Mayor Ford to nix Pride Funding!

[Rue]

Mr. Canada you know I disagree with many of your views but at least you get the existential connection between the state of Israel and Jews as continuing people. I applaud you for that. For an often accused "fascist" you show more tolerance then those who call you one and think themselves liberals and tolerant. Then again Franco is not my kind of dinner guest. I am more of a Martin Luther King Bobby Kennedy kind of person.

That said let me slay you with a difference of opinion I do not expect you to agree with. I understand your contention and not just yours but many peoples of all kinds of political and religious beliefs, that the gay pride festivities are not family appropriate. I am not quick to judge you on it.

It is a legitimate debating issue. Some have argued the city should not fund a festival that is inappropriate to public values.

Before I address that issue I believe the city should not fund any partisan political views and should only fund apolitical cultural events. I believe gay people are an ethnic community no different then any other with their own distinct culture and should be treated no differently then any other ethnic group.

So if we fund other ethnic events with city funding I believe we should fund gay ones for the same reason. That said I also appreciate that in times of fiscal restraint, the city can make the legitimate arguement that before it can fund a cultural event the community must show there is a benefit to taxpayers funding such an event, i.e., the tourism brought in that then generates city taxes, pays more then any funding given. That to me makes fiscal sense, i.e., if you can bring in more tax revenue then your funding, I say do it.

That said, in regards to the family issue, I know many straight and gay parents that bring their children to gay pride activities. I went with my daughters and niece on year. They loved it. Why wouldn't they? Gays are cool. I also am friends with gay parents. They are very loving good parents and yes there kids are straight and did not magically become gay because there parents are.

I argue if you have religious beliefs or other beliefs that feel it inappropriate don't take your children and I respect that but don't impose your views on others-let people decide for themselves what they think they can handle.

That said, although you may think I am a never ending liberal I am not. I am more classic conservative with individual rights than liberal. I prefer an Edmund Burke approach to a Jeremy Bentham one if we must throw conservative and liberal about.

Now that said, I do think that frontal nudity is inappropriate to young children so yah I am concerned with certain people at the parades.

The parade has featured naked people or people with dangling penises. For me that might be inappropriate for children. I personally feel there are certain sado-masochist outfits and thongs and sexual attachments that could also be inappropriate for children to view. That's me personally. I just believe we adults should not be sexual in front of them and protect their right to be innocent and sex free around adults.

I know the issue as to public decency and whether people should be naked or almost naked generates contraversy and brings up issues as to criminal law and indecent exposure. Its a tough issue. I make no claims to knowing where to draw the line. Me personally I prefer to err on the side of caution with children and adults engaging in sexual displays. I just don't see the 2 mixing.

I have no easy answer to that other in the context of some of these guys parading other than to say, don't bring your children if you think its inappropriate or shield your children's view from certain things if you think it inappropriate.

Where I disagree with you is in this notion that children should not attend. Young children under a certain age probably as it would be no fun for them. Over a certain age, why can't they go with their parents who are gay or are friends with gays?

Children are not stupid. They are not frightened or traumatized by gays. They don't become gay because they see someone is gay. Its no different to them then going to caribana and experiencing different cultures and so it should be.

I also don't think we should confuse all gay culture with a certain component of it that can get very sexual and kinky. With that sex component I think parents should be realistic and use a common sense approach to shielding their children from certain sexual issues until they are older. I know gay parents who feel the exact same way as straight parents on that issue. They are no more comfortable having their children witness naked adults then straight parents.

However I don't think the question as to funding is simply coming up because of certain marching men and their thongs or penis rings although I do note from past threads such things annoy and upset my guru Oleg Bach who doesn't like the concept of thongs and some have openly questioned whether the city can fund or condone illegal activities.

I too personally feel thongs are threatening. Just thinking about people coughing wearing them makes me nervous. Also I am not into penis rings or piercings of any kind particularily in one's pee pee. No that makes me very very nervous.

Then again I don't like penises for that matter. Mind you I have one and have learned to live with it but I think for the most part it belongs in my pants and should only used for pissing and sex. I don't believe it should be used as a weapon or macho contest measuring device or to hang a coat or keys on.

I also don't like twirling it and my parents taught me its rude to point. So I ruled strip joint dancing or jogging at nude beaches.

That said it gets very subjective so I say, just avoid certain events if they bug you.

The few times I have gone to the parade I always end up talking to the draq queens

that look like Shaquille O'Neil, Dr. Phil, Oleg Bach and Serena Williams.

I once arm wrestled a transgendered person who looked just like Halle Berry only she had good biceps. I had to buy him/her a beer. Her boyfriend looked like Stephen Harper.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Rue

[Black Dog]

"Does criticism of Israel for human rights abuses ipso facto imply support of human rights abuses elsewhere?"

Again you engage in bait and switch. The above question has nothing to do with the issue as to whetger a gay cultural festival should be hijacked for non gay partisan political agenda and whether such partisan views be funded by the city government.

So why the fuck are you banging on about gays fleeing to Tel Aviv in the first place? talk about misdirection. Or in this case, pink washing.

Again I believe your question is insincere and that you know what the answer to it is and that is when the anti Zionists were asked by gays not to use the gay pride day for their exclusive political agenda they told those gay people to f..ck themselves and when the press asked them whether they also planned to protest the anti gay treatment in the Muslim world or bring attention to the persecution of gays in the Muslim world who then flee to Israel they responded stating even though Israel was a refuge for gays from all over the Middle East this consideration was not relevant as issues pertaining to gays in the Middle East were secondary to the need to dismantle Israel.

If QuAIA were asked not to participate by the Pride organizers why were they allowed to participate? Check your facts, son.

You asked me;

" What type of comment would you like to see regarding human rights in the other Middle eastern states?"

The question again misses the point. Its not what I want or what you want.

Bullshit. You and many like you seem to crave some kind of ritual denunciation of places like "Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morrocco, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Jordan, Yemen, Iran". As though their practices are not self-evidently appalling and-ahem-barbaric. As if any of them claim to champion human rights, individual freedom and democracy. It's a common tactic, one you deployed in the post to which I originally responded And it's a misdirection of the highest order.

The gay pride weekend is about gays. Its what gays want. Its about gays celebrating their culture. I don't claim to speak for them. If the true majority of gays feel they should be anti Zionist and ignore violations against gays in the Middle East and hijack the festival and place anti Zionist agenda ahead of gay agenda it is not up to me to say. It's not my festival. If the gay community of Toronto truly wants to turn there cultural festival into a platform to single out Israel and deny its right to exist so be it. I doubt the majority of gays will ever agree to that for 2 reasons however.

And here's another classic pro-Israel strawman: that asking Israel to stop stomping on human rights in the occupied territories is the same thing as denying it's right to exist.

Gays do not hate Zionism. They understand it. If anything they criticize the state of Israel the same reason I would. Not because they are anti Zionist, but because of specific policies. They are not against Jews having our own country. They simply believe what most Israelis do, and that is that terrorism is wrong, Muslim and jewish and Christian fundamentalism causes nothing but problems and hopefully one day Israelis and Palestinians and all Arab peoples and Jews, whether straight or gay can live in peace.

Gays stood arm to arm with Jews, women and blacks in the civil rights movement. The spiritual link will always be there. We share the same dry self effacing sense of humour. We both have survived and coped with persecution by building vibrant cultures we celebrate through music, art, academics, and charity.

Has it ever occurred to you that the historical struggles of the gay community for basic human rights is precisely what draws many to become active in the Israeli Palestinian debate?

Gays will not turn on us. Some may feel conflicted with anti Israeli extremist views because of confusion with their Muslim identity but the vast majority are interested in building peace between Israelis and Palestinians or inter-cooperation between them, us, Christians, Muslims, all ethnic groups.

Secondly the gays I know are all about including ALL peoples in their festival not just those with the same political views. They are trying to embrace not just gays of all kinds of political views and walks of life but straights too.... and so try very hard to remain neutral and welcoming to all and not pick sides in political or religious disputes unless it is to defend gays as a group from persecution.

Gays are not a monolith. I'll no more accept that they are universally pro-Zionist than I would the opposite claim. There's a diversity of opinion in the gay community just as there is o=n the het one. You know:Queers Against Israeli Apartheid?

Secondly, I have been at meetings where the gay community has openly expressed fears that if their cultural festival is misappropriated for non gay issues, it will lose its unique purpose of expression-can you not understand that?

Spare me the condescension. I'm well aware of the struggle within the queer community over the meaning and soul of Pride. The concerns you highlight are totally legitimate and worthy of discussion.

o you think you should be able to burst into a gay person's home and demand they pay homage to your political views or can you for once pipe down and respect their home?

Again: gay group marches against Israeli apartheid. Other gays march in support of Israel. Who the hell is telling the gays what to do here but Rob Ford?

