The Shotgun Blog
« Short Lived Apology | Main | How the West can spawn Islamic terrorists »
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
A Tale Of Two Cities
"Activities which degrade men or women through sexual stereotyping, or exploit the bodies of men, women, boys or girls solely for the purpose of attracting attention, are not permitted on Nathan Phillips Square."
 |
There, says Ms. Reid. Miss Universa non grata. |
The big parade ends Gay Pride week which began on June 18th when the Rainbow Flag was raised in Nathan Philips Square in front of City Hall. |
 |
More photos of the welcomed parade participants. Not work safe.
(Not lunch safe, for that matter.)
Posted by Kate McMillan on July 19, 2005 in Municipal Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8344e04f953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Tale Of Two Cities:
Comments
Big government is the greatest single threat to the human species.
Posted by: Tony | 2005-07-19 1:11:54 PM
A followup note: I debated whether I should use the second photograph, but upon determining that the nearly exposed breast is almost certainly fake, chose to publish it.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-07-19 1:18:32 PM
I didn't realize that the rainbow flag was flown over the Square at the end of the parade. That would certainly constitute a connection with an event that "exploit[s] the bodies of men, women, boys or girls solely for the purpose of attracting attention"!
Political correctness run amok....
Posted by: Mike H | 2005-07-19 2:06:04 PM
Welcome to the new Lieberal Canada !! Diversity rules(as long as it is the right kind of diversity, apparently)
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-07-19 2:35:41 PM
Gay and right: Whats your take on public nudity. What do you think of the two laws in Canada, one for gays and one for straights??
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-07-19 2:51:47 PM
While banning Miss Universe may be stupid political correctness gone overboard just like June Rowlands banning the Barenaked Ladies band in the '90s was mistakenly placed political correctness gone overboard (I say mistaken because she actually thought that there would be nudity because of the name of the band and later apologized for her stupidity), the parade route does not actually take place on City Hall property or Nathan Phillips Square, the lands to which the rule applies. There is simply no similar rule for privately organized parades, even if it is the City that issues a route permit. And I think that is typical of city governments: we'll let the people have their parties, but not necessarily on our own property.
MikeP: there is one law but cops always like to exercise a bit of judgement in trying to enforce the law. Arresting 4 or 5 ugly white naked guys is probably not the best use of their time in the middle of a crowd of over a million people. Have you been to the parade before? I'm not sure how they would even get to them.
And MarkAlta: the new Lieberal Canada? The parade has been going on for years and the rule is a municipal rule. Last I heard, municipal by-laws is not a provincial jurisdiction that the feds are not encroaching on. And I believe it was the Harris PC who were in power when the rule was adopted by the city and the Tory-supporting Mel Lastman who was mayor when those photos were taken.
Posted by: TB | 2005-07-19 3:16:17 PM
"Tory-supporting Mel Lastman"?
If my memory serves me correctly, Mel usually had three or four Liberal campaign signs on his front lawn in every election, and his relations with Mike Harris weren't exactly warm in nature (he once famously declared that everything Harris touches "turns to s*#t")
www.grumpyyoungcrank.blogspot.com
Posted by: Grumpy Young Crank | 2005-07-19 3:48:19 PM
You certainly didn't expect real egalitarianism, tolerance or civility from a soulless commie punk like Miller didja?
So called democratic commies like Miller love diversity in everything except opinion, politics and social options.
Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-07-19 3:50:04 PM
Thanks for straightening me out TB...however I never said anything about one jurisdiction or another, merely that this is par for the course in our 'new Canada'. I don't for one minute think the only morons are in federal politics!
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-07-19 6:17:33 PM
Thanks for straightening me out TB...however I never said anything about one jurisdiction or another, merely that this is par for the course in our 'new Canada'. I don't for one minute think the only morons are in federal politics! And I don't think too many beauty Queens were outlawed during Mike Harris' tour of gov't. It wouldn't have been considered degrading to a real Conservative.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-07-19 6:18:40 PM
Kate: could you clarify whether the second picture (with the obviously fake boobs) was taken at Nathan Phillips Square?
Even it wasn't and TB is correct in stating that none of the sash and tiara-wearing occurred on City property, the interpretation of the bylaw is ridiculous.
A strong, confident and beautiful woman, who chose to enter the Miss Universe contest and ended up winning is not allowed to wear her sash and tiara or be referred to as Miss Universe in her home city??
Are women allowed to go topless in Nathan Phillips Square (as they are inthe rest of ONtario)?
Posted by: Charlotte | 2005-07-19 6:22:14 PM
I was asked for my opinion. I am against public nudity.
fred
gayandright.blogspot.com
Posted by: Fred Litwin | 2005-07-19 6:46:57 PM
David Miller, moonbat commie punk who hates diversity: Natalie Glebova is a "successful young woman, way beyond beauty contests." His apology for brainless bureaucrats: http://tinyurl.com/dpako
We've got a tempest here. Now where did that teapot go?
