Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Not that there's nothing wrong with this

As if to stress the idea that it is more our representatives choosing who we are than we who are choosing our representatives, city council decided last night to fly the rainbow flag at city hall during gay pride week this summer for the first time in nine years. This year's Pride London Festival will also receive $2,500 — which is, coincidentally enough, exactly $2,500 more than The London Fog has ever received in funding from the city since our inception in 2003. Perhaps politicians don't want to represent us equally?

Postscript: Oops, is this a homophobic post? It's so hard to tell these days when so many readers (for lack of a better word) parse blog posts for whiffs of generic thought crime rather than for their sense or meaning. For the record, I have no objection to these silly pride displays except on purely aesthetic grounds. Yes, I'm alluding to their trousers, of course, but even more to the wilful disassembling of the communication between words and their meanings. What pride in one's merits or accomplishments is there for what is only a congenital disposition if, as we are to have it, people are born as homosexuals? If that the case, then "license" is perhaps a more accurate word to use than "pride." But if it is the other way around, and people are celebrating their choices or actions, then language has finally obliterated the meaning of discrimination by scrubbing out the distinctions between what people are and what people do. Well, let's just have it both ways then, I suppose.

Ah, pardon me, that too was probably all very homophobic in some public awareness campaign universe. But to return to the post itself: what is it exactly that our city council is celebrating?

Update, July 20: Now we are all represented…
Although only a handful of pride members and community supporters stood in front of city hall, D’Aguilar said it was still a good representation of the community.


Anonymous said...

I guess council is celebrating their own "enlightenment" (gag, cough).

And "trousers"? Do people still use that word? I mean other than my 95-year-old grandmother.

Anonymous said...

Inclusiveness means always having to proclaim you are different.

Edward Michael George said...

I don't know. I think if we'd bothered to retain such a smart term as 'trousers' in lieu of replacing it with the vulgarian (and inaccurate) 'pants'--which, as you'll know, really refers to underpants--then we might've been spared so much of the loose thinking that's got us to this rather boring pass.

Yours with the dignity and humility of a man wearing trousers over his pants, which are nobody's business but his own,


Anonymous said...

pants inaccurate???

Canadian Oxford Dictionary gives an identical definition for both pants and trousers.

Actually, I usually say "slacks" but that's just me.

Edward Michael George said...

But this is kinda my point ... CANADIAN English. See? English English is more the stuff I was on about. A proper dictionary'll bear me out on this. Even will, actually.

Still, "slacks" IS outstanding.

MapMaster said...

Considering the occasion, perhaps "pants" is exactly the word I ought to have used.

Anonymous said...

Why are they being given taxpayers' money for being born gay?

I was born with brown eyes - maybe I should start a brown-eyed pride group and try to get some cash out of them. It makes about as much sense.

command economy said...

So that's what your interest group has to do to get $2500 from council.

Well, I like all you guys and all, but I think we should all stay just friends.

Anonymous said...

If you don't get the money, won't it make your brown eyes blue?

And would you then be disqualified?

It would be worth it if you could get Van Morrison to come and sing your signature song though.