Sunday, June 13, 2010

Pride Toronto defunding motion at city hall tomorrow

Toronto city councillor Georgio Mammoliti’s motion to deny city funding to Pride Toronto (PT) if it doesn’t keep the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA ) out of this year’s Pride parade returns to executive committee at city hall on Monday.

Read all about the PT censorship story from the very beginning.

But, of course, the PT board of directors voted on May 21 to censor the term “Israeli apartheid” from the parade, effectively banning QuAIA from marching.

“Staff are satisfied that the decisions of Pride Toronto meet the City’s requirements,” reads a May 27 memo from city economic development and culture manager Michael Williams to Toronto mayor, David Miller.

That means the motion to defund PT is likely to be withdrawn, PT is likely to get its money (it may have already) and the funding matter – at least – will be closed. 

Read the city documents on Monday's committee meeting here.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean all is said and done as far as the city is concerned. Much of the Pride funding question hinges on the city's interpretation of its own anti-discrimination policy: if QuAIA’s presence in the parade violates the policy, PT is ineligible for city funding; if QuAIA’s presence doesn’t violate the policy, PT is eligible for city funding. But the city’s official position all along has been only that QuAIA’s presence "may" – not "does" or "does not" – violate the policy.

Why the fence sitting? Well for one thing, there’s nothing in Canadian jurisprudence to suggest that criticism of Israeli foreign policy constitutes discrimination, harassment or hate activity. If the city were to take a position one way or the other, it would likely expose itself to all kinds of messy legal and public relations wrangling (just as PT has).



Ward 27 Toronto city councillor Kyle Rae at The 519 renovation open house in May.

There is, nevertheless, mounting evidence that city officials – including Ward 27 city councillor Kyle Rae – pressured PT to censor QuAIA and that PT eagerly capitulated to that pressure. And that's the message that needs to be sent to the city. To that end, many of those who returned their PT honours on June 7 (plus a few other gay and lesbian activists, including me) have signed up to depute the motion before executive committee tomorrow. It's not clear when exactly this will happen, likely after the noon hour sometime, but if you're around city hall tomorrow, stop in to check it out. And check back here regularly for updates.

Check out the Coalition for Free Speech facebook posting on this. 

Also, if you haven't already, check out the Pride Community Contract.


Bookmark and Share


Comments

Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:58 AM

In the context of claims of censorship and freedom of expression, this rather disturbing video of QuAIA at 2009 Pride, available at http://vimeo.com/5385309, shines some light on QuAIA's own views and beliefs about how freedom of expression should be treated. Now, who feels unsafe?

A Wild ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 12:50 PM

I don't know what you mean A Wild. The only video of QuAIA that you could be referring to is the one made by Martin Gladstone. A child could tell that it is manipulative and has been doctored. Your link doesn't work...

Natalie ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 12:28 PM

@Natalie, This is raw footage of QuAIA at work. Try the link, but drop the "comma" at the end. http://vimeo.com/5385309 See if you can spot a Pride flag or any other sign of LGBT community support or messaging.

A Wild ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 12:33 PM

The video link is from "Josephine" -- aka: Joanne Hill, a Christian Zionist and dear friend of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), who are classified as a terrorist group in the U.S.

sg ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:01 PM

In posting this, note that I am not and was not aware of the videographer's identity. I simply found the video by Googling QuAIA and thought it relevant, in the context of issues of free expression, censorship and personal discomfort. Regardless of who was the videographer, it seems to me that viewers are free to judge for themselves the content, demeanour and behaviours.

A Wild ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:07 PM

SG, that may be so, but I'm not sure how that changes the video? Where were their pride flags? What did it have to do with GLBT pride?

Intertested ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 2:35 PM

QuAIA's main banner reads: "We stand with queers in Palestine" and it has the Palestinian flag with the rainbow inscribed on it... hence queering the Palestinian liberation struggle. So that answers that question.

And what about the woman filming this video? Where is her flag? Do you think a friend of a right-wing terror group is advocating for queer and trans rights 365 days a year? Or is she just showing up to insert herself in a movement she actually doesn't care about, in order to introduce her judgmentality? I bet she is just attacking QuAIA as what she perceives to be the "most vulnerable" link in the chain. I bet she would cancel the whole thing if she had the power, like Mammoliti and his friends.

Sav. ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 4:06 PM

A Wild, I was able to watch it, though I am at a library, so soundless. I am a bit confused though, why was this person so intent on getting people's faces on camera? I mean, there was what appears to be a misguided 16 year old (?) with a headscarf covering his head and a bullet wristband who probably believes in freedom fighters, certainly as hateful as someone wearing an IDF outfit (which happened at Tel Aviv Pride, it is a famous photo), but apart form that, the vast majority of them (all of them but him) seem like regular, likable people. Why does Josephine show us Palestinian flags as if they were a bad things? Are Israeli flags hateful? She zooms on them as she zooms on that kid. I think that the contingent has a very good reason to be worried given that a number of them have been put on a website with commentary that is often sexist and homophobic and labelled as self-hating Jews. This is done clearly to intimidate them and to prevent them from speaking out openly. Would she like to be followed though the streets with a camera? Should there be a similar list for zionists? I mean, she is taping them and then when she is taped she calls it harassment. Does that even make sense? If taping her is harrasment, then she taping them is the same and she started it. Didn't she? What is her motivation at getting people's faces on camera? A Wild, this makes no sense. She seems as if she is trying to intimidate them and when they turn the cameras at her she identifies it as such, but it never ocurred to her that she was intimidating them? Would she like it if someone came over to the Israeli contingent and taped them all? I get the feeling that if they suspected them not to be friendly to them they would ask them to leave. Don't you? I would think they wouldn't feel safe.

Natalie ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 5:21 PM

I'm sorry A Wild, you said this was raw video. No, it isn't. Titles were edited in so that no one could miss what was supposedly happening on screen. I watched the entire thing carefully and if this is what people are afraid of, I don't understand. My take on this video is that the woman doing the taping spent an undetermined amount of time video taping what I presume are QuAIA (I have never seen them march). Finally she is confronted and the escalation I pick up on is from her. I saw nothing from either side that should make anyone feel unsafe. I would suggest, if this is the best you can do video wise, that you stick to the written word. This piece of video does nothing to advance the war on free speech, it's just silly.

Peter Bochove ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 6:42 PM

I found the picture of the young man with his face covered and what looked like bullets in his wrist band very disturbing. I am not Israeli but I can certainly understand why this image would be offensive to them. The Pride parade is supposed to be about tolerance and diversity, not one groups hatred of another. Or am I wrong.

Don ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 6:40 PM

Don, I also find it disturbing and the solution would not be to get rid of QuAIA but to prevent people from other groups from joining dressed like that. If the boy with the crossed out swastika and this guy are friends, and they are all very young, btw, then, this guy is also not part of QuAIA because the guy with the crossed out swastika wasn't part of QuAIA, but a supporter. These elements can be taken out without banning QuAIA. Interestingly Pride has not banned anything resembling a real gun or real bullets (whether or not they are real bullets) from the parade but instead it has banned the phrase Israeli Apartheid. Also, interestingly, I asked myself, would I find this image disturbing (the bullets because the headscarf doesn't mean anything to me and all he could be trying to do is conseal his identity) if he wasn't in a pro-palestinian, human rights, context, and it wouldn't. I wouldn't find it as problematic in an S&M part of the parade, which also surprises me. It makes me wonder what bothers me so much about it when people run around with chains all over the place and there are bullets being used as necklaces. Did this young man meant to incite violence or is it just something that he wears all the time. What I certainly doubt is that he is planning to join anyone in shooting anyone. I remember a time when lesbians thought that wearing military uniforms were cool. Then the recent wars came about and that quickly was discarded as a fasion statement.

Natalie ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 7:33 PM

Something else just struck me as odd. I might be wrong, but I realize that Gladstone had a lot of footage to make his film from different angles and he aimed at finding the most offensive images. The media shot the group as it passed by a number of times and QuAIA also had footage. In none of these versions do we see this guy with his face covered... maybe he didn't march? Or, if he marched, he didn't march as he was representing himself. Maybe someone spoke to him. I have marched in the past and they aren't at the point of marching, they are waiting to march, they just congregated with supporters who they didn't necessarily know... but, did he march?

Natalie ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 7:50 PM

The difference between Kyle Rae and a sex worker is that Mr.Rae`s job is actually legal.

CensoredinToronto ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:52 PM

If any complete stranger with a videocamera started filming me and my friends for that length of time and focused so intently on what we were doing, we'd turn our backs to her and shut her out too. And if she kept it up, I think we'd ask her what she was up to and tell her to leave, too. The committed no violence, the were quite straight-forward in expressing that they were uncomfortable with her actions, and had every right to ask her to stop. At best, her actions were rude... at worst, her behaviour smacks of intimidation tactics.

A Wild and his friend josephinejosephine seem desperate to make QAIA's actions in this video seem sinister, and can't quite manage it in spite of the captions and title screens in this severely edited video. The truth is, the woman filming was the one whose behaviour should be construed as harassment, and good ol' josie hasn't quite been able to edit that out.

lapin ca


Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:53 PM

I watched it and I couldn't stop laughing ... Oi vey - people standing around quietly talking to one another are SO intimidating! Hey lady - you created an incident AND you lied! You kept saying that you were videotaping ALL the groups ... if so - where is that footage huh? It is more than obvious to even a casual observer that you were set on proving a particular point that you had already assumed. Do you really think we're as stoopid as you are? That we can't watch bullshit and smell it as such? You found one "rebellious" teenage boy and his friend. Can you prove they are members of QuAIA? NO you can't, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to assert your misinformation. Did you notice the camera in his hands? Maybe he was there, same as you - sent to stir up trouble and then record the shit he caused so he could blame it on a quiet, peaceful group w/ a queer political cause that they want to educate the general public about ... and what a whiny voice you have too. "Ewww Ewww. Stop taking my picture! I'm in Canada. I can take your picture but you can't take mine!" WUSS!

I watch commercials too ca


Monday, June 14, 2010 2:50 AM

Let's get back to the basic facts about Pride and Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA).

The two primary requirements for participation in Pride are to be:

1. part or supportive of the LGBT community; and,
2. law-abiding.

QuAIA meets both of these requirements.

Singling out one group that meets the requirements and banning its lawful political speech is censorship.

Rick ca


Monday, June 14, 2010 3:56 AM

RESPONSE TO MAMMOLITI'S MOTION (NO. MM49.12) AND ITS RATIONALE (Referred by City Council to the Executive Committee on May 12, 2010): http://tiny.cc/7asb9

Rick ca


Monday, June 14, 2010 12:25 PM

So I saw a group of people waiting to march, all waiting around talking with each other with smiles etc. Didn't see anger and hatred, nor did I see any intimidating of people. Just friendly faces all around.

What I would like to have seen, since clearly others saw it and thought to film it, was what that person filming was wearing. My guess would be some anti slogan since even when they left their perch, still it drew enough that some thought to take a picture.
Even the woman that came up to the filmer, wasn't screaming, looking violent or threatening

So if this is the worse Wild can show then I'd say I see nothing wrong with having such a group within pride, or any other parade/march for that matter.

As for defunding. I say go ahead. Lets take pride back so that the communities are not beholden to threats by small minded people.

Pride did quite well before funding. And to show the rest of the city no hard feelings, queer community members that come to visit the city won't even cause you distress by spending money in your, restaurants, hotels, book store, clothing stores etc.
Instead they will keep their queer dollars, millions of it, to other queers and true allies.

femme ca


Monday, June 14, 2010 12:28 PM

I was not interested in the Israel issue, not even slightly. I was only interested in the censorship being imposed by pride. I've changed my mind. If this is what the pro-censorship side comes up with to prove a point, a video of people standing around chatting with threatening subtitles to explain what they are really doing, I have to say it's appalling. And I have to question the motives of people who want to represent this video as evidence of hate. Bullshit.

Peter Bochove ca


Monday, June 14, 2010 9:38 PM

Peter:
Indeed. I went through the same thought process some time ago. I did a lot of research. And now I understand clearly: Israel was founded on the basis of ethnic cleansing with Zionist ideology as its justification and USA imperialism sponsoring it at every step of the way. For more on the Israel Lobby, see: http://tinyurl.com/2uzb3qa & http://youtu.be/5BaJCRXsgt4

Rick ca



Comments are closed

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.4.0.0

The Roundup

Xtra.ca's Roundup
blog is your source
for news and
analysis that has
queer people
talking.

The Roundup is
written by Xtra's
staff reporters:

Rob Salerno
rob.salerno@xtra.ca

Andrea Houston
andrea.houston@xtra.ca

Natasha Barsotti
natasha.barsotti@xtra.ca

and

Adam Glen
Editorial Intern


Log in
Feed Subscribe