Support NeoGAF

[firehawk12]

You do not 100% agree with a case if you believe that its underlying claim should not exist as a rule. Have you read all the claims to be certain that you 100% agree with the case? This isn't even an opinion, you are just wrong here.

The opinion in the follow-on case supported the plaintiffs' claim that officers' rights to free expression was diminished if they could not wear their uniform in parades, do you 100% agree with this claim?

Being a police officer is not a protected identity as far as I know. If someone who is Black feels threatened by the presence of a person in a uniform that represents oppression, prejudice, and injustice, then I think they get priority.

 

[numble]

Do you think that anyone who personally wouldn't have an abortion must also inherently think it should be illegal?

No, of course not. Why are you bringing up abortion?

Can we talk about whether we agree or disagree with a case where gay officers claimed they were denied free expression rights by being prohibited from wearing police uniforms?

 

[mantidor]

Yes because expressing your identity requires a gun.

Would you accept the uniform alone then?

The point of gay parades used to be to show LGBT people existed, in all kinds of professions and "walks of life", the uniforms were important, from scientist with their beakers to drag queens. Now is not that of course, but there is that historical precedence.

Unless is just that people think any cop is inherently homophobic and racist regardless of anything, which is honestly the only conclusion I gather from people not wanting uniforms. The guns I get, but the uniforms?

 

[Gotdatmoney]

You do not 100% agree with a case if you believe that its underlying claim should not exist as a rule.

No, this is wrong. It is fundamentally flawed.

Have you read all the claims to be certain that you 100% agree with the case?

You're the one bringing up the case. It's not on me to provide the info. What you posted does not relate to what my issue was. You're just trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.

The opinion in the follow-on case supported the plaintiffs' claim that officers' rights to free expression was diminished if they could not wear their uniform in parades, do you 100% agree with this claim?

The context is that other officers were not denied what GOAL were fighting for. You can't ignore that context that guides the judgement. You're not allowed to wear whatever you want whenever you want under the ideal of freedom of expression. I can't go to work in a T-Shirt and flip flops and claim unfair treatment when I'm fired if the dress code is a suit and tie.

So again, not sure where you are going with this. The issues at hand are not the same.

 

[Acorn]

So you should understand why they don't want the institution there. If they aren't willing to put in the hard work to build trust then they don't deserve a float. If your kid smears shit on the wall your not going to give them a cookie for washing their hands. They have to clean the shit wall too.

I can understand the reasoning - I just disagree and don't think it's ultimately helpful because I've seen how things like attending pride have helped here. Pride could help start that dialogue.

 

[HoJu]

I mean i can see hownthe police symbols can mean oppression for the LGBQ of colour, but i dont see how the exclusion helps achieve anything.

I remember in OJ Made in America documentary, one of the problems with how the police chief in LA ran the force was that it was a sort of police state, where the police didn't take part in any community stuff or connect with the people.

Excluding the police discourages this interaction, and honestly just hurts the officers who are probably the more open minded ones.

 

[numble]

Being a police officer is not a protected identity as far as I know. If someone who is Black feels threatened by the presence of a person in a uniform that represents oppression, prejudice, and injustice, then I think they get priority.

The idea of free expression is not based on protected groups, at least not in the US. This is why the ACLU defends the free speech rights of the KKK.

 

[Infinite]

I can understand the reasoning - I just disagree and don't think it's ultimately helpful because I've seen how things like attending pride have helped here. Pride could help start that dialogue.

It has started a dialogue just the one where the police show their asses.

I mean i can see hownthe police symbols can mean oppression for the LGBQ of colour, but i dont see how the exclusion helps achieve anything.

I remember in OJ Made in America documentary, one of the problems with how the police chief in LA ran the force was that it was a sort of police state, where the police didn't take part in any community stuff or connect with the people.

Excluding the police discourages this interaction, and honestly just hurts the officers who are probably the more open minded ones.

I really appreciate that you understand that which really confuses me that you're somehow letting the police off the hook here.

 

[excelsiorlef]

No, of course not. Why are you bringing up abortion?

Can we talk about whether we agree or disagree with a case where gay officers claimed they were denied free expression rights by being prohibited from wearing police uniforms?

