Black Lives Matter Toronto briefly halts Pride parade

262 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Nah. Fair move considering blm took the parade lead with full intention of shutting it down. As I said, accusations of deception are kind of moot.

Besides, a n agreement signed under duress is not binding.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Unionist wrote:

So nice to have butter-wouldn't-melt provocateurs involved in a conversation about Black folks being profiled and murdered by police.

 

So that is what the conversation is all about - I am so glad a straight male came by to inform us all. I will file that information with all the other things I have heard straight people tell me about the total irrelevance of Pride (based on their no-doubt deep and profound experience with the Toronto flavour of the event)... and don't concern yourself that my filing system is going to get clogged, I have both Draino and a plunger.

Unionist

bagkitty wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So nice to have butter-wouldn't-melt provocateurs involved in a conversation about Black folks being profiled and murdered by police.

 

So that is what the conversation is all about - I am so glad a straight male came by to inform us all. I will file that information with all the other things I have heard straight people tell me about the total irrelevance of Pride (based on their no-doubt deep and profound experience with the Toronto flavour of the event)... and don't concern yourself that my filing system is going to get clogged, I have both Draino and a plunger.

For years, you have reacted to my posts this way, and I honestly don't know why.

I know what it means to have family members murdered. The same police forces who slaughtered Roma, LGBTQ, mentally ill, and Jews, murdered my brother, my grandparents, my uncles and aunts, my cousins.

And because that is my lived experience, I have fought my entire life, as a worker in the union movement, against discrimination of all kinds - starting with the discrimination inherent in our own trade unions.

And that's why, when Black Lives Matters organizes and fights back against profiling, discrimination, and murder, I automatically support them. I do not question their tactics. I do not set their struggle against the struggle of other oppressed and exploited people. I see my duty as an unquestioning ally, the same as my alliance with LGBTQ people. Unquestioning.

I do not defend Jews first. I do not defend workers first. I do not defend trade unions first. Because there is no first among equals.

So why not chill out and stop attacking every single word I've said here for the past 8 years? Tell me where I've got it wrong. Just don't dehumanize me. I would never dream of doing that to you.

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Someone hectoring everyone else in the room, issuing diktats and pronouncements usually results in a particular set of responses from me. That and my refusal to accept things "unquestioningly" - up to and including my own sense data, much less any other person's or group's demands that I surrender my own critical judgment on matters. This obviously does not mean I refuse to take sides on an issue, just that I refuse demands to toe a fundamentalist line - be it theological or secular. Funny thing about the coming out process, not only does it have a social/sexual component, it also demands that one question and oftimes reject, received wisdom. It's not an exuse to develop a totally solipsistic worldview, then it again, it can be a particular strong inducement to maintain a critical perspective.

Unionist

MegB wrote:
Pride in Toronto is so mainstream and corporatized that it really needed shaking up.

Seems people are saying the same about Vancouver.

Yet in places like Steinbach, it's still a breath of revolutionary fresh air. Context is everything.

 

6079_Smith_W

Cross posted u. Context is everything? Like the fact the steinbach parade would have been on the sidewalk without the provincial RCMP stepping in to do what city council would not? And that that revolutionary stand included them, in uniform, marching next to the organizers?

6079_Smith_W

So is the implication that those of us who think this demand will not work do not support the concerns of BLM? That we don't care about police violence or people being murdered?

We had a situation not too long ago in which a group demanded that rabble stop giving space to a blogger they considered offensive. Just because someone might agree about the content does not mean one has to go along with censoring someone who is in many things an important voice.

Sorry, it doesn't work. And even if this turn s into another symbolic bandwagon issue that sweeps the nation it won't work. Why? Read that Vancouver statement: cops are murderers and the oppressor until the point where we need them to do their job. As big a revolutionary (though completely symbolic) stand as this is it does nothing to stop the murders, and even less to help the dialogue needed to turn this around.

 

swallow swallow's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Anyhow, tar and feather me for saying it but I still fully support pride TO and think #BLM was out of line when they extorted the parade. From my little perch it really looks like #BLM doesn't like sharing the spotlight.

I fully support Pride Toronto in their commitment to make changes along the lines BLMTO asked for. 

It's not a "Pride vs. BLMTO" argument in the community. Only in the media. Within the community, there are conversations. As there should be. 

swallow swallow's picture

Quote:
For Vancouver’s upcoming Dyke March, Blain says Black Lives Matter is gathering a contingent of queer people of colour who will help them lead the march. The group was originally invited to participate a few months ago, and Dyke March organizers say both the shootings in Orlando and the intervention at Toronto’s Pride parade spurred them to ask Black Lives Matter to now lead the march.....

On July 12, the Vancouver Pride Society released a statement of its own saying it’s “deeply committed to understanding our role in creating safer spaces for trans people, Indigenous communities and people of colour through the Pride season and throughout the year.”

“That is why we continue to reach out to groups that reflect these populations with the intention of honest and respectful dialogue regarding inclusion, belonging, cultural safety and how individuals who experience intersectionality are included with more intention in the Vancouver Pride Society and our events,” the statement says.

“This includes reaching out to Black Lives Matter Vancouver after the Toronto Pride parade,” it adds.

[url=http://www.dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news-and-ideas/news/meet-the-queer-me... will lead Vancouver Dyke March[/url]

Quote:

Members of the black community in Ottawa are calling on police officers to leave their uniform at home if they plan on walking in the Capital Pride parade next month – a move the police union has criticized as “prejudicial.”

Leila Moumouni, a member of Black Diaspora, said police officers should come to the parade, but only in plainclothes. The uniform, she said, is a symbol of an “oppressive” institution that black people have feared for years.

“Be there as yourself, but you don’t need to be as a representation of an oppressive institution. It doesn’t need to be that. For me at least, I don’t understand the need for people who work in the police to be in uniform to celebrate Pride,” said Moumouni.

On Thursday, Ottawa Capital Pride held a media launch to announce details of the weeklong events leading up to the Aug. 21 parade. 

Capital Pride chair Tammy Dopson said she is monitoring what Pride groups in other cities are doing in relation to police presence and will consult with Ottawa police and the black community in the weeks ahead.

[url=http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2016/07/14/ottawa-police-asked-not-t... rights activists asking Ottawa police not to wear uniform in Pride parade[/url]

mark_alfred

CIUT (Toronto) currently has a discussion going on about BLM (it's the Gospel Music Machine show).  I think it'll be going for another half hour.

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
If he did not have the authority to make an agreement then he should not have signed it.

Should they have:

a) stopped and convened an emergency meeting of the Pride Committee to debate these demands as a million people fanned themselves with newspapers and waited?

b) just told everyone who'd worked for months on their float, or who'd travelled from out of town to see their daughter march in her first Pride parade to go home, because this just isn't the kind of decision that can made made on the spot?

I've heard more than once that the BLM-TO members weren't "outsiders" but members of the LGBTQ+ community.  Do you suppose that any of them might have known beforehand that decisions about Pride aren't made by one man?

so you're more worried about people being inconvenienced and hot and think this inconvenience is more important than BLM's position?

answer your own last question and you might get a differing thought process.

Paladin1

swallow wrote:

[url=http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2016/07/14/ottawa-police-asked-not-t... rights activists asking Ottawa police not to wear uniform in Pride parade[/url]

I can see both sides of the fence on this one.  But mostly if a police officer isn't on duty and being paid then I'd say yes for sure leave their uniform at home. Why wear it to a parade? Just so everyone can see they're a cop? Throw some authority around? If they're in uniform then it should be in an official capacity IMO.  

I've dealth with a similar issue of a member from my own work wanting to wear a uniform at an idlenomore rally. On one hand I understand being proud of ones service and wanting to show support but then again it's also making a political statement of sorts. It's cropped up with Pride parades too where service members want to wear their uniform to the parade. It's awesome to show supportand I love when people do it (I like pissing off the old homophobic dinosaurs)  but it also makes someone a target and can put them in a tricky position if media puts them on the spot asking questions.

 

I'm not sure how it works with police when they are off duty. If an off duty cop gets involved in an altercation or needs to exert their authority as an officer of the law does that mean they get paid? Or over time or something? (I have an OPP friend who made just over $900 on a 24-hour overtime gig, lots of money there) If they are off duty and they see an altercation are they obgligated to help?

