The Integrity Commissioner’s report was unethical and here’s why

By: Lauren O'Donnell, Contributor

Folks, we need to talk. It’s time to take a hard look at what’s going on in this city — our city. More specifically, in the hallowed halls of Hamilton City Hall.

It’s no secret City Hall has a checkered past with the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. If you’re not familiar with what happened in 2SLGBTQIA+ politics in Hamilton last year, here’s a comprehensive guide by former Silhouette News Editor, Trisha Gregorio. For a number of reasons, including that a city employee has an alleged history as a neo-nazi leader, the Hamilton LGBTQ advisory committee requested that Hamilton City Hall not fly the Pride and trans flags. City Hall chose to fly the flags anyway.

For a number of reasons, including that a city employee has an alleged history as a neo-nazi leader, the Hamilton LGBTQ advisory committee requested that Hamilton City Hall not fly the Pride and trans flags. City Hall chose to fly the flags anyway.

But why am I talking about this now? Early this year, the Volunteer Chair of the LGBTQ advisory committee, Cameron Kroetsch, made comments disparaging Hamilton City Council. Shortly after, an integrity commissioner investigation was launched against him, at the council’s request. The accusations that were made against him were allegedly incorrect, something which was not mentioned in the final report. Instead, the integrity commissioner issued a report recommending that Kroetsch be reprimanded and should consider stepping down from his role.

Several people and organizations, including former Hamilton Citizen of the Year Graham Crawford and the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic, have expressed concerns that this process has been misused and that the council’s actions can be read as alienating to the Hamilton 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

I don’t think that I can properly do justice to this issue unless I give you some background on what an integrity commissioner is and what they’re supposed to do. According to every other site I checked, an integrity commissioner exists to investigate ethics violations on the part of elected officials and local boards. The LGBTQ advisory committee does not fall under either of these headings.

Of the websites I consulted, in addition to the ones cited above, only one made any mention of investigating citizen committees: Hamilton. The page with this definition was updated to include citizen committees the day after the complaint against Kroetsch was filed. To reiterate: integrity commissioners exist to hold elected officials accountable on behalf of citizens. In this case, it’s being used by elected officials to penalize citizens that critique them. Changing the definition on the website doesn’t change the job description.

But how can I be sure that the definition update is connected to this case? How do I know when it was updated? The short answer is that I am by no means the first person to write about this topic. Joey Coleman of The Public Record, an independent news site dedicated to providing informed coverage of Hamilton’s communities and civic affairs, has begun a four-part series on the ethics of the integrity commissioner’s report and investigation which I highly recommend reading.

The integrity commissioner’s report on Kroetsch is ethically questionable at best and just plain bullying at worst. I regret to inform you that it gets worse. On Sept. 30, Ward 14 Councillor Terry Whitehead tweeted a message that some community members interpreted as threatening, asking if the Hamilton Center for Civic Inclusion was open to an integrity commissioner investigation. Spoiler alert: it’s not.

“The integrity commissioner just investigated a complaint against a volunteer member of an advisory committee after a complaint by Council and on the same day that Council received the report, a Council member is already threatening to sic the Integrity Commissioner on a charity,” said Ryan McGreal, the editor for Raise the Hammer in his article on the subject.

There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s briefly review the timeline. Here are the facts as I know them:

→ The LGBTQ advisory committee — a volunteer citizen organization — asked that the Pride flags not be flown at City Hall. This request was ignored.
→ Cameron Kroetsch, the chair of the committee, critiqued Hamilton City Council.
→ City Council requested that the integrity commissioner investigate Kroetsch for alleged violations which now appear to be false. In doing so, both Council and the integrity commissioner willfully misused and misinterpreted the mandate of an integrity commissioner.
→ The commissioner’s report reprimanded Kroetsch and advised that he step down as chair. This is not under the purview of either council or the integrity commissioner. In a statement, Kroetsch said that he felt the report was designed to silence his voice.
→ Following this report, a councillor tweeted a potentially threatening message at a charity that helps marginalized communities, suggesting that this same procedure could be used against them.

