Gay teens bridging movements

My final printed article of the year came out today, which was a piece in Capital Xtra. It deals with a group of gay and lesbian teens at a local high school, and it was quite an interesting piece to write.

Its origins lie in a piece I was assigned regarding a local safer schools forum put on by one of the local school boards. That piece seems to have vanished on my editor's desk, however, and I need to figure out if he's either printing it, or paying me a kill fee. Now, that fact aside, while I was at said forum, I could interview the organisers but not any of the students. However, one of the organisers said that she could arrange for me to meet with her students at a later date, and we worked it out.

It's rare that I actually get to work with a photographer on a shoot, and in this particular case it was doubly fortunate since the high school in question is in a far-distant suburb, and Ottawa has been in a transit strike for a few weeks now. My photographer had a car, which made getting there so much less trouble. It was also interesting doing the interviews in a group format, while he took pictures as we went along.

One other thing I really enjoyed was the fact that I had a chance to talk to students about what their high school experience is like now. My own high school experience is nearly fifteen years ago, and it was from rural Alberta - a very different context than students in urban Ottawa in 2008. It's given me a bit of insight into the next generation.

Reprint: What Kind of Justice will Thomas Cromwell be - Online

My piece from the November 19th issue of Capital Xtra was reposted on the Xtra.ca national page today in light of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to forego the Parliamentary approval process for the nomination.

The piece is largely based on an interview I did with one of Cromwell's former colleagues at Dalhousie University. It was an interesting conversation, and an interesting look at Cromwell from a professional perspective.

Dr. Draw defies classification

I have a piece in this week's Xpress weekly, regarding Canadian musician Dr. Draw. I had reviewed Draw's last CD for Outlooks well over a year ago (and enjoyed it), so when I got word that he was coming to town (well, to nearby Wakefield) with a new CD, I was quite keen to do this piece. While I had been hoping to hear some of the new tracks, he was still mixing them when we spoke last week, so I was out of luck there. Nevertheless, I enjoyed talking to Draw, and while I was given an opportunity see the show tonight, alas it is out in Wakefield and I'm without a means of locomotion (but don't worry - I actually have competing plans).

Live blog: our panel analyzes Harper's address to the country - Online

Tonight I participated in a liveblog discussion of the Prime Minister's address to the nation, followed by the responses by the other party leaders. It was my first actual liveblog (as opposed to the live(ish)blogs I've done before), and certainly the first interactive one I've done (though I'm sure that we would have had even more participation if we'd had a bit more notice about it). It was kind of fun, and I'm looking forward to future opportunities to liveblog such events.

Queers uniting around Liberal-NDP coalition - Online

I have an article that went online on the national page of the Xtra.ca site today, which is also going to appear in the print editions of Xtra in Toronto and Xtra West in Vancouver on Thursday.

It was a pretty last-minute piece, where I was given a mere hour-and-a-half to get it filed in order for it to make the two print editions. It would have been nice to get another quote, possibly two, however given the timeframe, it all seemed to work out in the end. It was also nice to get to write about the whole political coalition story, since I've been following it so closely for the past few days.

Gains slip away in AIDS work

I have a piece in today's Ottawa Citizen to coincide with today being World AIDS Day.  It was a somewhat difficult piece to write given that there was just so much information to cram into a mere 750 words, and getting useful information from government sources, as opposed to talking points, was a bit of challenge as well.

One paragraph in particular wound up on the cutting room floor, which I think summed much of the piece up quite well:

“If you liken the HIV/AIDS epidemic to a forest fire, and you have the resources to give us a plane full of water, why are you giving us a thimble-full in the first year?” Koornstra asks. “A thimble-full is not going to put out the fire – the fire is going to grow larger, and when you feel like you might need to give us a few more resources, you give us a cup of water as opposed to the amount of water that we needed to put out the fire in the first place.”

I do wish that it had managed to be included, but I am glad that the piece made it.

The piece can be found in the print edition on page C3, or in the online edition here.

Thoughts from the Hill - December Edition

The December issue of Outlooks is now on the stands, and this month I have the return of the "Thoughts from the Hill" political panel. As the two MPs on the panel were both re-elected, I'm fortunate that I didn't have to go canvassing for any replacements. This month's panel question fits in with the theme of the issue of queer people of faith - and as it happens, all three of my panellists are all associated with the United Church of Canada in one way or another.

You can read it in Outlooks' print edition, or in the online edition, which you can download in .pdf format here.  (This month's panel can be found on page 25).

Get involved: join a political party - Online

I have an editorial up on Xtra.ca today, which talks about how getting involved in a political party at a grassroots level is one of the ways in which we can help get people engaged in the political process once again. The more I've been involved in covering the political beat, and the more I study about politics as a result, the more I'm convinced that it's not our system of democracy that's actually broken, the way most of the chattering classes insist, but rather, we've simply forgotten how the system works. Party membership is one of those ways in which we've forgotten. In fact, during the last election, during the one "all-candidates debate" that I attended (where one of the candidates declined to attend), Liberal candidate Penny Collenette suggested to one of the more vocal members of the community that she join a party - not necessarily Collenette's - but any party in order to see that her issue was being addressed.  And that sparked part of my idea for this column.

This editorial ties in nicely with my new political blog, and is in fact designed to be that, from the header picture, to the "Hill Queeries" subtitle, to the nice big graphic advert for the blog in the middle of the piece. I'm hoping it's a message that my readers will take to heart.

California marriage ban spurs Ottawa DJ

My third piece in the current edition of Capital Xtra was a last-minute one, in which I covered the Proposition 8 protest that was held in Ottawa last Saturday. It was raining, but not too cold, while I covered the two dozen that gathered at the Human Rights monument and marched to the American Embassy on Sussex Drive.

For me, the more interesting aspect of the article which needs to be explored further is the way in which the internet has been playing a large part in the way that these protests have been organised in the United States, to fairly dramatic effect.

I've also included a couple of photos I took at the protest as they arrived at the Embassy. By that point, the official photographer that Capital Xtra assigned had left, so I snapped a couple in case they wanted them for the website. I've posted them here for you.

(That's organiser Charles Cooper to the left)

Is Canada's top court addicted to compromise? + What kind of Justice will Thomas Cromwell be?

I have three pieces in this edition of Capital Xtra, and these two constitute a major opus that I have been working on for the past couple of months. The first and largest piece is a feature-length look at the way in which the Supreme Court has been changing under the leadership of Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, as opposed to how it was under Antonio Lamer. The piece took a great deal of research and there was a couple of hours' worth of interviews and at the same time, I feel as though I've barely scratched the surface of the topic. It's something I would certainly like to revisit in the future.

The second piece, which was a sidebar to this feature, looks at Justice Thomas Cromwell, who the Prime Minister nominated to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada. I interviewed one of his former colleagues at Dalhousie University, and got an insight into who he is.

Hill Queeries - Launching Today Online

As of today, my new Parliament Hill blog launches over at Xtra.ca.  Titled Hill Queeries, it's a GLBT-centred look at the goings-on of Parliament Hill, from legislation that is relevant to the GLBT community, to paying special attention to the seven out gay and lesbian parliamentarians and what they're up to.  The plan as it stands is to update said blog several times a week, depending on how busy the Hill is.

I'm going to attempt to put up a link on the right-hand toolbar on this page so that you'll be able to find it and keep an eye on my reporting there, while I continue to update this blog with my current projects, which have been picking up of late.  Suffice to say, I'm going to be up on the Hill a lot more in the coming weeks, which I am really looking forward to.

Marcil assault hearing - Online

My write-up of yesterday's preliminary hearing into the matter of Andrew Lefebvre is now posted on the xtra.ca site, as an update to the previous piece (meaning both are on the same page).