Paladin1

swallow wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Anyhow, tar and feather me for saying it but I still fully support pride TO and think #BLM was out of line when they extorted the parade. From my little perch it really looks like #BLM doesn't like sharing the spotlight.

I fully support Pride Toronto in their commitment to make changes along the lines BLMTO asked for. 

It's not a "Pride vs. BLMTO" argument in the community. Only in the media. Within the community, there are conversations. As there should be. 

I've only seen the community from interactions online and easily accept that context is everything and I could be reading this stuff in the wrong context.

From what I saw it did appeaer to me that in a lot of cases it seemed like there was a pride vs BLMTO devide specifically anyone who critisized BLMTO was quickly and agressively ganged up on. Anyone not supporting BLMTO's action were called out for being racist, trolls, non-allies etc.. Some of the conversations got pretty nasty. [The conversation here at rabble is actually probably the least mean one I've seen.]   In one instance it looked like a young guy was upset with the way a thread was going and someone rhymed off some stats about black males being killed 15 times more than anyone else by police and he tried correcting it and pointed out:

1. a harvard study which stated there was no indication of racial bias associated with incidents in which cops fired their guns; and

2. stats show police shoot twice as male white people than black in the US*

I'm sure you can guess how well that went over.

 

If there is no arguments and only conversations in the community propper then I'm pretty happy to hear that.

 

 

* which of course isn't accurate in context  due to African-Americans making up only 15% of the population so in truth with those shooting stats African-Americans are over 300% more likely to be shot by police.

Paladin1

Came across this while looking for that Harvard study. Bit off topic but found it interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/27/black-lives-matter-louis...

Quote:
Police, firefighters and paramedics on list of groups with enhanced penalties for crimes against them, as part of backlash against Black Lives Matter movement

HB 953 expands Louisiana’s existing list of groups protected against hate crimes on grounds of race, age, gender, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. It adds law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency paramedics, providing for an increased penalty of five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine for anyone who commits a felony hate crime against them.

 

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
It was a forced ultimatum, unionist. And it was deception and a betrayal of trust. It was also a brilliant move. My question was if it id indeed an issue as serious as wholesale murder, who cares about dressing it up and pretending it was not exactly what it was. As for your perennial shame game, not sure if you are ever going to figure out that some of us could care less what you think about us, as the issue at hand is a little bit more important.

i disagree with the framing of a "forced ultimatum" and "deception and betrayal of trust". i'd like to see it discontinued and saw for the bs it is.

mark_alfred's comment above, basically about, by your frame, then all protestors are bad for forcing an ultimatum on those they're protesting against is right. yours is bs.

protesting against the privileged who are sustaining the pratices being protesting against doesn't make the protestors bad for forcing change.

fk. if people bought into this it would mean there'd be no protests and NO change.

women and people of colour would'nt have been able to force the realization we're human too and equal to white men.

more importantly, in this context the LBGQPT wouldn't be where they are today in their journey to equality. it came and comes about through protests aka ultimatums. the ultimatum being we will continue this protest (parade, cross walk painting) until ALL people understand we're all equal.

setting up the framing you made means all FN's blockading for their rights are bad for forcing whites to give them their lands and rights back.

people who buy into your framing of this are imv the privileged wanting to keep their privilege.

 

6079_Smith_W

Maybe ask what I am framing. I explained it in the other thread, and made reference to it here. 

Accepting a position of honour at the front of the parade, then turning around and calling down the organization that put you there is a deception. That they felt they had to force a public ultimatum rather than approaching them directly is a betrayal of trust. They never gave them the chance to consider a simple request. that is not how you act in a relationship of trust.

Some might go further and call it hypocritical; I don't, because clearly the whole point was to use this deception to shut things down. 

I have also said several times that the nature of their concerns - nonstop murder - is serious enough that it might explain their going to this length. But I see no point in pretending it was not exactly what it was, and turning around and blaming pride for allagedly not playing by the rules.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Accepting a position of honour at the front of the parade, then turning around and calling down the organization that put you there is a deception. That they felt they had to force a public ultimatum rather than approaching them directly is a betrayal of trust. They never gave them the chance to consider a simple request. 