I'm highlighting your poor reasoning. Because that you say of course not means you should be able to actually understand the argument being made. it's two different ones

Argument A: No police officer should be able to wear their uniform outside of work

Argument B: But since they are allowed, no LGBTQ+ should be denied that right on the basis of being LGBTQ+

You think those two can't coexist.... which is strange because as I demonstrated you don't have an issue understanding this concept in other situations.

 

[Lois_Lane]

I can understand the reasoning - I just disagree and don't think it's ultimately helpful because I've seen how things like attending pride have helped here. Pride could help start that dialogue.

Have they not been attending Pride for years? Yet they still harrass POC LGBTQ members? They've been given every chance to start a dialogue but have chosen to bungle it in the worst possible ways. What organization that actually cares about POC views would praise the NYPD as 'progressive'? Maybe an extended time out will teach them a lesson.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I'm highlighting your poor reasoning. Because that you say of course not means you should be able to actually understand the argument being made. it's two different ones

Argument A: No police officer should be able to wear their uniform outside of work

Argument B: But since they are allowed, no LGBTQ+ should be denied that right on the basis of being LGBTQ+

You think those two can't coexist.... which is strange because as I demonstrated you don't have an issue understanding this concept in other situations.

That's because the argument is more about "gotcha" than actually saying anything about the situation at hand.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I can understand the reasoning - I just disagree and don't think it's ultimately helpful because I've seen how things like attending pride have helped here. Pride could help start that dialogue.

Haven't they started a dialogue by saying they don't believe police deserve to show up in the parade? That was an opportunity for police (in Toronto and elsewhere) to respond in a way that reflects understanding and a willingness to better their institutions.

Instead, there have been petulant hissy-fits from city officials, the NYPD, etc. They had a chance to publicly self-reflect and build trust, and they've bungled it. It wasn't a fancy handwritten invitation to engage in a dialogue, yet it's still an invitation on Pride's part. They've done enough.

When it comes to disproportionate poor/violent treatment directed at minority groups, the impetus isn't on those groups to start a dialogue either.

Oh, and the police who actually want to take part should just go without uniforms if they actually care about Pride

 

[firehawk12]

The idea of free expression is not based on protected groups, at least not in the US. This is why the ACLU defends the free speech rights of the KKK.

Freedom of speech is a charter right in Canada, except when it runs up against libel and hate speech laws.

Now, I don't know if BLM has positioned the uniform as a form of hate speech or not, but there are limits nonetheless.

I don't know if the police has taken Toronto Pride to a human rights tribunal to point out that their vote is an act of discrimination against their freedom of speech, or if they are even interested in doing so. I would be curious to see what the legal fallout might be like in this case.

 

[Breads]

Comparing police to Confederates is mind boggling to me. They have their deep entrenched issues but that isn't a sensible comparison to make iirc.

Also as I said earlier Police here in the UK attend pride events in uniform and it's viewed as good for community cohesion. The UK police are and were no angels when it comes to lbgt rights here(especially in the 80s and early 90s) but it's getting better and things like attending pride further helps imo.

If it isn't a sensible comparison to make then why did you make it?

That's not what I said. I specifically said rebel flag argument.

The argument that the rebel flag should be accepted as it represents Southern history... completely ignoring the fact that it also represents slavers, traitors, and the bloody civil war. The things that make people uncomfortable.

I lived in the south for most of my life and I know better than to identify with or argue for the use of the rebel flag. The police need to do the same and realize that despite any good will they may personally have their uniforms are too a symbol of oppression that they are choosing to parade around in... despite what it represents to other people.

 

[numble]

No, this is wrong. It is fundamentally flawed.

You're the one bringing up the case. It's not on me to provide the info. What you posted does not relate to what my issue was. You're just trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.

The context is that other officers were not denied what GOAL were fighting for. You can't ignore that context that guides the judgement. You're not allowed to wear whatever you want whenever you want under the ideal of freedom of expression. I can't go to work in a T-Shirt and flip flops and claim unfair treatment when I'm fired if the dress code is a suit and tie.

So again, not sure where you are going with this. The issues at hand are not the same.

If you say you 100% agree with a case, I should take that at face value and not provide the info to prove your own claim.

I think you can be allowed to wear whatever you want in public under the ideal of freedom of expression. What private, non-state employers require is different. I think there is a gray area with private groups that receive public permission to hold public events, and this is where this discussion is.

I'm highlighting your poor reasoning. Because that you say of course not means you should be able to actually understand the argument being made. it's two different ones

Argument A: No police officer should be able to wear their uniform outside of work

Argument B: But since they are allowed, no LGBTQ+ should be denied that right on the basis of being LGBTQ+

You think those two can't coexist.... which is strange because as I demonstrated you don't have an issue understanding this concept in other situations.

Argument B is more nuanced than that. Like I said, the officers also claimed that their free expression rights were violated. Here is what the court said: "First, members of the public—specifically, the spectators at each of the parades—are more likely to discern and understand the LOA's message about discrimination and misconduct in the NYPD if plaintiffs wear uniforms."

He says he 100% agrees with the case. That means he 100% agrees with the claim that free expression is violated by prohibiting the uniforms. The two cannot coexist. If he wants to say he agrees with some of the lawsuit's claims, but not all of them, that is different than 100% agreeing with the case.

 

[Lois_Lane]

Would you accept the uniform alone then?

The point of gay parades used to be to show LGBT people existed, in all kinds of professions and "walks of life", the uniforms were important, from scientist with their beakers to drag queens. Now is not that of course, but there is that historical precedence.

Unless is just that people think any cop is inherently homophobic and racist regardless of anything, which is honestly the only conclusion I gather from people not wanting uniforms. The guns I get, but the uniforms?

No. The uniforms identify them as a part of an oppressive state sanctioned power with a terrible history/current tradition of abusing POC. They want to be applauded for doing the bare minimum. I feel bad for the LGBTQ who don't like what their colleagues support but at the end of the day the day the uniform can come off. Same can't be said for a POC's skin.

 

[Acorn]

If it isn't a sensible comparison to make then why did you make it?

That's not what I said. I specifically said rebel flag argument.

The argument that the rebel flag should be accepted as it represents Southern history... completely ignoring the fact that it also represents slavers, traitors, and the bloody civil war. The things that make people uncomfortable.

I lived in the south for most of my life and I know better than to identify with or argue for the use of the rebel flag. The police need to do the same and realize that despite any good will they may personally have their uniforms are too a symbol of oppression that they are choosing to parade around in... despite what it represents to other people.

Fair enough, I misunderstood. I still think this isn't helpful but can understand where people are coming from.

 

[excelsiorlef]

If you say you 100% agree with a case, I should take that at face value and not provide the info to prove your own claim.

I think you can be allowed to wear whatever you want in public under the ideal of freedom of expression. What private, non-state employers require is different. I think there is a gray area with private groups that receive public permission to hold public events, and this is where this discussion is.



Argument B is more nuanced than that. Like I said, the officers also claimed that their free expression rights were violated. Here is what the court said: "First, members of the public—specifically, the spectators at each of the parades—are more likely to discern and understand the LOA's message about discrimination and misconduct in the NYPD if plaintiffs wear uniforms."

He says he 100% agrees with the case. That means he 100% agrees with the claim that free expression is violated by prohibiting the uniforms. The two cannot coexist. If he wants to say he agrees with some of the lawsuit's claims, but not all of them, that is different than 100% agreeing with the case.

Again please come back to 2017...
The Lawsuit has fuck and all to do with 2017 despite your desire to make it so. It's also American and you know we're dealing with a Canadian situation...

 

[Gotdatmoney]

If you say you 100% agree with a case, I should take that at face value and not provide the info to prove your own claim.

Yeah I do agree with that case because it was about the fair application of established rules. If rules exist you have to apply them fairly. That's different than whether you actually agree with those rules.

I think you can be allowed to wear whatever you want in public under the ideal of freedom of expression.What private, non-state employers require is different. I think there is a gray area with private groups that receive public permission to hold public events, and this is where this discussion is.

This really has nothing to do with what I said. But anyway, no, you are not allowed to wear whatever you want under freedom of expression. I can't wear a police uniform and drive a car marked like a law enforcement officer's under the idea of freedom of expression. There are laws against that. Unless your idea of public is physically being outside, you can be denied entry into establishments based on dress attire.

I don't think there is any gray area about what private groups holding events having requirements.

He says he 100% agrees with the case. That means he 100% agrees with the claim that free expression is violated by prohibiting the uniforms. The two cannot coexist. If he wants to say he agrees with some of the lawsuit's claims, but not all of them, that is different than 100% agreeing with the case.

This is one of those stupid semantics arguments where the context is provided in the post but someone is bitching about the usage of 1 phrase. That said, excelsiorlef is right, I don't really give a shit about your example from america from 20 years ago. Right here, right now, this situation is about the place of state sanctioned attire at an event where the organizers have plainly stated why they don't want it. I encourage you to address why no one in this situation has proposed this as being a breach of freedom of expression though.

Spoiler

It's because they wont win that case

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

numble, this is a very strange, bad argument you are making. You can disagree with a practice while believing that the practice should be engaged in in a fair, equitable way as long as it is commonplace. This is not inconsistency.

 

[numble]

Freedom of speech is a charter right in Canada, except when it runs up against libel and hate speech laws.

Now, I don't know if BLM has positioned the uniform as a form of hate speech or not, but there are limits nonetheless.

I don't know if the police has taken Toronto Pride to a human rights tribunal to point out that their vote is an act of discrimination against their freedom of speech, or if they are even interested in doing so. I would be curious to see what the legal fallout might be like in this case.

Even with the limits to free speech in Canada, I do not think you could win a case that a police officer uniform represents hate speech. Wouldn't that requiring banning all uniforms and not just the ones in parades?

Again please come back to 2017...
The Lawsuit as fuck and all to do with 2017 despite your desire to make it so. It's also American and you know we're dealing with a Canadian situation...

Of course it has something to do with it. Do you agree or disagree that a uniform can be part of free expression? It is fine to take the position that it is not if it is your opinion, but that would mean that you do not 100% agree with the cases argued in the past about the right for NYPD officers to wear uniforms. Or you could take the position that it is part of a free expression right, but that a private group does not need to respect free expression rights and is free to restrict it. But it would not be compatible with an opinion that you cannot wear it outside of work in any situation.

 

[excelsiorlef]

numble, this is a very strange, bad argument you are making. You can disagree with a practice while believing that the practice should be engaged in in a fair, equitable way as long as it is commonplace. This is not inconsistency.

numble knows this... that's why I asked them the abortion question, to prove that they know it...

 

[numble]

Yeah I do agree with that case because it was about the fair application of established rules. If rules exist you have to apply them fairly. That's different than whether you actually agree with those rules.

This really has nothing to do with what I said. But anyway, no, you are not allowed to wear whatever you want under freedom of expression. I can't wear a police uniform and drive a car marked like a law enforcement officer's under the idea of freedom of expression. There are laws against that. Unless your idea of public is physically being outside, you can be denied entry into establishments based on dress attire.

I don't think there is any gray area about what private groups holding events having requirements.

This is one of those stupid semantics arguments where the context is provided in the post but someone is bitching about the usage of 1 phrase. That said, excelsiorlef is right, I don't really give a shit about your example from america from 20 years ago. Right here, right now, this situation is about the place of state sanctioned attire at an event where the organizers have plainly stated why they don't want it.

It isn't a semantic argument because the focus of these cases was on the First Amendment.

There are laws against impersonating an officer, but there is no law to prevent you from doing as you described without claiming to be an officer or letting people know you are not an officer. People do wear police uniforms all the time and cannot be arrested for simply wearing the uniform without trying to impersonate an officer (think Halloween).

I do think there is a grey area with publicly funded events held in public.

numble, this is a very strange, bad argument you are making. You can disagree with a practice while believing that the practice should be engaged in in a fair, equitable way as long as it is commonplace. This is not inconsistency.

I don't think you understand the full argument. The idea is that they believed the uniforms were key to the message that they wanted to express: "First, members of the public—specifically, the spectators at each of the parades—are more likely to discern and understand the LOA's message about discrimination and misconduct in the NYPD if plaintiffs wear uniforms."

So it isn't simply about not allowing selective bans on uniforms. If the NYPD banned all uniforms from all parades, the gay officers would still sue on similar First Amendment grounds.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

numble, this is a very strange, bad argument you are making. You can disagree with a practice while believing that the practice should be engaged in in a fair, equitable way as long as it is commonplace. This is not inconsistency.

Shrug, he knows what he is doing. It's w/e though, his point will never be logical no matter how many times he says it.

 

[indigo lily]

Just saw this quote on my FB feed:

“I think, isn’t it a mature way to look at things when you’re talking about an inclusive parade, when you’re talking about an inclusive event,” said Toronto Police Association president Mike McCormack. “I think it’s sad Toronto couldn’t be that progressive and that inclusive.”

Just gross.

