[Ak2809]

Let's stick to the categories generally covered by human right legislation.

So, basically you're cherry-picking which parts of the definition of bigot to use while insisting that Rob Ford is a proven bigot using that same definition.

Has Rob Ford said he hates homosexuals? Has Rob Ford committed an act that could be brought before the human rights commission and have merit?

Honestly nfitz, I don't disagree that Rob Ford is in the wrong for not showing up at pride, but throwing the word bigot in some sort of holy crusade is just wrong.

I'm not even sure what a leftist bigot is ...

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;"

This can apply to anyone, and I know quite a few leftist bigots.

 

[GraphicMatt]

It isn't necessarily hateful, but it's controversial. The Palestinians could have existed in their current territories had they not decided to attack Israel and decidedly kick jews out of the middle east. Israelies therefore feel that whenever they've given their neighbours a break they've ended up declaring war on them. Palestinians claim that this is not the case and their lands were wrongfully removed from them and therefore any posterior action was justified. Some even disapprove of the actions that led to the 6-day war. Israelies and Palestinians both live in fear of what the other side is capable of doing - and suicide bombs and military operations have taken the lives of thousands over the years.

It isn't something that you can just lightly take a side on, and it sparks strong emotions for all those who have lost loved ones in the conflict. LGBTQ issues are nowhere to be found in the whole thing, and so its relevance to PRIDE is nil.

If everyone was just disapproving of those who showed up instead of defending their right to do so on the basis of some mythological gay rights issue, the outcome would probably be a lot more positive for Pride.

I definitely understand that it's controversial, but is that reason enough to threaten to de-fund the parade? Pride has controversy in its bones.

I don't really get why someone would choose to use the Pride parade as a platform to espouse political views on an entirely separate issue (like Israel/Palestine), but I also don't get why it's reason enough for some to freak the hell out. I'm reasonably convinced that Mammoliti and others want to simply stop funding the parade, full-stop, and have latched on to QuAIA as a means to an end.

 

[adma]

I wonder what the million plus in attendance will tell Ford. One wonders if some kind of fall-of-Ceausescu situation awaits him (no, not the firing squad part, but...

 

[nfitz]

So, basically you're cherry-picking which parts of the definition of bigot to use while insisting that Rob Ford is a proven bigot using that same definition.

What the heck are you talking about? I'm merely concerned that that Rob Ford is an anti-gay bigot. If he's bigoted against broccoli then all the power to him.

Has Rob Ford said he hates homosexuals?

No ... and no one has ever said he has.

Honestly nfitz, I don't disagree that Rob Ford is in the wrong for not showing up at pride, but throwing the word bigot in some sort of holy crusade is just wrong.

Why? He is without question a bigot - this was pretty clear - and I was pretty clear - long before pride. He is not fit to serve the public. We deserve better.

And if somehow I ... and many others ... are completely wrong, and that he just happened to be unavailable during every single event in the last 10 days; and that every other instance of prejudice in the last decade has merely been a misunderstanding ... then he's still guilty of doing nothing to avoid looking like a bigot. And surely that is almost as bad.

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;"

This can apply to anyone, and I know quite a few leftist bigots.

I think it's quite clearly we are talking about anti-gay bigotry here - and not something else. I question your motives to try and change the subject by redefining the discussion.

 

[Torontovibe]

I definitely understand that it's controversial, but is that reason enough to threaten to de-fund the parade? Pride has controversy in its bones.

I don't really get why someone would choose to use the Pride parade as a platform to espouse political views on an entirely separate issue (like Israel/Palestine), but I also don't get why it's reason enough for some to freak the hell out. I'm reasonably convinced that Mammoliti and others want to simply stop funding the parade, full-stop, and have latched on to QuAIA as a means to an end.

Of course that's what it is. We all know that.

As for Ford being anti-gay, well a while back a right-wing preacher said something along the lines of homosexuality will be the downfall of mankind and clearly made hateful comments against gays. Then Rob Ford came out and supported this hate monger, claiming his views on homosexuality were the same. So don't be surprised when gays and lesbians feel hate coming from Ford and especially his "Ford Nation". Those pricks are screaming their hate louder than ever, all over the internet. Thanks for nothing Ford!

