|
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Can you please outline these bylaws? I can't find anything about them anywhere. |
legal info can be accessed by anyone in the public .. but here's some interesting reading material that i once dug up back in the day ..
| quote: |
Originally posted by Klubmasta Will
Originally posted by Evil Dynovac
The second one was a joke. The legislation was already passed and in full effect. The scene was already in pieces and was hiding out in the clubs. The energy wasn't there. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that nothing would change as a result.
hey darryl, you know i respect you, but that is a very mis-informed statement.
with the first iDance, we were fighting something very concrete and easy to see. there was a municpal by-law that prohibited raves on city-owned properties and we wanted to abolish the by-law (not only because of the by-law itself, but because it potentially opened the floodgates to other, harsher legislation). iDance 2000 was a success as it resulted in the by-law being overturned by an overwhelming majority vote of 50-3. many toronto news reporters called it one of the biggest city council "flip-flops" of all time.
with the second iDance, it was harder to see what we were fighting unless you really took the time to watch our media interviews and to read our statements leading up to the event. in the year leading up to iDance 2001, the 'powers that be' (i.e. the police and certain city officials) decided that, since they could not legally stop these events from happening (i.e. because they tried and failed), they would stop the events by other means.
they tried pricing promoters out of business by requiring absolutely ridiculous numbers of pay-duty police officers. they put improper pressure on venue owners, at times threatening to revoke liquor licences, causing some owners to cancel events (eg. the docks, the liquid adrenaline at the water park, etc.). they showed up at WEMF 2001 with an injunction based entirely on "profile-type" evidence in an attempt to stop the event from happening. they even waited until the very last minute to get the injunction, claiming exigent circumstances, so that the promoters would be unable to properly dispute the injunction. ultimately, they failed to stop WEMF 2001, but certainty not for lack of trying.
these are all examples of things that the authorities were doing to stop events. the actions were unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights. they did it because they thought no one would ever notice or care.
THAT is what iDance 2001 was fighting. by drawing the attention of the media, the public and certain *good* politicians to the civil rights violations being committed, we hoped to change policy. if the police knew that their actions would end up in large numbers of harsh newspaper articles, maybe they would think long and hard before doing something improper.
did we succeed? it's hard to say because, like i said, there is no concrete way to measure the success like there was in 2000. but you know what? the police never tried to get an injunction like that again. and i have not heard of a single incident of the police threatening to revoke any venue owner's liquor licence since then.
so you decide.
Last edited by Klubmasta Will on 07-31-2003 at 01:04 PM
ps. we did not do another iDance because of lack of money. with the recession, companies are not throwing around big sponsorship dollars like they were before. also, as a result of 9-11, the insurance quote for the event went through the roof. (rising insurance costs almost killed gay pride; the politicians had to step in to resolve the insurance difficulties.)
Originally posted by Evil Dynovac
I stand by what I said originally because most of it is personal opinion. Said again, the second iDance was a shadow of its former self - not by virtue of the event itself - but because the pay duty proviso was already in full effect and the rally wasn't going to stop it. Everyone there knew it. With its spirit and purpose rendered impotent, iDance became a social event and not a protest. Actually, in retrospect it wasn't only a social event, it was also a wake.
i disagree with almost everything you wrote.
it is absolutely ridiculous to say that an event like this was a failure or, as you called it, "a joke", because it did not single-handedly fix the police problem.
by that standard, the first gay pride parade must have been a joke to you because it did not single-handedly erase all prejudice against gays. sorry, darryl, but give me a fucking break.
the purpose of the iDance events was to raise awareness of improper things that were being done by the authorities. true, the event did not single-handedly cure the police problem but it was a big step in the right direction (see previous post about the threats and injunctions that stopped) and, perhaps more importantly, it was a demonstration of political/media strength.
the only distateful thing i remember about iDance 2001 was having to deal with emails and complaints from people who had tons of criticisms but did not have the conviction to actually do some of the things they thought should be done.
Last edited by Klubmasta Will on 07-31-2003 at 03:06 PM
quote:Originally posted by Evil Dynovac
Will, the difference between Gay Pride and iDance is that Pride somehow found a way to carry on year after year while iDance has gone the way of the rave scene it sought to create awareness for.
well, it's easier to get sponsorship dollars when (i) you've got politicians and big business in your corner, (ii) you have full-time *paid* organizers instead of volunteers doing all the work in their spare time and (iii) the issue is gay/lesbian rights (which is, of course, a more important and media-sexy issue than the right to party).
that being said, the skyrocketing insurance rates that killed iDance almost killed gay pride this last year. according to the papers, the insurance issues *would* have killed pride if it wasn't for the intervention of city and provincial politicians.
quote:From what I understand the administration of the second iDance became very political what with the Party People Project and TRIP and all.
we had a difference of opinion with a few members of the PPP - which someone dragged onto the cover of now magazine (who also had a bone to pick because we chose EYE as a sponsor). i will not go into details because, frankly, it's not worth it, but it got downright ridiculous at one point. (if you ever want to hear our side, i'll tell you over a beer some time.)
it is probably worth mentioning that victoria shen (PPP founder) was our stage manager, so she obviously did not have an issue with us, and that, after the event, we received a number of apology emails from some of the PPP members that were involved, including (if memory serves) the person who was behind the now magazine cover story that bashed us.
we never had any problem with TRIP. sandy watters spoke at both iDance events.
|
it's all here:
http://www.tribemagazine.com/board/...25&pagenumber=1
___________________
Palm Trees > Pine Trees , Sand > Snow
|
remeber, dont drive past the school bus if the lights are flashing.
I do agree that if they took away those dumb by-laws here then you'd see a resurgence of the PROPER parties here...