The integrity commissioner exists to hold politicians responsible for their actions. Instead, this system has been weaponized against volunteer advocates and charities, the very people it should be protecting. This plot wouldn’t be out of place in an episode of Black Mirror.

The integrity commissioner exists to hold politicians responsible for their actions. Instead, this system has been weaponized against volunteer advocates and charities, the very people it should be protecting.

If the folks down at City Hall truly want to build bridges and foster trust with the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, then they need to walk the walk. Painting a rainbow crosswalk isn’t going to cut it. City council needs to be reminded that they’re supposed to work for the people, not against them.

Update: At the Oct. 14 meeting, Councillor Nrinder Nann made a motion for council to reconsider the reprimand against Kroetsch, which will be debated at Oct. 28's meeting.

Photo C/O Kristin Archer  

Note: This article has been edited to clarify that Marc Lemire has been working for the city of Hamilton since 2005.

cw: homophobia, physical violence, white supremacy, religious extremism

The annual Hamilton Pride event held on June 24, 2006 was interrupted midway by a group of homophobic soccer fans. The soccer fans allegedly swore and spat on those marching in the parade, but the Hamilton police were quick to respond, forming a barrier between the fans and the parade participants. 

At the time, Lyla Miklos, a Hamilton-based activist, creative and journalist, was a board member of the Hamilton Pride committee. She was also one of many who marched in the pride parade—an experience she detailed thirteen years later in a deputation to the Hamilton police services board on July 18, 2019. 

The deputation came a month after a hate group violently interrupted the 2019 Hamilton Pride event. A video from the scene shows a snippet of the commotion, which occurred in the middle of Gage Park and away from Pride festivities. 

Anti-pride demonstrators gathered at the event, shouting homophobic and white nationalist rhetoric. The video appears to show a religious group holding signs with phrases from the Bible and accusing Pride participants of perpetuating “sin”. 

Another group is shown attempting to protect Pride-goers from the anti-pride demonstrators, trying to erect a black curtain to cover the anti-pride group and their signs. 

Eventually, the confrontations escalated to punching, grabbing and choking, with one of the disruptors hitting pride-goers in the face with a motorcycle helmet. 

In the aftermath, the Pride Hamilton board of directors published a statement saying that the situation would not have escalated to such a violent degree had the police responded sooner. 

The statement also discusses Pride Hamilton’s multiple attempts to explain to the police that a similar protest happened during Pride 2018 and that they expected the number of protestors to escalate for 2019. 

Nevertheless, Miklos’ deputation from July 18, 2019 points out the differences in police responsiveness between the 2006 and 2019 Pride events. 

“. . . I am puzzled as to why the [Hamilton] police were unable to mobilize themselves in the same way [they did in the 2006 Pride parade] at Gage Park for Hamilton Pride in 2019, especially since they knew in advance that there was a threat,” she said.  

Pride Hamilton’s statement also touches upon the relationship between the Hamilton Police Services and the local queer community. 

“There have been long-standing issues between the 2SLGBTQIA+ community and Hamilton Police Services that remain unresolved. We feel that this was an opportunity for police to demonstrate that they were there to protect and act in solidarity with the community,” said Pride Hamilton’s statement. 

However, not all members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community believe that increasing police responsiveness is the answer. A June 2019 study from McMaster’s department of labour studies surveyed 900 members of Hamilton’s queer community. Approximately one third of respondents stated that they had been treated unjustly by police, and transgender respondents were more likely to report unfair treatment.

Some recount the events of Hamilton Pride as an example of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community coming together to defend themselves.

Indeed, the protest at the Pride event is only one part of the fraught history between the city of Hamilton and the members of its local queer community. 

Since 2005, Marc Lemire has been working as IT network analyst for the city of Hamilton. From 1995 to 2005, Lemire ran Heritage Front, a now defunct neo-Nazi white supremacist organization. He was also the webmaster of the Freedom Site, which hosted the websites of several Canadian anti-Semitic organizations. 

In an email to CBC News, however, Lemire denied being either a white supremacist or a neo-Nazi. Despite Lemire’s claims, when Lemire’s appointment and history became public knowledge in May 2019, the Hamilton LGBTQ advisory group responded by stating in a motion that with the city allowing Lemire to work for and with them, it had failed to show solidarity with the marginalized communities in Hamilton. According to the LGBTQ advisory group, Lemire’s employment threatens the safety of city staff and volunteers that belong to these communities.

