News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.1K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 980     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 369     0 

Black Lives Matter Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's unfortunate. Looks like I'll be staying home this year and urging my friends to do the same. This seems very hypocritical to me. QAIA made a part of the LGBT community uncomfortable as well, but Pride refused to ban them. To do the opposite with the police, especially after putting so much effort into being tolerated/accepted/being taken seriously by the police just seems wrong. Being exclusionary is not the way to bring people together and heal wounds.
 
I fail to see how exclusion and barriers help to foster understanding and respect. The institution itself needs to evolve and change but to alienate individuals who support the community, based on the actions of the whole, seems like a pretty good way to lose said support.
 
ttk77 said:
That's unfortunate. Looks like I'll be staying home this year and urging my friends to do the same. This seems very hypocritical to me. QAIA made a part of the LGBT community uncomfortable as well, but Pride refused to ban them. To do the opposite with the police, especially after putting so much effort into being tolerated/accepted/being taken seriously by the police just seems wrong. Being exclusionary is not the way to bring people together and heal wounds.
Click to expand...

A case can be made for allowing QUAIA to participate and not to ban them; if so, why not the TPS? I am not going to see the latter in a rose coloured lens, but there seem to be a double standard at work here. I mean, would/should Pride have agreed to ban QUAIA if Kulanu requested it?

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
A case can be made for allowing QUAIA to participate and not to ban them; if so, why not the TPS? I am not going to see the latter in a rose coloured lens, but there seem to be a double standard at work here. I mean, would Pride have agreed to ban QUAIA if Kulanu requested it?

AoD
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't think anyone should be banned from participation and showing support for the community unless they are actively promoting hate/violence. I know there are some in the community that still feel uncomfortable around the police, but given that Pride's roots are in protesting, I don't necessarily think we should be considering it as a "safe space". I think we're losing something in trying to make everyone comfortable and happy.
 
ttk77 said:
Agreed. I don't think anyone should be banned from participation and showing support for the community unless they are actively promoting hate/violence. I know there are some in the community that still feel uncomfortable around the police, but given that Pride's roots are in protesting, I don't necessarily think we should be considering it as a "safe space". I think we're losing something in trying to make everyone comfortable and happy.
Click to expand...

Well, they'd be right if they argue the right to protest is fundamental, but they are not arguing for that, but the right to exclude, which isn't fundamental.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well, they'd be right if they argue the right to protest is fundamental, but they are not arguing for that, but the right to exclude, which isn't fundamental.

ApD
Click to expand...

Right. So Pride should have supported BLM's right to protest, affirmed their support for their cause but at the same time refuse to prohibit the police from marching. I have to wonder what conversations were had behind the scenes and whether or not BLM and the police were included? It seems to me that a compromise could have been reached where the police could be free to march as long those not serving as security for the parade leave their vests and side arms at home.
 
ttk77 said:
Right. So Pride should have supported BLM's right to protest, affirmed their support for their cause but at the same time refuse to prohibit the police from marching. I have to wonder what conversations were had behind the scenes and whether or not BLM and the police were included? It seems to me that a compromise could have been reached where the police could be free to march as long those not serving as security for the parade leave their vests and side arms at home.
Click to expand...

Honestly though, the misstep was at the last Pride when the then exec signed the letter when he shouldn't have, though I can understand why he did it (but as a result of that, it becomes a case of the org breaking its' word). It's a tough one to handle, especially given the fault lines within the community along race as well and the blowback that will sure to happen. Sure beats the blowback to come because of this move though. And guess what, the moral majority crowd is rubbing their hands in glee now when the org basically handed them ammunition to use and potentially defund the org, not to mention the damage to public opinion. Any bets on Mammo and Shiner coming out with calls for cutting the budget?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Why can't BLM have their own parade? Why do protest groups about racism or Israel need to hijack a parade that is about gays? It's like Occupy with a bunch of unrelated causes trying to use the same platform which just waters down the message and causes in-fighting.
 
I think it was a no win situation for him. There's no way he could have signed the letter in good faith without consulting with the rest of the Pride organization first, but if he didn't sign it and the protest continued, basically ending the parade, I don't think he'd have survived either.
 
ttk77 said:
I think it was a no win situation for him. There's no way he could have signed the letter in good faith without consulting with the rest of the Pride organization first, but if he didn't sign it and the protest continued, basically ending the parade, I don't think he'd have survived either.
Click to expand...

Well, 10 people vs. a parade, I'd bet on the parade. Keep it going, drop the floats, march through the line. Pwned. They really need to stop taking those floats (ad caravans) so seriously. It was a protest movement, certainly people still remember how to run the barricades right?

(also, clearly they don't have a plan for disruption of this sort - a weakness, perhaps)

AoD
 
Last edited:
Migos said:
Why can't BLM have their own parade? Why do protest groups about racism or Israel need to hijack a parade that is about gays? It's like Occupy with a bunch of unrelated causes trying to use the same platform which just waters down the message and causes in-fighting.
Click to expand...

Because it's difficult to view these groups in isolation. There is racism at all levels of our society, and in this case they were trying to put light on the fact that it exists in the LGBT community as well.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well, 10 people vs. a parade, I'd bet on the parade. Keep it going, drop the floats, march through the line. Pwned. They really need to stop taking those floats (ad caravans) so seriously.

(also, clearly they don't have a plan for disruption of this sort - a weakness, perhaps)

AoD
Click to expand...

Well it also didn't help that they invited an organization known for their protests and sit-ins to participate. Pride should have anticipated that they'd use the high profile event to raise their own profile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top