In politician mode, Doug Elliot gets it wrong on Pride

Doug Elliot

June 2008

One would expect "one of the country's leading lawyers" to be good at argumentation. In the courtroom, the best logic and evidence carry the day. Good lawyers therefore know the difference between a good argument and a bad one. They can spot illogic and obfuscation from a mile away.

Of course, this ability is also what makes so many good lawyers good politicians. They know how to make a good bad argument -- convincing but, when subjected to scrutiny, untenable.

And so it is with Doug Elliot's recent speech at the Law Society of Upper Canada's 2010 Pride event. He took the occasion to pontificate about the recent controversy surrounding Pride Toronto's decision to censor the words "Israeli apartheid."

Given the content of his speech, I can only assume he was in politician mode.

Factum

The record shows that there are two primary requirements for participation in Pride. One, a participant must be either part or supportive of the LGBT community. Two, the participant must be law-abiding.

The group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) meets both of these requirements. It is a peace and human rights group that engages in lawful political speech.

Contrary to the hysterical -- albeit predictable -- accusations of the Israel Lobby, QuAIA is not a "hate" group. Nor does QuAIA violate any anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policies.

Thus, singling out one group that meets the requirements and then banning its lawful political speech is censorship. Plain and simple.

In Canada, freedom of expression -- including lawful political speech -- is constitutionally protected as a fundamental right. That right is a foundational pillar of any liberal democracy.

But I have a feeling that Doug knows all of this.

Warming up

But I'm not making a legal argument. The applicability of the Charter to Pride events is debatable. And frankly, I don't care. I am making a political and moral argument. The central question: Is the censorship justified?

Don't ask Doug -- if you want a clear answer, that is. Almost 3300 words later and one ends up a boiled frog.

Gay Christmas

The first two-thirds of Doug's speech is a veritable trip down memory lane. Stonewall. "Legal attacks" -- meaning censorship, somewhat ironically. Anita Bryant. State violence. Bathhouse raids. The Pride movement. Public harassment. AIDS. Death, fear, grief. Yet struggle and perseverance.

According to Doug, in those years Pride was a much needed pit-stop from the trials and tribulations of the struggles. It was a time "to celebrate being out and proud, and to just have fun for a change." Makes sense, given the historical context.

Doug laments, though, that Pride wasn't very inclusive. It was basically a bunch of activists. Mainly gay white men living downtown. Like Doug. "We marched for those who could not," he says.

Heading into the late 1980s, and with growing numbers, Pride began attracting corporate sponsorship. Queer liberationists eventually won the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Then came the 1990s. Equality rights were being won in the courts. Pride went mainstream. And it got big. Really big.

In 1995, Doug notes, the Pride board "collapsed." City councillor Kyle Rae -- another one of those gay white men living downtown -- "saved" Pride. With the help of corporate bucks, mind you.

Moving into the new millennium, Pride was declared a "national institution." Same-sex marriage was won. One million in attendance at Pride. Pride has become a kaleidoscope of cultural and sexual diversity.

For Doug, Pride is "first and foremost about our freedom to be who we are, without fear." It is about, he continues, "celebrating our diverse sexual orientation and gender identity." It's all about coming out.

Getting real

The final third of Doug's speech turns to the recent censorship controversy. "Some people in our community have decided to turn their energies inward against other members in our community, and to make Pride their political punching bag."

Doug frets that Pride's existence is "threatened" because of the "poisonous politics of the Middle East." And that's not an LGBT issue, he opines.

The Israel Lobby claims "hate speech." The "opponents of Israel" claim "free speech." (I note that Doug chose the word "opponents" rather than "critics." I can only speculate as to whether his word choice was deliberate.) To the whole lot of them, Doug says: "Get real." And then he advances three arguments.

First, Doug seems to side with free speech. Pride is full of stuff that some people consider "offensive." Spandex. Politics. Minority struggles. He rightly says that "criticism of Israeli policy is not the same as anti-Semitism." All well and good. I'm with you, Doug.

But then, Doug makes the classic "platform" argument. QuAIA, why must you be in the parade? Can't you go protest somewhere else, some other time? You're ruining our celebration! There are "limits" on free speech, you know. Keep it up and guess what? No more Pride for anybody!

