christian descent and I sure haven't encountered any discrimination. Besidies, historically the free market has done a bang-up job of addressing the few incidents of discrimination and persecution, such as the voluntary abolition of slavery and segregation in the U.S. South, and of apartheid in South Africa, the fair and ethical treatment of Aborginals in North America, and of course, the complete elimination of anti-Semetism in pre-war Germany. [/sarcasm]

Maybe it's not a big deal to you. But to members of the LGBT community, who experience discrimination on pracically a daily basis because of who they are, it is. And yes, the passive brand of homophobia displayed by the bartender may not be as virulent as others', nor is it violent, but it's all-too typical. So was the Stamp Act. Enough said. I see. Can't win an argument based on the law, so the law is bad. Why not explain what's so wrong with the Charter, the U.S. Bill of Rights, and the Universal decleration of Human Rights. Uh...not born? Whatever. Start a thread on the systematic discrimination facing Canada's Naitve population and I'll be more than happy to weigh in. Or just keep deflecting, it's what you do after all. I was, of course being tounge in cheek. However, once again: yes the bartender has teh right to deny service to anyone on any legal basis. It just so happens that being black, Jewish or gay are not legal reasons to deny service. That's great in theory, but not always in practice. Red Deer is hardly a gay oasis, and it's entirely possible this kind of discrimination could become even more widespread if allowed to go unchecked. Which is why we need protections, even ones as imperfect as the Charter.Then again, maybe the women should just stick to more queer friendly places (what they used to call "sticking with their own kind."). Equality means equal treatment under the law and equality of opportunity, whereby individuals are not discriminated against because of who they are. Pretty basic stuff here. No. Bigotry remains a personal choice, and can be freely expressed. there's no law requiring anyonme to give anyone else the time of day, however, there is a law which says you cannot refuse to serve someone becaus eof their sexuality. I'm sure this type of issue has come up, but IANAL, so I can't comment on past cases. I expect that discrimination based on physical apperance contravenes the Charter unless it can be demonstrated that being hot is a bona fide occupational requirement. Yeah because there's no racism, sexism or homophobia at all in the States... There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here on a couple of fronts. The first is that there are very few successful complaints lodged under the Charter, which has been effect since 1982, so it's not the creeping wedge of communism some would see it as. It is simply a recognition that discrimination exists and that legal remedies are often required to address such wrongs. The second is a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be gay and the discrimination that homosexuals face all the time. Exactly. They do. There's 364 heterosexual pride days a year.

Who cares? It's the most ridiculous document of it's kind. I'd give you more credit if you cited Winnie the Pooh. Hate to break the news to you, diddums, but it's the law of the land whether you like it or not. Deal with it. Mr. Homophobe Barkeep will soon have to. I would take your carping more seriously if (a) your anti-gay views weren't already well known and ( you demonstrated one iota of concern for the rights of minorities to enjoy freedom from discrimination. You're obviously only concerned with the freedom of those whom you agree with. Anyway, Mr. Barkeep's freedom of speech rights are intact, he can still express his revulsion with homosexuals, he can be a tiny-minded little bigot to his heart's content. But, like my homeboy Alliance Fanatic said, he should "just do it in (his) own home." Hey, you're the one who mentioned poop. (BTW I can always tell when you're floundering when you pull out the "Oh my virgin ears!" routine.) 'Yeah, first it was women wanting equality, then blacks, now gays. Who will be the next "fad minority" and why won't these uppity buggers learn their place? I and "those like me" will stop "shouting" about discrimination when jerkwads like Red Deeer Redneck stop practicing it. :angry: Yeah, advocating for equality is the exact same thing as whoring oneself to special interests.

People can be offended by whatever they find offensive. If people are grossed out by the sight of a same sex couple expressing affection for one another in the same manner that heterosexuals do on a daily frigging basis without reproach or rebuke, that's their perojative. But when this "offence" translates into a discriminatory action (like, oh, let's say, kicking a same sex couple out of a bar), then I get a little pissed. The fact that you link same-sex kissing with public masturbation and shitting, rather than the logical and blindingly obvious comparison with heterosexual public displays of affection is telling indeed. One more time: The Charter of Rights prohibits refusal of service on grounds that include race, religion, nationality and sexual orientation. Link. More.

I was being sarcastic. And nor do religious types have the monopoly on morality. That was my main point.

The Charter of Rights prohibits refusal of service on "proscribed grounds". Those include race, religion, nationality and sexual orientation. What the hell does this have to do with anything (aside from being a not-so-subtle shot at those "deviant" homos)? To answer you're (stupid) question, they could probably be charged under existing decency laws. Making out in a bar, however, is not a crime. It's common, generally accepted barroom behaviour. If the barkeep wanted to establish a code of conduct prohibiting PDA's that applied to everyone, fine. But that's not the case here.

Gimme a break. There's only so many hours in a day. It's not like I get paid to post here...

I wonder, does he kick heterosexual couples out for snogging and flaunting their lifestyle "choices"? I really doubt it. The bar owner is obviously a homophobic prick and this kind of discriminatory crap is why we need legal protections for minorities. I hope they win and that the bar owner pays big.

Our democratic society is based around the principles of personal freedom. If someone believes in an Invisible Superhero Sky Pixie, they have the freedom to do so, no matter how ridiculous such a concept may be. However, that belief simply has no place in public policy. I'm tired of religious types cramming their lifestyle down my throat. The "evils" of modern secular society that willy describes ar enot new, but have existed as long as mankind. Indeed, the argument can be made that the continued existence of such evil in the world is the surest sign that there is no God (as Mark Twain said: "If God exists, then He is a malignant thug."). Religion is not the cure, but another disease.

We could go around the WMD mulberry Bush again and again. Fact is, there have been no WMD found, and no evidence of active WMD programs (beyond a few scientists filing false reports and cashing cheques for nuclear work that wasn't being done). However, it is reasonable to assume they knew in advance that Saddam did not have WMD. Scott Ritter, who spent seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations said as much before the war. Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War that the surest way to assure victory was to disarm one's foe before the battle. That seems to be the case in this situation. Pulling out of all the settlements would be the first steps on what would undoubtebley be a bumpy road to peace. But it's necessary step. The final part of the above statement is base don sheer ignorance and is borderline racist. Freely expressed, alright: with mortars, RPGs, car bombs and bullets... I'll say this much for the US: they've managed to bring both Shia and Sunni together in common hatred of the occupiers. It took the British nearly 3 years to provoke a popular uprising in 1920. The Americans have managed it in less than 12 months. Oh really? I can. First, the idea of America as a benevolant protector of peace, freedom and democracy that has a God-given right to blow the hell out of anyone who contravines (in their eyes, and their eyes alone) these principles is predicate don the (false) belief that "US interests" and the aforementioned ideals are one and the same. However, this view completely fails to take into account a consistent pattern of behavior where by the U.S. is perfectly willing top lend its support to totalitarian dictatorships, despots, rogues and murderers, so long as they suit the very real strategic, polituical and economic interests of the United States. History has shown that, as far as teh U.S.A is concerned, when democracy and dollars clash, the dollar talks, freedom walks. Usually to the gallows. Even is I do take the stretch required to buy the whole "liberation" argument, i'd have to say that the U.S.'s handling of the Iraq situation is doing more for terrorist recruiters than anyone could have hoped. This, combined with the continued unquestioning backing of Sharon's policies in Israel and continued material and political suppport of vile, repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbeckistan and elsewhere, it appears the U.S. is trying to douse the flames of anti-US sentiment in the Arab and Muslim worlds by using gasoline.