NYPD Commissioner Tisch doubles down against Pride March ban on gay cops in uniform: ‘PR stunt'
NEW YORK — Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch on Saturday doubled down in her criticism of the Pride March organizer's decision to ban the NYPD's Gay Officers Action League from participating in the annual event in New York City.
In a strongly worded letter to the event's organizer, Heritage of Pride, calling the group hypocrites, Tisch demanded that it change its stance on the officers' exclusion from the celebratory procession. The top cop slammed the new reason given for not letting the gay officers march — namely, that it would violate the event's no-weapons policy — calling it a 'PR stunt' and 'Not a solution.'
'It is also the height of hypocrisy to request the security and protection of thousands of armed, uniformed police officers for The March on Sunday and then ban from that event the very officers that proudly represent your community,' Tisch said in the letter.
'In a year when LGBTQ+ rights are under siege in ways we had thought were behind us, this is the time to stand together, not to splinter,' Tisch added. 'In that light, I urge you to reconsider your decision here. Regardless of the ultimate outcome.'
Heritage of Pride, about two weeks ago, informed the New York Police Department, including the Gay Officers Action League, or GOAL, that it was continuing its ban for the fourth straight year against allowing police officers to march.
'Though the NYPD remains a partner in monitoring and addressing security threats, the NYPD response is to be called upon only when absolutely necessary,' an internal memo from Heritage of Pride states. 'Additionally, the guidelines for our March were updated to clarify that no participating contingent could march with weapons.'
Tisch on Friday said she was shocked by the decision, given earlier dialogue she and Detective Brian Downey, GOAL's president, had had with Heritage of Pride officials.
HOP spokesman Chris Piedmont stressed that the organization has a no-weapons policy, to which GOAL would not agree. However, NYPD officers are required to have their service weapons on them while they are in uniform 'as a matter of public and personal safety,' according to Tisch's letter.
'To be clear,' Piedmont told The New York Daily News on Friday, 'GOAL is welcome to march without weapons like every other contingent and we welcome them to join us as we march to protect trans youth, advocate for full equality and stand in proud defiance of the attacks our community is facing.'
The ban was first announced in 2021, when protests over the killing of Minnesota man George Floyd by police officers generated a wave of anti-cop sentiment across the country, including in New York City. But it's also rooted in the trauma many in the LGBTQ community have experienced in dealing with law enforcement for years — going back to the 1969 Stonewall riot, which was sparked by a police raid at the now-famous Greenwich Village gay bar. The ensuing Stonewall protests are considered the birth of the modern gay rights movement.
Brian Downey, GOAL's president, announced that in response to the ongoing ban, the organization will be protesting on Sunday, starting at 11 a.m., at W. 20th St. and Fifth Ave., five blocks away from the starting point of the Pride March.
'This isn't a time for apathy or complacency,' Downey said. 'It's a time for visibility! It's a time for protest!'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will take up a Republican-led drive, backed by President Donald Trump's administration, to wipe away limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president. The justices said Monday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old, ignoring pleas from Democrats to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court itself upheld it in 2001.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Gunman started fire, then fatally shot 2 firefighters in ambush attack, Idaho officials say
BOISE, Idaho — A man armed with a rifle started a wildfire and then began shooting at first responders in a northern Idaho mountain community, killing two firefighters and wounding a third during a barrage of gunfire over several hours, authorities said. A shelter-in-place order was lifted Sunday night after a tactical response team used cellphone data to 'hone in' on a wooded area where they found the suspect's body with a firearm nearby as flames rapidly approached, Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will take up a Republican-led drive, backed by President Donald Trump's administration, to wipe away limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president. The justices said Monday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old, ignoring pleas from Democrats to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court itself upheld it in 2001. But since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court in 2005, a conservative majority has upended a variety of congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections. Without the limits on party spending, large donors would be able to skirt caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate, supporters of the law say. The case will be argued in the fall. Richard Hasen. an election law expert at the University of California at Los Angeles law school, has predicted the court will strike down the limits. 'That may even make sense now in light of the prevalence of super PAC spending that has undermined political parties and done nothing to limit (and in fact increased) corruption and inequality,' Hasen wrote on the Election Law blog. The Justice Department almost always defends federal laws when they are challenged in court. But the Trump administration notified the court that 'this is the rare case that warrants an exception to that general approach' because it believes the law violates free-speech protections in the First Amendment. The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by two Ohio Republicans in Congress, then-Sen. J.D. Vance, who's now vice president, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot. In 2025, the coordinated party spending for Senate races ranges from $127,200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4 million in California. For House races, the limits are $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 everywhere else. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at Mark Sherman, The Associated Press Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
