You’ve made that clear in your Facebook post in which you praise Hungary’s efforts to “shield students from LGBTQI+ ideologies and propaganda.” So when you single out Pride here, it doesn’t read as a neutral concern about spending—it reads as a selective objection to one community. (Your post reads as follows: “Hungary deserves recognition for its decisive action in shielding students from LGBTQI+ ideologies and propaganda in schools, allowing them to focus on their academic pursuits. Well done.” I have a screenshot of it.)

If the issue were genuinely service delivery, you’d be pointing to budgets, allocations, and measurable trade-offs. You haven’t. Instead, you’ve implied that supporting Pride comes at the expense of pensioners, schools, and the poor—without offering any evidence that such a trade-off exists.

Cape Town’s inequalities are real and serious. Using them as a backdrop to question the legitimacy of one group’s visibility doesn’t address those problems. It simply reveals where you stand.

What you have really shown is bigotry, not civic concern.

The City of Cape Town has once again thrown its weight behind a major public celebration, granting
support for Cape Town Pride on 28 February 2026, along with backing for a significant international
event scheduled for 2028. We are told these events promote unity, diversity and equality among us
as Capetonians.

But I must ask: unity for whom?

Equality in what measure?

And diversity at what cost?

No city can claim to champion equality while failing to address the daily suffering of its most
vulnerable residents.

We are informed that the City is facilitating aspects of these events, including logistical support and
public transport considerations. Yet many of our pensioners struggle to afford transport to clinics.
Schoolchildren in under-resourced communities travel long distances without adequate safety
measures. Where are their free rides?

If we speak of diversity and inclusion, then surely that inclusion must begin with pensioners who
survive on minimal grants, children in overcrowded classrooms, communities battling crime daily,
and families facing hunger and homelessness.

The Grand Parade has historically been a space meant to unite communities across faiths,
cultures, and backgrounds. Yet local groups often report having to fight for permits, safety support,
and municipal cooperation. Why must grassroots community initiatives struggle while large,
high-profile events receive swift approval and backing?

The City has the authority to grant major event status. It has the power to mobilise law enforcement
and traffic management for international spectacles. It can create global publicity campaigns.

But can it guarantee safer streets in crime-ridden areas?

An education system grounded in
academic excellence and factual integrity?

Adequate shelter for the homeless?

Food security for
the hungry?

Unity is not created through banners and parades alone. It is built when every citizen feels
protected, valued, and heard.

Equality is not selective visibility. It is consistent service delivery.

Diversity is not an event — it is a daily commitment to all communities.

Taxpayers are not wrong to question how their money is being spent.

When major events receive
municipal backing while basic service delivery remains inconsistent, frustration is inevitable.

It is not
intolerance to demand accountability. It is civic responsibility.

Cape Town is called the Mother City. A mother does not favour spectacle over sustenance. She
ensures that her children are safe, educated, fed, and housed before she hosts celebrations.

If we are serious about unity and diversity, then let us demonstrate it in how we allocate resources:
free transport for pensioners and learners, greater protection for vulnerable neighbourhoods,
transparent budgeting for public events, stronger investment in homelessness interventions, and
community-driven initiatives that bring all Capetonians together.
Public events have their place. Celebration has its value. But governance must prioritise necessity
over publicity.

The real test of equality is not whom we celebrate — it is whom we protect and provide for.

Until we align our spending with the urgent needs of our communities, many residents will continue
to ask: are we building unity, or are we building headlines?

Rev. O.P. Bougardt