News   Nov 14, 2024
News Roundup for November 14, 2024
 128     0 
News   Nov 14, 2024
Daniels Presides Over Its Neighbours
 374     1 
News   Nov 13, 2024
Fitzrovia and Hazelview Continue to Remake Bloor & Dufferin
 1.3K     0 

Toronto gay pride denied federal funds

nfitz said:
Absolutely! And no one here on this thread has done that as far as I can recall, and tell from the comments.

Did I miss something?

If not, raising the spectre of Nazism when it's not their is even more despicable - and rather bizarre!
Click to expand...

This:

Tewder said:
I don't think we should be reading too much into all of this. Are the Conservatives particularly friendly to gay issues? No. Are they super friendly to Toronto issues? No again. If there were more votes to be had there would be a steady stream of funding for these things no matter what the personal feelings of some Conservative members might be. After all, they didn't seem to mind holding their noses while cozying up to Quebec for votes!

All this 'Nazi'/racism hyperbole that gets tossed around here a little too gratuitously by some paranoid, judgemental UT members is beyond perverse, on so many levels... and how manipulative - not to mention politically opportunistic - it is to label somebody or some party as 'racist' or 'homophobic' or whatever else unless they agree to fund whatever it is you feel they should fund.
Click to expand...

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well, it isn't like there are votes to be had in Quebec, and yet they are still cozying to them.

While I agree calling it Nazism is wild hyperbole, it is pretty undeniable that there is a homophobic element to the party. I mean, if not, how does one explain the Diane Albonzy episode? This is less about the funding per se but the gap between the stated rationale vs. practice. And funny you should mention manipulation and political opportunism considering what you've just said in the first paragraph. One can only wonder the motivations behind silent acceptance of such practice by the government (government!) implied in the former and vehement condemnation of interest groups in the latter. Please do educate me in the difference between the two stated groups, vis-a-vis ideals and practice in the public domain.

AoD
Click to expand...

Tewder said:
Nope, I can't. I agree that it's all part and parcel of the same old stinky political mess... and I am the one calling for some sanity in this thread. I don't care if interest groups challenge this decision and I would agree with them in this case because I like Pride and think it is important... BUT calling all Conservatives racist Nazis is so unbelievable offensive that it deserves to be called out in any forum that hopes to maintain some semblance of balance, credibility or dignity.
Click to expand...

It is mentioned, though it seemed to come out of nowhere. As for resurrecting a dead thread, I don't necessarily base my decision to post on the date of the last post...
 
The_Waffler said:
It is mentioned, though it seemed to come out of nowhere.
Click to expand...
The issue is that you started by asking "Please stop using Nazi as a label" ... no one here was doing that. Both posters were in the same position you are. Why then are you lecturing us?
 
Oh, come on....

taal said:
Okay, I'm going to have to step in here ...

Rather then having the typical liberal nee jerk reaction to such an event - let's stop and think about it.

Why the heck does the pride festival need any funding whatsoever ... there's so much corporate presence at this even (think, TD/ or whatever bank, guys, from last year) - other events, that may be as big don't receive nearly as much funding, for example, Caribana.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Why does the Federal Government need to fund events like this to begin with anyway? I don't think this is a deliberate attack on gays but some people are in hysterics insisting Harper's gov hates gays and women and minorities and possibly kittens. It's a way overblown reaction to a simple funding issue.

This is why I kinda of tune out certain goofs on the liberal left. Anything that conflcts with their vision of what should be is automatically declared as an assault on human rights and it's just nonsense.

I use to be very a liberal person.

Over time, some of my views changed but certain liberal types I encountered, who said they were for the rights for everyone and said they were the most tolerant individuals would then attack me because my opinion differed. I don't get this from people with more conservative values. But this has been my experience. Others probably have a different take on this.....
 
Last edited:
tkip said:
Exactly.

Why does the Federal Government need to fund events like this to begin with anyway? I don't think this is a deliberate attack on gays but some people are in hysterics insisting Harper's gov hates gays and women and minorities and possibly kittens. It's a way overblown reaction to a simple funding issue.
Click to expand...

For me, the problem is not that the funding was taken away, it's who took it away and why they did it. There are plenty of Conservatives in government right now who have made their disdain for this country's LGBT community quite clear in the past (as I believe I mentioned earlier, Tom Lukiwski's infamous line that "There's A's and there's B's. The A's are guys like me, the B's are homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases"). Last year after the government funded Pride, there was a backlash from the Conservative base who were not arguing (at least not solely) that the government shouldn't be funding festivals - they were arguing that this government shouldn't fund anything that celebrates those people. So Diane Ablonczy was demoted, funding committed to Montreal's version of Pride 2009 was immediately cancelled, and Pride's funding was taken away this year. As one of those people, I cannot look past this and satisfy myself with arguments like yours. This move is a homophobic gesture because it was motivated by homophobia.

