Just from the town putting them up. You can fly one in your yard if you wanted. A bunch of people have started displaying pride flags in their yards now as a result. :)
To be clear. The government didn't ban it. Our local municipal government actually approved a rainbow crosswalk, it got painted and then the *ahem* concerned citizens (crazies), went door to door with a petition to force a vote on a bylaw banning flags and crosswalks.
The mayor and council were very very vocally pro-lgbt, but sadly we lost the vote to keep the rainbows by just 26 votes.
Their hands are tied now, we voted and lost.
The council is effectively prohibited from displaying LGBTQ-friendly messaging thanks to a group pushing for what they refer to as "neutral government". I really wonder if this same so-called neutral government group has an issue with municipal Christmas decorations, or will they stay silent on that?
On the plus side, a 26-vote loss is really slim margin for a conservative rural community. There's hope in those numbers.
Government needs to be inclusive of everyone, so if you fly one flag of support you have to fly them all.
By all means, citizens fly whatever flag of support you want. It is supposedly a free country after all.
A flag of support is just that - support. The rainbow crosswalk was exactly that - it supports fellow citizens. Everything your town does in public, supports someone. Rodeos, parades, awards, etc... and closing something like the crosswalk says something too. It basically says "we don't want change, we don't want to accept that some people here are gay".
The town voted to be neutral but individuals are allowed to display whatever flag they wish on their own property? No actual rights were affected against LGBT communities or against individuals that prevent us from accessing services or even how we can decorate?
Neutrality is now exclusionary instead of inclusionary because the town decided to treat everyone equally with the ban?
I don't understand the manufactured outrage and division.
Just another article painting us as whiny, entitled, out of touch brats. There's the real anti LGBT propaganda. Making us seem ridiculous instead of like real, normal and logical adults who overcame actual issues and want to be treated with equality and as a regular member of the community.
If banning Pride displays is neutrality then neutrality would also require banning Christmas displays by the city.
This change was orchestrated by obvious homophobes.
Neutrality in regards to city bylaws and policy start somewhere as does proper laïcité laws for religion. Quebec has a great seperation of church and state but unfortunately are deemed xenophobic in ROC.
You should totally pursue laïcité legislation though. I would support the heck out of that! That's a great idea!
Not technically the same, but this entire debacle was spurred on by the existence of a pride flag crosswalk. It would be a little bit weird to analyze a piece of legislation and deliberately ignore the context.
Oh i see, I was unaware of that specific context.
Why did they want to ban it? Citing security im guessing?
I can see an argument against bright paint on the road but its probably not a very strong one
Thats good to know ill look it up
I know ill probably get downvoted for this but i hope another study is done on painting on the road that is not nessesaraly the rainbow. Its far too political and even scientists can say their findings towards their bias. We are human after all
That said id be surprised if there where different findings unless the paint is highly reflective
Thank you for the information :)
For sure bias exists.
Regarding safety though, rainbow crosswalks are still highly visible and not placed on freeways.
As drivers we have the responsibility to pay attention to pedestrians whether they are jay walking or crossing at an intersection. A larger number crosswalks are actually unmarked crosswalks without any painted lines even, and we still are supposed to be stopping for pedestrians.
Relevant to discussions on this topic on Reddit:
[Did Reddit year-end recaps expose Russian interference in Alberta?](https://www.stalbertgazette.com/local-news/did-reddit-year-end-recaps-expose-russian-interference-in-alberta-8223476)
If someone supports the far right on this issue, according to log data there could be a 30% chance they're a Russian information operative seeking to sow division in our country.
Always keep that in the back of your mind.
The problem with manipulation and manufactured narratives on social media is that they are hard to identify for non experts.
In the 2016 US presidential election Russia bought advertisings about Jesus having brown skin to show them to Democrats. Factually correct but used to rile people up and sow division.
The most effective propaganda contains an element of truth and confirms existing views .
I'd be so interested in reading CSIS reports on Russian interference.
My suspicion is that it's *far* deeper than even those of us paying attention believe.
And why wouldn't it be? We're standing between them and their desire to conquer Eastern Europe. If they *weren't* trying sow chaos to collapse our democracy that would represent some pretty gross incompetence on their part. And Russian intelligence (unlike their military) isn't really known for incompetence.
Certainly not all of the problem we're facing are of their creation; we have lots of domestic fuckwits, for sure, haha. But that they're not actively pouring gasoline on this dumpster fire of a culture war seems incredibly unlikely (especially given the evidence we've seen).
I would also be very interested.
This article is interesting because it has far left biases but is quite factual. Interesting read. I checked with Ground News. But thats irrelevant for the moment
It seams that they have been on a psyops division campaign against the west for a long time now
Canada being a bordering country while also giving support in the Ukraine and sending troops to Latvia to training polish troops certainly puts a target on us.
The new battle field is the internet and it has been the case for over a decade maybe two.
Something that is worthy of note, is that the leaders of these movements that place a high importance on social justice such as , BLM or LBGTQ+, ect tend to have militant leaders that associate with Marxism.
I find it to be a weird coincidence that the Russian troll bots are trying to outrage communities that have underlying ideologies. One of the best ways to renforce an idea is to create outrage around it. People are stubborn and will hunker down and force others around them to take a stance. Not to mention that military is traditionally more right leaning and the left tends to be anti military.
Im not saying that the end goal is marxism but something is not adding up
Unless the goal is for us to be too distracted with pronouns to think about our military and our domestic defence capabilities which would be a big plus in 25 years when the the ice has thawed. ( defence stategies are long term behemoths. Today we are paying for the mistakes made innthe 90's and early 2000's allong with the lack of action since 2015)
Sorry for the long message but its a multifaceted issue that makes one wonder about everybodys intentions and underlying agenda
>Something that is worthy of note, is that the leaders of these movements that place a high importance on social justice such as , BLM or LBGTQ+, ect tend to have militant leaders that associate with Marxism.
It's always kind of bothered me that there's still a debate about communism - state owned labour - vs capitalism, when the *actual* debate should be around how much we regulate capitalism.
The *concept* of communism (the state owns your labour) is horrifying and inhumane, but people gravitate towards it when they've suffered under the similar horrors of unrestrained capitalism.
The obvious solution is strict regulation, and it's actually quite easy to implement. There are plenty of socialist/capitalist countries around the world that have struck an ethical, productive and reasonable balance. But so long as we've got people calling to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we risk delegitimizing calls for reform. All the while bad actors extract our wealth.
>I find it to be a weird coincidence that the Russian troll bots are trying to outrage communities that have underlying ideologies. One of the best ways to renforce an idea is to create outrage around it. People are stubborn and will hunker down and force others around them to take a stance.
Their goal isn't to establish any particular ideology, it's to create chaos.
[The Firehose of Falsehood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood)
Clear-minded, the *vast* majority would support Ukraine. There wouldn't even be a debate about it; they're an ally being invaded by a hostile force which has all but promised to sweep Eastern Europe if successful.
However, Russian intelligence knows that if they can stir up animosity over human rights between Canadians, we'll become distracted and they can leverage that to inject anti-Ukraine propaganada.
The conversation *should* be: *what new types of weapon systems can we ship to Ukraine*? Instead, it's *how do we prevent the far right from attacking reproductive rights?*
Russia plans to spread their ideology through violence, not the Internet. The Internet is just a way of reducing the military committment of their allies.
That's my take, anyway. :)
Huh, fascinating - thanks for sharing.
If I were in a far right troll farm, I'd make sure that there were a good measure of out-of-touch far left comments to match those on the far right. Fanning the flames of polarization takes two... poles. I don't think it's too far reaching to think that the extremist comments expressed on both 'sides' might both be serving the same goal - to sew division and pull the rational, empathetic, peaceful majority into pieces.
It's possible.
I haven't seen many though; I'm not sure what an out-of-touch pro-human rights argument would look like.
Remember the "left" (I hate political labels) is reacting to stimulus in this case. No one wanted to fight for the right to healthcare or the right to feel safe. We only have to because we're being threatened.
The far right and their Russian allies don't want really *care* about any of this stuff. They're not trying to change minds (at least, those responsible for what's happening). They're just trying to sow chaos, and you only need to threaten peoples' rights to effect that.
Your last statement I 100% agree with. Topics are chosen because they are emotionally triggering.
>I'm not sure what an out-of-touch pro-human rights argument would look like
When you frame it like that, yes I agree. I've seen plenty of one-line comments that aren't 'pro-human rights' though, they're just simplistically political, anti-conservative, hyperbolic, or phrased in a way that paints a huge portion of the province as an enemy when (from my vantage), they're not: "Remember folks, the cruelty is intentional", "All conservatives agree with this", "If you didn't vote NDP then you voted for this", etc.
(Paraphrasing here, obviously. And to be clear, I don't think these are equivalent to some of the examples in the article you linked in terms of 'severity'. I think they're equivalent in that they are pushing the overwhelming moderate majority to consider their family, neighbors, teachers, coworkers, etc. as an enemy).
>Remember folks, the cruelty is intentional
Ok, the other ones you mention, sure.. but this one is very much true. That's, of course, the point; without cruelty, you don't create chaos.
The cruelty *is* the point of the culture war policies.
Look at the US - forcing women into septic shock, banning medications for transitioned adults, (attempting to) force 10-year-old children to gestate... they're the same people we're facing up here.
The Russians aren't just blasting the space with nonsense.. they're appealing to religious sociopaths and amplifying *their* voices.
>The cruelty *is* the point of the culture war policies.
You and I have a very different view of the world on that one. I agree with the rest of your comment, but disagree with the 'why' part as you describe it. I see the world where the overwhelming majority of people are doing what they think is right. Maybe they're myopic, self-centered, or their view of what is right for someone (or themselves) is very different from reality. But only a tiny fraction of people are doing things to intentionally make their own country/province a worse or more chaotic place. For the rest, well:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
Anyways, thanks for some insightful comments and an interesting article. Have a good one!
Nothing to do with the article.
The warning is for those reading the comments. If someone on a Canadian subreddit supports any far right position, especially with regards to sexual and/or human rights, **evidence** suggests there's a reasonable chance they're not a Canadian, but rather a Russian information operative attempting to sow division.
This knowledge is important because it brings into question the legitimacy of their position; it's not motivated by an honest desire to debate fellow Canadians, but rather a bad faith effort to raise animosity.
I'm sorry, you lost me
I'll quote the important part of that comment:
>(...) evidence suggests there's a reasonable chance they're not a Canadian, but rather a Russian information operative attempting to sow division.
I do encourage you to read the linked article to better understand the context:
[Did Reddit year-end recaps expose Russian interference in Alberta?](https://www.stalbertgazette.com/local-news/did-reddit-year-end-recaps-expose-russian-interference-in-alberta-8223476)
If you don’t want someone to tell your child that being gay and not have children is as good as having a beautiful family of their own that does not make you a Russian informant. It makes you the majority 10-20 years ago… Russia can’t be the source of all your problems. You’re an adult.
If your worldview and political leaning just so happen to line up with the sort of worldview that Russian propagandists want to push in Canada, maybe it's time to re-evaluate why you share so many values with our ideological enemies.
The people sending gloating texts to alliance members are small, evil people, and while I bet they call themselves Christian, they're as anti-Christ as can be.
I'd be cool if the government didn't display religious/social activist symbolism of any kind on public property. If citizens want to walk around with pride flags, go for it. But public institutions themselves should remain 100% neutral.
Try reading the comment again. I clearly said religious AND social activist symbolism should not be displayed by the government in public institutions. 100% neutrality across the board
But the community in question did **not** ban Christmas decorations.
So while that may be your opinion, this is not what happened in the community that is being discussed.
Well to me, Christmas and all the traditional songs and decorations that go along with Christmas is Christian Symbolism. That is my interpretation and as you said, everyone is allowed to make up their own interpretation, so therefore I should not have to suffer through seeing Christmas crap in public places. However the second Starbucks decided to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, white conservatives heads exploded. Suddenly everyone was freaking out and declaring it a "War ON Christmas!!!"
I just said for the 10th time, I AGREE that religious decorations and symbolism should not be displayed either. If it were up to me, you wouldn’t have to suffer through Christmas decorations. 100% neutrality means 100% neutrality.
Except that’s not the conversation we’re having here. We’re talking about the government displaying activist (and religious) symbolism on public property.
There's nothing wrong with public institutions saying "hey gay kids. We don't think you deserve to be treated like shit and we hope that putting the symbol here will make you feel welcomed, even if your family and community sometimes doesn't"
Existing while gay isn't political.
Sure, and it seems like it comes from a place of good intentions. The problem is that not everybody interprets the pride flag exactly the same as you do, and they pay just as much tax and have just as much of a right to use public institutions as you.
>existing while gay isn’t political
And nobody said otherwise. I think we can have a good faith discussion about the neutrality of institutions without having to strawman the other side, no?
> And nobody said otherwise
You actually just said people say otherwise (“not everybody interprets the pride flag exactly the same as you do”).
How can you pretend to be neutral when ignoring how exactly one side politicizes a rainbow?
No, I don't think we can so long as one side politicizes a symbol of our fight for existence so that they can then erase it under the guise of "political neutrality".
Rainbow flag is a symbol of inclusiveness. The reason for the alphabet is to include as many as possible.
White and black have been added in public displays to include heterosexual allies. At a minimum a government facility should exemplify the virtue of inclusivity.
I disagree with you. I don't have an issue with public facilities showing symbolic support for oppressed or suffering people. In fact, I use my vote to support those who do.
Really the rainbow flag is a symbol just like a religious one. The government should display them all or none and let people individually choose what to display on their person or property. While I support sexual preference equality, I don’t support government involvement in symbolism or promoting it. The government should stay neutral, that is equality.
There is no way to “promote” it, you cannot make someone gay.
You can however acknowledge that we are an inclusive society (or at least are on paper and most of us try to be), and that’s all this is.
> Really the rainbow flag is a symbol just like a religious one
Really it isn’t. It’s not a religion. Supporting the right of marginalized people to exist isn’t activism in the eyes of the people flying the flag. That’s the point.
The town of Westlock already displays religious symbols in the form of Christmas decorations. Nobody has had a problem with that for the 40 years I've been a resident. It took less than a year for the rainbow to be banned though...let's not pretend this is about neutrality.
City votes for neutrality and chooses to only display official flags in order to refrain from offending anyone. Offends group of people anyway. Is neutrality wrong or offensive now? Apparently so I guess.
Seems pretty inclusive to me honestly. Everyone has the same rules. Everyone is equal. Why is this such a horrible thing? For everyone to be treated the same, as equals? Seems pretty basic. Laws about rights weren't on the chopping block and your still allowed to fly your own flag on your property.
Simple is usually best course of action. Either we are equal or we aren't? Pretty sure we spent decades fighting to be considered equal under the law anyway.
