Council motion still looms as Pride Toronto dilemma comes to a head
TORONTO NEWS / The struggle to define Pride may be just beginning
Scott Dagostino / Toronto / Friday, May 14, 2010
Share |

Participants in the 2009 Toronto Pride Parade.
(Nicola Betts photo)
A motion to de-fund Pride will likely return to city council June 14, setting the stage for a bitter battle.

Toronto city councillor and mayoral candidate Giorgio Mammoliti says he's pressuring Pride Toronto do "the right thing" by issuing an ultimatum on April 28: unless Queers Against Israeli Apartheid withdraws from the parade, Pride Toronto will lose all city funding and resources. 

After QuAIA called his bluff, Mammoliti introduced a motion to do just that.

The May 12 council vote on his motion punted the issue back to the executive committee, which will consider the issue on June 14th, and Mammoliti is adamant that QuAIA be stopped.

"They're spreading hatred towards Israel," he says, "This is hatred. Any way you look at it."

Writer David Demchuk says Mammoliti's crusade makes little sense, especially given yesterday's revelation that Pride has already vowed to block QuAIA messaging at the parade.

"Obviously, he's desperate to be noticed," Demchuk says, "but it's amazing what this group has been characterized as."

Having watched QuAIA march in previous parades, Demchuk says, "They're a motley crew holding up their little homemade signs and banners. It's not like they're turning flamethrowers on the crowd," he laughs, "They are manifestly harmless."

Harmless enough to mostly ignore, perhaps, but Mammoliti instead ramped up the rhetoric after the council meeting. He called out mayor David Miller for not addressing the Jewish community's concerns ("He's going to have to account for his actions") while insisting that the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) will come under fire if they're found to be backing QuAIA. 

In past years, QuAIA marched with the CUPE contingent.

"You're representing workers in this city and you want to get involved in this kind of discrimination?" Mammoliti asks.

He points to CUPE Ontario's 2006 resolution to support a boycott against Israeli apartheid.

"CUPE better not be taking this position because if they are, and I become mayor of this city, I will attempt to pull their status as a union," he says.

This comes as a surprise to Fred Hahn, the interim President of CUPE Ontario and, as it happens, the first openly gay labour leader in the province.

"I would hope that someone who aspires to be mayor of the city would actually check his facts before making statements like that," says Hahn. "Queers Against Israeli Apartheid is an independent organization, like the thousands of others that march in Pride."

Hahn says CUPE is comfortable with debating if "the actions of a political state are consistent with human rights" and has always supported Pride as "a political celebration with a history of inclusion."

Hahn says the Pride parade is, at its best, both politically left and right.

"Pride is hugely important to the sense of diversity that makes Toronto what it is, but it's also important to the economy of the city, as we've seen again and again. To threaten that, or use it as a political pawn in some way, is really unacceptable."

The QuAIA controversy, he says, is merely the latest in a long history.

"There's always been debates," he says, "with people not wanting to include the military or naked men or Stephen Harper but, over the years, Pride organizers have always erred on the side of inclusivity. Not everyone is going to agree but that's what a diversity of opinion is all about."

"I'm not finished with CUPE yet," says Mammoliti, "but I'm going to deal with this one step at a time."

If Pride decides to reject QuAIA, he says, "I'll be watching to see if this group participates anyway in one fashion or another."

"Isn't it fascinating how we're going to have all these people coming to Pride for the first time in their lives, all with a great deal of opinion as to what it should be?" laughs Kyle Rae, who says he worked with Mammoliti to turn his immediate vote into a deferred one. 

"Instead of us going into a discussion about what Pride will or will not do or may or may not do," Rae says, "I was trying to get Giorgio to understand that it's more important, I felt, for Pride to have the ability to make a decision themselves."

But can they? Rae says it was important to convince Mammoliti to allow Pride "a window" for escape.

"We shouldn't be punishing Pride before they've made a decision," he insists, noting that this entire debate has always been technically hypothetical since QuAIA has yet to file their application to join the parade anyway. Still, in a Feb 9 email to Sandilands, Rae described QuAIA as "not in keeping with the expression of Pride," and he hasn't changed his mind since.

"This is a culture grant, not a political grant," Rae says, "There are expectations that when you give money for a cultural experience, you're not offending people." After months of back-and-forth, Rae says city staff "are now comfortable that the Pride committee understands the need to comply with our bylaws and our anti-discrimination policy to ensure there's a safe and comfortable experience for people."