It's interesting and frustrating writing a piece like this under a publication ban because there was a  lot said that is very interesting. However, since they have asked for a jury trial, they don't wish to prejudice any potential jurors with the evidence presented. This will be interesting to write about once the actual trial is over with, but that's all I can say until then.

Updated: Marcil assault trial set to begin - Online

Tomorrow and Friday I'll be covering an assault trial here in Ottawa, related to the GLBT community.  Posted today was my backgrounder on the trial, and I'll be updating at the end of the day both tomorrow and Friday.

I've never covered a trial before, so this will be a new experience for me.  Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to it, and expect updates posted as they happen.

Update: It turns out this is just a preliminary hearing, and not the actual trial.  This also means the evidence is under a publication ban. I'll still file briefs, but under the restrictions of the ban.

OUTtv's Banner Year + Equal Rights in a Donor Drought

I have two stories in this month's Outlooks Magazine.  The first is an interview with OUTtv's Chief Operating Officer, Brad Danks, and about how the channel has performed in the past two years since it changed ownership.

The second piece is a look at the current state of EGALE Canada (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere), and how the end of the same-sex marriage debate has meant that their fundraising has virtually dried up.  In this piece, the comments from Senator Nancy Ruth arose after our discussion in last month's issue when we were talking about the kinds of issues facing the GLBT community in Canada today. Some of these issues I am continuing to follow up on in a piece I am currently working on for Capital Xtra, so stay tuned for that.

You can read both articles in Outlooks in print or in the online edition, which you can download in .pdf format here.  (The interview with Brad Danks is on page 8, while the EGALE article is on page 12).

Bringing down the House that Jack built - Online

I have a new piece up on xtra.ca today, about a local Toronto activist who used to be a big NDP booster who is now campaigning against them.  This wasn't an easy piece to write.  Initially it was to be a look at some of the socially conservative constituencies within the party, like their social gospel roots, but much of that didn't pan out.  Nevertheless, Bochove brings up a point about how the NDP had abandoned the concerns of a core constituency in order to suit the race to become Prime Minister, which none of the other mainstream media has really covered.  Already the comments on the article are accusing Xtra of editorial bias, and of rolling over for the Liberals, and so on, but it was about how a vocal member of the community (and if you follow gay history in Canada, Bochove is a significant figure) feels betrayed, with the party responding.  But accusations of media bias seem to be the norm when covering politics for any medium, so I guess I've just joined the club.

Tories once again deny funds to Montreal gay event - Online

I have a piece on xtra.ca today, about the funding cuts to festivals that began as far back as 2006--in this case, the Black and Blue festival in Montréal.

This piece should have gone out nearly two weeks ago, but I was kept waiting on a quote by Denis Coderre, the Liberal heritage critic, which never did come. (A friend of mine, who has dealt with him in the past, said that he wasn't surprised).  But Mauril Bélanger was very obliging, and I thank him for taking the time to speak to us in Coderre's stead.

Jeff Geddis - The Interview

I had a really extensive conversation with Jeff Geddis for the article in this month's Outlooks, but with only so much room, there was so much left unsaid.  Here is the interview, where Jeff talks about being a working actor in Canada, the Canadian film and television industry, and more about his role on Sophie.  One of the things I consciously avoided in this interview was the kind of thing you might find in OUT or The Advocate, where the interviewer immediately has to establish the actor's sexuality, and frame the interview around that.  If I was going to write about a gay character who was representing the maturation of the way gay men are portrayed on television, I might as well also show the maturation of writing about said portrayals.  On the whole, Jeff was a fantastic interview, and great to talk to about all of that range of subject matter.

Q: Give us a little bit about your background.

A: I’ve been an actor based out of Toronto for coming up on ten years now, a graduate of York University’s acting programme. Graduated in 1998, which feels like a million years ago now. I’ve been a “working professional” for coming up on ten years now, done everything from popular TV commercials to bit-parts in feature films, to lead roles in MOWs, to guest spots in other TV shows, and then of course most recently the part of Matt on Sophie, and I also play a regular role on a show called The Latest Buzz for the Family Channel, and I’m currently working on an animated series called Stoked which will be on Teletoon. So I’m kind of multitasking these days. Whenever I have two or three days off with Sophie, I’m sort of whisked back to Toronto to do a day or two on my other two shows. It’s been good—I’ve been very fortunate in that respect, it’s not often that you can manage a schedule like this, but I’m losing years off my life and my grey hair is getting greyer, but I’m managing—barely.

Q: Why Matt? What drew you to that character?

A: At the risk of sounding boring, it’s simple that in the professional life of an actor in Canada, opportunities present and sometimes you respond well to the material and other times not, and generally when you do respond well to the material and deliver what they’re looking for then you’ll be lucky enough to be hired. With Matt, it was just something that I found—I found Matt to be a very charming character, and I tend to gravitate towards those characteristics in any of the roles I play. It’s a little bit quirky which is kind of fun—those are some of the things that I responded to. And I think generally speaking I just kind of ‘got’ the tone of what they were looking for, for the show, and so the rest is kind of history. Here I am, I think a year-and-a-half later—I think we did the pilot in 2006. It’s just been a matter of trying to finesse the performance and pay attention to what the writers are looking for, and again the tone of the show, and keep delivering what they’re looking for.

Q: What about your approach to playing the character? Is there anything in particular that you wanted to bring to it that necessarily might not have been in the material?

A: The biggest thing for me is that I wanted to make Matt very real and relatable. I think we see all kinds of presentations of gay men on television and in film, and there are some stereotypes that we see, but for the most part I wanted to keep Matt to just be as relatable as possible to just about anyone watching the show, be it gay, straight of otherwise. I wanted to just get it right down the middle and I think I’ve managed to do that pretty well, and I think the response has been pretty favourable. I think Matt is generally a pretty positive person who is a positive role model in Sophie’s life, and this is something that we’ve been trying to maintain.

Q: That was one of my observations watching the show is that it escaped most of the obvious stereotypes, and that was something I really enjoyed about it. A lot of sitcoms get lazy in their writing of gay characters and you become the sexless best friend or just someone for a wisecrack here or there, and Matt seemed to escape that while still being a funny and, like you said, relatable character.

A: I think we definitely touch on some of those characteristics that you mentioned, but I think it’s much more thorough than that, and we give a real living, breathing person with a real pulse who’s got all the same challenges and desires and interests and flaws and positive characteristics that everyone has. I think the sexuality factor in a lot of ways almost plays secondary to who Matt is, and I think that’s a really important thing in our culture now is to try to take the focus off sexuality so much anymore. I think it’s really important to just [see] ‘who is the person that we’re dealing with here,’ and I think that’s been something we’ve been pretty good at focusing on. Again, it doesn’t just fall on me, it falls on everyone—the writers, the overall style and approach to the show and the character in general.

Q: One of the other things I noticed was that they did a very straight-down-the-middle treatment of Matt’s relationship with the neighbour, Verner. It wasn’t just hinted about or seen off-screen, it was actually there and matter-of-fact and not played coy with.

A: Yeah, I personally think that’s a really good thing. I responded really well to that when we first saw the scripts for it. It’s a relationship, and this is a character who’s going to have relationship ups and downs like any other person, and it’s just something that ‘it is what it is,’ and we made it real, and we had a lot of fun with that storyline, and I think it’s something that people responded really well to.

Q: I also liked the way that, in the episode after Verner was introduced when Matt went and had his ‘affair’ on the side, it made it much more relatable to a gay viewer because it wasn’t so moralistic in the treatment of ‘oh, you’re just playing him as the stereotypical promiscuous character’—there was depth and nuance to it.

