You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2025.
“A celebration of diversity that silences certain voices… is not inclusive—it is ideologically selective.”
The Montreal Pride Parade’s decision to exclude Jewish organizations like Ga’ava and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) reveals the brittle nature of contemporary inclusion. Organizers explained that the festival’s board had “made the decision to deny participation in the Pride Parade to organizations spreading hateful discourse”—widely interpreted as targeting groups perceived to hold Zionist views amid the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (National Post). Yet this rationale exposes a contradiction: a celebration of diversity that silences certain voices based on political affiliation is not inclusive—it is ideologically selective. True inclusion doesn’t retreat under pressure or disqualify those with unpopular views; it endures in the face of discomfort. By barring these organizations, Montreal Pride signals that its version of inclusion functions not as a principle, but as a privilege granted only to those aligned with a narrow ideological consensus.
Considering the Organizers’ Perspective
It’s worth acknowledging why the organizers might have made this decision. They could argue that pro-Israel groups might provoke protests or distress among participants, given the polarized nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, without specific, credible threats, this rationale appears more like a preemptive strike against ideological discomfort than a genuine safety measure. Pride has weathered controversy before—its history is one of defiance in the face of societal pushback. To retreat now suggests a prioritization of ideological purity over inclusivity.
Safety as a Pretext for Exclusion
Invoking “physical and mental safety” may appear commendable, but applying it to justify excluding Ga’ava—a Montreal-based LGBTQ+ Jewish organization—and CIJA appears unfounded in concrete threats. Ga’ava’s president characterized the exclusion as “based on flimsy, politically motivated reasons decided behind closed doors under pressure from groups that hate Jews, deny Israel’s existence, and whose members celebrated the atrocities of October 7, 2023” (i24NEWS). Who gets to determine what’s safe? In this case, the organizers prioritized avoiding discomfort among critics of Zionist expression over the dignity of those excluded. This risks prioritizing ideological comfort over genuine safety concerns.
According to CIJA’s director of strategic communications, Julien Corona, the decision represents “a dark day for the LGBTQ+ movement here in Quebec but also in all of Canada” (National Post).
The Perils of Moral Absolutism
Montreal Pride’s actions illustrate how moral certainty, when unchecked, can corrupt even the most noble ideals. By conflating the participation of Jewish organizations with “hateful discourse,” organizers implicitly deemed dissenting political views as unacceptable, suggesting their perspective is immune from challenge (i24NEWS). But in reducing disagreement to danger, they betray their own professed values of inclusion and pluralism. What remains is not a broad tent of solidarity, but a gated enclave of ideological approval.
This episode fits into a broader pattern: similar exclusions have occurred in other Pride contexts—Toronto, Chicago, Washington DC—involving Jewish symbols or groups linked to Israel/Palestine debates (Wikipedia). By excluding Ga’ava and CIJA, Montreal Pride reinforces a troubling trend: replacing complexity of identity with a simplistic tribal test.
Moreover, this isn’t the first time a social movement has been fractured by ideological litmus tests. The feminist movement, for example, has seen bitter divisions over issues like sex work and transgender rights, with some factions excluding others based on perceived ideological impurity. Similarly, the civil rights movement grappled with tensions between integrationist and separatist ideologies. In each case, moral certainty led to splintering rather than solidarity. Montreal Pride risks a similar fate if it continues down this path.
A Forward-Looking Conclusion
If Pride movements hope to sustain moral legitimacy and relevance, they must resist equating disagreement with harm. Exclusion based on political affiliation not only wounds the excluded but weakens the movement itself. Pride must recommit to its radical roots—embracing all marginalized voices, even those that spark debate—or risk losing its soul. The true test of inclusion isn’t welcoming those who agree with us; it’s extending that welcome to those who challenge us. Only then can Pride fulfill its promise as a beacon of diversity and defiance.
Works Cited
- Amador, Marisela. “Montreal Pride excludes Jewish LGBTQ+ group, citing ‘hateful discourse’.” CTV News, July 31, 2025. Link
- Corona, Julien. Quoted in “‘A dark day for the LGBTQ movement’: Montreal Pride Parade organizers bar Jewish groups from march.” National Post, August 1, 2025. Link
- “Montreal’s Pride Parade bans 2 Jewish groups.” i24NEWS, July 31, 2025. Link
- “Pride parade.” Wikipedia. Link
It is Will that makes the world turn.
I am writing this open letter to you in my capacity as Executive Director of the Free Speech Union of Canada. The FSUC is a non-partisan, mass-membership, non-profit organisation that defends the expressive rights of its members and campaigns for free speech more widely.
It was disappointing to see Parks Canada cancel the upcoming performance by Christian musician Sean Feucht, and for other municipalities to follow suit. This appears to be based solely on the fact that some members of the community do not like this performer’s views. According to CBC, “Feucht, who unsuccessfully ran for U.S. congress as a Republican in 2020, is also a missionary and an author who has spoken out against the 2SLGBTQ+ community, abortion rights and critical race theory on his website.” There were also references to him being part of the “MAGA” movement.
The FSUC does not endorse the views of Mr. Feucht, nor do we advocate for particular points of view. We do believe strongly that, unless laws are being broken (as opposed to some people claiming to be offended), it is not for public venues to decide which views people are allowed to hear.