Some might go further and call it hypocritical; I don't, because clearly the whole point was to use this deception to shut things down.

 

I hate to agree with you Smith (kills your credibility eh :)  ) but I agree.  I just can't arcticulate it as well as you.

At the very core it was deception. 

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Maybe ask what I am framing. I explained it in the other thread, and made reference to it here. 

what other thread?

Quote:
Accepting a position of honour at the front of the parade, then turning around and calling down the organization that put you there is a deception.

is this the whole story? are you intimate with what was transpiring behind the scenes leading to this moment?

because your positioning just made me ask: have they had discussion about this prior? did they feel they weren't heard and were being placated by being in the front of the parade? because your next statement below would be a suitable reason imv view why this action happened. if there had beens talks prior and they were given the first place a prop to shut them up. it's a big public exposure again.

but i don't know this. it's mere speculation on my part as i'm sure it is on yours too.

Quote:
That they felt they had to force a public ultimatum rather than approaching them directly is a betrayal of trust.

no it's not. maybe its the only way they felt safe in bringing public attention to it.

why do things have to happen discreetely behind the scenes anyway?

Quote:
They never gave them the chance to consider a simple request.

how do you know this?

Quote:
that is not how you act in a relationship of trust.

maybe the trust was only one way? and it being only trust BLMTO would behave themselves during the party if put in front?

Some might go further and call it hypocritical; I don't, because clearly the whole point was to use this deception to shut things down. 

Quote:
But I see no point in pretending it was not exactly what it was, and turning around and blaming pride for allagedly not playing by the rules.

they're not playing

6079_Smith_W

The thread about Dallas . 

And at the most fundamental level, you don't recognize that joining a parade with the intent of stopping it is deception?

There is no more straightforward way I can lay it out.

Whether they had a good reason is a matter for debate. But I do not see how the nature of this tactic can be in any way.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
so you're more worried about people being inconvenienced and hot and think this inconvenience is more important than BLM's position?

That's called a "false dichotomy" or a "false dilemma".  It's basically a rhetorical device that asserts that we MUST make one of only two choices.  "human rights versus safety from terrorism" is a popular example, as is the very simplified "you're either with us or against us".

swallow swallow's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
That they felt they had to force a public ultimatum rather than approaching them directly is a betrayal of trust. They never gave them the chance to consider a simple request. that is not how you act in a relationship of trust.

This is simply untrue, Smith.

Direct approaches, with simple requests, have been made for quite a few years, without success. Direct action now has the conversation on the table. 

Racialized communities have been making polite requests for years, and years, and at meeting after meeting after meeting. There is multiple info in this thread showing that, in fact. And yet, we keep being told that the BLM demands came out of the blue. They didn't; quite the reverse.

What has given you the impression that BLM and others had not previously "approach[ed] them directly"? Why do you think BLM and others "never gave them the chance to consider a simple request"? Because you state both these things as fact, both are false, but you state them with such utter serene confidence that it makes me wonder where your certainty comes from. 

6079_Smith_W

Kind of my point about the trust being betrayed. Yes, I did read about the differences of opinion. But you'd think if there was trust there these demands would be brought up as a condition of pride doing right by putting them at the front of that parade. That that conversation did not happen, that they accepted that spot knowing things were not alright, as well as the nature of some of their criticism, says to me that trust is already broken. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..from a piece re black lives matters in the states. i belive it applies here as well.

quote:

I know many people believe that our criminal justice system can be “fixed” by smart people and smart policies. President Obama seems to think this way. He suggested yesterday that police-community relations can be improved meaningfully by a task force he created last year. Yes, a task force. I used to think like that. I don’t anymore. I no longer believe that we can “fix” the police, as though the police are anything other than a mirror reflecting back to us the true nature of our democracy. We cannot “fix” the police without a revolution of values and radical change to the basic structure of our society. Of course important policy changes can and should be made to improve police practices. But if we’re serious about having peace officers — rather than a domestic military at war with its own people — we’re going to have to get honest with ourselves about who our democracy actually serves and protects.

swallow swallow's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Kind of my point about the trust being betrayed. Yes, I did read about the differences of opinion. But you'd think if there was trust there these demands would be brought up as a condition of pride doing right by putting them at the front of that parade. That that conversation did not happen, that they accepted that spot knowing things were not alright, as well as the nature of some of their criticism, says to me that trust is already broken. 

