For our special 50th anniversary issue, Canada’s brightest, boldest, and most rebellious thinkers, doers, and creators share their best big ideas. Through ideas macro and micro, radical and everyday, we present 50 essays, think pieces, and calls to action. Picture: plans for sustainable food systems, radical legislation, revolutionary health care, a greener planet, Indigenous self-government, vibrant cities, safe spaces, peaceful collaboration, and more—we encouraged our writers to dream big, to hope, and to courageously share their ideas and wish lists for our collective better future. Here’s to another 50 years!

When I first read the news about the massacre in Orlando, I sat and wept. My phone trembled in my palm as my newsfeed filled up with blood and bullets.

I wept like I haven’t wept in years. The grisly hate crime pounded a thousand drum beats on my chest, creeping into my marrow and heartbeat, shaking me to the core. I opened my mouth to scream, to hear my own voice and remember I am alive. Nothing would come out.

In the days that followed, the LGBTQ community wrestled with a collective grief and anger unlike anything I’ve experienced in my lifetime. I waded through post after post by broken-hearted friends and strangers struggling to find words, struggling to find energy to rage, struggling to find hope.

Struggling, while having their own voice stolen.

I watched as most of the media erased the skin colour, gender identity, and sexual orientation of the victims. I watched as religious leaders glorified the mass murder as an act of God. I watched as politicians used this as proof that their discriminatory beliefs are righteous. I watched, and I wept.

In the back of my mind, I wondered if we were even surprised. Although one of the most deadly acts of violence against the queer community, it was certainly not the first. Violence against us is shockingly common and sometimes numbingly so. This was not the first time that our deaths had been politicized for those in power to get what they want, while continuing to erase our dignity and humanity.

This was not the first time we realized that we are not safe. We knew this at such young ages; we knew this before we had words for anything. We knew this from the moment we realized that we are different and that our bodies and our relationships would be seen as different. We know this after decades of expending a tremendous amount of energy to defend our worthiness to live and, God forbid, to love, on this planet.

We know this because we receive so many invitations to self-extinguish that some of us can no longer refuse, and most of us have come too close to accepting. So yes, we were shocked, but were we surprised? While we wept for the deaths of 49 people we didn’t know, we were reminded of the millions of tiny deaths we experience and are witness to.

We haven’t wanted to seem ungrateful, because we are now allowed to marry the same gender and are not only seeing ourselves represented on TV as pedophiles and shallow gay best friends. But can we just quickly mention the jobs we’ve lost, and the family members who have forbidden us to see their children, and the churches who have excommunicated us, and the research we have to do before we travel to make sure we won’t be arrested for holding our partner’s hand?

Many Canadians were quick to lay the blame solely on America and its well-deserved reputation for violence and easy access to guns. “Thank God we’re Canadian!” people exclaimed. Believe me, I am thankful that I am in Canada. But the reality is that in our classrooms, in our faith communities, on our streets, we find a million ways to chip away at people’s lives. We may be less obvious, but we are not innocent. We have not yet arrived at the pinnacle of enlightenment and equality that we so often boast about. We may say “please” but we are just as lethal.

It’s true that things are much better than they were 50 years ago; we have benefited from the incredible pain and advocacy of our elders, LGBTQ and allies alike. But can’t our unwillingness to settle live in the same breath as our gratitude? It must if we are to have any integrity with the generations that follow us.

To achieve a better future, we must now move beyond lofty laws on paper and polite platitudes and hidden hatred. We must evolve into beings whose very DNA is imbued with an unquenchable thirst for equality, so that even one tiny death is one too many.

I look around at my community and see so clearly that inside our tears there is a stubborn and beautiful resiliency that fuels us. We are bone tired but more awake than ever. The wind may have been knocked out of us, but our voices are coming back stronger than ever. Too much of our lives have been silenced and spent on survival.

The crumbs and the closet are not enough.

