Mayor Ford to nix Pride Funding!

[Rue]

O.k. fine Rob Ford can march in his thongs and the City of Toronto will fund it.

This is a very emotional topic for me.

[Shwa]

Oh Shwa you stated:...<with apologies to brevity>

Your assertion that a mayoral sweating-in ceremony is not a cultural event is a non-starter; it is by any well known definition of the word "culture."

No you have to understand Rue, that if the City provides funding to "cultural" events that allow platforms for people to express their personal political views, then the platform is open to anyone so long as they don't cross the line into 'hate speech.' Period. If you are for limiting freedom of expression just come right out and say so. No need to play coy about those sorts of leanings. Come out of the closet Rue.

And, just in case, while you are up standing on guard for everyone, here is a list of the 2010 Toronto Arts Council grant recipientsfor you to vet. You know, to make sure they are all up to your standards of politics-free expression on City dime.

[treehugger]

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...

Financial irregularities kind of sticks out like a sore thumb doesn't it. They have been through this before when they never made their budget, so they got rid of the thieves who were stealing the money and got a new team. They seem to be just as bad.

$100,000 would keep the swimming pools open a bit longer for the kids in the hot summer monthsor some other such thing that will benefit people instead of a parade.

[treehugger]

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 April 14, 2011 by treehugger

[treehugger]

What makes you tingle all over? talking about penis's?

[Handsome Rob]

Well, what I would like to know is that even though Conservatives are claiming that they don't support funding for any public event, how come it's always pride they complain about? Why aren't there any threads condemning the massive amounts of money something like the Calgary Stampede recieves?

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6460966-stephen-harper-postpone-unnecessary-election/image/60591998-stephen-harper

What I would like to know is why such events of either kind receive funding at all while the ever present lack of homeless shelters manifests itself, city infrastructure falls apart, out here in BC we had to stop kids summer programs for lack of money....

Pride & The stampede both could easily recover the public funding without breaking a sweat. Break out the donation bins, if 10% of attendees through in a dollar you're solid. Heck they could even turn a profit. To suggest that either event requires public funding to function or "Return the public's investment," is silly.

[Handsome Rob]

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.

Would that show up on the budget?

[bloodyminded]

...........

Edited April 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

Financial irregularities kind of sticks out like a sore thumb doesn't it. They have been through this before when they never made their budget, so they got rid of the thieves who were stealing the money and got a new team. They seem to be just as bad.

$100,000 would keep the swimming pools open a bit longer for the kids in the hot summer monthsor some other such thing that will benefit people instead of a parade.

Aye, there's the rub. However, the tens of millions of dollars that the whole Pride thing brings to the City kind of balances off the whole kids-pool-hot-day thing doesn't? All those tens of millions being the source for tax revenue for the City of course.

[PIK]

An election win does not equate a carte blanche for every decision. BTW: Ford got 47% of the vote, Smitherman got 35%.

I think you need to prove that Queers Against Israeli Apartheid is racist.

I will tell you one thing they are stupid, Isreal is the only place in the ME that protects gays, I would like to see these people have a gay pride parade in gaza or any other arab state that borders the area, they would be having a hang a gay parade instead. So really this is about hatred for isreal or maybe even all jews.

[treehugger]

According to the Star- April 15, this parade last year cost the taxpayers $123,807 in grants and $245,000 to clean up after the parade

.That's $368,807 for a parade that most people don't ever go to see.

The committee has a budget of $1.6 million dollars for the parade. That's a lot of money!

If they can't put their parade on for the money that they have, then there should be an investigation into it.

Better still, END IT!

Edited April 15, 2011 by treehugger

[guyser]

According to the Star- April 15, this parade last year cost the taxpayers $123,807 in grants and $245,000 to clean up after the parade

.That's $368,807 for a parade that most people don't ever go to see.

Pretty damn good huh? Look at all those paid for meals and hotel rooms ! What a deal for the city.

Most people dont see it, with umpteen billion on this earth, we cant fit them all in. But somehwere between half to a million attend. The parade itself is around 150,000.

Better still, END IT!

