Federal Funding of Gay Pride Parade

Melanie_ · July 10, 2009

That depends on how you define "basic respect". I certainly agree that in a truly free and democratic society, people have a right to express even the most vile of opinions (which is why hate speech legislation is an anathema to a society that truly respects fundamental liberties).
That being said, I don't have to respect racists or bigots, homophobes or any of the like. I'm not going to advocate they be silenced, because their right to express their repugnant and evil views is a fundemental one. Just as long as I can express my opinion of their opinion, and can express how I feel they are depraved and immoral people, then things are going along just fine.

I define basic respect as giving someone the benefit of your goodwill, until they do something that causes you to withdraw it. They don't have to go out of their way to "earn" it, but they can certainly lose it - as the racists, bigots and homophobes in your example. It's an optimistic view of people, maybe not widely shared when you think of how often we hear the phrase, "respect has to be earned."

Dave_ON · July 10, 2009

Yes, why don't we have a straight pride day or a necrophiliacs pride day? Why leave anyone out? I have nothing against gays, most of the ones I know are regular folks. Frankly, while it may be a great party, I don't think gay pride parades do much to further understanding with most of the public. I guess Trudeau's comment about government having no business in the nations bedrooms doesn't apply equally to all.

Wilber this type of comment always cracks me up and so many people think it's a "got ya" defense. My question to you is if you want a straight pride parade organize one! Who's stopping you? Further to that end straight people can join the pride parade as well, all are welcome! The organization has been called "Pride" for a very long time because it is meant to encompass everyone. Not just Gay people.

The second part of your "got ya" defense is that you are attempting to draw a parallel between gay people and an illegal activity. I admit this is the first time I’ve seen the necrophilia comparison though, generally they go with either polygamy or the ever popular pedophilia. The problem with this comparison of course is that Gay people are in consensual adult relationships and the comparisons are about situations where one participant isn’t a consenting adult. Polygamy being the possible exception of course provided all participants are consenting adults.

I truly don’t understand why some straight people like you are so very offended by the pride event. As far as I can fathom I’m certain they’ve never bothered to attend and see for themselves. They go on hearsay and of course the more outlandish the description the more believable it is. Suffice it to say every day is straight pride day, it’s in movies, TV shows, music out on the street. Straight people don’t really need a time and a place where they feel free to be straight, that’s all times and all places. I don’t expect you to understand as you are in all likelihood a WASP, and there’s nothing wrong with that but in all honesty you can’t really understand what it’s like.

As for Trudeau’s comment you’re taking it wildly out of context. He was referring to each and every Canadians right to personal privacy. He was speaking of our rights to free speech and hold a celebration. The government has been in the business of funding festivals and events for decades now, this is not a new policy.

benny · July 10, 2009

Yes, why don't we have a straight pride day or a necrophiliacs pride day?

Before being able to organize a necrophiliacs pride day, we have to be aware that some people write in their wills that they allow intercourses with their dead bodies.

Argus · July 10, 2009

That's right, civil liberties are just so "Leftist". Good, god-fearing Conservatives despise anyone else getting a piece of the cake, because Jesus only loves Libertarians and Corporate whores.

Civil liberties involve real freedoms - like free speech and assembly and religion. None of which, curiously, the left cares much about. The "civil liberties" the Left cares about are the created ones, the "right" to not be "discriminated against" the right to "respect" the right to not be offended by other people's words or writing...

benny · July 10, 2009

Civil liberties involve real freedoms - like free speech and assembly and religion.

Learn more about real freedom:

http://books.google.com/books?id=V-xR90PGW...lt&resnum=3

Argus · July 10, 2009

I define basic respect as giving someone the benefit of your goodwill, until they do something that causes you to withdraw it. They don't have to go out of their way to "earn" it, but they can certainly lose it - as the racists, bigots and homophobes in your example. It's an optimistic view of people, maybe not widely shared when you think of how often we hear the phrase, "respect has to be earned."

It sounds to me like neither one of you even understand what the word means.

Let me rephrase it. People are entitled to be treated politely, regardless of what you think of their views.

The only way that should change is based upon the way they treat you and others - and not on what you think of their views.

