So, there’s an election happening in Canada. If you live here, I’m sure you’ve been following it very closely and consequently have lost most of your hair due to exasperated tugging. If you live outside of Canada, you’re probably still up to speed since the international news media incessantly reports on Canadian politics, just like they do for the United States. (Snicker.)

Now, with 308 seats up for grabs and most of the major parties running a candidate in each riding, there should be some queer representation out there. And, indeed there is! According to Xtra, here’s how it adds up:

At the top of the list, we’ve got the New Democratic Party (led by Jack Layton) which has 10 openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual candidates. Next up is the Green Party (led by Elizabeth May) with 5. The Liberal Party (led by Michael Ignatieff) comes in third place with 3. And, to the surprise of no one, the Conservatives (led by Dillwad McHamsterface) are dead last with zero.

These numbers are exactly what I’d expect. The NDP have always had a pretty good record in supporting equal rights for GLBT Canadians, alongside the Greens who also include equality in their platform. The Liberals are mostly supportive, with some division within the party, and the Conservatives, bafflingly, fight against equal rights with clockwork consistency, often even trying to strip these rights away. It’s no wonder then, that GLBT Canadians with political aspirations are largely associating themselves with the NDP and Greens.

Will any of these translate into seats? That’s a different question—and it’s up to you. Yes, you. Well, unless you don’t have Canadian citizenship, in which case please don’t vote in this election. That’d be illegal.

• NDP leads the pack with most gay candidates [Xtra]

Conservative MP Vic Toews, the Minister of Public Saftey, was awarded an honorary Law degree from the University of Winnipeg yesterday admist student protest. Standing on stage with Toews, valedictorian Erin Larson said she was not proud of the University’s decision to confer the degree, adding that the school had lost its integrity. Outside, students protested with signs.

Toews was an outspoken opponent of equal marriage rights for gay couples during his ironic term as Justice Minister. Calling the legalization of same-sex marriage “a mistake” despite nine consecutive lower court rulings declaring it a constitutional necessity, he actively fought against the courts’ unanimous consensus. He introduced a House motion in 2006 to revisit the law, opening the door to end marriage rights for gays and have existing same-sex marriages annulled. Acknowledging that the law would be unconstitutional, the Justice Minister suggested the use of Canada’s obscure Notwithstanding Clause which could legally pass laws known to be unconstitutional for five years at a time. If he had succeeded, I wouldn’t be married today.

After his motion was defeated, Toews attempted to introduce a bill ostensibly titled the Defense of Religion Act. The bill would have allowed civil servants, such as civil marriage commissioners and justices of the peace, to deny public services to gay couples.

Personally, I think universities are welcome to confer degrees to whomever they choose, though I think it shows a certain amount of laziness to select controversial figures (such as politicians still in the middle of their careers) without considering whether or not their actions have been consistent with the university’s own values and policies.

And, of course, I’m welcome to confer my own Honorary Slaps to whomever I choose. Vic Toews seems like a pretty good first candidate, don’t you think?

• Students oppose honorary degree for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews [Winnipeg Free Press]
• Protest planned for Toews [Winnipeg SUN]

Office computers belonging to the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa have been used to vandalize Wikipedia articles with anti-gay comments. (Wikipedia, for the benefit of the recently non-comatose, is an online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute.)

A reporter for the St. Catharine’s Standard found several anti-gay themed edits—including one asserting that a Conservative MP who voted in favour of same-sex marriage was gay himself, and another declaring that Mussolini and Hitler were gay lovers.

A quick search using the Wikipedia Scanner revealed even more Parliament edits. One in particular, made to an article entitled Members of the 39th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage, replaced the unbiased phrase “opposite-sex marriage” with “normal and traditional marriage,” and the phrase “an anti- gay marriage website had indicated [...]” with “a real marriage website had indicated [...]” The vandal also inserted a new sentence into the article: “However, it seems that the Canadian public is still firmly against same-sex marriage by a large majority.” A demonstrably false claim.

Each instance of vandalism was reverted almost immediately, as is the Wikipedia norm, but it’s great to know what our Government workers do with their our time, no?

