So much for John Baird's reputation as a gutsy brawler
SOD'S OPERA / I guess this is what they mean by 'a conspiracy of silence'
Marcus McCann / National / Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Share |

News that one of the most powerful political figures in the country had been outed by a relative political newbie met with stony silence yesterday. A uncomfortable hush fell over the story, and it only goes to show that queerness is still something that makes people deeply uncomfortable — especially conservatives.

I had hoped it would be different, but this morning, we still don’t have an openly gay Conservative MP in the House of Commons.

There was, briefly, a glimmer of hope. Pamela Taylor, a Progressive Conservative candidate in Thursday’s Ontario by-election, listed John Baird as an openly gay conservative MP. It was a gaffe, not because Baird is, in fact, heterosexual, but because he doesn’t talk about his sexuality.

It was in response to questions about the Tories’ anti-gay record. Taylor is running in the gaybourhood riding of Toronto-Centre. While she appears gay-friendly, her party’s leader, Tim Hudak, has made some pretty Neanderthal comments about us over the years. The CBC morning-radio host, Andy Barrie, asked her to name any out gay Conservative MPs or Ontario MPPs. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a fair question, since the answer is kind of shocking.

There isn’t a single Conservative in either caucus brave enough to talk publicly about being gay. Not one — out of a caucus of 145 MPs federally and two dozen provincially.

It doesn’t make a whit of difference that there are scads of gay Conservative party activists (Taylor also pointed to the president of the Toronto-Centre PC riding association). And it doesn’t matter that there are swarms of young gay Tory staffers who grease the machinations of power on Parliament Hill. There are no gay Conservative MPs willing to stand up and be counted.

And as for the man of the hour? The man known for being a gutsy brawler? He went and hid.

I sound glib, but this morning, I’m feeling kind of glum about the whole thing. That’s partly because, when he’s not answering media questions, he is pretty frank about his sexuality (officially: whatever his sexuality is). And as he’s become more comfortable with the gay people in his life (officially: including or not including himself) over the last decade, his public record has shifted.

Like the conservative ponces in the documentary Outrage, less hypocrisy in Baird’s life has meant less hostility toward our issues in the public sphere. According to that documentary, the more open you are about your own life, the less likely you are to be sucked into knee-jerk SoCon demagoguery. So there’s that.

MR TOUGH GUY. Baird has a reputation as a mouthy, boisterous politician. So why was he so coquettish yesterday?
(johnbaird.com)
I guess I had hoped that yesterday would be the final step in a long journey for Baird  (officially: whatever direction that journey is headed in) and the results would be good for public policy in the country.

But I’m also feeling glum because here’s a guy — powerful, well-connected, with lots of political capital — who’s not comfortable enough in his own skin to discuss the matter publicly. For lots of us, that’s going to sound familiar. As gay people, most of us have been there at one point or another — and it’s not fun. And it only gets easier once you stop caring about who knows and who doesn’t know.

At heart, we like to see ourselves reflected in the world, in movies, in books and yes, in politics. It does more than merely warm the cockles — seeing out, proud people in public life is important for us, I think, psychologically. We are happier, more at peace, less clenched and anxious, when we can see gays out there, in public, doing their thing. They don’t have to be role models, they just have to wear their sexuality without encumbrance.

It matters. By not talking openly, what message does that send to Canadians, gay and straight? That being gay isn’t something you can or should talk openly about? That it’s an embarrassing private detail, to be minimized, hidden, dodged in public settings?

Xtra, as a rule, doesn’t out public figures, although we’re obviously not above covering it once the cat is out of the bag. Still, it’s strange that yesterday, we were going it alone. The CBC, which broadcast Taylor’s comments yesterday, did not publish any subsequent report. No other outlet, to the best of my knowledge, picked up the story. The only noise the story made was the great sucking sound of a publicly available archived radio conversation in a vacuum. Shame on the media.

Sorry — I should say the “traditional” media. Social media was less skittish, and folks on Twitter cheekily added hashtags like #duh to their tweets. Blogs and aggregators linked to Xtra.ca, where readers engaged in a lively dialogue about Baird, Taylor and the ethics of outing politicians. It’s an important one, but I gather it’s too hot for the mainstream media to report.

On the whole, yesterday was a strange day, starting with a little, greyish glimmer and ending with the realization that it was business as usual for both Baird and the media.


