It's a Remarkk-able life

Bruce Nussbaum writes:

So where are we with humanitarian design? I know almost all of my Gen Y students want to do it because their value system is into doing good globally. Young designers in consultancies and corporations want to do humanitarian design for the same reason.

But should we take a moment now that the movement is gathering speed to ask whether or not American and European designers are collaborating with the right partners, learning from the best local people, and being as sensitive as they might to the colonial legacies of the countries they want to do good in. Do designers need to better see themselves through the eyes of the local professional and business classes who believe their countries are rising as the U.S. and Europe fall and wonder who, in the end, has the right answers? Might Indian, Brazilian and African designers have important design lessons to teach Western designers?

And finally, one last question: why are we only doing humanitarian design in Asia and Africa and not Native American reservations or rural areas, where standards of education, water and health match the very worst overseas?

It's a good question. Change-making as mass movement enabled by Western hegemony and entitlement is problematic not only in the field of humanitarian design.

However, designers are perhaps better equipped than most international development professionals in shifting the lens towards the end-users and beneficiaries of innovation.

Toronto City councillor Giorgio Mammoliti's motion to defund Pride Toronto (PT) as punishment for its decision to rescind its ban on the words "Israeli apartheid" in Toronto's Pride parade passed at city council today after a vote of 36-1. But the motion was changed significantly before it came to a vote.  

In response to this news, I tweeted:

I was compelled to respond to a question from @chadandy on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/chadandy/status/17984131326

http://twitter.com/chadandy/status/17984092875

Because I like and respect Chad, I thought I would put my thoughts down in a fuller form and invite him and others who share his feelings into a conversation.

My concern is not with the City's right to enforce its policies, it is about Mammoliti's motivations behind his original motion.

Clearly the City has every right, an obligation, to enforce its policies in all cases where the policy applies. This motion places particular scrutiny and extra pressure on Pride Toronto in its relationship with its diverse communities with a chilling "big brother is watching" message.

So why is this motion before Council in first place? Clearly, there are political motivations driving this scrutiny and we all know it. Mammoliti's original motion would have retroactively punished Pride TorontoI - if anyone has the text of that original motion, I'd love to see it.

The politics surrounding the words "Israeli apartheid" are central here and we all know it. I question whether it is fair to put the City Manager into the awkward position of having to adjudicate those politics.

I'm sure Chad would recognize that as well. So lets talk about the real issue, those words.

The City's "Declaration of a Non-discrimination Policy" for grant recipients states:

Declaration: On behalf of and with the authority of the organization named below, I hereby declare that this organization adopts and upholds the City of Toronto’s policy statement which prohibits discrimination and harassment and protects the right to be free of hate activity, based on age, ancestry, citizenship, creed (religion), colour, disability, ethnic origin, family status, gender identity, level of literacy, marital status, place of origin, membership in a union or staff association, political affiliation, race, receipt of public assistance, record of offences, sex, sexual orientation or any other personal characteristics by or within the organization.

So it appears to me, other than whatever normal compliance processes the City might apply to this policy, there should be a clear and transparent process to take up a complaint under this policy other than a Council motion. My reading of this is that it really is up to someone to establish through some kind of evidence that there is a violation of this policy in a particular case.

Could somebody who believes that the words "Israeli apartheid" are hate speech or the activities of QUAIA qualify as discrimination or harassment "by or within the organization" of Pride Toronto according to this policy please explain their position for me? Chad? Someone from Kulanu Toronto perhaps?

Am I inviting a flame war in the comments? I hope not, because I'm genuinely interested in a real conversation that sheds more light on this contentious issue.