Showing posts with label Ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ontario. Show all posts

Monday, October 3, 2011

Sex, lies, and the politics of hate

Remember last week's awful ad (new window) from the "Institute for Canadian Values" about Ontario's proposed sex ed curriculum? With its blatantly anti-GLBTQ message and manipulative imagery, it even got the National Post to apologize for running it in the first place.

Well, there's another one. A pamphlet. And according to Torontoist it was paid for by Ontario's Progressive (ha!) Conservative Party:


The Globe and Mail gives Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak's defence of the publication:
When asked if he supported the message, Mr. Hudak turned the question around on the Liberals and suggested the party was out of touch with mainstream voters.

“My little girl Miller – it’s her birthday today – is just four and she has started JK,” he said. “The notion that Dalton McGuinty thinks a priority in education is sex-education curriculum starting at Grade 1 when they should be learning their ABCs and how to tie their shoes is another example of how Dalton McGuinty has lost touch with mainstream Ontario.”
The Globe has also endorsed the Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty, for re-election on Thursday's provincial vote.

Interestingly, the quotes in the ad are not from any proposed provincial curriculum, but rather from a Toronto District School Board booklet on "Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism".

And as CBC points out, the copy is full of misrepresentations and outright fabrications.

The flyer includes one quote from the document —"cross-dressing for six-year olds"— that can't be found anywhere in the TDSB document. The flyer also says the quotes are taken from the K-12 curriculum. But the quotes are not included in the curriculum, only in the anti-homophobia resource guide.
This election campaign was already ugly. Now it's evil, too.

(Thanks to Martha W. for the tip)

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Blog encourages Ontarians to vote with their... ummm...

CBC reports that a Toronto blogger is attempting to provoke interest in Ontario's upcoming provincial election by getting voters to decide which candidates are the "sexiest".



Zach Bussey wants visitors to his media site to decide between two male and two female candidates every day:

"We’ve sat down and looked at the candidates from Green, NDP, Liberal, PC and even the fringe parties to narrow down all of them to just 64! 32 male candidates and 32 female candidates who we’ve deemed to be attractive! Now, over the course of the next month, head-to-head matchups between these 64 attractive Ontario Election Candidates will battle for votes to determine who is the Sexiest Candidate! "
Yes, it's all a big joke (and a PR stunt for Zach, who seems to be launching a production company of some kind) but he told CBC that it's all for democracy:

"I don't want it to be taken seriously in the sense that 'this is how you should vote,'" Bussey said. "I give people more credit than that. But I do want it to be taken seriously in the sense that if you're going to vote here, get out and vote on October 6."

Obviously, both political purists and gender issues advocates are going to be irritated by this. Personally, I wish Zach had said that he was running a social commentary about the superficiality of modern politics.

(Taken from the site)

After all, it's no accident that our neighbours to the south have perhaps the handsomest President in living history (in addition to his inspirational brand) and that so many of his potential political challengers have been attractive conservative women.  Physical beauty is an essential component of charisma, which provides the emotional stimuli that make us think we like people. One would expect politicians to be taller, better poised and more attractive than not. (The success of an unattractive politician, in that context, is really a great tribute to his or her personality, intelligence, ideas and persuasiveness.)

So if anything useful can come out of this stupid social media stunt, perhaps it's that the outraged and amused coverage of it will get us taking a clear look at ourselves as sexist creatures of instinct, and starting a conversation about how to rise above that nature.