 

[numble]

numble knows this... that's why I asked them the abortion question, to prove that they know it...

Shrug, he knows what he is doing. It's w/e though, his point will never be logical no matter how many times he says it.

Can you please address my questions about the free expression claims in the case instead of making claims that I am purposely being illogical? You can disagree with the free expression claims and that is fine, but I am not sure why you keep trying to ignore their claims.

The court says:
"First, members of the public—specifically, the spectators at each of the parades—are more likely to discern and understand the LOA's message about discrimination and misconduct in the NYPD if plaintiffs wear uniforms."

The court says it is easier to tell the public a message about discrimination and misconduct in the NYPD if the officers wear uniforms in the parade.

Do you agree or disagree that it is harder to get a message about discrimination and misconduct in the NYPD across if officers cannot wear uniforms?

 

[yanipheonu]

Welp. This thread is going about as expected.

I'd at least make the sobering observation that instead of all this drama we could, yknow, actually be discussing how to help the Black and Gay communities.

 

[unpopularblargh]

This is about 2017. He disagrees with allowing police officers to wear uniforms outside of work, while 100% agreeing with a case that claimed that police officers were denied the right to free expression if they were not allowed to wear uniforms outside of work.

It's not unheard of or wrong. For example I don't agree with public funding of private religious schools (catholic or otherwise) but if you're going to do it, I do feel you shouldn't exclude certain religions.

 

[CazTGG]

Just saw this quote on my FB feed:



Just gross.

Toronto police union president Mike McCormack may be the biggest dick in town

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Can you please address my questions about the free expression claims in the case instead of making claims that I am purposely being illogical? You can disagree with the free expression claims and that is fine, but I am not sure why you keep trying to ignore their claims.

The court says:
"First, members of the public—specifically, the spectators at each of the parades—are more likely to discern and understand the LOA's message about discrimination and misconduct in the NYPD if plaintiffs wear uniforms."

The court says it is easier to tell the public a message about discrimination and misconduct in the NYPD if the officers wear uniforms in the parade.

Do you agree or disagree that it is harder to get a message about discrimination and misconduct in the NYPD across if officers cannot wear uniforms?

As I said, I do not give a shit about your link from 20 years ago in the US. How about instead you read this literature relevant to the actual situation at hand?

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ed/bgrd/backgroundfile-103183.pdf

Second, Pride Toronto has complied with the City's Community Grants Policy and with
Access, Equity and Human Rights policies and legislation. The specific issue of the
exclusion of uniformed police from marching in the parade has been anlyzed and does
not contravene the City Human Rights Policy or the Ontario Human Rights Code. Legal
Services has been consulted in this regard and has advised that no grounds or areas
protected by the Human Rights Code or the City's Human Rights Policy are invoked by
this matter. "Being a uniformed police officer" is not a ground of discrimination
protected by the Human Rights Code or the City's Human Rights Policy.

Third, City policies governing granting and administrative practice to date, have not
dictated to funded organizations what should be programmed or who should attend
funded events as long as they comply with City policies and Human Rights legislation.
In terms of cultural funding, withholding Pride Toronto's funding for its decisions on who
may march in the parade raises freedom of expression issues and sets a precedent for
the City's involvement in the internal operations of a cultural organization.

Tell me, whose information is more relevant to the situation at hand? Again, you're trying to put this gotcha shit forward like some case from 20 years ago is the end all be all. No, it isn't. This isn't gray, there isn't a legal precedent and you don't have a point

 

[indigo lily]

Welp. This thread is going about as expected.

I'd at least make the sobering observation that instead of all this drama we could, yknow, actually be discussing how to help the Black and Gay communities.

No that would be too much work... many seem to only care about advocating inclusion when it involves police and the pride parade. I'd like to see some of that effort exerted to discuss how to help POC/LGBT communities so Pride can be a safe and inclusive space for all.

Who knows, if the Toronto Police Association gave a shit and actually tried to foster some good will this situation could've gone a completely different way.

 

[numble]

As I said, I do not give a shit about your link from 20 years ago in the US. How about instead you read this literature relevant to the actual situation at hand?

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ed/bgrd/backgroundfile-103183.pdf



Tell me, whose information is more relevant to the situation at hand? Again, you're trying to put this gotcha shit forward like some case from 20 years ago is the end all be all. No, it isn't. This isn't gray, there isn't a legal precedent and you don't have a point

We were discussing the case, and you seemed okay with that before, including commenting on free expression issues. I don't know why you don't just answer the question and then say you feel it is not relevant for whatever reason that would distinguish the case.

You do not have to give a shit to opine on whether you agree or not with the court's statement.

I actually will posit that the case is actually relevant to the OP because the author of the GOAL invitation cited the case in explaining why they invited the Toronto officers.

We are supposed to discuss GOAL's invitation of the Toronto police, which is the subject of the OP, right? The case probably explains the thinking of where GOAL is coming from, instead of some desire to be anti-BLM. GOAL NY has sued many other police departments in the past, even police departments outside of the states.

Going back to the overall issue, I think it also is relevant to understand why LGBT police officers think it is important to march with their uniforms. Even if it is questionable whether it is a violation of free expression in this instance, courts have found it to be a violation in other instances where government actors are involved, but people will still get animated over a restriction on their expression in either situation.

 

[Mailbox]

Welp. This thread is going about as expected.

I'd at least make the sobering observation that instead of all this drama we could, yknow, actually be discussing how to help the Black and Gay communities.

Agreed.
But an argument can be made that BLM trying to get rid of the uniform at Pride Toronto helps neither.
Especially considering how the uniform in this instance would be symbolizing not the police as a whole, but rather the members of the force whom are lgbt+ and whom stand by others within that same community.

Lets not kid ourselves here, this is about anger and spite, not about trying make things right and good. The uniform in the context of the pride parade shouldn't be treated the same as the confederate flag nor should it be treated the same as a kkk costume, but it seems like people are conflating the police uniform w/ discrimination despite context. Whether its the police uniform or an army uniform, the lgbt+ community has also been discriminated and harassed, and there have even been fights in order to use the uniform in contexts other than being an on-duty cop. What i'm saying is, its completely understandable that the uniform is a touchy subject, sure, but trying to get rid of the police presence entirely in the pride parade isn't a positive message in the slightest, and instead just pushes a sub-group in the pride parade out because of spite. Getting rid of the uniform at the parade also gets rid of the "we are here with you" connotation that it comes with, which is something that can and should be used as a means of a check on the police. It should be "if you are with us, why are you not standing up for us?" rather than "you don't really stand with us, so gtfo". If there was a possible compromise (maybe, like, jackets only, or altering the float to show how lgbt+ POC need to be treated w/ more fairness or something), then i would be all for it, but as it is and has been, its nothing more than spite and I can't stand by that.

Basically, it doesn't help the gay community b/c all its trying to do is silence and push down a sizable subgroup within that community and it doesn't help the black community b/c its a pure spite move that does nothing to move the police into being less discriminatory towards POC.

That being said, I would hope that the Toronto PD and the lgbt+ members within understand how bad it would look and how bad the message would be if they decided to accept the NYPD's offer. I hope they don't go through with it.

I guess what i'm saying is that the Pride Parade isn't owned by any one subgroup, and any one subgroup doesn't tower over any other. Basically i think its important to understand why one group wants to maintain the uniform and why one wants to shut it down, and reach a compromise that helps both side attain their message instead of doubling down and a battle that just makes everyone look bad.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I actually will posit that the case is actually relevant to the OP because the author of the GOAL invitation cited the case in explaining why they invited the Toronto officers.

No where in that CBC article is the case you are talking about cited. All it says is that NYC officers fought for the right to march in the pride parade. Which is fine but that really holds zero relevance as to what is happening in Toronto and why.

We are supposed to discuss GOAL's invitation of the Toronto police, which is the subject of the OP, right?

Then discuss it. You went off tilt bringing up that pointless case in regards to my opinion about officers not being allowed to where their uniforms apart from work. A perspective that has no legal issue in Canada, where 1) I happen to live and 2) is the subject of the pride topic. I will say again. I do not give a shit about some ruling from 20 years ago in America. I'm not going to address that case with you anymore.

If you agree with the NYPD be my guest. State why. Coming out here trying to downplay my opinion with some 20 year old legal shit in America that has no relevance to Canada, Ontario or Toronto is not the topic. I gave you the link. Leave it now.

Even if it is questionable whether it is a violation of free expression in this instance

It's not questionable. Stop this shit. I gave you the info. There is no breach of freedom of expression.

 

[mantidor]

Welp. This thread is going about as expected.

