May 2nd, 2008
Here’s something new: Three residents from the Greek island of Lesbos are suing the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece for using the term “Lesbian” in their title. Dimitris Lambrou, one of the plantiffs, explains:
My sister can’t say she is a Lesbian. Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos.
The court papers says that Greece is so ashamed by the word Lesbian that they’ve changed the island name to Mytilini, after its capital. Still, if the lawsuit is successful, the islanders plan to bring about similar lawsuits internationally.
So, I guess that means we should start looking for a new word for gay women—just in case.
I suggest “Albertan.”
April 30th, 2008
A straight woman has settled her human rights complaint against Bar Le Stud, a Montréal gay bar.
Audrey Vachon sat down in the bar last spring to have a beer with her father, but was promptly informed that women were not welcome and was escorted from the establishment. (You know, because us gays would never complain if someone kicked us out of a straight bar just for being who we are, apparently.)
While it’s great that the two parties have settled, it sounds like the bar may not have learned its lesson. When the Globe and Mail contacted Le Stud following the settlement announcement, staff refused to clarify whether or not they’ll serve women now.
As a gay Montrealer, I can’t imagine what the bar management is thinking. The notion that a woman enjoying a beer with her father in the afternoon would somehow make other patrons uncomfortable is not only downright nutty, but continuing to eject patrons based on their sex is a hypocritical violation of our Charter rights. As part of Montréal’s vibrant gay community, surely Le Stud’s management has once felt the sting of exclusion themselves.
I said it before, but it can use repeating: Gay-friendly doesn’t mean gays only.
April 28th, 2008
Connie Heintz, a Christian worker at a shelter for developmentally delayed adults, has won a human rights case against her former employer.
After Connie’s co-workers at Christian Horizons discovered she was a lesbian, she was forced to quit, describing the work atmosphere as the “worst time of my life.” She was harassed, threatened with dismissal, and falsely accused of abusing the residents she was caring for. Connie, who is deeply religious, was awarded 18 months of her old salary as compensation.
Anti-gay groups are already up in arms; A LifeSite article was quick to accuse the human rights tribunal of stifling religious freedom—once again, under the assumption that gay people and religion are somehow mutually exclusive. I contest that. Connie was a devout Christian who cared deeply about the underlying mission of the organisation. For her employers to claim that having a gay employee in their ranks is somehow against their faith is a stretch. (Unless, of course, Jesus decreed something I’m not yet familiar with: “Thou shalt fireth the gay ones like a grain is shed from its stalk, for they be not fit to care for thy developmentally delayede adultes.”)
Christian Horizons receives public funds from the government and is contractually required to follow Canada’s human rights laws.
And a gentlemanly hat tip to Matt Guerin at Queer Liberal for the story.
April 25th, 2008
Luciano Moggi, the former managing director of Juventus, Italy’s largest soccer club, went on a bizarre tirade against gays this week during a televised interview. The controversial official, who is currently being tried for corruption scandals, said that…
Well, actually, I think I’ll just let you read it verbatim:
There are no gays in football. I don’t know if players are against having them in their team but I definitely am. In the teams where I worked there were never any. I never wanted to have a homosexual player and I still wouldn’t sign one.
I’m old school, but I know the ambience of football and a gay wouldn’t be able to survive within it. A homosexual cannot do the job of a footballer. The football world is not designed for them; it’s a special atmosphere—one in which you stand naked under the showers.
So, there you have it: Gays don’t like soccer, and even if they did, any latent athletic ability would be invariably foiled by their beacon of gayness. Which is alright, I guess, since us gays couldn’t handle after-game showering without, presumably, violating all our teammates anyway.
Incidentally, while former professional soccer players have come out as gay in the past, no current players are openly out of the closet. I can’t help but wonder why that is…
Thanks to Slap reader Kathrine for this gem, with an extra hat tip to The Offside.
April 23rd, 2008
If you’re a regular of this site, you’ve no doubt noticed the bizarre rift that has emerged in the Canadian Anglican community over gay parishioners. Churches have split, priests have been fired, bishops have fled, discussions have amounted to meaningless decrees, and everything is generally all going to hell in a hand basket—and all because the church just can’t decide whether or not God would bless gay couples.
What’s a hierarchy to do?
To an observer, the church looks completely fatigued of this issue and, perhaps amusingly, is now resorting to the sort of tactics typical of high school dramas. Just recently, a British Columbian congregation had its locks changed and dissenting worshipers were locked out. This week, a bishop who fled in disgust over gay blessings is ignoring warnings to stay out of Canada. It’s all very, very strange.
I don’t have any solutions; If history has taught me anything, it’s that people will argue forever over what they think their God thinks. But I do find it strange that it’s the blessing of gay parishioners that’s causing all this ruckus. The Anglican church will bless, upon request, heterosexual couples, births, homes, boats, and even pets.
It’s weird, really. Surely treating gay people as sinners who require punishment in the form of blessing withholdings so that they’ll turn straight hasn’t really worked out, and now it not only contradicts scientific understanding of homosexuality, but also the church’s own declaration that blessing gay parishioners is compatible with core church doctrine. The childishness can’t really be necessary, right?
Then again, I’m not Anglican.
April 21st, 2008
Canada’s only gay and lesbian television channel has filed a complaint with the CRTC over treatment by a local cable provider.
OutTV says that not only does Shaw Communications exclude the channel from their “All In” package and make it a by-request-only subscription (the only specialty station to receive this treatment), but they have also moved the station’s channel number multiple times, first from 100 to 200, then to 370. Worse, the last move put the station immediately beside adult offerings: Channel 371 is Hustler, 372 is Playboy, and 373 is Red Light District.
Brad Danks, OutTV’s chief operating officer, said that shaw has been entirely uncooperative:
They are supposed to notify you before they move you. We’ve said, “We don’t have adult content. Why have you got us with adult channels?” There’s no reason given. They say nothing.
I once subscribed to OutTV (before I realised that I almost never watch TV and cancelled my digital service entirely), so I can vouch for its harmlessness. Putting it alongside porn channels is a misclassification, and forcing subscribers to request it by name when no other specialty channel requires that action means that interested parties will, essentially, have to out themselves in order to get it.
(Say, don’t a few of the shows on OutTV’s neighbouring channels start off with someone outing themself to their cable serviceman? “Did somebody call a cable guy?” Bow-chicka-wow-chicka…)
Anyway, OutTV does not carry adult content and is a “category one” licensee in Canada, which means that all cable providers must carry it and abide by CRTC packaging regulations. If anyone has had issues ordering OutTV, Brad asks that you visit his website to share your experiences and strengthen their case.
