Photo by Mark Steffens courtesy of Nation Extreme Wrestling

Let’s start with acknowledging the obvious: pro-wrestling is “fake.” I know. The storylines are scripted. The costumes are as beautifully designed as any Broadway production’s. The match outcomes are predetermined. But that doesn’t make what happens any less real for the people who step into the ring. Some of that realness is compounded for wrestlers who identify as members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ and/or racialized communities, for whom the profession hasn’t always offered the safest space.

I’ve been a pro-wrestling fan since childhood, initially as a way to connect with my older male cousins. Since then, my love for the sport has evolved into something very much my own. But in pro-wrestling’s heyday in the late ’90s, a period known amongst fans as the Attitude Era, it seemed to reach its peak of influence in the pop culture zeitgeist. It was hard to avoid The Rock or Stone Cold Steve Austin’s image; and I challenge you to go back in time to any elementary school then and find a kid who wasn’t doing the infamous “Suck it” gesture on the playground.

In 2002, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), the world’s most popular promotion at the time, portrayed a romantic relationship between Billy Gunn and Chuck Palumbo. The storyline was initially praised as depicting the 2SLGBTQIA+ community positively on national television. Things ended badly, however, when it was later revealed that it was all a publicity stunt orchestrated by the company. Billy and Chuck were not queer at all, but rather two heterosexual male wrestlers.

Not much has been heard about wrestling recently outside of its dedicated fanbase, aside from a few high-profile lawsuits involving violence and men at the top of WWE. But now, it seems the sport is enjoying a resurgence, both in quality and popularity, along with a much-needed realignment in values.

Over two decades after the setup with Palumbo, Gunn is still in the pro-wrestling world, but he’s now with All Elite Wrestling (AEW). So is Anthony Bowens, an openly gay Black wrestler. There was a storyline in 2023 where a female wrestler, Harley Cameron, tried to hit on Bowens. This led to a strong crowd reaction: the audience started chanting “He’s gay! He’s gay!” repeatedly to Cameron. There wasn’t a hint of irony or hate in this moment though. It was pure joy. It was a celebration of Black queer love.

Gunn can be seen grinning during the segment, cheering on the crowd. It felt like a moment of redemption for what he was a part of back in 2002, compared to what he gets to be a part of now. For many wrestling fans, the “He’s gay” chant was a watershed moment. Change has been coming to the world of professional wrestling for a long time. And now it’s finally the sport’s moment to shine.

This shift toward a more progressive environment in the pro-wrestling landscape moved at a sluggish pace at first, but it’s been picking up momentum over the past five years. Malik Melo, a Black professional wrestler from Vancouver, B.C., reflects on his early childhood experiences with the sport: “Growing up in the late 1990s and early 2000s, there were mainly cisgender white guys in prominent roles. There was the rare chance of seeing someone who looked like me, with people like Booker T and The Rock, but that was really it.”

Melo currently trains out of Lions Gate Dojo, which prides itself on being an inclusive space for all of its members. “When I started in 2019, it was myself and one other Black wrestler, Shareef Morrow. We really just had to grind it out. Fast forward a few years, there’s a few more of us. It’s still in the single digits, but it’s a different scene and feel now. It’s much more positive; we all know each other and try to connect. It’s great.”

If that much change can happen in the span of five years, it bodes well for the future of the pro-wrestling ring as a stage to showcase Black excellence. And that future might come sooner rather than later with the rising star of Swerve Strickland, a professional wrestler with AEW who just became the promotion’s first African American Heavyweight Champion. Strickland has gotten over (a pro-wrestling term for becoming popular with fans) through portraying himself in a way that is not sugar coated or whitewashed for mainstream audiences. He is simultaneously grounded and extravagant, clever, strong and authentic: he is embodying what Black excellence means to him, from his rap music to his clothing choices. And it’s clearly resonating with fans.

Lions Gate Dojo, where Melo trains, is run by four trainers: Artemis Spencer, Nicole Matthews, Tony Baroni and Billy Suede. Matthews, whose real name is Lindsay Miller, gives some insight on what it was like being a fan of the predominantly male-centric industry when she was younger: “Growing up,” she says, “I didn’t really look for inspiration from women wrestlers because there wasn’t that much on TV.” And you can’t blame her. During this time in the ’90s, women wrestlers were few and far between. And the ones who did make it on air on WWE, then known as WWF? They weren’t even called wrestlers, but Divas, and they wrestled in bra-and-panties matches thinly guised as games of strip poker. It was both wildly popular and wildly objectifying.

