I wrote these pieces for the National Post, but given their space constraints they weren’t able to run them. I know that 24-48 hours ago is an eternity on the internet, but here they are anyway:

Saturday, June 26

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper played host on Saturday in a meet-and-greet of the leaders of the G20 nations inside the heavily fortified red zone of Toronto’s G20 summit, the city outside burned with the destructive riot of the Black Bloc Anarchists.

Well, “burned” might be a slight exaggeration. It’s true that the rioters torched two police cars, and smashed dozens of windows in downtown Toronto, but the violence wasn’t nearly as bad as it could have been. No police officers or protesters were reported seriously hurt by Saturday evening, and although the vandalism was extensive, the security cordon had held off the demonstrators.

That’s not to say that the vandals and anarchists posing as political activists didn’t engage in behaviour that should be roundly condemned. As well as damage to police property, few big businesses in the downtown core were spared any bricks, as protesters dug up the street to use them to smash windows.

The large companies targeted were Starbucks, Scotiabank, the Bay, American Apparel, Bell Canada, Tim Hortons, Bank of Montreal, Money Mart, and even smaller “Mom and Pop” stores. Some companies, like HMV, weren’t taking any chances.

The vandalism wasn’t limited to breaking windows, as the spraypaint came out on store windows, concrete barriers, and the odd brick wall. The brazen criminals even took to breaking into a police car and used the loudspeaker for their own preaching. Media was also targeted, with two CBC vehicles smashed, and a window at the City Pulse building.

Although the riots caused widespread disturbance and traffic delays, the billion-dollar police presence was up to the task. And while they did clash with some demonstrators and made some arrests, many protesters made their political statements in a peaceful and non-violent way.

The eccentric and melodramatic who used the freedom of non-violent protest to show their opposition to the G20 are not to be condemned. But the thugs and cowards who used intimidation, violence, and attacks to private property as a means of sending a message to the leaders of the world, failed miserably to prove anything other than a solidarity with terrorism.

Mayoral candidate George Smitherman condemned the riots, while Mayor David Miller called for Ottawa to compensate Toronto businesses for the tens of thousands of dollars in damages that was caused by the violence. Indeed, there was widespread condemnation of the anarchists by people throughout the political spectrum, many expressing disbelief that Toronto would distinguish itself in such a truly unflattering manner while the eyes of the world are upon it.

Although the G20 is always certain to attract a certain brand of demonstrator, there is no call for this kind of nonsense to occur in Canada. For all of our shortcomings, this country continues to lead the world in quality of life, economic prosperity, freedom of speech, security of person, and endless opportunities. To inflict violence and damage to private property out of some kind of wanton frustration over politics accomplishes nothing but the disrespect of all.

But let’s put things in perspective here. The riots weren’t as bad as many that have occurred in other parts of the world after routine sporting events that didn’t go the way of the home team. And that is in reference to other G20 member countries. Toronto is fortunate that it will never experience the kind of mayhem and murder that occurs on a daily basis in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.

Still, this type of thing seems out of character for quiet and unassuming Canada. As many people wrote on social networking sites today, this is not the Toronto we know. This is not the city we grew up in. These are not our people.

Perhaps most ironically, the Black Bloc managed to make clear the necessity of a heavy security cost by their actions, diminishing any chance of having a valid political agenda taken seriously.

Sunday, June 27

The difference was like night and day.

The riots in Toronto on Saturday were marked with violence, contempt of private property, and an indifference to the rule of law. The police were widely credited with showing great restraint, although some felt that perhaps they were too passive. As Mark Steyn wrote in the Corner Review, the police were “spectators in body armor.”

On Sunday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a moment to commend the work of the police, saying that the protests were marred only by the “actions of a few thugs.” He went on to say that this validated the exorbitant costs of the security.

But even as he made those remarks, the police were busy striking an entirely different tone from the day before. Gone were the black-hooded “thugs” and anarchists who had torched police cars, broken business windows, and wreaked havoc as a city stood still and watched helplessly. In their stead were curious observers and peaceful protesters who had come out to see what had become of their city.

The police, at times outnumbering the journalists and observers wandering about the city, decided that Sunday would be a day of reckoning for any who dared to show an interest in walking down their own streets.

Two rather prolific and popular conservative Canadian bloggers noted the police hostility in a video involving a confrontation with a sarcastic police officer, who identified his badge number as 3478.

