PM dismisses election talk despite polls

Feb 20, 2007 01:34 PM

Canadian Press

.

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed speculation he might be eager to force an election after new polls today suggested his Conservatives had taken a lead in public opinion.

A new Decima survey indicated the Tories had made modest gains for two straight weeks and held a two-percentage-point lead over the Liberals, who had been ahead for months.

While those results fall within the 3.1 per cent margin of error, they reflect a pro-Tory trend detected in several recent surveys.

At a news conference, the prime minister was invited to name any issue – like the environment, or changes to anti-terror legislation – so important to his government that he would label it a confidence matter.

He declined to name any and simply noted that the coming federal budget is obviously a life-and-death matter for the government.

"My view is that we should keep governing, keep getting things done for Canadians," Harper told a news conference alongside Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

"I don't think Canadians want an election, I'm in no hurry to have an election. I simply want to see us move forward."

Harper made the announcement after he and Gates announced money for HIV initiatives. The government will invest up to $111 million and Gates's foundation will pump in up to $28 million more into vaccine research.

The latest public-opinion polls place the Tories well shy of the 40 per cent required for a majority government, but also suggest they have momentum on their side and have overtaken the Liberals.

Decima's results, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, place the Conservatives at 32 per cent and the Liberals at 30 per cent. The NDP was at 15 per cent, the Green party was at 11 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois was at nine per cent nationally.

Other polls released in recent days suggest the Conservatives have a bigger lead over the Liberals and that Harper has a significant lead in personal popularity over new Liberald leader Stéphane Dion.

In Ontario, the Decima poll suggested the Liberals held a 10 percentage point lead – 40 per cent to 30 per cent for the Tories, while the NDP was at 17 per cent and the Greens were at 12 per cent.

In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois were at 37 per cent, the Liberals were at 25 per cent and the Tories were at 17 per cent. The Greens were at eight per cent and the NDP was at seven.
Decima CEO Bruce Anderson said the Bloc's support is significantly lower than it was before the last election.

"So far, the Liberals appear to be the most likely beneficiaries of softening BQ support," Anderson said.

"But there is the prospect of some three-way splits (with the Tories) developing (in some Quebec ridings) that are impossible to predict at this stage."

The Decima survey of 1,000 Canadians was conducted between Feb. 15 to 18, and has a 3.1 percentage point margin of error 19 times in 20.

.

.

The Toronto Star

La Hanau a'u Ki'i

Here's some photos from my hulariffic birthday. I hope you enjoyed them as much as I enjoyed myself! A big 'mahalo' to everyone for making it so great! Mwah!

Some people don't like their photo on the internet

Here's a good way to get around that. Seriously though, if anyone else on here is cyber-shy, just let me know.

Memories of Chinatown birthday dinners past

Birthday Hula Triptych

Let's all join in a rousing game of Pin-the-Fire-Torch-on-the-Tiki-Dancer.

Next stop; Beautiful Guam! With the world's biggest Kmart and the highest per capital ratio of Louis Vuitton outlet stores and shooting ranges, it's a shoe-in for next global vacation hotspot.

Birthday Hula Triptych II, ft. hot upstairs neighbour

Best garnish ever!

China rapped over rights

Writers, lawyers came under attack as conditions worsened significantly in 2006, report says

January 12, 2007

Maureen Fan

SPECIAL TO THE STAR

BEIJING–Human rights conditions in China deteriorated significantly in 2006, with about 100 activists, lawyers, writers and academics subjected to police custody, house arrest, incommunicado confinement, pressure in their jobs and surveillance by plainclothes police, Human Rights Watch says.

Several widely publicized cases involving journalists and rights lawyers were cited in the report as evidence of a severe crackdown, prompted in large part by fears that individual cases of unrest might lead to regional instability. There were 39,000 cases of "public order disruptions," or large protests, in the first half of 2006, four times as many as 10 years ago, according to data from the Public Security Ministry.

Authorities fired and jailed journalists, shut down more than 700 online forums and ordered eight Internet search engines to filter "subversive and sensitive content" based on 10,000 key words, according to the report, which was released yesterday by the New York-based watchdog group. Lawyers who represented peasants protesting mistreatment were badly beaten, detained and arrested. In March, new restrictions were announced requiring protestors' lawyers to report to judges in cases involving 10 or more plaintiffs.

In an indication of official attention being paid to perceived agitators, China's top security chief last weekend toured Shandong province, where a blind activist was jailed after revealing abuses stemming from China's one-child-only policy. Luo Gan, a member of the Communist Party's Politburo Standing Committee, ordered judicial departments to deal with "discordant elements" at their source.

"Last year, the environment for rights defenders worsened,'' said Liu Shaobo, a leading intellectual and writer. "The government increased its crackdown on lawyers and also its controls on the Internet and the media. I saw more wronged cases last year than in previous years under President Hu Jintao's governance. And dissidents were under closer surveillance.''
Contributing factors include China's growing economic power and Washington's diminished clout with regard to human rights, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said in an introduction to the report.

Liu said there were examples of increased openness last year. Newspapers in China's south were allowed to push the envelope more often than the mainstream state-run media. Analysts have noted that as preparations for the 2008 Olympics continue, officials appear eager to demonstrate China is modernizing. The government recently said journalists can travel without obtaining permission from local officials, although they stressed officials might not be aware of the new rules.

"On the one hand, they consider rights defenders a challenge to authority and a threat to stability, but on the other hand, they want to build up a good international image for the Olympics," Liu said.

WASHINGTON POST

The Toronto Star

So Cute It Hurts

They're asleep together and they're holding hands! If these things were any freakin cuter they would cause seizures in Japanese schoolgirls and old people.

Best animal *ever*!!

Brad may be dating fellow Survivor Cook Islands cast member J.P.

posted Nov. 13, 2006 at 9:35 PM by Andy Dehnart

Reality Blurred

.

Brad Virata, who was kicked off Survivor Cook Islands last week, may be dating another male contestant on the show, J.P.

In an interview with AfterElton.com, Brad responds to a question about rumors that he and J.P. are dating by laughing and then saying, “Um, it’s all about timing in life. I can’t answer that. JP is a great guy. You’ll have to wait for the finale.” That’s largely a non-answer answer, but if there was no truth to those rumors, or if J.P. was straight, Brad probably would have just said so.

J.P. Calderon, by the way, works part-time as a bartender at a gay bar, The Silver Fox, in Long Beach, according to the Long Beach Gazette. Working at a gay bar doesn’t make him gay, of course, but it’d be interesting if this diverse season had two openly gay male contestants who both left the show without any mention of their sexual orientation, especially if they had some sort of relationship during production.

Speaking of, Brad says he’s “surprised” that the series didn’t include conversations about his sexual orientation because “everyone knew” that he is gay. He says, “I’m surprised that CBS didn’t show my whole coming out story. We had a powwow, sort of a roundtable campfire discussion when we merged, and that’s when I told my story.” That story includes that “I grew up athletic, I grew up playing football, I grew up running track,” he says. “Over all, just from a physical standpoint, I kept up with them. I kicked some straight boy booty.”

As to Nate, his fellow cast member “apologized to me after the fact” for calling him a “nancy boy” in an interview, Brad says. “I don’t think he meant to call me nancy boy in a bad way. I think it was a stress factor, and it was pissing rain, you know? You take everything with a grain of salt. He apologized to me after the fact, and it is what it is, but I know a lot of people are pissed off about it.”

Interview with Survivor Brad Virata [AfterElton.com]

Mayan groups criticize new Gibson film

Last Updated: Thursday, December 7, 2006 4:52 PM ET
CBC Arts


Activists in Guatemala, once a part of the American Mayan empire that provides the setting for Gibson's Apocalypto — due for release this Friday in the U.S. and Canada — say the film presents an unflattering portrait of the culture.

"The director is saying the Mayans are savages," Lucio Yaxon, a human rights activist, told the BBC.

The criticism calls to mind reactions to Gibson's 2004 epic The Passion of the Christ, an often violent depiction of the final days of Jesus Christ that was accused by some of being anti-Semitic, even before Gibson's much-publicized outburst against a Jewish police officer in California earlier this year.

Apocalypto, which has drawn largely favourable reviews, tells the story of a young man struggling to flee the crumbling Mayan empire after being chosen to become a sacrifice to the gods.

Like The Passion, Gibson's new film does not shy away from gruesome violence, including scenes of human slayings and beheadings.

"Gibson replays … an offensive and racist notion that Maya people were brutal to one another long before the arrival of Europeans and thus they deserved, in fact, needed, rescue," Ignacio Ochoa, director of the Nahual Foundation, which promotes Mayan culture, told the BBC.

Richard Hansen, a consulting archeologist for the film, told the BBC Gibson, who also co-wrote and produced but does not appear in the film, took pains to ensure it was historically accurate.

Latino and Native American groups in the U.S. have praised the film for its dialogue, which is spoken in Yucatec Maya, and for Gibson's casting of indigenous actors.

Praise for Gibson Film, Quandary for Oscar Voters

By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: December 5, 2006

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 4 — With some early reviews lauding the audacity and innovation of Mel Gibson’s bloody Mayan epic, “Apocalypto,” Hollywood’s tight-knit community of Oscar voters may find itself facing a difficult dilemma in the coming weeks: Will they consider the film for an Academy Award?

Since Mr. Gibson’s drunken tirade against Jews last summer, many people in Hollywood swore — both publicly and privately — that they would not work with him again or see his movies.

But that was before the critics began to weigh in on “Apocalypto,” a two-hour tale about a peaceful village of hunter-gatherers who are attacked and enslaved by the bloodthirsty overlords of their Meso-American civilization.

Mr. Gibson wrote, directed, produced and financed the film, much as he did “The Passion of the Christ,” his surprise 2004 blockbuster; the Walt Disney Company is distributing the film.

“Apocalypto,” which will open on 2,500 screens across the country on Friday, is as different from a typical Hollywood film as Mr. Gibson’s last one: it features unrelenting, savage violence, is told in an obscure Mayan language and uses many nonprofessional actors with a primitive look born far from Hollywood.

Most critics (including this newspaper’s) have yet to weigh in on “Apocalypto,” but the excitement of those who have — like that among journalists who lingered to debate the film after a screening ended in Los Angeles last week — has been palpable.

“ ‘Apocalypto’ is a remarkable film,” Todd McCarthy wrote in Variety. “The picture provides a trip to a place one’s never been before, offering hitherto unseen sights of exceptional vividness and power.”

“Gibson has made a film of blunt provocation and bruising beauty,” Peter Travers wrote in Rolling Stone. “Say what you will about Gibson, he’s a filmmaker right down to his nerve endings.”