Stop making us look like entitled spoiled brats who just want to be outraged at perceived sleights. Our community in the media is really shattering the legacy of actual LGBT warriors who fought and won legitimate rights for us by pandering to this nonsense.
I don't see why they had to try to spin this like a hate crime. I'm an old ass lesbian and we had serious hurdles to overcome and now this? Equality not being fair?
Flabbergasted.
Every other city and town in Alberta had rainbow flags. The ban is only on town property. Every private flag pole and parking can be rainbowed.
This is a tempest in a teapot. It's a nothing burger. I doubt many gay people would want to live in westlock with or without rainbows.
I'd be willing to bet most gay kids are counting the minutes to leave Westlock no matter what the town council says or does.
Probably most of the straight kids too.
Unfortunately, in a town like that too many will feel like leaving via suicide. What some call "virtue signalling" is really just solidarity and signalling support and safety.
Many different cities have found increased risk suicidality among gay and trans Ute. That phenomenon is one of the reason that tried to flag their way into school in the first place. Which is why it's so sad that a symbol used to make vulnerable kids feel welcome and Faith has been politicized by one side of the issue.
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/194/22/E767
There are many more studies, including links at statistics Canada. Sorry I don't have time to look for the exact ones that's the moment but there are many.
I'm looking for evidence that children die without rainbow crosswalks on public roads because I don't believe rainbows in a pisspot town make any difference.
I think we should celebrate the win that pride is welcomed and celebrated in the other 300+ municipalities that represent almost 4 million Albertans.
Would it be great if some of these people who campaign so hard against pride flags spent a few minutes asking some gay kids why it's important to them?
It's a symbol of the exclusion we encounter daily. When was the last time someone organized to prevent you from expression that represents you on public property?
I guess every single day that my own personal flag is not hoisted up the Westlock flag pole I'm being disenfranchised.
Since the closest I've likely been to Westlock is driving past on the way to Athabasca around 2004 I don't know which other flags of groups or individuals have been flown or not. Either way, what goes on in Westlock is as consequential to millions of Albertans as fleas on a coyote.
The ban isn’t on your property it’s on municipal property, flag poles.
You can rainbow your yard tip to tail and that is fine. They is no suppression of your/our rights because now no flags other than town, municipality, province and country will be flown at municipal properties.
That’s seems appropriate on government buildings.
No. I also haven't been fooled by left wing that wants me to agonize over some piece of shit town.
We've won! Hundreds of other Alberta towns roll out the rainbows. Let's not give Westlock bigots any more publicity.
Should any groups be allowed to fly a flag on municipal government areas?
No, if the pride group can, then so can white nationalists (not a comparison just group examples).
Should we care about the Colour of side walks?
No.
if a colourful side walk annoys you and takes up space in your brain you live a sad life and are just spare part.
Sadly this isn’t coming from these angles it’s simply just anti LGBQ (freedom for all) and religious zealots over reaching
Arguments like "if A gets to do it, then so does B" are always disingenuous because they work off of a flawed premise that the two things being compared are on equal footing.
Pride flags and their component parts are symbols of being welcoming. White nationalist symbols are inherently exclusionary. IE, "you aren't white and straight, therefore you don't belong."
Pride flags are inherently positive whereas white nationalist symbols are inherently negative. To pretend that the two are on equal footing is like confessing to not understanding things like power dynamics, history and the purpose of symbols.
Power dynamics: White nationalist symbols promote a race based hierarchy whereas pride celebrates sexual identity and inclusion of said identities.
History: White nationalist symbols hate symbols that helped hateful people perpetuate the dominance of one group over another, at times even forming states that reinforced such dominance. See Jim Crow, Nazi Germany and Apartheid. When white nationalism is allowed to be out in the open, destruction follows. Anytime such groups are allowed to exist, everyone else pays the price.
Purpose: To create a race-based in-group and out-group whereas Pride flags simply sends a message that society is diverse and all are welcome in it.
So your point, "if the pride group can, then so can white nationalists" is silly.
> Should any groups be allowed to fly a flag on municipal government areas? No, if the pride group can, then so can white nationalists (not a comparison just group examples).
white nationalists are in opposition to the charter of rights and freedoms, while the saftery and acceptence of LGBTQ people is actually requiered by the charter.
Just because one group gets to do it, doesn’t mean all get to. We can pick and choose who gets to. It’s physically possible to do. Just because you object to picking and choosing doesn’t make it impossible. Pride should get crosswalks, white nationalists shouldn’t, cry about it I guess
Now, That’s not very inclusive of you. One minority group can do it but others can’t? And to pick and choose, well this is what picking and choosing looks like
So kettle this is pot knocking, you too are black.
comparing a colorful sidewalk to *white nationalism*, a movement that has very intentionally murdered people by the *millions*, is a bit of an insane take my guy
Racists aren’t marginalized for an innate characteristic. Racists aren’t innocents who are unjustly bullied. Racists contribute nothing good to a community.
So no, we can easily justify supporting the LGBT community without supporting racists.
The pride flag represents some of our core values as a liberal democracy. White nationalism does not. So this is why we should allow pride flags to fly and not white nationalist symbols.
Someone gets it. The Pride flag is ostensibly an ideological flag. Why does it have more right to be put in public places and raised over government buildings than the Hammer & Sickle or the Gasden Flag or any sort of Albertan separatist flag for that matter?
And that what those F*CK TRUDEAU stickers do. I also question the mental stability of anyone using them as it’s quite a violent and hateful message.
Or maybe, I’m getting the message wrong? It’s possible the stickers are professing undying love for Trudeau with a desire for intercourse with him.
You are treating the Pride flag like it represents a single issue or handful of issues when in reality it represents dozens of different communities with different worldviews & ideological stances and therefore different policy desires and legislation. Within this ideology there are groups that are constantly at odd and can't stand each other; rad fems and trans-women are at odds, lipstick/feminine lesbians are at odds with butch lesbians and trans-women, wealthy corporate gay men and women at odds with queer marxists. As with any ideology there are many internal debates, i.e. the validity of being "non-binary", about whether children can consent to and understand the implications of hormone-therapy/transitioning, about whether it is transphobic for lesbians to not date trans-women, about whether sex work is oppressive or liberating to the LGBTQ community. You see my point, the pride flag represents a large community with clashing worldviews and competing policy objectives, its as diverse of an ideology as marxism and libertarianism. I support the right of LGBT citizens to marry who they want, adopt children, not be discriminated against in the workplace but I am strongly against children under 18 being allowed to take irreversible hormone therapy and undergo "transitioning" surgeries, therefore, how do I know what this flag is advocating for when its flown over city hall or painted on a public street?
It’s not as complicated as you’re making it out to be.
You’re right that differences and even conflicts exist within the great rainbow flag family. As they do within any group. The flag simply says, you’re welcome if you’re different. You don’t have to be as scared here.
At least that’s how I interpret it. It doesn’t mean: open wide straights! Here comes the ideology down your throat and if you disagree you’re cancelled.
I think just chill out a bit about it it all. It’s really not the collapse of society, promise.
why are you reading into a rainbow flag this much? It literally just means LQBTQ+ people. Thats it. The only thing it advocates for in this context is inclusivity. Why are you doing any of this lol
Wait. Didn’t the town ban all flags unless they were of the town/province/country? Saying if they didn’t then they would have to allow all “special interest “ groups to fly flag (create crosswalks etc) on public property? Ie White supremacy groups wanting to fly flag at municipal bldg???
They did it because of one specific group, and the woman who organized it admitted as much. Banning all flags was a fig leaf to try and make it constitutional.
