Tourism Minister, Diane Ablonczy, gave $400,000 in tax dollars to support the recent Gay Pride parade in Toronto.
This donation has prompted a backlash from some members of her own Tory caucus. As result Ablomczy has been stripped of responsiility for disbursing a $100 million tourism fund. Former Tory Miniister, Monte Solbe erg, charges that Ablonczy “deserves better than to be ratted out by a colleague on an issue that is a complellte loser for the party.”
Do you think Diane Ablonczy should have been reprimanded?
Should tax dollars be used to finance ga y parades?
What do you think?
I never thought I’d be defending the actions of government ministers in spending money that does not belong to them!
Toronto’s Pride Parade is known around the world. Folks come from all over to watch or march or take part in the celebration. It’s a cultural event! Ergo, it’s a tourist attraction. Ergo, it rates funds designated for that purpose.
Diane Ablonczy was doing her job. That pismire, Trost, needs a haltie wrapped around his homophobic yapper.
Oh, yeah…I agree with Solberg, as well.
Damn! That’s three times in two days that I’ve defended the enemy! I must be running a fever or something…
Chimera, your fever must be contagious. My aspirine however is that it does illustrate why the Harper gang is disgusting.
The Harper gang is disgusting for so many reasons — I’ve lost track of them all, but the treatment of Ablonczy is just the latest example of their idiocy. Solberg usually has something reasonable to say, and I agree with him in this case. As Chimera says, folks come from all over the world to the Toronto Pride Parade. Having lived in Toronto, I have experienced just how popular it is and how much fun it is, no matter what your sexual orientation!!! The Tories are so far removed from reality, they can be counted on to make mistakes like this one.
Did the government give the St. Patrick Parade Organizers the same pecuniary consideration. This parade pulls in people from south of our border including some marching bands. I see that Harper is not in the group photograph of thr G8 attendees. Last year there was some talk of dropping Canada from the G8 circle. Is cementhead trying to ensure that this happens? I suppose it’s OK for the gays to display their wares to each other with their prancing, as long as one of their mates doesn’t get angry with the other mate because he is overdoing it and there is an exchange of blows.
Neil asks:
Should tax dollars be used to finance gay parades?
If the government didn’t fund any interest groups — sexual, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, or whatever — then we wouldn’t ever have to ask this question, would we?
Such funding is supposed to be free of political bias and money doled out equally, but it never is. I seem to recall that Alliance Quebec got annual funding from the federal government until they stopped singing the tune that the funder of piper wanted sung.
Let’s never have the government be put in such a position by never funding any group.
“Did the government give the St. Patrick Parade Organizers the same pecuniary consideration.”
Dunno, did they? And if not, did the organizers of Green Day even bother to apply for funds?
Well in Québec Montreal’s St-Patrick’s Day parade, the oldest in North America, got funds from Ottawa, Québec and City Hall. So did the carifiesta and several others, not to mention Gay Pride. Weep Tony.
From Tony: “If the government didn’t fund any interest groups — sexual, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, or whatever — then we wouldn’t ever have to ask this question, would we?”
Maybe not Tony, but then we would need to ask what the heck the government is doing with our money??? — money that should be spent for tourism and for all the other categories given the interests of the public. Nothing wrong with interest groups. There’s those interested in Santa, those interested in St. Patrick’s day, those interested in Gay Pride, etc., each of which is eligible for government money.
Weep Tony. Maybe you need to apply for government funding for your own parade which would be entitled???
Good morrow, all!
Considering that Tony believes that Archie Bunker was a pinko fag bleeding heart tree hugger…yeah, that’s about right…seriously, have you even PRICED spandex, recently?
Remember: There’s no such thing as government money – CTZen
I have always had a problem with government funding any interest group. It always seemed to me that it violates equality guarantees of the charter.
With finite funds, not every group can get money. At some point, an interest group applying for funds is going to be rejected as a result of a subjective decision being made by a politician or bureaucrat. Some get funding, some don’t.
