|Trans March 1/7/2011|
The fanatical anti-capitalist, anti-Israel Queers Against Israeli Apartheid was a source of controversy and disgust for Toronto. Their attempt to hijack Toronto's Gay Pride Festival for their hysterical anti-Israel agenda falls into a number of categories that discredits and disparages that group.
Unintentionally ironic is the mildest term that can be used to describe Gay people who chose to vilify a Gay-friendly country while advocating for people who believe homosexuals should be put to death for their sexual orientation. That they should choose to do so in Toronto at the same time that a few blocks away, a conference of Islamic fundamentalists that think Gays should be stoned to death is going on, and not protest that, suggests Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, as a group, suffer from severe psychiatric problems.
As Michael Lucas put it, "The anti-Israel clique has developed a completely new use of the concepts of human rights and universal solidarity: Only for them does “solidarity” require complete blackwashing of one party and whitewashing of the other."
After lengthy hearings, City Council made it clear that Pride would not receive civic funds if that offensive hate group participated in the festival. And Queers Against Israeli Apartheid "promised" they would not put Pride at risk by participating. Just as Pride said they would not participate this year.
But these fanatics evidently are so stupid that they thought if they changed their name and joined in anyway, everything would be fine.
They and Pride could be in for some bad news.
Both the Trans March and the Dyke March were invaded by people from Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.
And Pride officials did nothing to remove them.
Tomorrow, if they turn up at the main Pride parade, it should be very interesting seeing what happens when they ask for their six-figure cheque from the city.
|Trans March 1/7/2011|
|the anti Israel, "Israeli Apartheid" group led by this person of..|
which group was that?
(UPDATES: Here is an article by QuAIA spokesperson Savannah "Savvy" Garmon for Electronic Intifada titled "Queers Against Israeli Apartheid refuse to be silenced" She evidently took her own words literally both during the Trans and Dyke Marches this year. She is listed as "an activist for transgender rights, sex worker rights and has been active with various groups in the Palestine solidarity movement since 2002." Which makes a bit of a different description than her caption for this QuAIA video where she is listed as a physicist. Physics, it appears, ain't what it used to be.)
From the Dyke March, July 2, 2011:
|The anti-Israel group joined the march on Church St - Pride officials -|
including the woman in the blue shirt -
spoke with them and let them join in
|Pride officials (w/blue shirts) with anti-Israel group|
|Pride Officials accompanied the anti-Israel group along most of the route,|
here one plays traffic cop for them
And look who the leader is (again):
Here's the video with them chanting "We're sexy, we're hot, Israeli apartheid's not"
Talk about false advertising! Not only is Israel not an apartheid state, but there isn't a single one of these fools that comes close to being sexy or hot!
The sexy, hot lesbians were with the Pro-Israel group:
Blazing Cat Fur has more pics from Pride today
And the Roller Derby Girls were sexy and hot too:
Toronto Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti caught the new incarnation of the al-QuAIA bozos on video:
According to the Toronto Star, Giorgio Mammoliti wants the city to withhold Pride's funding because of this group. The Star reports, "Organizers said they did not see the controversial group." If that's the case, as you can see from the photos above, Pride organizers aren't above lying.
Here is some of the video Councillor Mammoliti shot
Blazing Cat Fur just posted a video with some revealing information about the anti-Israel group and their personal Pride escort
All photos in this post © 2011 Eye on a Crazy Planet
The Queers Against Israeli Apartheid ethos:
Suicide bombs Pride festival? Are you serious? Who cares what they think or what they have to say. In the Caribana parade last year some crazy drunk guy jumped in and started making racial slurs. Should we stop funding Caribana because there were not enough officials around to stop it?
And did the drunk guy in Caribana get a personal escort of officials all through the parade route like the anti-Israel stooges in Pride today? You'd have to be pretty dumb not to realize Pride was complicit here.
See my video the "Pride amabassador" testified at the city council meetings.
Of course not. And neither did this group. It seems from what I've read they joined at the end and were NOT a signed up participating group. And the picture you post is of some older lady chatting with the group. What's she supposed to do? Jump them? Come on... "a personal escort of officials"... you make it seem like the Pride committee marched down the road with them. This is NOT what happened. A group joined in, without permission, and there were not enough officials around to do anything about it at that point. What would you suggest they have done? Had police line the route to make sure no one joined in? Oh ... but wait... that would require even more tax-payers money!
It seems from what you read?
I was there, or haven't you clued into that from the pictures and video I took and posted?
They could easily tell the group that they weren't authorized and leave. If they refused to comply, as it was, there was a small army of police all along the route, who could have escorted them off if asked.
