PRIDE & POLITICS SUMMARY REPORT

Created for Pride by The Dept of Words & Deeds February 28, 2020

CONTENTS

Engaging Politics...... 1

Red Light/Green Light...... 2 No restrictions...... 2 By Invitation from community groups...... 3 Juried Process...... 4

Written Remarks...... 5

Weighing Considerations ...... 6 Pride as Carrot or Stick...... 6 Individual vs Group...... 6 Protecting the Vulnerable vs Everyone Belongs...... 7 The Risk of Public Platform vs the Wrath of Public Judgement...... 7

Respecting Difference & Building Trust...... 7

Analysis and Recommendations...... 8 Recommendations...... 8 Next Steps...... 9

Appendix...... 9 PRIDE & POLITICS – SUMMARY REPORT

This document summarizes a public and stakeholder consultation process concerning the inclusion of politicians and political parties in Calgary’s . The discussion was prompted by community and political reaction to Calgary Pride’s 2019 decision to exclude all political parties from marching as unique groups. To help reflect on their decision and policy options, Calgary Pride asked for public and stakeholder input on the way forward. On February 22, 2020, two events were held to collect feedback on this issue: a public open and a stakeholder roundtable, which heard from political party representatives. In total, 37 people attended the open house and 15 community stakeholders and 8 representatives from political parties attended the roundtable. Written comments were received from 16 people.

Calgary Pride is committed to on-going engagement with the LGBTQ2S+ community, to learning what works best and to regularly review its policies. It understands that political and social contexts are changing and that transparency and flexibility are paramount. This consultation represents a commitment to continued conversations on these issues. The Dept of , a public engagement firm led by principal Jane Farrow and associate Mia Hunt, co-designed, delivered and summarized the engagement process.

ENGAGING POLITICS

As well as the need to listen to the community, Calgary Pride recognizes the essential impact that politicians and their parties have on the lives of LGBTQ2S+ people. As an organization, it does not just plan an annual parade, but advocates for the rights of Calgary’s LGBTQ2S+ community. Whether political parties are included in the parade or not, Calgary Pride is seeking ongoing conversations with politicians in order to hold all parties to account.

To both inform politicians of this debate and solicit their feedback on the options, representatives from all political parties were invited to attend a portion of the round table event on February 22nd. Participants who joined included:

• Leela Aheer, UCP Minister of Culture • , NDP Critic for Justice • , NDP Critic for Women & LGBTQ Issues • David Khan, Liberal Party Leader • Greg McLean, Conservative MP • , UCP MLA

1 RED LIGHT/GREEN LIGHT

Through a public open house and stakeholder roundtable, participants were asked to share their thoughts on three options for including politicians and their political parties. Through discussion and written comments, participants explored the nuances of these options:

• Having no restrictions • Including politicians only by invitation from community groups • Using a juried process

During the open house, participants responded to these options with red, yellow and green dots. Red meant “I don’t like this option”; yellow indicated “maybe, not sure” and green meant “I like this option”. The quantitative results of this exercise are below, along with a sample of representative comments across the spectrum.

No Restrictions

Red= 66% Yellow = 3% Green = 31%

Hate groups under the guises of political or Pride is a protest. If the UPC wants to religious groups need to the weeded out to come… let them and we will protest them! make the pride a safe place to be. We have to include as many of people as The UCP has rolled back our rights… you want to be included. They can always learn cannot allow an anti-gay party to march, something from us. ever.

Two-thirds of open house participants rejected the idea that there should be no restrictions on the participation of politicians and political parties in the parade. Most agreed that parties should be excluded if they support anti-LGBTQ2+ policy. On the other hand, one third of participants thought that radical inclusion of politicians and their parties would show a level of maturity and be true to the inclusive foundations of Pride. As discussed in the considerations below, some participants told us that including everyone would help educate less supportive politicians about the need for policy change and build allies for the future.

