Drag queens, MPs and a Liberal fundraiser

Liberal MP Hedy Fry squeezed in a fundraiser to help with the debt she incurred from her leadership run in 2006. The event was held at Ottawa’s hot new gay bar Flamingo. Below, Fry and Bob Rae do a tribute to Sonny and Cher.

.

Liberal MP Justin Trudeau.

.

Ottawa drag star Dixie Landers and Liberal MP Justin Trudeau.

.

Liberal MPs Marlene Jennings (left) and Alexandra Mendes (right) with the drag queens.

.

Bob Rae takes to the piano.

.

Fry (left) and Mendes.

.

Rae and Landers.

.

Liberal MP Joyce Murray.

.

Liberal Senator David Smith.

.

Liberal Kevin Bosch (left) and Brian Clow.

.

Liberal MP Rob Oliphant.

.

Flamingo owner Sebastien Provost.

.

Flamingo DJ Ashley Gauthier.

.

Jeremy Dias (left).

.

Phil Perrone (left) and attendee.

Drag queens, MPs and a Liberal fundraiser

  1. They might have my vote for this one. Trudeau is my favorite.

  2. They might have my vote for this one. Trudeau is my favorite.

    • Say what you want about Trudeau, but he's one of the few MP's who can really pull off a feather boa.

      Well, except for my riding's CPC candidate, of course. But he wasn't there.

      • Yup . . … exactly what you'd expect from the liberals. Send in the clowns

  3. Just an FYI, they are not MPs till they are re-elected, they are currently candidates.

  4. Just an FYI, they are not MPs till they are re-elected, they are currently candidates.

  5. Say what you want about Trudeau, but he's one of the few MP's who can really pull off a feather boa.

    Well, except for my riding's CPC candidate, of course. But he wasn't there.

  6. Why is it okay that Liberals still haven't repaid their leadership debts, truly making a mockery of election laws, yet the head of Elections Canada can spend taxpayer dollars on a legal battle with the CPC that happened much earlier than the last (oh, maybe second last?) Liberal leadership convention?

    Why is that okay?

  7. Why is it okay that Liberals still haven't repaid their leadership debts, truly making a mockery of election laws, yet the head of Elections Canada can spend taxpayer dollars on a legal battle with the CPC that happened much earlier than the last (oh, maybe second last?) Liberal leadership convention?

    Why is that okay?

    • Because being indebted is not a crime, but swindling Canadians is?

      • Except that it IS a crime for political campaigns like the Liberals' to be in debt this long after the campaign.

  8. Because being indebted is not a crime, but swindling Canadians is?

  9. Hmmm……

    Scarey that the guys in drag are more attractive than Hedy…..don’t ya think?

  10. Hmmm……

    Scarey that the guys in drag are more attractive than Hedy…..don’t ya think?

  11. You wouldn't see such fun and laughter and acceptance at any kind of conservative rally!

    Hedy, Jameshalifax, is gorgeous.

  12. You wouldn't see such fun and laughter and acceptance at any kind of conservative rally!

    Hedy, Jameshalifax, is gorgeous.

  13. It always seems to be about weird sexuality for liberals.

  14. It always seems to be about weird sexuality for liberals.

    • Conservatives too. Just those MPs wouldn't be caught in a gay bar. All that repression, it really must just come out sometimes. Like in angry outbursts. In committee. or Question Period.

      • Again, you're the one bringing up the weird sex. Interesting.

        • Again, you're the one bringing up the weird sex. Interesting.

          So let me get this straight (no pun intended): You bring up the topic of 'weird sexuality' by declaring that liberals are preoccupied with it. Someone responds jokingly that it is not necessarily the case by referring specifically to what you would deem 'weird sex'. Then, in an expression of pensive intrigue, you somehow conclude that responder confirms your suspicions, since that responder is bringing up the 'weird sex' even though you were the one who brought up the topic originally?

          Were you trying to lay some sort of trap or sting operation or something?

          • So let me get THIS straight. It's the Liberals who always seem to hold events associated with weird sexuality. I simply highlight this point. Then someone comes on here accusing Conservatives of secretly harboring weird sexuality tendencies. In other words, they now bizarrely bring in Conservatives into the weird sexuality sphere, and I merely highlight this fact, too.

