1 Legal limbo for Canada’s gay refugees 2/08
2 "Ex-gay" adverts forced off the air in Canada 3/08
3 Canadian Study Finds Sexual Orientation Affects Healthcare Use 3/08
3a Last refugee bid refused to gay Malaysian 3/08
4 Gay Sikhs: ‘You’re not alone’ 4/08
5 Jamaica boycott called off 5/08
6 Halifax gay-friendly destination 6/08
7 Five years ago today, gay marriage became legal in Ontario 6/08
8 Gay Marriage Five Years Later – and Equality Lives Happily 6/08
9 Manitoba’s first and only gay camp offers safe haven for youth 8/08
10 A Risk Management in Circuits of Gay and Bisexual Men 9/08
irqo.net
http://www.irqo.net/IRQO/English/pages/114.htm
February 21, 2008
1
Legal limbo for Canada’s gay refugees: Process is cumbersome and sometimes homophobic
by Jen Lahey, Capital Xtra
Arsham Parsi was forced to leave his life behind. Threats loomed large. He spent years looking over his shoulder, carefully concealing the truth about himself from everyone he knew. Still, the dangers grew. As a gay man in Iran — one who founded an underground organization to help queers — Parsi’s life was at risk.
Under strict Iranian law, Parsi could have been hanged or publicly stoned, a particularly gruesome form of capital punishment in which his body would be battered by a jeering, angry crowd. Facing this, he left his friends and family in 2005. He had no way of knowing if he would ever lay eyes on them again. After making it to Turkey, he visited the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. There he endured a seven-hour interview and a 10-hour session with a psychologist. "That was so hard. Because you know, in that time I was so emotional, I cried for the whole interview," says Parsi. "I left my family, my job, my friends, everything that I had. And I didn’t have anything, a few clothes and maybe $50 or $100. I didn’t have anything, just hope. I needed someone to talk to." The UN granted him a certificate of asylum. Later, he was referred to the Canadian Embassy and after eight months, he arrived in Canada. "When I was in Iran, I was just silent. Not talking about everything. When I was at the UN, for the first day in my whole life, I told them who I am and what I do. Of course it was hard. In Iran, nobody knew I was working in that organization, called Rainbow Group. I used a nickname, and all of my friends only knew my nickname. I couldn’t trust anybody. That interview was the first day in my whole life where I could say I started this organization, and my name is Arsham."
Refugees must battle their own fear of revealing to strangers what have always been hidden parts of their lives, and revealing such facts to a potentially unsympathetic government official can be a challenge all in itself. Terror and relief. But for many gays and lesbians, relief is withheld, leaving them in legal limbo. The spectre of returning to their home country haunts them — sometimes for years — as they make their way through the cumbersome and sometimes homophobic process.
Toronto refugee lawyer El-Farouk Khaki recalls an incident in which one of his clients, seeking refugee status in Canada as a gay man, was told by a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) that if he could be more discreet in his home country of Kenya, he would be just fine. "What do you mean discreet? Are you telling him that for the rest of his life he has to look over his shoulder, and hope nobody finds out that he’s gay because if they do he could get jailed or mobbed and killed?" says Khaki. "Why should somebody have to hide their sexual orientation? You don’t have to hide your gender or your political opinion or your religion to avoid persecution." "There has to be a consistency of analysis. I should be able to wear my homosexuality on my sleeve if I choose to, and be safe. So there needs to be some ongoing sensitivity, particularly for IRB members who may not have openly queer people in their private lives and who are not familiar or sensitive to those issues." For all refugees, the process has several key steps. The claimant must apply at whichever point of entry into the country they first access, usually an airport or port or harbour. If the claim is being made after arriving in Canada, then the claimant goes to a Canada Immigration office. They get an appointment to come back, and they are given a personal information form to fill out.
Sound bureaucratic?
It’s on this form that they must tell their story, explaining why they fear persecution, in as much detail a possible. A hearing is scheduled, and the prospective refugee will be seen by a one-person panel, who will hear the claimant’s case and decide whether they fit the requirements to be deemed a refugee. Canada’s guidelines for accepting refugees are based, as they are in most countries, on the United Nations’ 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The key passage in this document states that a refugee is a person who, "owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."
For a majority of queer claimants, it is the "particular social group" clause under which they will make their claim.
And the burden of proof is on the queer refugee, according to Nicole LaViolette, an associate professor in the law department at the University of Ottawa. They must prove they are gay — no small task for many who have spent years trying not to leave a trace of their gay identity. Then they must show that they fear persecution in their home country. Discrimination is not enough. Khaki, who has practiced for 15 years, says that making each case for his clients is a unique challenge, since no two claimants’ situations are identical. He compares building the case for a refugee claim to a jigsaw puzzle, in which each piece must be turned over and carefully made to create a whole picture. Khaki often turns to photos — perhaps of the claimant at Pride, or socializing in a gay bar — letters from friends or lovers, and even membership at bathhouses or online gay chatrooms. Each element helps to legitimize the claimant’s clear status as a gay person. However, it is much more difficult to establish a claim when a person is less social, and therefore may have fewer opportunities to show that they are living and socializing as a gay person, he says.
He also points out that it can be more difficult for lesbians to make a refugee claim based on their sexual identity, since women tend to socialize differently than gay men.
"One of the most difficult parts is when somebody has been married, and has kids, and may still be married," says Khaki. "A lot of my female clients actually, the harm that they fear is often more private than the harm that gay men fear, which is more public. Women often experience harm within the family within the context of the cultures; they may not have the same kind of access to public space as men do. There might not be as many public spaces for women as there are for men. So a woman may not be able to demonstrate that she is living or socializing openly as a lesbian because she may not have opportunity, especially if she is a single parent. So, there is a gender perspective here as well."
Many refugees arriving in Canada may also be unaware that they can even make a claim based on their sexuality. And they may not be eager to out themselves to a border official or IRB member, given that they may have experienced persecution or abuse from government officials in their country of origin.
But the laundry list of problems continues.
IRB hearings are conducted by a single board member, rather than two. That’s the result of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a 2002 law passed by the Crétien government. Previously, there were two-member panels, and if there was a split decision, the case was more often than not found in favour of the claimant. Having two panel members served as a sort of check and balance against any possible biases or homophobic notions that might exist. With a single-member hearing, that check and balance is now gone. The 2002 legislation also included a plan to institute a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), through which claimants could appeal their case’s decision based on the merits. This served as a sort of carrot to the interested parties: a one-member panel would be acceptable if there would now be an appeal division to serve as a backup. However, the government held back the new division, and now, nearly six years later, it has still not been implemented. With no RAD, and one-member panels, claimants who want their decision reconsidered have only one real next course of action: a federal judicial appeal. However, people who feel wronged can only make a claim based on legal mistakes, not on the factual merits of the case. As such, it does not really constitute a true appeal, according to both Khaki and LaViolette, who say that this is a serious flaw in the Canadian refugee system.
Danielle Norris, a media representative for Citizen and Immigration Canada (CIC), says there are several reasons why the appeal division has not yet been implemented. "The in-Canada refugee determination system is often described as one of the best in the world. There’s no doubt that Canada meets its international commitments," Norris says. "RAD is not necessary specifically at this time, as refugee claimants have access to three other mechanisms. Those are a judicial review, the second is a pre-removal risk-assessment at Citizen and Immigration Canada — and that ensures that no one is removed to risk or harm due to change in circumstances after their refugee claim decision. Third, there’s an opportunity to apply for permanent residence on compassionate grounds."
The CIC’s website claims that the RAD was not implemented due to the high volume of refugee applications, and it was felt that implementing the RAD would add too much time to the processing of claims. It would also increase costs in provincial legal aid and social assistance budgets. It is not clear how often refugees succeed in staying in Canada based on the three protective mechanisms that Norris cited, but critics say that they are not replacements for a formal appeal division. In fact, when Canada’s new legislation was enacted in 2002, The United Nations High Commission on Refugees issued a statement in which they expressed dismay at the fact that the RAD was scrapped. "UNHCR has long urged Canada to introduce a review process — which is a vital part of determining refugee status — in its asylum procedure," the statement reads in part. "We hope that the Refugee Appeal Division will be implemented in the near future. Canada is one of just a few industrialised countries that do not have an appeal on the merits in their refugee determination systems."
There are encouraging signs. A private member’s bill would make the RAD a reality. Bill C-280, introduced by Bloc Quebecois MP Nicole Demers, is now at second reading. It obliges the feds to implement the promised but long-stalled review board. But with no appeal division and one-member panels, a great deal of a claimant’s chance of being granted refugee status has to do with that single IRB member who hears their case. According to Khaki, this can cause serious problems if the board member is not "sophisticated" enough about queer issues. "It depends on the sensitivity of the refugee board member. The reality is, I can take the same case in front of two different board members and get two different decisions. And that’s a sad thing, the apparent lack of consistency," Khaki says.
Khaki feels it merits serious examination, since board members are making life-and-death decisions. "There are members of the refugee board who are queer, or who have queer people in their private lives. But there are also board members who do not."
However, the IRB does provide specific training to its members around issues pertaining to queer claimants, according to Stephane Malepart, who spoke on behalf of the Eastern Region Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
"Training happens on a regular basis," says Malepart. "It specifically relates to sexual orientation. It makes Immigration and Refugee Board members aware, and it stresses the fact that it’s important for Board members to avoid relying on stereotypical perception of gay men and lesbians in determining their membership in a particular social group. It also stresses that there is no uniform way in which lesbians and gay men recognize and act on their sexual orientation, so therefore answers to questions about a person’s sexual orientation may vary widely from one claimant to another. They also mention the fact that Board members have to keep in mind that sometimes it may be difficult for sexual minorities to speak about their sexual orientation, their lives," Malepart says. He adds that the training also includes a section on how to appropriately question claimants about their personal relationships, their families, and what persecution they may have experienced or heard about in their country of origin.
According to LaViolette, Canada’s refugee system does work well for most refugees, and she says the IRB is a big part of that, though improvements still need to be continually made. "They’re a fairly good quasi-judicial body. They’re certainly way ahead of the other countries when it comes to sexual minorities. But that’s not to say the system’s perfect."
pinknews.co.uk
http://pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7078.html
10th March 2008
2
"Ex-gay" adverts forced off the air in Canada
by Gavin Lambert
Activists in Canada have won a major victory against an ex-gay movement with the removal of an advert from a major television channel that promoted the course aimed at changing the sexual orientation of gay people. The ad, aired on the Canadian TV channel CTV, featured a man talking about how a lot of gay people actually don’t want to be gay and that it’s possible to change.
"You hear a lot about gay rights, gay marriage and the gay lifestyle being taught in our public schools for children, but what many people don’t realise, and seldom hear, is that many homosexuals don’t want to be homosexual. What many who are struggling with homosexuality don’t realise is that they can change. I should know – for 13 years, I used to be one."
LGBT activists in Canada launched an online campaign for the removal of the advert, utilising social networking sites such as myspace and Facebook.
In response CTV removed the ad straight away and has since apologised to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans community. A spokesperson for the channel said: "It was something that was taken very seriously at the highest levels of CTV. It is completely against all of our own codes."
Ex-gay movements believe that through prayer and therapy the alteration of a person’s sexual orientation is possible. This position is consistently rejected by all US leading mental health professional groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. Many people who go through the process end up not as functioning heterosexuals but as homosexuals pushed into mental breakdowns and/or other mental health problems. Some have taken to suicide in an attempt to end the confusion caused by the ex-gay programmes.
Medical News Today
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/101380.php
22 March 2008
3
Canadian Study Finds Sexual Orientation Affects Healthcare Use
A new study published by the Canadian government has found that the use of healthcare services and self-assessment of health status differ depending on sexual orientation. The study, which included responses from 346,000 gay, lesbian and bisexual persons, appears in Health Reports, a publication of the Canadian government’s statistics bureau.
"This study confirms what we’ve known for a long time: that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people have some unique healthcare needs," said Joel Ginsberg, Executive Director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. This study confirms that lesbians are less likely than heterosexual women to have regular Pap tests. This may reflect the misconception that lesbians are not at risk of contracting cervical cancer. Bisexuals and their concerns are too often minimized or dismissed. This study makes clear that the health concerns of this population – which is likely much larger than the gay and lesbian population — needs more attention. It’s time for the United States to start collecting this kind of data," he continued. The US government has refused to collect sexual orientation and gender identity data in key population health surveys despite concerted efforts by health advocacy groups.
Some key findings:
Mental health: 8% of gay men consulted a psychologist, versus 3% among their heterosexual counterparts. 10% of lesbians consulted a psychologist, as did 11% of bisexual women, versus 4% among heterosexual women. 7% of lesbians and 9% of bisexual women attended a self- help group, while only 3% of their heterosexual counterparts did so. About 17% of bisexual women had conta ct with social workers or counselors, nearly three times the proportion of 6% among heterosexual women.
Having a primary care provider: 77% of lesbians had seen a family doctor in the 12 months before the survey, compared with 83% of heterosexual women. Among women, 19% of lesbians and 24% of bisexuals did not have a regular doctor, as opposed to only 12% of heterosexuals.
Pap tests: Less than two-thirds of lesbians reported having had a Pap test within three years of the survey, well below the more than three- quarters of heterosexual and bisexual women who had done so.
Overall health: 12% of bisexual men and 16% of bisexual women reported fair or poor health, versus 8% of men and women in the heterosexual population who reported the same health status. Report available here
The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) is the world’s largest association of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) healthcare professionals. For 25 years, GLMA has been working to ensure equality in healthcare for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and healthcare professionals through advocacy, education, research and referrals. www.glma.org
The Canadian Broadcasting Company
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/03/05/qc-malay0305.html
March 5, 2008
3a
Last refugee bid refused to gay Malaysian
A Malaysian man who is to be deported Thursday after being refused refugee status is pleading with the federal government to intervene and let him stay in Canada. Kulenthiran Amirthalingan made a last-ditch appeal to Immigration Minister Diane Finley, asking her to stay the March 6 deportation order to his native Malaysia. He fears persecution because he is gay. Amirthalingan, who lives in Montreal, appeared in Ottawa at a news conference Wednesday along with New Democrat MP Thomas Mulcair to request Finley’s intervention.
"I am deported back to Malaysia, and I fear my imprisonment, so I would like to ask Ms. Finley to let me stay in Canada," he said. The soft-spoken Kulen, as he is known to his friends, says he fears for his life if he is sent back to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where he experienced discrimination, was harassed and abused for being gay. Homosexuality is a crime in Malaysia, and punishable by 20 years in jail or caning.
Section 377 of Malaysian’s Penal Code states anal and oral sex are illegal whether it’s between men, or heterosexual couples. The penal code also outlaws any sex that is against the "order of nature," whether it is sex between two men, two women or in a heterosexual relationship. Amirthalingan moved to Montreal in 2003 and applied for refugee status in Canada on humanitarian grounds, arguing his life was in danger because his homosexuality made him a target of Malaysian police who detained him for five days, and abused him, physically and sexually.
"They were punching me, pushing me down to the floor and putting their leg on me to confess that I am a gay," he told CBC last week. Being gay in Malaysia is difficult, and he is "a bit afraid for my safety" if he’s forced to go back. "I don’t have family support too, because my brothers and sisters are against [me] because I’m gay." Amirthalingan lost his refugee status case because the judge was not convinced he was gay. He filed for a humanitarian appeal and a pre-removal risk assessment, which were both rejected by the Quebec Immigration Board.
Mulcair made a public plea to Finley on Wednesday after Amirthalingan’s supporters contacted his Outremont riding office. "What is really shocking is that they’re threatening to deport Kulen not for something he did but for who he is," he said in French at the Ottawa news conference. That’s a transgression of Canada’s fundamental values, and we’re having a hard time understanding the government’s attitude, and we want this to transcend all partisan considerations." Montreal human rights lawyer Julius Grey believes Amirthalingan’s case merits the immigration minister’s review, because "in Canada it is well-established that homosexuality can be a motive for refugee status."
"It would be contrary to my conscience to send back a homosexual to an openly Muslim country," he told CBC last week. "I would say chances of something terrible happening are so high, that it would be unconscionable to not act." The Malaysia co-ordinator for Amnesty International Canada, Margaret John, said it’s not clear whether Amirthalingan’s life is at risk "but certainly his right to freedom of expression is at risk" she said. "He may be charged with being a homosexual, he may be fined, he may be imprisoned."
bclocalnews.com
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/18211234.html
April 27, 2008
4
Gay Sikhs: ‘You’re not alone’
by Paula Carlson – Surrey North Delta Leader
Amar Sangha was a 14-year-old Frank Hurt honour roll student with a dilemma. He was attracted to men, but he wanted to like women. Putting aside his adolescent crushes on Van Halen frontman David Lee Roth and actor Michael J. Fox, he began seeing a psychiatrist with the hope of becoming “straight.” It didn’t work. After three years, the counselling sessions came to an end, and Sangha began to accept who he was: a homosexual.
Twenty years later, in a home in North Delta, Sangha sits next to his mother Jaspal, who is wearing a sunny yellow sari in honour of recent Vaisakhi celebrations. The brightly coloured material matches the matriarch’s opinion of her son – the middle one of three. Calling Amar “a precious gift from God,” Jaspal accepts her boy as he is. In keeping with her religion – Sikhism – Jaspal believes all human beings are created equal and no one should harbour animosity against another. She acknowledges not everyone thinks the same way.
“Ninety-nine-point-nine per cent in my community believe (homosexuality) is a choice,” she says, including Amar’s father. Some have stronger words than that. Late last year, Balwant Singh Gill, president of the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Surrey, condemned gay relationships as “unnatural,” saying, “I hate homosexuality.” He later apologized for the comment. As for Jaspal, she knew her son Amar was different from the beginning. As a young child, he loved to hang out with the female members of the family, enjoyed playing with a doll house and took an unusual interest in saris. But instead of being shunned by his mother and extended family members – including a grandfather who pointed out his grandson’s “uniqueness” early on – Amar was encouraged to be himself.
Still, by his early teens, perhaps sensing the socially difficult road ahead, Amar tried to deny his sexuality. Although he confided in his mother, Amar didn’t officially “come out” until college, where he learned about the many homosexuals in history – among them Michelangelo and Alexander the Great. “I learned about famous people who were gay… I met other gay people who were happy,” Amar says of his turning point. Now stable in his own life, Amar is focusing his attention on others. A social worker who has advocated for several gay pride organizations, Amar, 36, has started Sher Vancouver – a support and social networking organization specifically for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and intersex (GLBTI) Sikhs and their families. He believes it is the first of its kind in the Lower Mainland.
Two other gay groups offer support for members – Trikone Vancouver (for South Asians) and Salaam Vancouver (for Muslims) – but not family members. Amar says Sher Vancouver takes its name from the Persian word for “lion,” a common word in the Punjab. Male orthodox Sikhs adopt the name Singh, and female Sikhs take on the name Kaur, which mean lion and lionness, respectively, in Sanskrit. Since launching the group April 6, Amar has signed up 33 members – mostly men, but a few women as well. He says the quick response is proof of the need. Citing the “one in 10 rule,” in which some researchers estimate that 10 per cent of the general population is homosexual, Amar believes there are thousands of gay Sikhs in the Surrey-North Delta area.
He knows of some who have been forced into marriages and lead a secret double life – dancing in gay clubs at night, and sadly, sometimes bringing sexually-transmitted diseases home. “This should not be happening,” he says. Amar’s other motivation for starting Sher is youth. He does not want them to feel as alone as he did in high school, when he didn’t know another gay soul – let alone a gay South Asian soul.
Twenty-one-year-old Surrey resident Ash, (who asked that his last name not be used), admits his younger years as a gay teen were pretty “miserable.” He never felt accepted at Sikh temples, where others would whisper about him and stare. Ash doesn’t blame his religion; Sikhism teaches tolerance and equality, and the Guru Granth Sahib (Sikh holy book) does not mention homosexuality. “I guess I blame the culture,” he says. Sikh families have high expectations for traditional marriages and children.
Not Jaspal, who says she is proud of Amar for trying to make a difference, adding she has supported him from the beginning, long before she fully understood what his sexual orientation really meant. Laughing, she says: “I once thought gay was happy.” Judging from the smile on her son’s face, it still is.
To get involved with Sher Vancouver, email Amar Sangha at amar_sangha@hotmail.com Ash is hoping to have the first gay Sikh float in Vancouver’s Pride Parade in August – complete with bhangra dancers. If you can offer sponsorship or other support, email Sangha.
xtra.ca
http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=4808&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=9
May 21, 2008
5
Jamaica boycott called off: Official response from the island government is a step forward, says Stop Murder Music Canada
by Krishna Rau
The tourist boycott of Jamaica has been called off despite an official response from the island’s government that barely mentions homosexuality. Stop Murder Music Canada (SMMC), the group organizing the boycott, cancelled the action after receiving an official response from Anne-Marie Bonner, the Jamaican consul general. The response refuses to specifically recognize gays and lesbians as a protected group in Jamaica’s constitution and doesn’t even mention repealing laws against homosexuality. But Akim Larcher, the founder of SMMC, says the response was enough to call off the boycott. The response was dated May 15, three days after the deadline set by SMMC. "The letter may not suffice in every respect but it is definitely a step forward that they see a responsibility to protect their citizens," says Larcher. "There are quite a number of positive things, especially around police and law enforcement."
SMMC — a coalition of groups including Egale Canada and the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto — had demanded that the Jamaican government immediately denounce homophobic violence in the country and begin work on repealing laws criminalizing homosexuality, including sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights and developing education campaigns for the country and for the police.
Bonner’s response doesn’t specifically address any of those demands, although it does address questions of police accountability and structural reform. She writes that she wants to "draw attention to some of the relevant actions being taken by the government of Jamaica: "A bill for consideration by Parliament at this session to establish an independent authority to have statutory responsibility for investigating instances of abuse by members of the security forces; A bill to establish a special coroner to conduct speedy inquests in cases where a citizen dies at the hands of agents of the state… Budget provided for continuation of the Citizens Security and Justice Program (CSJP), which had a positive impact on community strengthening and crime reduction."
The Jamaican Ministry of National Security describes CSJP as a "national crime and violence prevention strategy."
Bonner writes that "The government is focused on the need to dramatically reduce the incidence of crime in the country, regardless of cause…. You would be aware of the public statement issued by the government on Apr 14, 2008 reiterating its strong condemnation of ‘mob attacks and violence against any individuals or groups for any reason whatsoever,’ whilst underscoring the obligations of the state, in particular the police in such cases. "In the context of your specific concerns it is to be noted that the constitution and laws of Jamaica provide protection for the rights of all. There is not an intention to write into the constitution specific reference to any particular group, as all groups and individuals have equality under the law."
Larcher says he is not disappointed by the letter’s failure to mention homosexuality. "That was totally pretty much expected," he says. Larcher admits that the defiant response of Jamaican prime minister Bruce Golding also made SMMC think twice about a boycott, as has the possibility Golding may soon call a snap election. On Apr 23 Golding told reporters asking him about a possible boycott that he had "seen nothing yet to convince" him to repeal Jamaica’s antisodomy laws, saying, "There is a road down which I’m not going to allow this country to go under my leadership."
But Larcher says the boycott call has had positive effects. "It has not left us where we were," he says. "It’s forced the Jamaican government to face the issue head-on. It’s put them on alert. In terms of the international support it has raised the level of support." Larcher says SMMC will try to force the Canadian government to use its trade relationship with Jamaica to effect change. "We will continue to raise the education level here in Canada," he says. "We will continue putting pressure on the government here to raise human rights and sexuality in the current situation in Jamaica."
Bonner’s letter also makes reference to the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, Allsexuals and Gays (JFLAG) — the country’s queer lobby group. It is, in fact, the only time the letter uses any words to do with homosexuality. "You would, I am sure, be aware, that the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, Allsexuals and Gays does not support your strategy for a boycott of Jamaica’s tourism and trade…." she writes. "It is to be assumed that, naturally, the views of the persons whose interests are ostensibly being promoted will be respected."
"We are continuing to have an ongoing dialogue with JFLAG," Larcher says. "We are going to try to provide more strategic support for them." The program coordinator of JFLAG says the boycott proposal has led to additional homophobic violence. "We’ve had about four cases [of attacks attributed to the boycott] which have come to us," says Jason MacFarlane. "Our perspective is still the same. A boycott is not helpful, especially since the prime minister has made a statement that he won’t be going down that road."
Travel agents say that a tourist boycott was not likely to have a major impact anyway. "I’m not sure if they’re getting a lot of queer dollars so I’m not sure how much impact a boycott will have," says Deb Parent of Toronto’s Conxity travel agency. Parent also says a boycott might have hurt gay Jamaicans more than it helped them.
"There are many poor countries around the world where poor queers are part of that tourist economy," she says. "It might be better to actually make a point of going and hanging out with queers who are on the front line in a way that I, as a Canadian, am not." John Tanzella, the president of the Florida-based International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association, agrees a boycott would accomplish little. "Zero," he says. "If anything it’s going to hurt the gays and lesbians in Jamaica who are trying to survive on visits from gay and lesbian visitors. It wouldn’t be proper for us to go against the wishes of the local gay organization. It would be kind of arrogant."
The Chronicle Herald
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1059456.html
June 1, 2008
6
Halifax gay-friendly destination: Provincial officials show visiting journalists popular spots
by Michael Lightstone, Staff Reporter
Nearly three years after Rosie O’Donnell inadvertently promoted metro as a potential destination for homosexual and lesbian travellers, Destination Halifax continues to push the city as a gay-friendly place for such visitors. To that end, staff with the municipality’s tourism marketing board spent much of Saturday showing off several sites of the municipality and its environs to a small group of gay journalists. They saw such popular spots as the Spring Garden Road shopping district, the Public Gardens, Citadel Hill and Peggys Cove outside Halifax, and then had dinner at a downtown restaurant.
Hugo Dann, chairman of Halifax Pride, the city’s annual gay-pride festival, said the visitors were about a half-dozen American journalists whose reports reach gay and lesbian communities in the United States. They’ve been in Nova Scotia since Wednesday, he said, and plan to leave today. Mr. Dann said the group drove around in a minivan and he provided "a gay historical take on the city." He said he pointed out previous gay-pride parade routes in Halifax, local bars and other gay-friendly sites. Same-sex visitors are seen as upwardly mobile tourists looking to spend their money in places that are fun to visit and where they’re made to feel welcome. Other Canadian cities considered gay-friendly are Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, Mr. Dann said.
Ms. O’Donnell stopped in Halifax in 2005 while on a cruise that had set sail from New York City. Many of the passengers were part of gay or lesbian families, and Ms. O’Donnell told reporters that they were eager to come to Canada, where gays and lesbians are more welcome than in some areas of the United States. Ms. O’Donnell is planning to return to Halifax this summer on another cruise, according to a spokeswoman for Destination Halifax. And a woman wrote on the gay.com website a couple of years ago: "My partner and I felt comfortable holding hands everywhere (in Halifax), and I think the weird stares were mostly due to our tourist attire." (They were holding five maps and a camera and wearing large-brimmed hats).
Destination Halifax has its own lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender travel website. It’s called rainbowhalifax.com and it markets the city to travellers from those communities. In 2007, then-tourism minister Len Goucher said the gay and lesbian travel market was one the province wanted to tap into. He said the same-sex community "is a very strong market" and one that will grow in Nova Scotia. Potential customers come from near and far, and are often affiliated with gay travel groups, he said. Mr. Goucher said last August that homosexuals and lesbians who travel tend to spend more than other tourists — perhaps twice as much — and attracting that segment of the market was something the government recognized in a tourism plan launched earlier in 2007.
Special to Globe and Mail Update
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080609.wcomment0609/BNStory/specialComment/home
June 10, 2008
7
Five years ago today, gay marriage became legal in Ontario – and equality has lived more happily ever after
by Martha McCarthy
Five years ago today, I put on a white suit and my good luck shoes and went to the office of the Ontario Court of Appeal to pick up a judgment. The case was Halpern et al v. the Attorney-General of Canada et al. The result: “The Clerk is directed to immediately begin issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples.” Within hours, our clients Michael Leshner and Mike Stark were married in a Toronto courthouse. I could barely stand up during the ceremony; I was so emotional, my co-counsel, Joanna Radbord, had to hold me up. Over the next few weeks, we attended many marriages – of our clients, colleagues and friends – and wept throughout each one. It was totally surreal. We had fought a huge fight, had invested hours and hours, alongside many, many, others. Many, including community members, thought we couldn’t win it. It had been a battle royale: The government had argued against gay marriage in three different provinces for three years. They had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on expert reports, and if we calculated their time using Bay Street rates, many millions of dollars for the Attorneys-General to yield their litigation power. They said that marriage was “the foundation on which civilization was built” (and wondered why we felt excluded); that equal marriage “would have unintended consequences”; that it that could “make the institution less durable”; that marriage was “inherently procreative”; that equal marriage would remove incentives for heterosexuality and so all women would naturally become lesbians, and “men’s contribution to society would be reduced to little more than a teaspoonful of sperm”; that gay marriage was linguistically impossible, just as it would be to say that “my boys are close sisters” or “he’s a married bachelor” (that one actually scared me at first); and that gays and lesbians had caused or would cause the breakdown of the family.
Nobody expected that the judgment would have immediate effect. We argued for it – begged for it, truth be told – but between counsel felt that there was little prospect of an immediate remedy. That was the beauty of Halpern and the genius of Roy McMurtry, then the chief justice of Ontario. The judgment had immediate effect. Marriages proceeded. And everybody went on television and said “the genie is out of the bottle,” “the toothpaste is out of the tube,” “the horses are out of the barn” and, well, so it was. Just seven days after the judgment, the federal government announced that it would not appeal. Nothing prepared us for the backlash and media saturation. For almost the entire summer of 2003, the newspapers were consumed by gay marriage, day after day of front-page stories, for weeks and weeks, tirades by those in opposition, threats by sociologists and “ethicists” about “the end of marriage” or “the rights of children to have a mother and a father,” and volumes of ranting and downright hateful letters to the editor. Few appeared to recognize that, at least legally and, well, practically, too, it seemed, the matter was decided.
Over the next three years, the issue certainly consumed more than its share of public debate. We had religious groups seeking the right to appeal the judgment, court decisions in favour of equal marriage from British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Yukon, the first same-sex divorce, a Reference before the Supreme Court of Canada, endless debate during two subsequent federal elections, and massive efforts made by Egale and political experts in Ottawa to get the bill passed. Eventually, by a free-vote at 9 p.m. on June 28, 2005, same-sex marriage became a reality across Canada. The judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Halpern has continued the tradition of Canadian human-rights jurisprudence showing international leadership. Perhaps the best indicator of how influential the case would become was that within weeks, both U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the Pope came out with aggressively negative statements against Ontario’s highest court (we joked about how those two events were the highest measure of the accomplishment).
In November, 2003, the Massachusetts court decision, the first American court decision in favour of equal marriage, cited Halpern at the operative part of its judgment, saying: “We face a problem similar to one that recently confronted the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the highest court of that Canadian province. … In holding that the limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Charter, the Court of Appeal refined the common-law meaning of marriage. We concur with this remedy …” A few weeks ago, the California Court of Appeal became the second American appellate court to render judgment in favour of equal marriage. The decision, perhaps out of necessity, is without any doubt the most emotive and powerful of any of the judgments so far. It references Halpern and also two other Supreme Court of Canada sexual-orientation equality cases, Egan v. Canada and M. v. H. It’s estimated that about 15,000 gay or lesbian couples have been married in Canada since June 17, 2003. In Toronto, 4,650 licences had been issued to same-sex couples at the end of 2007, making up 6 per cent of the total issued in the period. Marriage rates have not declined. Divorce rates have not increased. The English language seems to have no problem accommodating the concept (in fact, several dictionaries have been amended). Nobody seems to be forcing churches to do things they don’t want to do.
Other signs of the breakdown of the family, whatever that means anyhow, are not apparent. The opposing interest groups, including some big-spending American traditional family forces, have publicly announced their retreat. Of course, what that data doesn’t show is that individual lives have changed. I have experienced and heard about my share of gay and lesbian weddings, all different and yet, often so similar. Again and again, couples speak of authenticity, and of greater feelings of citizenship and inclusion in families and communities. They tell of neighbours sewing their dresses, reuniting and acceptance with family members, the importance of the public declaration, the effect of the event on their relationships with others. Many are surprised by how different they feel, both as a couple and in their lives generally. Our 12-year-old client Robbie Kemper perhaps said it best when he took to the microphone the day of the decision and declared, “Now nobody can say I don’t have a real family.” The wedding stories are poignant and astonishing. I continue to be awed. I don’t want to leave the impression that discrimination has been eradicated, but things are just a little different. You can feel it in our cities. Not just on Church Street or Ste-Catherine, although you can feel it there, too. Yes, the pace of progress is slow, but today, on the fifth anniversary of Halpern, let’s just celebrate that it worked. The Charter is not just some academic document.
And for all of the thousands of volunteers – people working with the Metropolitan Community Church, with Egale, all of the psychological and psychiatric associations and legal-interest groups, professors, lawyers, lobbyists, educators and thousands of other community volunteers, we all get to say, five years later, we were right. The sky has not fallen. A few people’s lives are better, that’s all. Heterosexuality remains remarkably popular. As the California Court of Appeal wrote just a few weeks ago, “There are enough marriage licenses to go around.” When we argued the case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, then-chief justice Roy McMurtry interrupted my co-counsel, and said something like, “You are asking us to go further than any other country has gone to date, aren’t you?” Joanna stood back from the lectern. She paused, and took a deep breath. I began scribbling answers for her. She didn’t need them. The room was still. She simply said, “Yes, Chief Justice. And that’s why I’m proud to be a Canadian.” Today, five years later, as the judgment continues to change lives here and internationally, I simply say: Indeed. How proud we all should be that the Canadian vision of equality and freedom has life and meaning. And wings.
Martha McCarthy was lead counsel in Halpern et al v. the Attorney-General of Canada et al. She is the winner of the Ontario Bar Association 2007 Award of Excellence in Family Law and a campaigner for gay equality rights
The Globe and Mail, Ontario, Canada
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
June 10, 2008
8
Gay Marriage Five Years Later – and Equality Lives Happily
Five years ago today, gay marriage became legal in Ontario – and equality has lived more happily ever after.
by Martha McCarthy
Five years ago today, I put on a white suit and my good luck shoes and went to the office of the Ontario Court of Appeal to pick up a judgment.
The case was Halpern et al v. the Attorney-General of Canada et al. The result: “The Clerk is directed to immediately begin issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples.” Within hours, our clients Michael Leshner and Mike Stark were married in a Toronto courthouse. I could barely stand up during the ceremony; I was so emotional, my co-counsel, Joanna Radbord, had to hold me up.
Over the next few weeks, we attended many marriages – of our clients, colleagues and friends – and wept throughout each one. It was totally surreal. We had fought a huge fight, had invested hours and hours, alongside many, many, others. Many, including community members, thought we couldn’t win it. It had been a battle royale: The government had argued against gay marriage in three different provinces for three years. They had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on expert reports, and if we calculated their time using Bay Street rates, many millions of dollars for the Attorneys-General to yield their litigation power. They said that marriage was “the foundation on which civilization was built” (and wondered why we felt excluded); that equal marriage “would have unintended consequences”; that it that could “make the institution less durable”; that marriage was “inherently procreative”; that equal marriage would remove incentives for heterosexuality and so all women would naturally become lesbians, and “men’s contribution to society would be reduced to little more than a teaspoonful of sperm”; that gay marriage was linguistically impossible, just as it would be to say that “my boys are close sisters” or “he’s a married bachelor” (that one actually scared me at first); and that gays and lesbians had caused or would cause the breakdown of the family.
Nobody expected that the judgment would have immediate effect. We argued for it – begged for it, truth be told – but between counsel felt that there was little prospect of an immediate remedy. That was the beauty of Halpern and the genius of Roy McMurtry, then the chief justice of Ontario. The judgment had immediate effect. Marriages proceeded. And everybody went on television and said “the genie is out of the bottle,” “the toothpaste is out of the tube,” “the horses are out of the barn” and, well, so it was. Just seven days after the judgment, the federal government announced that it would not appeal.
Nothing prepared us for the backlash and media saturation. For almost the entire summer of 2003, the newspapers were consumed by gay marriage, day after day of front-page stories, for weeks and weeks, tirades by those in opposition, threats by sociologists and “ethicists” about “the end of marriage” or “the rights of children to have a mother and a father,” and volumes of ranting and downright hateful letters to the editor. Few appeared to recognize that, at least legally and, well, practically, too, it seemed, the matter was decided.
Over the next three years, the issue certainly consumed more than its share of public debate. We had religious groups seeking the right to appeal the judgment, court decisions in favour of equal marriage from British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Yukon, the first same-sex divorce, a Reference before the Supreme Court of Canada, endless debate during two subsequent federal elections, and massive efforts made by Egale and political experts in Ottawa to get the bill passed. Eventually, by a free-vote at 9 p.m. on June 28, 2005, same-sex marriage became a reality across Canada. The judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Halpern has continued the tradition of Canadian human-rights jurisprudence showing international leadership. Perhaps the best indicator of how influential the case would become was that within weeks, both U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the Pope came out with aggressively negative statements against Ontario’s highest court (we joked about how those two events were the highest measure of the accomplishment).
In November, 2003, the Massachusetts court decision, the first American court decision in favour of equal marriage, cited Halpern at the operative part of its judgment, saying: “We face a problem similar to one that recently confronted the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the highest court of that Canadian province.… In holding that the limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Charter, the Court of Appeal refined the common-law meaning of marriage. We concur with this remedy …”
A few weeks ago, the California Court of Appeal became the second American appellate court to render judgment in favour of equal marriage. The decision, perhaps out of necessity, is without any doubt the most emotive and powerful of any of the judgments so far. It references Halpern and also two other Supreme Court of Canada sexual-orientation equality cases, Egan v.Canada and M. v. H.
It’s estimated that about 15,000 gay or lesbian couples have been married in Canada since June 17, 2003. In Toronto, 4,650 licences had been issued to same-sex couples at the end of 2007, making up 6 per cent of the total issued in the period. Marriage rates have not declined. Divorce rates have not increased. The English language seems to have no problem accommodating the concept (in fact, several dictionaries have been amended). Nobody seems to be forcing churches to do things they don’t want to do.
Other signs of the breakdown of the family, whatever that means anyhow, are not apparent. The opposing interest groups, including some big-spending American traditional family forces, have publicly announced their retreat. Of course, what that data doesn’t show is that individual lives have changed. I have experienced and heard about my share of gay and lesbian weddings, all different and yet, often so similar. Again and again, couples speak of authenticity, and of greater feelings of citizenship and inclusion in families and communities. They tell of neighbours sewing their dresses, reuniting and acceptance with family members, the importance of the public declaration, the effect of the event on their relationships with others.
Many are surprised by how different they feel, both as a couple and in their lives generally. Our 12-year-old client Robbie Kemper perhaps said it best when he took to the microphone the day of the decision and declared, “Now nobody can say I don’t have a real family.”
The wedding stories are poignant and astonishing. I continue to be awed. I don’t want to leave the impression that discrimination has been eradicated, but things are just a little different. You can feel it in our cities. Not just on Church Street or Ste-Catherine, although you can feel it there, too. Yes, the pace of progress is slow, but today, on the fifth anniversary of Halpern, let’s just celebrate that it worked. The Charter is not just some academic document.
And for all of the thousands of volunteers – people working with the Metropolitan Community Church, with Egale, all of the psychological and psychiatric associations and legal-interest groups, professors, lawyers, lobbyists, educators and thousands of other community volunteers, we all get to say, five years later, we were right. The sky has not fallen. A few people’s lives are better, that’s all. Heterosexuality remains remarkably popular. As the California Court of Appeal wrote just a few weeks ago, “There are enough marriage licenses to go around.”
When we argued the case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, then-chief justice Roy McMurtry interrupted my co-counsel, and said something like, “You are asking us to go further than any other country has gone to date, aren’t you?” Joanna stood back from the lectern. She paused, and took a deep breath. I began scribbling answers for her. She didn’t need them. The room was still. She simply said, “Yes, Chief Justice. And that’s why I’m proud to be a Canadian.”
Today, five years later, as the judgment continues to change lives here and internationally, I simply say: Indeed. How proud we all should be that the Canadian vision of equality and freedom has life and meaning. And wings.
Martha McCarthy was lead counsel in Halpern et al v. the Attorney-General of Canada et al. She is the winner of the Ontario Bar Association 2
canada.com
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c60c77ea-656d-451a-be21-8a6d3f5bcb60
August 26, 2008
9
Manitoba’s first and only gay camp offers safe haven for youth
by Carol Sanders Winnipeg Free Press
Winnipeg – Camp Aurora isn’t so different. Like lots of summer camps for kids, there’s rock climbing, dancing, barbecues and bonfires. And camp volunteer Breyanna Burlesque burns the midnight oil, ready to listen when someone needs to talk. Her campers may need it more than most. Camp Aurora is Manitoba’s first and only summer camp for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited youth, offering a safe haven where young people can focus on building and nurturing leadership abilities and resiliency.
On Day 1, everyone decorates a Chinese food takeout container – dubbed "warm and fuzzy boxes" – intended to hold uplifting messages from others at camp. "It’s like gay Christmas!" laughs Ed Theroux, a peer youth counsellor who’s given up a week of her summer to volunteer at the camp, now in its second year. The 23-year-old social work student grew up in a small francophone community in Manitoba and knows what it’s like to grow up feeling alone and like she didn’t belong.
"There were the sports people, the people who wanted to be the sports people, and the people who like automobiles," she says. "I couldn’t stand any of them." She predicted the 35 campers, ranging in age from 12 to 21, will form a strong bond during their four-day stay, although not a romantic or sexual one. Coupling at camp is forbidden. "For many, it’s the first time being in a positive atmosphere with others who’ve lived the same experience," says Theroux. "We all come from different backgrounds, but we’ve all experienced homophobia."
The camp, situated on a scenic bend in the Assiniboine River just west of Winnipeg, is a haven from it. "You can be yourself," says Sebashtien Reece, 18, who was born Tanisha. "I knew I was gay when I was nine," he says. When he was 13, he "came out" and told everyone at his school. "Fear is a waste of my time," says Reece, who is thinking about sex reassignment surgery down the road. "If you’re afraid of something, you’re not really living." Reece is entering Grade 12 at Churchill High School this fall, where he says his sexual orientation isn’t an issue. "Nobody cares."
According to Village Clinic, 25 per cent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited youth have attempted suicide for reasons related top being gay, and 25 per cent have severe drug and alcohol problems. Many drop out of school because of harassment, low self-esteem or fear of being outed. "We have individuals with lower self-esteem, higher rates of depression and addiction because of the social pressure and sense of shame and the sense of having to hide," says Shelly Smith, executive director of the Rainbow Resource Centre and one of the camp’s six directors. Prejudice and homophobia turned inward often lead to people hurting themselves, according to the advocacy group, Lambda.
A chance to camp "out" gives the youths an opportunity to connect with others with a shared experience. "They’re not alone," said Smith. It couldn’t happen at a better time than the end of summer holidays, she added. "A lot of kids dread going back to school," said Smith. The campers pay $25 each, but the actual operating cost is closer to $250 per camper, said Smith. Private donors, the Winnipeg Foundation, Healthy Child Manitoba and the Rainbow Resource Centre fund the annual camp.
actoronto.org
http://www.actoronto.org/research.nsf/pages/riskmanagement/$file/Risk%20Management%20in%20Circuits%20of%20Gay%20and%20Bisexual%20Men.pdf
September 2008
10
A Risk Management in Circuits of Gay and Bisexual Men: Results from the Toronto Pride Survey
As HIV transmission rates among gay and bisexual men have turned upward in the early 21st century, the question of how HIV prevention might be made more effective has acquired renewed urgency. Providing the facts about HIV transmission in order to give people the tools to reduce their risk of infection played a major role in the dramatic fall in HIV infection among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) through the 1990s. This “AIDS 101” message still has value as there are always new men entering into relations with other men, whether they arrive from the upcoming generation, immigration, or selfdiscovery, but knowing the facts is clearly not enough to bring about the consistent reduction of HIV transmission. The research literature shows a wide range of vulnerabilities and reasoning processes that point to the need for multiple interventions aimed at a variety of audiences. Gay and bisexual men are not simply a single category who can be reached with a few telegraphic messages, but a complex and diverse population that responds in different ways to prevention appeals. Among the objectives for this research project on rejuvenating HIV prevention for gay and bisexual men is to map some of these differences, identify “hot spots” in HIV transmission, and gain insight into the processes
through which unprotected sex unfolds, so that the diversity of these communities might be better addressed.