[Mr.Canada]

Again: gay group marches against Israeli apartheid. Other gays march in support of Israel. Who the hell is telling the gays what to do here but Rob Ford?

They are free to take part in Pride but if they do don't expect Pride to get any funding from the city. No one's saying they cannot take part, they're saying that they won't be getting any city money if this group takes part.

Understand now?

[Shwa]

They are free to take part in Pride but if they do don't expect Pride to get any funding from the city. No one's saying they cannot take part, they're saying that they won't be getting any city money if this group takes part.

Understand now?

The City of Toronto is not against free speech. Pride will get their funding.

[Black Dog]

I see something went pear shaped and the top half of my last post was chopped. Let’s try it again.

So let me respond to some of your comments Blach Dawg:

Get the name right and use the quote function.

"When I lived in Vancouver, pride regularly featured a contingent of Arab-Canadians protesting in solidarity with gay victims of homophobic regimes in the Middle East, Iran and Afghanistan."

Interesting you didn't mention that while you lived in Vancouver the gay pride festivities were not used as a platform for non gay related issues such as ranting at Zionism. Are we a tad selective as to what we remember?

I was responding to the claim that only Israel is ever singled out for criticism.

"It wouldn't surprise me if there were similar gestures made in Toronto, but i can't say for sure. Can you? Maybe we should check Mr. Canada's video for evidence."

The same anti Zionists had butkus to say about gay rights in Israel or the anti-gay behaviour throughout the Middle East. Like you didn't know.

I don’t know and I don’t find your claim to be particularly believable either.

You stated:

"It can't do both? It's an inherently political event based around the idea of freedom of expression."

No sometimes its not possible to be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time although no doubt some do think it is possible to suck and blow at the same time.

The answer is no it can't be both for the simple reason if it is, then the gay festival of pride turns into something other then that and then it won't stop at Israel it will turn into a non stop bitch session for all kibnds of issues and end up having nothing to do with gay culture.

That’s up to the gay community to decide, not you.

You stated:

"Excuse me, but who are you to dictate this group's agenda?"

I am not dictating the agenda you are. You are the one dictating the gay pride festival should be used for your own partisan political purposes unrelated to gay culture not me. I have contended is not up to you or anyone else to dictate what political views and causes you want imposed at gay pride day cultural decelebrations.

No you don't get to dictate and decide and make sweeping pronouncements that the gay cultural festival must be used for your partisan purposes and then try suggest if I disagree with that I am the one dictating the agenda.

I’m not the one saying what should and should not be included. You are. If they decide to include QuAIA, as well as counterpoints from the Zionist queer community, that’s their call. Again, I’m not saying what should and should not be allowed. It’s their debate and I support their right to make that call without external influence. Too bad you and Ford feel like you can call the shots for them.

You ask:

"So when would be a goOd time and place to criticize Israel?"

The question makes it self evident how insincere you are. Would you otherwise have me believe you can't fathom it would at a political event specifically set up for such an agenda and not at a cultural event that is suppposed to be inclusive of all gay people and not just the ones who have your anti Zionist political views?

You don’t seem to understand what inclusive means. Hint: it's not about neutrality.

You can't grasp that partisan political agenda do not belong at apolitical cultural events? You can't grasp that the gay community has people of all kinds of political views and so to remain inclusive and welcoming to all gays at a cultural event it must avoid partisan political disputes? That's too hard for you to fathom?

Pride is not an apolitical cultural event:

We remind people of the political roots of Pride in the Stonewall rebellion against police repression in 1969 and that the Pride march in 1981 in Toronto grew out of our community resistance to the massive bath raids of that year. On the Pride march in 1981 about a thousand of us stopped in protest in front of 52 Division Police Station (which played a major part in the raids) and our resistance to the bath raids was rooted in solidarity with other communities (including the Black and South Asian communities) also facing police repression. Two of the initiating groups for Pride in 1981 — Gay Liberation Against the Right Everywhere (GLARE) and Lesbians Against the Right (LAR) — organized Pride as part of more general organizing against the moral conservative right-wing. This included not only its anti-queer but also its anti-feminist, racist and anti-working class agendas.

We also remember in the 1980s that lesbian and gay activists around the world, including in Toronto in the Simon Nkoli Anti-Apartheid Committee, took up the struggle not only for lesbian and gay rights in South Africa but linked this to our opposition to the apartheid system of racial segregation and white supremacy in South Africa. This global queer solidarity helps to account for how it was that constitutional protection for lesbians and gay men was first established in the new post-apartheid South Africa.

Solidarity with all struggles against oppression has been a crucial part of the history of Pride.

Open Letter to Pride Toronto from founders of Pride in 1981

You stated:

" Because as far as I can gather from the pro-Israel contingent here, the time is never and the place is nowhere."

As far as you can gather? Show me once where I or anyone else in this thread stated there is never a time and place for it. Go on. Put up or shut up. You gather? What have you gathered?

Go on show me where I or anyone else in this thread stated no criticism of Israel should ever be allowed. You gathered nothing. You simply project your own subjective preconceived notions on others and try present your biases as if you determined them based on an evidentiary investigation. Right

.

In my extensive experience on this issue, here on this board and elsewhere, I’ve seen criticism of Israel met with accusations of anti-Semetism. I’ve seen criticism met with the usual misdirection about why Israel alone is singled out. Basically, I’ve yet to see any of the reflexive defenders of Israel so much as acknowledge a single issue around Israel’s human rights record: if anything, it’s been given a carte blanche. If you haven’t witnessed this yourself and if you don’t understand how this works to freeze discussion on the subject you haven’t been paying very much attention.

You are well aware the issue is not whether Israel should be criticized but whether a festival celebrating gay culture is the time and place for it and whether the city should be expected to finance your partisan political views. You can continue to try misrepresent the issues at hand and try switch the focus away from what is being discussed but its transparent and it won't work. I am not biting.

Again, that’s Pride TO’s call. As for misrepresenting things, look no further than your feeble attempts here to paint the issue as me or others expecting the city to finance our political views. City funding goes to Pride, not QuAIA or any other participant.

"Does Israel's record on gay rights absolve it of any wrongdoing in other areas?"

The question you ask me has nothing to do with the issues we are debating and is a further example of how you try switch the topic use the transparent technique of bait and switch to avoid debating the actual issue and that is whether an apolitical cultural event should be turned over to your partisan political agenda and then get city funding.

You were the one who invoked Israel’s gay rights record in the first place. I’m curious to know how that relates to the “actual issue” as you frame it here and how responding to a point you raise is misdirection on my part.

I repeat again and focus back to the issue and state-no you don't get to hijack an inclusive apolitical cultural event and turn it into a partisan platform for your exclusive political agenda. No you are not entitled to taxpayers money.

In other words, you feel you can dictate the agenda for Pride TO. Glad we established that.

You want to march up and down the street protesting against Israel go ahead. Knock yourself out just don't expect me or taxpapers or gays to pay for it and stop hijacking a positive cultural expression for your negative agenda. Go find your own event.

Again: not your call.

[Black Dog]

They are free to take part in Pride but if they do don't expect Pride to get any funding from the city. No one's saying they cannot take part, they're saying that they won't be getting any city money if this group takes part.

Understand now?

You are free not to pay me the protection money, but if you don't, don't expect to get any protection. No one's saying you have to pay, they're just saying your store might get burned down if you don't.

Understand now?

[Oleg Bach]

Hmm, refusing to give someone some else's money is blackmail. I thought it meant the opposite.

Don't like funding through tax dollars the oxycodon money laundering scruge sweeping the nation...nor do I want to give one red cent to those who want an abortion...and I don't like the idea of a buck being taken out of my pocket to glorify some butt bangers at some parade while drunken un-married suburban phag-hags cheer them on.. Put the money to better use...maybe keep one public pool open during the summer months...or maybe take one worthy homeless person and give them a little appartment or room? To glorify a bunch of jerks who have more disposable income than most is unsavory...a bunch of jerks in leather pants with the ass cut out - jacked up on coke and E - is not something that deserves public money...Let the rich little buggers pay for their own party.

[August1991]

You are free not to pay me the protection money, but if you don't, don't expect to get any protection. No one's saying you have to pay, they're just saying your store might get burned down if you don't.

Understand now?

In an extortion racket, it is usually the potential victim who pays money to avoid damages. BD, are you suggesting that the city of Toronto is a victim of extortion?

BD, you describe well an entitlement culture.

[Black Dog]

In an extortion racket, it is usually the potential victim who pays money to avoid damages. BD, are you suggesting that the city of Toronto is a victim of extortion?

BD, you describe well an entitlement culture.

All these years and I'm still not sure if your guileless ingénue thing is an act or not.

Entitlement? Interesting question: why do people think that the city's contribution to Pride entitles it to dictate content?