Those journalists and bystanders writing about their observations on social networking sites said that the tension in the air was palpable, and that the police seemed on edge. By the afternoon, a cluster of curious citizens, peaceful protesters, and journalists were pincered by police into a no-escape zone at Queen and Spadina.

People who wanted to leave were denied the right by the police who had blocked any exits, and ordinary people who had merely showed up on a Sunday afternoon to watch the demonstrations, suddenly found themselves involuntary participants.

Spontaneously, the crowd of peaceful protesters began singing “Oh Canada” to the wall of police. At the finish of the song, the riot police inexplicably attacked, and started arresting people at random. The “detainment” had begun.

For the next six hours, those trapped in between the police, whose numbers exceeded their quarry, were stuck in the driving rain, victims of circumstance in a protest that had not started one fire or broken one window.

The behaviour of the police that had been described as extraordinary professionalism the day before, had turned suddenly and unexpectedly on the citizenry.

What possible reasons did the police have for allowing the thugs to burn police cars and damage private property the day before, and yet fire rubber bullets and tear gas at innocent bystanders the next day? The only reason, it would seem, is that the police had decided to make a statement of some kind.

The detainment of journalists and ordinary citizens alike at Queen and Spadina drew protest from across the political spectrum on social networking sites. As the images and videos of the actions of police were updated on-the-fly, even hardened supporters of the police were more or less forced to admit that the G20 security forces were using excessive force unnecessarily.

What had been sympathy for the police, the city, and the federal government the day before, melted away as images of police engagement with ordinary-looking people looked disproportionate to the threat of standing in the middle of a street, nowhere near the G20 proceedings. It doesn’t take a civil libertarian to wince at the sight of an officer in riot gear firing percussion grenades at people standing unarmed and unthreatening, only five feet away from them.

How the city of Toronto will react to the aftermath of this apparent overreaction of the police is as yet unknown. But damage control would certainly seem to be necessary. With the news that journalists were arrested, beaten, and unlawfully detained for doing nothing more than their jobs, you can be sure that this is one story that no politician will be pleased to read about.

Norman’s on the ball:

THE COLUMN I’M GLAD I DIDN’T WRITE

…

Protest coverage: all live, all the time, all shallow (Doyle)

Mark
Ottawa

The g20 riots, a Twitter pictorial. All photos are the property of the person(s) identified in the link.

A shameful display of violent protest that will undoubtedly tarnish any message the protesters were trying to convey.

Photo by Tomasz Bugajski

According to the Toronto Star, $5.5 million is going into perimeter fencing:

In addition to international firms, local contractors are providing some of the metal fencing and concrete barriers around the summit’s security perimeters. The cost of fencing runs at a dollar per foot at companies such as Mammoth Erection, a GTA scaffolding company that is renting fencing in the G20 area. One local contractor had to keep mum on the details of the G20 work they’re doing because of confidentiality agreements they had signed, but it was clear that many area companies are involved. “Everybody’s got pieces of it,” says Mammoth CEO David Hall.

Who knew that keeping dirty hippies at bay could be spun as providing economic stimulus?

Salman Rushdie, the man who put the Islamic “fatwa” on the map, was in Toronto on Monday, and took some time to criticize the IDF for their engagement with a flotilla of boats attempting to breach the Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.

“The first knee-jerk reflex is this was an excessive use of force,” he said. “It would have been a much better idea not to shoot people.”

Well, obviously. It’s not as though the IDF engaged with the intent to shoot people with bullets. That much seems clear with video evidence that the soldiers arrived on the boats armed with paintguns.

It was only when the Gaza activists decided to descend on the rappelling Israeli forces and club them with blunt instruments, including throwing one soldier over a railing, that the military called in the request to use deadly force. For some flotilla passengers, this was precisely what they had come for.

Salman Rushdie then spoke out in favour of freedom of speech as an essential human right, including the right to denial of the holocaust.

“It’s better that even the worst things be expressed. Evil doesn’t disappear by being obscured.”

When asked about the fatwa on his life, Mr.Rushdie said that his life has more or less returned to normal.

“It doesn’t affect my daily life anymore,” he said. “It’s been well over a decade.”

This reminds me a Mark Steyn article I read in January:

Not long after the Ayatollah Khomeini announced his fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the British novelist suddenly turned up on a Muslim radio station in West London late one night and told his interviewer he’d converted to Islam. Marvelous religion, couldn’t be happier, Allahu Akbar and all that.

And the Ayatollah said hey, that’s terrific news, glad to hear it. But we’re still gonna kill you.