Fortunately, in time, there were other promotions that Matthews could look up to. Shimmer, a women’s professional wrestling promotion that started up in 2005, was one of them. “That was my only goal when I started wrestling. I didn’t give a fuck about WWE, I just wanted to get to Shimmer.” Although Shimmer went defunct in November 2021, women wrestlers are no longer subjected to the bra-and-panties match as their only claim to fame. Nyla Rose made history when she became the first openly transgender pro wrestler to sign with a major American promotion in 2019. Other popular wrestlers like Bianca Belair, Jamie Hayter and Mercedes Mone are also paving the way as strong role models for the next generation of women wrestling fans.

Lions Gate Dojo wants to encourage this next generation to step into the ring. “When I started coaching 10 years ago, it wasn’t a very diverse group of people. A lot of times I was the only girl in class; it did not represent the Vancouver demographic at all,” Matthews says. “Now, it’s so much more diverse. It just naturally happened over the past five years.”

The world of pro-wrestling has come a long way from the days of Billy and Chuck’s fake gay wedding and women being forced to work in their undergarments. And while there’s still a long way to go, the future of pro wrestling looks brighter than ever. As an adult fan today, as much as I cherish my childhood memories of the ’90s and its Attitude Era, I’m jealous of the fans who get to come up in the new age of pro wrestling. They’re watching a sport that is now more dynamic, equitable, compelling, and fun.

Sure, some might still call pro wrestling “fake.” But let me tell you: as my husband and I cried tears of joy during the “He’s gay” chant last summer, nothing felt fake about that to me.

Tony Maas

Tony Maas is WWF-Canada’s national advisor on freshwater policy and planning. He will be speaking about how organization can expose, assess, and mitigate their “water risk” at the Canadian Water Summit in Toronto on June 17.

Alixandra Gould: What is the biggest threat facing the health of fresh water in Canada today?

Tony Maas: Just one? A lot of the impact on water resources is very local in nature. But writ large, one factor or challenge that we face, that cuts across anywhere in Canada and the world, is the implications of climate change. Climate change will, in some cases, lead to changes in availability and demand for water. It’s changing the context of water management.

Alixandra Gould: WWF-Canada seeks to reduce demand for fresh water while maintaining strong economies. How exactly do you accomplish that?

Tony Maas: One of the most important ways is by recognizing that money can be made by reducing our use of fresh water — if we’re smart about it. There are a lot of technologies that are based on being more efficient with water resources. Those technologies range from smarter irrigation systems for agriculture to municipal systems where we’re capturing rain water, and systems for treating water quality as well.

Alixandra Gould: You co-authored Changing the Flow: A Blueprint for Federal Action on Freshwater. Can you tell us a bit about that blueprint?

Tony Maas: That blueprint is a very comprehensive look at the many things the federal government can and ought to be doing to complement things at the provincial level where water management is more prominent. But the federal government has some very clear authorities and opportunities to provide for a much more robust water management system across the country. A good example of what the federal government could and should be doing, and seems to me more and more backing away from, is collecting data on water availability and water use. They’re getting a bit better on water use, doing industrial surveys and things like that, but much of the science and monitoring that the fed government used to do is falling by the wayside.

Alixandra Gould: What do you think of charging people more for water? Do you think that would change behavior on a mass scale and create an incentive for people to conserve more?

Tony Maas: Yes, but I don’t think it’s a silver bullet. It’s not qualified. It doesn’t mean that if we raise the price of water everything will be okay. The devil in the details — and it’s not really that devilish at all — is that it’s not about the price necessarily. It’s about how to create the pricing structure to better reflect the value of fresh water. One of the key things is a “life line.” You provide a municipality with a certain amount of water, of good quality, for a very low cost or no cost at all. The first 50-100 litres that come out of your tap each day are free, or very low cost. Then you increase the cost to the user as their water usage rates go up. That’s referred to as an increasing block rate.

Alixandra Gould: Irrigated agriculture accounts for 70 per cent of all water used by humans. How do you reduce the amount of water used on Canadian farms?