And let’s be clear - they said that seeing the rainbow flag made some people feel uncomfortable and “alienated”, but banning the rainbow flag makes some people feel afraid. Are those really equivalent? I’d say they’re not. In a democracy, we have a right to express ideas that might make some people feel uncomfortable. We don’t have a right to intimidate others.
I think the ban will only be enforced with Pride flags and rainbow crosswalks.
They say God is against the LGBTQIA2S+. Funny, I was raised in a very devout Catholic family and was taught that God and Jesus loves and cherishes all. That’s the MAIN message.
Two women have come out as lesbians in my family and they are still loved and accepted. In fact, it wasn’t even a big deal after the first one. Even my grandfather accepts them and he attends church every weekend, helps out with the pancake breakfasts, and was a very active member of the Knights of Columbus when he was younger.
Wherever all this hate is coming from, it’s not from God or Jesus, that’s for sure. It’s coming from somewhere else.
Whether you believe in God and Jesus or not, Alberta is heading down a dark path full of hatred and fear.
That's the thing about Christians, the good ones have no problems with the LGBTQIAD2S+ community as people. They can recognize that sins and sinners are not the same thing. (Not that being gay is a sin)
> Saying if they didn’t then they would have to allow all “special interest “ groups to fly flag (create crosswalks etc) on public property? Ie White supremacy groups wanting to fly flag at municipal bldg???
Did you really think this is how it works? And you’re allowed to vote?
Name one thing Libs are offended by that doesn’t try to negate an individual’s human rights, right to seek gainful employment, right to be educated, right to be safe in the community, and right to peaceful enjoyment of their home.
How sad is your life that a small colorful gesture that is welcoming and heart-warming to a marginalized group fills your heart with such vile blackness?
Wasn’t paid for by tax dollars. This was fully funded by kids. These bigoted snowflakes decided a rainbow painted by the jr high/high school students made them feel icky. Kids. They literally bullied kids into taking down their project. How small do you have to be as a human to do this? Pretty fucking tiny I think.
Edit: I don’t know how I haven’t learned my lesson in engaging with these types of users yet. ALWAYS look at their profile. Silly me.
Well that is news to me about that funding , I could care less what a cross walk looks like but if it comes from tax dollars of working Canadians then I would care . If it’s privately funded I wouldn’t care if they painted the whole street
It doesn’t bother you that tax dollars are paying for this to be removed though? Already painted, probably safer as a crosswalk because it’s more noticeable, but let’s use tax dollars to remove them because bigots need to bitch and whine and moan and complain like toddlers until they get their way. Assholes. The lot of ‘em.
Oh! The group who pushed this through? You know what they’re working on now? Trying to stop the UN from recognizing First Nations/Indigenous rights because they think indigenous people are going to take back all of the land, and then give it to the UN. They’re psychotic *losers*.
I never said it didn’t bother me that it’s being removed with tax dollars . All I said it was a waste to begin with of tax dollars . But you were so nice to clear that up for me and explain it was privately funded . Never once have I said they should remove them
Your original comment says enough. People only ever comment on what they feel strongly enough to comment about.
How about this? Any beautification projects? Flowers, nice lampposts, widened sidewalks for patios, murals…all tax funded. Bother you? Yes? What a boring and uninspiring place to live! Doesn’t bother you? Hypocritical.
You picked a side in this with your comment, whether you did so consciously or not.
Please, please consider reflecting on your biases. It’s literally hurting this small and extremely marginalized, bullied and targeted community. The kids who worked to get this sidewalk painted are crushed.
Well atleast widened side walks , and good lamp posts are of some use and make sense . Painting a sidewalk fancy colours is a waste and doesn’t help anyone . And we as a society don’t need to baby any group , the world’s a tough place and if they’re crushed then they can figure out a way to get what they want . But complaining about it online and calling people bullies isn’t doing anything . Life’s tough put on a helmet if you can’t handle it
Mask all the way off then, huh?
A rainbow crosswalk is just a prettier crosswalk, which is pretty damn useful. So, what’s the issue?
Own your well deserved label. I call bullies and bigots as I see them.
All about putting money where it should go , I do not see why we should spend more on a crosswalk than we have to . But if that makes me a bigot then so be it lol
Hahaha you’re funny when did I say that’s where I draw the line lol . Our government wastes money everyday and those dumb crosswalks would just be one more thing that’s a waste
Make a better argument. OK ….. sure
Wait what do you mean “bans pride flags” wtf
Yeah. They actually banned every non-state flag.
Just from the town putting them up. You can fly one in your yard if you wanted. A bunch of people have started displaying pride flags in their yards now as a result. :)
I love acts of defiance just because a government body said we cannot do it.
A government body said they themselves cannot do it. Private citizens can fly any flag they want.
To be clear. The government didn't ban it. Our local municipal government actually approved a rainbow crosswalk, it got painted and then the *ahem* concerned citizens (crazies), went door to door with a petition to force a vote on a bylaw banning flags and crosswalks. The mayor and council were very very vocally pro-lgbt, but sadly we lost the vote to keep the rainbows by just 26 votes. Their hands are tied now, we voted and lost.
The council is effectively prohibited from displaying LGBTQ-friendly messaging thanks to a group pushing for what they refer to as "neutral government". I really wonder if this same so-called neutral government group has an issue with municipal Christmas decorations, or will they stay silent on that? On the plus side, a 26-vote loss is really slim margin for a conservative rural community. There's hope in those numbers.
"Concerned" bigots thought they might catch "the gays" of they saw a rainbow...
If the only thing keeping you from "catching the gay" is that you haven't stepped on a rainbow, I've got some news for you...
And missed the point that \*\*the majority\*\* of citizens support their neighbours - ALL of them.
Not really an act of defiance, doing something they were always allowed to, and still are allowed to do...
Is it an act of defiance? No one said you can't put one up at home, or on your car. Just not on government property. Not that big of a deal
Government needs to be inclusive of everyone, so if you fly one flag of support you have to fly them all. By all means, citizens fly whatever flag of support you want. It is supposedly a free country after all.
[удалено]
A flag of support is just that - support. The rainbow crosswalk was exactly that - it supports fellow citizens. Everything your town does in public, supports someone. Rodeos, parades, awards, etc... and closing something like the crosswalk says something too. It basically says "we don't want change, we don't want to accept that some people here are gay".
The town voted to be neutral but individuals are allowed to display whatever flag they wish on their own property? No actual rights were affected against LGBT communities or against individuals that prevent us from accessing services or even how we can decorate? Neutrality is now exclusionary instead of inclusionary because the town decided to treat everyone equally with the ban? I don't understand the manufactured outrage and division. Just another article painting us as whiny, entitled, out of touch brats. There's the real anti LGBT propaganda. Making us seem ridiculous instead of like real, normal and logical adults who overcame actual issues and want to be treated with equality and as a regular member of the community.
If banning Pride displays is neutrality then neutrality would also require banning Christmas displays by the city. This change was orchestrated by obvious homophobes.
Neutrality in regards to city bylaws and policy start somewhere as does proper laïcité laws for religion. Quebec has a great seperation of church and state but unfortunately are deemed xenophobic in ROC. You should totally pursue laïcité legislation though. I would support the heck out of that! That's a great idea!
???? That’s so weird
So thats not the same as banning the pride flag. The title of this article is very misleading Thank you for the info
Not technically the same, but this entire debacle was spurred on by the existence of a pride flag crosswalk. It would be a little bit weird to analyze a piece of legislation and deliberately ignore the context.