Sharing your “knee-jerk reflex” isn’t going to make the fatwa go away. When these people develop a grudge, they hold on to it like grim death. Condemning Israel might be haute couture these days, but that doesn’t change the fact that in the eyes of the fanatics — like the ones who boarded the “Flotilla of Freedom” — you’re an infidel.

If you read Friday Photography’s opening paragraph yesterday, you’ll note that I said there are some stories I’ve been working on. One was a story I found out about through a friend after Mike Layton announced his intent to run in Toronto’s Ward 19, Joe Pantalone’s old haunt that he’s vacated to run for mayor. So by the time I learned of the news, it had already been several days since the mainstream media had written up their quick and dirty stories and disappeared into the night again. If you look at the google archive on Mike Layton, there’s pretty much been radio silence since the announcement on March 6.

Which is funny, I think, since the election isn’t until October 25, 2010. I thought there was definitely more that could be done to investigate deeper what the sentiment is in the riding about the Mike Layton’s arrival and the thought that the NDP will be backing him up. There’s actually a lot of really interesting and dynamic ideas here, but unfortunately if something isn’t reported on within 24 hours, it ceases to become news. Well, I interviewed everyone in the ward who would speak to me, including Mike Layton himself. So since I couldn’t find a home for the article, enjoy it for yourself:

Mike Layton and the Ties that Bind.

The emergence of Mike Layton as a political candidate has generated quite a bit of interest, not just in the city of Toronto where he is running, but across the country.

That’s because the 31-year old is the son of federal NDP leader, Jack Layton.

Mike Layton, who threw his hat into the ring for a council seat in Toronto on March 5, will be running in his home neighbourhood of Trinity-Spadina. It’s more properly known as Joe Pantalone’s Ward 19, a space the councillor vacated after spending 30 years in office, in order to run for Mayor.

The young Mr.Layton joins a host of other well-known political figures who have followed in the hereditary footsteps of their fathers. Justin Trudeau, the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, became a member of Parliament for the riding of Papineau in the 2008 federal election, despite the fact he had not had any prior political experience.

Mr.Layton may be starting a little more quietly by joining municipal politics, but he’s certainly not unqualified for the position. He has a bachelor’s degree in political science and a masters in environmental studies, with a focus on urban planning.

A few eyebrows were raised when Mike Layton announced he will be running in a Ward that also happens to fall inside a federal riding controlled by the NDP, in which his step-mother, Olivia Chow, is Member of Parliament. The provincial riding is also held by the NDP’s Rosario Marchese, and has at times been referred to as the heartland of the NDP.

Ward 19 candidate Karen Sun told the National Post that to “run against ‘Jack’s son’” or “Olivia’s machine” represents a great challenge. Ms.Sun warned against adhering to voices that are beholden “to old style machines that are tied into obligations and interests elsewhere.”

The perception is perhaps an inevitable one. When Mike Layton was contacted by email about whether it might be intimidating candidates from running against him because of his affiliations with the NDP, he pointed out that there are 7 candidates in contention.

When I contacted the other hopefuls in the Ward, I received a mix of opinion on Mr.Layton’s entry into the ring.

Himy Syed, a Toronto based Islamic Banker, was unequivocal. “I’m not running against Layton, I’m running against the federal, provincial, and municipal NDP machine,” he said in a phone interview.

But Mr.Syed is very excited about Mike Layton’s involvement in the Ward.

“Layton coming in here has been the best thing for me,” he says confidently.

“I am the dragon slayer. I will defeat Layton’s son.”

Proclaiming himself the favourite to win, Mr.Syed said that the attention brought on the race has allowed him to gain an even larger profile than before. People are resentful of Mike Layton being “parachuted” into the Ward, he says, and people will see it as an “entitlement” and ultimately reject the younger Layton.

Real Estate agent and candidate Jim Likourezos, is much more subdued in his opinions, responding via email.

Saying that party politics have no place in municipal government, Mr.Likourezos nevertheless refuses to complain. Expressing satisfaction just to be in the race, he says that the voters will ultimately decide.

“I am going to run a campaign focused on what I bring to the table. I’m optimistic about my chances.”

Joshua Shang is another candidate who recently joined the race. The business analyst for a wealth management software company grew up on College Street in Toronto where his parents owned and operated a restaurant. Mr.Shang offers a frank assessment of Mike Layton and the NDP.

“Absolutely, I would speculate that Mike Layton will have full access to the vast political resources his father and step [mother] have at their disposal.”

