Tories reject funding for Montreal gay arts festival

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090721/...stival_rejected

A gay and lesbian arts festival that was told it met all government criteria under a new tourism stimulus program learned Tuesday it was rejected for funding.

The news arrived at Montreal's Divers-Cite a few weeks after tension swept the Conservative caucus over funding for Toronto's Pride week, and just days before the beginning of their event.

Doesn't look like the Tories have commented as to why this event was cancelled when it seemed to get funding rom the Tories in past years.

[gordiecanuk]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090721/...stival_rejected

Doesn't look like the Tories have commented as to why this event was cancelled when it seemed to get funding rom the Tories in past years.

I think the answer is obvious...the Cons are concerned about placating their Religious Right base of support, without it they're toast. Its not like they're gonna score big with the Gay French constituency anyway.

[Moonbox]

Why waste taxpayers money for an event in Montreal? Some events are more worthy of others and I'm not saying a Gay festival is less worthy, but why on earth would the Tories waste money on:

A) A province that's a political wasteland for them

A demographic that's also lost to them

It would be like the Liberals throwing millions towards funding Baptist Church events in Alberta.

[gordiecanuk]

Why waste taxpayers money for an event in Montreal? Some events are more worthy of others and I'm not saying a Gay festival is less worthy, but why on earth would the Tories waste money on:

A) A province that's a political wasteland for them

A demographic that's also lost to them

It would be like the Liberals throwing millions towards funding Baptist Church events in Alberta.

This whole marquee events funding is nothing but a boondoggle.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Glad to hear that tax dollars will not be used.

[Molly]

This whole marquee events funding is nothing but a boondoggle.

A few months ago, that was arguable... but it's sure as heck politicized to the eyebrows now.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A few months ago, that was arguable... but it's sure as heck politicized to the eyebrows now.

Perhaps rightly so.

[Molly]

Not to my mind. It's hard to think well of politicos who demand that their butts recieve lip marks; hard to think well of abuse of the system.

It's common as grass, but sleazy to the core.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Not to my mind. It's hard to think well of politicos who demand that their butts recieve lip marks; hard to think well of abuse of the system.

It's common as grass, but sleazy to the core.

Then you preserve the perceived right of the politicians to have the exclusive say in the land instead of the free rights of citizens to enter and speak in the political arena.

[Dave_ON]

Why waste taxpayers money for an event in Montreal? Some events are more worthy of others and I'm not saying a Gay festival is less worthy, but why on earth would the Tories waste money on:

A) A province that's a political wasteland for them

A demographic that's also lost to them

It would be like the Liberals throwing millions towards funding Baptist Church events in Alberta.

Well said moonbox. This is not the least bit surprising coming from the Tories. The gay support they have isn't because of their social progressiveness, it's their tax cutting tendancies.

[Molly]

Well, that's a pretty good example of false and convoluted logic....

I object to political micromanagement (that is inevitably partisan). That's pretty much the opposite of preserving the right of politicians to exclusive say...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, that's a pretty good example of false and convoluted logic....

I object to political micromanagement (that is inevitably partisan). That's pretty much the opposite of preserving the right of politicians to exclusive say...

It is in the manner of objection that viable solutions are found. Participation in the political process is a requirement in order to effect change.

[Moonbox]

Well said moonbox. This is not the least bit surprising coming from the Tories. The gay support they have isn't because of their social progressiveness, it's their tax cutting tendancies.

I hope I wasn't misunderstood. I don't mean they shouldn't have funded it because they are anti-gay or anything like that.

I don't think ANY funding should be provided for this crap. If the event is worthwhile it will proceed without it. Subsidizing special interest groups/cultures is never worthwhile IMO.

When you combine this with the fact that the Tories have NOTHING to gain by supporting it you really have your answer for why it was cancelled.

[Shady]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090721/...stival_rejected

Doesn't look like the Tories have commented as to why this event was cancelled when it seemed to get funding rom the Tories in past years.

It could be because of the giant recession everyone's going through. Let the arts festivals fund themselves. Poor people need food, and sick people need shelter.

[jdobbin]

It could be because of the giant recession everyone's going through. Let the arts festivals fund themselves. Poor people need food, and sick people need shelter.

It sounds like a political decision on being gay though.

[punked]

It could be because of the giant recession everyone's going through. Let the arts festivals fund themselves. Poor people need food, and sick people need shelter.

Good give it too them. Unless you are increasing funding to the poor at the same time you say this, these are just hollow words that are uttered in order to distract from the real issues here.

[Moonbox]

It sounds like a political decision on being gay though.

The Tories funded it in the past...so probably not.

[jdobbin]

The Tories funded it in the past...so probably not.

Then I'm sure their explanation will make sense if they ever decide to give one. At the moment, given the fact that social conservatives have stepped forward to put a stop to funding, it looks like this is a political decision to stop funding rather than an economic one.

[capricorn]

Political or economic makes no difference. I doubt too many Canadians will be offended that Divers-Cite did not get any funding, not necessarily because of the GLBT connection but because they think their tax dollars can be better spent elsewhere.

Moonbox is right. Festivals/parades/dance clubs and the like that have proven viable will find their own backers.

[jdobbin]

Political or economic makes no difference. I doubt too many Canadians will be offended that Divers-Cite did not get any funding, not necessarily because of the GLBT connection but because they think their tax dollars can be better spent elsewhere.