Where is the equality in that?
There is also the danger of interest groups having their agendas compromised by receiving government funds. And, again, Alliance Quebec is a perfect example. They always got enough funds from the federal government to run their operations until they started saying stuff the federal government didn’t like. Then funding starting going down, down, down.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. That’s why most democracies have strict party-funding rules. This principal should apply for interest groups as well.
Good morrow, Tony!
“This (principal) should apply for (interest) groups as well.”
Which would be fascinating reading if I were working out the terms of a mortgage. I think you meant to write, “This PRINCIPLE”…
Once we have paid our tax dollars, we have little, if any, say in their disbursement. Our politicians are in a likewise position, since it is the unelected bureaucracy which actually does the work in Ottawa or Washington. Your quarrel is with them. Or have you never seen “Yes, Minister”?
Money talks. Mine says “Au revoir!” – CTZen
“Some get funding, some don’t.
Where is the equality in that?”
You seem to be operating on the idea that equality has anything to do with it, Tony. It does not.
Funding — especially in tourism dolars — is merely seed money for cultural and tourism groups/festivals/activities that is meant to boost the level of awareness outside the local venue.
And there are guidelines in place for application. If you meet the criteria, you can apply for funding. And if you apply, you have to apply properly and correctly with all the right forms and with all your ts crossed and your is dotted and punctuation in place.
Toronto Pride met all the requirements, ergo they get the funds. Others do not, so they don’t. Nothing to do with being “equal.”
And “equal” according to whom, anyway?
CTZen:
I’m deeply embarrassed.
I have continued to get that wrong for the past 10 years. What makes it even more embarrassing is that I work in the field of finance and I have a little written notation scotch-taped to the wall in front of me with the two different definitions.
Mea culpa
Chimera asks:
And “equal” according to whom, anyway?
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
Okay, we just came full circle in your thinking. Problem is, I don’t see where this violates any Charter clause. Funding for a specific purpose is not part of Charter equality rights. Unless you think you can explain how you got there?
Look, I’m a minority of one here but when you dole out money to special interest groups — be it Alliance Quebec, Amnesty International, Gay pride parades or whatever — you violate the equality guarantees of the various federal and provincial charters of rights.
There are X amount of limited, finite funds available on the part of government for doling out to special interest groups. Some groups are going to get money; others are going to be denied. And it’s going to be a result of a subjective decision. That’s illegal as far as I’m concerned.
This isn’t the same as, say, building roads or providing health care to all Canadians which if — like the doling out of money to special interest groups — some were provided for and some weren’t that it would be a clear and blatant violation of charter rights.
And on top of it all, when special interest groups get money from government, their agendas get compromised because they become beholden to who is paying them: he who pays the piper calls the tune.
That’s wrong.
I still don’t see any relation to Charter violations. We are a country composed of millions of special interest groups in all kinds of categories. Some of them come under some cabinet minister’s or other jurisdiction when it comes to public monies. Others don’t.
For the ones that do, like Toronto Pride, they have hoops through which they must jump in order to gain access to funding for their specific cultural purpose. It’s a game. There are rules to that game. If they want to play, and they win, they get the prize. But it’s not the Charter that makes the game or the rules, it’s the bureaucratic dungeon masters who do that.
Toronto Pride does not compete with all other special interest groups for funding, just a few. And when they play the game and jump through the hoops, and they do it correctly and on time, why should they not get the prize? Especially when other groups do not do it correctly, or do not follow the rules, or do not otherwise qualify for that prize.
I think there’s a whole lot of yammering about *equality* and not enough understanding about exactly what it means to whom. You’re not alone in this. Millions of people yap off about *equality* when they have absolutely no idea what it actually means.
Equality means you get to compete. It does not mean you get to win.
As for pipers calling tunes and agendas — if they exist — being “compromised” by government funding, well, that’s not your problem, is it, Tony?