He also speculates that ultimately Councillor Joe Pantalone will endorse Mr.Layton, for some reciprocal support in running for the mayor. Although confident, Mr.Shang calls himself more pragmatic and realistic of the situation, who confesses that some people have said he is wasting his time.

“It’s still a tremendous hill to climb.”

Giving Mike Layton a chance to repond to these comments, he says simply that Trinity-Spadina is his home, rejecting the idea he has parachuted in to NDP territory.

“All candidates play by the same election rules,” Mr.Layton says, “and I am committed to participating in a fair campaign that engages voters on the issues that matter.”

Derek Chadbourne is the last candidate to respond to a request for comment. A bicycle enthusiast who runs a bike shop on Harbord Avenue, Mr.Chadbourne says that the great thing about municipal politics is that anyone with $100 can run to be a councillor.

Mr.Chadbourne is more philosophical about Mike Layton’s entry than specific.

“As a society we tend to think that being famous is the most important character trait. Would Arnold Schwarzenegger be Governor of California if he had not been our favourite action hero of the 80′s and 90′s?”

“Having the backing of a political party, be it the NDP, Liberals or Conservatives, skewers the democratic process in a way that makes it that much more difficult for the regular citizen to become involved and makes most think their vote actually doesn’t mean anything.”

But Mike Layton isn’t concerned about the perceptions surrounding him. Municipal politics is about engaging people, not political parties, he says. Stepping from the shadow of his father is a vaunted challenge, but he says he is up to it.

“I intend to highlight my own accomplishments during the campaign, like the work I have done to improve the environmental performance of buildings, and the work to allow communities across Ontario to participate in the new green energy economy with Ontario’s new Green Energy Act. I think people will be impressed with my experiences, my approach, and my desire to work with local community members to find solutions to our shared problems. If my parents taught me anything that will serve to my advantage, it is that it is people that matter.”

The Toronto Star ran an article today about Progressive Conservative MPP Bill Murdoch’s opinion that Toronto should become its own province. Mr.Murdoch is a representative for the Bruce-Grey-Owen-Sound riding, making the “radical pitch” at a meeting of the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture.

Saying that rural Ontario is fighting a losing battle against urban-centric Toronto, he argued that the big city ignores the voices of the rural community. The only way to give farm folk a voice, he says, is a constitutional amendment to allow Toronto to become the 11th province.

As the Star points out, the province of Toronto would become the fifth-largest in the country, with 2.35 million more residents than the tiny province of Prince Edward Island. It’s operating budget of $9.2 billion also dwarfs PEI’s 2009 budget of $1.5 billion six times over.

But Mr.Murdoch’s proposal is far from “radical”, and has been pitched many times before. Notably, I raised the possibility back in September of 2007 after Mayor David Miller was threatening tax increases on the city of Toronto. At the time, Toronto’s budget shortfall was $575 million, no small amount, even for a province.

As I noted at the time, the deficit can’t all be attributed to the city. It’s a fact that Toronto is the taxpayer cash cow for the federal and provincial governments, and the so-called “fiscal gap” continues to this day, despite the equalization payments after Ontario become a “have-not” province in 2008. Toronto sends $11 billion more to the province of Ontario and Ottawa in income and sales taxes than it gets back.

My co-blogger from 2006, Joseph Lavoie, who also won CBC’s Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister that year, proposed the viability of “city-states”, rather than a separate province altogether. Although he may have disowned this idea since [the article no longer appears on his website], he did a great deal of research at the time.

As Joseph pointed out, in 1861, six years before Canada came into confederation, 82% of the population in Ontario lived in rural communities. It would make sense, then, that our constitution was written to specify powers for the federal government and provincial governments, without much in the way of municipal powers. 149 years ago, the idea of metropolises with 2.5 million citizens was only the stuff of science fiction. In the year 1800, the British city of London, the central authority of the world’s superpower, was comprised of a mere 861,000 souls.

Much has changed since 1861, of course, bringing almost a complete reverse of the demography. Now 85% live in urban centres in Ontario, with just 15% making up the rural community. So how does one balance the needs of the 21st century urban population with that of the smaller rural communities? Joseph Lavoie wrote:

The compromise then was the idea of creating a city-state within a province. So Toronto would still be part of Ontario, but it would have way more autonomy than it currently enjoys. As a city-state, it would have control on immigration, direct taxation powers (probably an ability to generate revenue from a sales tax, or even income taxes), public transportation, labour laws, property and civil rights, perhaps even solemnization rights — this is all up for discussion. The City-State would share jurisdiction with the province on matters of Health, Transportation (driver licensing etc) and education, and it would share immigration with the federal government.