• Beware of what you read on Wiki; Government computers used to make peculiar edits on website [St. Catharine's Standard]

Joe Comuzzi, the Liberal MP who resigned his cabinet position over same-sex marriage in 2005, is now the Tories’ latest member.

Comuzzi was a member of the Liberal party for 18 years, but left his swanky cabinet gig in disgust over the party’s support of same-sex marriage. Later, he was kicked out of the party entirely for supporting the Tory budget against party lines. Until yesterday’s move, he was sitting as an independent.

Of course, I imagine that half of the Tory caucus strongly disagrees with their latest member’s admission, and will vehemently insist that Comuzzi run in a by-election first. At least, that’s how I remember the party feeling about this sort of thing in 2005…

• Harper welcomes former Liberal MP into Tory fold [CBC News]

A discriminatory law from 2004 that disallowed same-sex spouses from sponsoring their partner for Canadian citizenship was quietly overturned by the Conservative government last week. In fact, the law was reversed so quietly, that it was announced by none other than NDP MP, Bill Siksay.

“Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley has informed the Standing Committee of Citizenship and Immigration that her department’s interim policy on same sex marriage [...] has been annulled,” Siksay said in a press release, adding: “This is another important victory towards full equality of gay and lesbian Canadians.”

Now, there’s no word on why the Conservatives didn’t announce this change themselves, although I guess I could try to share some insight. Let’s see… They, uh, outsourced their policy announcements to the NDP?

No?

Well, perhaps Siksay’s voice resounds with Canadians more. Or—Oh! I know! The parties are merging! The New Canadian Democratic Conservative Reform Alliance. Yes, that sounds about right to me.

• Ottawa ends discrimination for same-sex couples married outside Canada [Canada.com]
• Siksay claims victory on Canadian recognition of gay and lesbian marriages performed outside Canada [Bill Siksay, NDP]

Every now and then I come across an argument against same-sex marriage that’s so unbelievably illogical, it transcends time itself. And, so, I begin this retroactive slap with a Hansard-recorded question by Maurice Vellacott (Tory MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin):

Unless I missed something in history, and I am certainly open to being enlightened, has there ever been a time where, when extending the right to vote, women have been termed men?

That, a delightful retort to the reminder that there have been times when government hesitated to offer equal rights to its citizens.

Now, I’d like to think Vellacott couldn’t have been expecting an answer to his question, but just in case, let me get this over with: No, Mr. Vellacott, Women were never termed men when extending the right to vote.

Fascinatingly, though, Maurice isn’t the only one with this semantic confusion. Months later, David Chatters (Tory MP for Athabasca, since retired) curiously brought up the same topic, saying “When full equality rights were extended to women in Canada [...] they did not have to be called men to be equal.” Ken Epp (Tory MP for Edmonton Sherwood Park) was even brave enough to bring this bizarre logic outside of the House and in front of the press, declaring:

Blacks in the United States never asked to be called white. They just wanted the same rights. Women in Canada sought equal rights without demanding to be called men. And so I ask the question in this struggle for so-called equality for same-sex couple, why do they want to use the word that describes heterosexual marriage?

Now, giving credit where credit is due, these conservative members are correct in some respects. Women did not wish to be called “men” in their struggles for equality. And, nor, to the best of my knowledge, did African Americans ask to be called “white.” But—and maybe this is just me, so correct me if I’m out of line—when, precisely, have gays asked to be called straight?

So, with a small correction to their line of reasoning, I’d like to pose my own question for the three Conservative members: “Honorable members, pray tell: When citizens of the female persuasion were struggling for electoral voice, was ‘civil ballot casting’ ever considered a suitable alternative so that men could continue to participate in the traditional institution of voting?”

I’ll, uh, be waiting for their responses via email.

Well, until Monday, folks, have a good one!

• Hansard – Civil Marriage Act (C-38) [EGALE]
• Harper questions ‘legitimacy’ of same-sex bill as vote nears [CBC News]
• 38th Parliament, 1st Session [Parliamentary Hansard]