Gay Pride events take many forms and iterations. It could be a parade and festival, it could be a five-minute march in defiance of a ban, it could be a weeklong celebration with street closures, six performance stages, an international headliner and a live broadcast of a parade with 10,000 participants.
The latter describes Toronto Pride, which took place over Fourth of July weekend, and which draws over 400,000 visitors annually and generates over $136 million in revenue for the city.
One of the more interesting aspects of Toronto Pride is how integrated it — and gay rights — is into mainstream culture. The parade, which took place in the city’s gay village, was broadcast live on a local news station — and then rebroadcast again that night.
In addition to the main parade, the event featured a Dyke March and a Transgender March. There was even an alternative Dyke March planned — because the original Dyke March had apparently become too mainstream.
It was interesting to see the number of (seemingly) heterosexual couples who came to watch the parade and peruse the street fair. It was clearly the biggest event in town that week, eclipsed only slightly by Queen Elizabeth II’s visit.
Another interesting aspect was the lack of police presence at the performances and street fair. There were probably more officers in the parade than assigned to work it.
The event, however, was not without controversy, and was nearly derailed by a pro-Palestinian group with the moniker “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.”
After banning the use of the term “Israeli apartheid” in the parade earlier this year, Pride Toronto backpedaled, asserting that the city had the responsibility to enforce its antidiscrimination policy.
In this case, free-speech rights came close to jeopardizing city funding.
It can be a fine line for gay-rights activists and municipalities to walk. On the one hand, LGBT events are funded because of antidiscrimination policies; on the other, the city can’t be expected to support groups that are in violation of its own nondiscrimination law.
Which sounds awfully similar to a case here in Philadelphia, involving a group that, as a policy, excludes gay participants yet occupies a city-owned building rent-free.
To be sure, Canadian law differs from U.S. law, and Toronto is a far cry from Philadelphia. But in this, the two cities are similar.
It would be nice if Philadelphia could learn something from Toronto’s tolerance and efficiency.