Will the next generation of humans have to experience a million tiny deaths before they can even count to 10? Will we be able to live with ourselves, knowing we could’ve done more? All I know is that 50 years from now, if we stay awake, these tiny deaths can be replaced with a million tiny lights, each of us radiating in our unique ways, so that no one is forced to live or love in the shadows.

Photo courtesy of Pride Toronto/Flickr

Creative commons photo by Flickr user strangedejim.

That Catholic schools do not always look positively upon homosexuality may not come as a great surprise, given their collective track record. But in the past week, two news stories have brought new and unique anti-gay measures taken at Catholic schools to light.

First, officials at Missisauga’s St. Joseph’s Catholic  Secondary School allegedly restricted students’ use of rainbow banners at an anti-homophobia fundraiser, and then forbade them from donating the event’s proceeds to a gay rights charity.

In a second, separate, and more bizarre incident, comedian Dawn Whitwell was booked to speak at an anti-bullying assembly at Bishop Marrocco-Thomas Merton Catholic Secondary School in Toronto, but her performance was quickly cancelled when, she says, it was discovered she is married to a woman. Both schools say their actions were not motivated by an anti-gay bent and it is doubtful anything more will come of these allegations. But the Catholic school boards of Canada should recognize, in these stories, the need for them to reform, and return to theology as opposed to policing sexuality, lest their students abandon Catholic schools altogether.

Church attendance in Canada, and indeed around the world, went into a tailspin in the latter half of the twentieth century and seems unlikely to recover in our lifetimes. But the Catholic Canadians who now stay home from church in droves are not, according to a 2000 University of Lethbridge study, abandoning their religion. Rather, they are finding their own ways in which to worship.

The study attributed this new trend to people’s disillusionment with the church — as opposed to opposition to faith itself. Their problems were with the institution, not the teachings of the religion. It was the Church, not Catholicism, that was speaking out against gay marriage, contraception, and abortion — topics that divided many congregations. While people were looking to the religion itself for the values and morality they wanted, the Church was imposing hard and fast rules that a significant number of Catholics didn’t want or agree with.

Parents send their children to faith-based schools so that they can learn about their culture and religion, and grow up in an environment that recognizes that religion and the lessons it imparts. The Toronto Catholic District School Board’s website provides a great insight into the appeal of Catholic school. It has a page detailing the Board’s Equitable and Inclusive Educations strategy. It quotes St. Paul and discusses the open and accepting tenets of Catholicism, which is supposed to be applied to Catholic school  education. The intended message is that Catholic School will teach your children about their religion, instilling in them positive values of faith and tolerance.

And looking at that explanation, it is easily understandable why parents would want to send their kids to a Catholic school. But wanting your child to learn about the ancient teachings of Christ and the Apostles is very different from wanting your child to be subject to the institutional rules and judgments of school administrators, just as practising Catholicism can be very different from following the dogma of the Vatican.

There are plenty of examples of Catholic reformers working within the Church to change its doctrines on birth control, ordaining women, and embracing sexual minorities. There is no rule in Catholicism that Catholics can’t support LGBT rights or listen to a gay person present their feelings on bullying. The schools may say that Catholic teachings were the criteria that caused the rainbow-ban and Whitwell decisions to be made, but the fact is that they were not “Catholic” rules. They were rules imposed by the institution, lead by some individual or group of individuals who acted under the guise of channeling Catholicism. And, as such, they are rules that are apt to alienate students and parents alike.

Followers of a religion can be expected to adhere to, or at least respect, the guidelines of their religion. But rules made by a bureaucratic official based loosely on his or her interpretation of that religion’s teachings cannot be expected to inspire adherence. In fact, they are probably more likely to offend, especially when those interpretations result in the exclusion and intolerance that the religion ostensibly condemns. So, in the same way that people pushed back against the rules imposed by the Catholic Church, people may well begin pushing back against the rules imposed by Catholic schools, unless some action is taken to return to the positive values the TCDSB extols.