Whatever. I'm just pointing out that it's not factually true that there was no direct, simple request made in advance. There has been an ongoing conversation for some time. You've repeated again that "that conversation did not happen." I would say it did, and the conversation continues. 

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
so you're more worried about people being inconvenienced and hot and think this inconvenience is more important than BLM's position?

That's called a "false dichotomy" or a "false dilemma".  It's basically a rhetorical device that asserts that we MUST make one of only two choices.  "human rights versus safety from terrorism" is a popular example, as is the very simplified "you're either with us or against us".

magoo you should stick to being funny.

it's not. and you didn't have to explain to me what it was you were labeling me as doing. i made no for or against us statement.

i'm indicating ranking of priority of who is actually being inconvenienced in all the history leading to this situation. i'd say BLM are way more inconvenienced for every minute of their life rather than those being protested against who have to be hot for a bit.

they've been being ignored and not heard in what should be their own community. there's nothing disrespectful or wrong in their protesting actions.

i won't ever tolerate or even consider those who do this as being allies. i mean directly those who think they can dictate how and when it's proper etiquette to protest or demonstrate an action to lesson oppression and injustices against any non-white or marginalized peoples.

 

 

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

i'm indicating ranking of priority of who is actually being inconvenienced in all the history leading to this situation. i'd say BLM are way more inconvenienced for every minute of their life rather than those being protested against who have to be hot for a bit.

they've been being ignored and not heard in what should be their own community. there's nothing disrespectful or wrong in their protesting actions.

i won't ever tolerate or even consider those who do this as being allies. i mean directly those who think they can dictate how and when it's proper etiquette to protest or demonstrate an action to lesson oppression and injustices against any non-white or marginalized peoples.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Mr. Magoo

Okay, it's not a false dichotomy.  I just made that term up.

quizzical

oh the term can stand your positioning of it being so can't.

funny is preferable to talking down

quizzical

simple bs

6079_Smith_W

swallow wrote:

 I'm just pointing out that it's not factually true that there was no direct, simple request made in advance. There has been an ongoing conversation for some time. You've repeated again that "that conversation did not happen." I would say it did, and the conversation continues. 

Of course there have been past conversations. I know that. I did read your post (and others') about the history behind this. One would think that the fact there have been attempts to correct inequities (which you mentioned) would mean that there was good communication there, and that the action at the parade would not have been necessary.

But that is not what happened. And I think it is safe to say those demands were not presented to the board before the parade, and they did not tell Pride of their intentions.

So whatever came before this, however ignorant Pride may have been (or not) in its attempts at redress, BLM decided they had to resort to false pretenses in order to deliver this one.

My point is that is not how one deals with an ally or as part of a community  (as was presumably the case in those past negotiations). It is how one deals with an adversary.

Not saying they were wrong in that or wrong in resorting to it, because I am not there. But there is a lot of it that just doesn't add up, including talk about it being all settled and positive.

If there is some other way to interpret BLM taking the honoured spot in order to use it as a vehicle to press demands, rather than being up front about them, I sure don't see it. If there was any trust there before that point (and I don't know that there was) that was a clear breach. And if things were really bad enough to make that hijacking necessary Pride must have a bunch of complete idiots not to have seen something coming.

 

 

 

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pride-parade-vancouver-pr... queer groups are not marching in the parade to express solidarity with Black Lives Matter Vancouver[/url]

Quote:

In solidarity with Black Lives Matter Vancouver's protest of the Vancouver pride parade for including a police float, queer Muslim group Salaam and queer South Asian group Trikone are also sitting out this year's pride parade.

Cicely-Belle Blain, co-founder of the Black Lives Matter Vancouver chapter, said many queer people of colour feel excluded from the mainstream queer community. She said the request isn't an attack on Vancouver police or the Pride Parade specifically, but a matter of solidarity. [...]

Imtiaz Popat, coordinator of the Muslim queer group Salaam, said his group does not feel safe marching in the parade this year due to racist backlash in the wake of the Orlando shooting and the interruption of the Toronto Pride Parade.

