[corner-ad id="1"]
The Uninvite Fiasco: Politicians Play Hardball with Pride
On the 14th of July, Diversity Cornwall (DC) sent letters asking MP Eric Duncan and MPP Nolan Quinn to refrain from participating in this year’s Pride Parade. Rather than being handled discreetly between DC & Duncan and DC & Quinn, it appears that Mr. Duncan passed his letter on to DC’s funders – the City of Cornwall and the Counties SDG – in the hopes of reversing DC’s decision. I received this correspondence from a third party. I later contacted Elizabeth Quenville, the President of the Board of Directors of Diversity Cornwall, for more information about their “uninvitation”.
The DC letter states that “this decision aligns with similar actions taken by pride organizations nationwide, as they confront a troubling rise in transphobia, homophobia, hate speech, and harassment, largely exacerbated by Conservative leadership”.
Both representatives were invited by DC to discuss the issues further. Quenville confirms that neither responded to the initial letter or a follow-up invitation.
The first issue is: Should Diversity Cornwall have asked the MP and MPP not to participate? Some think it was a contentious move that would invite backlash. Some feel that there should have been “another way,” and others believe that the 2SLGBTQ+ community has run out of options to express itself.
When asked about motives for the “uninvite”, Quenville talked about a community that felt abandoned by its representatives. They are disappointed by Duncan’s silence on critical issues affecting the 2SLGBTQ+ community, like Conservative policies that would limit medical choices by trans youth, forcing teachers to disclose trans status (name changes etc) to parents – potentially robbing trans and non-binary youth of safe spaces and Quinn’s vote against Bill 42, “which aimed to ensure representation and a voice for those most impacted by life-saving gender-affirming care”. To wit: “Why allow them to march [with us] when they are actively voting against us?”
Quenville described an overall escalation in violence and hate in the community. On social media, she sees hostile messages aimed at the 2SLGBTQ+ community and increased anti-trans rhetoric online – even her own family has been targeted. She talks about local trans kids who have committed suicide in despair, other kids who haven’t left home in 2 years because they’ve been so badly bullied, and others who don’t feel it’s safe to use public washrooms. She wants her MP and MPP to stand up for their community.
I asked if they had reached out to either man beyond the Pride request, and she said that they had reached out informally, in person or via social media, but not officially, noting that Duncan “has several members of our board blocked on his social media account so we have limited engagement with Eric Duncan”.
The second issue is the sharing of confidential constituent (Diversity Cornwall) letters by federal and provincial politicians with that group’s funders as a pressure tactic. Is that ethical? The DC letters were not addressed to the city or SDG Counties (their funders), nor were they intended to be seen by them. DC has/had no issue with its funders, whom Ms. Quenville described as very supportive.
The third issue concerns possible censorship. By forwarding DC’s letters to the city and SDG Counties to apply pressure, are Duncan and Quinn indicating that they don’t believe DC’s board and members have the right to use their “uninvite” as a form of political protest? Why is Eric Duncan blocking people from his social media feeds?
The fourth issue concerns the subsequent involvement of Mayor Justin Towndale and the SDG Warden Jamie MacDonald. On July 17, both wrote to DC, asking them to reverse their stance and invite the politicians.
Why are they involved? Why are they intervening for provincial and federal politicians who can and should answer for themselves? The municipal government has no party, so why take sides?
Mayor Towndale’s response is a 2-page letter. Despite its respectful tone, it raises some concerns.
The letter is written from the Office of the Mayor, making it an official statement with the added weight of that office.
While acknowledging Diversity Cornwall’s efforts to support the 2SLGBTQ+ community, he quickly moves on to remind DC of the city’s support via funding, in-kind services, and participation in events. It seemed to me that he was implying, ‘We’ve helped you, and now we would like you to return the favour’.
He inaccurately portrayed the DC uninvite as a broad exclusion from all “related festivities,” while Diversity Cornwall’s request was specifically about the parade.
In communications with rabble.ca, Mayor Towndale stood by his letter’s content.
The letter, cc’d to Eric Duncan, Nolan Quinn, and Jamie MacDonald, indicates a collaborative effort to address the ‘problem,’ which I find disturbing.
Warden Jamie MacDonald begins his two-pager by describing the matter as urgent – somehow significant for the counties. Why?
MacDonald writes on behalf of the SDG Counties council and staff. Did they vote on this, and is it, therefore, public?
He points out the principles of diversity and unity that Diversity Cornwall espouses and calls attention to the “dichotomy” of excluding the two politicians based on their political leanings. It’s not “leaning” – these men are elected Conservative representatives.
MacDonald reminds DC of the three levels of government (federal, provincial, and municipal) that partner to “ensure community events are supported.” I’m getting a “you owe us” vibe.
He concludes his letter with an explicit threat to withdraw the balance of funding pledged if Diversity Cornwall does not reverse its decision. This is an openly coercive move, using financial support as leverage to influence a political agenda.
