organizers at capital pride, presumably no strangers to allyship, came up hard on the issue after releasing a statement two weeks ago in solidarity with palestinians, even as it also decried the attack on israel that provoked the war in gaza. as a result of capital pride’s stance, a growing number of people and organizations have said they won’t march in sunday’s capital pride parade, or in some cases take part in the festival at all. among those who have indicated they’ll boycott the parade are mayor mark sutcliffe, the city of ottawa, the liberal party of canada, the ontario liberal party, the jewish federation of ottawa, cheo, the ottawa hospital, the montfort hospital, ottawa tourism, the bank of canada, giant tiger, loblaw, the lcbo, the university of ottawa, the u.s. embassy, the public service pride network, conseil des écoles publiques de l’est de l’ontario (cepeo), conseil des écoles catholiques du centre-est (cecce) and the ottawa-carleton district school board.
advertisement
as well, pride’s statement , critics argue, compromises the values of diversity and inclusion the movement has long upheld.
was it naïve of capital pride not to foresee the reaction it’s getting? or did it make its bed understanding what might follow? will it live up to its commitment to integrate the palestinian bds national committee ‘s boycott list into its existing review of current and future sponsorship agreements? if so, it would mean jettisoning td bank, its main “presenting” sponsor, as well as “silver” sponsor loblaws, “bronze” sponsor the lcbo, and festival sponsor the province of ontario, which are all on the bds coalition’s “boycott list of shame.” (bds is the acronym for the campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against businesses and organizations that support israel. the campaign aims to pressure the israeli government to change its policies in the occupied territories.)
advertisement
capital pride, which received $85,000 in cultural funding from the city this year (and according to the city has adhered to the provisions of its funding agreement), is hardly the first organization to involve itself with causes many consider outside its bailiwick. with mixed success, private concerns or companies have often dabbled in world affairs. in 2016, for example, nike came out in support of the nfl’s colin kaepernick after he refused to stand for the u.s. national anthem in protest against racial discrimination and police brutality. in 2021, ben & jerry’ s announced it would stop selling ice cream in occupied palestinian territory (a decision later overturned). those private organizations, though, are not being funded with public money.
advertisement
advertisement