 

[nfitz]

Of course that's what it is. We all know that.

Then we why do we take such comments seriously and simply out the bigots?

The media seems to bend over backwards to avoid the truth of Rob Ford's bigotry ... though the've come a lot closer in the last fortnight of calling a spade a spade.

 

[Ak2809]

What the heck are you talking about? I'm merely concerned that that Rob Ford is an anti-gay bigot. If he's bigoted against broccoli then all the power to him.

So then, a bigot should not be allowed to hold office. Is that the point you were trying to make?

My point was that the term bigot isn't simply just the cherry-picked definition you've presented. If you want Ford to resign because you feel he is a bigot, then you must conceed that anyone with any kind of prejudiced opinions political or social is not fit to hold political office.

No ... and no one has ever said he has.

Exactly.

Why? He is without question a bigot - this was pretty clear - and I was pretty clear - long before pride. He is not fit to serve the public. We deserve better.

We don't know if Rob Ford is a bigot. He may hold prejudiced views, but as long as he keeps them to himself what is the issue? Now, by definition if Rob Ford were to stand up in council and give a lecture about the evils of homosexuality, and proclaim that Pride should be defunded based on his own views then yes you can say he is a bigot.

I think it's quite clearly we are talking about anti-gay bigotry here - and not something else. I question your motives to try and change the subject by redefining the discussion.

Why is one type of bigotry more reviled than another? A bigot is a bigot. I abhor anyone who says the hate homosexuals in the same way I abhor anyone who clings to their own political beliefs and insults anyone not of like mind.

 

[nfitz]

So then, a bigot should not be allowed to hold office. Is that the point you were trying to make?

My point is someone who is prejudiced against gays, blacks, whites, cyans, men, women, etc., shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

My point was that the term bigot isn't simply just the cherry-picked definition you've presented. If you want Ford to resign because you feel he is a bigot, then you must conceed that anyone with any kind of prejudiced opinions political or social is not fit to hold political office.

Why are you repeating yourself? I've made it quite clear that I'm opposed to Rob Ford holding office because he's an anti-gay bigot. Why are you failing to read the context in the discussion and trying to change the topic?

We don't know if Rob Ford is a bigot.

The evidence is clear - some in his own words. To deny this only promotes anti-gay bigotry.

He may hold prejudiced views, but as long as he keeps them to himself what is the issue?

If he had kept his views to himself, then it we'd have never known that he was a bigot ... so there would be no issue. He has long since failed on this, with his statements about mayoral candidate Wendell Brereton and his statements opposing same-sex marriage.

Now, by definition if Rob Ford were to stand up in council and give a lecture about the evils of homosexuality, and proclaim that Pride should be defunded based on his own views then yes you can say he is a bigot.

There's more than enough evidence at this stage.

 

[Ak2809]

My point is someone who is prejudiced against gays, blacks, whites, cyans, men, women, etc., shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

Do you not believe in freedom of conscience?

You have to be an anti-gay bigot to believe that at this stage.

Do you honestly believe that? Is your world really so black and white, that someone cannot oppose your opinion without you thinking they are a bigot?

If he had kept his views to himself, then it we'd have never known that he was a bigot ... so there would be no issue. He has long since failed on this, with his statements about mayoral candidate Wendell Brereton and his statements opposing same-sex marriage.

Rob Ford has made some retarded statements in the past, yes, but holding views some people find wrong or stupid does not mean that person is not qualified for office.

William Lyon Mackenzie King for instance was a spiritualist who held seances to communicate with his dead mother and pet dogs. I find that ridiculous, and yet I consider him to be one of our greatest prime ministers.

The point here is that just because you think his morals are wrong doesn't mean that he should resign as mayor.

I disagree with almost everything Rob Ford stands for, and yet here I am defending him. Why? Because as someone who has socialist and humanist values, I believe in Rob Ford's freedom of conscience. I also believe that my morals and values don't trump anyone elses.

When there is an issue that actually merits Ford's dismissal I will be all over it, but this anti-bigot crusade you seem to be on is unfounded.