The advisory group is also protesting a police services board appointment from April 2019, which it believes was a missed opportunity to appoint someone who was part of a marginalized community instead of another of the white, straight men that comprise a majority of the current board. 

Another criticism from the advisory group is that the city didn’t implement a transgender and gender non-conforming protocol as quickly as they should have. The protocol was established three years after an incident in 2014 that sparked an Ontario Human Rights tribunal settlement. The advisory group also alleged that the committee behind the protocol was chosen by the city arbitrarily, without careful regard of who would best serve the intentions of the protocol. 

In consideration of all this, the advisory group declared that since the city has failed to demonstrate solidarity with the 2SLGBTQIA+ community in Hamilton, it didn’t want the city to fly flags in honour of Hamilton Pride 2019. However, on May 30, 2019, rather than adhering to the advisory group’s request, city officials still chose to fly flags symbolic of Pride and the transgender community — only without hosting a flag-raising ceremony, in an attempt to reach a compromise between the city’s plans and the advisory group’s request. 

In a CBC article from the time, Mayor Fred Eisenberger insisted on flying the flag, citing that one advisory group does not represent the entirety of the LGBTQ community. 

“There’s a much broader audience out there, including our own staff,” he said. 

Cameron Kroetsch, chair of the LGBTQ advisory committee, acknowledges that some 2SLGBTQIA+ residents might have wanted a ceremony and that people would have felt differently about the flag-raising. 

“It’s a powerful symbol, and you can’t perfectly represent everybody,” he said. 

Less than a month after this, on June 15, 2019, the 2019 Hamilton Pride event was interrupted by a hateful protest, and tensions between the city of Hamilton and the local queer community came to a boil.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger tweeted his reaction to the Pride incident, “I am disappointed with the events that transpired at yesterday’s Hamilton’s PRIDE celebration at Gage Park. Hate speech and acts of violence have no place in the City of Hamilton. We are committed to being a Hamilton For All where everyone feels safe and welcome.” 

However, the mayor’s intentions did not bring any positive impact for the remainder of the year.

On June 18, 2019, a community conversation regarding Hamilton’s 2SLGBTQIA+ residents ended in a heated discussion about the lack of effort from Hamilton police in keeping Pride participants safe. 

On June 22, 2019, in an outcry against the arrest of Cedar Hopperton, an anarchist activist charged with alleged parole violations following the Pride incident, protesters marched from the Hamilton police headquarters in Barton Jail, where Hopperton was detained. Hopperton, a prominent member of the Hamilton queer community, was the first arrest made following the Pride protest. This drew questions and criticism, as videos of the June 15 incident also showed at least two alt-right protesters committing violence against participants of Hamilton Pride. Hopperton’s supporters also argued that Hopperton was acting in defense of the community while the Hamilton Police failed to arrive at the scene in a timely manner. 

https://www.facebook.com/TrentCWTP/photos/a.1835158899853468/2268043049898382/?type=3&theater

On July 12, 2019, around two dozen members of Hamilton’s 2SLGBTQIA+ community, alongside allies, set up an encampment at Hamilton city hall in protest of the Hamilton police’s alleged failure to stand in support and in assistance to the city’s marginalized communities.

On Aug. 27, 2019, the Hamilton police expressed the desire to improve their relationship with the city’s 2SLGBTQIA+ community. Jackie Penman, the spokesperson for the Hamilton police, claimed that the police’s goal was to identify what should be done to reestablish communication between the Hamilton queer community and the police. 

Nevertheless, a month after this, on Sept. 10, 2019, Chief Eric Girt of the Hamilton police makes homophobic and transphobic comments on the Bill Kelly show. One month later on Oct. 10, 2019, the police board denied a request from Kroetsch from the city’s LGBTQ advisory committee to provide a deputation to the board, claiming that Kroetsch wanted to speak about city issues and not police ones. 

When asked about where the police should start with repairing its fractured relationship with the Hamilton queer community, Kroetsch points out that the work behind this has already been done by many kinds of groups long before 2019. 

“The chief quite clearly stated that he knew what the issues were. So I think the start has to be … getting a plan from the City of Hamilton, getting a plan from city police to talk about what they’re planning to do now … What can you do, what are you able to do, how are you able to participate in this conversation marginalised communities have been asking you for decades?” said Kroetsch. 

He also spotlights the frustration felt by many members of marginalised communities, who have already done a lot of talking and who have to relive traumatic experiences in sharing their accounts with others. Kroetsch says that he does not see a plan coming forward from any civic leaders that truly take into account what marginalised individuals are telling them. 

In a similar vein, Miklos criticizes the constant defensiveness from the mayor and the chief of police. She calls for more compassion and urges the mayor to do something more helpful than simply showing up at cultural events. 

Regarding the future of the city’s relationship with the local 2SLGBTQIA+ community, Kroestch said that it is up to the city, including the police, to listen and engaged with the right folks. 

“There’s a lot of awkwardness there and uncomfortability, and they have to find a way to work through that for themselves, and work through what it means to engage with marginalised communities …  And that’s really the start of the work and I think it’s a long road for that. But the sooner they get down that road, the better,” said Kroetsch. 

 

This article is part of our Sex and the Steel City, our annual sex-positive issue. Click here to read more content from the special issue.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

Photo by Cindy Cui / Photo Editor 

* Names have been changed to protect the privacy of individuals

On Nov. 30, 2019, a Dutch exchange student at McMaster University was thrown out of the Dirty Dog Saloon, a downtown Hamilton club frequented by McMaster students, after he was found dancing on a pole that appears to be meant exclusively for women. 

Summer Shepherd, a fourth year Communications student at McMaster and a friend of the exchange student, detailed the incident in a Dec. 1, 2019 submission to Spotted At Mac, a Facebook page dedicated to anonymously publishing posts submitted by McMaster students. Although she was not present at the time of the incident, Shepherd wanted to share the exchange student’s own testimony on a platform that would better reach the Hamilton public. 

According to this testimony, the exchange student, who has asked not to be identified and will henceforth be referred to as Nick*, was dancing on the pole when female bartenders began throwing ice cubes at him at his friends. He was then allegedly pulled off the pole by security guards and forced out of the club with neither his jacket nor his wallet.

“He was thrown on the ground outside and when he tried to defend himself, a bouncer put his hands around his neck, choking him … Another security guard came outside to scream at him using homophobic slurs and threw his jacket at him,” she said in a testimony posted on her own Facebook profile. 

She added that Nick had a similar experience several weeks before the Nov. 30 incident, when he tried to go on one of the poles and was forced out of Dirty Dog’s. 

This apparent policy at Dirty Dog’s seems to prohibit men from using the poles has led to accusations of homophobia. The Nov. 30 incident is not an isolated one. Multiple people have shared stories of similar cases in which security used aggressive behaviour to enforce the alleged policy. Two years prior, on Sept. 30, 2017, Michael*, then a McMaster student, experienced a similar situation. 

“ ... I climbed up [one of the poles]. I was just up there dancing and having fun when I suddenly felt my legs pushed out from under me. I smashed my back as I landed on the platform and was then pushed completely off. I looked up from the ground and saw a bouncer walking away from the platform ...  While [our group] talked about it, we saw the bouncer do the same thing to another male with no warning,” he said. 

The following day, Michael’s brother messaged Dirty Dog’s on Facebook to talk through what the bouncer had done. 

Screenshots provided by Michael’s brother show the club explaining, “ … I am sure as per our policy that your brother was told at least once to get off the bar or pole. He most likely ignored the instruction which then escalated the incident … The policy is not to tap or aggressively grab the legs of patrons on a pole since this can and would result in that patron kicking back. So [Michael’s] impression of the situation is both careless and probably wrong.” 

The Dirty Dog Saloon representative continued by pointing out that it is the club’s priority to protect the security team’s safety. They stated that the security guard would not have used force, as the patron might have retaliated with physical violence. As a result, they claimed to have difficulty understanding the “level of trauma” that Michael claims happened. 

The representative also cited the likelihood of Michael having been drunk, which they felt supported the possibility of disruptive behaviour on his part. Michael, however, maintains that he was sober throughout the situation and that he had not been given ample warning before he had been pushed off the pole platform. 

A Jan. 10, 2015 review by a patron on ClubCrawlers tells yet another similar Dirty Dog’s story. 

“They have a few dancing poles in the bar and jokingly with my friends, I started dancing on one, which I was forcefully taken down from and told guys were not allowed to dance on them.” 

In the review, the patron claims to have been respectful to security; he heeded the policy for the rest of the night after the incident and did not retaliate. He then spoke to the manager, only to be told that the “women only” policy is in place because women — referred to derogatorily by the manager, according to Kyle’s testimony — bring profit to the club when they dance on the poles. 

Furthermore, the reviewer claims that the Dirty Dog Saloon manager stated that men are more likely to turn off clubbers and that patrons allegedly come to the club for the primary purpose of seeking out women. 

When asked for a statement regarding the Nov. 30 incident and alleged history of similar events preceding it, the Dirty Dog general manager, Paul McDonald, did not respond. 

Other people have reached out to the club to discuss the incident and have not received a response, either. Jenny*, a student at McMaster, reached out to the manager in support of the Dutch exchange student and did not receive a reply. 

Undeterred, she nevertheless began a petition to boycott the Dirty Dog Saloon the day after the Spotted at Mac post was published. 

“I created the petition mainly in response to this issue, but also because after reading about other experiences people have had with [Dirty Dog], including incidences [of] racial profiling, I want people to know that this is not okay. We should be holding institutions to higher standards and not being complicit with acts of racism or anti-LGBTQ violence. Because if we turn the other way, we too are participating,” said Jenny. 

"We should be holding institutions to higher standards and not being complicit with acts of racism or anti-LGBTQ violence. Because if we turn the other way, we too are participating,” 

She also criticizes the “women only” rule attached to dancing at the Dirty Dog Saloon. She believes that, by limiting dancing to women, this rule marginalizes members of the LGBTQIAA+ community both by promoting heteronormativity and by placing a restriction on those who do not identify with the gender binary at all. It also perpetuates the idea that women should be dancing for men. 

Jenny  acknowledges that, as a white cis person, she cannot speak for the lived experiences of marginalized folks. However, she now hopes to create a new, more inclusive petition with people who have experienced discrimination at the Dirty Dog Saloon. 

Her call to hold the club accountable for its policies and history of aggression is echoed by both fellow supporters and victims. 

“This level of homophobia and violent behaviour cannot be tolerated. We need to hold clubs in Hamilton like Dirty [Dog] accountable for these disgusting acts carried out against LGBTQIAA people,” Shepherd said. 

Michael, as someone who has testified to experiencing discrimination firsthand from the Dirty Dog Saloon, also wants to clarify that he has nothing against people who choose to go to this club. Instead, his primary goal is to hold management accountable. 

“In my opinion, it shouldn’t be controversial that physically assaulting people is not okay,” he said. 

“In my opinion, it shouldn’t be controversial that physically assaulting people is not okay,”

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

A poppy created and sold on eBay by Julie Fearnley in 2018. Photo C/O Julie Fearnley. 

By Sarah Homsi, Contributor

cw: homophobia

As vibrant, red poppies take residence on jackets and over people’s hearts, they act as a solemn symbol to remind us of those who have fallen during times of war. 

This year, the lead up to Remembrance Day feels different. My various social media platforms have been overwhelmed with people disputing the rainbow poppy. Some are seething over its alleged disrespect to the symbolic and traditional red poppy, as they believe that breaking the tradition of having a red poppy, which represents remembrance and peace, will dishonour our veterans. Meanwhile, others are applauding its inclusion of a historically persecuted group, because it recognizes the 2SLGBTQ+ veterans that have fought for us. The Internet has not been this divided since the white/gold versus blue/black dress fiasco of 2016. As is the case for most viral internet debates, misinformation is being spread.

Never seen something so disrespectful in all my days, What does LGBTQ have to do with the war? Red represents Blood, Black represents widows and loved ones, Green represents land the blood was spilled on.

NEVER change the poppy. What right do you have?

Fuck your Rainbow Poppy. pic.twitter.com/TKwYrOgtFX

— Brooke💋 (@BrookeCutler_) November 3, 2019

The heteros are cool with white poppies for peace and purple poppies for animals but god forbid there’s one rainbow poppy in honour of the lgbt soldiers that died for this country. Smells like homophobia to me

— ella (@womeninmvsic) November 4, 2019

Images can often convey news faster than words. The image of the rainbow poppy that has been circulating online, a grainy yet colourful enamel pin on a black background, was taken from a UK-based seller’s eBay page. This seller has been selling the item for many years but has since taken it down due to the controversy. 

As many of us have borne witness to people getting in heated debates over the rainbow poppy, ask yourself if you have actually seen anyone donning it. While people have been fervently accusing members of the 2SLBGTQ+ community of pushing the “gay” agenda, it should be noted that the rainbow poppy was never part of any sort of campaign from members of this community. Rather, it was something being sold on eBay that Twitter discovered, which resulted in arguments on what is the most appropriate way to honour our veterans.

Regardless of whether or not the rainbow poppy was put forward to be distributed and worn in November — even though they were not made with the intention of being widely distributed and worn — one cannot ignore the hate that was spread as a result of this dispute. Those adamantly opposed to the rainbow poppy seem to be using it as an opportunity to condemn the 2SLGBTQ+ community, promoting a fictitious narrative that there was actually a plan to make rainbow poppies a mainstay.

https://twitter.com/19Warrior85/status/1191332761208053760

Apparently, anything other than a red poppy is disrespectful to some, despite the existence of purple, white and black poppies, all holding a different meaning. Those arguing against red poppies are implying that representation has no place when we honour those who have fought. A lot of the arguments made against the rainbow poppy were instances of homophobia, masked under the guise of saying these arguments were intended to respect the vets. Some people have made it very clear that they can pick and choose which lives to honour, and which to not. 

Whether or not you support the existence of a rainbow poppy, we should all take the time to reflect on why we remember, as well as refrain from propagating hate rooted in baseless claims. Remembrance Day is about remembering those who risked their lives for our country, but we must also remember the groups our history textbooks often don’t cover. Their lives have just as much meaning. Additionally, we should all reflect on how quickly we share random images on social media without giving them a second thought.

 

The City of Hamilton is pursuing a partnership with Cardus, despite concerns from some residents regarding the organization’s allegedly anti-LGBTQ and islamophobic views.  

According to their website, Cardus is a non-partisan, Christian-based think tank and registered charity that provides independent research and commentary on a wide range of topics. These topics include education, health, law, work, economics and spirited citizenship. The organization has recently directed its attention towards the Balfour House, a heritage site currently owned by the Ontario Heritage Trust and managed by the City of Hamilton, with the possibility of using it as their home base.

The historic stone mansion on the Mountain Brow currently requires renovations and is not accessible to the public. However, Cardus has proposed to restore and re-open the Balfour House for their own use and to make it available to the community. 

“Allowing Cardus to cover the costs of restoring and re-opening Balfour House to serve as our head office is a major part of keeping this city’s historical and architectural legacy alive,” said Michael Van Pelt, Cardus president and CEO, in a news release. 

According to Van Pelt, the proposal would restore the Balfour House and save taxpayers $1.5 million in repairs and operating costs over the next 20 years. Moreover, Cardus claims to have the support of David Balfour, whose grandparents once lived in the house during the 20th century. 

While the apparent financial benefit of Cardus’ proposal has captivated several city councillors, many Hamiltonians believe that the negotiations have given public space to anti-LGBTQ views.

“There is little doubt in my mind that some of Cardus’ publications could be interpreted by many as homophobic, Islamaphobic and transphobic. However, there [were] also many other publications that demonstrated acceptance of Canada’s pluralistic, multicultural and religious diverse society,” said Brad Clark, Ward 9 (Upper Stoney Creek) city councillor, in an interview with CBC news. 