Oh there are ends hanging out all over the place , some fronts too but mainly tops.

Do you normally enjoy it or do you wear a disguise like Mr C? (he wears a raincoat)

[bloodyminded]

I will tell you one thing they are stupid, Isreal is the only place in the ME that protects gays, I would like to see these people have a gay pride parade in gaza or any other arab state that borders the area, they would be having a hang a gay parade instead. So really this is about hatred for isreal or maybe even all jews.

Your conclusion does not follow the rest of your post.

[Bob]

First off, I don't understand why the city of Toronto would fund such a thing. It's simply theft of taxpayer money. The organizers of the event should be free to make arrangement with the municipality to ensure things go smoothly, but why should they receive public funds? It makes absolutely no sense.

Second, and I am sure everyone has heard this a million and one times, the irony of QAIA condemning Israel in a dishonest manner (describing Israel as an Apartheid state is flat-out wrong) while advocating for the national rights of a people that discriminates against homosexuals is quite rich.

Last, I admire a politician who will stand on principle and deny funds (that I don't think should be given in the first place) to an event that will allow such a group to participate. Although not quite as reprehensible as a Nazi group, QAIA is certainly spreading a dishonest message and attacking Jewish national rights in Israel. Maybe he's trying to appeal to certain Jewish voters, or maybe he's sincerely standing on principle, but he's doing the right thing in denying to fund an event that would host a group like QAIA.

[CANADIEN]

First off, I don't understand why the city of Toronto would fund such a thing. It's simply theft of taxpayer money. The organizers of the event should be free to make arrangement with the municipality to ensure things go smoothly, but why should they receive public funds? It makes absolutely no sense.

It is not a theft. Feel free to debate as much as you want as to whether or not events that fill the cities coffers should receive funding, but to call it a theft is non-sense. Unless you can prove that money is being taken illegally.

[Bob]

It is not a theft. Feel free to debate as much as you want as to whether or not events that fill the cities coffers should receive funding, but to call it a theft is non-sense. Unless you can prove that money is being taken illegally.

I didn't mean theft in the legal sense. In my view, it's political theft. Just because it probably isn't breaking any laws doesn't change my opinion.

[CANADIEN]

I didn't mean theft in the legal sense. In my view, it's political theft. Just because it probably isn't breaking any laws doesn't change my opinion.

Political theft... :lol:

Edited April 17, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Bob]

Political theft... :lol:

Why is that funny? This kinda thing happens all the time. Unjustified expenses that are imposed on governments can certainly be described that way. I'm certainly not alone in recognizing that the Gay Pride Parade isn't really a justifiable use of taxpayer dollars.

[CANADIEN]

Why is that funny? This kinda thing happens all the time. Unjustified expenses that are imposed on governments can certainly be described that way. I'm certainly not alone in recognizing that the Gay Pride Parade isn't really a justifiable use of taxpayer dollars.

why it is funny? Because it is ridculous. No matter what one may think of funding festivals, whether it's the Stampede or PrideWeek. And no, the expense is not imposed on Government. Government chose to do that kind of things.

[Rue]

Your assertion that a mayoral sweating-in ceremony is not a cultural event is a non-starter; it is by any well known definition of the word "culture."

No you have to understand Rue, that if the City provides funding to "cultural" events that allow platforms for people to express their personal political views, then the platform is open to anyone so long as they don't cross the line into 'hate speech.' Period. If you are for limiting freedom of expression just come right out and say so. No need to play coy about those sorts of leanings. Come out of the closet Rue.

And, just in case, while you are up standing on guard for everyone, here is a list of the 2010 Toronto Arts Council grant recipientsfor you to vet. You know, to make sure they are all up to your standards of politics-free expression on City dime.

Shwa doth thou accuse me of being a censor? Now come good Sir.

Listen seriously Shwa, I don't care what the political opinion is-I just think government funding should be used for non patronage events for the obvious reason. The moment you start using taxpayers money for specific political views you know the slippery slope.

The attempt to accuse me of only wanting to censor QUIAA because of their particular views misses the point. If they had beens upporters of Ghaddafi, the IRA, Shining Path, the KKK,

yegards the NDP, (dare I say it), the Conservatives, Liberals, Christian Heritage Party (oh come on please they must have closeted members) I'd also have a problem for the exact same reason.

I hope they have settled the problem. The gay orhanizers claim this group has agreed not to march at the pride event and QUIAA says they won't. Lol, I personally think they will and knowing members in that organization, lying and being smug about it would be par for what they believe in. So I doubt any funding will get cleared until someone signs an agreement.

The city is not going to be made a fool of twice. They have already been lied to once by Kyle Rae who quite frankly was an elitist snit snot if I may use such harsh words.

That said there are far bigger issues to fry. I am not interested in bashing the gay community. This is really an internal problem for them and they have to work it out and they should for the sake of their community. Having divisive groups at their event is something they have to deal with. They can't expect taxpayers like me though who are fully supportive of their community to want to fund politically partisan a-holes.

I treat the gay community as I would any other. If they want city support of course they should get it. Use their culture though to start promoting hateful partisan politics, and expect opposition-they don't get a free ride simply re-naming such activities gay. They aint gay. The people in QUIAA may be gay but their agenda has nothing to do with promoting gay culture.

Now if you think I want the QUIAA censored you are wrong. Bring the fools out in public where they belong. No one is saying censor them-but what many are saying is no we will not pay to have them use taxpayers money to scream. We have roads, subways and infrastructure to worry about.

[Rue]

For what its worth Bob my bone to pick is with using gay pride events for politically partisan purposes and expecting governments to fund partisan political activities not gay pride events.

I believe gay pride events should be funded by the city for a couple of reasons. One is I believe gays are a vital cultural-ethical-social group that helped build the city of Toronto and has a vibrant and unique community that has contributed to the entire city not just gays in the city. Gay pride is there one chance to celebrate their culture and history and sure cities fund cultural events all the time.

I think most people in Toronto are gay friendly. We may not fully understand what gays go through but we see them as a people with a distinct culture and identity and we support their wanting once a year to be positive about themselves and share that positive feeling.

They do bring in revenue to our hotels and tourism and you have to understand gay community activities were not just for gays. They have been pioners in hospice care, funding city hospitals, rebuilding decaying buildings, education, and counseling for rape and sex assault among many other things that have benefitted straight and gay.

People don't have that religious hang up of yester-year-at least not the majority any more and particularly the next generation who simply see gays as an ethnic-cultural group and do not make the big deal of it earlier generations still do.

Gays should be entitled to the same funding other ethnic groups get-since gays are of every political opinion no different then straights, no I don't think we should fund only Tory gays or Liberal gays or NDP gays for their partisan political events using gay as the pretense for it but instead stressing only non gay political partisan views which is what QUIAA is-a hate group that promotes violence and terror against Israel-but QUIAA is not the gay community or anything about what gay pride is. Let's be fair.

We either treat all cultural displays fairly or not at all. If you don't want to fund gay pride, fine, then do not fund ANY cultural event in the city-but you can't fund some cultural events but not others. Its a slippery slope. If all the city wants to fund are

Chinese cultural events but no one else's of course that would be unfair.

Also rumours that I am seeking funding for a massive nudist rally to celebrate our messianic leader, Oleg Bach are false. I have been and will continue to be a

Lindsay Lohan groupy.

[Bob]

why it is funny? Because it is ridculous. No matter what one may think of funding festivals, whether it's the Stampede or PrideWeek. And no, the expense is not imposed on Government. Government chose to do that kind of things.

I didn't say the government didn't choose to give the money. Let me clarify, I wasn't suggesting the Gay Pride Parade was stealing money from the government, rather that the government is stealing money from the taxpayers by willingly giving away money to an unworthy cause.

Consider the recent example of corporate welfare south of the border, where GE didn't pay any income taxes this year despite large profits - that is another example of theft, although still legal. I wasn't using the term in the legal sense. Anyways, it would appear that you're deliberately being obtuse.

[Shwa]

Listen seriously Shwa, I don't care what the political opinion is-I just think government funding should be used for non patronage events for the obvious reason. The moment you start using taxpayers money for specific political views you know the slippery slope.

Tell me something Rue, when HASN'T taxpayers money been used for "specific political views?"

Cause, really, that is the question isn't it? Whenever there is a public gathering, there will those there to express their views, which are almost always political on one form or another. Hardly preventable, regardless of who is kicking into the kitty.

[Rue]

Tell me something Rue, when HASN'T taxpayers money been used for "specific political views?"

Cause, really, that is the question isn't it? Whenever there is a public gathering, there will those there to express their views, which are almost always political on one form or another. Hardly preventable, regardless of who is kicking into the kitty.

Oh well then. Political patronage can't be stopped so let's just allow it and fund it and encourage it

and condone it and promote it?

Yah.

O.k. so since people have been driving drunk and that is inevitable we should condone that too?

Sorry me no buy your arguement that if you can't stop something you may as well encourage it.

To me that is not how you construct social policy.

Though mind you I do get your point. As much as I disagree with your point about looking the other

way on patronage when it comes to other forms of prostitution I think prostitution should be

legalized-but that is another story with what I believe are other salient points that differentiate

the sexual form of prostitution from political prostitution.

No Shwa with due respect, that one won't fly. The fact that governments are corupt or engaged in

kickbacks or the fact that Stephen Harper is as large a huh-orr as Chretien doesn't justify taxpayers

having to fund events that allow specific political groups to engage in hate displays at otherwise positive

celebrations of culture.

There's a time and place for government funding and we all have a right to say enough is enough no we

don't have to fund anyone with our taxpayer's money who wants to have a thong tantrum and we as taxpayers have

a right to expect all our governments not to waste our money on partisan purposes and fight them when they

do.

No the fact that all politicians pay off their buddies with appointments doesn't mean my taxpayers money should

be spent so some angry anti Zionists can scream at gay pride that hey ho Israel has to go.

I want that money spent on roads, and most importantly sewers. After all without sewers where would QUIAA

send their message? I mean please I only want to accommodate the substance of their comments.

Like heaven forbid it could not be dispatched accordingly.

You see Shwa I am a live and let live kind of faux fag hag. Lol. Also I know it was you who put that picture of Bobby Ford on the cover of Now Magazine. I had no idea Bobby Ford had such large breasts.

For heaven's sake the man needs a bra. The orca whale has landed.

O.k. that is not nice. Fat jokes are uncalled for. Oh by the way that was not an earthquake. Just Mayfor Ford sitting down.

Oh sorry.

You hear they are expanding city hall? Mr. Ford was having difficulty fitting in.

Ooops it just slipped.

What's the difference between Rob Ford and Rita McNeil?

Not much.

Ooops I can't stop myself.

[Shwa]

Oh well then. Political patronage can't be stopped so let's just allow it and fund it and encourage it and condone it and promote it?

Yah. O.k. so since people have been driving drunk and that is inevitable we should condone that too?

Sorry me no buy your arguement that if you can't stop something you may as well encourage it. To me that is not how you construct social policy.

It has nothing to do with "patronage" and I am not sure how you arrived at this being about patronage at all. If you want to construct "social policy" then think in the broadest terms that includes publicly funded events, attended by the public, who publicly express views that might be contrary to the current funder's views. So what?

No Shwa with due respect, that one won't fly. The fact that governments are corupt or engaged in kickbacks or the fact that Stephen Harper is as large a huh-orr as Chretien doesn't justify taxpayers having to fund events that allow specific political groups to engage in hate displays at otherwise positive celebrations of culture.

Taxpayers fund views contrary to your own all the time and always have except under the circumstances of tyranny. All you are saying is that you would rather restrict freedoms in the name of some sort of fiscal rationalizations. Nice try, that won't fly.

There's a time and place for government funding and we all have a right to say enough is enough no we don't have to fund anyone with our taxpayer's money who wants to have a thong tantrum and we as taxpayers have a right to expect all our governments not to waste our money on partisan purposes and fight them when they do.

Riiiiiiigght. Sure.