Day on gays

>> >> Canadian Alliance leadership contender Stockwell Day faces questions about homophobia and disputes his anti-gay rap

by MATTHEW HAYS

With recent advances in Canadian law, gays and lesbians might understandably be feeling somewhat complacent. Unlike our American neighbours, our federal anti-sodomy law was repealed in '69, we have no ban on gays serving in the military and are protected by a hate-crimes law that includes homophobic violence and federal gay-rights legislation.

But gays and lesbians across the country found reason to start sweating soon after the launch of the new Canadian Alliance Party--and probably with good reason. This is a party which will attempt to quash the Progressive Conservatives once and for all, effectively uniting the Right to form the next majority government. And their precursor, the Reform Party, has a notoriously nasty track record on the issue of gay rights, voting en masse against virtually every gay rights bill that has passed through the House of Commons since the party's beginnings.

Of the four leadership hopefuls in the CA race, Stockwell Day has emerged as the most prominent voice of social conservatives. He is also, notably, one of the most charismatic politicians in the country, an eloquent and savvy speaker who clearly understands how to make doublespeak sound singular.

A vital part of Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's ultraright provincial government, Day served as a slash-and-burn treasurer, overseeing massive and unprecedented cuts to his province's social-safety net. He also maintained an extremely conservative voice within Klein's cabinet, urging the Premier to ban gays from foster parenting, stop government clinics from paying for abortions and bring back the death penalty (something which Alberta clearly would have done by now were the issue not under federal jurisdiction).

Soon after Day's tossing of his hat into the ring, gay pundits raised questions about what a Prime Minister Day might do. In the April edition of Capital Xtra, the Ottawa gay magazine, one writer likened Day to the Austrian far-right politician Joerg Haider. Calling Day "dangerous," former NDP candidate Jamey Heath went on to argue that "Day does not like us... He is a small-minded preacher from a small-minded city [Red Deer]. [Day is a] Bible-thumping ideologue."

Media distortions?

For Day's part, he feels he's been misunderstood and wildly misrepresented in the media. He's been working an elaborate high-wire act during the few months of the campaign, attempting to maintain his appeal to social conservatives while appearing kinder and gentler at once.

Things didn't go so well two weeks ago, however, when it was revealed that some Day supporters were listing openly-gay members of Tom Long's campaign team on their Web site. They argued that Long, who is considered Day's main rival, was too soft on gay issues. Arch-conservative columnist Michael Coren chimed in, saying Long was clearly far too cozy with the queers, noting that there were indeed homosexuals on Long's campaign team.

Day distanced himself from the Web list tactic--something which was done by a pro-life group--but the damage was done. Again, the CA became tarnished by an image Reform had tried so hard to shake, that of a group of intolerant ideological thugs. And the irony of the Long gay list was rich: Day stated, somewhat proudly, that he had a number of gay people working on his campaign team during his first press conference in Montreal last March.

Here, days before the CA candidates descend on Montreal for a debate on June 12, Day granted the Mirror his first gay interview, discussing his personal Christian beliefs, what he might do as prime minister and what he feels are misperceptions about his personal views on homosexuality.

Mirror: You acknowledge that you have a number of gay people working on your campaign. You've also discussed your deeply-held Christian beliefs. I'm just wondering how you reconcile the two--you're working closely with gay people, but don't feel that it's right somehow.

Stockwell Day: That's a good question. First of all, as far as my campaign, I don't ask people if they're homosexual, lesbian or heterosexual. People who are working on my campaign are doing so because they believe in me. That doesn't mean that they necessarily agree 100 per cent with everything I believe. But in principle they're saying we think you can take this Alliance to the next step and we think you'd be good for Canada. So I don't ask. Nobody has to pass a sex test to be on this campaign.

M: But you do know that some are gay, obviously...

SD: Yes. I am told that. Or, on occasion, some have mentioned that to me. In life, I guess the beautiful thing about the human experience is that we can agree to disagree and still be together. I have yet to meet any other individual, including my wife, who agrees 100 per cent with me on everything. I work with a lot of people, where we have disagreements in many areas. But you know, we call our campaign a campaign of respect. I appreciate that I can work with people and even sit down and talk about our differences and why we disagree and sometimes you find mutual ground when you do that, and sometimes you don't. But you respect each other as human beings and can still work together.

Respecting differences

M: Speaking of respect, this whole incident of the Long campaign members who are gay being listed on a Web site--I guess those were people who were your supporters. This took on McCarthyite overtones; I'm wondering, are you concerned about the damage this does to the Alliance's public image?

SD: I'm always concerned if something in my view gets torqued out of shape. You know, Matthew, even at the start of my campaign all kinds of things were hurled at me and some of my team, because of perceived views on things. I just take the approach that we should respect people and realize that misunderstandings can happen. I just keep repeating my message, that I don't think people should be out to hurt others or be disrespectful. I try to foster an atmosphere where people can openly discuss the things they want to discuss. If they don't want to discuss them, that's fine too.

M: You now contend that you never referred to homosexuality as a mental disorder, as was widely reported in the press.

SD: Never have.

M: But you do consider it a choice?

SD: Ultimately. I don't really get into the nature vs. nurture debate, genetics vs. personal choice. Because ultimately the things we do in life are choices. I think all of us are influenced by genetics. I think all of us are influenced by our surroundings. And ultimately we all make decisions.

M: But a lot of gay people have been saying for a long time, myself included, that for us being gay was never a matter of choice, any more than our eye colour or the colour of our skin. I'm often curious as to why people on the Right so often don't believe us, as though we're all just involved in some sort of collective lie. Why is it so difficult to accept that it might not be a choice?

SD: I don't think it's a refusal to believe something. I think that people on either side of that discussion are probably closer to agreeing than we might think. From a political point of view I don't get into the discussion any more than that. I just kind of leave it at that, I guess, Matthew.

Debating same-sex unions

M: A hypothetical scenario: you win the CA leadership race. You are then swept to victory in a landslide and form a majority government. You're prime minister now. In your first term, the Supreme Court decides that the federal government must recognize and sanction gay marriage. In that case, would you consider invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to opt out of the decision?

SD: I'd consider an open debate in the House of Commons, with free voting and free debate on behalf of each member of parliament. That's a discussion that's an important one, and one that touches the hearts of people on both sides of the issue and so it should be a free and open discussion. Maybe even a citizen-led initiative.

M: But at this point it wouldn't be a vote, it would be a decision to overturn a Supreme Court decision...

SD: But the Supreme Court, as you know, talks about the use of the Notwithstanding Clause, and they talk about it as a form of dialogue between the court itself and a legislature or the House of Commons. Because it's such an important issue to people, I think it should be a free discussion, a respectful discussion and then absolutely a free vote with no pressure from the prime minister's office. People should be talking to their constituents and voting freely.

M: So that would be an option though, to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause, if a number of your members said they wanted to block gay marriage?

SD: Yes, and the reason I say that is because such a significant number of constituents would reflect concern on that and would want the discussion. The Alberta position on this is that the definition of marriage changing would allow for the use of the Notwithstanding Clause. That's because the sense of the elected officials in Alberta is that the people would be significantly motivated on that issue. That's why I would say it would need a full public discussion. Tell me what you think, but I think the public is coming to a point where people can have this discussion without both sides hurling flaming spears at one another. The discussion you and I are having right now is something the public is ready for without hurtful accusations.

M: There's been a lot of press around your more conservative stances on many issues, including gay rights, abortion and capital punishment. Do you think that's going to be a tough sell in places like Ontario and Quebec? You look at the polls, and consistently Quebec is the most liberal place in the country.

SD: I'm not finding that, because people know from my record that when it comes down to it I'm a democrat, not an autocrat. I've always said that the public needs to be involved in these discussions and that MPs should be voting freely, not just on these issues but on fiscal issues as well. We're talking about democracy at work. So even though there are people who disagree with me on certain positions, they know that I approach it from a democratic point of view.

M: If one of your sons came to you and said that he was gay, what would you say to him?

SD: Do you know what? On personal family items, I never drag my family into the discussions. I just don't think it's fair. I don't want to drag my family into the spotlight, other than my wife, who I do drag around. She comes willingly though. (laughs)

M: I'm a strong believer that the personal is political, that's why I ask.

SD: My personal life is fair game, yes, but I don't reflect on my kids. I appreciate your question, but I don't want to discuss that. :

more news...