2 By invitation from community groups

Red= 35% Yellow = 41% Green = 24%

Our allies were dissed last year. They Yes! Actual queer community groups/ worked for us for a long time and then were individuals/organizations/businesses treated like that. What’s the motivation for should be the ones involved in the parade. people to work with us? How do they trust Politicians should have to show these us if we don’t trust them? groups how they benefit the community throughout the year. To tell a political party that they can only attend if they hide their identity, unable to This option would incentivize politicians march under their own banner is untenable. to do something more for community We would not accept this behaviour organizations. directed towards our own community – we should not emulate it ourselves.

Participants were divided on this option, which was implemented by Calgary Pride last year, but overall tended towards rejecting it. Comments showed a concern for the welfare of community groups under this option. Many expressed confusion and concern about the lack of transparency with this approach, ie. on what terms could or would a community group invite politicians? Would the group come to be affiliated with the political party? Would the politician marching with the group detract from their message? Many wondered if politicians would be able to identify with their party with party colours and took issue with limiting how anyone in the parade can express their identity. Some also thought that because allyship is earned – not given – politicians who are not supportive of LGBTQ2S+ rights should not be allowed to participate at all.

Surprisingly, with the exception of the NDP representative, who shared a strong desire to march in the parade with her party, the invitation-only option saw buy-in from multiple politicians at the stakeholder roundtable. While some may favour this invitation-only option to avoid certain rejection by a juried process, others thought it was best to focus on the issues instead of political parties.

I appreciated the change last year. It shouldn’t be about politicians, but about advancing human rights… I thought it was a creative way to allow politicians to march as allies. The parade shouldn’t be about politics. What matters is the work we do the 364 other days for our rights. We’re too focused on this one day. – David Khan, Liberal

3 Juried Process Red= 3% Yellow = 47% Green = 50%

A juried process is too elitist and open I’m in favour of a juried process with the to anger from others. It would defeat provision that the jury is diverse with public support. marginalized/racialized/oppressed groups represented so all voices are heard and is A juried process is fine, but we cannot transparent with the selection process. repeat the fear-driven opaque process of last year! If a party walks the walk, actually shows up and helps our community then The process must recognize that less they should be allowed to be there and powerful groups are not lesser allies. represent their party.

Participants were split between giving the juried process a green and yellow light, making it the most preferred option of the three. Many shared the view that politicians and their parties should be rewarded for their work advancing LGBTQ2S+ rights. Likewise, many felt that some parties should be excluded for supporting policies that harm LGBTQ2S+ people.

The representative who spoke for the NDP also favoured the return to a juried process:

Last year, there was one party that was chosen to march by Calgary Pride – that was NDP – then they decided not to allow us. It was tough for me and for a lot of us. As a party, we were marching in the 70s and being quite vocal. Moving forward, I think we do have a place in the parade as a group, our record supports that. – Janis Irwin, NDP

Comments recorded during the open house and in the roundtable identified the need for greater transparency in the juried process, which largely explains the caution around this option. Without prompting, 67% of people who wrote comments about the juried process noted a need for greater transparency on how the jury process is selected and facilitated. This concern was reinforced during the roundtable discussion. Many suggestions were made to improve the juried process including:

• Communicating who is on the jury with demographic profiles and explaining how it is formed • Increasing the number of jury members • Allowing community members to apply to join the jury • Including community organizations, the business community, academics and votes from each interagency group

4 • Sharing detailed results with groups that are rejected, so they can become better allies • Focusing on applicants’ recent gains rather than infractions from the past

Of particular note, participants suggested adjudicating political parties separately from community groups and corporations and using different criteria.

Political parities have a responsibility for nation building and protecting us. They should have to jump through more hoops. We should be more stringent and hold them to a higher standard than community groups and corporations. They are creating policies that protect us. PetroCanada isn’t making gay gas.