[August1991]

All these years and I'm still not sure if your guileless ingénue thing is an act or not.

Gay Pride to Mayor Ford: "That's a nice city hall you got there, Mr. Mayor. It'd be really sad if something bad happened to it... "

[Black Dog]

Gay Pride to Mayor Ford: "That's a nice city hall you got there, Mr. Mayor. It'd be really sad if something bad happened to it... "

Who is threatening who again?

[bloodyminded]

Who is threatening who again?

Some entity called "Gay Pride," evidently, a sentient Being making the poor little mayor's life so hard.

[Shwa]

Some entity called "Gay Pride," evidently, a sentient Being making the poor little mayor's life so hard.

Correction: the mayor is neither "poor" nor "little" and, judging from the over-compensating behaviour, likely not too "hard" either.

[bloodyminded]

Correction: the mayor is neither "poor" nor "little" and, judging from the over-compensating behaviour, likely not too "hard" either.

To paraphrase someone else, it's nice to see a display of wit here that is neither nit, half, or dim.

[Rue]

I will now respond to more of your comments and know I do not have to use the quote

feature as I like to respond to the comments one at a time.

However I do note you like to try order people about and tell them what they must do.

Lol. Save the Master commands for someone else. I don't play slave to anyone. Rememebr? We left egypt for that reason.

You stated:

"I don’t know and I don’t find your claim to be particularly believable either."

Nyah nyah goo goo. Lol. How about you go and read their comments then instead of simply stating

you don;'t know then admitting to me you have no basis to contest what I said but will simply

not believe me. Lol. What is that a pout?

You stated:

"That’s up to the gay community to decide, not you."

Unlike you I have made it clear that it is up to the gay community to decide what it

wants to use its event for. As I stated if it wants to turn it into a partisan political event

to single out and condemn Israel then it should not expect any government funding. That is the

issue. The issue is not whether the gay community can decide to turn its event into a political one,

the issue is if it turns it into a politically partisan one, whether it should expect government funding.

Try as you may to try bait and switch the topic and misrepresent what I say, it won't work.

I again point out, you came on this forum to state it is acceptable to use the gay pride event to

advocate partisan political views not I. You are the one dictating the agenda at the event not I.

I am simply challenging the concept of any group gay or straight thinking it should get funding from

any Canadian government for partisan political views and in this case views that necessarily alienate

those gays and Jewish gays who do not want the parade or cultural events hijacked for non gay political reasons.

You stated:

"I’m not the one saying what should and should not be included."

You have stated over and over again you feel it appropriate the gay pride event be used for

anti Zionist purposes.

You stated:

"You are."

Show me, provide one sentence where I dictated the agenda. What I have argued is they can have any agenda they want, however once it becomes exclusive of all gays and is no longer apolitical then they should not expect government funding. You again misrepresent what I said. I am talking about whether they should be funded if they pursue certain agenda I never stated they must follow certain agenda.

You are the one demanding they be funded to engage in partisan political views not I. I state again despite your continued attempt to misrepresent my position and twist yours around-you not I advocate using an apolitical cultural event to serve as a platform for anti Zionist tirades. You are the one who then argues it should be funded by the city. I contend your expectation and feelings of self entitlement to be funded for your political views is inappropriate. It assumes your political views are worthy of funding to start with. Then it assumes the city has unlimited amounts of money to support everyone's partisan political views or in the alternative since it can't possibly fund everyone's partisan political views should only fund yours. Either way your contention asks for a city to indulge you and it won't. You are not special. Neither are your political views. You have no right to think you can monopolize the use of taxpayers' money for your own partisan needs.

You stated:

" If they decide to include QuAIA, as well as counterpoints from the Zionist queer community, that’s their call."

I never said it wasn't. However if the organizers of gay pride do not want to preserbe the apolitical cultural nature of the event and allow it to become used for political partisan purposes then it should not think it is entitled to city funding. The purpose of gay pride day was to celebrate gay culture not engage in debates about non gay partisan political issues in other countries.

You again miss the point. Whether the debate is equally balanced or one sided, as long as its politically partisan then it brings into question whether the city should fund it.

Governments should not fund partisan events. That is a long standing tradition in democracies and with responsible governments. A responsible government is supposed to be apolitical and remain neutral and serve all persons equally.

What makes you think it is appropriate to change the focus from gay culture to non gay political conflict let alone expect city funding?

You stated:

"Again, I’m not saying what should and should not be allowed. It’s their debate and I support their right to make that call without external influence. Too bad you and Ford feel like you can call the shots for them."

Too bad? What you think cities must fund partisan political views? Too bad? That is your arguement? Too bad? Did it ever dawn on you the city has only so much money? Do you think it appropriate with all the debts it has to be re-routing budget money so people like you can rant about Israel? That is what tax money should fund?

I couldn't care less if you were ranting about China, India, the U.S., Israel, Sri Lanka, Teh Seychelles Islands or Botswana, the point is not the country you choose to have your tantrum with but the expectation you think the city should indulge you and pay for it. What next. Should we provide you cup cakes with big red slashes over star of davids. Mabe some anti Zionist burgers?

This statement though I loved:

"You don’t seem to understand what inclusive means. Hint: it's not about neutrality."

There it is. The lecture. The self righteous, you know what is and is not. You will decide. Right Inclusive means non neutral. Brilliant logic. Its inclusive as long as it fits your definition of inclusive. As long as it includes what you want. Inclusive doesn't mean it welcomes all, it simply means it welcomes what you want.

Right.

You stated:

"Pride is not an apolitical cultural event:"

To many it is and they have argued it should remain apolitical and further that people like you with your subjective opinions such as the above that you try pose as a fact should be avoided at all costs. They argue people like you should not be allowed to interfere, intervene and hijack the event to serve as an opportunity to serve your partisan political agenda that has nothing to do with gay culture and everything to do with your feelings of self-entitlement.

You stated:

"In my extensive experience on this issue, here on this board and elsewhere, I’ve seen criticism of Israel met with accusations of anti-Semetism. I’ve seen criticism met with the usual misdirection about why Israel alone is singled out."

Again you bait and switch. The issue is whether partisan political views should be funded by governments and whether the gay pride events should be used as platforms from which to engage in partisan political views.

Your subjective interpretation of past threads as to dialogue about Israel was never the issue and your attempt to change the subject with me yet again won't work. Your contention in the above comment is necessarily subjective and then you try pass it off as objective by prefacing it with the words" my extensive experience". Get over yourself.

Your extensive experience? What you think if you use the reference "extensive experience" it changes the fact what you are referring to is simply your subjective opinion? Lol.

What am I supposed to do know, respond with my extensive experience? Is yours more relevant than mine? Is that how you debate-trot out some self promoting references to suggest your opinion is based on something other than that? what you obtained a Ph.d in analyzing the contents of the threads? Is that your experience?

Get off it. You want an answer. I have seen numerous threads attempting to use the pretext of criticizing Israel state policies to engage in negative smeers of all Jews not just Israelis and to engage in sweeping negatuve stereotypesm, assumptions, double standards and anti-semitic canards against Jews as a people, Jews who are and are not Zionists, Jews who are and are not Israelis, Zionism and Judaism. So?

I have tried to take the time to explain to someone the difference between criticizing an Israeli state policy, a Zionist precept, a Jewish religious doctrine and engaging in concepts that present misrepresentations about any of the above or incite hatred or resentment for any of the above.

You want to now try change the subject and accuse imaginary people of making false accusations of anti-semitism start a thread for it but your attempt once again to bait and switch and change the topic does not change the issues and those are should the city fund politically partisan activities and should the gay community allow its cultural festivities be hijacked by partisan political groups of ANY political belief.

You stated:

".. look no further than your feeble attempts here to paint the issue as me or others expecting the city to finance our political views. "

Feeble? Lol. Might I suggest your repeated demand that the city fund your anti Zionist views is transparent and it does not take too much energy to expose it and challenge it? Lol. Nyah nyah goo goo again. Task. The name calling.

You stated:

"You were the one who invoked Israel’s gay rights record in the first place."

Un no I didn't. It necessarily became an issue though because people like you insisted on arguing that the gay pride event should be used to criticize Israel. You commenced the issue not I. I merely responded to it and said if you want to discuss Israel in relation to gay issues, how can you be so hypocritical as to support an anti Zionist organization that openly stated it does not care that Israel is the only nation in the Middle East to take in gay refugees from Muslim/Arab middle east nations?

Its interesting you not only want to dictate the anti Zionist agenda to be imposed at the gay pride event, but you also want to support a group that wants to censor Israel's state role in protecting gays from persecution while

also remaining silent as to the persecution of gays in the Middle East. Talk about being insincere about gay rights.

Lol.

You asked me:

"I’m curious to know how that relates to the “actual issue” as you frame it here and how responding to a point you raise is misdirection on my part."

Well I explained it in the sentence above your question and I will repeat for the third time, the group you defend that wishes to advocate its anti Zionist views stated openly it would not discuss gay persecution in Muslim-Arab countries of the Middle East or Israel's role in protecting gays and would only discuss the oppression of Palestinian peoples.

So how does one do that without talking of the gay Palestinians who flee to Israel?

Now you stated you had no idea what this group's agenda was but you did not believe me. Well the question is why didn't you then just go and find out what their agenda is. Do you think you can continue to pretend you don't know what their agenda is by not looking up what they said? You think that is a credible way to defend them-basing it on what you don't know about them? Lol. Oh but wait, you also think its credible simply saying you do not believe me, i.e., I am a liar, but making no effort to try find out whether what I said was true or not and admitting you didn't. Lol.

Oh look see how many times you have tried to engage in this bait with me here it is again:

"In other words, you feel you can dictate the agenda for Pride TO. Glad we established that."

Yes what we keep establishing evidently is you like to restate what I said in other words, i.e., with a meaning other then the one I stated. Yes you have established that over and over.

You stated:

"Again: not your call."

...and I state, again your attempt to suggest I am telling gay pride organizers or gays what they can do is a deliberate and repeated misrepresentation. My contention has always been they can do what they want, however once they engage in politically parisan politial activities, then I argue the city has the right to say they will not fund politically partisan events for the reasons I stated and as well that the gay community has a right to say to you and any other political agitator, mix out-butt out-take your partisan political agendas and hatred and go somewhere else.

Regards, THE ZYUNEST DAWG*

*supporter of the Oleg Bach for Mayor movement

Edited March 23, 2011 by Rue

[Black Dog]

I will now respond to more of your comments and know I do not have to use the quote

feature as I like to respond to the comments one at a time.

However I do note you like to try order people about and tell them what they must do.

Lol. Save the Master commands for someone else. I don't play slave to anyone. Rememebr? We left egypt for that reason.

It's pretty simple function designed to make posts readable. Taking some contrarian pride in producing nigh-illegible posts is a bit weird, but go nuts.

Nyah nyah goo goo. Lol. How about you go and read their comments then instead of simply stating

you don;'t know then admitting to me you have no basis to contest what I said but will simply

not believe me. Lol. What is that a pout?

Whose comments? What's the context here?

Unlike you I have made it clear that it is up to the gay community to decide what it

wants to use its event for. As I stated if it wants to turn it into a partisan political event

to single out and condemn Israel then it should not expect any government funding. That is the

issue. The issue is not whether the gay community can decide to turn its event into a political one,

the issue is if it turns it into a politically partisan one, whether it should expect government funding.

Try as you may to try bait and switch the topic and misrepresent what I say, it won't work.

You think city funding should be contingent upon the event not allowing viewpoints not relating to gay pride. That's dictating the agenda.

I again point out, you came on this forum to state it is acceptable to use the gay pride event to

advocate partisan political views not I. You are the one dictating the agenda at the event not I.

I'm saying pride is a political event so politics might come up. Shocking!

I am simply challenging the concept of any group gay or straight thinking it should get funding from any Canadian government for partisan political views and in this case views that necessarily alienate those gays and Jewish gays who do not want the parade or cultural events hijacked for non gay political reasons.

And if it was a pro-Israel gay group? Oh wait: there's one of those too.

You have stated over and over again you feel it appropriate the gay pride event be used for

anti Zionist purposes.

Talk about misrepresenting opinions. Who said anything about anti-Zionism anyway?

Show me, provide one sentence where I dictated the agenda. What I have argued is they can have any agenda they want, however once it becomes exclusive of all gays and is no longer apolitical then they should not expect government funding. You again misrepresent what I said. I am talking about whether they should be funded if they pursue certain agenda I never stated they must follow certain agenda.

So they shouldn't get money if they don't take an apolitical approach to selecting participants in their event. You're placing conditions on the funding.

You are the one demanding they be funded to engage in partisan political views not I. I state again despite your continued attempt to misrepresent my position and twist yours around-you not I advocate using an apolitical cultural event to serve as a platform for anti Zionist tirades. You are the one who then argues it should be funded by the city.

Nope. I'm saying the city's decision to fund this event or not shouldn't be contingent upon the event including viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day.

You contend your expectation and feelings of self entitlement to be funded for your political views is inappropriate. It assumes your political views are worthy of funding to start with. Then it assumes the city has unlimited amounts of money to support everyone's partisan political views or in the alternative since it can't possibly fund everyone's partisan political views should only fund yours. Either way your contention asks for a city to indulge you and it won't. You are not special. Neither are your political views. You have no right to think you can monopolize the use of taxpayers' money for your own partisan needs.

You clearly have some reading comprehension or just general comprehension issues here. The city isn't funding this specific group (QuAIA), but Pride TO as a whole. So no one is asking for anyone's political views to be funded.

However if the organizers of gay pride do not want to preserbe the apolitical cultural nature of the event and allow it to become used for political partisan purposes then it should not think it is entitled to city funding.

The purpose of gay pride day was to celebrate gay culture not engage in debates about non gay partisan political issues in other countries.

You again miss the point. Whether the debate is equally balanced or one sided, as long as its politically partisan then it brings into question whether the city should fund it.

So to you, Pride is basically the Santa Clause Parade with more cocks. Inoffensive, apolitical, totally neutral.

I disagree. Pride is about the struggle for human rights. It's a celebration, yes, but it's also an act of defiance. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" is not an apolitical statement, but a radical one.

Governments should not fund partisan events. That is a long standing tradition in democracies and with responsible governments. A responsible government is supposed to be apolitical and remain neutral and serve all persons equally.

What do you mean "partisan" events? 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. Cripes, you make it sound like this one group turned the whole thing into a big neo-Nazi rally.

What makes you think it is appropriate to change the focus from gay culture to non gay political conflict let alone expect city funding?

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

There it is. The lecture. The self righteous, you know what is and is not. You will decide. Right Inclusive means non neutral. Brilliant logic. Its inclusive as long as it fits your definition of inclusive. As long as it includes what you want. Inclusive doesn't mean it welcomes all, it simply means it welcomes what you want.

You're making my point for me. To be inclusive means allowing any viewpoint, even ones you might not agree with. To say "we are going to include everyone...except those groups we don't want" isn't being inclusive. And that's what you're doing here.

To many it is and they have argued it should remain apolitical and further that people like you with your subjective opinions such as the above that you try pose as a fact should be avoided at all costs. They argue people like you should not be allowed to interfere, intervene and hijack the event to serve as an opportunity to serve your partisan political agenda that has nothing to do with gay culture and everything to do with your feelings of self-entitlement.

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? "Many people?" Who? How can an event rooted in the political struggle for sexual equality be considered apolitical?

Your subjective interpretation of past threads as to dialogue about Israel was never the issue and your attempt to change the subject with me yet again won't work. Your contention in the above comment is necessarily subjective and then you try pass it off as objective by prefacing it with the words" my extensive experience". Get over yourself.

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

Your extensive experience? What you think if you use the reference "extensive experience" it changes the fact what you are referring to is simply your subjective opinion? Lol.

Er....what?

What am I supposed to do know, respond with my extensive experience? Is yours more relevant than mine? Is that how you debate-trot out some self promoting references to suggest your opinion is based on something other than that? what you obtained a Ph.d in analyzing the contents of the threads? Is that your experience?

Get off it. You want an answer. I have seen numerous threads attempting to use the pretext of criticizing Israel state policies to engage in negative smeers of all Jews not just Israelis and to engage in sweeping negatuve stereotypesm, assumptions, double standards and anti-semitic canards against Jews as a people, Jews who are and are not Zionists, Jews who are and are not Israelis, Zionism and Judaism. So?

See, this is where I call bullshit. I've seen a lot of discussions about Israel on this board and rarely, if ever, have I seen any overt expressions of antisemitism you describe. Feel free to prove me wrong, but shit like that simply wouldn't wash here.

You stated:

".. look no further than your feeble attempts here to paint the issue as me or others expecting the city to finance our political views. "

Feeble? Lol. Might I suggest your repeated demand that the city fund your anti Zionist views is transparent and it does not take too much energy to expose it and challenge it? Lol. Nyah nyah goo goo again. Task. The name calling.

This is like watching a ****** ****** meltdown.

"You were the one who invoked Israel’s gay rights record in the first place."

Un no I didn't. It necessarily became an issue though because people like you insisted on arguing that the gay pride event should be used to criticize Israel. You commenced the issue not I. I merely responded to it and said if you want to discuss Israel in relation to gay issues, how can you be so hypocritical as to support an anti Zionist organization that openly stated it does not care that Israel is the only nation in the Middle East to take in gay refugees from Muslim/Arab middle east nations?