Other reviewers allowed themselves to psychoanalyze Mr. Gibson even as they praised the film. In a mixed review in The Hollywood Reporter, Kirk Honeycutt observed that Mr. Gibson “knows how to make a heart-pounding movie; he just happens to be a cinematic sadist.”

The rising tide of generally positive, if qualified, reviews poses a problem for Hollywood insiders, many of whom would prefer to ignore Mr. Gibson entirely, despite his formal apology and a trip to rehab.

Powerful players like Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, and Ari Emanuel, of the Endeavor talent agency have publicly disavowed Mr. Gibson, with Mr. Emanuel writing online last summer that “people in the entertainment community, whether Jew or gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with him.”

Other studio chiefs have said they would not work with Mr. Gibson in the future but would not say so for attribution because they didn’t want to endanger their future business dealings. At least one influential publicist has declined to work on an “Apocalypto” Oscar campaign because of objections to Mr. Gibson’s views, but would not say so publicly for similar reasons.

And yet, can the 5,830 voting members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences — an organization that like broader Hollywood, includes many people who are Jewish — ignore a film that may well be considered by critics to be among the best of the year?

Murray Weissman, who has worked on Oscar campaigns for many years and is working for the Weinstein Company on its hopefuls this year, said some voters would not see the film on principle.

“There is still a lot of resentment out there among the Academy members, certainly the Jewish group of them, over the incident,” he said. “There are a lot of people who are very unforgiving. I have run into some who say they will not see any more Mel Gibson movies.”

Yet, Mr. Weissman added, those who saw the movie and believed it deserving would vote for it. “The movie academy is of full of professionals; they will respect a good movie,” he said. “If the guy made a classic film and it’s absolutely brilliant — hey, I’m Jewish — I’d probably embrace it. But going in, I’m shocked and dismayed at his behavior.”

The problem posed by Mr. Gibson touches on an age-old question of whether an artist’s personal behavior ought to be a factor in judging his or her work.

The question is not a new one even in the brief history of cinema, which includes people like D. W. Griffith, the visionary feature director whose work fed racist stereotypes; Leni Riefenstahl, whose ground-breaking talent served Nazi Germany; or Roman Polanski, who in 1977 pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor and then fled the country, which did not prevent him from winning the Oscar for best director in 2003 for “The Pianist.”

As Richard Schickel writes in the Dec. 11 issue of Time magazine, “Gibson is a primitive all right, but so were Cecil B. DeMille and D. W. Griffith, and somehow we survived their idiocies.” Disney has taken a low-key approach to the Oscars, awaiting a general sense from critics and influential voices in Hollywood. The film was not on a list of screenings for Oscar consideration sent to Academy members, and no screenings are scheduled with question-and-answer sessions featuring Mr. Gibson, as has become the custom for movies vying for Oscar consideration.

But as the film has been gathering critical support, executives at the studio have begun to refer to “Apocalypto” as their “Million Dollar Baby”, the small movie directed by Clint Eastwood that came from behind two years ago to win best picture at the Oscars. And the studio is planning to send out “screeners,” DVDs sent to Academy members.

“From Day 1 we’d hoped that people would judge the movie on its artistic merits and judge Mel as a director,” said Dennis Rice, a Disney studio spokesman. “We believe they’ll separate their feelings of Mel the man from Mel the artist.”

But in addition to the other issues, the film’s sheer violence — which includes decapitation and hearts ripped from the chests of human sacrifice victims — could turn off some voters, whatever their feelings toward the director.

“Once the reviews come out and it’s perceived to be a foreign language film with that kind of violence, you will have trouble getting people to actually go see it,” said one seasoned Oscar campaigner, who declined to speak for attribution because of business ties to Disney.

“There will be a degree of resistance, And Mel would be the first one to say, ‘I anticipate a degree of ambivalence,’ he knows that,” said Peter Bart, the editor of Variety. “The violence is an issue. But that’s the way he is. That’s the way he sees the world.”
.
.
The New York Times

Wanderlust

27 countries down, only 196 left to go!



create your own visited country map

Ottawa, Charest at odds on Québécois meaning

CAMPBELL CLARK
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

MONTREAL — The thorny issue of defining just who is Québécois continued to embroil the main political parties Tuesday, with Quebec Premier Jean Charest asserting that everyone who lives in Quebec, including aboriginals, is part of the Québécois nation.

But for Liberal delegates at this week's leadership convention in Montreal, debate on the issue will almost certainly be shelved. Delegates are being asked to change convention rules so they can abandon discussion of the policy resolution calling for Quebec to be recognized as a “nation within Canada.”

The resolution had threatened to become a divisive flashpoint at the convention — before Parliament passed a similar motion on Monday.

That motion, which recognized the “Québécois” as a nation, was passed with a heavy majority in the Commons. Since then, however, politicians of all stripes have been weighing in on what they think it means.

Mr. Harper's senior Quebec minister, Lawrence Cannon, said Monday the nation is not all Quebeckers, and suggested it includes only francophones. On the other hand, the government's Senate leader, Marjory LeBreton, said “nation” does include all Quebeckers.

In Quebec City, however, Mr. Charest said no one should have any doubt about who is in the Québécois nation.

“Let's not stumble over what it means when we talk about the Quebec nation. We are talking about every citizen regardless of their origins. We are also talking about the First Nations as well as the Inuit,” he said in Quebec's National Assembly.

“This definition of nation is inclusive. It doesn't seek to exclude anyone. ... And in no way does it contradict our Canadian identity.”

