Readers mull Pride funding
April 22, 2010
Pride festival on Yonge St.
CARLOS OSORIO/TORONTO STAR The attempt by city bureaucrats to censor freedom of expression at Pride is an outrage. If expressing the opinion that Israel practices apartheid (a view shared by both Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter) violates their “anti-discrimination” policy, it’s a policy that needs an emergency rewrite.
There is no human right not to be offended or to “be comfortable” at all places and times. Pride’s origins are in political struggle, not corporate sponsorship. Politics always involves (sometimes heated) disagreements. If that makes some people uncomfortable, they are perfectly free to stay home.
John Wilson, Toronto B’Nai Brith’s definition of hate speech is very convenient — if you’re fronting for a repressive government. According to your story, the Zionist lobby group finds any comparison of Israel and apartheid South Africa “inherently hateful.” If this is so, why do they not avail themselves of Canada’s laws against hate speech? Because they’re not that stupid.
Rather than risk losing in court, which they would if they prosecuted the use of the word “apartheid” to describe the apartheid-like conditions under which the state of Israel forces Palestinians to live, B’Nai Brith and its fellow travelers want to impose their extra-legal definition of hate speech on a public more easily swayed by emotive appeals than by the often hard to come by facts about the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and its many crimes.
Stephen Kerr, Toronto Elle Flanders, a member of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, which participated in the last Pride Toronto, states that “this has nothing to do with anything other than criticism of Israel.” I find it amazing that a homosexual woman would denounce Israel, the only country in the Middle East where gays are able to live openly and freely. In any other Middle Eastern country, including the Palestinian territories, homosexuals are ostracized, imprisoned, or executed. Ms. Flanders states that she is a “big Jew-lover,” but one has to wonder.
Dr. Jerome Edelstein, Toronto The city or any level of government shouldn’t be in the business of using our tax dollars to promote or block events like the Pride Parade. The businesses that benefit and people who wish to attend should put up the necessary funds to run the event.
The city believes its anti-discrimination policy was likely violated by QuAIA (Queers Against Israeli Apartheid), and has received complaints about the use of the phrase “Isreali apartheid.” Some people feel uncomfortable about the use of those words and some people like myself feel uncomfortable about the event itself and I have chosen not to attend.
The government’s role is to protect our choices, not to use our tax dollars as carrots and sticks.
Vedran Saciragic, Toronto Councillor Kyle Rae and city managers Mike Williams and Ceta Ramkhalawansingh are threatening Pride’s funding if they don’t ban QuAIA. Their reasons include the charge that a marcher wore a crossed out swastika, a well-known anti-racism symbol, and that criticism of Israel’s many violations of international law makes some people uncomfortable.
In 1980, I co-founded Gay Asians Toronto, one of the first groups for racialized queer people in the city. By the end of the decade, I marched in the Pride parade with the Simon Nkodi Anti-Apartheid Committee, a gay and lesbian group against human rights violations in South Africa. In 2009, I marched with QuAIA, a queer group in opposition to human rights violations in Israel/Palestine. Social justice is a key issue and a proud tradition in the queer community and at the parade, especially for those who sit on the margins of social power.
That city politicians and bureaucrats would use threats to censor human rights debate from our gay march, especially on such obviously spurious grounds, is presumptuous and arguably homophobic.
Richard Fung, Toronto
Israel’s attack was provoked
April 22, 2010Oakland Ross’s portrayal of Dr. Abuelaish, the Palestinian doctor who “refuses to hate,” is appallingly unfair to Israel. I sympathize with the doctor losing members of his family, which is tragic. However, Mr. Ross provides no context whatsoever for Israel’s actions. Instead, he provides a litany of reasons why Dr. Abuelaish should hate Israel.
Without context, these reasons serve only to inflame the reader against Israel and Jews.
One example: “It was the Israelis, after all, who prosecuted the war that splintered Abuelaish’s family.” Israel did not want to go to war when it attacked Gaza. It had no choice. Israelis were being bombarded daily by dozens of rockets aimed at its schools and homes.
After Hamas ignored many warnings, Israel’s only option was to invade Gaza. The article is similarly filled with many other misleading allegations, damning Israel (and by extension all Jews) without context or explanation.
David M. Sherman, Toronto We can just hope together with Dr. Abuelaish that peace, which only results from truth and justice, will someday prevail in that troubled land.
Jaime Oksemberg, Toronto
Palestinian support for Nazis casts shadow over Gaza conflict
No comments:
Post a Comment