You can treat someone politely even if you have no respect for them. I do it with idiotic colleagues all the time.

But no one is "entitled" to respect.

M.Dancer · July 10, 2009

Civil liberties involve real freedoms - like free speech and assembly and religion. None of which, curiously, the left cares much about. The "civil liberties" the Left cares about are the created ones, the "right" to not be "discriminated against" the right to "respect" the right to not be offended by other people's words or writing...

Well certainly a pride parade and pride week falls under the right to assembly....what is not a right however is the right to have it publicaly funded....

I think it is funny though, not that long ago Toronto bid for the right to hold the Olympic games. Many thought that the benefit to Toronto and Canada outweighed any objections including the requisite public funding. One of the loudest voices against the 1996 and 2008 game bids was a coalition called Bread not Circuses.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2001/03/09/to...uses030901.html

I wonder how they feel about the Pride circus?

benny · July 10, 2009

It sounds to me like neither one of you even understand what the word means.
Let me rephrase it. People are entitled to be treated politely, regardless of what you think of their views.

The only way that should change is based upon the way they treat you and others - and not on what you think of their views.

You can treat someone politely even if you have no respect for them. I do it with idiotic colleagues all the time.

But no one is "entitled" to respect.

Learn more about the just distribution of the social bases of self-respect:

http://ppe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/2/195

Dave_ON · July 10, 2009

It sounds to me like neither one of you even understand what the word means.
Let me rephrase it. People are entitled to be treated politely, regardless of what you think of their views.

The only way that should change is based upon the way they treat you and others - and not on what you think of their views.

You can treat someone politely even if you have no respect for them. I do it with idiotic colleagues all the time.

But no one is "entitled" to respect.

Pontificate much?

Respect is one of those funny words that have a multitude of meanings that vary based on context.

As per http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/respect

re⋅spect
/rɪˈspɛkt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-spekt] Show IPA

Use respect in a Sentence

–noun

1. a particular, detail, or point (usually prec. by in): to differ in some respect.

2. relation or reference: inquiries with respect to a route.

3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.

4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.

5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.

6. respects, a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: Give my respects to your parents.

7. favor or partiality.

8. Archaic. a consideration.

–verb (used with object)

9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.

10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.

11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.

12. to relate or have reference to.

As you can see Argus what you describe as being polite IS a form of respect and everyone is due that level of respect. Further everyone is "entitled" to number 11 form of respect. That is respect of their rights to free speech etc. I don't have to agree with them, and I may not particularly like them but I respect their rights to hold their own opinion and I certainly won't be discourteous to them as a result of it.

That was the form of respect I was referring to in my earlier post.

When people say that respect is earned not given they're referring to the "reverence" portion of respect. When people talk about respect being a right, they're referring to the non-interference and courtesy portion. No need to split hairs both fit well within the generally accepted definitions of the word.

benny · July 10, 2009

As you can see Argus what you describe as being polite IS a form of respect and everyone is due that level of respect.

For Argus, being polite means being hypocritical, I guess!

Dave_ON · July 10, 2009

Well certainly a pride parade and pride week falls under the right to assembly....what is not a right however is the right to have it publicaly funded....

Well of course it's not a right to have it publicly funded. But if public funds are made available for cultural events the pride parade has as much of a right as any other to apply and be considered to receive those public funds. This is my point. The funds were made available; they went through the application process and met the criteria. What's the issue? They didn't lobby the government demanding funds or special treatment. They got in line and filled out the application like a myriad of other organizations did. The money was there and was going to be spent regardless of whether Toronto Pride was approved to receive a portion of it or not. The only reason this is even a news story is because it was a gay organization that received the funding and in some regions of the country that's still a hot button issue.

M.Dancer · July 10, 2009

The only reason this is even a news story is because it was a gay organization that received the funding and in some regions of the country that's still a hot button issue.

for me the only issues are whether the Feds should be funding local events and whether local events that don't need funding should be funded at all.

benny · July 10, 2009

The funds were made available; they went through the application process and met the criteria. What's the issue? They didn't lobby the government demanding funds or special treatment. They got in line and filled out the application like a myriad of other organizations did. The money was there and was going to be spent regardless of whether Toronto Pride was approved to receive a portion of it or not.