Mr. Charest tabled a motion Tuesday stating that the National Assembly was “delighted by this significant gesture,” insisting that it “represented an important progress for Quebec.”

The Quebec Premier has argued that recognizing Quebec as a nation could eventually influence how the Supreme Court interprets Quebec laws. The province has a different approach than the federal government on a number of important issues, from the way Quebec treats its young offenders to its claim over offshore drilling rights in the St. Lawrence River. Mr. Charest suggested that he could use his newfound status to argue his case before the courts.

On Monday, federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong quit Mr. Harper's cabinet over the Québécois resolution, complaining that it recognized an ethnic nationalism he cannot support.

Tuesday, all three provincial party leaders in Quebec said they reject the notion of ethnic nationalism in Quebec, and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe peppered Mr. Cannon in the Commons for saying it does not include all Quebeckers. He drew an unclear response from Mr. Cannon.

“It's an inclusive definition that takes in all of the Québécois who live in the Québécois territory,” Mr. Cannon said.

A poll aired on the TVA network found that in Quebec, 64 per cent of respondents said they considered the Québécois a nation, compared with only 15 per cent in the rest of Canada, according to the survey by Léger Marketing.

The House of Commons motion, adopted on Monday, has spread confusion because the French version also refers to Québécois, which translates as “Quebecker” — a broader definition that means anyone who lives in Quebec.

“No wonder there's confusion — outside of Quebec, they're reading the English version,” said Antonia Maioni, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. “It's an unfortunate use of words in English. Something got lost in translation.”

Daniel Weinstock, a professor of political philosophy at the University of Montreal, said the term Québécois carries the suggestion of “ethnic lineage.”

“If you want to refer to the whole of society, you say Quebecker, not Québécois,” he said, adding that Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the choice deliberately to avoid the politically explosive step of recognizing a distinct nation within Canada.

“When one chooses Québécois rather than the easily available Quebecker, it's for a reason,” he said. “But this is a clear case of a politician believing it can control the genie he's let out of the bottle, and he can't.”

The distinction may be a semantic debate, and legal scholars have said that a Commons resolution has no legal or constitutional impact. But it raises an echo from the late-1990s debate over whether Quebec could be partitioned if it separates, with part of its territory remaining in Canada: Sovereigntists argued that under international law, nations have the right to self-determination, and territorial integrity — so Quebec could not be divided.

After weeks of talks with leadership-campaign strategists anxious to avoid a nasty and unpredictable battle between delegates, the two sponsors of the original Liberal motion, Marc Belanger and William Hogg, said they will withdraw the motion on the convention's first working day Wednesday.

The move glosses over divisions within the Liberal Party: Three leadership candidates, including third-place contender Gerard Kennedy, opposed the government motion to recognize Quebeckers as a nation, and 15 Liberal MPs also broke ranks with their party.

The proposal sparked a backlash outside Quebec against front-runner Michael Ignatieff, the only major contender to wholeheartedly endorse the resolution. “Delegates came forward with this initiative, it was one of the forces sparking a very, I think, positive resolution in the House of Commons last night. I don't think anyone's climbed down,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

Rival Bob Rae, who enters the convention in second place, said he did not want to debate the definition of the Québécois nation — and reminded people he didn't bring it up.

Last night, rival candidate Stéphane Dion said the Commons motion does not end the debate in Canada because some will continue to argue the Quebec nation should exist outside Canada.

With reports from Rheal Seguin, Ingrid Peritz, Jeff Sallot, Bill Curry and Brian Laghi

.

.

The Globe and Mail

PM calls Quebec 'a nation'

Harper's bold gambit recognizes Quebec, but within the framework of 'a united Canada'

Nov. 23, 2006. 09:09 AM
SUSAN DELACOURT AND TONDA MACCHARLES
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Stephen Harper is asking the House of Commons to declare that Quebec is a nation — "within a united Canada" — and in so doing, has blazed a trail for the opposition Liberals to get out of their own controversy over this hot-button, national-unity issue.

With just four words, Harper has simultaneously made history and potential peace in Liberal ranks. Quebec Premier Jean Charest called it a significant moment for the country.

Prompted by the separatist Bloc Québécois's intent to have the Commons vote on whether Quebec is a nation, Harper made a surprise statement in the House yesterday afternoon.

He said Parliament wouldn't be put into a trap by the sovereignists making this vow:

"With the support of the government and with the support of our party, I will be putting on the notice paper later today the following motion: `That, this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.'"

The Prime Minister went on to declare: "Having been asked by the Bloc to define the Québécois, we must take a position. Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and the answer will always be no, because Quebecers of all political persuasions ... have led this country, and millions like them of all political persuasions have helped to build it."

Harper's resolution will help the opposition Liberals defuse a controversy that has dogged its leadership campaign ever since the Quebec wing of the party called for recognition of Quebec as a nation to be "officialized."

After front-runner Michael Ignatieff embraced the resolution, his opponents accused him of threatening to reopen the Constitution. He denied this, but the party has been unsuccessfully trying to find a way to avoid a showdown on the issue at next week's leadership convention.

Liberals, especially Ignatieff, were relieved. "I think it's a good day for Canada," Ignatieff said.

Yet another Liberal leadership candidate, Stéphane Dion, was actually called by Harper's office Tuesday night to sound him out on the proposal. He is also happy, saying it reflects the compromise he'd floated privately with his opponents.

"I have no problem with this," said Dion, also a former political scientist and intergovernmental affairs minister who had been viewed as the most staunch opponent of recognizing Quebec as a nation.