The basic idea is that by allowing the cities to focus on their demands, the person who lives in Timmins, 700km away from Toronto, doesn’t have his tax dollars going toward LRT in the big smoke. It also frees up the province of Ontario to deal with smaller cities and towns, rather than constantly being pestered by Toronto for more money.

As Joseph put it, it is a simple recognition that “the closest level of government should be the one best-suited to serve the voters’ needs.”

ALSO SEE

The Facebook Page for “I support the Province of Toronto”

A few jaywalkers who, strangely, did not receive any fines.

Your tax dollars hard at work cracking down on those violent jaywalking offenders:

TORONTO — Toronto police issued dozens of tickets to pedestrians across the city Wednesday to help drive home the importance of traffic safety after a rash of pedestrian deaths.

Traffic enforcement officers had ticketed 56 jaywalkers and pedestrians who disobeyed traffic signal warnings by late morning. Since Jan. 1 they have issued 289 of the $50 tickets to pedestrians. Police were also ticketing drivers, although the number wasn’t immediately available, and issuing warnings.

The campaign came a day after the Greater Toronto Area recorded its 14th pedestrian fatality in 15 days this month, compared to 31 similar deaths in all of last year.

That will teach those silly pedestrians to think they can escape the long arm of the law. This emergency must rank right up there with SARS and Swine Flu.

Every time I think about how Toronto residents went 36 days without services in a city that never fails to find new reasons to increase property taxes, only to concede on pretty much every single union demand, I am reminded of the scene in Bad Santa where Santa Billy Bob’s partner negotiates his own position into complete capitulation. Although perhaps that’s not a completely fair comparison. After all, it’s not like the characters in that movie had a particularly strong bargaining position to begin with. To borrow from Seinfeld, then, I am reminded of the episode in which George Costanza manages to negotiate himself into a lower settlement from NBC’s original offer. In this case, David Miller plays George Costanza, a comparison that I think fits quite well with Mr.Miller’s zany comedy he puts on as Mayor of Toronto.

Truly this is a man who has lost all credibility in a mayoral tenure that has run it’s course; indeed, one that has now run off course and lays upside down in a ditch, wheels spinning fruitlessly. So what has 36 days of inconvenience provided Toronto residents 7 years after David Miller promised to never let it happen again? Why, let’s ask Mark Ferguson, president of CUPE Local 416:

“We feel quite pleased that we were able to reach a settlement that we believe is fair, a settlement without concessions.

[...]

“This is a deal, I think, my membership will be happy with,” echoed Ann Dembinski, of CUPE Local 79.

Quite. When you have union representatives openly boasting about reaching a settlement that is “fair” and without concessions, it’s pretty much like pressing your thumb and forefinger opposed to each other whilst thrusting the finger from your opposite hand through the circle and winking. That’s right Toronto, you’ve been screwed.

The David Miller word for “flexibility” should be understood as a synonym for “utter surrender”, when refusing to answer whether CUPE had to give up their 18 bankable sick days. We do know the answer now: they won’t have to. But future hires will. That’s “kind of” a victory, isn’t it? In the same way that hearsay and conjecture are “kinds of” evidence, to borrow a line from the Simpsons.

Q: Why is this man smiling? A: He works for the union. Photo: Peter Power, Globe and Mail

Other “flexible” agreements decided upon are the three-year [not four-year] contract, so that we can all do this again in 2012, and pay raises of 6% over three years. Yes, I said 6%, not 4% that the city offered earlier. Again, masterful negotiating. In every regard this settlement is better then what the city offered on July 10.

What I can’t understand, beyond all the rhetoric from both the union and the city of Toronto, is how anyone for one moment could accept that the striking union had any leverage, whatsoever, in this struggle. If anything, I expected the kind of outcome from a “Bad Santa” or a “George Costanza” negotiation, because after all, it’s not like you couldn’t replace each and every single city of Toronto worker in about 24 hours, given the level of unemployment in the province. I mean, this was actually a great opportunity for a political leader to stand up once and for all, look the unions straight in the eye, and tell them to get lost. Who in this recession is getting “bankable sick days”? Who is getting 6% raises? Who is even able to say with certainty that their job is safe?