"We decided that because of the racist backlash that we need to have our own march," he said. "We need to have our own space where we do feel safe."

"Pride is not talking to us. The city is not talking to us."

That march, the Two-Spirit Queers, Trans, Intersexed and Bisexual People of Colour Pride March, will be happening on Monday, the day after the main pride parade.

 

Unionist

bagkitty wrote:
It does leave me wondering, is BLM going to intervene to protest the Toronto Police Service's continued participation in the annual launch of Caribana, Scotiabank Toronto Caribbean CarnivalToronto Caribbean Carnival?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Of course I'm not really going to tell BLM, or Caribana, or Pride, what they have to do, but I think the parallels are obvious enough that wondering whether BLM is going to hold their other community accountable to the same marginalized people isn't unreasonable.

Not sure if this is what you meant, but kudos to BLM TO:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/caribana-black-lives-matter-1.3701... Lives Matter concerned about policing at Caribbean Carnival - While Mayor Tory praises the police presence, Black Lives Matter activist calls it 'gross'[/url]

 

mark_alfred

self delete

swallow swallow's picture

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/black-lives-matter-vancou... Lives Matter Vancouver joins Dyke March as other groups also sit out Pride[/url]

[url=http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-police-reach-compromis... police reach compromise with Black Lives Matter, will walk in Pride Parade[/url]

[url=http://www.straight.com/life/742286/queer-muslims-and-latinx-queers-say-...

The queer-Muslim group Salaam and the South Asian group Trikone won't participate in the annual event, which takes place in Vancouver's West End next Sunday (July 31). Instead, they'll march in what's being billed as the "Two Spirit Queers, Trans, Intersexed, and Bisexual People of Colour Pride March" next Monday (August 1).[/url]

6079_Smith_W

From that middle article:

Quote:

The department met last week with representatives of Black Lives Matter and the Pride Society, Fincham said Tuesday. As a result of those talks the department agreed not to have its armoured rescue vehicle in the parade, he said.

Good outcome, achieved by negotiation. Militarization of the cops is something worth fighting against, because for the most part it feeds into their being used for crowd control, rather than protecting people. If they want to appear friendly and part of the community, it sure doesn't help.

However, it is an ironic coincidence that cops in Orlando used the same kind of vehicle to break through the wall at the Pulse Nightclub. Maybe that was their motive for wanting to have it there in the first place. If so, it is also kind of tone deaf. Not really something fitting with the celebratory mood. 

(for those who think Pride is a celebration, anyway)

 

mark_alfred

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/caribana-black-lives-matter-1.3701717

To my knowledge, there was no BLM-TO protest at Carnival.  Or if they did attempt a sit-in they were moved out of the way so fast that no one noticed.

6079_Smith_W
Unionist

If Chantelois signed his resignation under duress, he's not bound by it, right?

Mr. Magoo

I think that's still how the law works.

But he'd have to want to come back in order to challenge that.

6079_Smith_W

If the first response of the board is to lawyer up can you blame him?

Mr. Magoo

FWIW, here's the letter itself.

I can't really blame him if he didn't want the next two years of his life to be him defending himself against vague allegations, and I'm prepared to believe that if he supported Pride, he might not have wanted the next two years of Pride to be the same thing either.

So the Executive Directorship of next year's BLM-TO Pride Parade is up for grabs.

Unionist

I blame him for signing his agreement to a list of demands by Black activists, then saying "I didn't mean it - just did it to get the parade moving". The only thing more reprehensible than that would be doing moral gymnastics to justify such an act. 

6079_Smith_W

Is it more reprehensible than the moral gymnastics they did to take the lead of the parade in order to pull this stunt?

Or is that okay because it is for the cause? But the oppressors... strictly  by the book.

... or not, since by the book he had no authority to sign anything.

 

 

 

Unionist

Anyway, I notice one of the charges against him (among everything else imaginable) is "deceit". Consider that allegation proven.

 

Unionist

Lessons of history need to be re-learned over and over again.

Quote:

When Pride’s board voted in 2010 to ban the phrase “Israeli apartheid” it became a flashpoint for participants to take to the streets and advocate for a Pride that was unabashedly political.  

“We probably ended up helping Pride get stronger and making [it] a much more community based festival than it was evolving into,” McCaskell contends.  

It’s an experience Pride Toronto has taken to heart. In an interview with NOW’s Jonathan Goldsbie in January, the group’s new executive director Mathieu Chantelois said, “For me, without the political aspect, there’s no Pride.”

 

6079_Smith_W

You think BLM-TO have a monopoly on what is considered "political", and that those of us who oppose exclusion are not?

Curious that in this case the question of banning is reversed. And that you seem to see his statement then as a reversal, even though in this case he is the one who is defending the principle fo inclusion.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You think BLM-TO have a monopoly on what is considered "political", and that those of us who oppose exclusion are not?

No. I just find it profoundly abhorrent that in 2016 anyone remotely progressive would non-stop shit on BLM-TO for their modus operandi.

Quote:
Curious that in this case the question of banning is reversed. And that you seem to see his statement then as a reversal, even though in this case he is the one who is defending the principle fo inclusion.

I said the lessons of history need to be constantly re-learned. Pride Toronto took a horrendous pandering stand on QAIA (as did the ONDP caucus led by DiNovo, who to this day has never apologized for her anti-democratic stand). After the movement slapped them around a bit, Pride Toronto corrected their stand. And now - time to re-learn. It's not a matter of any individual. It's a matter of standing on the side of the oppressed. No matter how uncomfortable it may be, and no matter who threatens to cut off your precious funding.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

No. I just find it profoundly abhorrent that in 2016 anyone remotely progressive would non-stop shit on BLM-TO for their modus operandi.

Who is doing that?

And how is it that you presume to wave around "the oppressed" just because you think you know what is right here?

I think this exclusion of the police is pointless and will do far more damage than good. You think I am doing it because I like to see people being killed or because I don't care about oppression?

Disagree with me all you will, but this moral superiority is really trying. There are plenty who do not agree with you.

 

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Is it more reprehensible than the moral gymnastics they did to take the lead of the parade in order to pull this stunt?

Or is that okay because it is for the cause? But the oppressors... strictly  by the book.

... or not, since by the book he had no authority to sign anything.

Do you even have a clue about the issue? "Moral gymnastics"? - Do you not understand standing up for yourself?

 

this "stunt" - Is that what you call a peaceful call for action?

 

perhaps it shouldn't be such a divisive issue but a call to remember the movement.

 

and blm reminded us quite well who the real "oppressors" are.

 

and they march and control the parade.

 

women and men of the law who selflessly serve and protect us are more than welcome.

 

we should NEVER have to see their uniform in the actual parade until that uniform passes the test for enlightenment.

6079_Smith_W

The test for enlightenment? Gee, you're making me wonder if I should be allowed in the parade.

Good luck with that last one - pretending cops don't exist, that is. Considering we still expect them to stop traffic, and the illusion lasts about as long as it takes to finish the parade and get to the party that night, where it is back to the real world.

And it accomplishes what, exactly? You think the cops who beat and shoot people could care less about whether or not there is a booth at Pride for the cops who do care about keeping that communication open, and improving relations? Seems to me all it does is help them be the enemy. It certainly doesn't do anything at all to stop them.

And what kind of a strategy is leaving the administration of justice in the hands of your supposed enemies, as if that is how it is supposed to be,  and doing nothing to take it back? Does that make any sense to you?

As for their action,  it wasn't a stunt? Well what was it then? In case I need to explain, I have said several times in this thread I actually give them some benefit of the doubt on this protest, considering the seriousness of the issue.

But let's not pretend that it didn't involve deception and false pretenses, which is why I ask how come Unionist makes a big deal about Chantelois supposedly going back on signing a document which was done under duress and which he didn't have the authority to deliver on anyway, yet  BLM-TO gets a complete pass on doing something similar.

Is it because they are on the right side, so it is okay for them to deceive? But those who we think are on the wrong side are held to a strict higher standard? Seems a bit backwards to me.

I might not agree with all of it, but I think both parties did what they felt they had to do in the moment. There is a meeting coming up where this will be discussed by people whose decision it really is, and hopefully it will get resolved.

Using these supposed points of protocol (which aren't, really) to demonize is counterproductive.

As for this letter, and his resignation,  I am interested to see what the board will do now.

Pages