Pride Board statement: Manning "not local," controversy "not our mission"

|
(20)
Bradley Manning: the Internet's not local
GUARDIAN.CO.UK

Here's the official statement just issued by the Pride SF Board about the Bradley Manning grand marshal fiasco, "clarifying" its bizarre rules ("Under longstanding policy, the community grand marshal upon whom the Electoral College votes is defined as 'a local hero (individual) not being a celebrity'"), and directing the electoral college to vote for one of "two, duly qualified nominees for the 2013 Community Grand Marshal: Bebe Sweetbriar and Associate Justice Jim Humes."

(Poor singing drag queen BeBe Sweetbriar -- despite her incredible productivity, even Pride doesn't think she's a celebrity! We still love you, Beebs.)

The statement also engages in a gross bit of condescencion.

"Those that nominated Mr. Manning surely knew that he is not a local, Bay Area community member, and that he should not have been voted on by the Electoral College. His nomination is more appropriately debated and voted on by the public than by a small group, and it could be next year when nominations open.... Taking sides in the controversy concerning Mr. Manning’s conduct is not appropriate for the organization and falls outside its core mission. We apologize to Mr. Manning, knowing that he did not ask to be at the center of a community firestorm, and for any harsh words that may have been said about him."

Because the core mission of Pride, of course, is not to take a side in any controversy ever. Except gays in the military. And whether the Altoids float should come before or after PFLAG. Tell us, SF Pride: does Bud Light taste great, or is it less filling? We'll have to wait until the end of time for an answer.

I'll be asking the Pride Board about this statement tonight at its public meeting (7pm at 30 Pearl St., Fourth Floor). Stay tuned.

 


 

“For the past four decades, SF Pride has stood firmly to advance its mission to educate the world about LGBT issues, commemorate LGBT heritage, celebrate LGBT culture, and liberate LGBT people.  It remains a considerable honor and utmost commitment to engage the community to recognize those persons who have positively advanced the LGBT liberation movement, representing the full spectrum of contributions to advance full equality for all.

Presenting various categories and criteria for annual parade grand marshal nominees offers SF Pride and the community a broad range of opportunities to recognize and honor a diverse range of individuals and organizations for their achievements on behalf of LGBT people. Grand Marshal Categories include Celebrity, Lifetime Achievement, Organizational, Community, Special Guests, and Pink Brick.

The SF Pride Board recognizes and regrets the recent error in the announcement of Mr. Bradley Manning as the Electoral College’s Community Grand Marshal.  The Electoral College was not the appropriate forum for his nomination. The longstanding Grand Marshal Policy provides that one community grand marshal shall be elected by an electoral college composed of Community Grand and Honorary Marshals elected or appointed since 1999. Grand Marshal/Pink Brick Policy, Sections 3.3 and 5.2.3.  Under that longstanding policy, the community grand marshal upon whom the Electoral College votes is defined as “a local hero (individual) not being a celebrity.” Grand Marshal/Pink Brick Policy, Section 5.2.3.

Because Mr. Manning is not local, by definition under the Grand Marshal policy, he may not be nominated or elected by the Electoral College as its community grand marshal. The SF Pride Board determined that because the nomination and election had been conducted in the incorrect forum, the election could not be upheld as valid. Mr. Manning might rightfully qualify as a nominee for Celebrity Grand Marshal or another community grand marshal spot, but not as the Electoral College’s nominee, as a matter of longstanding, written policy.

The integrity of the elections process and procedures are important to SF Pride and the community. Those that nominated Mr. Manning surely knew that he is not a local, Bay Area community member, and that he should not have been voted on by the Electoral College.  His nomination is more appropriately debated and voted on by the public than by a small group, and it could be next year when nominations open.

Taking sides in the controversy concerning Mr. Manning’s conduct is not appropriate for the organization and falls outside its core mission. We apologize to Mr. Manning, knowing that he did not ask to be at the center of a community firestorm, and for any harsh words that may have been said about him. In the end, SF Pride recognizes that becoming embroiled in the controversy concerning the merit of Mr. Manning’s conduct was an honest mistake. However, because the Grand Marshal/Pink Brick policy precludes Mr. Manning from being nominated for, or elected as a community grand marshal by the Electoral College, SF Pride stands by his disqualification on those unequivocal policy grounds.

Moving forward, in the spirit of fairness and to respectfully honor the contributions of qualified nominees, the SF Pride Board is re-opening the Electoral College’s voting process so that it may select a Community Grand Marshal from the remaining two, duly qualified nominees for the 2013 Community Grand Marshal: Bebe Sweetbriar and Associate Justice Jim Humes. Members of the Electoral College will have until May 16 to re-cast their vote. 

Starting on Wednesday, May 8, ballots will be sent to the Electoral College both by email and snail mail. Votes can be cast by either email or postal mail to the SF Pride offices at 1841 Market Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103; Att: Electoral Voting.  Votes must be cast by 5pm PST on Thursday, May 16.  The elected Grand Marshal will be announced by noon the following day, Friday, May 17.  The SF Pride Board of Directors appreciates the support of concerned members of the community. These matters have been sorted out towards a fair resolution.  We encourage all former Community and Honorary Grand Marshals in the Electoral College to participate in this extended opportunity to select a qualified Community Grand Marshal for the 2013 Parade and Celebration.