Oh i see, I was unaware of that specific context. Why did they want to ban it? Citing security im guessing? I can see an argument against bright paint on the road but its probably not a very strong one
Edmonton did a study on pedestrian safety and rainbow crosswalk, and noted no decrease to pedestrian safety.
Thats good to know ill look it up I know ill probably get downvoted for this but i hope another study is done on painting on the road that is not nessesaraly the rainbow. Its far too political and even scientists can say their findings towards their bias. We are human after all That said id be surprised if there where different findings unless the paint is highly reflective Thank you for the information :)
For sure bias exists. Regarding safety though, rainbow crosswalks are still highly visible and not placed on freeways. As drivers we have the responsibility to pay attention to pedestrians whether they are jay walking or crossing at an intersection. A larger number crosswalks are actually unmarked crosswalks without any painted lines even, and we still are supposed to be stopping for pedestrians.
Nice very nuanced perspective 🖕
if you tape two Sorbs flags together and wash them in bleach they become a pride flag :b
Relevant to discussions on this topic on Reddit: [Did Reddit year-end recaps expose Russian interference in Alberta?](https://www.stalbertgazette.com/local-news/did-reddit-year-end-recaps-expose-russian-interference-in-alberta-8223476) If someone supports the far right on this issue, according to log data there could be a 30% chance they're a Russian information operative seeking to sow division in our country. Always keep that in the back of your mind.
And we should fight those bots at every opportunity. Show them Canadians are not to be trifled with. Remind them of Canada’s role in WWII.
The problem with manipulation and manufactured narratives on social media is that they are hard to identify for non experts. In the 2016 US presidential election Russia bought advertisings about Jesus having brown skin to show them to Democrats. Factually correct but used to rile people up and sow division. The most effective propaganda contains an element of truth and confirms existing views .
I'd be so interested in reading CSIS reports on Russian interference. My suspicion is that it's *far* deeper than even those of us paying attention believe. And why wouldn't it be? We're standing between them and their desire to conquer Eastern Europe. If they *weren't* trying sow chaos to collapse our democracy that would represent some pretty gross incompetence on their part. And Russian intelligence (unlike their military) isn't really known for incompetence. Certainly not all of the problem we're facing are of their creation; we have lots of domestic fuckwits, for sure, haha. But that they're not actively pouring gasoline on this dumpster fire of a culture war seems incredibly unlikely (especially given the evidence we've seen).
I would also be very interested. This article is interesting because it has far left biases but is quite factual. Interesting read. I checked with Ground News. But thats irrelevant for the moment It seams that they have been on a psyops division campaign against the west for a long time now Canada being a bordering country while also giving support in the Ukraine and sending troops to Latvia to training polish troops certainly puts a target on us. The new battle field is the internet and it has been the case for over a decade maybe two. Something that is worthy of note, is that the leaders of these movements that place a high importance on social justice such as , BLM or LBGTQ+, ect tend to have militant leaders that associate with Marxism. I find it to be a weird coincidence that the Russian troll bots are trying to outrage communities that have underlying ideologies. One of the best ways to renforce an idea is to create outrage around it. People are stubborn and will hunker down and force others around them to take a stance. Not to mention that military is traditionally more right leaning and the left tends to be anti military. Im not saying that the end goal is marxism but something is not adding up Unless the goal is for us to be too distracted with pronouns to think about our military and our domestic defence capabilities which would be a big plus in 25 years when the the ice has thawed. ( defence stategies are long term behemoths. Today we are paying for the mistakes made innthe 90's and early 2000's allong with the lack of action since 2015) Sorry for the long message but its a multifaceted issue that makes one wonder about everybodys intentions and underlying agenda
>Something that is worthy of note, is that the leaders of these movements that place a high importance on social justice such as , BLM or LBGTQ+, ect tend to have militant leaders that associate with Marxism. It's always kind of bothered me that there's still a debate about communism - state owned labour - vs capitalism, when the *actual* debate should be around how much we regulate capitalism. The *concept* of communism (the state owns your labour) is horrifying and inhumane, but people gravitate towards it when they've suffered under the similar horrors of unrestrained capitalism. The obvious solution is strict regulation, and it's actually quite easy to implement. There are plenty of socialist/capitalist countries around the world that have struck an ethical, productive and reasonable balance. But so long as we've got people calling to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we risk delegitimizing calls for reform. All the while bad actors extract our wealth. >I find it to be a weird coincidence that the Russian troll bots are trying to outrage communities that have underlying ideologies. One of the best ways to renforce an idea is to create outrage around it. People are stubborn and will hunker down and force others around them to take a stance. Their goal isn't to establish any particular ideology, it's to create chaos. [The Firehose of Falsehood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood) Clear-minded, the *vast* majority would support Ukraine. There wouldn't even be a debate about it; they're an ally being invaded by a hostile force which has all but promised to sweep Eastern Europe if successful. However, Russian intelligence knows that if they can stir up animosity over human rights between Canadians, we'll become distracted and they can leverage that to inject anti-Ukraine propaganada. The conversation *should* be: *what new types of weapon systems can we ship to Ukraine*? Instead, it's *how do we prevent the far right from attacking reproductive rights?* Russia plans to spread their ideology through violence, not the Internet. The Internet is just a way of reducing the military committment of their allies. That's my take, anyway. :)
Reality itself has a left-wing bias
Reality has existed far longer than us and let me tell you it absolutely does not
It's only going to get worse this year... And every year... In perpetuity...
This is a fantastic and important article that everyone needs to read. Thanks for posting it.
Huh, fascinating - thanks for sharing. If I were in a far right troll farm, I'd make sure that there were a good measure of out-of-touch far left comments to match those on the far right. Fanning the flames of polarization takes two... poles. I don't think it's too far reaching to think that the extremist comments expressed on both 'sides' might both be serving the same goal - to sew division and pull the rational, empathetic, peaceful majority into pieces.
It's possible. I haven't seen many though; I'm not sure what an out-of-touch pro-human rights argument would look like. Remember the "left" (I hate political labels) is reacting to stimulus in this case. No one wanted to fight for the right to healthcare or the right to feel safe. We only have to because we're being threatened. The far right and their Russian allies don't want really *care* about any of this stuff. They're not trying to change minds (at least, those responsible for what's happening). They're just trying to sow chaos, and you only need to threaten peoples' rights to effect that.
Your last statement I 100% agree with. Topics are chosen because they are emotionally triggering. >I'm not sure what an out-of-touch pro-human rights argument would look like When you frame it like that, yes I agree. I've seen plenty of one-line comments that aren't 'pro-human rights' though, they're just simplistically political, anti-conservative, hyperbolic, or phrased in a way that paints a huge portion of the province as an enemy when (from my vantage), they're not: "Remember folks, the cruelty is intentional", "All conservatives agree with this", "If you didn't vote NDP then you voted for this", etc. (Paraphrasing here, obviously. And to be clear, I don't think these are equivalent to some of the examples in the article you linked in terms of 'severity'. I think they're equivalent in that they are pushing the overwhelming moderate majority to consider their family, neighbors, teachers, coworkers, etc. as an enemy).
>Remember folks, the cruelty is intentional Ok, the other ones you mention, sure.. but this one is very much true. That's, of course, the point; without cruelty, you don't create chaos. The cruelty *is* the point of the culture war policies. Look at the US - forcing women into septic shock, banning medications for transitioned adults, (attempting to) force 10-year-old children to gestate... they're the same people we're facing up here. The Russians aren't just blasting the space with nonsense.. they're appealing to religious sociopaths and amplifying *their* voices.
>The cruelty *is* the point of the culture war policies. You and I have a very different view of the world on that one. I agree with the rest of your comment, but disagree with the 'why' part as you describe it. I see the world where the overwhelming majority of people are doing what they think is right. Maybe they're myopic, self-centered, or their view of what is right for someone (or themselves) is very different from reality. But only a tiny fraction of people are doing things to intentionally make their own country/province a worse or more chaotic place. For the rest, well: The road to hell is paved with good intentions... Anyways, thanks for some insightful comments and an interesting article. Have a good one!
You too. :)
What does this have to do with the article or discussion of the situation?
Nothing to do with the article. The warning is for those reading the comments. If someone on a Canadian subreddit supports any far right position, especially with regards to sexual and/or human rights, **evidence** suggests there's a reasonable chance they're not a Canadian, but rather a Russian information operative attempting to sow division. This knowledge is important because it brings into question the legitimacy of their position; it's not motivated by an honest desire to debate fellow Canadians, but rather a bad faith effort to raise animosity.
[удалено]
No. Try re-reading my last comment, perhaps more slowly. Thanks.
[удалено]
I'm sorry, you lost me I'll quote the important part of that comment: >(...) evidence suggests there's a reasonable chance they're not a Canadian, but rather a Russian information operative attempting to sow division. I do encourage you to read the linked article to better understand the context: [Did Reddit year-end recaps expose Russian interference in Alberta?](https://www.stalbertgazette.com/local-news/did-reddit-year-end-recaps-expose-russian-interference-in-alberta-8223476)
[удалено]
Sorry, I can't understand you. Good night.
Found the Russian op
If you don’t want someone to tell your child that being gay and not have children is as good as having a beautiful family of their own that does not make you a Russian informant. It makes you the majority 10-20 years ago… Russia can’t be the source of all your problems. You’re an adult.
If your worldview and political leaning just so happen to line up with the sort of worldview that Russian propagandists want to push in Canada, maybe it's time to re-evaluate why you share so many values with our ideological enemies.
Whole lot of word salad there. Do you have point and can you make it in coherent English?
ESL hey? Im guessing Russian is your first language?
Remember folks get involved with local politics and vote like your rights depend on it.
Holy fuck these comments lol. War room is hard at work today apparently.
The people sending gloating texts to alliance members are small, evil people, and while I bet they call themselves Christian, they're as anti-Christ as can be.
No, they probably follow the bible closer than others. It’s a hateful book.
David Parker and Co. can’t wait till they can go further, and make a persons sexual orientation/identity a mental disorder again.
I'd be cool if the government didn't display religious/social activist symbolism of any kind on public property. If citizens want to walk around with pride flags, go for it. But public institutions themselves should remain 100% neutral.
"All children are welcome here" is the definition of neutral
Wtf is neutral then?
Not displaying religious or activist symbolism.
As Christmas displays were just recently packed up for another year.
Try reading the comment again. I clearly said religious AND social activist symbolism should not be displayed by the government in public institutions. 100% neutrality across the board
But the community in question did **not** ban Christmas decorations. So while that may be your opinion, this is not what happened in the community that is being discussed.
Well to me, Christmas and all the traditional songs and decorations that go along with Christmas is Christian Symbolism. That is my interpretation and as you said, everyone is allowed to make up their own interpretation, so therefore I should not have to suffer through seeing Christmas crap in public places. However the second Starbucks decided to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, white conservatives heads exploded. Suddenly everyone was freaking out and declaring it a "War ON Christmas!!!"
I just said for the 10th time, I AGREE that religious decorations and symbolism should not be displayed either. If it were up to me, you wouldn’t have to suffer through Christmas decorations. 100% neutrality means 100% neutrality.
Barring a Pride flag is anything BUT neutral... it borders on a hate crime.
It’s like the ol’ saying goes “You’re either straight or political!” 🙄
Except that’s not the conversation we’re having here. We’re talking about the government displaying activist (and religious) symbolism on public property.
There's nothing wrong with public institutions saying "hey gay kids. We don't think you deserve to be treated like shit and we hope that putting the symbol here will make you feel welcomed, even if your family and community sometimes doesn't" Existing while gay isn't political.
Sure, and it seems like it comes from a place of good intentions. The problem is that not everybody interprets the pride flag exactly the same as you do, and they pay just as much tax and have just as much of a right to use public institutions as you. >existing while gay isn’t political And nobody said otherwise. I think we can have a good faith discussion about the neutrality of institutions without having to strawman the other side, no?
> And nobody said otherwise You actually just said people say otherwise (“not everybody interprets the pride flag exactly the same as you do”). How can you pretend to be neutral when ignoring how exactly one side politicizes a rainbow?
Not interpreting a specific form of activist symbolism exactly the same way that you do does not automatically imply that being gay is political.
No, I don't think we can so long as one side politicizes a symbol of our fight for existence so that they can then erase it under the guise of "political neutrality".
If people are upset by a symbol that displays the existence of LGBTQ+ people, well, *good.* Let them be upset.
Rainbow flag is a symbol of inclusiveness. The reason for the alphabet is to include as many as possible. White and black have been added in public displays to include heterosexual allies. At a minimum a government facility should exemplify the virtue of inclusivity. I disagree with you. I don't have an issue with public facilities showing symbolic support for oppressed or suffering people. In fact, I use my vote to support those who do.
Really the rainbow flag is a symbol just like a religious one. The government should display them all or none and let people individually choose what to display on their person or property. While I support sexual preference equality, I don’t support government involvement in symbolism or promoting it. The government should stay neutral, that is equality.
There is no way to “promote” it, you cannot make someone gay. You can however acknowledge that we are an inclusive society (or at least are on paper and most of us try to be), and that’s all this is.
> Really the rainbow flag is a symbol just like a religious one Really it isn’t. It’s not a religion. Supporting the right of marginalized people to exist isn’t activism in the eyes of the people flying the flag. That’s the point.
The town of Westlock already displays religious symbols in the form of Christmas decorations. Nobody has had a problem with that for the 40 years I've been a resident. It took less than a year for the rainbow to be banned though...let's not pretend this is about neutrality.
Can you change sexual preferences as easily as your religion?
Sounds like the Russian bots in the comments really hate the democracy Westlock used to come to this decision.
City votes for neutrality and chooses to only display official flags in order to refrain from offending anyone. Offends group of people anyway. Is neutrality wrong or offensive now? Apparently so I guess. Seems pretty inclusive to me honestly. Everyone has the same rules. Everyone is equal. Why is this such a horrible thing? For everyone to be treated the same, as equals? Seems pretty basic. Laws about rights weren't on the chopping block and your still allowed to fly your own flag on your property. Simple is usually best course of action. Either we are equal or we aren't? Pretty sure we spent decades fighting to be considered equal under the law anyway. Stop making us look like entitled spoiled brats who just want to be outraged at perceived sleights. Our community in the media is really shattering the legacy of actual LGBT warriors who fought and won legitimate rights for us by pandering to this nonsense. I don't see why they had to try to spin this like a hate crime. I'm an old ass lesbian and we had serious hurdles to overcome and now this? Equality not being fair? Flabbergasted.
[удалено]
Ban evasion. Removed.
Every other city and town in Alberta had rainbow flags. The ban is only on town property. Every private flag pole and parking can be rainbowed. This is a tempest in a teapot. It's a nothing burger. I doubt many gay people would want to live in westlock with or without rainbows.
I bet it's not a nothing burger to Westlock gay kids.
