Mayor Ford to nix Pride Funding!

[Black Dog]

"What do you mean "partisan" events? "

I said politically partisan. Go look it up in the dictionary. It means a political view that only expresses one side of a political dispute.

You stated:

"It's not a partisan event. We're talking about the inclusion of one gay group that paid their way like everyone else for the privilege of participating."

Uh hello. If that group then engages in venting its one sided political view then that venting of opinion is politically partisan and turns the event into a politically partisan one by seizing the event as an opportunity to air its one sided opinions.

One group does not an event make. They are but one voice among many.

You stated:

"I don't think the politicians should get to interfere in that way. That's not why they fund the parade anyway."

Right we know. You want governments to fund your political views and those of groups you approve of.

Oh fuck off.

You stated:

"To be inclusive means allowing any viewpoint.."

Nonsense. That makes no sense. To be inclusive means to express view points that are welcome to all. Necessarily politically partisan remarks such as anti Zionist ones made many Jewish gays and many non Jewish gays unwelcome at their own pride event precisely because they felt the views had nothing to do with gay culture.

No. Pride as an inclusive event means allowing the expression of a myriad of opinions, even those opinions that may themselves be exclusive.

You stated:

"I posted a well-written piece on the political nature of this event by the founders of Pride in TO and this is what I get back?"

Yep. Right back. I am pleased you think you are well written. See for me someone who says gays are radical because they celebrate being gay to be personally is a ponitificating poser. To me anyone who patronizes gays as radicals and militants because they simply want to be gay and feel positive about it is a poser. Save it.

I don't need you to pontificate to me or advertise yourself with self serving descriptions. I challenge your words because I think they are absurd, illogical and a bunch of stuck up leftist pretentious I know better than you bull.

That is my opinion and whether you think it well written or not I know how to spell bull, BULL.

Learn to read, douchebag. I was referencing the piece by the founders of Pride Toronto to the current leadership. Which you clearly didn't read.

You stated:

"Um. Saying "in my experience" is an inherent acknowledgement of the subjectivity of the statement thet follows."

Sorry to me it sounded like someone who does not have enough fibre in their diet. I apologize for that subjective impression.

You stated:

"Er....what?"

Fibre. People should have more fibre in their diet otherwise they keep all their kaka inside and then vent it at the wrong time, such as at gay pride events when no one should be peeing or crapping on anyone else.

Trust I made that clear.

Wow. Mature.

You stated:

"You concede that you brought up Israel's gay rights record in a discussion that, up until that point, had focused mainly on the matter of the city's funding of the parade. What's the relevance? Or is it just a misdirection away from the issues that QuAIA are trying to raise?"

No. It was in direct response to the point you made that QUAIA should be able to attend the gay pride event to be funded by the city and Pride should be funded so that it could then enable QUAIA to single out Israel for non gay politically partisan opinion.

It's not a response. It's a diversion.

It was directly on point. It goes to the hypocracy of this group. This group which you admitted you did not know and had no idea of its agenda (but none the less accused me of being a liar in stating what its agenda was) came to the parade to engage in anti Zionist pro Hamas political ideology. Pure and simple. It openly stated when asked that it did not feel it relevant to discuss the persecution of gays in the Middle East or the fact that Israel regularly and openly takes in gay refugees from the Arab world including Palestine. This group stated it did not feel it relevant that Israel is the only nation in the Middle East to have a human rights code protecting gay rights or a court system that had protected the rights of gays from discrimination in court decisions.

That is directly on point. It makes a farse of the gay community to single out the only country in the Middle East fighting for gay rights and ignoring that and saying-hey we will ignore gay right-we simply want to use this event for non gay political issues.

The issue of gay rights in Israel isn't relevant. As QuAIA put it:

Israel’s queer rights are not extended to Palestinians in the occupied territories it controls; and Israel does nothing to support the struggles of Palestinian queers or queers elsewhere in the Mideast.

And before you lecture me on who founded the gay pride events let me make it clear to you-I don't need you to tell me who and why gay people started this event. I am a Jew. I know all about why a visible minority starts a celebration of its culture. Its not to be radical.

Clearly you don't.

"You keep making these accusations about QuAIA, but your notably lacking any actual citations."

Once again you made the allegation I was a liar not me. So prove it. Put up or shut up. You called me a liar. Prove it. I have nothing to cite to you. I heard their platform first hand at meetings.

I didn't call you a liar. You simply aren't backing up your claims. I have no reason to believe or not believe them.

"Why should QuAIA talk about those Palestinians who flee to Israel?"

Because they are gay and fleeing persecution and Israel took them in.

So?

Edited March 25, 2011 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

You stated:

"The 1981 Toronto bathhouse riots? I'll change my above line of query to a statement: you know nothing about the history of Pride or the gay rights struggle as a whole."

Oh there we go nyah nyah goo goo. You know nothing of me and the people I defended as a lawyer and why. However your presumptious tone speaks for itself. Keep it up. BD the big bad radical militant who speaks for all gays. Lol.

Rue, you are such a faux faghag.

You stated:

"I swear, I'd almost take out and out Mr. Canada-style homophobia over your patronizing, paternalistic, condescending attitude towards gays."

Write now genius, read back your last allegation against me and tell me again about engaging in partronizing, paternalistic, condescending attitudes towards gays. You have no problems engaging in them now do you. Oh and while you are at it, tell me again how you presume to speak for all gays when you make the sweeping negeralization that being gay is radical and militant and so the gay celebration of culture must be done in the same manner]. Do tell.

I never actually said that. But thanks for playing!

Edited March 25, 2011 by Black Dog

[William Ashley]

This is truly excellent news.

Finally a Mayor with a sense of decency and morality. So if any Anti Israeli group participates in Pride say goodbye to city funding. It's a start.

The people running this "Pride" thing must be on the TCHC board. I wonder if they got any pedicures. Probably just some diva chocolates.

Looks like all the Gay NeoNazi's will have to sit out this year? How can they profile without seeing the gays all lined up though in one place though? Is he going to cut funding to gay beatings too? That doesn't sound conservative to me.

And those Gay Arabs too,

geeshe Jason Kenney Gives 100,000 for them to come over and no party?

This is madness.. I want pictures of these rainbow freaks holding "KILL THE JEWS" signs at pride

!!! Damnit I'm serious I want to see these, I don't believe Ford.

This sounds more like an immigration stunt to me, trying to trick all the gay arabs to immigrate to Canada with free money and a jew hating gay community-.

that wiley Ford, him and his dirty tricks.

Edited March 26, 2011 by William Ashley

[Oleg Bach]

For the record Oleg, and I know you are out there, I think Rob Ford does need to

go on a diet. If he tried to put on a thong he could get seriously hurt.

Any person that gains that much body mass is a person driven by self interest and an uncontrollable appitite for personal luxury. Ifyou think that Millerism was destructive - wait till Ford and his brother give their banker instructors what they fully want - You will see more harsh poverty in Toronto - and you will witness fat rich guys getting even fater.

Having ranted that...as for USING the gays for political advancement...as Miller did - Ford will also use this group...Immigrants with a different moral stance than conditioned Canadian liberals - dispise sodomists...fabricated gays - natural gays and who ever seems to be a threat to the traditional family unit....Miller used love and exceptence of this group to further himself - Ford will use hate of this group to further himself...It is all about usery....and intelligent gays want no part of this politification of what is a personal issue regarding their use or abuse of sexuality.

In America they used the black race card to elect a president...Ford will use the immigrant hate card - immigrants who are taxed...who make next to nothing - who are the working poor - don't want to give a red cent to the gay community...they believe that they will prosper if the money is directed away from this group towards their own percieved finacial needs - Ford knows that....and he will play the immigrant population as if he were king Liberal himself..they all use people that are in fear...It is not homophobia - it is economic-phobia..the fear of working your ass off with no reward.

As for putting Ford in a pair of leather chaps or a G-string...I think a pair of adult diapers might look more amusing.

[Rue]

Time to respond drum roll please....

BD you stated:

"One group does not an event make. They are but one voice among many." Right and the gays that this group smeers in its generalizations should still come to the event and feel welcome. Take it up with them. Gays have argued they all should be welcome not just the ones QUIAA does not rave and rant about.

You stated:

"Oh fuck off."

Now BD. Don't wiggle your penis at me.

You stated:

"No. Pride as an inclusive event means allowing the expression of a myriad of opinions, even those opinions that may themselves be exclusive."

In your opinion. In the opionion of other gays it does not mean the unlimited right to single out certain gays and make them feel unwelcome. Take that up with the gays who find QUIAA bigoted, offensive and intolerant. That is up to gays to decide. If the majority want QUIAA there, that is their right. Just don't expect the city to fund the event at that point. The precedent it sets is that at cultural events the city must fund groups who use those cultural events for politically partisan activities. The city can't set that precedent because necessarily determining what is politically acceptable or unacceptable is something a city should not be asked to referee. Taxpayers disagreeing with QUIAA straiught r gay have a right to say do't use their money to fund an event which provides a propoganda platform for QUIAA.

You stated:

"Learn to read, douchebag."

Oleg BD is wiggling his penis at me again. Tsk.

You stated:

: I was referencing the piece by the founders of Pride Toronto to the current leadership. Which you clearly didn't read. "

Oh look Oleg he is back to laughing, thank God. For a second I thought he would poke my eye out with his penis.