Now, for the first time, Canada's top legislature will recognize Quebec's status as a nation, but with the significant proviso: within Canada. It's another step on a long, historic road littered with other descriptions of Quebec's unique character — "distinct society" being the most famous, and controversial.

Liberals, meanwhile, have four words — "within a united Canada" — that could defuse a looming debate on Quebec's "nation" status at next week's leadership convention in Montreal.

It's not a total outbreak of peace, however. Some of Harper's own Conservative MPs have reservations. "I'm really uncomfortable with this," said one, who predicted several MPs will likely abstain next week when it comes time to vote. Nor is it clear that it will satisfy "soft" sovereignists in Quebec. Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe warned that Quebecers would always see themselves as a nation "without conditions."

But on the Liberal-Tory divide, Harper's move was a bombshell and an echo of his past role as inspiration and author of the foundation for the famous Clarity Act — a law setting out terms for negotiating Quebec separation — adopted almost wholesale by Jean Chrétien's Liberals in the wake of the 1995 referendum. In fact, once again, Harper has given the Liberals a strategy toward handling Quebec separatism, one they couldn't seem to find themselves.

The significance of the compromise was sealed with the sight of Harper and Liberal leader Bill Graham walking to the middle of the Commons floor to shake each other's hands yesterday.

"I tell the Prime Minister we will work with all parties in the House, with all members who have the interests of all Canadians at heart, to adopt a solution that respects Quebec and Quebecers and gives them that future within this wonderful country of ours," Graham told the Commons.

The relief was obvious among Liberals. Ignatieff, who's been taking the most heat for arguing in favour of Quebec's nation status, said: "I'm sure Mr. Harper is not in the business of throwing me any life jackets at all. ... We will always be political adversaries but ... I've been clear from the first moment I went into this race. I've led on this issue from the beginning and I'm gratified with the result."

Liberal leadership contender Ken Dryden had urged the Liberals to wipe the debate off the table, calling it "ludicrous," but yesterday even he was saying of Harper's wording: "I think it has changed things."

Harper first approached Graham Tuesday night and told him he was going to "figure something out" to counter the Bloc motion, Liberal sources say. It was an aide who alerted Harper to the Bloc motion at 6 p.m., Tuesday and immediately the Prime Minister started looking for his own wording, said a senior federal source.

Dion got a call from a Harper adviser, seeking his advice as a constitutional expert and as a Liberal contender. Dion told the Star last night that "within Canada" was close enough to his proposal to recognize Quebec's nation status as a "sociological," not legal fact. "It's no big deal," he said.

Harper, who cut his political teeth on constitutional issues back in the 1980s and the 1990s, mainly as an opponent of special status for Quebec, also met privately with NDP Leader Jack Layton Tuesday night.

Then yesterday, as the weekly caucus meetings were beginning on Parliament Hill, Harper again pulled aside Graham in a corridor and told him he was playing with wording that would make mention of a united Canada in any recognition of Quebec's nationhood.

It probably wasn't a coincidence, then, that several Liberal leadership candidates told reporters yesterday they wouldn't vote for the Bloc motion because it didn't mention Canada.

"The word `Canada' is not mentioned in the resolution, that's not acceptable," said Bob Rae, the former Ontario premier and veteran of Canada's constitutional dramas.

Gerard Kennedy, former Ontario education minister, said much the same thing: "Fundamentally, if it doesn't talk about Canada, if it doesn't talk about a united Canada, it's not something that we can support."

Ditto from Toronto lawyer Martha Hall Findlay: "The (Bloc) motion as it is says nothing about Canada."

Meanwhile, a senior Quebec Tory said the party has been mulling the resolution over "for quite some time" and they see it as a way to give the Bloc a taste of its own medicine while appealing to the Tories' fading support in the province. "This will be remembered as a great day for Parliament," the official said.

With files from Les Whittington, Sean Gordon and Canadian Press

.

The Toronto Star

The new struggle for equality: Gay rights (and wrongs) in Africa

South Africa has legalised same-sex marriage - but despite this pioneering measure, the rest of the continent remains one of the most homophobic places in the world

By Alex Duval Smith
Published: 21 November 2006

Deep in the Sahara one of the world's most extraordinary tribal exhibitions takes place every year when young men of the Wadabi tribe adorn themselves with beads and face paint to woo their future wives.

At the end of the all-night ceremony the most effeminate of them all is given the pick of the virgins. This extravaganza in Niger is considered to be one of Africa's most treasured heterosexual rituals. But almost anywhere else on the continent, any flirting with sexual boundaries is deeply taboo. Being gay in Africa is not easy.

When the South African parliament voted last week to legalise same- sex marriage, Mongezi Chirwa, a resident of Alexandra, near Johannesburg, was quick to pipe up that he was looking forward to becoming one of the first men to tie the knot with his boyfriend.

His declaration came shortly after Lindiwe Radebe, 25, and Bathini Dambuza, 22, two women from Soweto who have been engaged for a year, went public on television about their decision to be wed.

The debate that followed in the South African media was not so much centred on the old arguments that homosexuality is an "abomination" brought to Africa by the colonisers. Neither has there been much quoting of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's view that gays and lesbians are "worse than dogs and pigs".

Guardians of tradition, such as Mr Chirwa's grandmother and spiritual healer Nokuzola Mndende, argue that the real problem presented by the new South African law - which is expected to be passed by the National Council of Provinces before being signed into law on 1 December - is that it is going to be difficult for African families to adapt their traditional rituals to their new gay and lesbian in-laws.

