Toronto Pride: Definitional Trickery and Other Falsehoods and Illogic

Kyle Rae

The following commentary was originally sent as an e-mail to Toronto city councillor Kyle Rae, Pride Toronto officials, and various other relevant parties. Mr. Rae has not replied - which I take to mean that he's not interested in genuine debate and/or that he is already aware that his rhetoric falls flat when evaluated against easily verifiable facts, the historical record, and basic principles of logic. The commentary differs only slightly from the original e-mail.

---

Today (14 May 2010) Xtra.ca published the following statement attributed to Toronto city councillor Kyle Rae in regards to the current Pride Toronto/Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) debate:

"What Pride is, is a demonstration against homophobia. That's where it started in 1981 — protest against state-sponsored homophobia."

Well, this is a new one. We've also been told that:

• Pride is only about LGBTQ rights/issues.
• Pride is only a celebration.

Of course, these arguments have been refuted -- handily. Indeed, Tracey Sandilands, the Executive Director of Pride Toronto, wrote to me recently and stated: "We wish to clarify that 'queer rights and celebration' have not previously been the sole criteria for permitting participation in our Parade." She added: "In the 2010 Parade, we are requesting that entrants tailor their messaging to be in accordance with the theme of the festival '30 Years' or the organization's 'Global Human Rights for Queers: What Out is About' program."

So now we're onto a new argument: "Pride is only about anti-homophobia." Well, actually, there's also a second new argument as uttered by Kyle Rae: "This is a culture grant, not a political grant. There are expectations that when you give money for a cultural experience, you're not offending people."

I'll address each of these arguments.

1. Just "anti-homophobia"?
   
   It is simply not true that Pride is solely about LGBTQ rights/issues, celebration, and/or "fighting homophobia." If any of those were the sole criteria, either alone or in combination, then a great number of participants would have to be excluded from Pride. Looking at the record, the only criteria seem to be that participants are either part or supportive of the LGBTQ community, and that they are law-abiding. (Pride Toronto would not deny that this is the de facto policy and it should also be noted that "law-abiding" includes lawful political speech -- as protected by the Charter's "freedom of expression" provision.)
   
   I'll add that past themes of Pride have referenced "unity" and "diversity"; these concepts refer to a vision of Pride that entails breaking down all forms of oppression -- because they are all connected. As one commenter wrote on the Xtra.ca website:
   
   Sure, Pride is about fighting homophobia, no doubt about it. But defining it as merely "anti-homophobia" is defining it in the most narrow way possible that will exclude numerous other legitimate queer voices. What about transphobia? Aren't trans people (such as myself) an important part of Pride? Isn't feminism an important component? Also, many feel that there are internal issues in the queer community still to be resolved -- including class privilege and race issues (just look at how poorly Pride has treated Blockorama and how it has disrespected Blocko's organizers). Does Rae really want to shut the door on all these issues just to come up with a lame rationale for excluding QuAIA? That I think is what the "we're proud of our politics" thing is about.
   
   
2. Just "cultural"?
   
   "Cultural" and "political" are not mutually exclusive concepts. Indeed, one can speak of "political culture" or "cultural politics." Furthermore, as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has argued -- and in commenting on this particular controversy: "Exhibitions and theatre performances may [also] present a point of view on a controversial subject that make individuals from a specific community uncomfortable. These considerations alone should not, however, preclude them from receiving public funding." Certainly, many people in wider society find the entire concept and event of Pride to be "offensive" -- on "religious" grounds, for example: Does this mean that the city should not support Pride? Are politics not a part of our society's culture? And is culture always (or ever) apolitical?
   
   Lastly, how do we account for the presence of various politicians and especially political parties in Pride? They are political by definition. If the presence of the Conservative Party in the parade offends a great number of people, then should the Conservatives be banned and/or city funding withdrawn?
   

Those who wield power and who seek to silence opposing opinions often do so with definitional trickery. That's nothing new, and it's precisely why rational argumentation and deliberation demand terminological clarity from the beginning -- as in the court system, for example. Definitions are therefore political, but they should also be truthful. And the truth is that Pride is not solely about LGBTQ rights/issues (narrowly defined), celebrating, and/or anti-homophobia. Nor is "culture" apolitical. Nor is "offensive" expression offensive to all -- nor is it always unlawful, discriminatory, or harassing.

All of that being said, review the facts:

1. The group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid is a part of the LGBTQ community and engages in lawful political speech; this fact is indisputable, and this fact alone qualifies the group for full and equal participation in Pride. Furthermore, although some disagree despite the availability of much evidence that refutes their disagreement, QuAIA is focused upon LGBTQ rights in Israel/Palestine. The simple fact is that apartheid -- or, if you like, apartheid-like conditions -- result in the denial of equality rights for many LGBTQ people, namely LGBTQ Palestinians. Moreover, living under apartheid makes homophobia worse.
   
   
2. QuAIA contributes to the political culture of the LGBTQ community and to wider society. Like many forms of artistic expression, QuAIA challenges oppressive aspects of culture. QuAIA, unlike the political parties and many of the politicians who participate in Pride, is non-partisan. If QuAIA is to be excluded on the basis of it being "political," then will every other parade registrant be vetted to ensure that it does not engage in anything "political" -- e.g., advocacy, lobbying, campaigning, etc.? Never mind the obvious point: to be "anti-homophobia" is a "political" stance.
   

To participate in the Pride parade, a registrant need only be part or supportive of the LGBTQ community, and to be law-abiding. QuAIA meets these requirements -- and the record proves it, no matter how much definitional trickery and dishonesty Councillor Kyle Rae chooses to advance.

Pride is a "big tent" -- and that bigness is beautiful.