There is, and may always be, a debate over whether faith-based schools should be abolished in Canada. And in that debate there are many reasons to support abolishment, schools’ opposition to sexual diversity being among them. But the greatest argument in favour of keeping faith-based schools may be the large number of students who continue to enroll in these programs. Those numbers are essentially a straw poll of people’s support for religious education. Because of this, Catholic schools need their students, perhaps even more than students need their schools. If their flock abandons them to the same degree that the Church’s did, the Catholic school system will lose its greatest remaining reasons for survival and isn’t likely to be around for much longer. Whether that’s for the best or not is up to the parents and children to decide. But in the coming years, if institutional intolerance continues on, faithful Catholics may begin questioning just how well the Catholic school system represents their Christian values.

Best Canadian Essays 2010

Katherine Ashenburg on cosmetic surgery, Ira Basen on citizen journalism, Will Braun on the tendency to customize Christ, Tyee Bridge on the power of fiction, Abou Farman on the Iranian Revolution, Paul Gallant on future of gay activism,Lisa Gregoire on life in Nunavut, Danielle Groen explores the brain when in love, Elizabeth Hay on the summer of her last poems, Jason McBride prepares for the end of the world, Carolyn Morris on people forced to live underground in Canada, Katharine Sandiford on the longest dogsled race in North America, Andrew Steinmetz on his family history and the Second World War, Timothy Taylor on a Spanish pilgrimage route, Chris Turner on the prodigal Alberta band, Nora Underwood on the future of farming and food.

Carolyn Morris’s excellent essay is reprinted from Toronto Life, but she also wrote about undocumented migrants needing health care in Canada in our March-April 2009 issue, if you’re looking for a bit of further reading. You also might be interested in reading Alison Lee’s “The New Face of Porn,” about feminism and pornography, from our November-December 2008 issue, which appeared in the 2009 Best Canadian Essays collection.

When the new study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship was published last November, a reporter asked Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney why there was no mention of Canada’s world-leading (but still-in-progress!) record on equal rights for gay and lesbian people. Here’s what Kenney said:

“We can’t mention every legal decision, every policy of the government of Canada.” […] “We try to be inclusive and include a summary. I can tell you that if you were to read the old book, you wouldn’t even know that there are gay and lesbian Canadians.”

You understand, of course: in a 63-page guide that explains why there’s a beaver on the nickel and the origins of the Grey Cup, it was simply too crowded to work in any mention of a landmark Canadian freedom that almost no other country on earth has implemented.

But the truth will, uh, out, and in this case, the Canadan Press reported yesterday that the original draft of the guide included three references Canada’s gay-rights record: the 1969 “out of the bedroom” law; the Charter barring discrimination based on sexual orientation; and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2005. All three  found themselves at the business end of Minister Kenney’s red pen.

But Mr. Kenney, who fought same-sex marriage when it was debated in Parliament, ordered those key sections removed when his office sent its comments to the department last June.

Senior department officials duly cut out the material — but made a last-ditch plea with Mr. Kenney in early August to have it reinstated.

The compromised second draft strikes again. Adding insult to injury — or maybe coverup to crime — it also appears that after national LGBT lobbyist Egale inquired about the no-homo study guide last fall, Kenney told them their concerns were simply “overlooked.” Surprise! Not the case.

So, welcome to Canada, where we have one constitutional monarch, two official languages, and you only get three downs. But just in the interest of truth in advertising: if you want an all-hetero paradise, you’ve got other options.

After the jump, a video from Current.com explaining the “no-homo” phenomenon.

Queer rights are on trial left, right and centre this month.

Here in Canada, an HIV-positive gay couple from the States has won their appeal against Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Until now, the majority of HIV-positive applicants have been excluded because of the excessive burden they posed on health services. This couple was initially rejected, but appealed on the basis that they could afford to cover their own health costs. CIC might still choose to appeal themselves, but the case is still encouraging for future HIV-positive immigrants to Canada — providing they have some cash behind them. Xtra has more here.

Meanwhile at the Ontario Superior Court, an HIV-positive man named Kyle Freeman is challenging the ban on blood donation by gay men. The trial moved to closing comments last week, and a decision is expected in a few weeks. Freeman’s lawyer Patricia LeFebour said in her closing remarks, “The current rule unfairly singles out the entire gay population,” and “doesn’t take into account the reality of today’s HIV statistics of gay men.”

