Toronto Pride funding in danger - here we go again!

I'll be intrigued as to how (and if) social conservativism will trump fiscal conservatism, given that the extra taxes paid always outweigh the money the city, province and the feds give to it. Plus, does Ford really want to beat up small businesses (bars, restaurants, B&Bs)? I can see this being a fight that will be Kristyn Wong-Tam's calling card, given that she's been perfectly clear on where she stands on QuAIA. She makes a fight of this, the seat's hers for life, win or lose on the vote itself.

While there is a pro-Israel lobby, I don't think even the most myopic observer can deny there's a streak of homophobia about this issue. More than a few homophobes are leaping on the pro-Israeli government bandwagon as cover for their own prejudices.

This new crowd at city hall may just defund pride anyway, just because it is too much fun.

The issue of funding is important and I believe that QuAIA is just not being strategic. Its the name that rankles. Why play into it? I agree with Ellie Kirshner from NOW, why not have the same goals with a name change say "Queers against the Israeli occupation" or something similar? It would stop the matter dead in its tracks.

MCsquared wrote:

The issue of funding is important and I believe that QuAIA is just not being strategic. Its the name that rankles. Why play into it? I agree with Ellie Kirshner from NOW, why not have the same goals with a name change say "Queers against the Israeli occupation" or something similar? It would stop the matter dead in its tracks.

You honestly think that would placate the Hasbara lobby?

Unionist wrote:

I'm with MCsquared here, with one caveat: How about "Torontonians Against Israeli Apartheid"? I think that would be more strategic, certainly more inclusive.

I disagree, I think QuAIA is one of the most important groups on the Canadian left these days.  By applying a radical queer analysis to Israeli apartheid, it both counters the pinkwashing of the Israel lobby (which gets especially absurd when groups which are close allies of the likes of McVety are trying to tell queers what their politics should be), and challenges apolitical "we just want to party" attitudes within the LGBT community.

aka Mycroft wrote:

MCsquared wrote:

The issue of funding is important and I believe that QuAIA is just not being strategic. Its the name that rankles. Why play into it? I agree with Ellie Kirshner from NOW, why not have the same goals with a name change say "Queers against the Israeli occupation" or something similar? It would stop the matter dead in its tracks.

You honestly think that would placate the Hasbara lobby?

Yes I do. And as long as people stick stubbornly to a name that most folk react negatively to, QuAIA will remain a fringe group whose message will not be listened to.

MCsquared wrote:

aka Mycroft wrote:

MCsquared wrote:

The issue of funding is important and I believe that QuAIA is just not being strategic. Its the name that rankles. Why play into it? I agree with Ellie Kirshner from NOW, why not have the same goals with a name change say "Queers against the Israeli occupation" or something similar? It would stop the matter dead in its tracks.

You honestly think that would placate the Hasbara lobby?

Yes I do. And as long as people stick stubbornly to a name that most folk react negatively to, QuAIA will remain a fringe group whose message will not be listened to.

Then I think you're naive. As long as they're an "anti-Israel" group ie an organization critical of Israeli actions and supportive of Palestinian rights, the Hasbara lobby will argue that they should be denied a "platform" at any event funded by the city.

I know! I was a little upset by that as well. Clearly the agenda is to drive them off.

I knew unionist was kidding. I hoped others did too :)

Of course the problem with public consultations via the internet is the tendency for them to get freeped. (The comments to this story in Xtra are pretty revealing).

Charlene71 wrote:

Actually I don't think this issue would be a vote winner for KWT.  People that are vested in this issue are already supporting KWT.  There are lots of people in the Church-Wellesley community who are not particularly supportive or anti QuAIA, but wish the issue would just go away so they can have their party.  Taking a vocal stand (I mean more than just a "clear/firm stand") on this may alienate the large number of otherwise not very political queer voters.