The possibility of a partnership between the city and Cardus may allow for other recent discussions about hate in Hamilton to resurface. This past year, Hamilton’s city and police were criticized for how they handled violence at Hamilton’s Pride festival in June. More recently, yellow vesters, members of a xenophobic far-right hate group, are gathering weekly to protest in front of city hall. 

https://twitter.com/sarahjama_/status/1174981361557336066

“I’m no expert, but it seems like if Cardus were to exist in #HamOnt it would scale up, build upon a foundation of, and add a false sense of sophistication to the levels of white supremacist organizing in our city,” tweeted McMaster alumni and community organizer Sarah Jama. 

However, explicit evidence of Cardus’ alleged anti-LGBTQ and islamophobic views is hard to find. It is difficult to identify any overtly hateful content in the numerous articles the organization has published, instead appearing to focus on the freedom of religious expression.

While some articles are critical of these communities, others such as The Positive Difference of Islam and Enriched by Difference suggest the opposite. 

Van Pelt recently sent a letter to city councillors, stating that Cardus complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ontario Human Rights Code, Ontario Employment Act and the City of Hamilton Equity and Inclusion Policy. 

“I would like to add that Cardus has an impressive record in terms of building an open and tolerant society in Canada . . . [Cardus leads] some of the most respectful and thoughtful discussions on faith and public life in the country, ” said Van Pelt in the letter. 

Hamilton’s City Council voted 13-2 to continue negotiations with Cardus. The majority of city councillors seem to agree that a partnership with Cardus may be in the city’s best interest as it will save on public expenditure, regardless of the potential impact on community groups. 

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

By Udoka Okafor

There is this joyous celebration of queer pride in Canada - pride that in my country was a cause for banishment and shame. Before I came to Canada, I was surrounded and immersed in homophobia. Homophobia was the norm, an unspoken ideal, and one that never needed an explanation.

I watched people get suspended and expelled from my very strict catholic high school simply for being gay. People shriek and become nauseated at the very idea of the possibility that being gay was okay. Though not legalized, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, is the regime that we are expected to live by.

The hate surrounding gay people in Nigeria is ridiculous. It can warrant bullying, extreme hate and abuse, expulsions from school, correctional rape arranged by family members, and death.

Being gay in Nigeria is difficult. And death, I promise, is not the worst of fates.

I was surrounded by so much infectious hate and I never understood why I was expected to hate them.

Some people that got expelled for being gay were my friends, but they didn’t seem different from me in any respect, and so I wondered why someone’s sexuality had so much power.

People gave moral, religious, ethical, social, and so many other forms of justification for their homophobia. What developed within me was an inherent tendency to look at all homosexuals differently. But the worst part of it all is that I never looked at them with hate, no, I looked at them with pity.

Coming to Canada was very radical because I was suddenly immersed in this culture of equality with actual reasons for equality, not baseless justifications taken completely out of context. It was different and different was good. I began researching on all things homosexual, their history, the plights they have been through, their fights for equality and the progress they have made and how much farther they needed to go. The moment I discovered equality trumps homophobia was the moment I began to resent my country for teaching me ideals of hate.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. I had to say that to my self repeatedly in order to flush out the garbage that I was taught. It was a whole new experience for me and it was liberating.

All of this is why the importance of pride events cannot be overstated. No matter how pro equality we are, sometimes we have to remind ourselves that there is no vice in being homosexual. I have met a lot of homosexuals and their sexuality did not make them evil. In fact, their sexuality had no defining basis on their character.

But sometimes, when we throw ourselves into pride week, we forget about homosexuals everywhere. As you are reading this article, in this moment, a gay person is being raped to correct their sexuality, or beaten to the point of stupor. And even when they are killed, the depravity and immorality of the circumstances that they are killed in are torturous. Some are burnt, others are stoned, and much worse.

So no, in a sense the concept of pride events is still somewhat overwhelming to me. I understand why Canadian homosexuals would want to celebrate their pride because the progress that they have achieved is amazing.

But I have seen the best and worst of both worlds and homosexuals are still treated terribly in my country.

At one point, I was actually thinking about becoming an activist and speaking out for homosexuals in my country, but that is simply a death wish for me.