            You then turn around and accuse me of bringing the topic up, even though I'm not the one holding events in drag, or accusing opponents of wanting to do so in secret, too.

            That's some mighty weird logic you're into, my friend.

          • I simply highlight this point

            Except that Liberals holding events associated with sexuality that is 'weird' is not a fact but a judgment made on your part.

            they now bizarrely bring in Conservatives into the weird sexuality sphere

            The only bizarre thing here is thinking that 'weird' sexual tendencies are solely the preoccupation of liberals because they are incidentally open about it and since many of their constituency don't deem it as 'weird" and something not to be celebrated. In fact, liberals, NDP, and even a Conservative senator (as documented even here on Mitchell's photo diary) have patronized events you would deem associated with 'weird sexuality.' It is not a leap to think it is not in the realm of possibility that there are conservatives who are closeted homosexual or at least have private homosexual tendencies, especially given the overall view many of their fellow constituents have on homosexuality, unless of course Ted Haggard or Larry Craig were just exhibiting lapses in judgment.

            You then turn around and accuse me of bringing the topic up, even though I'm not the one holding events in drag..That's some mighty weird logic you're into, my friend

            I don't recall Mitchell describing the event as another typical event with 'weird sexuality' with the liberals, so spare me the reification. You were not merely "highlighting," and you know that.

          • Except that Liberals holding events associated with sexuality that is 'weird' is not a fact but a judgment made on your part.

            If an event was being held where all the guests came equipped with parachutes, would it be a "judgement" to call it weird? Of course not.

            I also find it curious how the first recourse of defenders of certain sexual lifestyles is to accuse their opponents in engaging in the same. Again, I didn't bring this up. Your friend did, and you basically repeated it. It's not a positive defence because I guess one really isn't hand. It's your typical smear. Thanks.

          • Again, I didn't bring this up. ..It's your typical smear.

            No, you originally tried to pass off your own personal opinion on human sexuality and associate it with an entire political constituency to paint them as supporting something not-normal or on the fringe. Your deflection by somehow making your unoriginal drive by swear as on par with a casual observation of what people wear does not change that, especially since clothing has nothing to do with sexuality much less declaring yourself the victim when you are challenged on the validity of that often repeated claim. Pointing out that homosexuality crosses political affiliations to highlight the precariousness of attributing sexual orientation to what is normal or not much less pinning it to a particular party is hardly an accusation of just 'engaging the same.' You are free to move the goalposts to declare being smeared, but you are just inventing positions at this point to distract from that fact that your original comment was a predictable partisan smear against the liberals with the incurious criticism that they support something that is akin to being not-normal.

    • Weird? Who are you — who is anybody — to decide what is weird? Dressing up in clothing actually has nothing to do with sexuality, Dennis.

      Personally I think "weird sexuality" is a wrinkly old man shacking up with a 22 year old prostie, and using his influence to get laid.

      • a) I think a man dressing up as a woman is weird. I think most Canadians think the same way, too. I'm sure liberals will keep agitating until that somehow changes.

        b) I, too, agree that an old man shacking up with a 22-yr-old "prostie" is weird.

        So, you and I have both decided and agreed to some degree on what weird sexuality is. How about that?

        • That's cool. Maybe by May 2, I will have you agreeing to vote Liberal.

          I can dream, right?

  15. Except that it IS a crime for political campaigns like the Liberals' to be in debt this long after the campaign.

  16. Conservatives too. Just those MPs wouldn't be caught in a gay bar. All that repression, it really must just come out sometimes. Like in angry outbursts. In committee. or Question Period.

  17. Weird? Who are you — who is anybody — to decide what is weird? Dressing up in clothing actually has nothing to do with sexuality, Dennis.

    Personally I think "weird sexuality" is a wrinkly old man shacking up with a 22 year old prostie, and using his influence to get laid.

  18. Again, you're the one bringing up the weird sex. Interesting.

  19. a) I think a man dressing up as a woman is weird. I think most Canadians think the same way, too. I'm sure liberals will keep agitating until that somehow changes.

    b) I, too, agree that an old man shacking up with a 22-yr-old "prostie" is weird.

