Pride & Politics Summary Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PRIDE & POLITICS SUMMARY REPORT Created for Calgary 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 Pride parade. 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 house 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 about 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 Words and Deeds, 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 • Kathleen Ganley, NDP Critic for Justice • Janis Irwin, NDP Critic for Women & LGBTQ Issues • David Khan, Alberta Liberal Party Leader • Greg McLean, Conservative MP • Searle Turton, 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,