Share |


Reader Comments


 
FYI
At least one major main-stream media source did pick up the story: La Presse http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201002/03/01-945718-le-ministre-baird-sorti-du-placard.php , with xtra.ca as the main source. (Don't you love that phrase "secret de Polichinelle"?)
Ace, Montreal QC
02/03/10 12:19 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Beyond tacky
What's next for your disgusting gutter rag..a front page story on who's had an abortion? Xtra! is a piece of shit blog and its writers are scum of the earth socialists.
ron, Vancouver BC
02/03/10 2:31 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Yeah but you still read it!
Hi Ron, That's a valid comment you make I suppose, as you are entitled to your opinions. The funny thing is, even though you hate Xtra, you are clearly still reading it! Way to go, you are supporting the community by doing so. Keep it up.
James, Vancouver BC
02/03/10 3:10 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Well, Ron,
...for a "disgusting gutter rag," you sure seem to enjoy reading it, and pretty assiduously; I can't remember when the last story was that you didn't comment on. Typically, when we disapprove of news sources, we don't read them. You should try it; it'll do wonders for your blood pressure and the tenor of discourse on these comment pages.
Ace, Verdun QC
02/03/10 3:10 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
some analogy
ron that's a rather interesting analogy in your comment where you compare having an abortion, which for a social conservative like yourself is probably considered shameful, comparing that with being gay. I don't see what's shameful about either but to each their own, I still say you need help ron, its never too late.
Rich, Toronto Ontario
02/03/10 3:24 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Who cares?
I am a gay man. I also tend to have socially conservative attitudes. That said, who cares if this guy is gay? Being gay is not an achievement guys nor is coming out anymore really... Besides it's not like this ever was a big secret. I think all that he is trying to do is avoid becoming a one issue candidate or politician...as gay politicians tend to be...
Mike, Edmonton Alberta
02/03/10 9:31 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
agree
Mike has a point. Who cares? It's 2010. Coming out as gay isn't what I would call a headline. C'mon, Xtra. Grow up. The sensation I-am-a-gay-politician-Svend Robinson days are over. Another thing - why are you bashing Baird for staying quiet about this? People are allowed to be gay and keep it private. Not everyone is a rah-rah homosexual cheerleader.
Karl W, newmarket ON
02/03/10 11:19 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Shameful
This is such a non-story, Xtra should be embarrassed for publishing it. Let Baird live his life. No gay man, public figure or not, should have to come out on anyone's terms accept his own. If Baird wants to be out in his private life but not have to deal with being "that gay conservative" as his public image (ie beyond Ottawa and Toronto), that's his business, and the fact that he's a Conservative shouldn't place any greater expectation on him than any of the closeted Liberals that you would never write about.
chris, Ottawa on
02/04/10 12:23 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
It's Baird's call now & so it shld be
I think noone "covered" it because 1) every one knows Baird is gay 2) he didn't make any comment or aknowlegedment to Pam Taylor's "outing" and the media overall is respecting his wishes. I can understand the desire for people to admit publicicaly who they are but everyone is different. Just one example -- took a very long time --many years in fact --(another Ottawa story of a earlier period) for MArk Tewksbury, now a well known gay sports hero and spokesman, to come out publically and that was long after it was well known he was gay. (He had been outed by "Frank magazine among others over the years before he came out. And once he did he did it with a vengeance--"gay" all over the place. But some are not built that way. Take former Ontario AG Ian Scott who had a friend ask him the question in a 1990 All CAndidate's Meeting ("Are you gay?"_ to preempt an outing which was coming in the works for the rowdy 519 meeting) . He answered "those who knew him ( and who "needed to know") knew his sexuality." That was his response to being out. In fact he never really came "out" until the death notice of his lover Kim Yakabulski years later (and after being AG for 4 or 5 years). People come "out" in their own way and time and in Canada the media respects that (even xtra as stated). So it is not "shameful" that many media didn't continue the outing. It's Baird's call now. And so it should be. One cannot be inside his skin to know the pressures and all the reasons for his "out but not out" . I think hat is his business not ours. One cannot push people further out of the closet than they are willing to go just because it suits our needs (political or psychological). BTW today is election day in Toronto Centre and I hope everyone in the riding goes out to vote for the man or woman and party o
james Dubro, toronto ontario
02/04/10 7:46 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Shame on the Media?? Look into the mirror XTRA
XTRA should not point fingers at the Canadian media, when XTRA itself ignores major Gay stories. In May, ABC News did a piece on Skate Canada's "Tough" campaign. Elvis Stojko said Skate Canada didn't want to "totally obliterate all the gay guys" and XTRA didn't cover it. This is a story about Gays in Canada, broadcast to over 23 million US homes, and XTRA didn't cover it. Talk about hypocrisy!
Jason, mississauga ontario
02/04/10 11:51 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Xtra's hyprocrisy
Why didn't Xtra ever out Canada's biggest closet case: Liberal MP Bill Graham? Xtra loves to condemn gay Torys like Baird but never said a word about closeted gay Liberals like Bill Graham -even though he represented "Canada's largest gay community" in the federal Parliament for years. Graham was a hypocrite who posed with his wife and family in campaign photos.
Joker, Toronto Ontario
02/05/10 11:46 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
A valid criticism
The reason talking about Baird's sexuality is valid is because of the party to which he belongs. It is a party of homophobes. As well, though his sexuality is one of those open secrets, it was exposed during an on-air interview. Bill Grahams sexuality, although suspected by nearly everyone, has never been stated by anyone in the know and therefore still rests within the realm of conjecture. I am sure if Graham was outed by a colleague, Xtra would have reported it. There is no hypocrisy here.
Kieren, Toronto Ontario
02/08/10 3:11 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Why Does Baird Go Along With ....
the policies the Conservatives keep perpetrating on Canadians? They pretend gays and lesbians do not exist and or avoid the issues all together. They hide from legal opinions that have been granted by law whether it be gay marriage, gay rights, or abortion, or whatever. It is certainly disconcerting that Conservatives will sit in judgment of others and yet not apply those same judgments to themselves and or admit who and what they are! Is John Baird ashamed of who he is? Is John Baird an advocate of other gays and lesbians having rights or NOT having rights? Is John Baird an honest honourable politician or simply a Conservative ideologue yes man that does not believe in rights applying to all? One has to wonder why Conservatives deny rights to others when they themselves would not disavow their right to exercise those same rights! Right?
BobbyB, Ottawa Ontario
03/03/10 10:33 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.