Mrs Mndende, who is the director of the Icamagu Institute, said: "There's the issue of lobolo [dowry]. Normally the man pays it. In this case, who is going to pay?" She added that when a man announces that he wishes to marry a woman, the families meet and an unozakuzaku is formed - a delegation that negotiates lobolo for the groom. "Who is going to be unozakuzaku?" she asked.

Mrs Mndende is disappointed that South Africa's black-led government - which passed the Civil Union Bill by 230 votes to 41 - is setting out to "destabilise tradition".

But according to Mogezi Guma, of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities, traditional practices are inventions which can easily be adapted. "Communities have always accommodated emerging challenges. For instance, cattle were used before as a way of paying lobolo but today money and cheques and receipts are exchanged." Africa remains one of the most homophobic places in the world and even in South Africa - with the exception of gay tourism spots in Cape Town - it is not advisable for same-sex couples to walk hand-in- hand in the street. There are occasional moments of liberation from this rule, such as during Johannesburg's annual gay pride event, which has been staged every September for the past 16 years. Zimbabwe's annual Jacaranda Ball was a similar event, until the drag queens got too frightened to go out of doors.

African archbishops, especially Nigeria's Peter Akinola who has 17 million Anglicans in his flock, have led the schism in the Anglican Communion since the election of Gene Robinson, a gay bishop in New Hampshire, in 2003. Churches in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have followed suit, principally by refusing grants from the American Episcopal Church. Critics of the South African Civil Union Bill point out that its fatal flaw is that religious leaders may still, on grounds of "conscience, religion and belief" refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings. The churchmen have been supported by politicians such as Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who last year changed the constitution to introduce a ban on same-sex marriage. A radio station that invited three activists to comment on the ban was fined 1.8m shillings (£800).

In Nigeria - which enforces powerful anti-homosexual laws from the colonial era, including five years' jail for consenting sex without the option of a fine - the Federal Executive Council also approved a bill in January seeking to outlaw gay marriage. In October 2004, a Sierra Leonean lesbian activist, Fannyann Eddy was raped and savagely beaten, and died from a broken neck, after being assaulted in her office. A man was arrested but escaped from detention.

In Cameroon, 11 men are currently in prison on the basis of their presumed sexual orientation after nine of them were found guilty of sodomy and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment at a trial in June. At a separate court hearing, four suspected lesbians were given suspended six month sentences for "sodomy". At the same time, Cameroon's media has launched an aggressive "outing" campaign. Its victims have included the Franco-Cameroonian former tennis star Yannick Noah, 45, the singer Manu Dibango and two cabinet ministers.

In Zimbabwe, the ritual homophobic destruction of the gay and lesbian stand at the Harare International Book Fair took place again this August. President Mugabe believes that "gay gangsters" - some of whom he sees belonging to the British Government - are conspiring for regime change.

In Ghana, four men were jailed for two years in 2004 for alleged "unnatural acts". Gays and lesbians in the west African country still only agree to speak anonymously about their experience. One man said: "People imagine that gays are paedophiles and criminals. You are taunted as a child. I had a friend who was recently told he was evil and would not go to heaven. Pentecostal churches perform exorcism rites on people seen as being gay. I was beaten up a couple of years ago. I met this guy on the beach and agreed to meet him at the market. When I got there several men and women accused me of forcing their friend to have sex. They beat me and took everything I had.

"They said gays were evil people who made God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. They said they would beat out of me the evil spirit of homosexuality."

African homophobes justify their actions with the claim that homosexuality is a white colonial import. The former Kenyan president Daniel Arap Moi said it himself in 1999: "It is against African tradition and biblical teachings, I will not shy from warning Kenyans against this scourge." The Namibian former president Sam Nujoma said: "Homosexuals must be condemned and rejected. Homosexuality is a behavioural disorder that is alien to African culture".

But activists say homosexuality and gender-bending is as old as Africa. They say that what came with the colonisers was homophobia in the shape of morally charged legislation that aimed to tame "savage" practices such as shows of affection between people of the same sex. Activists quote the Garawal - the annual extravagant marriage ritual of the flamboyant Wadabi tribe. Historians say that in ancient traditional communities homosexuality - which in the Shona language of Zimbabwe has a name, ngochani - was widespread and acceptable. Men who wished to adopt traditional female roles and who found male partners were not frowned upon because they did not represent a threat to other men. Same-sex relationships only came under threat at times of extreme poverty or famine when there was an urgent need for procreation.

But if South Africa last week became the first country in Africa to legalise same-sex weddings it is not because the country has a better grasp than others on African anthropological history. It is because the country has an organised gay and lesbian movement - including influential websites (such as mask.org.za) that have provided a lung of expression for people in all English-speaking African countries - and political influence. It was as a result of a case brought by gay and lesbian campaigners that the South African Constitutional Court last year gave the government until 1 December to create the Civil Union Bill that legalises same-sex weddings.

Despite its lobbying power, the South African gay and lesbian lobby would not be where it is today without a man called Simon Nkoli, to whom the ruling African National Congress owes a profound debt of gratitude.

Nkoli, who was 41 when he died from an Aids illness in November 1998, united black and white gays and lesbians and initiated the first South African Pride march in 1990. More importantly, as an anti-apartheid campaigner, he spent four years in jail with leading ANC figures Popo Molefe, Frank Chikane and the current Defence Minister Mosiuoa "Terror" Lekota. Nkoli profoundly influenced the future decision-makers who were his fellow inmates to incorporate gays and lesbians in the dream they held for a democratic South Africa, free from all forms of discrimination.