If you look at Blazing Cat Fur's video that I linked, you might get an idea as to why the person from Pride was so supportive of them.
As you weren't there, you really have no idea what you're tslking about.
And they didn't join in at the end, they came in right at the beginning, as the picture of them joining on Church Street shows.
They were in Norman Jewison Park forming up with the rest of the pride contingent prior to the parade. That's where I ran into George Mammoliti who started photo tagging them as well.
I was there. However, my friend who was near the beginning said they weren't there at that point in time with the rest of the groups getting ready to start.
After seeing the video it does seem rather obvious that the one female Pride volunteer was certainly not doing much to tell them to leave. However, I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on Pride Toronto for how this was handled... perhaps on this one volunteer.
The bigger issue is why funding for a parade should depend on whether or not someone expresses their freedom of speech in an already politically contentious parade (although arguably much less so in the last few years). You state on your blog that you are a huge advocator of free speech - so why does this not meet the requirement?
It's a tax subsidized event. If Pride took no tax money, then they would have a right to attend, although I find them objectionable and would certainly let private sponsors know that.
They can say what they like as long as I don't have to pay for it. As a taxpayer, I have a right to object to funds being used as a forum for these bigots to exploit. City Council has said as much too.
Their free speech extends to their right to speak and publish. Not their right to participate in events where they weren't approved or invited. If they aren't allowed in the Sanata Claus Parade or your nephew's 6th birthday party, is that deprivation of free speech too?
It's ironic and funny that these halfwits who want to boycott Israel can't understand that it's led to their own group and anything associated with them being boycotted.
But tax money going to an event does not mean the people providing the tax money are supportive of every argument or political view of those participating... no? Millions in taxpayer money goes to politicians we don't like or support, arts and science academic funding that ends up being flawed or moot, and a pelthora of other politically charged investments. Heck - why are taxpayers paying for a Royal Visit?
And there are tax payers, including those who were marching, that have this opinion, even if it does not reflect the majority. Or, tax payers that feel anyone should be able to participate in the parade regardless of their message. Why should tax payers who disagree with the group be the ones who decide that they should be banned?
So basically what you're saying is that you don't understand how representative democracy works.
I'm trying to say that, unless we take this to a vote as a nation, or even a city, as to what the "majority" of people would prefer, then this is all just assumption and conjecture. If the majority was always what was "right" then we wouldn't have equal rights for LGBT people in this country. The majority NOW support LGBT rights, but perhaps largely because our justice system deemed it necessary - so follow the masses.
I'd be inclined to disagree on a couple of those points. I think one of the reasons Gay people have equal rights in Canada is because public opinion (and those politicians elected by the people) support it. Both Canada and the US have independent judiciaries, but Canada has progresed faster than the US in that area, because the US is a more conservative country and public opinion has an effect on all areas of government, even the ones that are seemingly independent.
And as to your suggestion of taking this to the masses..that more or less confirms what I said earlier about representative democracy.
Our elected officials have come to a decision on this matter. I doubt most people in Toronto consider the issue important enough for the extremely rare step of a referendum. And if it were to occur, I don't think a Gay group made up mostly of unpleasant, camera-unfriendly Marxists would fare too well in the city that just elected Rob Ford as mayor by a big margin and where he currently has a 70% approval rating.
Didn't the person at city hall deem "Israeli Apartheid" as NOT against the city's anti-discrimination policy? I'd like to know more about "our elected officials have come to a decision on this matter".
believe it or not people, in this country we are free to speak our minds and use phrases such as 'israeli apartheid'. The only way to change this is to take it to the supreme court. see you there
For the comment at 1:51 am, the City recently ammended the anti-discrimination policy so that Queers Against Israeli Apartheid would not qualify. Come on, use Google once in a while, this site isn't Ask Jeeves!
For the comment at 2:29 am, your understanding of the issue is clearly deficient. No one has said you aren't allowed to use the phrase Israeli Apartheid. Go ahead and use it. But people don't have to fund events where you use it.
No one is talking about putting you in jail, just about cutting funds to Pride if it allows itself to be used as a platform by hatemongering idiots.
Funny how socialists seem to think that not getting a government subsidy amounts to the same thing as censorship. I guess they must teach that at OISE.
Good luck with that Supreme Court thing. Maybe you can fund that case by selling off The Sea Hitler. Doesn't look like you'll be using it for much else now.
I would be happy to contribute for the group to go to Arab countries to have their own pride parade.
Certainly the Palestinians would welcome them with open arms..........and swords.