Across the border, an interesting legal challenge has begun against the ban on same-sex marriage in California. Perry v. Schwarzenegger opened on Monday, and there is some speculation that this case may progress all the way to the US Supreme Court. Queer rights groups are divided over whether this would be good news. Some claim public opinion in the US is still deeply divided over gay marriage and for the Supreme Court to rule in its favour would trigger a major backlash. Others think a favourable ruling from the Supreme Court is unlikely, and that an unfavourable one could set the cause back a decade or more. The New Yorker has an interesting piece on the case, and you can also track the progress of the trial at this new Courage Campaign blog.

In Uganda, it is still unclear whether a bill imposing life sentences and even execution for homosexuality will pass into law. President Museveni has intervened, saying that the death penalty is a bridge too far, but the harsh prison sentences may still remain part of the bill. In the meantime though, debate over the bill is stirring up some seriously ugly anti-gay sentiment in the country.

Cate Simpson is a freelance journalist and the web and reviews editor for Shameless magazine. She lives in Toronto.

In a case before the Ontario Superior Court this month, an Ottawa man is challenging the ban on blood donation by gay men. Currently, any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 is “indefinitely deferred” from giving blood. Not only is this ban unnecessarily broad, it does a disservice to the very people it is supposed to protect.

The reasoning behind the ban is that gay men in Canada account for 60 percent of HIV-positive people, and for nearly half of new infections. All blood collected by Canadian Blood Services is screened for HIV, but the justification for the indefinite deferral of gay men is that the virus is not immediately detectable after infection—it can be several weeks before it shows up on a blood test. Clearly, these are compelling arguments for caution.

Toronto sexual health clinics deal with the issue of detection by waiting three months after a risky sexual encounter to confirm a negative result. Blood agencies in some countries subject gay men and other high-risk groups to a six- or twelve-month deferral period after last sexual contact to make sure the results of screenings are accurate. So why have CBS and Health Canada refused to rethink the total ban?

Another option would be to amend the ban to focus more narrowly on behaviour.

HIV infection rates are higher among gay men, but you are not inherently more likely to wind up with HIV just as a consequence of being gay. You have to have actually engaged in unprotected sex with an infected partner. So why not accept blood from gay men who have not been sexually active for the last six months? Or who have not had unprotected sex? Or who have not had anal sex?

Perhaps CBS simply does not trust gay men to be honest about their activities, in which case we may as well ask why CBS thinks they can be trusted to honestly self-identify at all.

Kyle Freeman, the Ottawa man who launched the current challenge against CBS, claims that asking donors their sexual orientation on their questionnaire is a violation of their Charter rights. In a way though, this isn’t really a fight about queer rights.

An argument could—and has—been made that the policy unfairly portrays gay men in Canada as the harbingers of disease. Or that it spreads misinformation about HIV by implying that it is transmissible by any sexual contact including oral sex, whether you wear a condom or not. But it seems to me that the more pressing issue is about access to blood. CBS has a responsibility to people in need of blood transfusions to provide blood that is safe. But they also have a responsibility to, well, provide blood. Is eliminating every gay man in the country who’s had sex in the last 30 years from the donor pool, when we have the means to make sure that blood is safe, really in the best interests of patients?

Cate Simpson is a freelance journalist and the web editor for Shameless magazine. She lives in Toronto.

John Mathenke, a Nairobi sex worker, was diagnosed with HIV in early July. He has gone public with his story and started a health education organization to help other young gay sex workers avoid contracting the disease. Photo by Siena Anstis.

John Mathenke was once arrested for being gay but, after failing to pay the customary bribe, was forced to have sex with the policeman. He had an orgy with a priest who publicly excoriates homosexuality, along with five other Masaai boys. And his Arab trader clients curse him during the day, but come back looking for sex at night.