His cancellation by your various institutions appears to have been the result of public pressure from a group of “concerned citizens” who have forgotten that they live in a country that is founded on liberal principles, such as freedom of expression. Parks Canada’s immediate caving to this pressure has only emboldened the mob, which has now successfully brought pressure to bear on the municipalities of Charlottetown, Moncton and Quebec City.
Citizens of a free society, as Canada is, have a right to hear as much as the speaker has the right to express. Are we so censorious and fragile in this country that we cannot tolerate someone with non-progressive views expressing themselves to those who want to hear them? Why should those who enjoy his concerts not be able to attend? Surely, the answer to the “concerned citizens” who were up in arms about this was to say, “If you don’t like what he says, don’t buy a ticket.”
Liberal Member of Parliament Shannon Miedema, who initially applied pressure to Parks Canada, wrote, according to CBC, that, “I have the utmost respect for the value of free speech, I do not believe this event aligns with Parks Canada’s core values of respect for people, equity, diversity and inclusion, or integrity.”
Once again, we see free speech (paid an Orwellian form of lip-service here) trumped by some vague conflict with “equity, diversity and inclusion.” Trotting out this formulaic refrain suggests that only “progressive” expression will be tolerated at government venues, which is an arbitrary limit on free speech. Public entities have an obligation to uphold the constitutional right to freedom of expression generally—for all Canadians—which is a central tenet of a free and democratic society.
Perhaps you do not appreciate the heritage and importance of freedom of expression. As our Supreme Court of Canada articulated, “Freedom of expression is not, however, a creature of the Charter. It is one of the fundamental concepts that has formed the basis for the historical development of the political, social and educational institutions of western society. Representative democracy, as we know it today, which is in great part the product of free expression and discussion of varying ideas, depends upon its maintenance and protection.”1
And some years later, the Supreme Court elaborated that freedom of expression “was entrenched in our Constitution […] so as to ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of the heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful, or contrary to the mainstream.”2 The Charter describes this protection as fundamental “because in a free and democratic society” such as Canada, “we prize a diversity of ideas and opinions for their inherent value both to the community and individual.”3
Some people are not going to like that. These individuals disparage dialogue and the principle of challenging ideas with better ideas—not with force or censorship. They will shout down and censor speakers, and even threaten protests, destruction and violence to prevent the constitutional right of others to listen and engage in the marketplace of ideas. You do not have to give in to them, and you should not do so.
Charlottetown initially resisted the mob, stating on July 22 that “From a legal standpoint we are limited in restricting access to public spaces,” the statement on social media said. “The city wishes to be clear in its support of the 2SLGBTQ+ community. If there are any opinions or statements expressed by any performer to the contrary, they are not the views of the city.”
That was a reasonable statement.
That of Charlottetown MP Sean Casey was not: “While I fully respect the right to freedom of expression, I do not believe this event reflects the values of inclusivity and respect that define the City of Charlottetown or the Government of Canada,” Casey wrote in a Facebook post.
A day later, Charlottetown caved to the pressure as well. “After consultation with Charlottetown Police Services, the City of Charlottetown has notified the organizer… that their permit has been revoked due to evolving public safety and security concerns,” the city said in a news release Wednesday afternoon. “This review included a conversation with one of the counter event organizers, as well as a review of social media comments, some of which included threatening language and indications there could be damage to property and equipment.”
They do not say who is proposing to damage the equipment, but if it is the “hecklers” trying to shut down Feucht, the City should be thinking hard about the effects of giving in to the mob. All someone has to do is threaten violence, and they get their way.
Similarly, in Moncton, a permit was withdrawn, “due to evolving safety and security considerations, including confirmation of planned protests, the City has determined that the event poses potential risks to the safety and security of community members, event attendees, and organizers.”
An open letter from various LGBTQ groups (and others), alleged that, “Allowing a group that goes against all principles of diversity, equity and inclusion to perform in a public space, thus creating an atmosphere of fear for marginalized residents, is completely contradictory to the city’s Policy.” This prompted the City to backtrack on its permit, once again giving in to the heckler’s veto.
Most municipalities have hosted Pride events, which some citizens would find controversial, distasteful or offensive, and which sometimes results in displays of nudity or overt sexual behaviour. Yet these events proceed with a stamp of approval and even participation from city officials. Again, the FSUC takes no position on this, except to point out that double standards and arbitrariness are not appropriate in a society based on equal treatment under the law.
Not to be outdone, Quebec City cancelled a concert scheduled in its city yesterday: “The presence of a controversial artist was not mentioned when the contract was signed between ExpoCité and the promoter of the concert planned for the site this Friday,” said François Moisan, Quebec City’s director of public relations.
With upcoming concert dates across the country, it would be a good time to remind the remaining municipalities on the tour of their Charter obligations and the foundational principles that make Canada a free and democratic society. This letter will be posted on our website and social media accounts. Should any of your institutions care to respond, we will post your response. We do hope you will reflect on this letter and take our comments in the spirit in which they are intended. We all want to live in the best country Canada can be, but ushering in authoritarianism and censorship, while crushing our fundamental freedoms, is not the best path forward for anyone.
Sincerely,
Lisa Bildy, JD, BA
Executive Director
The Free Speech Union of Canada
1 RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5 (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 573, at para. 12 https://canlii.ca/t/1ftpc
2 Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927 at 968. [Emphasis added].
3 Ibid. [Emphasis added].
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…