Firstly, I've been promising a post on South Ossetia and a large one will be coming later this evening, so look out for that.
Richard Adam Smith has an article on CiF attacking Boris for removing city funding from the Soho Pride festival, and other like "community" festivals in London. I fully support Boris on this. Smith demonstrates a type of pernicious logic which I can't stand when people talk about LGBT or any other "community". We are all individuals, we may wish to organise ourselves at different times into communities, but our relationship with the State or in this case the City should be based on the principle of individuality. Why should a gay, or any other type of so-called "community" be confered special treatment, in this example in the way of funding? If you want a festival celebrating something, then wonderful, have a great time, advertise it, and pay for it.
There is no reason that the tax payer should be picking up the bill.
Smith attacks Boris for quietly scrapping the gay games, one of Ken's brain children. Why does there need to be a gay games? Gay people are just like anyone else and don't need their own special event. How patronising. How pointless. Smith says Boris' decision is an affront to the "community". It is an affront to the so-called community leaders, often self elected, but not to the individual. For once, well done Boris.
I realise that many of you may find my position here offensive, so please comment, but keep the abuse to a minimum please.
Monday, 11 August 2008
Boris, gays, and the idea of the individual
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Spot on. My only abuse concerns the number of full stops at the end of questions that should, I feel, instead be completed with question marks.
Also, as a more constructive point, I seem to remember that Ken funded the "20th Anniversary of Chris Smith Coming Out" party with taxpayers' money - this was, of course, the event after which he accused a Jewish journalist of being "just like a concentration camp guard".
I wonder if anyone remotely liberal will ever stand for mayor of London. There's probably in blog post in that somewhere.
I don't particularly find your position offensive.
However, I don't think that a position of "Councils shouldn't fund community activities" is a particularly sound one.
Most councils have funds available for grants for organsiations/activities which provide a community benefit. and that Community benefit is usually defined pretty loosely.
For example my cricket club has had council grants for new equipment on a few occasions. To the vast majority of the council tax paying population there is no benefit from that grant per-se. However when you add all the grants together there is a much more marked effect.
The issue is that any grants process should be open and democratic but I don't think it should be done away with.
Julian, I've corrected a couple of question mark related errors.
I actually sort of support Ken over the concentration camp guard comments.
Hywel, whilst its lovely that you benefited from council cash, why couldn't your team pay for it yourselves. Why should other (admittedly foolish) non-cricketing tax payers have to pay. If its open and democratic then it helps pandering to different groups. £100 quid here will sure up the cricketing vote, £100 there will sure up the Mariah Carey fan club vote etc. What an absurd way to redistribute.
I agree.
There is too much of the attitude that government is somehow the guardian of community. In reality the opposite is true.
In my experience in a community association (and looking into the history of the association), the local council expanded its powers over the years and increasingly sought to drive out the community association. This seemed to be because it was not under the control of the council and didn't receive any funds.
It also didn't adhere to the council's view of community (in other words it was a voluntary association of diverse groups which politicians have little time for).
Other groups faced similar problems, they sought to act outside the local council and found themselves obstructed.
Government should not be funding any community events (or any arts and culture). Doing so hinders the development of communities and the arts.
This is part of the cycle of dependency government introduces. It taxes us and distorts society so much that people become dependent upon government to give back to them what is rightfully theirs.
Post a Comment