Spending regardless of a criteria evaluation is certainly an issue.

Melanie_ · July 10, 2009

Sorry for causing the thread drift; it’s just a phrase that’s always annoyed me, but you’re right, Dave, it is splitting hairs.

Back to the topic...

I can see your point, Dancer, regarding the Feds giving funding to something that is essentially a benefit to a single municipality, but that’s not really what the controversy is about. This MP, Trost, went out of his way to reassure the Christian right that funding the Gay Pride parade was contrary to government policy, and that most Conservative MPs opposed the funding. So it begs the question, what specific policy is he referring to? And what is driving the MPs’ opposition to this funding? It leaves the impression that there are a lot of homophobes among the Conservative MPs, and someone needs to clarify Trost’s statements.

As a reminder, here's what he said in the LifeSiteNews article, already linked in Dobbin's opening post...

Speaking to LifeSiteNews.com from his riding office in Saskatoon today, the 36-year-old Conservative said, "The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by - I think it's safe to say by a large majority - of the MPs. This was a very isolated decision."
~snip~

Trost claimed that "almost the entire Conservative caucus" including "most of the Prime Minister's Office were taken by surprise at this announcement."

"It shouldn't be deemed to have been a change in Party policy," he said, adding, "Most of the caucus is still strongly pro-traditional marriage."

Edited July 10, 2009 by Melanie_

M.Dancer · July 10, 2009

I think the pro life community shoud rest easy. Gays as a group are far less likely to want an abortion that the straight community.

benny · July 10, 2009

I think the pro life community shoud rest easy. Gays as a group are far less likely to want an abortion that the straight community.

Being pro life is about being able to give birth.

August1991 · July 11, 2009

No, they do not deserve respect. And as to having a point, well, I'm sure all those Antibellum folks thought they had a point too, when they didn't their white daughters marrying none of them there colored boys, and burning a few crosses just to remind folks of the proper gawd-fearing way to view the race issue.

Toad, you have touched on an essential point. We are still free to choose our spouses and many of us, for whatever reason, choose a spouse of the same skin colour.

What are you guys talking about lol? The Empire collapsed because it was utterly beaten beyond any hope in WWI, had endured countless casualties among its hopelessly outmatched and under-equipped soldiers, and had suffered extreme famine and hardship for many years. Same thing goes for the provisional government that immediately followed the Czar, prior to the communist takeover.

Bonam, the Czarist Russia regime handed out a variety of special dispensations, subsidies, sinecures, titles. Over time, many people sought special treatment and the regime became obsessed with arcane rules to determine entitlement. I argue that such a society is not sustainable in the long run.

"Taxpayer money" is meaningful only for a demagogue.

Well, was it money from Martians given to these gays for their parade? Am I now a "demagogue" because I simply remind everyone that teh State's money comes from taxpayers?

Of course everyone is entitled to their POV, an of course they are enttled to respect.

I'll try to avoid wading into this question of "respect" or its meaning. (In any case, I prefer the American black expression "to diss" someone).

----

IMV, this issue is a "wedge issue" touching two pillars of Harper's support: social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives do not like the gay lifestyle and certainly don't want the government encouraging it. Fiscal conservatives don't want the government giving taxpayer money to special interest groups.

It makes obvious sense to me that Harper has cut this festival spending (or given it to Clement for review) because he can unite the two pillars of his support. I think Harper has ambled through this minefield with acute acumen. (He saw this one coming.)

Final point. There should be a third pillar to Harper's support: French Quebec conservatives. I think that Harper's still trying to figure that one out. His survival as PM may depend on it.

eyeball · July 11, 2009

IMV, this issue is a "wedge issue" touching two pillars of Harper's support: social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives do not like the gay lifestyle and certainly don't want the government encouraging it. Fiscal conservatives don't want the government giving taxpayer money to special interest groups.
It makes obvious sense to me that Harper has cut this festival spending (or given it to Clement for review) because he can unite the two pillars of his support. I think Harper has ambled through this minefield with acute acumen. (He saw this one coming.)