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?

Its interesting you not only want to dictate the anti Zionist agenda to be imposed at the gay pride event, but you also want to support a group that wants to censor Israel's state role in protecting gays from persecution while also remaining silent as to the persecution of gays in the Middle East. Talk about being insincere about gay rights.

You keep making these accusations about QuAIA, but your notably lacking any actual citations. How about some evidence?

Well I explained it in the sentence above your question and I will repeat for the third time, the group you defend that wishes to advocate its anti Zionist views stated openly it would not discuss gay persecution in Muslim-Arab countries of the Middle East or Israel's role in protecting gays and would only discuss the oppression of Palestinian peoples.

So how does one do that without talking of the gay Palestinians who flee to Israel?

Well,they are called Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. I would think the scope of their mandate is pretty clear. If you want to talk about people pushing for the rights of gay Palestinians, I'm sure there's an group for that, just as there's probably groups in Israel working to advance gay rights for Israelis in the face of the increasing threat of home-grown religious extremism.

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

Now you stated you had no idea what this group's agenda was but you did not believe me. Well the question is why didn't you then just go and find out what their agenda is. Do you think you can continue to pretend you don't know what their agenda is by not looking up what they said? You think that is a credible way to defend them-basing it on what you don't know about them? Lol. Oh but wait, you also think its credible simply saying you do not believe me, i.e., I am a liar, but making no effort to try find out whether what I said was true or not and admitting you didn't. Lol.

How about providing citations, links etc? You know: backing up your arguments? Am I to take everything you say at face value?

Edited March 23, 2011 by Black Dog

[Rue]

Oh let me respond to the latest from BD with BD's comments in quote:

"It's pretty simple function designed to make posts readable. Taking some contrarian pride in producing nigh-illegible posts is a bit weird, but go nuts."

It's not contrarian pride. It is wanting to respond to each remark one at a time. Producing them all in a block makes that problematic.

You stated:

"You think city funding should be contingent upon the event not allowing viewpoints not relating to gay pride. That's dictating the agenda."

No its not dictating the agenda. No one is saying the gay community can't turn its event into a politically partisan one. Never once have I dictated what they can and can not do. keep trying to twist it. Lol. You are the one arguing it should be funded by the city. I am arguing the gay community can have any agenda it wants but if it chooses a politically partisan one then don't expect a government to fund it. You are the one dictating to the city they MUST fund the political agenda and lecturing to me that its acceptable to turn the gay pride day into a politically partisan event. You are the one who continues to make the demands not me. All I am saying is the gay community can do what it wants but yes of course the city has the right to set conditions on what it wants to fund and no it can't fund politically partisan displays precisely because taxpayers money should not be used to favour opinions you deem acceptable.

You stated:

"I'm saying pride is a political event so politics might come up. Shocking!"

...and I am saying for many gays and straights and myself no we do not think gay pride day or the parade is about anti Israel partisan politics or any partisan politics. Shocking!"

You stated:

"And if it was a pro-Israel gay group?"

I answered that question directly several times and said the city has the right to question any political partisan event. The fact that the partisan opinion would be pro or anti Israel is not and was never the issue-its the fact its partisan that makes it an issue the city can then say-hey wait we won't take any side in any political dispute.

You stated:

"Who said anything about anti-Zionism anyway?"

You and the anti Zionist group you feel should have the right to use the gay pride events to vent its non gay political agenda.

You stated:

"So they shouldn't get money if they don't take an apolitical approach to selecting participants in their event. You're placing conditions on the funding."

Finally you grasped the point I am making. Well it was bound to happen sooner or later.

You stated:

"Nope. I'm saying the city's decision to fund this event or not shouldn't be contingent upon the event including viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day."

...and I am stating the city has the right to say no it doesn't have to fund "viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day" because the purpose and function of the city is not to fund people's partisan beliefs. Where would it end. What criteria do you propose to determine what "viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day means" means? You throw out that reference but what does it mean other than politically partisan opinions you agree with? Well? I mean talk about baffle gab..."viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day..". If that was the criteria used for funding oh let's just imagine the line up of groups wanting city funding to air their opinions.

First in line I suppose would be you but then I would hope Oleg Bach would next in line so he could present my opinion on the concept of how idiotic it would be for cities to take taxpayers' money and throw it away on

such self indulgent subjective nonsense.

No the city can not be this unlimited treasury to fund your personal political views or those of groups you approve of.

You stated:

"You clearly have some reading comprehension or just general comprehension issues here. The city isn't funding this specific group (QuAIA), but Pride TO as a whole."

No its you who has the reading comprehension difficulty. At no time did I say the city was funding QUAIA directly as you are suggesting. I am challenging funding for Pride if Pride allows itself to be used for politically partisan purposes by QUIA or any other interest group. Try as you might to try misrepresent what I said and misrepresent my position I have all the patience in the world to continue restating what I actually said to you.

The issue is not a bout funding QUIA. Its about funding Pride. Its about funding Pride when it allows QUIA to change its mandate to include politically partisan exercises unrelated to gay culture. If the gay community wants to engage in non cultural and political partisan exercises then the city has the right to say, hey we only fund cultural events-do what you want if that is what you want, just don't ask us to fund the event.

You stated:

"So no one is asking for anyone's political views to be funded."

That is illogical. If Pride is funded and is enabled by that funding to have its event, then it provides the platform from which QUIA can then use the opportunity presented to it by government funding to access an audience it would not otherwise have. So in fact the city would be funding access to an opportunity for QUIA to have a platform it would not otherwise have.

You stated:

"So to you, Pride is basically the Santa Clause Parade with more cocks. Inoffensive, apolitical, totally neutral."

By joe you finally got it. Yes. Well I don't know about the inoffensive part but yes, to me in my personal opinion, and in the opinion of many gays and straights, the Pride event is supposed to be a cultural event, a time of celebration of gay culture and a time to include people in that celebration not change the subject to vent politically partisan views that are not advancing that point.

You know it would be one thing to argue that bringing attention to gay persecution in countries is a relevant subject matter. That would be political in nature but technically not partisan if it simply presented the persecution

with objective statistics. That pertains to gays. But raving and ranting about Israel and ignoring gay persecution in the Middle East as QUIA did makes a farse of gay pride. It says its not the issue and the culture of gays can be shunted to the side and be used as a pretext to access an audience for another agenda.

That is b.s. Stop hijacking what is supposed to be a positive celebration of gay culture for partisan political agenda that has nothing to do with gay people and their rights as gays.

You stated:

"I disagree. Pride is about the struggle for human rights."

Stop playing. No Pride is not about being anti Zionist and raving and ranting in a partisan manner about non gay issues. No raving and ranting about Zionism has nothing to do with gays.

You want an event to protest Israel create one. Stop trying to change the Pride day event into a pretext to single out your criticism of Israel and then couching it as a "struiggle for human rights". What a crock. tThe QUIA was not

discussing gay human rights. It wasn't talking about gays persecuted in Muslim or Middle East countries. It wasn't even talking human rights. It was advancing a pro Hamas platform. See unlike you I don't couch its agenda.

You stated:

" It's a celebration, yes, but it's also an act of defiance. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." is not an apolitical statement, but a radical one."

First of all the above celebration is not defiant. Secondly its not a radical statement. It is simply an expression of identity. Defiant? See I know you have no clue about gays if you talk like that. Gays do not defy anyone being who they are. They don't defy anyone. They are simply being them. You might think it radical. Why would a gay person?

How is it radical for a gay person to be gay. Its what they are? What am I radical because I say I am a Jew? Does that make me defiant if I celebrate my Jewish culture at Purim?

Are Christians defiant because they celebrate Christmas?

Are Irish people defiant because they celebrate Saint Patrick's day? What a patronizing thing to say about gay people.

Its a celebration of joy and happiness. Gay people didn't start the parade or the festivities to give straight people the finger or homophobes the finger. They didn't do it to defy. They did it to welcome. They did it so straight people like me can embrace gays. If they were being defiant they would be rioting and screaming and

burning their thongs for phack's sake.

Would you stop stereotyping gays as radicals or militants simply because they want to dance and let it hang out.

Give it a rest.

The fact you want to be defiant and see public displays as an opportunity to be defiant and lecture people does not

mean everyone else does.

Gawd would you please sit down with a gay person and have a glass of wine and learn how to discuss something other than your political views. Maybe talk about penis rings or thongs or whether size is important. Must it always be

something angry and decisive? You mean to tell me gays are radical because they want to celebrate their music, their art, their positive feelings? Its about not having to repress who they are and celebrate positive thoughts and feelings not engage in war with straight people or change the subject and vent about Zionists.