    So, you and I have both decided and agreed to some degree on what weird sexuality is. How about that?

  20. That's cool. Maybe by May 2, I will have you agreeing to vote Liberal.

    I can dream, right?

  21. Again, you're the one bringing up the weird sex. Interesting.

    So let me get this straight (no pun intended): You bring up the topic of 'weird sexuality' by declaring that liberals are preoccupied with it. Someone responds jokingly that it is not necessarily the case by referring specifically to what you would deem 'weird sex'. Then, in an expression of pensive intrigue, you somehow conclude that responder confirms your suspicions, since that responder is bringing up the 'weird sex' even though you were the one who brought up the topic originally?

    Were you trying to lay some sort of trap or sting operation or something?

  22. So let me get THIS straight. It's the Liberals who always seem to hold events associated with weird sexuality. I simply highlight this point. Then someone comes on here accusing Conservatives of secretly harboring weird sexuality tendencies. In other words, they now bizarrely bring in Conservatives into the weird sexuality sphere, and I merely highlight this fact, too.

    You then turn around and accuse me of bringing the topic up, even though I'm not the one holding events in drag, or accusing opponents of wanting to do so in secret, too.

    That's some mighty weird logic you're into, my friend.

  23. I simply highlight this point

    Except that Liberals holding events associated with sexuality that is 'weird' is not a fact but a judgment made on your part.

    they now bizarrely bring in Conservatives into the weird sexuality sphere

    The only bizarre thing here is thinking that 'weird' sexual tendencies are solely the preoccupation of liberals because they are incidentally open about it and since many of their constituency don't deem it as 'weird" and something not to be celebrated. In fact, liberals, NDP, and even a Conservative senator (as documented even here on Mitchell's photo diary) have patronized events you would deem associated with 'weird sexuality.' It is not a leap to think it is not in the realm of possibility that there are conservatives who are closeted homosexual or at least have private homosexual tendencies, especially given the overall view many of their fellow constituents have on homosexuality, unless of course Ted Haggard or Larry Craig were just exhibiting lapses in judgment.

    You then turn around and accuse me of bringing the topic up, even though I'm not the one holding events in drag..That's some mighty weird logic you're into, my friend

    I don't recall Mitchell describing the event as another typical event with 'weird sexuality' with the liberals, so spare me the reification. You were not merely "highlighting," and you know that.

  24. Except that Liberals holding events associated with sexuality that is 'weird' is not a fact but a judgment made on your part.

    If an event was being held where all the guests came equipped with parachutes, would it be a "judgement" to call it weird? Of course not.

    I also find it curious how the first recourse of defenders of certain sexual lifestyles is to accuse their opponents in engaging in the same. Again, I didn't bring this up. Your friend did, and you basically repeated it. It's not a positive defence because I guess one really isn't hand. It's your typical smear. Thanks.

  25. This looks like a cool party, full of fun-loving and 'accepting' sort of people, but they still look like people who'll rob the average Canadian blind. Come to think of it, they already have!

  26. This looks like a cool party, full of fun-loving and 'accepting' sort of people, but they still look like people who'll rob the average Canadian blind. Come to think of it, they already have!

  27. Again, I didn't bring this up. ..It's your typical smear.

    No, you originally tried to pass off your own personal opinion on human sexuality and associate it with an entire political constituency to paint them as supporting something not-normal or on the fringe. Your deflection by somehow making your unoriginal drive by swear as on par with a casual observation of what people wear does not change that, especially since clothing has nothing to do with sexuality much less declaring yourself the victim when you are challenged on the validity of that often repeated claim. Pointing out that homosexuality crosses political affiliations to highlight the precariousness of attributing sexual orientation to what is normal or not much less pinning it to a particular party is hardly an accusation of just 'engaging the same.' You are free to move the goalposts to declare being smeared, but you are just inventing positions at this point to distract from that fact that your original comment was a predictable partisan smear against the liberals with the incurious criticism that they support something that is akin to being not-normal.

  28. Yup . . … exactly what you'd expect from the liberals. Send in the clowns

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *