Leeds Pride reverses ‘political opinion’ ban policy after backlash

The point of politics was spotted by activist group Dirt Dykes, who made a post vowing to boycott Leeds Pride.

“We contacted Leeds Pride, concerned about what this meant, and this led to several days of back and forth emails,” wrote Dirt Dykes. “Eventually, they stopped responding to us, leaving many of our questions unanswered.

“While as an organization we have chosen to march in previous years, despite concerns about some of Leeds Pride’s practices, this year we have made the decision to take a stand.”

The group said it would not be marching at Leeds Pride, adding that it believed Pride should be an opportunity to “advocate for collective liberation and wider causes… without fear of being stopped from marching”.

Instead, he will be taking part in a club night event on July 19 so that “Dykes feel safe to celebrate over the Pride weekend.”

Dirt Dykes remain committed to the Leeds Pride boycott

Following a request for comment from PinkNews, Leeds Pride declined to issue an official statement, but claimed they had been in discussions with Dirt Dykes about the matter and had made it clear to them that they would be welcome at this year’s parade year.

Dirt Dykes denied this after responding to a request for comment from PinkNews, arguing that Leeds Pride had not made enough of an effort to resolve its issues with the policy, claiming it was only changed after parade requests were closed.

In an email exchange shared with PinkNews, Leeds Pride wrote to Dirt Dykes about the policy that it will “assess materials and messages promoted” before groups are allowed into the Leeds Pride parade.

“Leeds Pride is an event focused on LGBTQ+ equality and participants are asked to honor this theme by refraining from promoting non-LGBTQ+ causes.”

In response, Dirt Dykes wrote that he was “concerned” about the policy because it would be “alienating” to LGBTQ+ activists.

“For example, the policy makes it clear that ‘comments about certain individuals are strictly prohibited’ — it doesn’t make it clear that it’s prohibited unless it’s Dr. Hilary Cass or anyone else responsible for rolling back LGBTQ+ rights,” Dirt Dykes wrote.

“Also, it is clear that ‘comments about certain political views are strictly prohibited’, so why then can we make comments about the political parties in power and the political views held by people in those parties?”

The group expressed particular concern about Leeds Pride’s response, saying it was at odds with the idea of ​​LGBTQ+ liberation as part of collective liberation.

“There are LGBTQ+ people in so many different communities, both in the UK and around the world, that people might want to choose which march to protest for – how it’s controlled and who controls whether or not something is a problem related to LGBTQ+?”

Responding to the query, Leeds Pride wrote that they remain committed to focusing on “LGBTQ+ issues”, asking Dirt Dykes to share their specific plans for the march to clarify whether they are “acceptable”.

“In previous years there have been cases where groups, companies and organizations have tried to enter the parade and express different messages to our values. These will be monitored on the day by our event managers.”

After again arguing that Leeds Pride had not responded to his concerns, Dirt Dykes claimed he had not received a response from the organisation.