Posted by: TB | 2005-07-19 7:29:49 PM
Well, as the Miss Universe pagaent didn't take place in Nathan Phillips Square, either, I'm not sure why you'd ask?
Posted by: Kate | 2005-07-19 9:44:26 PM
They must have to hose down those streets with bleach after one of those parades. That's sick!
Posted by: Mallard | 2005-07-19 9:52:19 PM
"Activities which degrade men or women through sexual stereotyping, or exploit the bodies of men, women, boys or girls solely for the purpose of attracting attention, are not permitted on Nathan Phillips Square."
Doesn't that describe virtually all activities performed by Tronna City Hall? Heaven forbid they actually try to manage some of the many problems facing your country's biggest city. Basic hygene demands that you stop throwing your garbage into the streets. Let's not discuss the "Red Rock" (as in something not moving).
Of course, you get what you elect - and it is clear that Tronna's people do not care about themselves or anyone else. This apathetic (more like pathetic) attitude has reduced Tronna to a joke of a city. It's just as pathetic as your sports teams, especially the Unable Leafs.
Pray that terrorists do not attack your city, because you are totally unprepared for it. Shameless, stupid ignorance is to blame. Ontarians are simply unable to feel compassion for others. You people would walk over a burning corpse and do nothing. However, it would be amusing to see you people run around like headless chickens, blaming George Bush for your problems.
Ontarians are lazy, rich, ignorant, stupid and racist. It is unclear why anyone respects you. Geez, you don't even shovel your own snow because it's beneath your dignity. Snobs.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-20 1:49:55 AM
Come on, Scott. Knock it off. You're giving pink-eye to the tribe. Stick your head over the plate and take one for the home team.
Posted by: EBD | 2005-07-20 3:25:14 AM
Well, as the Miss Universe pagaent didn't take place in Nathan Phillips Square, either, I'm not sure why you'd ask
I imagine it's because that what the bylaw prohibits. In other words if the intent of the pictures was to show hypocrisy or double-standards, that was not achieved.
BTW, Mayor David Miller has thankfully apologized to Miss Universe and reversed the decision.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-07-20 5:44:06 AM
The double standard is there, Mark. I'd say raising the rainbow flag in NPS to kick off pride week shows more support for that event than having Miss Universe MC a cultural event shows for the beauty pageant.
Yes, Miller reversed the decision. But how sad is it that such a decision was made in the first place?
Posted by: Mike H | 2005-07-20 7:02:49 AM
"The double standard is there, Mark. I'd say raising the rainbow flag in NPS to kick off pride week shows more support for that event than having Miss Universe MC a cultural event shows for the beauty pageant."
The bylaw, which we all agree is stupid, does not prohibit "support for" events that contain such displays. It prohibits (at least according to the quoted Ms. Reid) the activities themselves from occurring on the square. As such, gay pride opening ceremonies no more violate it than do the opening ceremonies for Caribana (another body objectification-rife festival) which are also held there.
Bottom line, the relevance of the gay pride picture posted, given that it wasn't taken at Nathan Phillips Square, is still a mystery. (OK, I lie. It's not really a mystery, and the comments above show that it successfully elicited the kind of sentiments it was, in it's logic-impaired way, pandering to.)
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-07-20 7:30:13 AM
The obvious point has already been made - that Miss Universe was held in Thailand, but since that's deemed insufficient evidence, this quote from a google cache of a now defunct page:
"The big parade ends Gay Pride week which began on June 18th when the Rainbow Flag was raised in Nathan Philips Square in front of City Hall. Mayor Mel Lastman, praised the gay community for helping bring another $70 million tourism dollars to the city, and accepted a water gun as a gift from Toronto's famous "drag queen" Enza Supermodel.
As you can see from the photos, it was a
boiling hot day and everyone was wearing
t-shirts, shorts, or nothing at all."
Posted by: Kate | 2005-07-20 11:27:23 AM
Well, it was my understanding that the sash and tiara are what were considered "objectification" by the city hall PC police. For the bylaw to have had any bearing on the Miss Universe ban, that would have to be it, since she was told she could appear without them. If the problem was with *representing* or promoting an event that involves objectification of bodies, then the application of the bylaw is even more bizarre than it already was. Plus, as I mentioned, the opening ceremonies of Caribana and probably a dozen other events would have to be forbidden from the square.
(I found that page in the Google cache; it's pretty clear the last sentence is going on to talk about the parade, and is not referring to the city hall ceremony.)
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-07-20 12:30:11 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.