To perhaps illustrate this with an example: suppose I have an uncle in BC (I don't), and suppose I'm about to get married (I don't planning on doing that anytime soon either). Now suppose my uncle says he can't because he can't afford the flight. Would I get angry? No. Now, if he said he couldn't come because he didn't support my "lifestyle choice," you can bet I'd be quite pissed.

tkip said:
This is why I kinda of tune out certain goofs on the liberal left. Anything that conflcts with their vision of what should be is automatically declared as an assault on human rights and it's just nonsense.

I use to be very a liberal person.

Over time, some of my views changed but certain liberal types I encountered, who said they were for the rights for everyone and said they were the most tolerant individuals would then attack me because my opinion differed. I don't get this from people with more conservative values. But this has been my experience. Others probably have a different take on this.....
Click to expand...

My take? Try telling Ezra Levant you disagree with him.
 
My two cents:

I'm all for the concept of a pride parade but the execution bothers me a bit. Would a "straight parade" ever get away with some of the public sexuality you see at gay parades? Probably not (or at least I sincerely hope not). Plus another troubling issue for me is that some of the public sexuality actually disinclines me from supporting this community which I ordinarily have no problems with (yes yes I know it's bad and I'm an intolerant scourge, but that's my honest, visceral reaction to some of these pride parade antics and I'm sure I'm not alone). Wouldn't it be more beneficial to the gay community to present a more respectable image at this parade - thus making this parade more socially beneficial? Maybe that's why the feds cut funding: lack of public benefit.

Alright now it's time for 10 successive posts blasting me:
 
you do know there are lesbian marches in which you get to see all kinds of tittie? i find that beneficial.

i think the exhibitionism is an attempt to make up for a time when homosexuals would be convicted for "crimes" they committed in private.
 
cfloryan said:
Would a "straight parade" ever get away with some of the public sexuality you see at gay parades? Probably not (or at least I sincerely hope not).
Click to expand...

Well, there, you get into the issue of whether one can even get away with a "straight parade" these days, or whether it's a concept as queasy as, say, "white pride"...
 
i think we need more white straight men parades. I bet harper and co will cover the whole bill
 
Seriously, that's exactly the kind of yahoo sneering that you find in Free Dominion-type forums--"Gay pride? What about straight pride?"

Which also helps explain why Pride, in its maturity, has evolved past narrowly gay or even LGBT identification, to the point where it's now basically a midyear version of Mardi Gras (which, last I recall, remains identified with public debauchery et al--so, there's a "straight" corollary for cfloryan to contemplate)
 
Would a "straight parade" ever get away with some of the public sexuality you see at gay parades? Probably not (or at least I sincerely hope not).
Click to expand...

Yes, see Caribana for a clue.
 
cfloryan said:
My two cents:

I'm all for the concept of a pride parade but the execution bothers me a bit. Would a "straight parade" ever get away with some of the public sexuality you see at gay parades? Probably not (or at least I sincerely hope not). Plus another troubling issue for me is that some of the public sexuality actually disinclines me from supporting this community which I ordinarily have no problems with (yes yes I know it's bad and I'm an intolerant scourge, but that's my honest, visceral reaction to some of these pride parade antics and I'm sure I'm not alone). Wouldn't it be more beneficial to the gay community to present a more respectable image at this parade - thus making this parade more socially beneficial? Maybe that's why the feds cut funding: lack of public benefit.

Alright now it's time for 10 successive posts blasting me:
Click to expand...

I fully support your right to find something distasteful. As a gay man I don't always personally appreciate some of the behaviour I see on display either. However, to conflate one's personal sense of what is or isn't 'respectable' to the level of some transcending prescriptive standard of what is ethically of public 'benefit' is where my support for your opinion ends, and where my irritation with social Conservatives starts. I for one find it to be of enormous social benefit to publicly vaunt, flaunt, celebrate or simply acknowledge a diversity of sexuality and sexual identity, if only for this one week a year. It is one small gesture that helps to liberate society from suffocating social norms that are NOT of public benefit to anybody but the lone minority of those who do happen to fit the narrow Conservative confines of mainstream sexual respectability.... which is why, by the way, we are seeing more and more heterosexual people joining and identifying with Pride celebrations each year.

Look, if Harper and crew prefer to knock one off for King and Country, missionary style and with the lights off and for procreative purposes only, well good for them!.... BUT that doesn't make them any better than anybody else, in any objective socially respectable way, and the fact that Harper is clearly basing funding policy on this preference pisses me off, quite frankly.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top