Oh BD I did read the statement, and I read many other things to. You see BD I just don't select certain statements and forget the rest. Oh wait, let me laugh to, lol.

You stated:

"Wow. Mature."

Oh wait it gets better. Each time you tell me to fuck myself or call me a douche bag or make poo poo comments about me I get darned witty and I know I am making Oleg laugh.

You stated:

"It's not a response. It's a diversion."

You like to make sweeping pronouncements. You remind me of Yul Bryner as Pharoah in the 10 Commandments. I can sound very authoritarian too, like for example- "BD this is RUE bow down before me..." Oh by the way BD the reference to the burning bush in the movie was misunderstood by Paris Hilton. She thought it was a reference to Lindsay Lohan.

Oh wait though I hear another proclomation from the throne.....

"The issue of gay rights in Israel isn't relevant. As QuAIA put it:"

Oooopsy. The same BD who needed citations as to QUIAA's anti Zionist position and what I stated, suddenly remembers their platform...

You stated:

"Clearly you don't."

What is clear BD is you asked me to provide citations from QUIAA knowing full well what their platform was and you called me a liar for stating they were anti Zionist knowing they are. That speaks for itself BD and you can tell me I am a douche bag or tell me to fuck off but you reduced yourself to that in this debate.

[Rue]

BD you sttaed:

"Rue, you are such a faux faghag."

Lol. I must defer to thou. Lol. COme on that was funny. I loved it. Touche.

You stated:

"I never actually said that. But thanks for playing! "

You know I am always available to play with you.

On a more serious note,the gay community will decide whether it wants QUIAA at future events. That is something for the gay community to decide. But with due respect the city has a right to decide who it funds and remaining neutral to funding events that are politically partisan in nature is a difficult issue. I think the gay commuity has a difficult issue ahead in handling the QUIAA because not just me but many people gay and straight find their version of politics hateful.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit Irshad Manji's opinions are just as relevant as yours.

[Oleg Bach]

Gay community"? What about the human community...right now dogs and gays in Toronto have more privledge than common working people and children..Not that I like Ford the henchman....as I mentioned...Miller thrived on false tolerance and fake compassion...Ford will thrive on hate...The immigrant vote loves this guy...he in their weak minds stands up for family values...mean while...Ford is like a father with a fat bank account...who is happy to let his kid eat gruel.

[ConservativeGrowth]

Funding should depend on what financial benefit the event brings to the city. Treat the event as a business and calculate it's ROI compared to the funding amount. If it's return on investment is more than the funding level it receives then party on. But actually police the thing and don't allow any bylaw infractions that you wouldn't allow at the Santa parade for example.

Now, if you don't like something about the parade then protest it. If people agree with you and don't come to spend money then the financial return to the city goes down and funding goes down as well.

Lastly, I think it is really stupid for gay people to support all this Israeli Apartheid crap when they would be killed, or at least jailed just for being gay in any country surrounding Israel. In Israel you can be gay publicly and even have a pride parade every year.

[Oleg Bach]

Selling herion is profitable...and maybe a huge brothel on Center Island? Or maybe start up another war some place and tool up for weapons making? Some things simply are not good...but it seems that bad and good are no longer viable concepts.

[ConservativeGrowth]

Selling herion is profitable...and maybe a huge brothel on Center Island? Or maybe start up another war some place and tool up for weapons making? Some things simply are not good...but it seems that bad and good are no longer viable concepts.

Well I did mention enforcing laws and bylaws. A pride parade with naked guys with their d!cks flapping around is not good. Can you do that on any other regular day in downtown of any city? I would bet no. Then it shouldn't be allowed in a parade of any sort either. If the parade refuses to adhere to bylaws then revoke funding.

Actually someone should start a Heterosexual Pride parade, it's the same thing just different sexual orientation. But I suspect that the heterosexual parade would be refused permits. Equality does tend to only apply to whatever is floating a progressive boat.

[Oleg Bach]

Well I did mention enforcing laws and bylaws. A pride parade with naked guys with their d!cks flapping around is not good. Can you do that on any other regular day in downtown of any city? I would bet no. Then it shouldn't be allowed in a parade of any sort either. If the parade refuses to adhere to bylaws then revoke funding.

Actually someone should start a Heterosexual Pride parade, it's the same thing just different sexual orientation. But I suspect that the heterosexual parade would be refused permits. Equality does tend to only apply to whatever is floating a progressive boat.

Hetro Pride ? Spoke to an young asian lady who works at a Bistro on my street...she likes to smoke and have coffee in my back alley...She commented on my swank military type jacket...I explained that it was a gift from a gay third world diplomat..that my daughter worked for...The attractive young Asian girl said "Did you have to seduce him to get it?" I said to her,,"why would you insult my manhood in such a manner?" She thought I was odd ...she was so liberally conditioned and educated that she acturally beieved that a gay was as much a functioning male as a breeding male that could function with a female...she did not like me because I came across as an old school male...a man. Some call the de-masculization of males progressive...I call it oppressive.