His letter also cc’s MP Eric Duncan and MPP Nolan Quinn…
Conclusions
With all the hoopla, nobody is considering that Diversity Cornwall is a volunteer organization whose advocacy and presence in the community is filling a need that would otherwise fall on the city and counties – at their expense.
I believe the issue should have remained exclusively between Diversity Cornwall and the representatives of the Conservative parties of Ontario and Canada. If they did not agree to be excluded, MP Duncan and MPP Quinn should have addressed the situation directly with Diversity Cornwall. That’s common sense.
I am bothered by the fact that Federal and Provincial Conservative representatives forwarded confidential mail to DC’s funders. I am also bothered by the fact that the funders (the Mayor and the Counties’ Warden) got on board and tried to pressure DC on their behalf. The cc’ing to Eric Duncan and Nolan Quinn kind of makes you wonder who’s pulling the strings.
Should city and county officials have intervened in what is essentially a political disagreement? Their actions seem more about supporting parties’1 interests than addressing the concerns of the 2SLGBTQ+ community.
No wonder they feel abandoned.
Note: MP Duncan, MPP Quinn, Mayor Towndale and Warden MacDonald were contacted for comment. As of press time, no response had been received.
1.This article has been edited to reflect that we do not know the party affiliation of the Mayor and the Warden.
Comments 20
Leave a Reply
I would of been surprised if Eric Duncan would have participated, regardless.
Disappointing that many of these “leaders” don’t understand that staying silent when their own vulnerable constituents are under attack and then piping up when a politician gets criticized, isn’t a good look. You aren’t using your power to help your most vulnerable but only each other.
Eric can’t even face his own constituents. He was beloved by this community before he hitched his trailer to PP, and now, it’s just really sad to watch.
I agree with diversity In this situation and happy they stood their ground with integrity. Why should the queer community, allow people to march with them who actively create policies that hurt their communities? This is tone def considering the rise In anti lgtbtqia2+ hate crimes and anti trans policies in our country and in our communities. If Mr Duncan wants to show support to the community, he should do so in policy instead of photo opts that only further his political career and do nothing of substance for the community he’s trying so hard to insert himself into, and only when it suits his own interest. I’m further disappointed to hear the lengths that certain political figures will go to in order to strong arm a not for profit, volunteer based organization into doing its bidding with a thinly veiled threat to take away funding. If Mr. Duncan’s intentions were genuine, as someone who wants to march In pride then there would be no mention of funding, unless it’s a bid to increase it. This stinks of pink washing.
I can’t begin to believe this has happened and going on.
Very wrong to have all these emails flying around.
Communication is everything and what we have here is a whole lot of confusion and unethical actions by leaders we vote for.
Not cool! Not ok!
On one note– if you aren’t old enough to vote, legally drink alcohol, or better yet, drive a car, then you aren’t old enough to make a life changing decision such as changing your gender.
I’ve been a liberal my whole life. I am now considered the middle, or even so, right, because of how far left the left has become.
Eric Duncan is gay. He is part of the gay community. What he believes, for trans youth, with respect to getting gender altering surgery, is not wrong. To some, or many, it’s not right. That’s your belief. (But seriously… you’re going to let your twelve year old child get a gender altering surgery before they’re even old enough to know what calculus is… get a grip)
Giving children this privilege, is wrong. Have the resources for them when they’re adults. Sure. But you’re a child when you are 16 or younger, getting these surgeries. It’s f*****.
Eric Duncan is a gay conservative. From the motion I get, it’s pretty hypocritical to bar someone from participating in a parade for having a different political belief than you. It’s incredibly petty. The whole story is petty. Sure, we can all agree the author is a very far left liberal, so it’s natural for her to take sides in this. Is anybody right in this story? No. Everything could have been handled differently. (Incredible journalism, Louise!)
What are the concerns of the LGBTQ whatever community? Did members of the public really come forward and say they’d feel uncomfortable with Eric and Nolan attending? Or is this a DC thing?
This article is ass.
a) “What he believes, for trans youth, with respect to getting gender altering surgery, is not wrong.” Don’t you think the PARENT knows better than the government (or Duncan) if gender altering surgery is warranted or not for THEIR child?
b) “pretty hypocritical to bar someone from participating in a parade for having a different political belief than you”. He’s not just “someone”. He’s a political elected official and inherently carries the values of the entire party behind him.
c) Your response is ass.
Gender-altering surgeries are significant medical procedures with lifelong consequences. I stress that decisions involving irreversible changes should be made when a person is fully mature, to ensure they have a thorough understanding of the physical, psychological, and social ramifications. In many places, individuals are not considered adults until they reach the age of 18, which means they may not have the legal capacity to make such significant medical decisions independently. This perspective emphasizes the importance of ensuring that legal maturity aligns with the capacity to consent to major medical procedures.
Parents and society have a responsibility to protect children and adolescents from making potentially harmful decisions. This view might argue that allowing gender-altering surgeries for minors could lead to societal pressures or influences that may not be in the best interest of the individual child.