Its about gay culture. You want to make fun of the Santa Claus parade go ahead but are you that out of it? Are you suggesting it is appropriate for the QUIA to show up at the Santa Claus Parade. You want the IRA marching in the St. Pat's parade? You want the KKK hijacking Christmas celebrations?

Uh yah sometimes its o.k. to say, no this is not the time and place. Maybe in your world no one has ever said no to you but I am and so are many people gay and straight. No. There is a time and place for your anti Zionist demonstrations and no it doesn't belong at gay pride events any more then it does the Santa Claus Parade or St. Pat's day. Hard as it is for you to believe some people just want to celebrate culture and not be held captive at their events for your political opinions and views. Go create your own parade. There you can burn all the bagels you want.

I will finish my responses in the next post. I first need to go kiss a gay person and give them a bagel.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Rue

[Rue]

Now then. I just gave a radical gay person in my office a kiss and I know she liked it. I can tell. She asked me for a bagel and told me I lost weight.

O.k. where were we..

BD stated:

"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.

Your point is nonsensical. You are suggesting the event remains apolitical when a politically partisan group uses the vent to vent its one sided political views. No there is no such thing as remaining a virgin once someone sticks a pickle in your jar.

You stated:

"Cripes, you make it sound like this one group turned the whole thing into a big neo-Nazi rally."

I represented participants both Jewish and non Jewish who felt they were betrayed by gay pride and no longer welcome as gays.

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.

You stated:

"You're making my point for me."

Ooh I am putting words in your mouth. Yech.

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.

You stated:

" even ones you might not agree with."

That is illogical. Whether a subject matter is inclusive or exclusive is not dependent on whether I or you agree with it-it is determined by whether it alienates or excludes people and in this case gay people. In this case it did, it excluded gay jews and non gay Jews who did not feel such discussion welcomed them but instead made a time of celebration where they should feel comfortable a place where they felt betrayed and singled out for negative and unfair comments.

You stated:

"To say "we are going to include everyone...except those groups we don't want" isn't being inclusive. And that's what you're doing here."

No I am not saying that or doing it. You again misrepresent what I in fact stated and continue to argue. All I have stated and I will state it yet again-if you allow a time of cultural celebration to be used by a group to vent opinions that necessarily demonize Jewish gays, non Jewish gays and for that matter others who come to the parade and do not wish to hear rants about Israel that have nothing to do with gay culture-then that group makes the event exclusive-it excludes those put off by their selective politically partisan tirades. I haven't done anything. Its the actions of the QUIA that render the event toxic for certain participants.

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.

You stated:

"Many people?" Who? How can an event rooted in the political struggle for sexual equality be considered apolitical?"

So who do you speak for? Lol. You presume to speak for gays calling them all radicals because they express pride? You presume to speak for all gays saying they want their event hhijacked to make pooo pooo kaka kakaa comments about Israel? See you have to be careful because I was responding to you. I didn't initiate this thread or presume to speak for gays. I speak for myself and those gays I represented or complained to me. I couldn't do much. The issue was a fait accompi and Rev. Brent pulled a fast one on many gay people. In fact the gay community is not finished with this issue and they will resolve it on their own accord and if you think you can presume to try question me then get it clear, I will say it again-I speak for myself. Your attempt to bait and switch and draw me into yet another ridiculous macho contest as to whose righteousness is more genuine is a crock. You speak for yourself and so do I and I never claimed otherwise on this thread. I express my opinions.

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.

You stated:

"See, this is where I call bullshit. I've seen a lot of discussions about Israel on this board and rarely, if ever, have I seen any overt expressions of antisemitism you describe. Feel free to prove me wrong, but shit like that simply wouldn't wash here."

Now you see on that one this is where I say, you are being selective again and no I will not engage you in a debate over it. It is not the issue being debated try as you may to switch the topic. More to the point you made the sweeping generalization that people are quick on this board to cry anti-semitism when people criticize Israel suggesting its being done regularly in an unfair manner not me. You made the allegation not me. No I do not have to disprove your allegation. You made it, you prove it. Go on start a thread and establish the responses where people made unfair anti-semitic allegations-or drop it. Don't try hook me into some ridiculous side arguement that you started and try turn around to get me to disprove. We all know that game BD.

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 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.

That was the point. The context of who and what QUIAA is and why not just jewish gays but other gays found its platform repugnant and inappropriate.

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. Its to deal with hatred in a positive way-to look the tormentor in the face and not defy-just be. Israel did not come about because it was defiant. It came about because of the will of Jews to survive. We said yes to life, yes to continued existence, we did not say no to anyone.

Neither did gays. They started their communities and events the way we Jews did-to say yes to who they are not no to what they are not.

That is what you do not get and I have been arguing. Gay pride is not the time to point out differences. It is the time to point out what we have in common-its the time to be positive not negative. If you don't want to get that and are so hell bent on capturing events to dictate your righteousness try, but people like me will say, beat it.

You stated:

"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.

You stated:

"How about some evidence?"

Right after you prove me to be a liar.

You stated:

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

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

You stated:

"How about providing citations, links etc? You know: backing up your arguments? Am I to take everything you say at face value?"

How about before you defend this group you do your own homework and least make an effort to find out what their platform is. No I am not here to serve you. That self-entitlement is quite something. No I won't spoon feed you.

[Rue]

I have just one quote for BD who knows full well where the web site is for QUAIA and what they

stand for:

"But queer Palestinians face the additional challenge of living under occupation, subject to Israeli state violence and control. Israel’s apartheid system extends gay rights only to some, based on race."

I know personally a spokesman and founder of this organization. I know what he stands for and why many gays will have nothing to do with him.

No I am not playing BD.

You want to pretend you don't know what this organization stands for me by guest.

I for one am glad Rob Ford has stood up and said no I will not fund any activities with taxpayers' money that gives this group an opportunity to vent.

This is a group whose views reflect only a minority in the gay community.

Some of us stand up to such groups because we feel they are full of hatred and blinded by their self indulgence.

Try as this group may to drive a wedge between not just Israelis but Jews and gays it will not succeed. Jewish and non Jewish gays and Jewish and non Jewish straights will speak up and challenge it.

Knock yourself out BD pretending you don't know what its platform is.

http://queersagainstapartheid.org/who/

[Oleg Bach]

Don't like to fund or promote gayness - nor abortion - or assist with tax dollars in affirmative action....let them get their own money to party with!

[Black Dog]

It's not contrarian pride. It is wanting to respond to each remark one at a time. Producing them all in a block makes that problematic.

Just highlight the text you want to quote and put the tags around them.

No its not dictating the agenda. No one is saying the gay community can't turn its event into a politically partisan one. Never once have I dictated what they can and can not do. keep trying to twist it. Lol. You are the one arguing it should be funded by the city. I am arguing the gay community can have any agenda it wants but if it chooses a politically partisan one then don't expect a government to fund it. You are the one dictating to the city they MUST fund the political agenda and lecturing to me that its acceptable to turn the gay pride day into a politically partisan event. You are the one who continues to make the demands not me.

No one is trying to turn the event into a partisan one. Your argument is invalid.

All I am saying is the gay community can do what it wants but yes of course the city has the right to set conditions on what it wants to fund and no it can't fund politically partisan displays precisely because taxpayers money should not be used to favour opinions you deem acceptable.

The city and taxpayer are not funding QuAIA. Your argument is invalid.

...and I am saying for many gays and straights and myself no we do not think gay pride day or the parade is about anti Israel partisan politics or any partisan politics. Shocking!"

That's fine. Others would disagree including the aforementioned founders of Pride TO and 23 current and former Pride honourees who made public statements in favour of QuAIA's inclusion.

I answered that question directly several times and said the city has the right to question any political partisan event. The fact that the partisan opinion would be pro or anti Israel is not and was never the issue-its the fact its partisan that makes it an issue the city can then say-hey wait we won't take any side in any political dispute.

So, in your world, the inclusion of any political view point constitutes a partisan political display?

You stated:

"Who said anything about anti-Zionism anyway?"

You and the anti Zionist group you feel should have the right to use the gay pride events to vent its non gay political agenda.

Citations for anti-Zionism please.

You stated:

"So they shouldn't get money if they don't take an apolitical approach to selecting participants in their event. You're placing conditions on the funding."

Finally you grasped the point I am making. Well it was bound to happen sooner or later.

i don't see how you can't grasp that using the threat of withdrawing the funding is a hostile action intended to force Pride to comply with their wishes. It's a form of censorship.

You stated:

"Nope. I'm saying the city's decision to fund this event or not shouldn't be contingent upon the event including viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day."

...and I am stating the city has the right to say no it doesn't have to fund "viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day" because the purpose and function of the city is not to fund people's partisan beliefs.

...

No the city can not be this unlimited treasury to fund your personal political views or those of groups you approve of.