 

[RC8]

I definitely understand that it's controversial, but is that reason enough to threaten to de-fund the parade? Pride has controversy in its bones.

I don't really get why someone would choose to use the Pride parade as a platform to espouse political views on an entirely separate issue (like Israel/Palestine), but I also don't get why it's reason enough for some to freak the hell out. I'm reasonably convinced that Mammoliti and others want to simply stop funding the parade, full-stop, and have latched on to QuAIA as a means to an end.

I think your intuition is correct. I also think there's no place for controversial political demonstrations in gatherings meant to 'celebrate' something unrelated.

We probably agree in thinking that de-funding the whole thing for that is very harsh, but do we also agree that after being rightly told not to do it by people with the power to remove the funding, it was downright stupid for those who showed up with anti-israel banners to do so?

My point all along has been that those who did carry QuAIA-like banners specifically (and by extension those who defend their actions) cannot complain about the consequences of their actions. I attribute their need to show up still to a victim-mentality that is very prevalent among minorities and that needs to be discouraged as much as possible.

 

[RC8]

this anti-bigot crusade you seem to be on is unfounded.

My native language is Spanish. We don't have an equivalent word to 'bigot'. I never use the word 'bigot', and quite frankly I don't think it's needed at all.

It is incredibly vague and used in the silliest of contexts to prove just about everything. Ford is an ignorant man who, due to his lack of understanding regarding homosexuality cannot be expected to deal with issues surrounding it in one way or another. It's tragic, and it needs changing, but using those terms we are so much more likely to get to the bottom of the issue: ignorance.

 

[nfitz]

Do you not believe in freedom of conscience?

Not to the point where it allows those that those that show prejudice against such groups to hold public office - and be paid from the public purse. It's my money paying his salary.

Do you honestly believe that? Is your world really so black and white, that someone cannot oppose your opinion without you thinking they are a bigot?

As I think many people over the years have opposed my opinions, and I only think a handful are bigots, then the answer it ... no my world is not so really black and white.

Rob Ford has made some retarded statements in the past, yes

Retarded? Really? Do people still say that? You have to be kidding me!

, but holding views some people find wrong or stupid does not mean that person is not qualified for office.

Depends what the view is. If the view is not building a subway line, or cancelling a bridge. Sure. If it's that Fijians should be put in prison camps ... then you are wrong.

William Lyon Mackenzie King for instance was a spiritualist who held seances to communicate with his dead mother and pet dogs. I find that ridiculous, and yet I consider him to be one of our greatest prime ministers.

I don't care about his seances ... but the same William Lyon Mackenzie King that was a well-known anti-Semite and actively worked to stop European Jews from coming to Canada before World War 2? Perhaps an acceptable view in the 1930s ... but what if he did that today?

The point here is that just because you think his morals are wrong doesn't mean that he should resign as mayor.

Yes it does, when it comes to basic issues such as racial prejudice, etc.

When there is an issue that actually merits Ford's dismissal I will be all over it, but this anti-bigot crusade you seem to be on is unfounded.

Are you saying he isn't openly prejudiced against gays ... or that it is acceptable to be openly prejudiced against gays?

this anti-bigot crusade you seem to be on is unfounded.

My native language is Spanish. We don't have an equivalent word to 'bigot'. I never use the word 'bigot', and quite frankly I don't think it's needed at all.

Fair enough ... let's stop using the word; it only distracts from the issue.

So rather than saying Rob Ford is a bigot; I'll stick to Rob Ford is prejudiced against gays.

And rather than saying I'm against Rob Ford's anti-gay bigotry - I'll say I'm against Rob Ford's anti-gay prejudice.

 

[nfitz]

I guess fundamentally, I don't understand why Rob Ford continues to get free passes out of situation which would end the political careers of so many other politicians. Ignoring prejudice ... there have been so many issues that you'd think would be career ending:

- the lies about his university education. Said he left 2 credits shy from graduating ... which turned into flunked out of first year in Ottawa and did 6 more credits back in GTA. That alone would get most people fired from their jobs, if they put it on the CV!

