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!