Sooey Says

There was an interesting article in the Globe today. The piece was titled "Gay club wins right to ban straights", subtitled "Australian hotel owner says it will be easy to screen out undesirable heterosexuals and lesbians".

Now, normally, I don't read any newspaper - but I think I might start reading the Globe so I can keep track of stuff for blogging purposes. Also, my beau buys it anyway and it's sitting right there on the coffee table all day, so it seems a shame to not at least scan the headlines. I mean, look what I found to blog about today:

"Gay club wins right to ban straights"

Beauty, eh?

But the reason I had stopped reading the newspaper was because the one I subscribed to was the Ottawa Citizen and, although I managed to survive the Black years - I just couldn't survive the Asper years. I'm sorry. There just didn't appear to be an end in sight. And the Ottawa Citizen actually makes money, so, as a citizen AND consumer, I knew I was S.O.L. As a reader, too. Especially a reader desirous of actual news.

But there is bias, and then there is obvious bias, and then there is Canwest/Global. I had to draw the line somewhere. Sacrifices must sometimes be made. And even at that, I didn't have to be very pro-active about it. You know - like I didn't have to phone up some poor circulation drone and go on and on about WHY I was cancelling the newspaper. I just moved on without renewing. It was a clean break. And although I miss the Arts & Entertainment and weekly Style sections - I'd had enough of the Ottawa Citizen's editorial board to keep my blood pressure high for a couple of years more - without reading a single one of its ridiculous opinions on anything.

Boyo, though - I'd like to read its take on "Gay club wins right to ban straights". Talk about political correctness and reverse discrimination in one big ol' girl backlash - eh?

Or... is it?

Well, certainly if you read the article and happen to be a woman you will notice more than the same old, same old discrimination except with a gay rights official stamp of approval on top that excludes GAY women in particular to regular old yucky pooh women.

I mean - WTF?

In other words - Australia's Equal Opportunity Act has okayed a "hotel" (a further reading of the article reveals the pertinent - or not - fact that the "hotel" in question does NOT provide accommodation - anyway) that excludes ALL women and who really knows what percentage of men. AND, need I point out - a certain percentage of that 100% of women and... say... 50% (? - I have very high gaydar, so...) of men are VISIBLE MINORITIES!! So this Act has officially okayed discrimination against 100% of women and 50% of men and ALL visible minorities who are women and not gay men.

Gee... the Lard giveth and the Lard taketh away. To some men he giveth and then from all women he taketh away.

That's human rights legislation? HOW, exactly - Australia?!

By the way - was the gay Aboriginal population consulted about any of this? Or is this just a gay white man's kind of burden...

But the reason for the ban request (aside from the obvious lesbian-hating factor, of course) according to one Tom McFeely, owner of the establishment in question, "was to prevent insults and abuse directed toward gays in its bars and nightclubs".

Yabbut, what about GAY insults and abuse directed toward gays in its bars and nightclubs? Eh? I mean, what are you trying to pretend here, Tom McFeely? That gay men never direct insults and abuse towards each other? Under the influence, even? Never? Ever?

Gasp! Are you trying to say that gay men are... like.... "special"...?

And, not to be a killjoy or anything, but - how to tell if someone's lying or not?

Well, Tom McFeely, Dear Questioning Reader, has an answer for that puzzler:

"It is particularly easy to implement with the females because that is pretty obvious. With the heterosexual males, if they identify themselves as that at the door, or indeed we question their behaviour in the venue and they come across as being heterosexual, then we will simply ask them to leave if the behaviour is inappropriate."

Oh. So. Wait a minute. What kind of establishment is this again? I mean, behaviour that is inappropriate in a gay hotel that doesn't provide accommodation? Like... Say... They won't agree to being sodomized by another man at the front door? Not to be rude or anything. I'm just asking. That WOULD pretty much be the test - wouldn't it? And, well, not to probe too deeply, but... who's doing the testing, Mr. McFeely?

You?

Whatever. I've passed by a number of gay bars in my day and it didn't look to me like they had a problem being overrun with lesbians and non-gay men. They didn't even look like they had a problem being overrun with non-gay-looking men - not that you can judge a book by its cover 100% of the time. It's just a fairly safe bet that a man who goes into a gay bar is gay. And, like, not to sound gayist, or anything - but he probably LOOKS gay, too. And if he behaves inappropriately when he goes in - well... I thought even Australia would have rules and regulations regarding that sort of thing.

Laws, even, maybe. And if not - why not? Because enacting a discriminatory law to deal with discriminatory behaviour seems rather upside down to me.

But I guess that's why they call it "Australia" - the land downunder.