[Shwa]

On a more serious note,the gay community will decide whether it wants QUIAA at future events. That is something for the gay community to decide. But with due respect the city has a right to decide who it funds and remaining neutral to funding events that are politically partisan in nature is a difficult issue. I think the gay commuity has a difficult issue ahead in handling the QUIAA because not just me but many people gay and straight find their version of politics hateful.

Like Don Cherry's speech at the swearing in of Rob Ford you mean? Not "politically partisan" at all right?

[bloodyminded]

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit Irshad Manji's opinions are just as relevant as yours.

And so far as this is relevant, what if some of us believe that Irshad Manji's opinions are not as relevant as Black Dog's?

Is that...I dunno...wrong, somehow?

[Rue]

Like Don Cherry's speech at the swearing in of Rob Ford you mean? Not "politically partisan" at all right?

Oh well then 2 wrongs make a right if we follow your arguement to its conclusion. Indeed.

Me thinks thou is missing the point that Donald S. was not funded by the city and was at a partisan event not a cultural event and his script was not drafted by the Ford brothers.

Me thinks Donald S. Cherry unlike QUIAA as well was trying to be funny. Are you suggesting QUIAA is funny. I have never seen so many constipated twisted colons in one interest group ever, and I know a lot of people who don't have enough bran in their diet.

This has to be a first. A poster equating Donald S. to the QUIAA in function and exercise. Lol.

after reading your thread I did call Donald S. and he has agreed to be at gay pride next year and protest against pinkos.

I also am rounding up thousands of people to protest everything from Sharia law to Stephen Harper's penis size.

Ah such a world where we can be all things to all people and have the city fund it because its a bottomless pit of financial expenditure and democratic opportunity.

It makes me tingle all over.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Rue

[Rue]

And so far as this is relevant, what if some of us believe that Irshad Manji's opinions are not as relevant as Black Dog's?

Is that...I dunno...wrong, somehow?

After you make the t-shirts of Black Dawg and start selling them do write back and we will compare who sold more t-shirts. If that was also too cryptic for you to understand do let me know.

[bloodyminded]

After you make the t-shirts of Black Dawg and start selling them do write back and we will compare who sold more t-shirts. If that was also too cryptic for you to understand do let me know.

I am letting you know.

[Shwa]

Oh well then 2 wrongs make a right if we follow your arguement to its conclusion. Indeed.

It isn't my argument, it is yours; one that you keep making repeatedly:

...Just don't expect the city to fund the event at that point. The precedent it sets is that at cultural events the city must fund groups who use those cultural events for politically partisan activities. The city can't set that precedent because necessarily determining what is politically acceptable or unacceptable is something a city should not be asked to referee...

But with due respect the city has a right to decide who it funds and remaining neutral to funding events that are politically partisan in nature is a difficult issue.

It has less to do with two wrongs making a right than you blatantly - and openly - contradicting yourself by acknowledging the political partisan aspect of Don Cherry making a speech at the Mayoral Swearing In Ceremony all the while denying others to do the same on City dime.

Me thinks thou is missing the point that Donald S. was not funded by the city and was at a partisan event not a cultural event and his script was not drafted by the Ford brothers.

Methinks you are missing the point that the Mayoral Swearing In Ceremony - a long standing traditional ceremony, paid for by the City of Toronto - is as cultural event you will get. Seriously, not a "cultural event?" Are you even from Canada?

And, by the way, the QUIAA "script" was not drafted by Pride Toronto.

<<drivel snipped>>

It makes me tingle all over.

No, it's likely a stroke, so you have an excuse for being completely out of touch. But you should have the tingling checked out anyways.

[treehugger]

Pride is having some financial issues and the loss of funding from the city would be a serious blow. Ford surely knows this and is using it as leverage to force PT to stifle participation. Basically, he's blackmailing PT, which appears to be his new modus operendi.

Who said the homosexual parade is having money problems?? I never read or heard that?

[jbg]

Who said the homosexual parade is having money problems?? I never read or heard that?

Why would they need subsidies if they had plenty of money?

[Shwa]

Who said the homosexual parade is having money problems?? I never read or heard that?

http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Pride_Toronto_financial_statements_show_big_losses-9689.aspx

Or any other simple Google search will help you out...

[Rue]

Shwa you stated:

"It has less to do with two wrongs making a right than you blatantly - and openly - contradicting yourself by acknowledging the political partisan aspect of Don Cherry making a speech at the Mayoral Swearing In Ceremony all the while denying others to do the same on City dime."

I didn't contradict myself. I stated Don Cherry's comments were partisan. I openly stated that. How about you read what I wrote. You are in such a rush to paint what Don Cherry did as the same thing this anti-Zionist organization did at gay pride day that you now want to try put words in my mouth to say I think neither is partisan. Never said that. But do continue..

"Methinks you are missing the point that the Mayoral Swearing In Ceremony - a long standing traditional ceremony, paid for by the City of Toronto - is as cultural event you will get."

No me thinks you missed the point. The City of Toronto swearing in ceremony is not a cultural event. It is a political event celebrating the election of the Mayor. He can choose whoever he wants to speak. The fact that Don Cherry chose to use the event to make some off colour political jokes is an issue however. I could see it would deeply upset you given he used the word pinko. This is why I conceded his using the word pinko and I believe making a derogatory reference to people who drive bicycles or hug trees was deeply upsetting to you. I acknowledge the trauma it caused.

However for you to try suggest what Don Cherry did is the same as what the anti-Zionist group did at gay pride day is hilarious. If you think its the same well then you go with that arguement. Lol. By the way when you do understand you are in fact arguing two wrongs make a right to justify what the anti Zionist group did and you are suggesting the Mayor knowingly set up the swearing in to engage in attacks on pinkos, tree huggers and bicycle riders. What I said is the Mayor didn't vent Don Cherry's speech and to stretch the issue to suggest he was aware ahead of time what the agenda of Don's comments would be is hilarious. Then to suggest Don's pinko comment at the swearing in ceremony seized and tainted the ceremony in a manner similiar to the anti Zionists at the gay pride day parade-well golly then-I guess you established my point we should keep these things non partisan. So tell you what-I will tell Don not to show up at any more swearing in ceremonies and you tell Black Dog's anti Zionist friends to save their rants for their own rallies against Israel and we can call it even.

As for your trauma induced by Don's comments about calling you a pinko how about you write him a letter and say he wears ridiculous clothes and has a fat Ford like face.

You stated:

" Seriously, not a "cultural event?" Are you even from Canada?"

Seriously you call a swearing in ceremony non partisan politics and purely cultural? Lol. Right. You are not exactly doing B-dog any favours trying to push the tangent as you are. Its not even germaine to his arguements. But do continue. Lol.

You stated:

"And, by the way, the QUIAA "script" was not drafted by Pride Toronto."

Never said it was. But it was known to Pride Toronto. They were well aware of QUIAA's agenda as was B-Dog. So for B-Dog to ask me what their agenda was is b.s. and for you to suggest since Gay Pride organizers didn't write the script they wouldn't know what it is, is also nonsensical.

You stated:

"No, it's likely a stroke, so you have an excuse for being completely out of touch. But you should have the tingling checked out anyways."

Tsk. Is that politically proper? I mean there you go poking fun of the disabled. Say now for a trendy leftist that is not very nice. Shame on thou.

[Rue]

Who said the homosexual parade is having money problems?? I never read or heard that?

To be fair to B-Dog, every year they have held the gay pride event the organiozers claim to have had financial problems. From the get go. One must wonder why? Maybe they should ditch the socialists running it and bring in

some of those yechy poo poo conservative gays who run businesses and make profit.

[Shwa]

Shwa you stated:

"It has less to do with two wrongs making a right than you blatantly - and openly - contradicting yourself by acknowledging the political partisan aspect of Don Cherry making a speech at the Mayoral Swearing In Ceremony all the while denying others to do the same on City dime."

I didn't contradict myself. I stated Don Cherry's comments were partisan. I openly stated that. How about you read what I wrote. You are in such a rush to paint what Don Cherry did as the same thing this anti-Zionist organization did at gay pride day that you now want to try put words in my mouth to say I think neither is partisan. Never said that. But do continue..

The equivalence is all yours, when it suits you, which puts you into contradiction.

You missed the point. The question is should the city fund such events. It started out as a gay event. Now its a gay event being used by a specific political interest group for other reasons. No the city should not fund events that provide individuals platforms to express personal political views and seize non political festivities to engage in such things.

I actually couldn't care less about Cherry's remarks per se, but you admit they were partisan and the "platform" for him to express his "personal political views" was paid for by the City of Toronto funded, in part, by it's citizens.

"Methinks you are missing the point that the Mayoral Swearing In Ceremony - a long standing traditional ceremony, paid for by the City of Toronto - is as cultural event you will get."

No me thinks you missed the point. The City of Toronto swearing in ceremony is not a cultural event. It is a political event celebrating the election of the Mayor. He can choose whoever he wants to speak. The fact that Don Cherry chose to use the event to make some off colour political jokes is an issue however.

The Mayoral Swearing in Ceremony is a cultural event by any other name. Call it a political event or a social event, they are all cultural events. The 'word' ceremony should have clued you in.

I could see it would deeply upset you given he used the word pinko. This is why I conceded his using the word pinko and I believe making a derogatory reference to people who drive bicycles or hug trees was deeply upsetting to you. I acknowledge the trauma it caused.

Actually I got a kick out of his comments, they were funny. There is no trauma. The only reason I used Cherry's remarks is to point out the gross inconsistency with your have-it-both-ways type of argument.

However for you to try suggest what Don Cherry did is the same as what the anti-Zionist group did at gay pride day is hilarious. If you think its the same well then you go with that arguement. Lol.

The only one suggesting that is you, my quibble is with the strict idea that the City should not fund events where individuals are provided platforms to express their personal political views. Of course the City does this all the time at all kinds of events, paid for by it's citizens. I am just using Don Cherry's remarks as an example.

By the way when you do understand you are in fact arguing two wrongs make a right to justify what the anti Zionist group did and you are suggesting the Mayor knowingly set up the swearing in to engage in attacks on pinkos, tree huggers and bicycle riders.

No, I am saying that "the City" funds plenty of events - and always has - that provide platforms for individuals to express their personal political views. I could care less about Don Cherry or some anti-Zionist group. If you are OK with one having the platform then don't whine when another takes advantage of the opportunity.

What I said is the Mayor didn't vent Don Cherry's speech and to stretch the issue to suggest he was aware ahead of time what the agenda of Don's comments would be is hilarious. Then to suggest Don's pinko comment at the swearing in ceremony seized and tainted the ceremony in a manner similiar to the anti Zionists at the gay pride day parade-well golly then-I guess you established my point we should keep these things non partisan.

No, it would be better to make people aware that at public events, people will be public with their views. Has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with a freedom of expression, which both Don Cherry and the anti-Zionist group did at events funded, in part, by the City of Toronto.

So tell you what-I will tell Don not to show up at any more swearing in ceremonies and you tell Black Dog's anti Zionist friends to save their rants for their own rallies against Israel and we can call it even.

So you are admitting you are all for limits to freedom of expression in Canada now because it offends your sensibilities? Not me, I say allow the Don Cherry's and the anti-Zionist group their platforms, speak, be heard and be evaluated on what they have to say.

As for your trauma induced by Don's comments about calling you a pinko how about you write him a letter and say he wears ridiculous clothes and has a fat Ford like face.

There was no trauma for me, but there appears to be some with you from this anti-Zionist group.

You stated:

" Seriously, not a "cultural event?" Are you even from Canada?"

Seriously you call a swearing in ceremony non partisan politics and purely cultural? Lol. Right. You are not exactly doing B-dog any favours trying to push the tangent as you are. Its not even germaine to his arguements. But do continue. Lol.

Of course it never dawned on you that even the most partisan political event could be "purely cultural" in the same way that partisan Catholics and partisan Protestants are still "purely religious." (and religion too, is cultural BTW)

You stated:

"And, by the way, the QUIAA "script" was not drafted by Pride Toronto."

Never said it was. But it was known to Pride Toronto. They were well aware of QUIAA's agenda as was B-Dog. So for B-Dog to ask me what their agenda was is b.s. and for you to suggest since Gay Pride organizers didn't write the script they wouldn't know what it is, is also nonsensical.

So, now you are stating that others should adhere to your personal sensibilities when it comes to expressing their views? Sauce-goose-gander.

You stated:

"No, it's likely a stroke, so you have an excuse for being completely out of touch. But you should have the tingling checked out anyways."

Tsk. Is that politically proper? I mean there you go poking fun of the disabled. Say now for a trendy leftist that is not very nice. Shame on thou.

Trendy leftist??

LOFL!

You need to get out in the fresh air a little more Rue.

[Rue]

Oh Shwa you stated:

"I actually couldn't care less about Cherry's remarks per se..."

Of course you do. You keep raising them as a basis to justify including the QUIAA in the gay pride rally.

You stated:

"but you admit they were partisan and the "platform" for him to express his "personal political views" was paid for by the City of Toronto funded, in part, by it's citizens."

Lol what I said is his off colour jokes were politically partisan in nature yes. I didn't admit it. His words speak for themselves. I don't have to admit anything. I am only referring to his words. What I also stated is he was nto paid for his appearance and yes if you want to equivalate his words and behaviour at the swearing in ceremony with the QUIAA shaking their anti zionist booty at gay pride, then all power to you.

You state again

"The Mayoral Swearing in Ceremony is a cultural event by any other name. Call it a political event or a social event, they are all cultural events. The 'word' ceremony should have clued you in.

Uh no. Shwa stop pushing yourself out on such a tangent. You'll get a hernia. Don't be absurd. don't suggest because something is a ceremony its not political. Also you might want to be a tad more attentive at the actual issue I was debating. I was not debating the gay pride day or mayor ceremony. What I was debating was the decision for the gay pride event planners to allow the QUIAA with an agenda that has nothing to do with being gay taint the gay pride event. The QUIAA agenda is about raving and ranting about all Jews or anyone else who supports the right of Israel to exist-period. Nothing to do with celebrating gay culture. Spin all you want that the mayor's swearing in ceremony is not political or or the gay parade was intended to be political. Spin spin spin. It doesn't change the fact that the QUIAA is a negative, narrow, hate mongering group whose message is to incite violence and hatred against anyone who supports the right of Israel to exist.

Now you said in regards to Don Cherry's comments:

"Actually I got a kick out of his comments, they were funny. There is no trauma."

Sounds like you are still in denial. Don't worry the skin rash will clear and your hair will grow back. Look you are in good company. Many people find Don offensive. Be my guest.

You stated:

"The only reason I used Cherry's remarks is to point out the gross inconsistency with your have-it-both-ways type of argument."

No the reason you used it is because you are trying to twist what I actually stated and to argue that since Don Cherry said what he said the QUIAA should be able to do what they did at the gay pride rally. What I stated is if you not I want to push that envelope and equate them as the same and then argue one justifies the other, go ahead.

But don't try suggest I have said one is politically partisan and the other is not. I never said that. What I did say is that for you to try push that comparison borders on absurdity. Don Cherry never told anyone pinkos don't have the right to exist nor does he champion genocide of bicycle riders, pinkos or tree huggers.

To compare his comments to those of QUIAA and say they are of equivalent moral meaning is hilarious.

Go ahead. Push. A man makes a pinko comment for a cheap laugh and you compare that with the QUIAA which calls for violence to rid the state of Israel of its existence?

Lol. Uh yah. Don Cherry at the Mayor's inaugral is just like the QUIAA and the gay pride parade. Uh yah.

Lol.

You stated:

"my quibble is with the strict idea that the City should not fund events where individuals are provided platforms to express their personal political views. Of course the City does this all the time at all kinds of events, paid for by it's citizens. I am just using Don Cherry's remarks as an example."

Give other examples. The one of Don Cherry with due respect is a tad absurd. Give another. While you are at it explain how Don Cherry's appearance has now set a precedent that the city must continue to fund anyone who wants to have a political demonstration.

Do continue with that reasoning.

Oh but wait...do I hear more words from you...

"No, I am saying that "the City" funds plenty of events - and always has - that provide platforms for individuals to express their personal political views. "

Yes that's the second time you stated it with no examples. Do explain the "plenty of events". I need to know. I am sure Torontonians would like to know as well. Have you told Mr. Ford?

You stated:

"I could care less about Don Cherry or some anti-Zionist group."

Of course you do. Don has upset you with his tree hugger and pink comments. Are you denying you hugged a tree? Oh come out of the closet Shwa. Plenty of people hug trees. I do. I am proud to hug trees. Hear me loud and clear-I love trees! As for the QUIAA you responded because you agree with their anti Zionist views. The feigning of no

interest is silly. Stop that. Its like pretending you don't like trees and hug them or have the hots for Olivia Chow and Jack Layton. Come clean. You want to be their friend and protest at rallies with them.

You stated:

"If you are OK with one having the platform then don't whine when another takes advantage of the opportunity."

Nice attempt at restatement of something I did not say. What I said is the off colour jokes of Don Cherry being used by you to try argue two wrongs make a right and because Don Cherry said something you consider politically partisan the QUIAA should be allowed as well-is your words. I never stated that Don Cherry could do something the QUIAA can't.

In fact I made it quite clear there would be a contradiction if we allowed one and not the other using your arguement.

What I did state is I consider Don Cherry's questionable humour a tad different in nature than the QUIAA's but I did concede for consistency in the arguement, neither is appropriate.

The difference for me personally though is I know the difference between someone making a couple of gag comments for laughs with a group that calls for violence and terrorist tactics. If you want to equate Don Cherry with preaching all pinkoes and tree huggers should be wiped out and is equally offensive and morally questionable as the QUIAA gof or it. Just stop trying to be absurd and put words in my mouth to suggest I have created a double standard.

I have not. The attempt to jsutofy the QUIAA at gay pride with Don Cherry at the mayor inaugral is with due respect a pretty lame arguement to suggest the city must now fund events for anyone who wants to use those events to have a political tantrum. By all means petition Mr. Ford and say-no more Don Cherry at any future mayoral events.

Be my guest. Better still tell that pinko station CBC to not use him anymore.

Shwa, smile before I send you a picture of Olivia Chow nude. Then you will have real trauma. You should see what she has done with the NDP logo.

You stated:

"No, it would be better to make people aware that at public events, people will be public with their views."

Oh and you speak on behalf of tax-payers now do you. Toronto tax payers have nothing better to do then fund QUIAA tantrums? Really now. That's interesting. Heaven forbid the money should be used for other things.

You stated:

"..Has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with a freedom of expression.."

Neither. The issue has everything to do with what the city should fund. You completely missed the point. No one is saying either Don Cherry or QUIAA should not express their views. The issue is whether the city should fund events for people to vent their politically partisan views. Shwa, you might want to stick with the issue. No one is saying the QUIAA can't march down the street in their thongs screaming at Israel-what I am arguing is the city's taxpayers should not have to pay for it.

You stated:

"which both Don Cherry and the anti-Zionist group did at events funded, in part, by the City of Toronto. "

Yes you keep repeating that as if 2 wrongs will make a right? Indeed you have beaten that one to death. Yes they were both in your mind equivalent in political exercise. If they were it still would not etablish they should be funded by the city, just that they are political in nature.

You stated:

"So you are admitting you are all for limits to freedom of expression in Canada now because it offends your sensibilities? "

No and your attempt to try mistate what I said is silly. At no time have I said censor people because I disagree with them. You and Black Dog really have tried to go far with that one but it just won't stick. I have repeated now 2zillion kabillion times the QUIAA does not offend me nor does Don Cherry. Don Cherry I find funny the QUIAA I find

to be annyong gnats, but neither offends me. Please don't presume to know what offends me. My contention all along is whether they should be funded by the city and whether people at the gay parade who come out expecting a non partisan event find the QUIAA annoying gnats.

In fact the only thing that offends me is Rita MacNeil if she wanted to parade naked in Toronto. Probably Celine Dion or Anne Murray too.

You stated:

"Not me, I say allow the Don Cherry's and the anti-Zionist group their platforms, speak, be heard and be evaluated on what they have to say."

Yes Shwa that's nice. But you missed the point. The point is not whether they be allowed to speak. This is a free country. Of course they can speak. The question is, does the city need to fund events so they can have platforms to vent their political views.

Oh look you stated again:

"There was no trauma for me.."

Say now that is the second time you mentioned it. Clearly the trauma is deep and you are asking me for help. Again all I can say is come out of the closet and admit you hug trees. I have and I feel better for it. I especially love

pine trees. Love the smell of all fur trees. I also like berch, poplar, maple, oak, lilac, spruce. don't get me going about blueberry bushes.

Now you suggested I am traumatized by the QUIAA as you stated:

"...but there appears to be some with you from this anti-Zionist group."

Trauma no. Now mind you in the past certain men with big flaby cheeks wearing thongs did scare me a bit. Also I was

very upset with this beautiful dyke who I know I would never ever be able to have carnal knowledge with. Now nothing is a bigger trauma then a hot dyke when you are a guy. Its bad man. I am still in trauma over Jody Foster from years ago and now Michelle Rodriquez.

You stated:

"Of course it never dawned on you that even the most partisan political event could be "purely cultural" in the same way that partisan Catholics and partisan Protestants are still "purely religious."

No idea what the point is you were trying to make above but I can say it dawned on me that the QUIAA trying to turn gay pride into an opportunity to incite people to cry out they want Israel wiped out was a tad inappropriate since not just gay faux hags like me but boring straights and gays (that's what Black Doggy calls me)also found it unwelcome and poisoning to what was otherwise supposed to be a time to enjoy inclusiveness not single out for hatred people who support Israel's right to exist.

You stated:

"So, now you are stating that others should adhere to your personal sensibilities when it comes to expressing their views?"

Oh really? Can you reproduce the words where I stated the above? Lol. Shwa trying to mistate what I said won't change what I said.

You said:

"Trendy leftist??

LOFL! "

Do you deny you have loafers? Do you deny having anything stylish? Are you suggesting thou votes for Bubbly Bob Ford? Lol. Now Shwa.

Finally you stated:

"You need to get out in the fresh air a little more Rue."

Lol I do. Then I made the mistake of being downwind from the QUIAA.

p.s. you have to love the irony that "Shwa" can be used to refer to an unstressed and toneless neutral vowel sound in some languages

p.s.s. Rue is short for rude

Edited April 12, 2011 by Rue

[Rue]

O.k. I am saying it loud and clear, Rob Ford in a thong marching down Yonge Street should not be funded by the city.

I heard rumours he is thinking about it for next year. No I say. No. No. No. No. Those are huge cheeks.

Also I think any anti Zionist gay who wants to monopolize the parade with calls for the eradication of Zionists understand I do not turn my other cheek with or without thongs when they dance about but I respect the right of gay people to make their own decisions as to the parade and event. I am just expressing my opinions. Bottom line it is up to Toronto taxpayers, their mayor and the gay community to decide such issues.

I live under Queen Hazel. I have full confidence she will not wear a thong in public.

Man all those wrinkles no one would find her underneath all that.