A: I’m glad—just hearing you say that, you don’t get that many direct reviews, so I’m really happy to hear that’s how it came across because that was really important to us. I think to your point about the stereotype of promiscuity in the gay culture, it’s in all cultures—people have question marks, they have second thoughts, they have second guesses, we have something called ‘cold feet’ in the world.

Q: That’s part of how the whole concept of Sophie came about.

A: Exactly! And as you’ve noticed in the show in general, the whole premise of the show is built on that. Even good, strong, heroic characters are going to have dilemmas, they’re going to have moral dilemmas, they’re going to make choices sometimes that even the viewing audience in its entirety won’t necessarily agree with, but that’s the whole point. You’re supposed to challenge people, you’re supposed to present ideas that a lot of people, whether directly or indirectly can relate to. I think that’s really important. Going back, this is a show that’s based on a French show, and again the relationship is really strong in that version as well, and it’s just something that plays really well on the screen, and I’ve watch the French show myself and I responded really well to the way that the character was portrayed and the way that relationship with Sophie was built, and I think that it was just a really positive example of modern TV writing.

Q: Being as the show was based on a French predecessor, how much has that influenced your portrayal of the character?

A: You should watch it—it’s really, really fantastic. I only understand about thirty percent of it, but on a personal basis it’s a really, really well-built show. It’s a one-hour, so the difference between that show and this show, is that it’s a one hour format so it has time to kind of pace out and explore side storylines and some of the surrounding characters a little more, whereas our show is a half-hour and it’s a bit more of a punchy-style of comedy, so it’s more just based on the original Sophie, so it plays more to that format of a half-hour comedy. The characters are a little more broad, we’re playing to the comedy a little bit more, and we all centre more around Sophie in this version of the show. In terms of what influences came from the original show, almost none at all. I didn’t even see the original show until we were pretty much completed filming the first season of our show. It was more just for curiosity’s sake, and it’s good in a way. I don’t think any of us wanted to set out to mimic something that was already there. We just wanted to make it our own. As far as building the character of Matt in the first place, obviously I’ve got a few images in mind of good friends I’ve spent time with over the years, and small characteristics that you’re charmed by. It’s like any role—you bring to it what you know and what you understand, and your experiences, and hope that it can all blend into one little presentation.

Q: You’ve said the response has been fairly positive so far. Can you talk a little more about some of it that you’ve had?

A: Just in general, the feedback that we’ve had from focus groups and from the audiences is that they’ve responded very, very well to the relationship between Matt and Sophie, and it’s a true friendship and it’s a truly thorough, supportive relationship. That’s been the response, and that’s what we set out to create and in that sense we’ve succeeded, and they just really believe the two of us as friends. I think it’s the kind of friendship too, that—these are people in their early-to-mid thirties, and there are so many challenges that come with that—anything to do with work, relationships, we have a single mother, all this kind of stuff, and people, they bought it. They really believe that we are two people who are weathering the storm of life together. That was in general, that’s sort of the main response, so that to me felt like success.

Q: Anytime I read an interview with an American actor who plays a gay role, they talk about the flood of fan mail from all these kids in Middle America who thank them for helping them come out to their parents, and I’m wondering if you’ve had that parallel experience?

A: I haven’t! I have not had that parallel experience at all, and I don’t know if it has anything to do with our culture being a few steps ahead in that respect to begin with—I’m not sure. I would be happy to receive any kind of feedback like that, but as it stands, I haven’t, and again if a positive portrayal of a gay character can help someone’s who’s struggling with their coming of age or coming out to their parents, I think that’s terrific. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that our core audience is maybe a little older, I don’t think we’re necessarily targeting a younger audience, I’m not sure if that’s a factor.

Q: Do you think that might change once it airs in the States on ABC Family?

A: Yeah, it’s very possible. It’ll be really interesting to see how we roll forward once that happens. I mean, we play to a pretty small audience—Canada only has thirty million people—so as soon as it hits the States, you’re going to be hitting a larger audience, so it’ll be interesting to see how it’s received.

Q: The new season—how’s that going so far?

A: It’s going really well. It’s like any TV show, I think you do a little bit of finding your feet in your first thirteen episodes, and we’ve been picked up for eighteen this time around so the morale is really high right off the bat. The scripts have been really strong, and everyone had the benefit of the first season to get to know each other and get comfortable, so now it kind of feels like it’s in you—you’re no longer trying to find it. You feel strong in the character, and you feel like the show is being written for what you’ve brought as opposed to you trying to find what’s already on paper. That’s a fun feeling, to know that every script I get now is being written for me, whereas the first half-dozen episodes of season one, it’s just me trying to meet them half-way and now it’s more symbiotic.

Q: I know you’ve done a lot of writing projects on your own—any interest in doing your own scripts for Sophie, or are you content just to be the actor on this one?

A: I think in this case, it’s television and I don’t know if television is really my forte. I’ve done quite a bit of writing over the years, but it’s mostly feature-film format, so I don’t know that I would ever feel as confident writing for the half-hour TV world, but it would be fun and any chance I get, I’m always throwing ideas or suggestions—I’m the guy who’s always raising his hand at meetings, asking questions, making suggestions, making sure that everything is consistent, and making sure that everything works for what we’ve built so far.

Q: I take it the response has been pretty good to that kind of input?

A: Yeah, we have a great writing team on that show, and it’s a real team environment. It’s nice, and I think anytime you do get on a show that seems to be working the one characteristic in common is that everyone is really joining hands and playing it like a team as opposed to anyone ruling over anyone else.

Q: You’ve been a working professional for ten years, and you haven’t gone off to the States, and I’m wondering a) why didn’t you go away—and it’s not a bad thing, but it’s something I’m always curious about, and b) your take on where the industry in this country is at right now.

A: As for the a part, why didn’t I go, I actually did spend a bit of time in the US about five years ago just to kind of explore and see what it was about, and I had worked on a few MOWs and projects that were popular in the US, and so I got some representation and spent some time down there, and strangely, on a personal level I didn’t really find—you’ve got be careful not to say anything bad about the United States—but the one thing I learned about myself is that I spent some time in LA, and I spent some time after that in Vancouver, and there was a stretch of time where it became apparent to me that the place I live, that the home I make for myself, is much more important than I ever thought it was. I just had this thought in my head that I would just pack up and go off to the States and never come back, and it didn’t really feel like the right fit for me, it didn’t feel like home for me, and I didn’t want to stay there and put in the time and do the grind—I mean, there’s always a bit of a grind involved, and I thought if I’m going to be doing that, then something felt more right about Toronto for me. That doesn’t mean I won’t ever go to the States, but as far as where I want to base myself is that I do want to stay based in Canada, and I think I had a renewed appreciation for Canada being away for a stretch of time, and I knew that I wanted to take that renewed energy and enthusiasm about the country that I live in and I really wanted to find myself working more in Canadian projects, and lo and behold not long after that I was doing almost entirely Canadian work, so it was kind of interesting how that played out. Since that time—I just love this country, just seeing politically what goes on around the world, I just really love where we are and I think that we have very smart, interesting writers and we have really strong, talented actors in this country, and I think that it’s unfortunate that we have such a small population because we have a lot to deliver, and I just want to be a part of that. The last couple of years, I’ve really just been putting my energy toward that, just really trying to contribute to making really good Canadian TV and film. To your second point about where the industry is heading, I think we’re in a really good place. We’ve got shows like Flashpoint that debuted simultaneously here in Canada and the US to great numbers, and the CBC had a couple of shows—our shows and The Border last year which again people responded really well to, and I think that it’s exciting and we need to keep doing it, we need to keep forcing and making it happen, and at the end of the day, audiences will watch what’s good, and if it’s good, people will talk about it, marketing will happen, people will pay attention, and before you know it, you’ll have a long-standing audience.

Q: One thing I always hear about is the lack of a star system in English Canada. Being as you’re shooting in Montréal with Sophie, I’m wondering if you have any different experience with that versus shooting in Toronto.

A: One thing I have noticed is that Québec in general has an enviable situation. I’ve never worked in Québec before this job, and I find I’m envious. They have a strong culture here, and it’s quite—insular in a way. It’s not necessarily that they’re watching things from France. Their audience watches their shows here, they make great TV, and they have great viewership, and they have a small star system and they really do have their own thing happening here in Montréal. Being from English Canada and knowing that just south of the border that people walk and talk and think and act quite similarly to the way that we do, so of course you have the option to watch a CBC programme or you could flip over to another channel and watch an NBC programme. So here, it’s just amazing—I didn’t realise it until I saw it first-hand that the practitioners here are really amazing, and the local culture really responds, and the they do have stars here and they have a completely amazing, singular TV and film world here that I didn’t realise existed. I wish we had a similar thing in English Canada, and again we have the US situation right there, and it’s about options. I guess if we could find a way to get patriotism into the eyes of the TV viewing audience it would be helpful. We’re really quick to criticise the US on their politics and their world relations but they don’t think about it when they flip over to watch CSI instead of The Border.

Q: I’m just wondering about some of your other writing projects.

A: I wrote a book sort of like my list of things I want to do in life, and it has yet to be published so it’s not something I go on at length about. I’ve written a bunch of screenplays with a writing partner I’ve been working with for a few years now, and we’ve had a few things in development, a couple of near-misses and a couple of “almosts,” but we actually have a film that should be getting made in early 2009 if all goes according to plan, which is like a feature-comedy, so that’s exciting. It just adds another variable, trying to manage three jobs plus writing scripts, it’s pretty interesting life, I don’t have a lot of time for anything else. But it’s a passion, and it’s something I’ve been working with for quite a while now. It’s funny—I used to think that acting was a difficult professional path, but writing is probably more so. I think you have to really love it to keep with it, and like anything over time, it will start to pay off. 

On how writing and acting intersect

Being a writer myself, I write a character and I get an idea in my head and somebody walks into the room and they’re a brilliant actor and they weren’t what I was thinking, it’s nothing against them, it’s just that you’re not right for the guy that I wrote. The thing is that’s really important for younger actors or people who are really struggling to understand that.

Nancy Ruth's Panel Extras - October

For this month's Thoughts From The Hill panel, I didn't really have too much added to ask the panel, since their feelings on the campaign were some twenty days ago now, which might as well have been an eternity.  But there was one thing that I was curious about, which our obliging Senator answered.

Q: Being as we’re in an election—what does a Senator normally do during an election? Are you campaigning on behalf or others, or are you organising?

A: You campaign on behalf of others, you go out and you speak at coffee parties, you support the candidates and stuff like that. You can do door-to-door as well, but I sprained my ankle this summer and my foot’s in a cast, so I’m not doing that bit of it. Various Senators do different things. Marjorie LeBreton is big-time on the campaign [on the plane].

Sophie's Gay Best Friend + Thoughts From The Hill

In this month's Outlooks magazine, I have two articles.  The first is an interview with Jeff Geddis, who plays Matt on CBC's Sophie.  Given that we had a gay character on a successful Canadian show that received pretty much zero press last year, I felt obligated to take up the cause--especially when I found the character to be the maturation of televised gay characters.

The second piece is my re-branded Thoughts From The Hill panel, formerly known as Outlooks' Queer Parliamentary Panel.  This month, it's little surprise that we have an election-themed question.

You can read both articles in Outlooks in print or in the online edition, which you can download in .pdf format here.  (The interview with Jeff Geddis is on page 12, and this month's Thoughts From The Hill is on page 18).

Live(ish)blogging the Ottawa-Centre EGALE/Capital Xtra Debate

I decided to take up Paul Wells on his challenge to see other political bloggers liveblog (or at least recap) their own local candidates debates.  Last night I attended the Ottawa-Centre debate put on by EGALE Canada and Capital Xtra, focused on the GLBT community's issues.  While I couldn't post this live (it was a bunker down in the basement auditorium of the Ottawa Public Library Main Branch--and I had plans afterward), here is the proceedings as I recorded them on my Motorola Q9 smartphone (edited for spelling and to clarify a couple of points).

17.58 

The candidates are setting up on the stage, as are the panel of questioners. At least, that's what I assume they are. For the NDP we have the incumbent Paul Dewar, with the Liberal challenger Penny Collenette, and the Green candidate whose name I don't know. Already she's talked about how green is her colour (she's wearing a huge green shawl), and was complaining that they had bottled water on the stage, ensuring she got tap water in her own mug. 

18.02

Two-minute warning from the moderator, Marcus McCann, the associate publisher and managing editor of Capital Xtra. 

18.04

Jen Hunter - that's the Green candidate. And we're starting. McCann lets us know that despite the absent Conservative candidate, he says we have the three candidates most likely to win. He introduces the panel as local activists, and says that the issues they want to address aren't in the party platforms. He lays out the rules, and says the randomly chosen order goes Penny, Paul, and Jen.

18.08

The panel is Nicholas Little from ACO, Jay Koornstra from Bruce House, Capital Xtra columnist Ariel Troster, and Michael W (sorry, I didn’t get his last name) from Carleton University’s GLBTQ Centre.

18.09

Collenette introduces herself, and talks about her dancing in the streets at Pride, and expresses her dismay at the Conservative absence. She talks about the Liberals commitment to equality, starting with the Charter before her time runs out.

18.12

Dewar spells out the gay, lesbian, trans communities, but omits the bisexual community--oops. He talks about health care mostly.

18.14

Hunter talks about how sad it is that in 2008, we're still talking about some basic human rights and social justice issues. She too lives in the riding, and wants to talk about the six core values of the party.

18.16

Koornstra gets the first question, and prefixes his question with stats about gay and bisexual men and HIV infection, and funding figures. He asks about committing funding, up to the 2003 agreed upon level, and whether it would be new money and not shuffled funds.

18.18

Dewar says yes to all three parts and tries to explain the process but says little.

18.19

Hunter looks forward to future standing committees and new funds with an eye to prevention. Talks about her time at Casey House in TO as a student, and wants more coherent funding.

18.21

Collenette says that they don't have a dollar figure in the party platform, but commits to increased funding and increased research dollars.

18.22

Michael W asks about blood donation policy including possible new wording, and asks about how they would engage their caucus about it.

18.23

Hunter was shocked as a human being about such discriminatory language, and as a person (as opposed to a robot?) she wants to fight it. Collenette warns that these questions were put into place by stealth so we need to be vigilant, and certainly she'll fight it. Dewar talks about there being no rational reason for it, but um, he's not actually informed there. It's not just the minister's call like he suggests.

18.26

Nick Little asks about safe injection sites. Will Ottawa get one?

18.27

Collenette says the Liberals support Insite and she says for Ottawa, as soon as we can but we need to get a rehab centre first. Dewar says as soon as we get the Conservatives out, and talks ideology and ignorance. Hunter says “ditto,” and fills the rest of her time.

18.30

Ariel Troster talks access to abortion, even if it is decriminalised, and Epp's bill. Asks how they would vote on such a bill, and how to improve access.