"For the comment at 1:51 am, the City recently ammended the anti-discrimination policy so that Queers Against Israeli Apartheid would not qualify. Come on, use Google once in a while, this site isn't Ask Jeeves!"
Actually, no. They directed staff to look at changing the anti-discrimination policy so that QuAIA would not qualify. It will certainly be entertaining to see what staff manages to come back with.
In the mean time, let's ponder this question: Is it more reasonable to expect a mostly volunteer-based community organization like Pride to forcibly remove all peaceful citizens whose speech violates Mr. Mammoliti's sensibilities, or just to forcibly remove those peaceful citizens whose speech violates an as-yet-unwritten anti-discrimination policy of the future?
" I think one of the reasons Gay people have equal rights in Canada is because public opinion (and those politicians elected by the people) support it. Both Canada and the US have independent judiciaries, but Canada has progresed faster than the US in that area, because the US is a more conservative country and public opinion has an effect on all areas of government, even the ones that are seemingly independent.
And as to your suggestion of taking this to the masses..that more or less confirms what I said earlier about representative democracy."
I'm sorry, but no: You don't take issues of basic human rights to a vote. LGBT people are humans, just like those who don't like them, and are therefore entitled to human rights. You can't vote their human rights away from them.
As Chretien said, when asked if he'd hold a referendum on the "Gay Marriage" issue,
"To have a referendum to decide on the fate of the minority, it's a problem. It's why we have constitutions to protect the rights of the minority. It's why we have the Charter of Rights. So if it is always the majority vote by referendum, who will defend the minorities?"
Secondly, how do you know that the woman you identify as a "hot lesbian" is PRO-Israel. I can see the she seems to be Pro-GLBT-Jewish, but that doesn't necessarily translate into Pro-Israel.
There were only about a thousand police in attendance. Pride didn't have to remove them, they just had to request for the police to do it.
I don't think you understood what I wrote, Bud. I don't suggest that human rights should be voted on, but it's stil not realistic to think that independent judges are oblivious to public opinion. And as you probably realize, they are appointed by people who are elected, so are likely to hold opinions not objectionable to the people who appoint them.
But in some cases, rights have to be secured through democratic means, look at the recent vote in the New York Legislature that legalized Gay marriage there. Whether or not it's right or wrong, that's how things are done in some cases.
And that hot sign carrier was with Kulanu, a pro-Israel Gay organization - they wave Israeli flags at Pride.
If these marchers were doing something wrong, why wouldn't the police have removed them of their own accord?
Why are the most homophobic members of Toronto City Council so determined to force a community organization to play the role of speech police, charged with interpreting and applying their vague and ever-changing censorship requirements?
And why are some Jews choosing to run interference for these homophobes as they pursue their anti-Pride jihad?
The police aren't going to act on who should or shouldn't be in the march or parade unless Pride officials ask them.
This matter involves City Council because Pride takes tax money. What other public event takes civic funds and gets to be used as a platform to denounce a democracy and a nationality?
And most people in the Gay community I know are disgusted with Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. Just because someone is Gay doesn't mean they are an anti-Semitic socialist fanatic. And most don't want Pride hijacked the way it has been by them.
"Hijacked" in the sense of one placard and one T-shirt displaying the offending phrase?
For what it's worth, I'm a member of both the Jewish and Gay communities (and no, I don't claim to speak for either). I think the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" is inaccurate, inflammatory, and ill-advised. I would prefer it not appear at Pride.
However, what actually disgusts me is the idea of Council arbitrarily deciding what words and phrases must be excluded, based on some ever-shifting/non-existent criteria, and then demanding Pride enforce their censorship demands.
And yes, that's a pretty accurate description of what Mammoliti and friends have been trying to do. You claim to have been paying attention, so surely you know that the City Manager found no basis for excluding Queers Against Israeli Apartheid in any laws or city policies.
Also, if you've been really paying attention (not just reading one side's spin), you'll know that Pride actually tried to bow to Mammoliti's censorship demands last year, and it literally tore the LGBTQ community in two (censorship and freedom of speech are principles that really matter to this community). Then, after the festival had passed, Pride enlisted community leaders to undertake an extensive consultation process, listening to all sides, to try to forge a resolution.
If Mammoliti actually cared about protecting the Jewish community, he would have engaged with that process, instead of issuing shifting ultimatums designed to put Pride in an untenable position.
And now, after QuAIA backed off, agreed not to participate in the festival, and kept their word, he's still doing his darndest to kill Pride. The flimsiest excuse -- one placard and one T-shirt in a festival of over a million people -- will do. That doesn't surprise me. Like I said, his motives are obvious.
What does surprise me is that anyone from among the hundreds of Kulanu marchers would support his efforts.