I think Canadians are fairly aware when there is an inconsistent approach to program delivery.

You are arguing that money should not be spent on festivals. By all means, debate that before a program is set up. However, the Tories do have a program so the debate is whether the parties meet the criteria for funding. In this case, the government says they did.

What we have seen is noises from the Tory caucus about not funding anything gay. This would seem to be a new criteria to funding that wasn't in place when the application was made.

Moonbox is right. Festivals/parades/dance clubs and the like that have proven viable will find their own backers.

Separate argument. There is a program already in place. Criteria has been set. The gay Montreal festival met that criteria and now the money is withdrawn.

The government tonight is going to great lengths to explain why they did what they did.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0722?hub=Canada

They had been told by bureaucrats they had met all the rigorous criteria for their $155,000 bid -- a fact not disputed by the government.

Director Suzanne Girard had initially scoffed at suggestions that ideology might be at play in handing out grants, but now says she suspects politics were involved.

After some Conservative caucus members complained last month that Toronto's Pride Week had received $400,000, junior tourism minister Diane Ablonczy lost responsibility for the file.

But Clement said Wednesday there had been an "avalanche" of applications under the $100-million Marquee Tourism Events Program and decisions had to be made.

Coming on the heels of the anger in the Tory caucus, it really does this look like it is a gay bias that prevented funding from going through.

Edited July 23, 2009 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

It's easier to justify funding some events over others. Canada Day celebrations are something everyone can enjoy.

A celebration flaunting homosexuality, often distastefully, is something that's going to be VERY hard for a lot of Canadians to want to support with dollars from their pockets.

Of course there's politics involved with this sort of thing. There always is. What's your point? The Tories aren't out there actively attacking gays, they've just made it clear there's better things to do with money in a recession than throw it away at stupid 'parties' that the vast majority of the residents wants absolutely NOTHING to do with.

I have nothing wrong with homosexuality or anything of the like, but I do find it offensive that I'm paying taxes to subsidize their partying.

[jdobbin]

Of course there's politics involved with this sort of thing. There always is. What's your point? The Tories aren't out there actively attacking gays, they've just made it clear there's better things to do with money in a recession than throw it away at stupid 'parties' that the vast majority of the residents wants absolutely NOTHING to do with.

I have nothing wrong with homosexuality or anything of the like, but I do find it offensive that I'm paying taxes to subsidize their partying.

I find it offensive that the rules change after the criteria is met.

[Moonbox]

I find it offensive that the rules change after the criteria is met.

You can be offended all you like. You find a way to get offended about pretty much everything the Tories do.

The Tories have to ask themselves, "Why would we spend this money? What good does it do us as a party, and for that matter the average voter/taxpayer?"

I'd love to see you try and come up with an intelligent answer to that, other than that the festival met the ''criteria''.

[jdobbin]

You can be offended all you like. You find a way to get offended about pretty much everything the Tories do.

And I'm sure you'd get offended about pretty much anything I write about the Tories.

I happened to agree with the way programs and criteria were set up by the Tories. I had no comment about funding previously but now it seems at the last minute, a new criteria is set up.

The Tories have to ask themselves, "Why would we spend this money? What good does it do us as a party, and for that matter the average voter/taxpayer?"

I'd love to see you try and come up with an intelligent answer to that, other than that the festival met the ''criteria''.

It is the Tories that said they wanted to ensure that everything was outlined and criteria set to avoid money to going to various groups over others for political reasons.

What they have shown is that they do decide where money goes even after setting up criteria and politics plays a huge part.

If this wasn't good enough for the Liberals, it sure isn't good enough for the Tories. It often gives the impression of a corrupt process where people can have funding pulled because the government doesn't like them.

The reaction in Quebec:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/travel/Dive...8300/story.html

Despite official denials of any such thing, it is, sadly, reasonable to suspect that the Conservative government is pandering to its redneck base at Montreal's expense by denying funding to the local Divers/Cité gay pride festival.

No other possible reason makes much sense, certainly not the official claim that there were just too many applicants for subsidies from the festival funding program to accommodate Divers/Cité.

Edited July 23, 2009 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

I happened to agree with the way programs and criteria set up by the Tories. I had no comment about funding previously but now it seems at the last minute, a new criteria is set up.

It is the Tories that said they wanted to ensure that everything was outlined and criteria set to avoid money to going to various groups over others for political reasons.

What they have shown is that they do decide where money goes even after setting up criteria and politics plays a huge part.

If this wasn't good enough for the Liberals, it sure isn't good enough for the Tories. It often gives the impression of a corrupt process where people can have funding pulled because the government doesn't like them.

Hey I don't disagree with anything you really said here. He's doing what the Liberals did and he criticized them for.

I just think he's being pragmatic about it.

As far as POLITICS go, if I was Stephen Harper I'd also be avoiding spending large sums of money in areas that were political wastelands for me. Why bother?

It's not like he has to worry about the gay Montreal vote. Montreal and Toronto have been on Liberal lockdown for 20 years now and that's not likely to change. Harper may have previously hoped it would and spent money there in order to foster the impression that we was a fair spender, but fair spending (and he did spend a ton of money in Quebec) clearly makes no difference to a Quebec voter because arts funding is clearly a lot more important.

There's no point in throwing money down the toilet.

Once again, however, you've avoided my question as to why would the Tories spend money there? Other than the 'criteria'....

Edited July 23, 2009 by Moonbox