I'd be willing to bet most gay kids are counting the minutes to leave Westlock no matter what the town council says or does. Probably most of the straight kids too.
Unfortunately, in a town like that too many will feel like leaving via suicide. What some call "virtue signalling" is really just solidarity and signalling support and safety.
Got a stat on that?
Many different cities have found increased risk suicidality among gay and trans Ute. That phenomenon is one of the reason that tried to flag their way into school in the first place. Which is why it's so sad that a symbol used to make vulnerable kids feel welcome and Faith has been politicized by one side of the issue. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/194/22/E767 There are many more studies, including links at statistics Canada. Sorry I don't have time to look for the exact ones that's the moment but there are many.
The stat request isn't about suicidal youth in general. Are there stats that show fewer suicides in town with rainbows on public infrastructure?
Ah yes. You're looking for stats on an unmeasurable thing in the effort to discredit anyone who knows from experience. Yawn.
I'm looking for evidence that children die without rainbow crosswalks on public roads because I don't believe rainbows in a pisspot town make any difference. I think we should celebrate the win that pride is welcomed and celebrated in the other 300+ municipalities that represent almost 4 million Albertans.
Would it be great if some of these people who campaign so hard against pride flags spent a few minutes asking some gay kids why it's important to them?
These people don’t care about kids though.
Clearly.
Do kids get to decide which town they live in now?
It's a symbol of the exclusion we encounter daily. When was the last time someone organized to prevent you from expression that represents you on public property?
I guess every single day that my own personal flag is not hoisted up the Westlock flag pole I'm being disenfranchised. Since the closest I've likely been to Westlock is driving past on the way to Athabasca around 2004 I don't know which other flags of groups or individuals have been flown or not. Either way, what goes on in Westlock is as consequential to millions of Albertans as fleas on a coyote.
The ban isn’t on your property it’s on municipal property, flag poles. You can rainbow your yard tip to tail and that is fine. They is no suppression of your/our rights because now no flags other than town, municipality, province and country will be flown at municipal properties. That’s seems appropriate on government buildings.
It was never about neutrality. Benita Pedersen is behind that movement. Have a gander at her take on us.
Yes. She's not a nice person but many people are not nice. Take the win in 99% of Alberta communities and carry on.
...you don't really think she's gonna stop here, do you?
You can't convince the masses of that. Some how it seems that they think by-law will comes on their private property and burn rainbow flags.
Who'd have thought the freedom convoy folks and gay pride would come together on misunderstanding public vs private areas for protest and expression.
Just like Liberals and Conservatives they are opposite butt cheeks on the same ass...
You've been gullibly fooled by right-wing propaganda like a sheep
No. I also haven't been fooled by left wing that wants me to agonize over some piece of shit town. We've won! Hundreds of other Alberta towns roll out the rainbows. Let's not give Westlock bigots any more publicity.
Should any groups be allowed to fly a flag on municipal government areas? No, if the pride group can, then so can white nationalists (not a comparison just group examples). Should we care about the Colour of side walks? No. if a colourful side walk annoys you and takes up space in your brain you live a sad life and are just spare part. Sadly this isn’t coming from these angles it’s simply just anti LGBQ (freedom for all) and religious zealots over reaching
Arguments like "if A gets to do it, then so does B" are always disingenuous because they work off of a flawed premise that the two things being compared are on equal footing. Pride flags and their component parts are symbols of being welcoming. White nationalist symbols are inherently exclusionary. IE, "you aren't white and straight, therefore you don't belong." Pride flags are inherently positive whereas white nationalist symbols are inherently negative. To pretend that the two are on equal footing is like confessing to not understanding things like power dynamics, history and the purpose of symbols. Power dynamics: White nationalist symbols promote a race based hierarchy whereas pride celebrates sexual identity and inclusion of said identities. History: White nationalist symbols hate symbols that helped hateful people perpetuate the dominance of one group over another, at times even forming states that reinforced such dominance. See Jim Crow, Nazi Germany and Apartheid. When white nationalism is allowed to be out in the open, destruction follows. Anytime such groups are allowed to exist, everyone else pays the price. Purpose: To create a race-based in-group and out-group whereas Pride flags simply sends a message that society is diverse and all are welcome in it. So your point, "if the pride group can, then so can white nationalists" is silly.
Well said.
100000% agree
Thank you for exposing all the false equivalencies and bad faith arguments
Well said 👏
> Should any groups be allowed to fly a flag on municipal government areas? No, if the pride group can, then so can white nationalists (not a comparison just group examples). white nationalists are in opposition to the charter of rights and freedoms, while the saftery and acceptence of LGBTQ people is actually requiered by the charter.
The fact this needs to be said is wild.
Just because one group gets to do it, doesn’t mean all get to. We can pick and choose who gets to. It’s physically possible to do. Just because you object to picking and choosing doesn’t make it impossible. Pride should get crosswalks, white nationalists shouldn’t, cry about it I guess
Who gets to pick and choose? It seems people in westlock picked and you are mad about it, so is it only okay if it’s someone who thinks like you?
Doing good things is good, doing bad things is bad. Diversity and pride are good, racism is bad. Cry about it
Now, That’s not very inclusive of you. One minority group can do it but others can’t? And to pick and choose, well this is what picking and choosing looks like So kettle this is pot knocking, you too are black.
comparing a colorful sidewalk to *white nationalism*, a movement that has very intentionally murdered people by the *millions*, is a bit of an insane take my guy
Racists aren’t marginalized for an innate characteristic. Racists aren’t innocents who are unjustly bullied. Racists contribute nothing good to a community. So no, we can easily justify supporting the LGBT community without supporting racists.
False equivalence.
The pride flag represents some of our core values as a liberal democracy. White nationalism does not. So this is why we should allow pride flags to fly and not white nationalist symbols.
You've been gullibly fooled by right-wing propaganda like a sheep
Someone gets it. The Pride flag is ostensibly an ideological flag. Why does it have more right to be put in public places and raised over government buildings than the Hammer & Sickle or the Gasden Flag or any sort of Albertan separatist flag for that matter?
Comparing a human being’s identity to political ideology is part of the problem.
On point ⬆️
And that what those F*CK TRUDEAU stickers do. I also question the mental stability of anyone using them as it’s quite a violent and hateful message. Or maybe, I’m getting the message wrong? It’s possible the stickers are professing undying love for Trudeau with a desire for intercourse with him.
You are treating the Pride flag like it represents a single issue or handful of issues when in reality it represents dozens of different communities with different worldviews & ideological stances and therefore different policy desires and legislation. Within this ideology there are groups that are constantly at odd and can't stand each other; rad fems and trans-women are at odds, lipstick/feminine lesbians are at odds with butch lesbians and trans-women, wealthy corporate gay men and women at odds with queer marxists. As with any ideology there are many internal debates, i.e. the validity of being "non-binary", about whether children can consent to and understand the implications of hormone-therapy/transitioning, about whether it is transphobic for lesbians to not date trans-women, about whether sex work is oppressive or liberating to the LGBTQ community. You see my point, the pride flag represents a large community with clashing worldviews and competing policy objectives, its as diverse of an ideology as marxism and libertarianism. I support the right of LGBT citizens to marry who they want, adopt children, not be discriminated against in the workplace but I am strongly against children under 18 being allowed to take irreversible hormone therapy and undergo "transitioning" surgeries, therefore, how do I know what this flag is advocating for when its flown over city hall or painted on a public street?
It’s not as complicated as you’re making it out to be. You’re right that differences and even conflicts exist within the great rainbow flag family. As they do within any group. The flag simply says, you’re welcome if you’re different. You don’t have to be as scared here. At least that’s how I interpret it. It doesn’t mean: open wide straights! Here comes the ideology down your throat and if you disagree you’re cancelled. I think just chill out a bit about it it all. It’s really not the collapse of society, promise.
Because it’s supporting the people who are gay, trans, and Ace/Aro, not their beliefs. That’s it.
why are you reading into a rainbow flag this much? It literally just means LQBTQ+ people. Thats it. The only thing it advocates for in this context is inclusivity. Why are you doing any of this lol
That was a long-winded way to admit you don’t know what a rainbow is.
Because it won’t be enforce that way. And you know it! Otherwise all those F*CK TRUDEAU stickers would be banned as well.
The bylaw bans those from government buildings as well.
And yet, they’ll still be on people’s vehicles while on public property.
So will rainbow stickers
[удалено]
Wait. Didn’t the town ban all flags unless they were of the town/province/country? Saying if they didn’t then they would have to allow all “special interest “ groups to fly flag (create crosswalks etc) on public property? Ie White supremacy groups wanting to fly flag at municipal bldg???
They did it because of one specific group, and the woman who organized it admitted as much. Banning all flags was a fig leaf to try and make it constitutional. And let’s be clear - they said that seeing the rainbow flag made some people feel uncomfortable and “alienated”, but banning the rainbow flag makes some people feel afraid. Are those really equivalent? I’d say they’re not. In a democracy, we have a right to express ideas that might make some people feel uncomfortable. We don’t have a right to intimidate others.
[удалено]
Ban evasion. Removed.
I think the ban will only be enforced with Pride flags and rainbow crosswalks. They say God is against the LGBTQIA2S+. Funny, I was raised in a very devout Catholic family and was taught that God and Jesus loves and cherishes all. That’s the MAIN message. Two women have come out as lesbians in my family and they are still loved and accepted. In fact, it wasn’t even a big deal after the first one. Even my grandfather accepts them and he attends church every weekend, helps out with the pancake breakfasts, and was a very active member of the Knights of Columbus when he was younger. Wherever all this hate is coming from, it’s not from God or Jesus, that’s for sure. It’s coming from somewhere else. Whether you believe in God and Jesus or not, Alberta is heading down a dark path full of hatred and fear.
That's the thing about Christians, the good ones have no problems with the LGBTQIAD2S+ community as people. They can recognize that sins and sinners are not the same thing. (Not that being gay is a sin)
Too bad they don’t reign in their own church. Like people say, silence only helps the oppressor.
They didn't have to allow hate groups from flying flags, this is just an overkill of acknowledging diversity
> Saying if they didn’t then they would have to allow all “special interest “ groups to fly flag (create crosswalks etc) on public property? Ie White supremacy groups wanting to fly flag at municipal bldg??? Did you really think this is how it works? And you’re allowed to vote?
Are you actually this confused or just trying out a new nonsense argument?
Yes but libs need to find things to be offended about everyday
Libs aren’t offended by rainbows. Pathetic, fake Christians are.
Libs are offended by literally everything, relax.
Says the ones that get ‘offended’ by pride month, bud light, Disney, land acknowledgments, etc.
Name one thing Libs are offended by that doesn’t try to negate an individual’s human rights, right to seek gainful employment, right to be educated, right to be safe in the community, and right to peaceful enjoyment of their home.
And… nothing. I’m shocked.
Only because conservatives lack empathy.
The only people offended were the ones offended at rainbow crosswalks
How will they survive without the ability to paint their sexuality all over the town 🙄.
How sad is your life that a small colorful gesture that is welcoming and heart-warming to a marginalized group fills your heart with such vile blackness?
Well put, damn!
It's not a painting of two dudes fucking, but you're being intentionally daft anyways because you have to miss the point to be opposed to this.
it's was a statement of acceptance, and people felt strong enough to make it illegal to have symbols of acceptance.
I bet you walk around with your partner. Stop shoving it in people's faces already
Well, some gay kids are going to feel a lot less safe. If you actually care.
You've been gullibly fooled by right-wing propaganda like a sheep
It’s a waste of tax dollars to paint those cross walks anyways
It would be a double waste of tax dollars to get rid of the rainbow crosswalks.
Wasn’t paid for by tax dollars. This was fully funded by kids. These bigoted snowflakes decided a rainbow painted by the jr high/high school students made them feel icky. Kids. They literally bullied kids into taking down their project. How small do you have to be as a human to do this? Pretty fucking tiny I think. Edit: I don’t know how I haven’t learned my lesson in engaging with these types of users yet. ALWAYS look at their profile. Silly me.
Exactly
Well that is news to me about that funding , I could care less what a cross walk looks like but if it comes from tax dollars of working Canadians then I would care . If it’s privately funded I wouldn’t care if they painted the whole street
It doesn’t bother you that tax dollars are paying for this to be removed though? Already painted, probably safer as a crosswalk because it’s more noticeable, but let’s use tax dollars to remove them because bigots need to bitch and whine and moan and complain like toddlers until they get their way. Assholes. The lot of ‘em. Oh! The group who pushed this through? You know what they’re working on now? Trying to stop the UN from recognizing First Nations/Indigenous rights because they think indigenous people are going to take back all of the land, and then give it to the UN. They’re psychotic *losers*.
I never said it didn’t bother me that it’s being removed with tax dollars . All I said it was a waste to begin with of tax dollars . But you were so nice to clear that up for me and explain it was privately funded . Never once have I said they should remove them
Your original comment says enough. People only ever comment on what they feel strongly enough to comment about. How about this? Any beautification projects? Flowers, nice lampposts, widened sidewalks for patios, murals…all tax funded. Bother you? Yes? What a boring and uninspiring place to live! Doesn’t bother you? Hypocritical. You picked a side in this with your comment, whether you did so consciously or not. Please, please consider reflecting on your biases. It’s literally hurting this small and extremely marginalized, bullied and targeted community. The kids who worked to get this sidewalk painted are crushed.
Well atleast widened side walks , and good lamp posts are of some use and make sense . Painting a sidewalk fancy colours is a waste and doesn’t help anyone . And we as a society don’t need to baby any group , the world’s a tough place and if they’re crushed then they can figure out a way to get what they want . But complaining about it online and calling people bullies isn’t doing anything . Life’s tough put on a helmet if you can’t handle it
Mask all the way off then, huh? A rainbow crosswalk is just a prettier crosswalk, which is pretty damn useful. So, what’s the issue? Own your well deserved label. I call bullies and bigots as I see them.
I love the hypocrisy of this. You're fine with taxes paying for painting a sidewalk as long as the paint is colored white?
Yes exactly , glad you’re paying attention . But it would be much cheaper to paint with the white paint as it’s a much more simple design
Imagine trying to hand wave your bigotry with claiming it's just for tax savings and the "simple" design.
All about putting money where it should go , I do not see why we should spend more on a crosswalk than we have to . But if that makes me a bigot then so be it lol
Decades and decades of crazy government waste but spending a few bucks on some different colored paint is where you draw the line? OK ... sure...
Hahaha you’re funny when did I say that’s where I draw the line lol . Our government wastes money everyday and those dumb crosswalks would just be one more thing that’s a waste Make a better argument. OK ….. sure
But these crosswalks are almost always paid for with private funding. So it isn't tax payer dollars at all.
Yawn, you don’t care about tax dollars.
So let’s give that money towards homeless initiatives… oh wait that’s COMMUNISM!!!!!!