Jewish LGBT group Kulanu Toronto says it supports "free speech" and "diversity"

Suddenly, they don't mind Pride being political. :D

I wonder what Bernie Farber's going to wear on his t-shirt this year.

Perhaps they should sell t-shirts that say, "Interested in Pride since 2009."

"Don't tell Reuven Bulka I'm gay"

On what basis do the organizers allow this particular political group to participate after having banned their direct counterparts?

The hypocrisy is absolutely astounding.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

To be fair to CJC, I recall them being quite supportive of gay rights in the 1990s. 

Tim McCaskell has said that there were members of Kulanu Toronto that were also supproters of QuAIA.  Whether that was the case, it's pretty clear they're now an explicitly Zionist group.

That all depends on how you define being "Zionist". If its anyone who supports Israel's existence in any way shape or form - then count me in. If it means supporting the Netanyahu government count me out. If it means buying into the idea that ALL jews in the world should eventually move to Israel - count me out.

As far as I know Kulanu doesn't offer support groups for gay Jews on how to move to Israel and to encourage them to do so. THAT would be Zionism

Yiwah, I think you're overstating Max's use of the phrase "Zionist". He was the only one on this thread to use the term, aside from you and Stockholm.

And the "wishing Israel out of existence" is old and tired. I see you started a new thread about that. Let's bring this discussion there and leave this thread to its topic.

I certainly never suggested that Farber is a homophobe. Now CJC past co-president and current executive member Reuven Bulka, on the other hand, is an anti-gay bigot.

Farber has nothing against LGBTQ folks, but he does like to malign and suppress criticism of ethnic supremacists, mass murderers and aggressors.

Ok, do we have an agreement?

Mass murders?

"...but he does like to malign and suppress criticism of ethnic supremacists, mass murderers and aggressors."

Respectfully this seems to be a personal attack as well.

I think the title of this thread might be in need of a little editing... it seems to need a conditional clause - something along the lines of "so long as we get an absolute veto on the words".

In a what appears to be a "background" interview with Xtra following today's press conference by some municipal candidates and "representatives of the organized Jewish community" [and the description itself is in quotes in the original article], Justine Apple (apparently speaking on behalf of Kulanu) is quoted as saying:

Quote:

Justine Apple of the queer Jewish group Kulanu told Xtra later that she isn't opposed to policy discussions but that the QuAIA contingent in last year's parade crossed a line. One marcher wore a T-shirt with a crossed-out Swastika on it.

"Their use of the swastika, whether crossed out or not, is absolutely unacceptable to me," said Apple. "The minute any Jewish person - any informed person - sees that, you immediately want to leave that parade. It screams hate."

Somehow ANTI-Nazi iconography becomes hate speech?

Had her point been that the marcher who seems to be equating Israel with Nazism (which could be construed as a fair interpretation of that individual's intention) was indulging in tasteless hyperbole I would be quite willing to accept her position as a reasonable one. I might not agree with it, but it falls into the realm of reasonable. To make the suggestion that the iconography was used to intimidate and threaten, to promote hate (specifically against any Jewish participants) strikes me as Apple indulging in more than a little hyperbole herself. I think Ms. Apple should spend a little time "informing" herself of the history of the crimes of the Nazis against gays before trying to trot this particular argument out. I believe it is a "reasonable" assumption that Ms. Apple is trying to exploit the "uniformed" to peddle her argument here. Only someone woefully ignorant of the history of Nazism and gays in the XXth century would fall for her fallacious argument. I think enough gays were exterminated by the Nazis to make the use of ANTI-Nazi imagery something the gay community need not bend over backwards explaining.

Hyperbole? Really? Unionist certainly doesn't need me to defend him, so I'll leave that for him - but you are wrong.

Hi Gus. Yeah I said Farber's a homophobe. 

My explanation will go beyond the usual 101 thing.

Anyone who doesn't identify as LGBTTIQQ2S and who calls themselves an ally, is an ally. Great, we need allies.

Any ally who freaks out at being called gay, or it's inferred that maybe they are gay and they rush to correct this "error" is holding onto old homophobic crap that we were all taught, given that we were all raised in a homophobic and heterocentric culture (speaking for those of us born and/or raised in Canada or the US specifically). Anyone who does this still has residual homophobia to unpack.

This in itself isn't a bad thing; we all have oppressive shit to unpack out of our heads.

The problematic part comes when a person publicly and loudly proclaims one's heterosexuality because of a feared association with gayness. See Eric McCormack's PR ouevre, he played Will on Will and Grace. He makes it into an art form. Such behaviour reinforces homophobia in others, and reaffirms one's own homophobia. 

Remember the Seinfeld episiode? "I'm not gay! ... Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

It's old, tired, and yeah, it's homophobic.

I'll end with one of my favourite slogans:

"I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay in public"

"Any ally who freaks out at being called gay, or it's inferred that maybe they are gay and they rush to correct this "error" is holding onto old homophobic crap that we were all taught, given that we were all raised in a homophobic and heterocentric culture (speaking for those of us born and/or raised in Canada or the US specifically). Anyone who does this still has residual homophobia to unpack."

Well I guess that puts Adam Giambrone on your shit list as well. NOW magazine described him as being gay - he corrected them that we was not though he is ultra gay-positive. I don't see any problem with someone setting the record straight if there is a factual error. I'm sure there are people who are gay who would also want to set the record straight if they were mis-identified as straight!

I heard Antonia Zerbisias speak about a month or two ago at U of T.   She mentioned that The Toronto Star will publish anything Bernie Farber wants printed.

Maysie wrote:

 

Any ally who freaks out at being called gay, or it's inferred that maybe they are gay and they rush to correct this "error" is holding onto old homophobic crap that we were all taught, given that we were all raised in a homophobic and heterocentric culture (speaking for those of us born and/or raised in Canada or the US specifically). Anyone who does this still has residual homophobia to unpack.

 

Is Farber married (to a woman)? I have nothing against gay people but I'd certainly be pretty quick to correct someone who publicly called me gay, if only to avoid an awkward conversation with my wife.

hmmmm, never thought it weird until you entered and started talking about leaping tall buildings

Seems to me anyone who is worried about others thinking they might be gay should not wear a t-shirt that says: "Nobody Knows I'm Gay"

I think he also needs to challenged on his right to appropriate a gay event for his personal political views.  He is either an ally or a poser.  His response to someone calling him gay after wearing his t-shirt convinced me he is a poser with a personal agenda.  Anyone disagree? 

It seems that all you want to do is swim in waters already swam. There were dozens of people marching in last year's Pride parade with Kulanu wearing the same exact t-shirt. It was a fundraiser http://www.thestar.com/article/668141