You almost make it sound like he engineered this little galvanizing event.

benny · July 11, 2009

Well, was it money from Martians given to these gays for their parade? Am I now a "demagogue" because I simply remind everyone that teh State's money comes from taxpayers?

The state's money comes from the state (i.e. the central bank).

Wilber · July 13, 2009

It's a free country. They can have their pride parade if they want.

I have no objection to them having a parade, not at all. I just object to any parades based on sexual orientation receiving government funding. I think the whole idea is idiotic.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Wilber

Wilber · July 13, 2009

I truly don’t understand why some straight people like you are so very offended by the pride event. As far as I can fathom I’m certain they’ve never bothered to attend and see for themselves. They go on hearsay and of course the more outlandish the description the more believable it is. Suffice it to say every day is straight pride day, it’s in movies, TV shows, music out on the street. Straight people don’t really need a time and a place where they feel free to be straight, that’s all times and all places. I don’t expect you to understand as you are in all likelihood a WASP, and there’s nothing wrong with that but in all honesty you can’t really understand what it’s like.

They don't offend me at all and if you knew me you would know that I am no homophobe. I have that on good authority from more than one gay person with whom I have consumed too many beers on occasion. I have attended a parade and it was a hoot but I stand on my opinion that parades based on sexual orientation, no matter what that may be, receiving government funding is BS. Sorry if that offends you.

tango · July 13, 2009

They don't offend me at all and if you knew me you would know that I am no homophobe. I have that on good authority from more than one gay person with whom I have consumed too many beers on occasion. I have attended a parade and it was a hoot but I stand on my opinion that parades based on sexual orientation, no matter what that may be, receiving government funding is BS. Sorry if that offends you.

Well then forget about sex and think of it as a cultural event that brings a lot of people to Toronto, and that's what the funds are for: It's a good business case.

If funding is refused despite a good business case, then 'Pride' has a case for discrimination.

Edited July 13, 2009 by tango

Shakeyhands · July 13, 2009

They don't offend me at all and if you knew me you would know that I am no homophobe. I have that on good authority from more than one gay person with whom I have consumed too many beers on occasion. I have attended a parade and it was a hoot but I stand on my opinion that parades based on sexual orientation, no matter what that may be, receiving government funding is BS. Sorry if that offends you.

I think it's a celebration about who they are and how they've been able to shrug off most of the inequality, it's not about sex per se. Imagine being persecuted and marginalized and fighting for the right to not be discriminated against systemically. That is what the celebration is about.

Dave_ON · July 13, 2009

They don't offend me at all and if you knew me you would know that I am no homophobe. I have that on good authority from more than one gay person with whom I have consumed too many beers on occasion. I have attended a parade and it was a hoot but I stand on my opinion that parades based on sexual orientation, no matter what that may be, receiving government funding is BS. Sorry if that offends you.

I'm not offended in the least just wondering where you draw the line. I happen to feel an event based on "cowboy" skills is utterly idiotic, that's simply my opinion. I guess my question to you still stands, is an event based on sexuality more or less idiotic than one based on one's ability to stay on the back of a bucking bronco the longest? Should it be eligible for public funding?

To me the issue is not whether or not Pride gets Fed Funds; it's if other arguably "niche" events get Federal funding to the exclusion of pride. If we accept that they are both, from an objective perspective of course, cultural events why should one be funded and not the other? The only reliable criterion, which is currently in place, is return on investment and bang for the buck. Obviously the biggest events will win out, as it should be as they are the ones that are going to have the greatest tourist draw.

benny · July 13, 2009

I'm not offended in the least just wondering where you draw the line. I happen to feel an event based on "cowboy" skills is utterly idiotic, that's simply my opinion. I guess my question to you still stands, is an event based on sexuality more or less idiotic than one based on one's ability to stay on the back of a bucking bronco the longest? Should it be eligible for public funding?
To me the issue is not whether or not Pride gets Fed Funds; it's if other arguably "niche" events get Federal funding to the exclusion of pride. If we accept that they are both, from an objective perspective of course, cultural events why should one be funded and not the other? The only reliable criterion, which is currently in place, is return on investment and bang for the buck. Obviously the biggest events will win out, as it should be as they are the ones that are going to have the greatest tourist draw.

You don't build a country on tourists but on self-respect.