Shortly before this statement was released, SF Pride received a complaint filed against it at the San Francisco Human Rights Commission concerning Mr. Manning.  This statement is not a response to that complaint, and SF Pride will be responding to that complaint in the proper forum, not in the press and/or at board meetings.”

Comments

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 5:12 pm

let's all not care about caring, one way or another

Posted by admin on May. 07, 2013 @ 5:19 pm

We eagerly await your next piece on this pressing issue.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 07, 2013 @ 5:33 pm

We eagerly wait for you to fuck off.

I'm glad Marke cares about this (I do) and thanks for covering it.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 6:00 pm

I've posted a report and photos from tonight's protest at the SF Pride office and their very weird and undemocratic board meeting:

http://tinyurl.com/ckke46j

Can't wait to read about Marke getting in and asking his question. Did he get in? Ask his question? He seemed to be the only homosexual to think prior to the meeting that it would be conducted properly. Ha ha!

Posted by MPetrelis on May. 07, 2013 @ 10:25 pm

Some people were upset Bradley Manning was nominated "honorary Grand Marshal," and now some people are upset that decision was overturned.

But, the decision has been made. It's a done deal, and it is time to move the fuck on.

I am not personally a big parade type of person, but if you don't like Pride, either because you are also not a big parade type of person or because you are upset about the Bradley Manning decision, then just fucking don't go to the Parade and hold your own event.

Also, wouldn't it be logical (something sorely missing in SF) if all the people wasting their time protesting a decision about a fucking honorary title would actually get involved in the protest about the ACTUAL issue. If you are upset about Bradley Manning's treatment by the U.S. government, then, oh gee, instead of protesting the Pride Committee, go fucking protest outside the military prison he is held in or go protest in front of the fucking Federal Building on Mission Street. What a distraction this whole brouhaha has become from matters that have to do with real life.

As usual, this is another example of how certain losers in this city have too much fucking free time on their hands.

Posted by Chris on May. 08, 2013 @ 10:32 am

Obviously Chris doesn't approve of Bradley Manning or he wouldn't suggest that protests be directed in a less visible direction than at the local Pride managers' outrageous decision.

Chris' characterization as "losers" certain individual groups in the city should not have any effect on anybody because along with the repetitive use of "fucking" in his comment, such simply better serves to reveal the pathological nature of he thinking.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 08, 2013 @ 11:18 am

Lil, this is a message board that the SFBG has chosen to open up to public comment concerning the articles and editorials it posts. We can all state our opinions, and we can all choose to read or not read others' opinions, so I am not sure how you are being "subjected" to anything.

Also, I am not sure what your comment is about "more of." This is my first comment on this subject. There are other people called "Chris" who comment on SFBG's website, but I don't believe logic is your strong suit.

Also, how is protesting at the Pride Committee meeting more visible than protesting in front of the giant federal building on Mission Street?? Again, I can see logic is not a skill you have mastered.

Also, there is nothing "pathological" about using an expletive for emphasis. Such as, nice fucking try with your pop psychology psychoanalysis but you are neither qualified to make an expert opinion, nor do you demonstrate any critical thinking in that area if you determine that the use of the word "fucking" demonstrates a pathology. And since when does anyone who is not an old fart get offended by someone using the word "fucking?" It's not the same thing as saying "fuck you." Who would have thought that a radical activist could be so Victorian?

in short, Lil, you come across as a pompous, self-righteous idiot, who cannot think of any substantive reply to comments that ruffle your feathers, so instead you post silly remarks about being "subjected" to others opinions and write meaningless comments like "two-faced anger" (pray tell how is an emotion like anger "two-faced?").

Again, I restate what I said. If you are about the Bradley Manning matter, then protests are properly addressed to the parties actually involved, i.e. the U.S. military, President Obama, Congress, etc.

Posted by Chris on May. 08, 2013 @ 12:28 pm

Having Bradley Manning at the front of the gay pride parade is more effective than protesting at a federal building on Mission. Get back to me when you come up with some device for disputing that fact. Fucker.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 08, 2013 @ 12:40 pm

Lil, the device I will use to refute your stupidity is called a computer--I think you might be familiar with it.

The federal building has offices of federal agencies and for your elected Congressional representative Nancy Pelosi. Arguable, Ms. Pelosi has far more clout with how the Obama administration handles the Manning case than the local Pride Committee. So, yes protesting at the corner of 7th and Mission is far more effective than protesting on Pearl Street. Again, I have to say your comments make you look either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb.

And, yes, I do like to fuck, so I guess I am a "fucker." And a good one, I have been told.