It was QuAIA member Tim McCaskell who recently told Xtra that "comfort" is not a valid reason to stifle debate in a march based in the principle of human rights for all.

"I would disagree with Tim," says Rae, "He is casting a very wide-open — and conveniently wide-open — analysis. What Pride is, is a demonstration against homophobia. That's where it started in 1981 — protest against state-sponsored homophobia." Discussions of Israelis and Palestinians, even queer ones, he says, "are not germane to what Pride is, which is about fighting homophobia and celebrating the success of our community." 

Rae says he's not unsympathetic to the QuAIA argument.

"I think there are legitimate concerns about Israeli government policy. I have no problem with that; I'm concerned myself. But get your own parade permit and march in front of the Israeli consulate. I don't think there's any point to making that statement in an anti-homophobia march. It doesn't connect. It would be like seeing this group in the Santa Claus parade or the St. Patrick's Day parade — it's not relevant!"

On their website, Queers Against Israeli Apartheid vow, "We will march in Pride Toronto 2010 because we are proud of our politics."

But that makes Rae leery.

"They've boxed themselves into a rhetoric that only they are listening to."

Perhaps, says Demchuk, "but the human rights aspects are not going away."

While Rae, Mammoliti and Sandilands conspire to "erase all the little bits and pieces of contentiousness to make Pride safe for sponsors and funders and familes," he says, "we managed to turn censorship into something cuddly."

Is Pride an angry political march for human rights?  Is Pride a fluffy street party to celebrate our success? 

The community will have to decide, Demchuk says, though he insists it can be both and more.

"I think it should be a big happy, jolly, sexy, funny human rights march. I'm convinced it's still possible to sell beer and still maintain your integrity. In years' past, it has been and will be again."

Pride has until June 14th to ban QuAIA from the parade — assuming they haven't already — and Mammoliti will be watching. "I'm doing the right thing here," he says, "I don't care what anybody says and I won't stop."