But we know why David Miller folded with a Royal Flush against a pair of dueces. Because a man made by the union, is a man beholden to the union. This was all a sham, a big show for the audience, some rhetorical tough talk, followed by the inevitable dive in the third round. And in the end, the same taxpayers who were screwed in the short term from a 36-day strike that yielded 48,900 tonnes of garbage, will be utterly crushed when the city’s impossibly expensive concessions can’t be met, and they have to raise taxes again. David Miller probably won’t be around when that eventuality works it’s way down the pipe, but you can bet there will plenty of people around to remember who was responsible.

The struggle in equal rights in our society isn’t one that is entirely over, even in Canada where legislation allowed homosexuals the opportunity to equal status in marriage only a few years ago. I had no objection to gay marriage from the very outset. There isn’t very much that I agree with in Pierre Trudeau’s legacy, but when he said “the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”, there is a resonance that appeals to my individualist side. I don’t really care what two, or more, consenting adults do within the confines of their own private abodes, so long as it isn’t advertised to me. I’m not offended by public displays of affection, either heterosexually or homosexually, so same-sex couples kissing or holding hands isn’t a problem for me either. But I am left to wonder, what exactly is the purpose of this gay pride parade that continues in Toronto year after year, and every year seems to get more and more like a south American caribana festival, only more hedonistic?

One would have thought that in a recession, that governments throughout the country could prioritize the importance of expenditures. Saying “apparently not” for the federal government would be an unnecessary understatement. With the feds, it’s either a necessary expenditure, or else it’s just “stimulus”, in which case everything that happens to be spending falls under this category. Even parades which promote a sexual orientation as an identifying demographic.

Pride Toronto received a $400,000 donation from the federal government last week as a recepient of the Marquee Events Program. It’s money which goes toward improving infrastructure and services for people with disabilities during the 10-day festival, along with improving marketing and programming efforts. The government has long ago recognized that Pride week has surpassed whatever original intentions it may have had of bringing social activism and civil rights to the forefront, and replaced it with a happy heteronormative stamp of approval as a tourist attraction. Something to bring the whole family to watch. Costumes, balloons, floats, the whole nine yards. It does draw over a million people, and the tourism revenue is substantial.

Far be it from me to criticize anyone who wants to go to a festival that they enjoy. The parade began back when “we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” was an act of political activism, evolving out of the 1981 Toronto bathhouse raids which sought to legitimize homosexual rights. But the people attending the parade today aren’t activists anymore. The equality of homosexual rights is enshrined in the Charter, and now protected under hate crime and discrimination laws. To celebrate the pride of equal rights for homosexuals is becoming little more than an excuse to celebrate the “lifestyle” of that demographic.

The lifestyle on display in Pride week is that of a rather flamboyant, hedonistic, overtly sexual nature. These aren’t people celebrating their equal right to sexuality, as Pierre Trudeau put it, in the bedrooms of the nation. They’re celebrating their right to sexuality on the streets of Toronto, complete with women’s lingerie, sado-masochistic leather outfits, and just plain nudity, in all the glory of the organ-piercings on the display. Is that what equal rights is all about? Publicly celebrating unabashed sexual exuberance, a stereotype that is so often misdirected at all homosexuals, even those who live quiet and unassuming lives with their same-sex partner?

The event has become so diluted of whatever message it originally had that now parents come with their children to gawk at the colours and half-naked and naked men and women who walk down the streets. Politicians, not wanting to seem intolerant or out of touch with a voting demographic, show up to wave and smile, safe in the sanitized and municipally-approved message [or perhaps not so sanitary with Toronto's outside workers on strike]. Jack Layton and Olivia Chow make their obligatory appearance for the LGBT community, oblivious to the phallic party favours they wave to the crowd. And then there are the children, dragged along by parents who believe it’s open-minded and tolerant to let them watch naked men and women overtly celebrate sex. That in and of itself, is a criminal act:

Section 173.1 of Canada’s Criminal Code states parading in the nude “in the presence of one or more persons” is a crime.

Section 173.2 states any person who “exposes his or her genital organs to a person under the age of 14” has also broken the law.

So one is left to wonder: what is the purpose of gay pride parade? The celebration of equal rights for all people to engage in the particular sexual orientation that nature has chosen for them in the discreet privacy of their own homes? Or merely a chance to parade naked and wave phallic ornaments in public? And if it is the latter, then surely our federal tax dollars would be better reserved for less specific tastes, and underage children be kept away. Until the parade can become respectful of the common laws of decency observed by all people, I do not see why it can be endorsed and publicly funded, particularly as the civil rights of the movement is no longer an issue.