The playwright Robert Colman, who has written about Nkoli's life, said the gay activist had a profound impression on the other prisoners. "There was a scandal in the prison when a warder delivered a note which was proof that one of the treason triallists was arranging a meeting for sex with a common-law prisoner. Political prisoners at the time had a code of conduct whereby they did not indulge in those practices. They set themselves above other prisoners because they did not see themselves as criminals.

"The issue of the note had to be discussed among the 22 political prisoners. Because of the homophobic reaction of some of the men, Simon came out. This step confronted the other prisoners with a dilemma. Some of them thought Simon would turn state witness. They thought the state would use Simon's sexuality as a weakness to manipulate him with. I believe that incident had a very direct bearing on the equality clause in the South African constitution."

Last week, before the vote in South Africa's parliament, the Home Affairs minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula said the Civil Unions Bill marked another step in the country's rejection of its brutal past. Ahead of a vote in which all ANC MPs were required to vote, she sought to shift the debate's focus from the emotional to the intellectual.

"The challenge that we continue to face has to do with the fact that when we attained our democracy we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust painful past, by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African will be discriminated against on the basis of colour, creed, culture and sex."

Mr Lekota, an unrepentant heterosexual, told MPs: "The question is not whether same-sex marriages or civil unions are right or not. It is whether South Africa is going to suppress same-sex partners or not.

"Men and women of homosexual and lesbian orientation joined the ranks of the democratic forces in the struggle for liberation. Same-sex unions should be afforded similar space as heterosexual marriages in the sunshine of democracy," said Mr Lekota.

.

.
Africa and homosexuality

SOUTH AFRICA
On 14 November South Africa became the first African nation to legalise same-sex marriage. Under apartheid, sex between men was outlawed. Even today 63 per cent believe that homosexuality should not be accepted.

ZIMBABWE
Male homosexuality is illegal and since 1995 President Robert Mugabe has pursued a "moral campaign" against homosexuals. He has said being gay is a "white disease". "Unnatural sex acts" carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

GHANA
Male homosexual activity is illegal. Gay men can also be punished under provisions concerning assault and rape, if "in public or with minor". Two months ago a gay rights conference was banned.

MOROCCO
Homosexuality is illegal and can be punished with up to three years in prison and a fine of up to £75, but the law is seldom enforced, and homosexual activity is fairly common, especially in the resorts.

CHAD
There is no law against being gay. Homosexual behaviour is not mentioned as a criminal offence in the penal code. However, homosexuality is considered immoral and is a taboo subject.

ETHIOPIA
The law prohibits homosexual acts by both sexes, with a penalty of up to three years in prison. This may be increased by five or more years when the offender "makes a profession of such activities".

EGYPT
There are no laws against homosexuality, but it has started to become illegal de facto under various laws such as "offences against public morals" and "violating the teachings of religion".

KENYA
Homosexual behaviour is banned between men, which is referred to as "carnal knowledge against the order of nature". The penalty is five to 14 years' imprisonment. The age of consent is 16. Lesbian relations are not prohibited by law.

.

The Independent

S. Africa passes same-sex marriage

Homosexuality still taboo on continent — Critics call move 'sad' and 'satanic'

Nov. 15, 2006. 08:38 AM
CLARE NULLIS
ASSOCIATED PRESS

CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA—South African lawmakers passed legislation recognizing gay marriages yesterday despite criticism from both traditionalists and gay activists.

The bill, unprecedented on a continent where homosexuality is taboo, was decried by gay activists for not going far enough and by opponents who warned it "was provoking God's anger.''

Veterans of the governing African National Congress praised the Civil Union Bill for extending basic freedoms to everyone under the spirit of the country's first post-apartheid constitution adopted a decade ago.

"When we attained our democracy, we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust, painful past by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African will be discriminated against on the basis of colour, creed, culture and sex," Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula declared yesterday.

South Africa's constitution was the first in the world to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, providing a powerful legal tool to gay rights activists even though South Africa remains conservative on such issues.

A Christian lawmaker, Kenneth Meshoe, said yesterday was the "saddest day in our 12 years of democracy" and warned that South Africa "was provoking God's anger.''

Homosexuality is illegal in most sub-Saharan countries. Some countries also are debating constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriages. Even in South Africa, gays and lesbians are often attacked because of their sexual orientation.

One church leader in Nigeria, Apostle Abraham Umoh of the Mount of Victory Mission, denounced the vote as "satanic."

The Roman Catholic Church and many traditionalist leaders in South Africa said the measure denigrated the sanctity of marriages between men and women.

To ease some of these concerns, the bill allowed both religious and civil officers to refuse to marry same-sex couples on moral grounds.

The National Assembly passed the bill 230-41 with three abstentions.

.

The Toronto Star

Pope calls same sex-unions 'weak and deviant'

Italy debating recognizing relationships

Oct. 19, 2006. 03:49 PM
REUTERS

VERONA, Italy — Pope Benedict on Thursday urged Italian Catholics to defend the traditional family and in an apparent reference to gay marriage, said they should oppose any moves to legalise "weak and deviant" unions.

The Pope made his comments in a long, wide-ranging speech to a national convention of Italy's politically powerful Roman Catholic Church in the northern Italian city of Verona, famous as the setting for Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet".

