Black Lives Matter Toronto

[jje1000]

It does seem to have lots its focus, and is now some form of SJW event.

This is what happens when you chase identity politics.

There is no clear goal since identity is not clear-cut, and whatever goalposts there are are constantly shifting to whatever boutique activism is in vogue.

"Wow you helped aboriginals and transsexuals achieve recognition? What about aboriginal muslim trans rights?"

It's like a snake eating its tail, and results in an increasingly myopic focus on insignificant things (i.e. miniscule acts of micro-aggression) rather than larger moves that would help more people.

 

[W. K. Lis]

BLM seems to be implementing Donald Trump's policy of hatred and exclusion.

Basically, Black Lives Matter wants the police to get out of here.

Wrong in both cases.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That's not really fair - BLM is an organization; DJT is the head of a nation. Different levels of responsibilities.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

That I don't find frightening - Pride always have control over what's valid and not valid - I mean would we/should allow a bunch of Neo-Nazi skinheads to have a float in the name of inclusion? Or conversion therapy nonsense? No. Clearly as a collective there has to be overriding rules and the power to enforce it. In this case the issue is the justification of rejecting the TPS float I find problematical.

AoD

Those are false analogies. When Neo-Nazi skinheads apply to have a float, we can discuss. In the meantime, let's not use neo-nazis, or conversion therapy practitioners causing severe mental harm, as a slippery slope argument as to why inclusion should not always be the guiding principle. We are talking about groups whose raisons d'être aren't the elimination of the LGBT community and don't violate the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code.

I find it frightening when groups or individuals feel they can determine who is entitled to participate in Pride, since Pride by its very nature is a statement and celebration by those who were traditionally excluded and marginalized, and who were subject to the same arbitrary judgments. It's insidious and contrary to the whole spirit of Pride. Saying "but we would never let Paul Bernardo have his own float", or neo-nazis or the like, is not a rational reason for any system of exclusion.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Those are false analogies. When Neo-Nazi skinheads apply to have a float, we can discuss. In the meantime, let's not use neo-nazis, or conversion therapy practitioners causing severe mental harm, as a slippery slope argument as to why inclusion should not always be the guiding principle. We are talking about groups whose raisons d'être aren't the the elimination of the LGBT community and don't violate the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code.

I find it frightening when groups or individuals feel they can determine who is entitled to participate in Pride, since Pride by its very nature is a statement and celebration by those who were traditionally excluded and marginalized, and who were subject to the same arbitrary judgments. It's insidious and contrary to the whole spirit of Pride. Saying "but we would never let Paul Bernardo have his own float", or neo-nazis or the like, is not a rational reason for any system of exclusion.

Well, of course what I said was meant to be at the extreme end of possibilities (be careful what one wish for when tacking onto Human Rights code as the be all and end all - they are getting increasingly skilled at working between the lines, and you'd be stuck with having to lawyer with them), but historically, Pride has excluded on the basis of fit:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/06/19/mens-rights-group-barred-from-torontos-pride-parade.html

And it is entitled and justified to do so IMO. It's not a hard and fast, and it has an element of judgement involved, but that's life - judgement is required sometimes, and for that we need to look at intent and see if the action is it reasonable.

AoD

 

[JWBF]

That's not really fair - BLM is an organization; DJT is the head of a nation. Different levels of responsibilities.

AoD

I agree that the "jobs" are more nuanced but the basics like relying on nationalism and victim mentality match up and IMO just dog whistle politics.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I agree that the "jobs" are more nuanced but the basics like relying on nationalism and victim mentality match up and IMO just dog whistle politics.

I don't really feel the need to label it with loaded terms like "victim mentality" - like it or not some of the grievances are more than valid (the evidence is fairly clear on those), but holding them to the same standard as one who is meant to exercise power is off-base. I mean, do we *really* want to go down the road and compare the two when they have very little to do with one another?