You might have a point if the city were actually funding anyone's political viewpoints. But they aren't. And so you don't.

You stated:

"You clearly have some reading comprehension or just general comprehension issues here. The city isn't funding this specific group (QuAIA), but Pride TO as a whole."

No its you who has the reading comprehension difficulty. At no time did I say the city was funding QUAIA directly as you are suggesting.

It's the logical conclusion to draw from your claim that the city is funding partisan political expression. Unless you can prove that any of the city $ went directly to QuAIA, you need to change your tack.

I am challenging funding for Pride if Pride allows itself to be used for politically partisan purposes by QUIA or any other interest group.

Your view that Pride TO should discriminate on the basis of political viewpoints that you deem inappropriate flies directly in the face of the mandate of the event and the organization.

The issue is not a bout funding QUIA. Its about funding Pride. Its about funding Pride when it allows QUIA to change its mandate to include politically partisan exercises unrelated to gay culture.

You seem to be unaware of what Pride's actual mandate is, so I'll enlighten you.

I direct your attention to this, from pride TO:

Pride Toronto, as the organizer of the Pride Parade, encourages everyone to have an open, tolerant and supportive attitude.

After all, the parade is not only about Pride in your community, but celebrating diversity and the variety of life in Toronto while respecting subtle differences amongst its citizens and visitors, and creating an inclusive experience for all.

Pride Toronto encourages participation by all groups, be they community groups, businesses or organizations.

You stated:

"So no one is asking for anyone's political views to be funded."

That is illogical. If Pride is funded and is enabled by that funding to have its event, then it provides the platform from which QUIA can then use the opportunity presented to it by government funding to access an audience it would not otherwise have. So in fact the city would be funding access to an opportunity for QUIA to have a platform it would not otherwise have.

As well as any other viewpoints. There's nothing stopping Queers Against Palestinian Homophobia or the Zionist Dyke Alliance from also being included. Indeed, as I already pointed out, a Jewish Zionist queer organization has taken part in Pride many times.

You stated:

"So to you, Pride is basically the Santa Clause Parade with more cocks. Inoffensive, apolitical, totally neutral."

By joe you finally got it. Yes. Well I don't know about the inoffensive part but yes, to me in my personal opinion, and in the opinion of many gays and straights, the Pride event is supposed to be a cultural event, a time of celebration of gay culture and a time to include people in that celebration not change the subject to vent politically partisan views that are not advancing that point.

I can't agree with this, and I know a number of gays who would as well. To turn it into some generic "celebration of gay culture" is to divorce Pride from its very raison d'etre. In other words, you want to make Pride into something that its not.

You know it would be one thing to argue that bringing attention to gay persecution in countries is a relevant subject matter. That would be political in nature but technically not partisan if it simply presented the persecution with objective statistics. That pertains to gays. But raving and ranting about Israel and ignoring gay persecution in the Middle East as QUIA did makes a farse of gay pride. It says its not the issue and the culture of gays can be shunted to the side and be used as a pretext to access an audience for another agenda.

So you're saying the only human rights issues gays can get involved in are those involving other gays?

That is b.s. Stop hijacking what is supposed to be a positive celebration of gay culture for partisan political agenda that has nothing to do with gay people and their rights as gays.

Again, I completely reject your premises.

You stated:

"I disagree. Pride is about the struggle for human rights."

Stop playing. No Pride is not about being anti Zionist and raving and ranting in a partisan manner about non gay issues. No raving and ranting about Zionism has nothing to do with gays.

Right, but it's perfectly alright for Israel to brand itself as gay friendly

The QUIA was not discussing gay human rights. It wasn't talking about gays persecuted in Muslim or Middle East countries. It wasn't even talking human rights. It was advancing a pro Hamas platform. See unlike you I don't couch its agenda.

Cite oR GTFO.

You stated:

" It's a celebration, yes, but it's also an act of defiance. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." is not an apolitical statement, but a radical one."

First of all the above celebration is not defiant. Secondly its not a radical statement. It is simply an expression of identity. Defiant? See I know you have no clue about gays if you talk like that. Gays do not defy anyone being who they are. They don't defy anyone. They are simply being them. You might think it radical. Why would a gay person?

How is it radical for a gay person to be gay. Its what they are? What am I radical because I say I am a Jew? Does that make me defiant if I celebrate my Jewish culture at Purim?

Are Christians defiant because they celebrate Christmas?

Are Irish people defiant because they celebrate Saint Patrick's day? What a patronizing thing to say about gay people.

Holy shit. Do you know nothing about the history of Pride? About the history of the gay rights struggle as a whole? Do you actually know any queer people?

Its a celebration of joy and happiness. Gay people didn't start the parade or the festivities to give straight people the finger or homophobes the finger. They didn't do it to defy. They did it to welcome. They did it so straight people like me can embrace gays. If they were being defiant they would be rioting and screaming and burning their thongs for phack's sake.

Stonewall? 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.

Would you stop stereotyping gays as radicals or militants simply because they want to dance and let it hang out.

Give it a rest.

Yes, let's instead look at them as you do: cool accessories there to give fashion tips and romantic advice to clueless straights. And above all: be fabulous!

Gawd would you please sit down with a gay person and have a glass of wine and learn how to discuss something other than your political views. Maybe talk about penis rings or thongs or whether size is important. Must it always be something angry and decisive? You mean to tell me gays are radical because they want to celebrate their music, their art, their positive feelings? Its about not having to repress who they are and celebrate positive thoughts and feelings not engage in war with straight people or change the subject and vent about Zionists.

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

I'm pretty much done here, but I've got one more post to wade through.

[Rue]

Don't like to fund or promote gayness - nor abortion - or assist with tax dollars in affirmative action....let them get their own money to party with!

Fine. There will be no Oleg Bach festival.Just as well. It was proving difficult to find the virgin maidens and we were having problems getting a permit for the sacrifice pit.

[Oleg Bach]

Fine. There will be no Oleg Bach festival.Just as well. It was proving difficult to find the virgin maidens and we were having problems getting a permit for the sacrifice pit.

Never waste a woman through prostitution or other more direct forms of human sacrafice...I simply find a lot of people these days are currupt -dishonourable and highly unpleasant..and gays are tolerable but not a pleasant phenomena..sorry...why don't we have a march and a parade for "retarded" people...or overly feminized hetorsexual males who will never stand up for human rights as long as they have their electro gadgets and mulitiple female disposable partners that will never become women fit to marry or mate with....again I am sorry that I have lived long enough to witness the total degradation and debasement of humanity...especially in the privledged western world - wait till we have a famine.....there will be little sympathy or appreciation of human beings that are neither male nor female.

[Rue]

Time to respond to BD:

You stated:

"No one is trying to turn the event into a partisan one."

Yes you are. You advocate that QuAIA should be able to use the Gay Pride day festivities

ne used to advocate its political platform which is clearly politically partisan.

"The city and taxpayer are not funding QuAIA. Your argument is invalid."

No its not. If the city funds the Gay Pride event which then allows itself

to become a venue for politically partisan platforms then the city would be

funding a politically partisan event. Its not rocket science.

You stated:

"That's fine. Others would disagree including the aforementioned founders of Pride TO and 23 current and former Pride honourees who made public statements in favour of QuAIA's inclusion."

Yes we can trot out those for and those against and in the end it will be up to the gay community to decide. If

the majority decide again in favour of having QuAIA vent its platform that is their perfect right. However

if the city then chooses to say we will no longer fund you because now your event is politically partisan

then I support the city's right to withold funding for that reason.

You stated:

"So, in your world, the inclusion of any political view point constitutes a partisan political display?"

No in my world the inclusion of partisan political views constitues partisan political displays. In my world

as well, you continually try misrepresent what I state. Again its not rocket science to state a one sided political view is politically partisan and yes that is precisely the problem with political displays-they come down to

subjective political opinions that necessarily alienate.

You asked:

"Citations for anti-Zionism please."

Hah. For you to ask that question speaks for itself. For you to pretend that a site which does nothing but throw out anti Zionist rhetoric for citations is a joke and its why BD your act grew thin on me threads ago when you began asking questions for answers you already had. Play that with someone else. You want to deny QUIAA is anti Zionist go ahead. It speaks to your credibility.

You stated:

"i don't see how you can't grasp that using the threat of withdrawing the funding is a hostile action intended to force Pride to comply with their wishes. It's a form of censorship."

