Also, I feel that any discussion of whether the protest/result had value needs to acknowledge the demands on some level. Otherwise, it's the same refrain that protesting shouldn't happen.
The demands were certainly acknowledged. They've been agreed to. And aside from the demand to end police participation, most of them weren't even controversial. Does "acknowledgment" necessarily mean "agreement"?
Maybe I don't fully appreciate how awful the Toronto police are to black people. Maybe I would feel differently if I knew the whole story. I'd certainly have no complaint about excluding a racist organization from Pride events, I just don't view the Toronto police as a racist organization. If it were the Baltimore police, I might feel differently, but maybe I am looking at the Toronto police through rose-colored glasses. I'm under the impression that they're trying to engage positively with both the gay community and the black community. Maybe that doesn't match with the reality.
My understanding was that last year's protesters were from both communities.
Ah yes. "Intersectionality". In today's super-competitive victimhood sweepstakes, being just one thing isn't enough. You need "intersectionality"!
This reminds me of a Daily Show skit in the 2004 US presidential election, in which a reporter (perhaps Stephen Colbert) talks with a Demographically Diverse
tm panel of voters. He talks to them, addressing them as "Jew", "Senior", "Female", "College Student", "Asian", and "Black Man -- oh wait, you're Black AND Christian! You're TWO things!"
-k