QuAIA is not made up of honorable, honest people. Not using the organization's name, but bringing the same banners and shouting the same chants does not constitute "kept their word" as far as I'm concerned.
The Pride "Ambassador" who spoke with their delegation, headed by a QuAIA spokesperson, and allowed them in to the Dyke March, was someone who gave a deputation to City Council on their behalf. And I don't think Pride's leadership is particularly refelctive of the Gay community in Toronto - just the radical, activist part of it, and that was evident from the speeches, many of which denounced Canada, which is probably the most Gay-friendly country on earth.
When what they got up to on Saturday was widely exposed and Giorgio Mammoliti threatened funding again then, Pride suddenly seemed to do a miraculously good job of keeping QuAIA out on Sunday.
It was not Pride's fault that QuAIA pulled the subway banner stunt, which no one even noticed, and Pride should not be held accountable for that. But the Dyke March is a different story altogether - Pride was obviously complicit in that. The one sign at the Trans March wasn't Pride's fault either - almost all of the trans people I spoke with seem to have zero sympathy for QuAIA.
If you go through the posts in this blog since Friday, you'l see I spent a lot of time at all three main Pride days and met a lot of people - those portrait shots don't just happen, you know (and the ones I posted are a fraction of the ones I shot).
I am not going to pretend to be able to read into Mr. Mammoliti's motives, but the answer is pretty simple - it's not hard to keep QuAIA out, as Sunday proved, and Pride needs leadership that is willing to do that. OR be prepared to raise funds in the private sector. There's a difference between not getting a government subsidy and being deprived of free speech. It is not the obligation of the City to fund everything.
The Gay community has equal rights. That means equal responsibility. It means that offensive messaging is not going to be given a municipal handout. The next battle you'll probably see in Pride is whether public nudity is going to continue to be allowed. Get ready for that one. As Pride seems to want to go mainstream, it's going to be expected to behave that way. If it doesn't like it, it's going to have to subsist on private donors, but don't expect them to be anxious to get on board with something that gives a platform to QuAIA either.
My solution for this year would be a slap on the wrist and a final, but serious warning. Maybe withhold the amount that the Dyke March cost the city this time.
But don't leap to the conclusion that everything Mammoliti or his allies on Council is doing is because of homophobia. Pride isn't going away and I don't think anyone on Council is so unrealistic to think it is. But there are expectations it is going to have to learn to deal with if it wants tax dollars given to it.
Having every imbecile in the world show up and do what they like and Pride say "we were always political" is like a 30 year old who wears a diaper and says I always crapped this way" Time for Pride to get out of the diapers, and in some cases, quite literally.
So you show a picture of one femme pro israel (one) who you seem to want to f**k and that is evidence of who is hot or not, hahahahahhahah f**king stupid (with mainstream taste in women)
On a different note, so if you are for queers in Palestine you are anti -israel? I had no idea |Israel opposed and not supported queers in Palestine are they not supposed to be a safe-haven for all queers, mmmmmmmmmmmm, you are definitely intellectually challenged.
Not sure what to say any more about your total misunderstanding/mischaracterization of pretty much everything to do with Pride and its organization. I do enjoy that you think Pride's leaders were sitting around watching Mammoliti's footage on Saturday night, initiating a list-minute scramble to exclude from the parade a group that was never registered in the first place. I'm sure they weren't busy, you know, running a million-person festival with a skeleton staff or anything.
No leaping is required to reach the obvious conclusion about Mammoliti's motivations. Like the mayor, he has a public record of anti-gay statements and opposition to Pride, long pre-dating the existence of QuAIA. I don't imagine you can point to any occasion prior to 2008 when either of these "leaders" ever expressed any concern about Jews or Israel.
The anonymous comment at 3:28 a.m. suggests it must be easy to sneak into the computer access area of a pyschiartic ward at that time of night.
For 8:50 am - Pride Board people had been contacted by the Toronto Star and Sun and had alrady commented for articles that appeared online by Saturday, the night before the Sunday Pride parade, and Mammoliti had brought up the funding issue again, which had Pride very concerned.
You may be trying to sell some line of Pride's leadership being oblivious, but the connections, direct and indirect, between Pride and people involved in QuAIA are extensive and pretty clear - go take a look at some old reports in Xtra.
Richard, you equate being political with being immature?
AHAHAhaha haha heh...
Fuck, our country's doomed because of people like you.
Well, at least we know whose fault it is now (even if you did manage to completely misinterpret what I wrote).
And what kind of drugs are you on that make you want to write out a cackling laugh?
Post a Comment