Written Remarks

In addition to the open house and roundtable events, the public was invited to contribute to this discussion by sharing their thoughts with Calgary Pride by email. This option was publicized at the open house event and through articles in the local media. Sixteen people wrote to share their perspectives. The considerations raised by these individuals were similar to those captured during the consultation. While the were small, this feedback did skew more towards inclusion than our consultation feedback, with 78% of comments preferring an inclusive model over an exclusive one. In many cases, those who emailed also asked for increased transparency in Calgary Pride’s selection process.

You should keep your parade free of You cannot as an organization pick and political alignment. Celebrate the individuals choose who you wish to support you. You that make up the community rather than have to start including everyone, plain succumbing to being a mere pawn in the and simple. …I will be there to watch [the political landscape. parade] as I do every year. You will hear me Political parties shouldn’t be allowed in any being the one yelling “hypocrites”. parades period, Pride or otherwise. You want tolerance but are intolerant of If the participants are respectful and those with differing political views? embrace the spirit of the day, that is what is important. Give me credit that I can be We all live in the same community, let’s informed of a politician’s overall actions/ celebrate pride together without the statements/history and not be swayed divisiveness which is becoming toxic by their appearance at such events, if it these days. appears they are pandering.

5 Weighing Considerations

In relation to the three options above, participants wrestled to balance a number of considerations.

Pride as Carrot or Stick

You don’t make change unless you are We want to work with allies; change working with politicians. happens from within, so if you exclude all possible allies, you get no change; BUT, Marching in the parade does not make you’re not here to have fun and look good someone an ally. Being an ally first means one day a year. we may invite them to the parade.

Inclusion in the Pride parade was discussed both as a means of rewarding allyship and a way to have conversations with people who could become allies in the future. Participants asked: is participation a privilege to be earned or a way to build new bridges? Many shared a conviction that Pride must be used to move political agendas forward and educate wider public. The lingering question is if full inclusion in the parade is the best way to have these conversations and gain these allies.

Individual vs Group

Politicians are individuals and can change. If politicians want to be part of the parade, They can change their parties. They are not put their political differences aside and necessarily representative of their party. march together as individuals

I do not support parties like the UPC that It would be good to know who allies are have bigoted policies BUT I support the with each party. freedom of individuals to have their own political beliefs.

Many participants told us that Pride should recognize and celebrate not only the positive work that is done by political parties but also the work done within them. They wanted to know about allies inside parties with imperfect records. In spite of leadership issues, some individual politicians are trying to make change. If participation in the parade is seen as a reward, participants wanted a way to reward parties and politicians differently.

For example, a representative from the Conservative party discussed how his colleagues’ views on LGBTQ2S+ rights are changing and that shifts within the party happen at an individual level.

I’m from a generation that started acknowledging that this is about equality. Shame on my party for being the last to recognize gay rights. 80-90% of the party is there. The rest of them are getting there. – Greg McLean, Conservative

6 Protecting the Vulnerable vs Everyone Belongs

It’s about safety – there should be exclusion As much as I don’t agree with what [of political parties] to protect kids that have certain political parties represent, currently been damaged by the GSA policy. or in the past, I think being inclusive helps normalize and raises awareness of what pride represents.

Participants, and especially those working with LGBTQ2S+ youth, emphasized that people who have been damaged by anti-LGBTQ2S+ policies need to be protected from those who created them. Others stressed that Pride was founded on inclusion and that equality is part of its mandate. Participants discussed what limits to inclusion might look like. They asked: what if we said yes to all ring-wing fringe marginal parties? What is Calgary Pride’s role in supporting and protecting its communities, especially those who have been wounded?

The Risk of Public Platform vs the Wrath of Public Judgement

A group whose only interest in Pride Let UCP march. Let them get booed is as a PR move has already gained and feel it and hear it. everything they desired simply by participating. There is no fire to hold their feet to. They’ve had their photo op and can ignore or deflect the backlash.