- the lies about being convicted for drunk driving. Which turned out to also include the drug charge and the attempt to bribe a police officer

Why do so many Torontonians let someone with such clearly corrupted morals get a free pass?

 

[Ak2809]

Not to the point where it allows those that those that show prejudice against such groups to hold public office - and be paid from the public purse. It's my money paying his salary.

Sorry, but Ford's right to hold these views is enshrined in our charter of rights and freedoms.

Retarded? Really? Do people still say that? You have to be kidding me!

Yes. Colloquial language is interesting, no?

I don't care about his seances ... but the same William Lyon Mackenzie King that was a well-known anti-Semite and actively worked to stop European Jews from coming to Canada before World War 2? Perhaps an acceptable view in the 1930s ... but what if he did that today?

Thank you for proving my point. King's views on spirituality are perfectly acceptable, because they had no bearing on decisions made in office. The problem is where a person's views start to play a negative role in a person's job performance. I'm not going to argue any case for King because that would be horribly off topic, but his does present both sides of this argument.

Yes it does, when it comes to basic issues such as racial prejudice, etc.

I'll ask again. Do you honestly think a human rights complaint against Rob Ford as mayor would have any merit? I don't think it would.

Are you saying he isn't openly prejudiced against gays ... or that it is acceptable to be openly prejudiced against gays?

I'm saying it is perfectly acceptable for a person to be prejudiced against any group if they so chose. I believe so strongly in a person's right to freedom of conscience that I am willing to accept all the bad that comes with it.

Repressing opinions and viewpoints will not change them, and it will only drive them underground and make them worse. The only way to change a person's point of view is through open and honest discussion without vilifying the other person.

Nfitz, I am certain we share many values and I am opposed to any kind of prejudice or hatred as well, but running around screaming bigot or spraypainting "fuck Ford", or anything of the sort does absolutely nothing to make the case that your system of values is better.

 

[nfitz]

Sorry, but Ford's right to hold these views is enshrined in our charter of rights and freedoms.

But only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

And while he may well have the right to think or say what he wants; there's nothing in the Charter of Rights that protects ones right to hold public office.

Yes. Colloquial language is interesting, no?

It does sometimes reveal things the writer never intended to say ...

Thank you for proving my point. King's views on spirituality are perfectly acceptable, because they had no bearing on decisions made in office. The problem is where a person's views start to play a negative role in a person's job performance.

I agree. The problem here is that Ford's anti-gay prejudice is starting to play a negative role in Ford's job performance. This was demonstrated by his failure to appear at a single Pride event. Given the uproar in the media - with even Sue-Ann Levy criticizing him, it has clearly impacted his performance.

I'll ask again. Do you honestly think a human rights complaint against Rob Ford as mayor would have any merit? I don't think it would.

Depends on what grounds ... not based on not appearing at Pride. But now he's been outed as having anti-gay prejudice, I'd think that one should review various decisions he's made. Have any of his funding decisions been at all impacted by his prejudice?

I'm saying it is perfectly acceptable for a person to be prejudiced against any group if they so chose. I believe so strongly in a person's right to freedom of conscience that I am willing to accept all the bad that comes with it.

And I don't believe in it. That is my right!

Repressing opinions and viewpoints will not change them, and it will only drive them underground and make them worse.

Agreed. The last thing we should do is repress the story of Ford's prejudice.

The only way to change a person's point of view is through open and honest discussion without vilifying the other person.

Agreed. However if after a decade of public service, one is clearly so prejudiced ... then perhaps it's time to terminate their service with prejudice.

Nfitz, I am certain we share many values and I am opposed to any kind of prejudice or hatred as well, but running around screaming bigot or spraypainting "fuck Ford", or anything of the sort does absolutely nothing to make the case that your system of values is better.

I think screaming bigot is the best thing we can do for society. The whole world needs to know that such immoral prejudice still exists, and must be fought. I don't see the point of spray-painting ... not in this context. And while I'm totally opposed to graffiti (graffiti ... not street art), I can tolerate it in opposition to the anti-graffiti context ... (I'm opposed to mindless graffiti ... I'm less opposed to it if it actually has an intelligent message behind it ... even if I disagree with the message).