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

Well, of course what I said was meant to be at the extreme end of possibilities (be careful what one wish for when tacking onto Human Rights code as the be all and end all - they are getting increasingly skilled at working between the lines, and you'd be stuck with having to lawyer with them), but historically, Pride has excluded on the basis of fit:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/06/19/mens-rights-group-barred-from-torontos-pride-parade.html

And it is entitled and justified to do so IMO. It's not a hard and fast, and it has an element of judgement involved, but that's life - judgement is required sometimes, and for that we need to look at intent and see if the action is it reasonable.

AoD

Yeah, and extreme possibilities are a lousy example. Men's rights groups are another extreme example - just like white heritage groups, they are at essence reactionary, and in this case misogynist. Again, we are not talking about hate groups.

Again, I find it frightening leaving this to someone's "judgment".

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah, and extreme possibilities are a lousy example. Men's rights groups are another extreme example - just like white heritage groups, they are at essence reactionary, and in this case misogynist. Again, we are not talking about hate groups.

Again, I find it frightening leaving this to someone's "judgment".

Of course they are reactionary and misogynist at the core - but they have certainly wrapped themselves in the language of acceptability - which requires parsing and judgement to disentangle. Our system is always based on judgement at *some* level even with code of laws, etc. We appoint able individuals (and alas, sometimes not so able ones) to these roles for a reason.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

But, again, I am not talking about hate groups who have tried to whitewash their message.

You are on about something completely different.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

But, again, I am not talking about hate groups who have tried to whitewash their message.

You are on about something completely different.

I don't feel that are that different - ultimately, you are talking about a power that an organization holds that allow it to include or exclude within certain parameters/processes. Definition of "hate" is obviously subjected to interpretation (I mean in this particular instance, one'd be judging whether TPS is "racist" or whether CAFE is "misogynist").

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

Yes, I am. But I am talking about the frightening aspects of how that power can be wielded, while you keep going on about extreme examples like neo-nazis and people who want to eliminate the LGBT community, and then based on such extreme examples you decide having that judgment is reasonable.

We are talking about two completely different things.

 

[to_l]

This feels like a really roundabout way of making a statement. It's true that a lot of work and progress still needs to happen within the police force as a whole, and that excluding them from participating in Pride does send a message. The thing is they've been part of Pride for awhile now which means that somewhere down the line, it was felt that they've tried and made enough of an effort to be accepted but now, by kicking them out, isn't it sort of saying "what you did before was good enough then but isn't good enough now so get out"? Doesn't that just lead to feelings of exclusion and disrespect. It would be a different matter if they had never been allowed in but they have which means there was acceptance and now that acceptance has been revoked. And it's especially awkward since they'll still be there in an official capacity which, to me, says "we need you here to do your job but we don't want you around outside of that".

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes, I am. But I am talking about the frightening aspects of how that power can be wielded, while you keep going on about extreme examples like neo-nazis and people who want to eliminate the LGBT community, and then based on such extreme examples you decide having that judgment is reasonable.

We are talking about two completely different things.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

This feels like a really roundabout way of making a statement. It's true that a lot of work and progress still needs to happen within the police force as a whole, and that excluding them from participating in Pride does send a message. The thing is they've been part of Pride for awhile now which means that somewhere down the line, it was felt that they've tried and made enough of an effort to be accepted but now, by kicking them out, isn't sort of saying "what you did before was good enough then but isn't good enough now so get out"? Doesn't that just lead to feelings of exclusion and disrespect. It would be a different matter if they had never been allowed in but they have which means there was acceptance and now that acceptance has been revoked. And it's especially awkward since they'll still be there in an official capacity which, to me, says "we need you here to do your job but we don't want you around outside of that".

To push it further, is this really about TPS, or is it about who has the power and controls the values/message at Pride, and the often talked about but never seriously expressed issue of fissures within the community (haves, have nots, picket fence queers, community racism, etc)? The whole blowup over the police felt like a chess move in the old vs. new guard, Pride as an activist centric protest movement vs. "mainstream" political force.

One thing I do know is that at this point the only *real* winners so far are those who like to see the organization fail publicly.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

I am not sure what we agree to disagree on. You are talking about neo-nazis and the like. I am talking about the exercise of that power in situations that don't involve neo-nazis, such as this situation.