18.32

Dewar says of course he supports a woman's right to choose, and we need to focus on access, and better sex education. Hunter is again "shocked" that this is still being debated, and would vote for choice. Collenette points out this is another example of laws by stealth, and she believes in a woman's right to choose, with an anecdote about a sanctity of life question on a doorstop. Also reminder of the Canada Health Act as equal access.

18.40

Koornstra asks about drug policy and medical marijuana as it affects many with HIV.

18.41

Hunter talks about how the Greens want to legalise pot, how beneficial it would be, and how her mother has used it medicinally and it needs to be better quality. Collenette says the Liberals support decriminalising in small amounts, and she's learning more of the issue after a brief by doctors. Dewar talks about the pressured process and the need for a comprehensive review. And decriminalisation.

18.40

Michael W asks tuition accessibility, putting a queer twist on it.

18.41

Collenette touts the Liberal plan on education. Dewar points to his party platform on student loans and grants, and the learning experience of the 2005 budget. Hunter says they've been explicit about funding goals and green ventures at a macro-level. Huh?

18.44

Nick Little, as a member of POWER (Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work Educate and Resist), asks about sex work and how many more sex workers must be murdered before they repeal those laws?

18.45

Dewar talks up Libby Davies' work, but points to the fact that most victims are aboriginal women, and says he supports POWER. Hunter says that her party hasn't much to say on this, and echoes Paul's points on vulnerable citizens. Collenette doesn't know if they would decriminalise but says we need to stop violence against women and wants to add gender to laws.

18.48

Ariel asks about equalising age of consent (for sodomy it’s still 18), and it's curious that Harper talks about throwing 14 year-olds in jail but they apparently aren’t responsible enough to have sex.

18.51

Hunter is again shocked by this, and looks south of the border for what happens when you put kids in jail. Collenette has no specific answer on anal sex but wants to talk about the principle of fairness and cited case law. And no kids in jail. Dewar gives a shout out to Omar Khadr, but gives his excuses on voting for the age of consent despite the protest from the GLBT community.

18.54

One last question from Koornstra about homelessness, since it affects people with HIV. Asks about the national strategy.

18.56

Collenette says the party wants to build 30,000 housing units and refurbishing the same number, plus making the green. Dewar goes rant-like about the housing crisis. Hunter talks about the ability of the Greens to look holistically at the issues, and that they want it to be part of eliminating poverty.

18.58

Questions from the floor, and first up is Jessica Freeman, local (and very vocal) transsexual activist. Accuses them of ignoring trans issues, and will they commit to advocating for trans issues?

19.03

Dewar talks about Siksay's bill, but not much more. Hunter says nice to meet you. Collenette says her cut-off intro would have talked trans issues. Also says Jessica educated her and she went to school to be a human rights lawyer, so she's going to fight.

19.06

Other trans activist (and Freeman nemesis) Joanne Law asks why she's being discriminated against because she has to pay $10,000 to change her M to an F on her documentation.

19.08

Hunter says she's learning to empathise. Collenette says they're looking at more than just M and F but maybe T as well. 

EGALE question on gender identity and expression.

19.09

Collenette says if they're looking to add gender, they must also look at identity an expression. Dewar talks about how institutions (RCMP, Canadian Forces) fund transitions but not the general public. Hunter is a member of equal voice, so she's in favour of all equality.

19.12

McCann says this is the most civil debate he's seen.

Question from the floor about how income splitting is discrimination.

19.13

Dewar against income splitting, Hunter is for it. Collenette is against it. Puts a shout out for the Green Shift as a cut to income taxes.

19.16

Troster asks about the court challenges programme.

19.17

Hunter says she doesn't know much about it. Collenette says they'll not only bring it back but double the funding. Dewar also says they'll bring it back.

19.18

An Options counsellor talks about how it’s not just access to abortion but also information. Can we make sure the anti-choice groups don't get government funds?

19.20

Collenette asks more about it, and talks about how we need to return to activism. Dewar talks about grassroots organisations. Hunter talks about how the fear they spread is toxic.

19.23

EGALE question on assisted human reproduction, and how the law was left vague and how the panel looking at the issue is stacked.

19.24

Dewar says they did good work but had timelines, which led to delegation, but we need equal access. Hunter misunderstands and says health spending is a provincial jurisdiction, and talks about the erosion to rights of access. Collenette says they may need a national commission for proper debate but it's not in the platform.

19.28

Nick Little talks about how criminalisation of spreading HIV prevents testing and prevention.

19.29

Hunter says maybe the “stick” approach isn't working. Collenette asks a bit more but can't offer much. Dewar says it's not talked around the caucus table, and rambles about coverage of the issue and claims ignorance of the implications.

19.32

Collenette asks the panel more about the issue, and Koornstra responds that vagaries in the law leads to judges to create their own law around it.

19.33

Question about the SPP, and how it's too vague and scary, with big numbers being offered.

19.35

Collenette explains a bit about it but seems to subscribe a bit to the conspiracy theory of it, but seems unaware that Paul Martin started it—until the questioner called her on it. Dewar talks about how it's also about regulation, which is critical now, but talks about how the security cost us, and it's less democratic than the free trade agreement. Hunter says they'll scrap it.

19.37

A follow-up from Freeman about establishing a Parliamentary hearing on the status of trans people in Canada.

19.39

Dewar talks about how Siksay's private member's bill is one avenue, and how you can address the committee. Hunter reads out from the Green platform on these issues of discrimination against GLBT people. Collenette raises the possibility of a sexual identity national commission, and also suggests joining a party and working that way.

19.43

A question on human rights and trade. Collenette up first about the necessity for a dialog with those countries. Dewar talks corporate social responsibility. Hunter says she's humbled that we can't hold our country up as a paragon, but her party is more about fair trade, and we have work to do at home as well.

19.45

McCann thanks everyone and we're done after a bit of applause.

Overall impressions: This largely dealt with policy areas not covered in party platforms, which was the whole idea.  Hunter was “shocked” by pretty much everything.  It could have been a drinking game every time she said it.  Collenette offered the most succinct answers, not always needing her allotted time, and wasn’t afraid to say when she didn’t know of issues.  She was also the only one to ask the panel more about their questions either during her time or after all had their turns.  Dewar, on the other hand, who has been around these sorts of events the longest, tended to talk around issues rather than offering actual answers, but with his usual bombastic rhetoric.  The fact that there was no Conservative representation was likely strategic because they knew they had no chance with this particular voter demographic, and thus there was very little to separate these three candidates on purely GLBT issues.

Also?  Liveblogging is difficult work, and my thumbs are a bit sore.  Kady O’Malley, you have my utmost respect!

'The Border' Extras - The Wesley Wark Interview

My final interview for the article on The Border was with renowned expert Wesley Wark.  In some ways, Wark was a great interview because he took the opposite interview that Littlewood did in many cases, and in fact, he wasn't much a fan of the show.  On the other hand, I thought that many of his criticisms were unfair because he had only seen the two screeners provided--episodes 201 and 203--and hadn't seen how many aspects of character development (which was one of his complaints) went over the broader scope of the season.  As well, I think that had he seen 108 as Littlewood had--or even gone to the website to look at the episode synopses--some of his criticisms may have been a bit more tempered.  However, as he was able to participate at almost the last minute was greatly appreciated.

Here is more of what he had to say:

Q: First impressions?

A: I found to be honest, The Border to be a little bit of a disappointment, and I say that for a couple of reasons. Partly because it strikes me to a certain extent it’s unnecessarily imitative. Where’s the imitation coming from, what’s the model? Well, obviously if you watch the program any of its segments I think, you’ll feel some similarity between The Border and its more famous American cousin 24. Similarity in terms of the pace of the action, the subject matter, the sense that it wants to situate the program in the kind of contemporary security environment and draw some energy from that. Similarity down to some of the circumstances, life circumstances of the character. In 24, we have Jack Bauer saddled with a troubled daughter, a problem child. In The Border, we have a similar circumstance, the lead protagonist, the agent who is in charge of this fictional unit ICS, again sort of has a sort of problem child daughter who pops in and out of the segment. Imitative and to some degree perhaps its trying to feed off a successful formula in the United States, which is an understandable calculation, but I think that it could have had a little more spark of the new. It is certainly a fast-paced program, but in a way it’s not just imitative but disappointingly formulaic from my reading of it—maybe I come at this with too high expectations. But if you think about the history of this genre if you like, and what we’re talking about are television programs or movies that try to take up the themes of spying and counter-intelligence and security work in general, there are really two paths to follow that have been set down in the history of this whole enterprise. One path really goes back to the unbelievable success of the Bond franchise. What is the Bond franchise, from its earliest moments in the 1960s on to the present? Well it’s something that emphasises the kinds of fast-paced, adventure, high-tech gadgets of the world of spying, unbelievably successful in doing all that, and it’s evolved over time but the essence of it is unchanged from the very beginning in the sixties. The other alternative pathway to success and interest in terms of producing a cultural product, trying to imitate the reality of spying security matters is the LeCarré franchise, going back to the first and most important of the LeCarré films, which is The Spy Who Came In From The Cold which is much more cerebral, much more thoughtful, and much more concerned with the complexities of the world of security and intelligence and with moral dilemmas and in fact with character and plot development, and I would say—I mean I’m not in the business so it’s easy for me to stand on the outside as an academic observer of this—that the twenty-first century gambit to make a successful program like The Border is to know the history of the genre and say to yourself if you’re the scriptwriter, producer, director, any of the main characters, is that what we want is some interesting Canadian blend of what makes both of these different kinds of models tick. So let’s have lots of fast-paced action, and let’s have a good amount of technology, and a good amount of thrill and some degree of glamour and some degree of romance, and let’s get that from the Bond franchise, but let’s also take some part of the LeCarré franchise onboard as well. Let’s make it a little cerebral, let’s make it a little morally conflicted, let’s make it a little complex, let’s show some of the Machiavellian world of politics in this particular realm of high politics, and I would measure The Border in terms of how well it does that, how well does it blend those two things, and I would say that I can see some degree of effort on the part of the creators of this program to do that, but if it has a future I would say that’s a work in progress. It could use a little more of the cerebral side, the LeCarré side of things. It could use certainly a larger discussion of the kinds of moral dilemmas of the work. It could use more character development, and it could certainly use better dialogue. I mean, the dialogue that you get from The Border is not really even a compromise between development of the characters and the need to push the plot forward quickly and to emphasis the beat of the program and action of it. You just don’t get a lot of dialogue, and I think to be honest that’s a bit of a failing of the program, and to a certain extent suggest that if what it’s doing is trying to find some contemporary blend of Flemming, LeCarré and sort of feeding off of 24, it’s just not managed really to take that heritage and really turn it into something impressive and to a degree new.

Q: The issues that two episodes raised were stop-loss as a border security issue, and drug trafficking from Africa. In terms of the way that show raised the issues and explored them, how well do you think it fared in comparison to how shows in the genre do in other countries, like Spooks of 24?

A: It’s an interesting question, and obviously what The Border is trying to do is feed off the contemporary security issues. It’s chosen good subject matter I think to do that. The issue of the difficulties that are created when American soldiers trying to essentially desert from the US armed forces and come into Canada, I mean there’s a real contemporary resonance there and some really high-profile cases that continue to be contested in the courts about how our immigration and refugee process is going to handle such American deserters and whether we’ve forgotten the legacy of what we did in fact during the Vietnam War, so that’s good by all means, that’s a great subject to explore. Equally in terms of drug trafficking, not only is this a real-world concern for ICS’ contemporaries, who are essentially the Canada Border Services Agency, but the kind of thing that suggests the very dangerous criminal underworld run by gang king-pin members, ruthless and violent, equipped with all the toys of the trade—armoured cars, body guards and the usual kinds of high-powered weaponry and so on—all of that is fine. What it seems to me is missing in The Border even compared to commercially successful variants of this in the US and the UK, both longer-running series, is again that sense of just deepening the issue a bit, giving us more of the complexities of it, making it a little less caricatured, giving it more of a sense of what is going on in the minds of those on the Canadian side of this problem who are trying to tackle this issue. It really has I think sacrificed a lot of what I think we can legitimately expect to see, which is character development and dialogue as part of anything that’s going to be successful by way of a longer-running TV series. So to sum all that up, I would say that the choice of subject matter is perfectly good and the ways in which in general they portray these threats from drug traffickers and this kind of thing is also close enough to the reality, but it is really in the way that it situates the response of this Canadian unit, its principle protagonists, unfolding the action without really giving us the thought behind the action or the morality behind the action, or any of the constraints behind the action. I think it’s notable in terms of the drug trafficking episode that we have a supposedly Canadian outfit which is not all that concerned with what we would say are the laws of Canada at the moment, so maybe again feeding off of 24 a little bit in the sense that it can bend the laws to its own interests, but we don’t have the right in Canada to hold people at the will of any particular law enforcement agency for as long as it takes them to decide whether there’s a case against such a person. And I thought it was a little bit funny that The Border is in a way trying to play off Spooks arguably by presenting us with this rather Machiavellian but certainly attractive British secret agent who sort of swims into the plot and kind of confounds her Canadian competitors. It’s an interesting little take, but I think that the work that The Border has ahead of it again is to give us more of the cerebral side of the work, and give us more of the realism of the landscape. The trouble with these programs it that it suggest, and it’s often said either with regard to 24 or Spooks, it’s competitors—these are interesting scenarios that it’s presenting us with, but it’s also wanting us to believe that these are real-life scenarios, given the kinds of choices of topics that they’re dealing with. Well, give us more real life. Give us more a sense of where political decision making comes in, where the laws come in, where the calculations come in. Give us more of a sense that these things don’t operate in a tiny self-enclosed and perfect world in which information flows very rapidly and everybody is on top of the game, and everybody can move out on a moment’s notice. One of the things in which I think 24 has a lot to explain itself for is the notion that these kinds of operations run on a clock like this, and that the speed and pace of these operations is of this nature—that’s not the reality. And because they’re so wedded to that notion that everything has to be so fast-paced, they’ve left themselves no time for dialogue, character development, moral complexity, or any kind of intellectual complexity in the program. And maybe they feel that there is always this commercial calculation that you dumb-down these things in order to make a good piece of entertainment, but at the end of the day, that argument always boomerangs in terms of the long-term survivability of a program like this. People just won’t come back to see it if they know that all they’re going to expect is another fast-paced episode that at the end of the hour, is not going to leave them with anything but a sense that something has zipped across the screen and in front of their eyes and has left nothing behind. I think that The Border is a kind of fascinating idea in that it’s trying to bring a discussion of the world of security and intelligence and the complexities of Canada’s position in the world, living opposite the United States on a border that the Americans are determined themselves to reinforces and stiffen. It’s a great idea and a great vehicle for discussing issues and indeed for producing a kind of action drama, but the ideas I think are what’s missing so far in sufficient degree.

Q: About that discussion that it generates—how well do you think it contributes to it?

A: My take on this is from an academic perspective. I’d have to say that I don’t think it contributes anything to the discussion, partly because I don’t think that it’s interested the discussion, it’s interested in exploiting a concern and a fascination with security and intelligence matters and the border, and I think that the most obvious dimension of this in that you have good guys and bad guys as you must in programs of this kind, but that the good guys and bad guys aren’t very interesting in terms of how they’re profiled. The bad guys in the program are not just the villains but their also this rather Machiavellian CSIS agent who’s constantly trying to undermine the work of the chief of ICS, and to be honest, this is pure caricature. Now it may be what the producers, directors and scriptwriters believe is the reality, but someone has to say ‘man, this is just pure caricature, give us something more interesting than this.’

Q: I was speaking to one of the writers and producers and she was saying that they do have someone high-placed in CSIS who is now consulting with them to try and gently correct some of their misapprehensions, although some people from other agencies have said that there is someone that rather resembles Agent Mannering in CSIS that they rather hit on quite accidentally.

A: The thing that makes these programs difficult, and the thing that is a challenge for producers, scriptwriters, directors and the rest is that modern intelligence services consist by and large of people sitting behind computer screens trying to assess an immense flow of information. There’s not much room to be honest for rogue agents out on the streets taking the law into their own hands and coming up with their own Machiavellian schemes, and CSIS describes itself as one of the most heavily reviewed agencies among all its worldwide counterparts. The problem is this is how we like to imagine CSIS, we like to imagine these very powerful, very nefarious kinds of characters who are out disturbing and roiling our sense of how Canadian democracy works and so on. Reality is very different. Reality, though, can be interesting, and I think that anyone who works in this field either from a professional or academic perspective will tell you that truth is in this world, always more interesting than the fictional variant, so get a little closer to the truth would be my suggestion for the makers and creators of The Border and give us a better sense of what is the real dilemma for an agency like CSIS, which is how do you separate truth from fiction, how do you really know what’s going on. It’s not like they have a Machiavellian notion, not that they’re out their plotting and conspiring—they’re struggling with trying to understand what the hell is going on, and a program that could even begin to approach that issue would be a more fascinating program. But I suspect that we’re stuck with the caricature, because it’s so deeply embedded in our popular culture sense of what espionage is all about.

Q: How did you think that the fictional agency stood up?

A: The fictional agency is pure fiction, but what would you expect? One of the difficulties I think that people confront is that you can’t have too high expectations about matching fiction against reality, and in some ways I would say that the entire genre is about anything to do with the popular culture of security and espionage, counter-terrorism and the rest. It’s not really about imitating reality, it’s coming up with an interesting kind of parallel universe that’s imagined that has enough connections with reality that it can be interesting but it is a parallel universe. As a parallel universe, as an imagined world of border security, it just doesn’t partake enough of reality by giving us the complexities. It makes it all, if you like, a little too easy. It’s all a little to self-enclosed, hermetically-sealed and too fast-paced and too high-tech, and what it doesn’t get is that all kinds of problems will emerge, all kinds of complexities will emerge, all kinds of screw-ups will happen, and that the really interesting thing that could be exploited is the nature of those problems, challenges, complexities, screw-ups. So somehow to get, and this is where I think that The Spy Who Came In From The Cold is quintessential classic Cold War spy film, has a lot to teach a twenty-first century series of this kind. Give us a complex plot, give us conflicted characters, unfold that plot in such a way that it’s not so obvious where it’s going. Don’t be quite so worried about the pace of action—viewers are smarter, more tolerant than you might think. Mix in a little more complexity, and at the same time, you’ll mix in a little more reality.

[Reviews the episode synopses in the press kit]

A: I think what the line-up suggests is that they are trying to cover some of these issues that a real-life border security agency has to deal with, so they’re trafficking in the reality. There’s the strong pull of the cop show and the crime themes, and maybe you could suggest that there’s a little desire to steer away from some of the sensitive issues that might impact on the ratings? Where in all of this do we see any kind of treatment of a terrorist threat?

Q: They did a couple in the first season.

A: But it’s kind of drifting into the purely crime side and where do we really see the intelligence side of things, counter-intelligence, intelligence operations? It’s part of the colour of the program, but it’s not really part of the plot. Partly because maybe a CBC program, government-funded organisation, a potential Conservative government coming into a majority, not necessarily favourably disposed—maybe there are topics that it has to be a bit careful about, but it also has to have the courage to push back a little it against what it might imagine to be political stricture. So I think kind of a mixed message in the next season apply now. Some topical issues being addressed, but at the same time, there are maybe a few topical issues being shied away from, and always that concern that a program of this kind is just going to be dragged into the banality of a cop program of which we’ve seen countless examples. The Border is not going to win over an audience from Law & Order, who are going to watch the re-runs before they watch The Border, so be careful of the magnetic pull of a cop show, but it’s a work in progress, and from my perspective, if they can just get the balance right between the Bond franchise model and the LeCarré franchise model, they’re onto something that could be a winning thing.

'The Border' Extras - The Jez Littlewood Interview

I was quite glad to get someone of Littlewood's stature for the interview, and for him to take so well to the series despite his admission that he's not much for television.  Littlewood had a chance to review episodes 108 and 201 for the interview, and I think that 108 was the one that impressed him the most, which is why I suggested he watch it on top of the screeners sent.  It was also a relief that he had an understanding of what realism needs to be sacrificed for the sake of storytelling, which put his comments into a much better context.  Here's more of what Littlewood had to say:

Q: Overall thoughts?

A: One thing that struck me, in some ways it’s more sophisticated than I might have thought. My view while I was reading it was that this is definitely not an American-made TV series, partly because you have get debates or discussions characters are having, there’s nuance in issues, there’s some reference to history in issues, there’s dialogue between characters that’s not necessarily central to the plot but it’s an interesting side point. It’s politically as well, it’s quite up to date. I don’t know the timelines between production and final screenwriting, but I was struck by okay, it’s quite up to date. Overall, I thought it’s actually not bad, not bad at all. It gives a flavour of some of the main issues there, the tensions between bureaucracies, the importance of having to consider politics in decision making, but it’s also as you would expect in the one sense a very simplified structure. The idea of virtually no liaison between this group and other agencies and organisations in Canada—you never see that apart from the occasional dropping-in of the single CSIS character. You don’t see this individual really having to report upwards or get instructions from his upper management team, whoever is in charge of his organisation. The direct dialogue with the Minister, which is kind of possible but not quite actually because it would involve ADMs or DMs usually.

Q: One of the things that wasn’t really in either of those two episodes was that they actually do have a Deputy Minister character who often will call down from Ottawa, and he’s usually the one who gives instructions or tells them to back of a case, or something.

A: Exactly, and that’s a key sort of power point in the reality. I mean, obviously there are all sorts of other TV-friendly sorts of issues. Everybody has nice offices overlooking nice places. Government buildings don’t generally look like that. There’s also a sense of rarefied—everyone you need is in your team, so you’ve got your computer IT expert there, literally just at your beck-and-call, and it’s just like well no, we live in competing resources kinds of environments. Yes, you can have a specialist attached to you, but it’s not necessarily that kind of simplified. But it’s entertainment, it’s trying to tell its audience something as well as be entertaining and tell a story, so you’re going to have to knock off some of the less-attractive edges of reality. That’s one thing. There was also a couple of—in fairness, I’m only dealing with a couple of episodes—but certainly in the episode dealing with the terrorist plot, they were pretty lax with the whole sharing of information thing. They had the Imam in, ‘do you know these people?’ Now in a time-sensitive thing I can see yes, they might do that, sharing photographs of individuals, not necessarily saying why they’re interested. But having conversations while somebody who would probably not have any clearance whatsoever is in the room, even if you’re in another corner of the room or a door, no. Not even with real time-sensitive information. When the guy got called down to reception to see [Yvonne Castle], and the baby was crying and she could hear it—yeah, that really wouldn’t work in a government building. All these things are kind of necessary and adds to the TV plot, but it can give it a false impression. But in fairness, from the two I watched, I thought ‘this is really quite politically savvy.  Yes, it’s simplified, yes it looks nice, yes things are difficult but run smooth most times in the end, but there’s nuance in there, there’s a recognition of difficulties in different interpretations of views or political views of the characters. It’s not this straight line, ‘let’s sell this and no punches are pulled’ attitude, which I thought was quite good. It kind of reminded me a little bit—I was trying to think ‘what are my reference points?’ Have you ever seen the BBC series Spooks?

Q: Yeah.

A: It reminded me a little bit of that, and differed greatly from the equivalent in the US, say 24. They were going to be my two reference points. At least there you see there’s a team—there’s a team effort within a government effort, whereas in 24 it’s an individual world saving the United States of America. And Spooks has that kind of same—it’s a team who seems to exist and do everything on their own without necessarily too much interference within the bureaucracy, the head of that team deals with ministers and governments and everything else like that, and you get that same picture here. The reality is, obviously there’s more fingers in the pie and more complex reporting structures, but that does not make for entertaining television.

Q: In terms of the kinds of issues that it raised, you watched one on a terrorist threat, and one on stop-loss as a cross-border issue, one in which we’ve got a lot of press right now with war deserters with deportation orders and so on. Judging from that particular aspect of how the issues are being looked at, how did you feel the show handled it?

A: I think they handled it reasonably well. I mean, the terror attack was—I thought it was going well until I realised they were dealing with anthrax and they really went for the big scary ‘what might these terrorists do’ which was a bit playing to the TV gallery, whereas a truck bomb or something else would have been more realistic based on actual terrorist methods, or maybe a suicide bomb or something like that. But the tensions between—there was a reference to okay, there’s an imminent attack, and one of the characters—I think it’s the CSIS character—says ‘oh, I got bored after the fourth imminent attack didn’t happen,’ and those kinds of things, and there is that sort of thing that you can see that. There was a reference at least that one of them said that Canada is overdue, and you do have that feeling here in one sense. Canada has been named since at least 2002, and if you look at everyone else who has been named in that note coming out of al-Qaeda or statement, everyone else has been attacked, Canada has yet to be—so that’s where I think it’s kind of politically savvy and up to date. The connections in the terrorist one between what was going on in Toronto and the neat connection with what was going on in Afghanistan with the two held soldiers was a nice sort of, it wraps it up for the TV. Having to make the trade-off in the end was I thought quite an interesting addition. The woman goes to jail, the warlord’s son gets sent back to Afghanistan with the child and he was going to be persona non grata in Canada anymore, and that’s the deal—that was kind of interesting. Saying that yes, it’s a murky world of there has to be a deal here—we get two Canadian soldiers alive, and suspected terrorist gets off free and goes back to Afghanistan. So that was kind of interesting I thought. Dealing with the stop-loss one, that played quite nicely I thought with the psychological aspects. There’s a number of things reporting in the press with different parts of the media from Time magazine to Newsweek, to I think the New York Times has also done a piece in the past eighteen months of the US military’s trialing of basically unproven drugs to assist soldiers under psychological pressure, and a tension of what happens when that necessarily goes wrong, and the guy leads him across the Canadian border, one of them is responsible for saving his life so he things he’s due. It works out quite nicely. It’s got its fingers on the right pulse, I don’t think it’s barking up the completely wrong trees, and it handles them in quite a sophisticated manner in fairness to it, works out some of the difficulties faced by Canada as well as some of the moral questions and the political realities of issues. I mean I looked through that show when I went to the CBC online to look through the episodes, and I see there’s a rendition flight that crashes, organised crime issue, there’s a drug issue—it touches all the main bases which are of concern to most Western democracies in terms of security issues.

Q: Do you think that it presents a fair face as to what Canada is doing on these issues, or do you think that it’s a bit too idealised?

A: I think that in some ways it can be a bit too idealised, but I think that what’s important is that there’s a sense that we’re dealing with actions within Canada. I think that if we were trying to portray a picture of what Canada is doing outside of its borders, that would become difficult. But it’s quite a clever focus on okay, we’re dealing with things that come into Canada and problems that arise in Canada have to be addressed. It’s a reasonably fair picture. I would imagine that CSIS aren’t too happy with being portrayed as the attack dog of this TV program. I can’t say to what extent other characters who are brought in from other agencies are portrayed, but you have these clearly personal tensions, and there are also bureaucratic tensions. That said, no one who looks at any history of intelligence or bureaucracy in making national security policies in any country can avoid the issue that individuals to matter. If two individuals who are supposed to liaise and work with each other can’t get along, that does affect the overall quality of work. I mean that’s quite a nice point—it may be overplayed, but it is quite a nice point that individuals do matter in these relationships.

Q: I was speaking with one of the writers and producers who said that they do have someone in CSIS who is trying to correct them about their portrayal, but they have people from other agencies who say that it’s a pretty accurate portrayal.

A: It can be difficult when you are the public top-dog, if you like, according to the way people think either politically or within the media, to work with everybody else. And everybody else feels like they’re doing the nitty-gritty work here, and sometimes these people get parachuted in and not always sharing information within or not always getting the full story, etcetera. There are always tensions between organisations in bureaucracies in every country, and it’s not just turf war and jealousy—there are reasons for those tensions, and there are different mandates and different jobs to be done by them. But I would imagine that yeah, CSIS was trying to steer that ship a little more to a fairer portrayal.

Q: The fact that the show created a fictional agency with which to situate it’s main characters. Do you think that enhanced its ability to tell these kinds of stories, or do you think it detracted?

A: I actually thought it was quite clever because you then didn’t have to worry about trying to portray the agency that’s already in existence. You’re not going to be compared to anybody else or another program that involves that agency or organisation, and it avoids having to sort of think about the obvious, ‘we never work like that,’ the agency might write. ‘We don’t do that, it’s an incorrect portrayal,’ so it sidesteps some of those issues. It’s quite a wise move on the writers’ part because they can say ‘okay look, we’ve got this fictional agency within this much broader gamut of organisations and agencies within Canada, and it allows us to portray certain things like different responsibilities and mandates, turf wars, political reporting, how teams work, etcetera, without getting too bogged down in how to accurately portray an existing agency.’ I thought it was probably a wise move, and I think in fairness, based on what I’ve seen, I think it worked. You always run into these kinds of problems, these lead characters seem to be involved in everything, but that’s the nature of a TV drama.

Q: How do you think a show like this contributes to the national discussion in terms of the questions it’s raising like terrorism, border security, immigration and so on?

A: I’m not sure it does, but I’m not sure that’s a fault of the program itself. I’ve found this as someone who’s fairly new to Canada—two years here now—but it’s something that I’ve heard a sufficient number of times from people who have been working in the Canadian security and defence world across all kinds of sectors of government and non-government, who’ve said to me, and I think it’s correct, that there isn’t a security discourse or discussion in Canada that’s active all the time. I think that’s true. What might be interesting here is that if it is classic ‘water cooler TV’ and gets people talking at work ‘did you see what happened last night,’ that might add to the sort of general consciousness and might get people thinking. To the extent that there’s a sustained outcome from that—it’s impossible to judge I think at this stage. I don’t see anything necessarily filtering upwards, but I think it’s early days—it began January of this year. Looking at the awards its won and the reports its had, it could prove useful. If it gets people thinking about security and national security of Canada, it can sometimes be a necessary and compromising business, just as the security of any state can be a necessary and compromising business—that’s a good thing. Things aren’t always clear cut, and that is one thing that it’s good that people can understand that. It’s not always a simple question of what’s right and what’s wrong. Tough decisions have to be made.