• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blm

Gimmesometruth said:
Try the search function and find out, hurr durr.

Again, which is it, should V Pride not have the final choice...or should VBLM not have an influence...because, as you you already argued...they represent a minority.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't need a search function to find the answer to this, do you. My every post in this thread, the fact that this thread even exists, makes my position on BLM's influence crystal-clear. It was entirely inappropriate for them to have brought influence to bear like they did. I don't know if they were invited or they applied to participate but either way they should have been told that if they didn't want to march in a parade with uniformed police, they could stay home.
How come you couldn't get that from post 1 in this thread? Did you not guess what I meant by 'KMA'? Kiss my ass, that's what I meant. Kind of like my position when I find I'm chasing someone around in circles, trying to get a simple question answered.
 
Grand Mal said:
Well, you don't need a search function to find the answer to this, do you.
Click to expand...
I wasn't ask'n....hurr durr.
My every post in this thread, the fact that this thread even exists, makes my position on BLM's influence crystal-clear. It was entirely inappropriate for them to have brought influence to bear like they did.
Click to expand...
And yet, yer rationale....is that they are a minority...so yer inference is that they should not have an influence.
I don't know if they were invited or they applied to participate but either way they should have been told that if they didn't want to march in a parade with uniformed police, they could stay home.
Click to expand...
That is NOT the issue at hand, the issue you brought was about the influence of VBLM.
How come you couldn't get that from post 1 in this thread? Did you not guess what I meant by 'KMA'? Kiss my ass, that's what I meant. Kind of like my position when I find I'm chasing someone around in circles, trying to get a simple question answered.
Click to expand...
Again a hur durr moment, I wasn't countering post #1. Yer apparently unaware of this fact.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I wasn't ask'n....hurr durr.
Click to expand...

So this, `Again, which is it, should V Pride not have the final choice...or should VBLM not have an influence...`is you not asking?

Gimmesometruth said:
And yet, yer rationale....is that they are a minority...so yer inference is that they should not have an influence. That is NOT the issue at hand, the issue you brought was about the influence of VBLM.
Again a hur durr moment, I wasn't countering post #1. Yer apparently unaware of this fact.
Click to expand...

Countering? You're not countering anything. You haven't said anything here. For some strange reason you've come into a discussion refusing to state your position.
I don't know what you think the 'issue at hand' is, and I don't know what you think of the issue. I do know my patience has a limit and you're approaching it
 
Napoleon said:
We had an incident involving black protestors in Columbus this year. It's caused a vocal minority in our community to turn against Stonewall and has required us to grapple with certain perceptions about racial issues and Pride events. Police presence and corporate involvement were some of those issues and they were raised by people who do not know anything about what is involved in organizing a Pride event.

Police presence at Pride events is not optional here - it is a permit requirement. The Columbus Police Department decides the presence required, Stonewall pays for it, and the receipt is required to obtain the permit under City Ordinance. What the protestors and their allies have demanded (yes - they issued "demands") is that Stonewall employ "community police" or a private security force instead. Not legally possible and also not really feasible. I don't have confidence that anyone is going to find enough "community police" to properly secure an event involving 700,000 people. Not to mention we're talking about people with no legitimate legal authority and no credentials other than maybe a t-shirt that says "Security" and some random person's say-so. If one of them approached me I'd be within my legal right to tell them to pound sand and so would the religious zealots who show up every year. If they try putting their hands on someone - they're legally liable for the outcome in a civil suit and Stonewall could be too. Either that or a private contractor with resources who answer to a corporation with the same problems as Joe Nobody in a "Security" t-shirt. The threats to our community during these events are very real - which is why Stonewall coordinates with the FBI and DHS - and no one wants to see a repeat of incidents in years past. The police are the only force equipped both physically and legally to adequately prevent and/or respond to those threats.

These events cost money. Lots of it. As things stand, it costs Stonewall Columbus $400K - several times it's revenue - so corporate sponsorship isn't going anywhere unless these protestors know some private donors willing to pay for it annually. And why should it? Corporations can be allies too and Stonewall Columbus requires them to provide proof of LGBT anti-discrimination policies to participate.

Yes, this all started as a protest but organizations like Stonewall did not exist back then. A lot has changed in the 48 years since the riots and these protests are completely unnecessary. There is no legitimate reason why these people should be sabotaging Pride events rather than engaging with Stonewall to be participants.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure any of this has to do with police presence for security purposes, but rather who gets to march in the parade, in what capacity.

I'm also not opposed to corporate sponsorship.

But I do support Pride organizations that support BLM because the gay community contains black people, who are still not enjoying the fairly recent improvement in relations with the police non-black gay people have had. Until their entire community, even those with black skin, feel safe, Pride needs to remain a protest, and I can't blame members of the black gay community who ask for that support. Ultimately I'm neither gay nor black, so I don't have any right to do anything but support, I guess... And given that they seem to have worked it out, I'm not sure there's really much else to be said...seems like it's a pretty good point at which people should probably let it be. Those that think it's a bad idea for police to treat black people worse than other demographics will support it, those that don't will bitch and moan...c'est la vie.

And for the record, I'm not a fan of their (BLM) methodology either...it's uncomfortable, it's in your face, it's not the kind of thing I'd like to see in my country, and I think their leader is highly problematic. But until the problem of racially motivated police brutality is resolved, it's a consequence of that problem, so my anger about how I feel about this is directed at the cause, not the symptom.
 
Grand Mal said:
So this, `Again, which is it, should V Pride not have the final choice...or should VBLM not have an influence...`is you not asking?
Click to expand...
Yer so frigging confused, my "I wasn't ask'n" was in response to yer "Do you always answer a question with a question?". Of course I don't "ALWAYS" answer with a question.



Countering? You're not countering anything. You haven't said anything here. For some strange reason you've come into a discussion refusing to state your position.
Click to expand...
My position is clear, I do think VBLM has the right to influence V Pride, apparently, you hold an opposing opinion.
I don't know what you think the 'issue at hand' is, and I don't know what you think of the issue. I do know my patience has a limit and you're approaching it
Click to expand...
And yet, here you are, continuing with distractions about my answering yer questions with my own questions to not address yer belief that a minority group should not have an influence.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yer so frigging confused, my "I wasn't ask'n" was in response to yer "Do you always answer a question with a question?". Of course I don't "ALWAYS" answer with a question.



My position is clear, I do think VBLM has the right to influence V Pride, apparently, you hold an opposing opinion.
And yet, here you are, continuing with distractions about my answering yer questions with my own questions to not address yer belief that a minority group should not have an influence.
Click to expand...

See, that didn't hurt, did it.
Is it just because this is BLM and the police? What if a Free Tibet group wanted the Chinese Benevolent Society excluded, would that be appropriate?
And, it seems counter-productive to put your group in a negative light. There has not been anything happen in Vancouver that would make anyone think Black Lives Matter's message needs to be heard here, especially when Black Lives Matter takes such an adversarial position. Nearly everyone in Vancouver is positive about the police and their presence in the parade. Me, I'm a rational, reasonable person and I now have a negative opinion of Black Lives Matter. I consider their actions re. the Pride Parade to be blatantly provocative, daring anyone to challenge them. They've become the bullies.
 
Grand Mal said:
See, that didn't hurt, did it.
Click to expand...
I never said it did, nor would yer reading for context.
Is it just because this is BLM and the police?
Click to expand...
what is "it"?

What if a Free Tibet group wanted the Chinese Benevolent Society excluded, would that be appropriate?
Click to expand...
For them to express their rational view? Of course. What exactly is yer objection to free expression?
And, it seems counter-productive to put your group in a negative light.
Click to expand...
Whom...is "my" group, and how are they "mine"? You see I have to answer with questions because yer takin' all sorts of presumptive liberties and cannot form coherent questions.
There has not been anything happen in Vancouver that would make anyone think Black Lives Matter's message needs to be heard here, especially when Black Lives Matter takes such an adversarial position.
Click to expand...
Again, another premise you can't back up, but then I'm gettin' used to that.
Nearly everyone in Vancouver is positive about the police and their presence in the parade.
Click to expand...
Oh well then,, we can take yer unsubstantiated word on that....but tell us about those that are not "positive" about the VPD.
Me, I'm a rational, reasonable person and I now have a negative opinion of Black Lives Matter.
Click to expand...
Because they, the VBLM, had the temerity to express their view. That's "rational"!!!
I consider their actions re. the Pride Parade to be blatantly provocative, daring anyone to challenge them. They've become the bullies.
Click to expand...
They are "bullies", because as a minority, they expressed themselves.

Rational!
 
OlNate said:
I'm not sure any of this has to do with police presence for security purposes, but rather who gets to march in the parade, in what capacity.

I'm also not opposed to corporate sponsorship.

But I do support Pride organizations that support BLM because the gay community contains black people, who are still not enjoying the fairly recent improvement in relations with the police non-black gay people have had. Until their entire community, even those with black skin, feel safe, Pride needs to remain a protest, and I can't blame members of the black gay community who ask for that support. Ultimately I'm neither gay nor black, so I don't have any right to do anything but support, I guess... And given that they seem to have worked it out, I'm not sure there's really much else to be said...seems like it's a pretty good point at which people should probably let it be. Those that think it's a bad idea for police to treat black people worse than other demographics will support it, those that don't will bitch and moan...c'est la vie.

And for the record, I'm not a fan of their (BLM) methodology either...it's uncomfortable, it's in your face, it's not the kind of thing I'd like to see in my country, and I think their leader is highly problematic. But until the problem of racially motivated police brutality is resolved, it's a consequence of that problem, so my anger about how I feel about this is directed at the cause, not the symptom.
Click to expand...

I disagree with those sentiments. LGBT organizations such as Stonewall exist to address LGBT specific issues. Organizations such as BLM want LGBT organizations to expand the scope of their mission to include unrelated social inititiatives. From my perspective, our organizations don't have to be all things for all people nor should they try to be and lose focus on their founding mission in the process.
 
Napoleon said:
I disagree with those sentiments. LGBT organizations such as Stonewall exist to address LGBT specific issues. Organizations such as BLM want LGBT organizations to expand the scope of their mission to include unrelated social inititiatives. From my perspective, our organizations don't have to be all things for all people nor should they try to be and lose focus on their founding mission in the process.
Click to expand...

So, white gay folk aren't being beat up by cops anymore, but black gay folk are...mission accomplished? I dunno, doesn't sound like it to me. And I'm not sure how once a year, during pride, answering a call from support from a sub-demographic within their community is "losing focus on their founding mission". At best it's fulfilling it, at worst it's lending support to another cause the way other causes have lended support to the gay community.
 
OlNate said:
So, white gay folk aren't being beat up by cops anymore, but black gay folk are...mission accomplished? I dunno, doesn't sound like it to me. And I'm not sure how once a year, during pride, answering a call from support from a sub-demographic within their community is "losing focus on their founding mission". At best it's fulfilling it, at worst it's lending support to another cause the way other causes have lended support to the gay community.
Click to expand...

It really has nothing to do with being white or being black. I will never view a group of thugs sabotaging Pride events to demand attention, money, and in our case 7 minutes of silence for Philando Castille as legitimate engagement. The founding mission of Stonewall has nothing to do with race relations. There are some LGBT organizations with race-specific missions. Engage one of them.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I never said it did, nor would yer reading for context.
what is "it"?

For them to express their rational view? Of course. What exactly is yer objection to free expression?
Whom...is "my" group, and how are they "mine"? You see I have to answer with questions because yer takin' all sorts of presumptive liberties and cannot form coherent questions. Again, another premise you can't back up, but then I'm gettin' used to that.Oh well then,, we can take yer unsubstantiated word on that....but tell us about those that are not "positive" about the VPD. Because they, the VBLM, had the temerity to express their view. That's "rational"!!! They are "bullies", because as a minority, they expressed themselves.

Rational!
Click to expand...

Listen. You seem to confuse expressing your view with exerting your will. Expressing your view, in this case, means marching with signs. Exerting your will means demanding police not be allowed to wear uniforms. It's a simple concept. Sounds, in this post, like you expect 'free expression' to conform to your beliefs. Take my Free Tibet example. Here's that exchange...

Me- "What if a Free Tibet group wanted the Chinese Benevolent Society excluded, would that be appropriate?"
You- "For them to express their rational view? Of course. What exactly is yer objection to free expression?"

Can you really not see how bizarre that is? You saying it's a rational view and free expression to demand someone else be excluded?
Black Lives Matter didn't just express their view. They bullied the parade organizers into banning police uniforms. There's no need for Black Lives Matter's message in Vancouver- they're free to express that message but that's not enough for them. They need to exert their will. That kind of confrontation policy gets you nothing but resistance. Which, I'm starting to believe, is the purpose.
Like I said, they can KMA. We here will not be goaded into the kind of polarity, the toxic confrontation, that feeds those people south of the border.
 
Grand Mal said:
Listen. You seem to confuse expressing your view with exerting your will. Expressing your view, in this case, means marching with signs. Exerting your will means demanding police not be allowed to wear uniforms. It's a simple concept. Sounds, in this post, like you expect 'free expression' to conform to your beliefs. Take my Free Tibet example. Here's that exchange...

Me- "What if a Free Tibet group wanted the Chinese Benevolent Society excluded, would that be appropriate?"
You- "For them to express their rational view? Of course. What exactly is yer objection to free expression?"

Can you really not see how bizarre that is? You saying it's a rational view and free expression to demand someone else be excluded?
Black Lives Matter didn't just express their view. They bullied the parade organizers into banning police uniforms. There's no need for Black Lives Matter's message in Vancouver- they're free to express that message but that's not enough for them. They need to exert their will. That kind of confrontation policy gets you nothing but resistance. Which, I'm starting to believe, is the purpose.
Like I said, they can KMA. We here will not be goaded into the kind of polarity, the toxic confrontation, that feeds those people south of the border.
Click to expand...
Uh, they wrote a letter, "snowflake". For sensitive types like you, writing a letter....is "imposing", "bullying". Gee, next yer gunna tell us about yer vapors....

fw_fainting-victorian-lady1.jpg
 
Grand Mal said:
What I think those issues are is a protest against a disproportionate number of black people being shot by cops. In the US. It's an American issue. We're talking about people with a problem about what';s happening in another country importing their protest (valid as it might be) into another country that just hasn't got the same problem.
And the Vancouver police deserve their participation. They don't shoot black people.
Click to expand...

It's really a non-issue here, just blown up by social justice warriors and people that want to scream a victim mentality. I would imagine the thought process is similar among the Canadian BLM movement for what it's worth. They're just oppressed people by the mean old police.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, they wrote a letter, "snowflake". For sensitive types like you, writing a letter....is "imposing", "bullying". Gee, next yer gunna tell us about yer vapors....

fw_fainting-victorian-lady1.jpg
Click to expand...

Snowflake, huh.
I was warned about you and empty-headed juvenile crap but thought I'd engage anyway. Turned out, well, you know how it turned out. Like all your exchanges turn out.
KMA and have a day.
 
Napoleon said:
It really has nothing to do with being white or being black. I will never view a group of thugs sabotaging Pride events to demand attention, money, and in our case 7 minutes of silence for Philando Castille as legitimate engagement. The founding mission of Stonewall has nothing to do with race relations. There are some LGBT organizations with race-specific missions. Engage one of them.
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't get the big deal. Pride has one of the biggest voices of all LGBT organizations, is easily the most main stream, and yet some folks begrudge using it to help members of their community. Maybe you don't like the methodology (I'm not a fan of the "thug" designation, though, these are people trying to get help, and being patient and polite has netted them continued issues and little else), but the reality is that a problem exists, and Pride has the ability to help. I applaud the fact that they did, at least as far as I know from the Toronto and Vancouver examples.

Anyway, I've always got to give props to folks who manage to have a civil discussion, even when disagreeing, so thanks for the chat. Have a good one.
 
digsbe said:
It's really a non-issue here, just blown up by social justice warriors and people that want to scream a victim mentality. I would imagine the thought process is similar among the Canadian BLM movement for what it's worth. They're just oppressed people by the mean old police.
Click to expand...

With added black supremacist rhetoric.
 
Good morning!
Just to clarify the OP, the issue(s) here appears to be whether or not the BLM organization has any “right” to pressure or force the leaders of Gay Pride (in any given jurisdiction) to limit or restrict uniformed police involvement/participation in these events outside of standard civil security measures issued by local governing bodies.

A “right”? Well, not really. They can say what they want, but it is a stretch to claim there is any right to do so.

A “very convincing argument”? I think that’s more like it and I will try to sum up the crux of it as follows (and I will use “Toronto the Good” *tongue in cheek* as the best example I know of)
1. Historically (and presently for that matter), members of both the Black and/or Gay communities have been disproportionately “abused” by police forces, particularly in major urban centres. (oh, I know some of you will start arguing that because there are almost no Black persons in Sudbury, racism doesn’t exist in Canada. In that case, replace Black with First Nations and move on).

2. In the case of homosexual persons (or whatever term you want to apply), the enforcement of police “brutality” was, for decades (and longer I suppose) more or less state sanctioned in terms of how the language of law is/was written. Please someone fact check this, but I do believe that prior to the 1980s, the Criminal Code actually made it illegal to be gay. So the Bathhouse raids in the 70s and 80s were perfectly justifiable in accordance with “the law” and the general “moral climate” of the population. Some would argue that smashing heads in with a billie-bat went a little too far but unless it was your son or daughter getting their head smashed, no one really cared too much about it. “Serves them right for being XYZ non-hetero status (or insert choice of derogatory term)” cried the ignorant masses from not-too long ago. And FWIW, I have two (married) lesbian aunts who are in their late-50s who can provide their accounts of police conduct during this period. And one of them is RCMP for 30 years (go figure).

3. In the case of Black persons, police brutality vis-à-vis race, is a different kind of systemic tyranny, because “race” is a lot easier to identify and target when you need to make a quota for arresting and jailing “bad guys.” Toronto and Montreal have the highest populations of Black persons in Canada, and I would wager there is a higher ratio of Black persons having been arrested with claims of police abuse (as a percentage of the total black population) versus non-Black persons having been arrested with claims of police abuse (as a percentage of the total non-black population) in these cities. Any stat-masters out there who can verify (or debunk) this claim? Regardless, there is enough “enough is enough” anecdotal sentiment amongst Blacks when it comes to identifying police as a threat to their liberty & security rather than a supporter of these values.

4. At some point, members of said communities begin to organize themselves to protest violations to their human rights and civil liberties. This is a political protest against unfair treatment by coercive state power based on prejudice and so-called moral values of law enforcement. And, in my humble opinion, the *only* way we can truly change the status quo regarding anything perceived in a society to be so controversial or taboo that the general population puts their heads in the sand until the problem goes away on its own (yes, there was a bit of sarcasm in the last seven words). Or worse, the general population doesn’t believe there to be a problem in the first place.

5. Fast forward to present day (because I know this is getting long). Gay pride and the parades that support the movement have evolved into a celebration from political protest, to include police (esp. those from the community) whereas prior presence was to ensure no one got out of line (and if they did, consequences would be suffered). Now it’s trendy, now it’s cool, I’m alright, Jack kinda stuff. However, despite celebrations like Caribana, the instances of reported police brutality are still higher within the Black community, relative to non-black. The organizers of BLM are pressuring the Pride movement to restrict police participation because, until the state’s coercive powers stop discrimination of all “marginalized” members of society they are supposed to protect, it is complete hypocrisy to involve them in the fight for equality under the law.

6. To be fair, if I was the leader of BLM, I would also say to every Pride parade leader that allowing uniformed officers to participate in the parade is a slap in the face to any group still fighting against whatever discrimination they face from police powers. It is not obligatory for one group to fight another’s cause, however, support against a common enemy has the greater potential to yield results that effect change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom