Pride Denied: Homonationalism & The Future of Queer Politics (2016) by Kami Chisholm - queer, disabled activist filmmaker - was screened in the Barron at the Byre on Tuesday the 25th of March. Organised by film students - the event “aimed to spark a meaningful discussion about the evolving dynamics within queer politics, particularly the tension between the commercialisation of Pride events and their political origins” (film students’ input). As a self-identifying leftist and queer woman of colour, the history of queer politics and its connections to capitalism, imperialism, and racism has been a topic I continuously try to stay informed on. This allowed me to think critically about the issues brought up within the film and relate them to current changes in how LGBTQIA+ people are treated socially and politically now, almost a decade after the release of this film. My existing understandings were very much reflected in the film’s representations; corporate, capitalist greed taking over pride as an act of resistance and organised protest, and the marketed allyship as a perpetuation of neoliberal practices that work to further conditions of inequality. 
ID: poster for 'Pride Denied'. Credit: St Andrews Film
Upon speaking to the film students who organised the screening, and reflecting on how the event was set up - from the readings [see below] included in the pamphlet we were handed at the door, to the discussion with Dundee Pride Trustee Kenny Christie that followed the film - there was clearly an intention behind showing this film in particular. As stated by Issy, one of the students in the group: “The documentary’s subject matter closely aligned with the group’s personal interests and collective goal of exploring the role of cinema in discussing the shifting landscape of queer politics”. Leading onto my review of the event and the film itself, the form of film/documentary to face queer political issues is particularly successful as putting faces to the people most marginalised is impactful to the discussion of queer rights against the flattened out message of mainstream and corporate marketing.
The event was organised as a film screening, followed by a discussion with Kenny. There was a slight delay in the film due to a small technical issue, however it was resolved quickly and we still had enough time for a fruitful discussion segment. One logistical issue that limited the event generally, as I was told by the students who organised it, was that there couldn’t be a public screening of the film as it doesn’t have a BBFC Certificate and the communication with Cinema Politica was limited/delayed so there was a restriction to the ability of the group to promote the event and, in turn, limited outreach. Nonetheless, those who attended (who I spoke to) found it interesting and overall enjoyable which I think would class it as a success.
The main points from the film that I would like to touch on are: the difference between protest and parade the meaning for the event and its history, and the impact of pinkwashing on the idea of progress as backdropped by the homonationalist sentiment of the Israeli government to naturalise the violence enacted upon Palestinian people. Additional to this - the work of concealing militarised imperialism behind a veil of ‘modernity’ within a liberal social image. Finally, the way heteronormativity and ideals of white supremacy are still ingrained in mainstream actions of progress towards equality.
Protest versus Parade
Going into this film screening not being familiar with the filmmaker’s work or politics I was apprehensive of the possibility that a film about Pride may still leave (especially) trans women and queer people of colour out of the picture as often happens in queer spaces and media. However, I was gratified by the explicit and well contextualised mention of the history of Stonewall and the role trans women of colour have always played as pioneers in Pride movements, despite having gained the least from any of its relative progress. This can be seen most recently as (following Trump’s renewed presidency and banned word order) mention of trans people and trans rights have been taken down from the National Park Stonewall Monument website. To relate this to the question of protest versus parade - the issue of policing is very relevant and is made a key topic of interest within the film. The police raid of Stonewall on the 28th of June 1969 was started over “disorderly conduct”, yet the “people who made their lives on the streets” that night were known as queer folk and sex workers. These people were targeted despite already being vulnerable members of a prejudiced society and who were together in a space that was meant to be a safe haven of sorts. The three days of sustained protest that followed was remembered by a speaker in the film as an “exciting coalition against state”. This sentiment has lost much of its strength as the years have gone on; nowadays police have their own pride floats while also scaring and intimidating people away from the city centres, in attempts to “clean up the streets” in preparation for pride. Those pushed out are sex workers and homeless people who are also disproportionately queer and black due to social stigma and economic inequalities. This not only shows the inherent violence of state policing, but also contradicts the initial intentions of Pride as a protest versus now just a parading of performative allyship as a means of “looking good on the global stage” (i.e World Pride).
Pinkwashing
As the film focused on corporate marketing at and of Pride, the topic of pinkwashing as seen by Israel’s military imperialist notions of equality and homonationalism were brought to the forefront. Firstly, it is insisted that a gay person’s accessibility to being drafted into their military was a form of equality, then there was an effort made to “Shift the Association” through branding Israel as this nation of modernity and liberalism, “where love has no boundaries”. Meanwhile they are enacting an apartheid, and bombing people in Palestine - also attempting to naturalise the violence being done onto the Palestinian people by stating that Palestine is not a safe place for gay people. The film does a brilliant job of illuminating how conditions of colonialism, military imperialism and homonationalism have backdropped the marketing of Pride and corporate and governmental attitudes towards Pride as an event of parading their allyship rather than a force for good.
In this, a fiction is also being produced that Western nation states are safe and entirely progressive as there are laws in place. Yet, the idea that “it’s illegal so it must not be happening” is wildly untrue. To suggest that because gay marriage is legalised and Pride is allowed to happen that it is therefore safe to be queer in a country/city, is such a limited view on the mechanism of systemic violence and social ostracisation.
Heteronormativity
This brings me to my final musing on the topics brought up in this film: the idea of access to marriage as a condition of equality struck a nerve in me and was mirrored by people in the film as well as those engaged in the discussion that followed. Not only does access to marriage mean nothing for the structure of intersecting issues of inequality that queer people face on the daily but it also perpetuates a culture of individualism and heteronormativity. In particular, white gay men with good economic standings, this is the main barrier between them and their heterosexual peers. However, many queer folk aim to “transform and reject dominant terms” rather than trying to fit themselves into existing roles and definitions. Additionally, as pointed out by a speaker within the film, if certain state benefits are only accessible through marriage and/or people lose benefits (disability welfare, for example) after marriage (in becoming a double-income household) then it is not equal or beneficial for all.
Discussion with Kenny Christie
Here are some key takeaways I got from the discussion with Kenny that followed the film screening:
- Pride alone, without any other active solidarity work and policy change can be performative. Dundee Pride, as a charity, aims to include one-on-one support, education, and medical/mental health access and services as well as an annual “march” (not “parade”).
- As a charity, there are limitations of what Dundee Pride can do practically (legally and in active protest) - for example, they can support the right to protest, but cannot partake.
- Despite Tesco’s large-scale representation of allyship through rainbow decor during June, the Pride liaison for the entirety of Tesco (Scotland) only offered £200 towards Dundee Pride, highlighting the performative aspect of corporate sponsorship and allyship.
All in all, this event was a fulfilling opportunity to be in conversation with voices of activism within the film and those in the room. The choice of film at this time for the film students who organised was a very topical and interesting move, especially within the current, changing social and political climate.
By Alyssa (she/her)
Related Readings:
- Sabsay, Leticia. "Queering the politics of global sexual rights?" Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 13.1 (2013): 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/sena.12019
- Rainer, C. (2023). Activist, relational, and embodied: rethinking sexual citizenship in neoliberal capitalism. Citizenship studies, 27(8), 1003-1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2023.226583
- Holmes, A. (2022). Resisting Pinkwashing: Adaptive Queerness in Vancouver Pride Parades. In: Blidon, M., Brunn, S.D. (eds) Mapping LGBTQ Spaces and Places. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03792-426
- Pinkwashing Exposed: Seattle Fights Back! Dean Spade, (2015) https://www.cinemapolitica.org/films/?search=pinkwashing exposed#jump