..oh goody we are even because I can' grasp you can not understand why hijacking the gay pride event to allow politically partisan interest groups to rant about Israel is not hostile or why the city would not want to fund it...further I do appreciate however how you again misrepresent the issue and suggest because the city might exercise its right to not fund a politically partisan event this is a form of censorship-no its not, the city is not refusing to issue a permit for the parade or events-if it did then you could make an arguement for censorship-you are

suggesting because Gay Pride is not funded its being censored-that is illogical-the issue of funding is one based on the principal of being fair to all taxpayers, not censorship and using taxpayers money in a manner that is most fair to all citizens not just the ones who reflect your divisive anti Zionist agenda. You want to rave and rant knock yourself out. No one is censoring you just don't give me or any other taxpayer this silver spoon sense of entitlement arguement that you are entitlement to be funded. Fund yourself. Fund your own righteous displays.

You stated:

"You might have a point if the city were actually funding anyone's political viewpoints. But they aren't."

Oh look we are going to play games and deliberately misrepresent the issue again. Yes of course. If the city funds an event which chooses to invite and allow itself to be used for politically partisan displays, the city is not funding those politically partisan displays. Yes. Such logic. Lol, you think if you repeat that enough times it will change the subject or issue? Lol.

You stated:

"It's the logical conclusion to draw from your claim that the city is funding partisan political expression."

No actually it is illogical because in your world if the city funds an event that allows itself to be politically partisan, you argue the event is not politically partisan since the city gave no direct funding to the partisan political group. That is illogical. The content of the festivities does not become politically partisan only once the partisan political group is directly funded. For you to suggest that is not only illogical but at this point

ludicrous given how many times you have tried to suggest allowing an event to be used for politically partisan purposes doesn't make it politically partisan. Lol. Brilliant logic.

You stated:

"Unless you can prove that any of the city $ went directly to QuAIA, you need to change your tack."

Uh no, I can just sit back and watch you argue an event that is politically partisan in nature is not because you have decided the group engaging in the politically partisan activities at the event is not being politically partisan since it wasn't funded by the city. Right. Do repeat it one more time.

You stated:

"Your view that Pride TO should discriminate on the basis of political viewpoints that you deem inappropriate..."

You again deliberately misrepresent what I stated. I never stated the Pride TO should dsicriminate against anyone's political viewpoints. The Pride TO organization can choose to do whatever it wants. I have never suggested otherwise. What I have argued is that if it wants funding from the city, it should not engage in political view points that are politically partisan in nature. I have made it clear it is not the specific political viewpoint that is in question, it could be ANY politically partisan view point.

You can keep mistating what I said until doomsday BD but I will throw back your mistatement time and time again. At this point BD the constant attempts to misrepresent what I say have done what exactly for you?

You stated:

"You seem to be unaware of what Pride's actual mandate is, so I'll enlighten you."

Thanks. You once again engage in your usual patronizing you know better approach. That is precisely why I write back dripping with sarcasm. Lol. You will enlighten me? Oh thanks Buddah.

You stated:

"There's nothing stopping Queers Against Palestinian Homophobia or the Zionist Dyke Alliance from also being included. Indeed, as I already pointed out, a Jewish Zionist queer organization has taken part in Pride many times."

You again go off on an issue I am not contesting and never have. I have never argued that any of the above organizations were stopped from attenting the Gay Pride event. what I have contested is that if any of these or any other politically partisan organizations choose to joing the parade and events and hijack them to carry out their agendas, then no me and gays and straights and taxpayers of all kinds do not feel we should have to fund the event.

Its one thing to fund cultural celebrations, its another to fund event that exposes taxpayers to one sided political views. If that is what the gay community wants their celebration turned into it is their perfect right-just don't expect taxpayers to fund it at that point.

You stated:

"To turn it into some generic "celebration of gay culture" is to divorce Pride from its very raison d'etre. In other words, you want to make Pride into something that its not."

No not at all. All you have stated in the above comment is that in your political opinion you want to turn the gay cultural festival into an event to rave and rant about Israel. Good for you. Then go get the gay community to use their event as a platform to access their audience. Go. Knock yourself out. Just don't come to city hall looking to get funded at that point for the same reason the city wouldn't fund the St. Pat's day parade if it was to be used by the IRA to vent its political platform or how the city would not fund the Santa Clause parade if the organizers chose that event to allow the KKK to march.

If you can't figure that out BD bully for you. Most of us can.

You stated:

"So you're saying the only human rights issues gays can get involved in are those involving other gays?"

No. Gays can get involved in any human rights issues or any other subject matter they want. Its not up to me to say. However as a taxpayer I can say, don't use my taxpayers money to fund an event that allows a group to vent its

politically partisan views. The example I gave was an example of expressing human rights in a more apolitical manner, a neutral manner that would directly pertain to gay rights without singling out any one country-I was providing an example of how something could be done that would remain neutral to all gays.

You stated:

"Again, I completely reject your premises."

Of course you do because you agree with the QUIAA's political views and think everyone should be subjected to having to listen to them.

You stated:

"Right, but it's perfectly alright for Israel to brand itself as gay friendly."

The above is a politically partisan statement that shows you once again try bait me into an arguement over Israeli state policies. It is not the issue. Try as you might once again to bait and switch no I will not engage you in a pissing match over your hatred of Israel and your desire to rave and rant about Israel. This issue is about whether the city should fund politically partisan events and whether the gay community should choose to allow its event to be used for politically partisan exercises. This is not about your subjective opinions as to Israel.

You want to rant about Israel start a thread.

You stated:

"Cite oR GTFO."

You knew where the QUIAA site was and you know its platform. You were fully aware of its mandate, political views and platform and then come on this forum and ask me to cite its opinions. Now you tell me to GTFO because I won't spoon feed you and play your game? Not only did I call your bluff but I now state, people can see your real agenda. You let it slip BD. BD you know its hard for you to play the role of enlightened righteous progressive intellect when you show your true colours-you know BD that is precisely the response I would expect would come out-its exactly the one the QUIAA uses with those gays and Jewish gays and members of the public it disagrees with and its precisely why it should not get city funding nor should you be considered credible.

The GTFO is precisely the point. Its about shoving your views down peoples' throats at any cost because you can't possibly imagine your views are repugnant to some because they are divisive, emotional, confrontational, negative and designed to incite anger and violence.

You stated:

"Holy shit. Do you know nothing about the history of Pride? About the history of the gay rights struggle as a whole? Do you actually know any queer people?"

This coming from someone who made the sweeping blanket generalization that gay pride is simply about being radical and militant. Right. What I do know is that you BD are a presumptious sob who thinks you speak for gay people when you patronized them all and made the sweeping statement they all consider being gay "radical" and "defiant" and they started the gay pride events to be "radical" and "defiant". I know many people who started and joined the events to celebrate who they are not what they aren't-why they feel joy not why they feel angry-why they want to reach out not why they want to tell people to f..ck themselves.

You BD try impose your perception of the world on all gays and presume they are all "radical" and "militant" just like you. Instead of asking me if I know gays look at yourself in the mirror. Stop trying to bait me, switch the topic and ask yourself where did you get off coming on this forum presuming to speak on behalf of all gays in suggesting the gay pride event must be about defiance and being radical and militant which is what you stated.

Take your smug presumptiousness and righteousness and start your own "radical" and "militant" circle jerk and don't hold your breath getting government funding.

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.

You stated:

"Yes, let's instead look at them as you do: cool accessories there to give fashion tips and romantic advice to clueless straights. And above all: be fabulous!"

You demonstrate once again what a presumptious, arrogant individual you are among many other things. You presume toc laim to know what I think of gays. That speaks for itself.

The above stereotypes you throw out are a direct result of your own insecurities at you may think people think of you. Quite frankly BD from your words all I get the impression of is you are intolerant, self-righteous, and narcisstic if you ask.

In regards to gay people in general I take each gay person one at a time. Some I find like you, nauseating extreme left wing presumptious blow hards who think the whole world must listen to their lectures.

Others I find no different then me-boring middle of the roaders with no axe to grind. Some I find conservative, others liberal, some libertarian and some I know detest any form of politics. I know gays of every imaginable description no different then I know straights.

Now the next time you try pull that presumptious projection on someone think again. No not all of us have to indulge your views and no you don't get the right to negatively stereotype me or anyone else and no you don't get to play the role of victim. Get off it. Debate the issue of city funding or move on. Getting in my face and trying to character assassinate me with such remarks again is a pathetic bait and switch tactic. Its transparent.

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.

You stated:

"I'm pretty much done here, but I've got one more post to wade through."

You were done the moment you tried to argue that allowing an event to become politially partisan doesn't mean its politically partisan. The further attempts to bait me and change the topic and try engage me in a piss on Israel match don't seem to have worked now have they.

Get this clear BD-you speak for yourself. No one else. I only claim and have only claimed to speak for myself.

Unlike you I have made it clear I express my opinions no one else's. You want to come on this forum and play the role of enlightened one who speaks on behalf of all gays hear it from me when I say-yah right.

Oh BD let me tell you what I would tell anyone straight or gay-stop wearing thongs. They make you grumpy.

[Rue]

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.