Posted by Chris on May. 08, 2013 @ 1:07 pm

you can check the Bradley Manning Support Network for more details -- I'm sure that there will be more once the actual court martial starts happening.And protests over manning in odd(ish) venues are all the rage these days: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/fashion-blog/2013/may/07/vivienne...

Part of the purpose is to bring attention to the cause into spheres outside the regular activists-military sphere (because remember how much protesting outside the pentagon stopped the Iraq Occupation?).

But the larger issue here -- and I think, Chris, you can get this deep -- is that the assimilation of gays has reached a strange breaking point, and a reaction against the mainstream is starting to form. This is a flashpoint for that. "Gays are too normal now to make waves," is the message the Pride board is sending. "But we're still proud freaks who have responsibility to represent views outside the mainstream" is what the protesters are saying.

This is the first time that argument has made national headlines, which I think is very interesting, and ultimately a very good thing.

Posted by admin on May. 08, 2013 @ 1:28 pm

Admin, if you think that this is the first time the issue of "gay mainstreaming" has come up in public discussion then you have either had your head in the sand, or been completely out-of-touch from society for the last 30 years or so.

Also, no one is stopping anyone from being a "proud freak," or from protesting U.S. military or political policy, but I just find it more than odd that the very event that so many of these protesters claim is irrelevant to them is now portrayed as the only way they seem to be able to (a) claim their political identity and (b) voice their political views.

I know there have been some talking points on Fox News and some stories on the internet and the local news, but at the end of the day this whole brouhaha has been nothing but a tempest in a teapot as far as most people are concerned.

Finally, if you think that protesting in front of the Pentagon is ineffective, then I would think you would also think protesting at a silly corporate-sponsored gay pride parade would be an even bigger waste of time. It will change no one's mind and it will have absolutely zero impact on the Manning case. I think you are reasonable enough to understand that. But, I guess the argument is that it will help some people validate their sense of being an "outsider" or "rebel?" But then what is to stop anyone from simply marching with signs/horns along the parade if one feels so strongly about the cause of Manning, or Assata Shakur, for that matter?

What I hear you saying is that for some reason the protesters think they need the big corporate mainstream media and a mainstream corporate sponsored organization to validate their political views. So, yes, I think I can get that deep.

Posted by Chris on May. 08, 2013 @ 3:09 pm

lying or stupid. I suspect lying is the case.

Obviously, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Donald Rumsfeld et. al., are playing on the exact same team. Manning needs public exposure for his case that the corporate media is not providing.

The protest of the Pride board is a means to reinstate Manning as Grand Marshall of the Pride Parade, your dimwitted -- and plainly fictitious -- lack of comprehension notwithstanding.

Fuck you fucker -- and when I write that, I do not reference your putative prowess and *ostensible* renown, but rather simply mean to liken you to a rapist.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 08, 2013 @ 1:34 pm

Lil, honestly, thank you again, because you have really given me some good chuckles today.

First people like you claim that Pride is some big corporate consumer event that has no relevance to "real people," and now you present this corporate sponsored event as the only way to put public pressure on the U.S. military to do what? Drop the case? He already pled guilty to 10 of the charges leveled against him, you nutball, so he is going to spend time in prison for a long while. And do you really think a silly honorary title at a parade will make the more serious charges against him go away?

Yes, I can just see it now, President Obama or some high ranking military official is going to see Manning's "honorary title" and say, "Oh, gosh, well if San Francisco Gay Pride supports him, I guess we should just give him a pardon." Are you really a complete loon??? Honestly, are you completely insane?

And Sweetheart, I get that you are so tightly corseted up with your phony Victorian values that you must be very sexually frustrated, but no, you cannot fuck me. At least not unless you email me a picture, and if I like it, take me out on a proper date. But, given how tedious I find your posts, I doubt any amount of good lucks (if you have any) could make up for your glaring personality deficits.

Posted by Chris on May. 08, 2013 @ 2:53 pm

have them chock full of straw man arguments. I've already said all I need to say on this thread; and there's obviously nothing I can do to keep you from repeating yourself ad nauseum with your false imputations and characterizations. And getting a chance to take a stab at you after buying you a burger and fries holds little appeal.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 08, 2013 @ 3:05 pm
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 08, 2013 @ 3:17 pm

are actually the same person? we'd have to add another letter to the lgbtmnopq rainbow.

Posted by marke on May. 08, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

"And, yes, I do like to fuck, so I guess I am a "fucker." And a good one, I have been told."

By someone clearly desperate most assuredly, and people will say anything just to give complements.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 6:05 pm

Why is it that a former Board member is making such harsh statements especially since I saw the Grand Marshall Policy and dug a little deeper and Joey Cain was on the Board during the writing of it and the subsequent revisions and yet he is UNAWARE OF IT??? I think Joey Cain needs to be asked of this.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2013 @ 7:17 am

Why is it that a former Board member is making such harsh statements especially since I saw the Grand Marshall Policy and dug a little deeper and Joey Cain was on the Board during the writing of it and the subsequent revisions and yet he is UNAWARE OF IT??? I think Joey Cain needs to be asked of this.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2013 @ 7:17 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.