While he did not specifically mention gay marriage, thousands of listeners at the fairgrounds in Verona's outskirts strongly applauded the two parts of his speech about the family and "other forms of unions".

He urged them to fight "with determination ... the risk of political and legislative decisions that contradict fundamental values and anthropological and ethical principles rooted in human nature".

The Pope said they had to defend "the family based on matrimony, opposing the introduction of laws on other forms of unions which would only destabilise it and obscure its special character and its social role, which has no substitute".

In another section of his speech, the Pope made another apparent reference to homosexual marriage, stating that the Church had to say "'no' to weak and deviant forms of love".

He said the Church wanted instead to say "'yes' to authentic love, to the reality of man as he was created by God".

Gayleft, an Italian homosexual rights group, said the Pope had "offended the dignity of millions of Italian men and women" and that too few leftist politicians had stood up to defend their rights after the Pope made his address.

Since his election in April 2005, Benedict has firmly backed the Roman Catholic Church's strong opposition to moves to legalise gay marriage or to legally recognise unwed heterosexual couples.
The centre-left coalition of Prime Minister Romano Prodi has promised some form of recognition for unmarried couples but has so far stopped short of openly supporting gay marriage.

But some leftist parties in the coalition, which ranges from Catholics to communists, back greater rights for homosexuals, including marriage.

Some in the centre left support a legal recognition similar to that in France, which in 1999 granted all couples the right to form civil unions. Civil unions entitle them to joint social security, limited inheritance rights and other benefits.

Italy's Catholic Church opposes this, saying it will weaken traditional marriage and the traditional family.

Prodi, a practicing Catholic, attended the Pope's mass for some 40,000 people at Verona stadium on Thursday afternoon and was heckled by some in the crowd as he entered and left.

In his address to the Catholic convention, the Pope was also applauded when he said the Church had to continue to defend "life in all its phases, from conception until natural death".

He said the Church did not want to be "a political agent" but wanted to help shape social policy.

The Pope backed the Italian Church's demands for more state funding for Catholic schools, saying that they were still subjected to "ancient prejudices" he said were unjustifiable.
.
Toronto Star – 20 September 2006

Pope asks bishops to lobby our MPs

Ontario prelates given message by Benedict at audience in Rome. Canada `has had to endure the folly of redefinition of spouse'

Sep. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
STUART LAIDLAW
FAITH AND ETHICS REPORTER

Pope Benedict XVI yesterday lectured Ontario bishops on a pilgrimage to Rome about gay marriage and abortion laws in this country, lamenting "the exclusion of God from the public sphere" and calling on the bishops to use their influence on Catholic politicians.

"In the name of tolerance, your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse and, in the name of `freedom of choice,' it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children," he said.

The Pope said Canada's "well-earned reputation for a generous and practical commitment to justice and peace" has led to a "false dichotomy" in which rights have been extended too far.
"Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle," he told the bishops before leaving on a trip to his native Germany.

" (In) your discussions with politicians and civic leaders I encourage you to demonstrate that our Christian faith, far from being an impediment to dialogue, is a bridge."

Bishop Richard Smith, who is leading the bishops on their visit to Rome, last month delivered a similar message, saying "a terrible mistake was made" last year when the Canadian government changed the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.

Smith told a gathering of the Catholic Women's League that a planned fall vote on whether to scrap that law presents "a rare second chance" to revisit the issue. He could not be reached for comment yesterday.

The Pope's intervention could add fuel to the debate in Canada over gay marriage, which the ruling Conservatives oppose.

Already, Catholic MPs, including former prime minister Paul Martin, have been admonished by the church for supporting gay marriage. This weekend, in a move largely spawned by the church rebuke of Catholic MPs, the New Democratic Party will debate setting up a faith caucus.

The Pope's lecture to Ontario bishops is the third such appeal to Canadian clergy in recent months. He delivered similar messages to Atlantic Canadian and Quebec bishops in May and is to meet western Canadian bishops next month.

With each meeting, his comments have become more pointed. The Ontario meeting is the first in which he called on bishops to use their influence with politicians by urging them to consider religious values when making decisions, not just public opinion polls and social trends.

"Democracy succeeds only to the extent that it is based on truth and a correct understanding of the human person," he said. "Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle."

The Pope also commended Ontario's Catholic schools for helping to evangelize the province's children in the face of an "insidious" relativism in today's schools.

Donna Marie Kennedy, president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, says students in the separate school system are taught Catholic values as part of the curriculum, but are not graded on their level of adherence to papal edicts.

"How can I judge someone else's faith journey?" she asked. "That's a personal relationship."

As a publicly funded system, she said, the schools also teach the same curriculum as public schools.

The Toronto Catholic school board was not available for comment.

A Ministry of Education statement noted "the government may not interfere with the denominational aspects" of Catholic schools.

Benedict also returned to a theme he stressed with the other Canadian bishops, calling for greater "evangelism" in the church to make religion a bigger part of everyday life in Canada and the culture of the country.

Catholic schools, in his view, were key to this effort.

"Within the context of the evangelization of culture, I wish to mention the fine network of Catholic schools at the heart of ecclesial life in your province," he said. "I thank and encourage those many lay men and women ... who strive to ensure that your young people become daily more appreciative of the gift of faith."

Kennedy said she doubted the Pope's comments would lead teachers to infuse more theology into their lessons.

"As a teacher, I don't dispense theological advice."
.
Toronto Star — 9 September 2006