Such is the life of a homosexual prostitute in Nairobi, Kenya. “It’s better to be a thief than a gay in Kenya,” he says. Both are often punished by death, but being the latter means never revealing yourself to the public and remaining perpetually closeted. It means dealing with homophobes at day and pleasuring them at night.

Mathenke, a quiet-spoken young man, is forthright with his story. His gay identity has not been shamed or hidden by years of abuse. His ability to tell his intimate story to a stranger is testament to his bravery. He tells me that he wants to be openly gay – and to help those who want to do the same – in a country where all odds are stacked against him.

His forced silence is not only affecting Kenya’s gay population. According to the BBC, gay men in Africa have 10 times higher HIV rates because of homophobia. These gay men often have “cover wives” who are also eventually affected by HIV. It’s a vicious cycle in a country where the government has proved reluctant to address the mental and physical repercussions of homophobia.

In 2002, Mathenke left his poor community and followed other dream chasers to Nairobi. He paid a barber $30 to be trained as a haircutter. His perfect English eventually landed him a job selling textbooks in a lavish Westlands shopping center. This was the scene of his first same-sex experience. While, subconsciously, he knew it had always been a part of him—he says he used to wear long shirts when he was small and tied a rope around his waist to pretend it was a dress—he had never experienced sex with a man.

A Frenchman would come in, day after day, he says. He would open thick African history books and look at pictures of naked men. He bought many books; some that Mathenke would help him carry to the car. He never thought much of this flirtation, until the man took him out for dinner. Inebriated, they went back to the Frenchman’s home and had sex. The man took him home almost every night after that. In the same store, Mathenke encountered the priest with whom he had a five-person orgy.

At this time, Mathenke was discovering his sexual identity and decided to move to Mombasa, an area rumored to be less hostile to gay relationships. $700 in his pocket, he put himself up in a hotel. Eventually the money dried up and he was left desperate. He went to Mercury, a local bar, and was offered money for sex with an older European.

“When you’ve had sex with someone once, they don’t want you again,” explains Mathenke. Customers became few and far between and he continued to sleep on park benches, washing in the seawater in the morning. He also faced continued stigma: “Arab traders would insult us at day, and come looking for sex at night.” A lot of his clients were—and are—popular religious leaders who would curse homosexuals in public and find pleasure in paid homosexual company in private.

Mathenke eventually returned to Nairobi, where he settled in with a new boyfriend. He continued to see clients from the big hotels: the Hilton, the Serena, the Intercontinental. He had yet to use a condom.

Community outreach by Sex Workers Outreach Program (SWOP) in Nairobi eventually led him to his “second-home.” Provided with free health services and counseling, he tested positive for HIV/AIDS three weeks ago. So did his partner. Instead of bemoaning his future, Mathenke has launched himself into a new project. He is bringing together groups of young gay sex workers and helping them form an advocacy organization, Health Options for Young Men on HIV/AIDS. He is teaching these young men—some only 12 years old—about using condoms and lubricant when having sex with men.

Mathenke’s work is necessary. Many of the bars and hotels on the coast and in Nairobi are, by default, gay bars. The men frequenting these places pay off the police so that they’ll be left alone. But violent raids continue to happen. At the same time, homophobia ensures that these men are never reached by HIV/AIDS awareness. Changing public behavior is key to lowering the HIV rate and protecting all Kenyans, gay or otherwise.

While the government has long been reluctant to address the role of homophobia in increasing HIV/AIDS rates, there have been some positive changes over the years. Gloria Gakaki, a social worker at SWOP, highlights the brave role of Dr. Nicholas Maraguri, Head of the National AIDS and STD Control Programme (NASCOP), who is pushing the government to address HIV among Kenya’s hidden gay populations. Maraguri has also been meeting directly with male sex workers to get a more in-depth idea of what their problems are, and how government can help.

For further information on SWOP or to donate to Mathenke’s new organization, please contact Gloria Gakaki at Ggakii@csrtkenya.org.

The 2008 Pride Parade. Creative Commons photo by Chromewaves.