Participants variously wanted to avoid giving a platform to parties with flawed records on LGBTQ2S+ rights and also let those parties feel the public shame that their policies may warrant. Many brought up the optics of participation: by including all political groups, will it appear that Calgary Pride has endorsed them? Will people think these parties are true allies and working towards LGBTQ2S+ rights when they are not? Others told us that full inclusion would allow politicians to see what the public thought of their policies first hand. Related is a concern that many parties participate only to shop for votes. Who are parties marching for – themselves or the community? Participants wanted politicians to show they are allies in action all year, not just in the parade.

Respecting Difference & Building Trust

The opinions that emerged from the consultation were as diverse as the community from which it came. In part, this is because Pride and its parade mean different things to different people. Its may also change for individuals through time and by generation. It is equally described as a protest, a celebration of all the year’s achievements, a time to be together with friends and family and a way to educate the wider public about the concerns and presence of LGBTQ2+ people.

7 The decision whether to allow politicians and their parties to march in the Pride parade is an inherently political one. Because the meaning of Pride varies so much, not everyone will be content with the outcome. While Calgary Pride knows it cannot please everyone, it acknowledges that more must be done to increase transparency and build trust in a clear, defensible process.

Analysis and Recommendations

A diversity of opinion on the above options and considerations were anticipated from the community but overall, participants shared some key ideas and priorities. Both community feedback and Pride Calgary’s stated desire for continued political evolution on LGBTQ2S+ issues provided the basis for the recommendations outlined below.

Recommendations

• That Calgary Pride return to a juried process • That the juried process be much more transparent and clear • That a separate juried process be established for political parties • That Calgary Pride consult with the community on how the criteria should be different for political parties via an online survey.

• That Calgary Pride find ways to include all interested politicians in the Pride festival, to increase education and allyship, but in ways that do not celebrate their policies or give them a platform if unwarranted. This many include volunteer opportunities for parties that would otherwise fail the juried process or engagement in non-parade activities. • That Calgary Pride finds a way to allow individual politicians to march in the parade separately from their political parties, be it by individual application to march, by invitation by community group or another way. In any case, it is recommended that politicians should be allowed to march under their banner. • That Calgary Pride consult with the community on how individual politicians should be included via an online survey.

• That the jury process and the jury composition be communicated transparently and publicly on the Calgary Pride website. • That Calgary Pride consult with the community on how the jury should be composed and how the process should be communicated via an online survey

8 Next Steps

• Calgary Pride will post the summary of the public and stakeholder consultation on their website in April 2020. • Calgary Pride will conduct an online survey inviting further comment and refinement of policy options on the participation of politicians and political parties in April 2020. • Calgary Pride will develop new policies on political inclusion in the Pride Parade by spring 2020. • Calgary Pride will post clear and transparent policies and terms of reference for any juried process they develop on their website. • Calgary Pride commits to further ongoing engagement and deliberation as it concerns the participation of politicians and political parties at Pride.

Appendix

Below is a list of ideas suggested by participants for Calgary Pride to consider in future policies and planning:

• Ask all politicians to not only demonstrate their action in the fight for LGBTQ2s+ rights, but be involved in the delivery of Pride as volunteers • Discussions on inclusion of politicians should become a point to departure for inclusion of police when the time is right to reopen that discussion, starting perhaps with those who do not carrying firearms, like police bands, for example. This may also direct policy for inclusion of corporations. • Political parties should be invited by gender and sexual diversity groups, not just anyone. • The parade needs to be expanded: “If people have the cred to be in the parade, I’m uncomfortable not letting them join.” • Space is limited. Do undeserving political parties take room from little non-profits who are more deserving? • Limit the size of the contingent in a “no restrictions” option, walking only (no floats/ cars) unless accessibility needs are required. • Let all politicians march together with or without their party colours as a large group, or with coordinated signage that matches their party colours. • Let their contingents march one after another. • There should be different criteria and processes for political parties, community groups and corporations. • Consider charging different kinds of groups different fees.

9