Incumbency is all-powerful in Toronto politics, though. I can't see any way KWT is going to be levered out, unless something happens to totally discredit her (which I find very difficult to see). The anti-KWT crowd threw every piece of 'dirt' they could at her, and it still didn't work. I think most of the Chan vote will go to KWT next time round, and she'll defeat her challengers in 2014 with ease.

Perhaps you could send us a weekly digest of events so that we could remain focused on extracting wealth from our Western and Maritime vassals?

Le T wrote:

Perhaps you could send us a weekly digest of events so that we could remain focused on extracting wealth from our Western and Maritime vassals?

Levy Urges Jewish Leaders To Press City To Defund Pride Toronto

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Levy_urges_Jewish_leaders_to_press_ci...

QAIA have decicded to withdraw from the parade to expose Ford's true agenda.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/975242--councillor-demands-pride-pro...

Quote:

In a news release Friday morning, QuAIA said it had made the decision to hold independent Pride Week events outside of the festival so that Mayor Rob Ford is denied a convenient pretext for withdrawing funding.

Ford said in March that the city should not provide funding to Pride if QuAIA's “hate speech” is permitted. But he has also said that funding for Pride and other festivals should be eliminated simply for the purpose of saving money.

“Rob Ford wants to use us as an excuse to cut Pride funding, even though he has always opposed funding the parade, long before we showed up,” QuAIA spokesperson Elle Flanders said in the news release. “By holding our Pride events outside of the parade, we are forcing him to make a choice: fund Pride or have your real homophobic, right-wing agenda exposed.”

And it's still not enough for Mammoliti.

Quote:

The committee heard from more than 45 speakers, 26 in support of PT, during the eight-hour meeting. In the end, no motion was brought forward that would have made funding contingent on a guarantee by PT that the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) take no part in any festival events, anywhere, all week.

A city manager’s report, released in April, confirmed that the phrase "Israeli apartheid" – and by extension QuAIA's participation in Pride celebrations – does not violate the city's anti-discrimination policy. Those who oppose QuAIA's participation have argued from the outset of the controversy that it does, and that, therefore, makes PT ineligible for city funding. 

It’s good news for PT. But Ward 27 Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam warns, “Council rules supreme. So at any time there could be a motion on the floor of council for a vote in June without notice. Then we would have to open it up and go through a big debate all over again, this time without public consultation.... But it seems unlikely because council voted unanimously to receive the report. I was scared because some councillors had their knives out and had made some threats.”

[url=http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/2011_city_funding_for_Pride_Toronto_l... Pride funding likely safe[/url]

Quote:

Although the controversy over QuAIA’s involvement in Toronto Pride propelled the debate of Israeli Apartheid into the public, the group is not fundamentally about the right to march in the Pride Parade. QuAIA’s primary project is to combat pinkwashing. In the lead-up to Pride 2011, the group will launch a campaign calling on queers to join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction of Israel movement as a peaceful tactic to pressure the Israeli government to comply with international law. It is also working to build stronger connections with other groups doing similar work internationally to help bring the issue of pinkwashing to the forefront of larger queer movements. Recent attacks on the LGBT Community Center in New York for hosting an Israeli Apartheid Week event are not isolated incidents. As the successful fight against Toronto Pride’s banning of QuAIA demonstrates, solidarity work is at the heart of queer struggles, and it is only through collective action that we can effectively defend these spaces.

[url=http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/sanitizing-pride]Briarpatch: Sanitizing Pride[/url]

"In 2010, PT received a $123,807 grant and about $250,000 worth of in-kind services from the city, including garbage cleanup and policing."

From here.

I guess it depends on what you define as political.

The City's monetary and in-kind contributions to Pride are pretty insignificant, to both the City and to a lesser extent, to Pride.

The City of Toronto funds museums, which are hugely political with an enormous political agenda, and no I'm not being funny.

They also fund special events like a Canada Day event every year, enough said.

They fund Summerlicious and Winterlicious, which are basically extended advertising and marketing campaigns for upscale restaurants. Certainly not a free event open to all.