Lastly, Doug returns to his overarching theme. Pride is about our freedom to be queer. Yes, we're diverse. Yes, we have lots of different concerns -- "from poverty to racism." But those aren't "the focus of this parade." Push those issues and -- boom -- no more Pride. So much for those closeted kids in the countryside. Don't you feel selfish, now?

Not going back

Doug advises: Activists, if you want to go back to the "good old days," then relocate and start over. Move to a homophobic society. Fight the good fight over there. Try Montenegro. Or Lethbridge. Enjoy the social hostility. I'll stay here in Toronto, celebrating, thank you very much.

We need the government and corporate sponsorship, Doug says. Without it, you guessed it: No more Pride.

Solutions? Doug has a few. Separate events, like the Dyke March. Or an "anarchist zone," perhaps, for "total free speech." A "libertarian march." The irony of separating people against their will seems lost on Doug.

In closing, Doug says, in a nutshell: Hope! Joy! Diversity! Freedom! Solidarity! Love! Peace!

I certainly feel better, now. Don't you?

Re-cap

Much like a good politician, and very much unlike a good lawyer, Doug makes his arguments subtly using sneaky rhetoric. It's hard to pin down where he really stands.

Analysis and induction become necessary, but that leaves the investigator vulnerable to the rhetorician's trap door: "That's not what I meant." The trap is nearly always deliberate.

What's Doug really saying? I'll give it a shot.

1. Pride emerged out of very trying times: activism, repression, struggle, protest, discrimination, legal battles, illness, death, and so forth.

2. Thus, Pride rests upon, and is therefore about, the struggle for freedom to be out as queer. It's about celebrating ourselves as queer people, first and foremost. Everything else is secondary.

3. "Some people" -- who shall remain nameless -- are injecting Middle East politics into Pride. It's a non-LGBT issue. It's poisonous. It doesn't fit. It's selfish. It's dangerous. It's like hostage-taking. (Hijackers! Terrorism! Run!)

4. Free speech, yes, but with limits. And only if it doesn't threaten the sponsorship dollars from governments and corporations. If you threaten the moolah, then you're being sent to the anarchy zone.

Yeah, but no

I can agree with Doug's first two arguments. It's the second two that I reject categorically.

First, Doug misunderstands and/or misrepresents QuAIA's position. QuAIA's starting point is that Israel has become an apartheid state: "Israeli apartheid." The argument is not a comparison with South African apartheid but instead a comparison with the legal term "apartheid" as defined by the International Criminal Court.

And there's nothing new about the comparison. It has been argued and/or considered by Michael Ignatieff, Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, John Dugard, Richard Falk, Uri Davis, Judy Rebick, Naomi Klein, and even Israel's own Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, among many others. A 2009 study of the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa also concluded that Israel is an apartheid state.

QuAIA's next point is that, under apartheid, LGBT people suffer immensely. Apartheid is enforced destitution. Destitution is fertile ground for ignorance, fundamentalism, and hate. Prison rules. Destitution makes queer struggle virtually impossible. LGBT people are forced underground and face untold violence. They cannot escape; they are literally walled in by Israel's apartheid wall. Israel controls Palestinian borders but does not extend equality rights to Palestinian people. Israeli queers have rights. Palestinian queers do not.

In short, the only way that Doug could reasonably believe that the Israel/Palestine "conflict" is not "an LGBT issue" is if he believed that Palestinian LGBT people do not exist. And, of course, that's not reasonable at all.

Second, Doug is surprisingly relaxed -- despite being a constitutional lawyer -- about tightening up on Charter freedoms in return for sponsorship bucks. He's willing -- quite literally -- to sell our rights away. He describes "limits" on free speech not in terms of Canadian jurisprudence -- or even John Stuart Mill philosophy -- but rather in terms of money, money, money. Why? There is no alternative. If we don't shut up, then Pride dies. Say "Israeli apartheid" and -- poof! -- it's all gone.

Somehow I doubt it.

Doug also mispresents QuAIA's position on free speech. QuAIA is not asking for "anarchy" and "total free speech." To insinuate as much is a straw man argument. It's simply not true. QuAIA is merely asking for the same treatment as everyone else. And it is to that point that I now return.

Back to the factum

Reiteration. There are two primary requirements for participation in Pride: a participant must be either part or supportive of the LGBT community; and, the participant must be law-abiding. QuAIA meets both of these requirements. Singling out one group that meets the requirements and then banning its lawful political speech is censorship.

The central question, then, is obvious: Doug, do you -- or do you not -- support the censorship? Really, we can do without the rest of your opinions. They are, frankly, irrelevant and only serve to obfuscate the basic facts.

Doug says that, had he been on the Pride board, he could not "honestly say which way [he] would have voted." I think I know. The proof, as my mother likes to say, is in the pudding.

Take a look. How is Doug's speech being received?

Pride Toronto -- and supporters of Pride Toronto's censorship decision -- have been promoting it. Website, check. Facebook, check. Twitter, check. Like! Like! Like!

Why? Because it reinforces everything that the Israel Lobby and Pride Toronto have been saying in order to justify the censorship decision.

Pride is about queer stuff only. It's a celebration. The Middle East has nothing to do with being LGBT. Free speech has its limits.

Blah, blah, blah. And I mean that sincerely. We've heard it all before, Doug. Don't you read the news?

Ultimately, for people who do not like controversy and just want the whole mess to go away, Doug's speech makes them feel good. It's a "Can't we all just get along?" appeal that surreptitiously paints the victims of censorship as hostage-taking anarchists. For the people doing the silencing, that benefits them; it wins support for their decision.

Doug doesn't mention Martin Gladstone, another lawyer. Nor does Doug mention B'nai Brith or the Simon Wiesenthal Centre -- major players within Canada's Israel Lobby. No mention of the city hall players either, like Kyle Rae. (Pride's old saviour, remember?) The Toronto Sun and the National Post: Off the hook. As for Pride Toronto, we'll just ignore all that back-room dealing, the disastrous PR, and those outright lies.

These parties may have orchestrated an aggressive pressure campaign to de-fund Pride -- just to oust QuAIA, a group that meets all the requirements -- but QuAIA really should have known better than to opine about the relationship of queer struggle to another struggle for human rights. Shame on them!

Good old days

Doug takes a jab at the supposedly old timer activists who seemingly want Pride to return to the good old days. But Doug's clearly out of touch.

Many -- if not most -- of QuAIA's members belong to younger generations. They're not yet "leading lawyers," like Doug. While Doug was focussing on his career -- and respect to him for his achievements and important contributions to LGBT equality -- they were growing up in a very complex and troubled world.

For them, multiculturalism and diversity always were. They don't remember the before. They know only the after. They are from diverse backgrounds themselves. Their perspectives are therefore different, and the knowledge they gained from schooling different. More recent, too.

Doug is rightfully concerned about the rise of the Right in Canada. But lost on Doug is the fact that censorship serves the Right. Harper loves it. Siding with the Israel Lobby also serves the Right. The Israel Lobby loves Harper.

Heck, let's put it all out there. Israeli apartheid is an embarrassing outcome of the imperialist race to control resources of the Middle East, primarily oil. That's why the USA supports Israel virtually unconditionally. This is no secret.

Palestinian queers exist, and they need our help. We should use our freedoms to fight for theirs. "We march for those who cannot," as Doug said he once did.

All struggles for human rights are indeed connected. They're connected because they all place demands on the world's elites. A threat to human rights anywhere is a threat to human rights everywhere. And a struggle for human rights anywhere is a challenge to elites everywhere.

Really, it is Doug who wants to return to the good old days. Or rather, to preserve the good old days: A simple definition of the meaning and purpose of Pride. Urban white queers who are concerned with equality, but not so much with poverty or racism. Can't we just go back to that and hold it in place with corporate sponsorship? Please?

No, we can't, Doug. And, on that note, I'm giving the final word to Barbara Smith:

"Those white gay men who have disposable income and who think that all they need to do is get rid of the most blatant homophobia in corporate, government, and military settings, in the legal system and on TV, and everything will fall into place, that they'll have a nice life in their little enclaves -- they're dreaming. Let's say they got rid of homophobia in those places that I mentioned -- which is not really getting rid of homophobia, it's getting rid of it in places that make their lives difficult -- but suppose they were able to do that. If they were living in or near a city that has imploded, like Los Angeles, because of racial and economic exploitation and oppression, then how free are they going to be? I don't know why people can't understand how interconnected our fates are as creatures on this planet."