So yes, it is good to be thankful that Canada has come so far in terms of acceptance and equality but what about Nigeria? Or is their progress towards the acceptance of homosexuals irrelevant?

By Edward Lovo

 

Funny story. I come home and my father is mowing the lawn. He stops to tell me that he'd like to speak with me. I start worrying. When my father needs to have a talk, something's up.

I'm waiting inside and he comes soon after, taking a seat next to me. He asks about school and how I'm doing. I answer him. But now I'm worried that something's up with school and somehow he knows something I don't. Change of topic.

My father mentions a couple of comments I made on Facebook to a dear friend of mine who left to Leicester to study law. One comment was “I miss you” on his wall. The other was on his profile picture, where he’s adorned in suit and tie, and I said, “Everything that I look for in a man. Dresses sharp and takes shit seriously.”

Immediately I knew. I begin laughing uncontrollably at the thought that my parents were worried that I was gay. My parents, my mother having just joined us, chuckle with relief and seek assurance from me that I'm not gay. I assure them. My parents are relieved and tell me that the each of them had sleepless night over the thought that I might be gay. My father goes so far as to say, “That would have been the worst thing that could have happened to me: to have of one of my sons turn out gay.” My father admonishes me for my Facebook comments, saying that people will misconstrue me as gay, carrying the obvious insinuation that that's bad.

Funny story? As you've gleaned from my anecdote, I'm a straight male; but I’m also an ally to the LGBTQ community. I found hilarity in my parents easily misconstruing my behaviour, but I also experienced deep disappointment in their reactions.

I wanted to get angry. I wanted to start an argument over how they neither should’ve been anxious nor relieved. I’ve already had so many arguments with my parents turn sour over similar issues. But I didn’t feel like taking up arms with my parents that day. “Save it for another day,” I thought. This ‘humorous’ incident was bound to turn into one for reflection.

I kept relating this anecdote to friends and many had a good laugh. But one friend expressed their preference for having a straight child over a gay child. My friend insisted that I’d also prefer to have a straight child, though I had to correct him and say that, for myself, it would not matter - I already have a daughter, the light of my world, whose very name is a flower and of peace: Violeta de la Paz, almost 4 years old. I said to him that if my daughter was to approach me for a talk, with an air of gravity, and if she was to then tell me she’s gay, I'd say to her, “Whew! And I thought you were going to tell me you're religious!”

The reason typically cited for those who claim to not be homophobic, yet still prefer that their child to be straight, is that it's easier for child-rearing. There's truth to that. Parents of gay children have to deal with their children facing hardships just because of their sexual orientation in addition to the regular hardships of parenting.

Parents may even face some of their own hardships in virtue of being parents of gay children by other parents or other adults. However - and this is what’s important - this is something that society needs to change, not the child. The hardships that parents of gay children and gay children themselves have to face is not of their own doing, but of society's.

In connection with this, there is a myth that Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium gives in praise of Love. There was a time when there were three kinds of humans: ones that were totally male, totally female, or the androgynous kind, half male and half female.

In these times the humans provoked the wrath of Zeus for having attacked the gods and were thus split in half to diminish them in their power by Zeus. Love, for Aristophanes, was the search for one's other half: “And so, when a person meets the half that is his very own, whatever his orientation, whether it's two young men or not, then something wonderful happens: the two are struck from their senses by love, by a sense of belonging to one another, and by desire, and they don't want to be separated from one another, not even for a moment.”

This reflected the Greek ethos of sexuality: it was taken for granted that one's 'other half' might as well be of the same sex. While we must acknowledge that Aristophanes' myth does not address the entire spectrum of sexual orientation - nor takes into account gender identity - it shows that society can be different because it has been different.

There was a time when society did not chastise persons for falling in love with one of the same sex; it was acknowledged as a possibility. Whereas in today's society, that one has a preference for straight over gay children is symptomatic of the homophobia with which society is diseased. I, for one, refuse to be diagnosed, and I acknowledge that society needs to be cured of this disease and that the child is healthy, regardless of society's ill condition. Society needs to change. Not the child. Let my daughter turn out to be gay and I'll express my fury at the adversity my daughter faces; at adversity, this disease, not my daughter. Let my child be. You change.