Pride brings in tens of millions of dollars into the city every year. Through tourism (hotels, cabs, restaurants) and locals spending in bars and restaurants.

If this was really about money, Mayor Tight Purse Strings Asshole Fuckwad wouldn't give a shit. It's about ideology. QUAIA is a smokescreen.

Roscoe wrote:

Very progressive ass chewing  You must practice.

Years of practice, dahhling.  

Roscoe wrote:

If this funding is relatively insignificant, why not find other funding and refuse to give the TPSAFs a soapbox? Make Pride a successful event in spite of the city. Leave them on the outside looking in AND, explaining why.

I think they need the city for permits, garbage, po-po, etc. But that's a great idea.

i think i am going to go tomorrow and hold a sign reading israelie aparthied

You might want to keep in mind that you would not likely be the person bearing the brunt of any blowback from that action. The rule in question is a funding stipulation, not a criminal law. So, it's not like you will personally get arrested for waving around that sign. Rather, someone will probably just take your picture, and post it on the internet or in the media. Then, some Ford flunky on council can use it as proof as to why Pride should be de-funded.

I have no problem with an Israeli Apartheid sign being waved around, at Pride or anywhere else. Just that, if you're going to make a poltical statement that could jeopardize the future of Pride(while costing you comparatively little) you might want to clear it with the other interested parties first.  

Doug wrote:

It's not unusual for creepy guys with videocameras to film the Dyke March hoping to get some boobie shots. It's much more unusual for one of the to be a city councillor.

 

Giorgio Mammoliti and his camcorder want to axe city funding for Pride Week.

The city councillor says he captured an anti-Israeli group chanting the controversial phrase “Israeli Apartheid” during Saturday’s Dyke Parade.

Slightly less surprising coming from a man whose rampant homophobia has been on display in the past. Mammoliti was simply aching to find someone, *anyone*, to say or shout 'Israeli Apartheid' (and unless Pride organizers had mind control over all paraders, that is simply impossible to stop). Whether he found someone is open to debate, since his recorded footage has not yet surfaced. He is the archetype of those bigots and homophobes eager to use the Israeli issue as cover for them to parade their antediluvian beliefs.

I never intended to march in the parade, so I don't know why it would matter or not if I hold a sign reading Israelie apartheid as an individual attending the pride event.  Pride doesn't belong to the Pride organizer. The street is public to everyone.

Anyways I didn't go because I had better things to do. I attended trans pride on Friday and that was enough for me. I also think its quite dangerous to hold a sign reading israelie apartheid, so it takes some courage regardless if I can be arrested or not. I remember holding such a sign 2 years ago in Pride, as an individual (not part of any organization or marchers) and I have people yelling at me, and bottles were thrown at marchers identified as queers against israelie apartheid , so yeah there are risks.

And as a transgender woman of color , I resent the idea that I have to risk my own personal safety in order to express my belief about human rights for Palestinians (or anyone) at a pride event. I think pride should be about feeling safe, and championing human rights for everyone, and I don't like bigots fucking with my pride and telling me what can or cannot come out of my mouth. (literally speaking)

I dont care about being a hero, i want to keep my pride at pride.

If the city cancels Pride funding, perhaps the organizers should consider not doing the parade next year. Let Ford explain it to the restaurants, hotels, bars, clubs, corner stores, etc.

aka Mycroft wrote:

When they were trustees Pasternak and Matlow tried hard to get the TDSB to ban the Shepherd's Graddaughter and Three Wishes because the books were deemed critical of Israel.

So expect Pasternak and Matlow to push hard on QUAIA and on any other Isreal related issue they can come up with.

I'm no expert on Toronto politics, but this Matlow character seems to have the same view of workers' rights as he does of the rights of queers to support Palestinians. Can't you Torontonians send him packing or something?

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1054063]Evil powerful union boss threatens terrible things to hapless city councillor for just expressing his innocent opinion in a little tweet[/url]