You’ve probably noticed by now, unless you’ve been hiding under a rock or just standing endlessly in line to offload your garbage, that Pride is in full swing.

I have to admit I find Toronto Pride kind of overwhelming. This is largely because I come from Scotland, where Pride is shared by two cities who take turns hosting the march, and the whole thing lasts an afternoon instead of 10 days.

Scotland’s march also tends to attract at least one dude with a sandwich board proclaiming that gay people are going to hell. Were that guy to show up in Toronto on Pride Weekend I’m not sure anyone would notice him in the crowd, or at least not without his shirt off. Toronto in late June is like Disneyland for gay people.

It’s easy to feel that an event this large has lost its political edge—particularly when you’re marching past buff guys in TD Speedos and paying $60 cover for a Saturday night party. If that’s not a sign that gay people are entering the social elite, I don’t know what is.

But a million people taking over the centre of the city over the course of a weekend still makes a political statement: namely, that there are enough of us to get 100,000 people out on Yonge Street without even exhausting our supply of queers. That’s a lot of people—enough for a small but fabulous army.

It’s easy to forget that in some people’s eyes, everything queer people do visibly and in public is political. Just last week a lesbian couple were harassed by security for kissing at the Air Canada Centre.

So, even though the live music isn’t nearly as good as last year (The Hidden Cameras! Free! That was when I decided Toronto was the best city on earth) and even though nobody wants to field sales pitches about why they should switch banks while marching for gay rights, the core of Pride is still what it always was, and it’s still just as important.

Even if you skip the after-parties and the overwhelming 10-day schedule of events, there are still plenty of reasons to grab some sunscreen, load up your water guns, and hit the streets.

Cate Simpson is a freelance journalist and the web editor for Shameless magazine. She lives in Toronto.

Cohen’s newest movie, Bruno, to be released July 10th, is well ahead of schedule in creating buzz – and of course, controversy. The movie is the third in a very loosely connected series featuring characters from Cohen’s faux-interview show, Da Ali G Show. In previews, Bruno, a gay Austrian model, makes the rounds of Prop. 8 rallies, baby photo shoots, and anti-gay self-defence courses. Almost as notorious as these early glimpses of the movie itself are the outlandish publicity stunts that have accompanied it – including Bruno posing naked on the cover of GQ or landing on Eminem at the MTV Movie Awards clad only in a jock strap.

Some of this is obviously funny, and some of it so shocking you just have to laugh. Either way, Bruno seems poised to be at least the hilarious hit Cohen’s previous film Borat was. It’s been a long winter full of bad news, and I think most of us are ready for a bleached-blonde, Brangelina-mocking fashion model with a little Ron Paul on the side.

I hate to go further than that. Cohen has already captured the title of the fun, cool, bachelor uncle, and which leaves the rest of the media looking like the chic liberal parent who makes everything oh-so-awkwardly serious. Still, Cohen as much as acknowledges this kind of discussion needs to take place by claiming the film uses humour to ignite debate about racism and prejudice in our society, so let me venture this much.

Without having seen the film, it’s safe to say the movie will play on gay stereotypes. It’s also safe to assume it will give a megaphone to homophobes and bigots they would not otherwise have. The movie doesn’t, as Human Rights Campaign so earnestly requested, come with a warning that the it was “designed to expose homophobia.” And though that would be a tad over-the-top, it’s also too neat and easy to say that people will always figure that out for themselves. There are, I’m afraid, plenty of people stupid or bigoted enough to use the movie to confirm instead of condemn their own prejudices.

Of course, on the other hand, Cohen is right that Bruno will draw attention to some troubling aspects of our society, and that it is more damning and likely to get far more widespread attention than “serious” news coverage – which I’m afraid is a something of an indictment of mainstream journalism as well. That’s more than enough motivation for me to escape my muggy, garbage-perfumed city to sit in a dark air-conditioned movie theatre for a couple hours and laugh without thinking too hard. Let’s make sure it’s also sparks some important discussion, on this blog and elsewhere …