Dear Dave, You’re free to think my article is “ass” but you are seriously misinformed about gender-altering surgery. Read this.https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/gender-affirming-care-youth-1.7021529 and look thought some of the links.
“Ass” or not. I think you need to read the article again as you appear to have missed several of the points I made.
Appreciate you, Louise!
Thanks KayCie :-)!
After reading and exploring this site, it’s confirmed that TheSeeker is very far left wing… reporting on one side of journalism. If that’s what you want to call it. Don’t care if you’re NDP, Liberal, or whatever. TheSeeker is left, and will die tooth and nail for genital mutilation of 11 year olds, apparently.
This shouldn’t even be a topic, nothing but a waste of time.
Give your head a shake
Sincerely,
Tristan L.
At what point did this become a fiasco? The event was held, successfully. The community participated. The ‘bad’ guys stayed away.
Please explain the fiasco part. I missed that.
Perhaps you mean the fiasco that is DC’s bloated sense of purpose? The tenets of the organization are altruistic and should be supported. The decisions being made by its leadership are not.
Or maybe it’s the fiasco that DC has created for itself? It gets taxpayer money (from the sources you reference) to hold public events for everyone. Well, almost everyone.
Couldn’t one suggest DC are the ones playing hardball? Where was DC’s sense of inclusivity when it uninvited our MP and MPP? Why just them? Why not all Conservatives? Isn’t it just possible that one can be a conservative and still champion the rights of minorities?
Of course it is – regardless of how elected officials may vote on any one particular issue. The growing problem with the left seems to be that one must agree to ALL their points of view. If even a slight disagreement is raised then, well…you get uninvited to an event that is supposed to be for everyone.
The fact is this – either events are for everyone, or they aren’t. Either a group is inclusive, or it isn’t. By virtue of its stance, DC is NOT acting in its own best interests.
I’m not a conservative, but I can smell when something stinks. The hypocrisy that exists when an organization bends over backwards to preach one thing, but can’t bring itself to fully embrace those tenets when it matters, is what disturbs me the most.
You can at least acknowledge that – can’t you Louise?
Perhaps the best way to find common ground with someone you fundamentally disagree with is to spend time with them. You may learn something, and you may not.
But at least an effort is made.
DC threw down the gauntlet when it acted the way it did. Are they really surprised by the response from some quarters?
Are you, Louise?
Kyle, you know that “inclusivity” doesn’t mean tolerating hate, right? Religious groups preaching that being gay is a sin are also banned from the festivities. Are you insinuating that they should include them too? I’m sure you’re not, that would be preposterous! DC has the right to keep out anyone whose rhetoric clashes with theirs.
Imagine if drag queens and pro-choice advocates started showing up at your church. How inclusive would you be then?
Thank you for brining that up, Marilyn! You’ve made my point about the left, perfectly!
Our two local elected officials have been nothing but supportive of the rights of the 2SLGBTQ community. Have they voted to support specific legislation on the subject? Probably not to the tune that many in the 2SLGBTQ would like.
But is that hate? Absolutely not. Full stop.
Are the tenets professed by right-wing Christian groups you reference a form of hate? You bet they are. But please don’t confuse the issue by trying to connect the two – it doesn’t work.
I guess you’re right that DC can do what it wants. But my question remains the same – what did they think would happen? If an agency is trying to get folks to understand its point of view, wouldn’t a better strategy be to invite them to a function to learn as much as possible? Or at least make the effort?
Wouldn’t it be great if a whole bunch of conservatives showed up at a DC event just to see? Don’t you think some might appreciate what DC is trying to do? By telling our MP and MPP to stay home there’s no chance of that happening. Why? I’m pretty sure we can agree that most conservatives would be irritated by DC’s stance – and want no part of attending a public event.
How does that help DC advance its agenda? Hint: it doesn’t.
They were not asked to stay home though. They were asked not to march in the parade in solidarity when their party works against the rights of 2SLGBTQ+. And they were invited to meet in person to chat about it, but they preferred sharing private info with other levels of government to apply pressure. You don’t see a problem with that?
Wait…I just want to get this right.
Who said the letter was shared to apply pressure? I didn’t know we were dreaming up scenarios now. Who said that happened? I’m sure DC feels that way, but is it what REALLY happened? I don’t think anyone has answered that question yet.
Also, what is the difference between being asked not to attend and being told to stay home? I think you’re splitting that hair pretty finely.
So Kyle, why do YOU think letters written to Eric Duncan and Nolan Quinn were forwarded to the city and to the Counties (Diversity Cornwall’s funders)? What would be the purpose of that do you think?
I’m quite sure I have no idea. But my point remains the same – DC’s logic and its decision to exclude our local leaders was and remains flawed.
I don’t know that there is one perfect way of handling this kind of situation. If you are part of a marginalized community and you feel abandonned by your political representatives; not heard, ignored, and voted against .. what options are left really?