Share |


Reader Comments


 
Who bought K-Rae? CJPAC? B'nai Brith? Gladstone?
I see that Kyle Rae's rhetoric has shifted -- yet again. Slippery fella. Now he's trying to define Pride as 'anti-homophobia' -- which could be defined either narrowly or broadly -- in order to exclude QuAIA. So, shall we apply that requirement to every single Pride participant? If we did, there wouldn't be many participants left. He's wrong in two respects: Pride did not begin solely in reaction to state-sanctioned homophobia, and today Pride is about so much more than homophobia alone. Just last year, K-Rae argued in defense of QuAIA, stating: (1) '[T]he use of the word apartheid ... is a description of a political regime that is happening on the West Bank,' (2) 'It's not about hate,' (3) '[T]here are Jews as well as non-Jews who are members of this organization who are opposed to the Israeli government's actions, including the building of the controversial West-Bank barrier,' (4) 'There are Palestinian queer people who are living under that situation. It's a political issue but it does have a gay dynamic to it.' But now he's involved in the sneaky backroom censorship campaign and his tune has changed completely. Given that he's retiring from city hall, I wonder if he's lining up a new job for himself. So, who bought K-Rae? CJPAC? B'nai Brith? Martin Gladstone? Simon Wiesenthal Centre? Time will tell...
Rick, London Ontario
05/14/10 12:35 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Oh, QuAIA, I called you "motley"...
...but I meant it in the nicest possible way, and hope you take it as intended. And the Xtra editors did leave out my very important invitation to Cyndi Lauper to come up about six weeks early and take over running the Pride Toronto organization. I've seen her and Sharon Osbourne on Celebrity Apprentice and I know she can do it! (And apparently we need all the help we can get.)
David D., Toronto Ontario
05/14/10 2:12 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
pride is just about "anti-homophobia" ??
Sure, Pride is about fighting homophobia, no doubt about it. But defining it as merely "anti-homophobia" is defining it in the most narrow way possible that will exclude numerous other legitimate queer voices. What about transphobia? Aren't trans people (such as myself) an important part of Pride? Isn't feminism an important component? Also, many feel that there are internal issues in the queer community still to be resolved... including class privilege and race issues (just look at how poorly Pride has treated Blockorama and how it has disrespected Blocko's organizers). Does Rae really want to shut the door on all these issues just to come up with a lame rational for excluding quaia? That I think is what the "we're proud of our politics" thing is about.
Sav., Toronto ON
05/14/10 2:43 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Definitional Trickery and Other Illogic
RESPONSE TO KYLE RAE: "Toronto Pride: Definitional Trickery and Other Falsehoods and Illogic" now available at: http://tinyurl.com/28we39c
Rick, London Ontario
05/14/10 4:54 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Rae's argument used against us in NYC
"It would be like seeing this group in the Santa Claus parade or the St. Patrick's Day parade — it's not relevant!" That's the same reasoning the organizers of the NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade having been using for years to keep out queers out of their parade. Rae has shown ZERO leadership on this issue and has allowed it to grow to a point where we might be seeing queer people arrested at the Parade this year (and not for hate speech - but because they've been barred by an organization intimidated into doing so by very powerful interests). At this point, that's the only end game here, queers being arrested at a queer Parade. Be sure to watermark any pics of the arrests: "Courtesy the leadership of City Councillor Kyle Rae." Nice legacy, Kyle.
Raine, Etobicoke Ontario
05/14/10 5:51 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Where does Ken Chan stand on this issue?
Xtra should ask Ken Chan (the Liberal running to replace Kyle Rae on City Council) where he stands on this issue. Would he support continued City of Toronto funding for Pride if QuAIA marches in the parade with their anti-Israel signs?
Doug, Toronto Ontario
05/14/10 6:21 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
what about proof?
I think that proof should be required to declare a group or organization in violation of the city's anti-discrimination policy. In the case of QuAIA they're ignoring any sort of objective analysis of QuAIA and instead are simply relying on the complaints of those opposed to them marching during Pride. Already it seems pretty clear that the matter is settled as far as the city is concerned and Mammolitit has got his way, QuAIA has to go or they'll be cutting funding, all this delay is doing is allowing Pride Inc an opportunity to ban them officially but Pride Inc has already announced that they will be censoring messages and not allowing any criticism of Israel. I wonder what Mammoliti intends to do if they're banned from marching but still attend as part of the general public. I intend to be at this years Pride with a T-shirt hand labeled with a marker declaring my support for free speech for Queers Against Israeli Apartheid and condemning censorship at Pride. Will I be arrested? will my T-shirt be confiscated? will I be forced to leave the general area? I'm not marching and I'm not a member of QuAIA, I'm just a concerned citizen disgusted by the way the city and Pride Inc have embraced censorship while avoiding any objective analysis of the situation. Will a protest against censorship be tolerated? we'll have to wait and see. Pride Inc has lost all legitimacy over this issue, I had had some respect for city hall in spite of a lot of things but this changes that, I expected city hall to at least do an objective analysis to see if the complaints were justified. I wonder why TNT MEN is still allowed to march considering how uncomfortable some folks are seeing them. The only reason I can see for QuAIA to be banned is because of the power of the Israel lobby in Canada, they don't tolerate criticism of Israel under any circumstances, if it had been any other country it wouldn't be an issue at all not even if it had been Canada or the US being criticized.
Rich, Toronto Ontario
05/14/10 7:14 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
anti-APARTHEID signs
There is no evidence QuAIA has never had any "anti-Israeli" signs (can you read, people??). Their messages are clearly, simply against Israeli apartheid. These messages do not violate any City (or provincial or federal) anti-hate laws, and thus should be permitted.
david john, London Ontario
05/14/10 9:56 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
“Pride Day” is really an artificial creation
The whole debate about QuAIA shows that “Pride Day” is really an artificial creation and that the gay and lesbian community is really quite divided. Although they may share a sexual orientation and similar experiences of homophobia, the various constituent parts of the gay and lesbian community often seem to have a greater allegiance to the values of the larger groups in society that they come from. In the same way that larger society has divisions and hatreds between Jews and Muslims, the Left and the Right, etc., those same divisions and hatreds appear in the gay community (especially in the discussion boards on xtra.ca). In that sense, it’s not surprising that gay Muslims would rather march in the Pride parade with QuAIA against Israel, than organize a group to march for gay rights in Muslim countries that kill and persecute gays, or “come out” and advocate for gay rights in their local Muslim community. Similarly, it’s not surprising that gay Leftists in QuAIA would rather show greater allegiance to the current Leftist campaign against Israel, than they would to protesting against Muslim nations that kill and persecute gays. It’s also not surprising that the ongoing divisions and distrust between gay men and lesbians has resulted in lesbians having their own “Dyke March” on the day before the main parade (many lesbians deeply resent what they see as “gay male dominance” at the main parade). Aside from divisions arising from religion, politics, race, gender and economic status, events during Pride show other social divisions (e.g., the contempt that many younger gays have for older gays, the contempt that beautiful gays have for ugly gays who try to pick them up, gays who abuse drugs and alcohol at Pride events vs. those who don’t). Furthermore, the sexual pressure that many feel to “get laid” at Pride shows other divisions (e.g., HIV positive men who have bareback sex without disclosing their HIV status to their partners). In short, maybe QuAIA a
Joe, Toronto Ontario
05/15/10 10:40 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Second part of above post
Here's the second part of the above post: In short, maybe QuAIA and its supporters like Xtra have shown us there is so much more that divides us, than unites us – and that many groups within the gay community really do hate each other! Pride Day used to be the one day that we would all come together, but maybe QuAIA and its supporters like Xtra have shown us that we should abandon false attempts at unity. Maybe groups like QuAIA will be the future face of “Pride” – a chance for gay members of a larger group in society to march in support of the causes of that larger group (even if the larger group does not advance gay rights and even if the gay members of the larger group do not publicly advocate for gay rights within the group). If so, we should no longer call it “Pride Day”. Instead, we should call it “Lackey Day”.
Joe, Toronto Ontario
05/15/10 10:45 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Money where her Mouth is!!!
@ Ken Chan comment. Kirsten Wong Tam marched with QuAIA last year I saw her. I will be supporting her. I can know how she would vote.
Ask Kirsten Wong Tam, Toronto ON
05/15/10 11:14 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Irony
The only lesson I've learned from this debacle is that the so-called "tolerant" gay community isn't any less racist, bigoted and anti-Semitic than the rest of our society.
Glen, Toronto Ontario
05/17/10 4:51 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Pot calling the kettle black
If a homophobic ethnic or religious group believes that gays don't deserve equal rights, I don't accept the proposition that gays are "racist" if we criticize their homophobia.
Joe, Toronto Ontario
05/17/10 11:43 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Gays not the tolerant community we thought
I guess that the homosexual community doesn't practice what they preach - tolerance, inclusion - instead they're marching around with SWASTIKA t-shirts and army fatigues shouting "Down with Israel"...???? WTF!?!?
Sheliza, Toronto Ontario
05/18/10 2:02 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Re: Irony & Gays Not the Tolerant
At the 2007 Pride, a part of the parade called "We Will Not Be Silenced" featured 8 marchers in black cowls holding the flags of 8 nations where persecuted queers can face state-sanctioned torture and death. The nations represented included Iran, Russia and Jamaica. This was NOT a march against the Iranian, Russian and Jamaican PEOPLE, but a protest against specific policies of each respective STATE. If, in 2010, one group wishes to march against the Hafrada Barrier in Israel, then that is a march against an Israeli policy, NOT a march of hatred toward every Jewish (Israeli or otherwise) man, woman and child now drawing breath. It's a march against a fence/a barrier/a wall, whatever you wish to call it. A thing. Where, then, is the racism, the bigotry or the antisemitism?
Leo, Toronto Ontario
05/18/10 2:50 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Suspect Intentions
While QuAIA is a queer group and that more than entitles them to participate at Pride, I find their claims that their goal is the betterment/improvement of queer rights in Palestine somewhat disingenuous. They preach that the dissolution of the apartheid will improve the quality of queer life - this is true, but only because it improves the quality of life for everyone in the region; safer queers would just be a side effect of this. If this group were truly interested in queer rights (as opposed just the apartheid), wouldn't protesting the lack of "queer friendly" legislation by the Israeli government by more productive? I am uncomfortable with this group marching in the parade because I think their motives are suspect. I would be just as uncomfortable with a queer group who was marching against abortion (an equally divisive topic with questionable relation to queer rights). I just don't think tossing the word queer into a group name is reason enough to let a group march. Pride Toronto does have a responsibility to ensure the event "stays on topic".
Brien, Toronto ON
05/18/10 5:18 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
QuAIA is 100% "on topic"
There are only two main requirements for participation in Pride. (1) Either you are part or supportive of the LGBT community. (2) You engage in lawful freedom of expression, including political speech. Those requirements are what define being "on topic." One can speculate as to "intentions" - and one can be "uncomfortable" - but neither of those are valid reasons for excluding a group of LGBT people from their Pride parade. I say "their" because Pride is, first and foremost, for all LGBT people - not just the ones with clear intentions, and not just the ones who do not discomfort us. As for Israel: A key point is that apartheid results in the denial of equality rights for many LGBT people. So long as apartheid exists, many LGBT people are excluded from equality rights. There is no "queer friendly legislation" for many precisely because of apartheid.
Rick, London Ontario
05/21/10 3:45 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.