I'd at least make the sobering observation that instead of all this drama we could, yknow, actually be discussing how to help the Black and Gay communities.

Well, certainly not by pushing a ban on cops uniforms on LGBT parades in a city like Toronto of all places. Because whatever happens this will be the conclusion to this story, nothing will substantially change out of this. Maybe just increase animosity a bit.

 

[numble]

No where in that CBC article is the case you are talking about cited. All it says is that NYC officers fought for the right to march in the pride parade. Which is fine but that really holds zero relevance as to what is hapoening in Toronto and why.

Then discuss it. You went off tilt bringing up that pointless case in regards to my opinion about officers not being allowed to where their uniforms apart from work. A perspective that has no legal issue in Canada, where 1) I happen to live and 2) is the subject of the pride topic. I will say again. I do not give a shit about some ruling from 20 years ago in America. I'm not going to address that case with you anymore.

It's not questionable. Stop this shit. I gave you the info. There is no breach of freedom of expression.

It is not a pointless case if the case was cited as part of the reason behind the invitation.

William Shepard, the executive director of GOAL, sent a letter to Toronto police on May 19, requesting permission for officers to march in uniform along with members of the NYPD and the NYPD marching band and colour guard.

Shepard said they'd been monitoring the situation in Toronto since last year's Pride parade.

Being able to march in uniform is important to the NYPD, he said, because until 1997, officers were unable to do so.

”We actually had to sue in the United States federal court in 1997 for the right to march in the NYPD uniforms in New York City Pride," he said.

People in this thread are claiming this is an NYPD invitation because NYPD is anti-BLM, but it is a GOAL invitation from a group that has sued many police departments, including suing the NYPD, for First Amendment issues in the past. Even you are claiming that it is a NYPD invitation.

When I say it is questionable that means it is probably not the case. So why are you saying that it is "shit"? It is a common expression. But even firehawk has says it has not been completely litigated as an issue. You aren't addressing the point of that section anyway, which is regarding restrictions on expression whatever the form (not just free expression, which is usually limited to state actors).

 

[firehawk12]

When I say it is questionable that means it is probably not the case. So why are you saying that it is "shit"? It is a common expression. But even firehawk has says it has not been completely litigated as an issue. You aren't addressing the point of that section anyway, which is regarding restrictions on expression whatever the form (not just free expression, which is usually limited to state actors).

I mean, here's an easier real life example to think about.

For yeeeeeeeears there was a group called Queers Against Israeli Apartheid that marched every year at Pride. In some ways, they were the BLM of their time, in that they were an "eyesore" that brought politics into the parade by suggesting that Israeli support of queer rights doesn't negate the mistreatment of Palestinians. They actually went through all the processes, because it was suggested that "Israeli Apartheid" was a hate term and anti-Semetic, but were allowed to march up until they decided to disband.

Maybe BLM-TO should wear "I can't breathe" T-shirts next to uniformed police officers and everyone can march at the same time and be political at the same time - BLM can point out police violence, but the police can try to suggest that they are making inroads with the community.

Instead of engaging though, the police just decided to take their ball home and basically rely on the "Blue Lives Matter" rhetoric that any police under criticism uses as a shield. It's the equivalent of questioning someone's patriotism if they don't unconditionally support the Iraq/Afghan war. I think that's the issue that people have a problem with.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

It is not a pointless case if the case was cited as part of the reason behind the invitation.



People in this thread are claiming this is an NYPD invitation because NYPD is anti-BLM, but it is a GOAL invitation from a group that has sued many police departments, including suing the NYPD, for First Amendment issues in the past. Even you are claiming that it is a NYPD invitation.

When I say it is questionable that means it is probably not the case. So why are you saying that it is "shit"? It is a common expression. But even firehawk has says it has not been completely litigated as an issue. You aren't addressing the point of that section anyway, which is regarding restrictions on expression whatever the form (not just free expression, which is usually limited to state actors).

At this point, we have nothing further to discuss. W/e GOAL feels in regards to Pride in TO is fine but there is no legal issue with the restriction of uniformed officers in events in Ontario. Unless city of Toronto is simply lying about seeking legal coucil is your position. So I am not addressing that further in regards to my belief that officers should not be able to wear their uniforms outside of work functions.

If you have anything else you want to discuss by all means but I am not discussing that issue with you further.

 

[T.O.P]

No place for cops at a Pride Parade.

Nah, plenty of space