Tony Maas: This is one of the things we’re really going to have to bump up against in short order, especially in the breadbasket of this country in the prairies where scarcity this year is a very good example of challenging times. It’s a tiered response. The first is looking to technology — smarter irrigation systems, timed irrigation when it’s required most for the crops to be able to provide a product that’s suitable and desirable for market. The next level of consideration needs to be a bit more forward and must start asking the difficult questions about what are the most productive ways of using the limited water we have available. Of what crops are of higher value that provide a stable, reliable, and reasonable income for farmers that may take less water to grow? Pulse crops in Saskatchewan are being looked at as very valued crops because there’s a growing export market for pulses. That’s lentils and other legumes. They’re being looked at in places like China and India, because their populations are growing beyond their capacity to grow their own. So you may be talking about shifting from irrigating a field of alphalpha to feed to beef as your end product, to shifting more of that to pulse foods that are less water intensive and also provide for good economic opportunities for the economic sector.

Alixandra Gould: It’s your job to advocate WWF-Canada’s positions and perspectives on freshwater in government relations. What have been the biggest challenges you’ve faced?

Tony Maas: At the federal level, there’s largely a hands-off approach. There’s an attitude that it’s not a priority for them. For decades now, the federal government has been deferring to the provinces. What that means is some stuff doesn’t get done because the provinces only have a certain capacity.

Alixandra Gould: Which province has been the most difficult?

Tony Maas: I certainly haven’t advocated governments across the country, but I think there are interesting opportunities right now in B.C. as they go through their water act modernization process. In Ontario, they’re looking at this water opportunities and water conservation act, but the details are still coming. Alberta is certainly a challenging place to work, and it’s been challenging for us. I try to maintain some optimism, but a I do believe that with continuing pressure, particularly when citizens voice their perspectives on this, then we can make moves in ways that reform Alberta water policy that protects water for nature but also provides water for economy.

Alixandra Gould: Beijing aims to reuse 100 percent of its waste water by 2013. Is an effort like this possible in some of Canada’s major cities?

Tony Maas: Well, you’re not talking to an engineer, so I’ll qualify that. So I guess my answer becomes very simple. If a city the scale of Beijing can make that happen, then certainly major cities in Canada could make that happen.

Alixandra Gould: Where should the limited financial resources we have be directed to make the biggest impact possible?

Tony Maas: It depends where you are. In the prairies, the limited resources have to go to looking into how to reform agricultural production in that part of the world, and the water allocation system, in ways that ensure we maintain economic activity but put water back into the South Saskatchewan basin, because it’s dangerously close to drying up. In the great lakes basin, endangered species is one of the greatest concerns.

Alixandra Gould: Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute in Seattle told National Geographic that we will inevitably solve our water problems. Do you agree?

Tony Maas: You’re making me say I’m an optimist twice in one interview! Yes, I think we will solve it. It’s on us to be pushing our governments to be stepping up. It’s one of the biggest questions of the 21st century.

Syncrude's Mildred Lake mine site near Fort MacMurray.

[This is the first in a three-part series on the Alberta tar sands. Also note: EcoChamber will be moving to Mondays starting today.]

There is a sense of progress in the air. For the first time in over a decade, G8 countries and developing nations, including China and India, have agreed to reduce their emissions in absolute numbers. But as this global parade marches on, Canada is being left behind as our emissions continue to climb.

The G8 Summit, lead by President Obama, last week finished talks in Italy with industrialized nations and emerging economies agreeing to an 80 per cent emissions cut by 2050, as well as a 2° C threshold. There is still much work to be done, including establishing the essential base year for reductions, the debate ranging from 1990 to 2006 levels. However, for the first time there is American leadership on our climate peril that is driving change not only domestically, but internationally.

“I know in the past, the United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities. So, let me clear: those days are over,” said Obama last week in L’Aquila, Italy.

In the United States, since Obama took office, C02 has been declared officially a danger; $60 billion is being pumped into renewables; and the House recently approved the Waxman-Markey climate bill that will change American fossil fuel reliance, as well as spell out action internationally at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December. Which is not to say there hasn’t been criticism of the Obama administration and the climate bill itself, but these are the first signs of action by a political leader on our global meltdown.

But where does all this political change in climate change leave Canada? According to the WWF’s 2009 Climate Scorecards, dead last.

Canada ranked last out of all the G8 countries for its climate performance. In 2008, the U.S. held this spot. But since Obama took the lead in climate initiatives, Canada is now the one stalling progress.

“Canada’s per capita emissions are among the highest in the world (next to Russia)” states WWF.

We currently emit 24 tonnes of C0₂ per capita and, despite being one of the first countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol, we are one of the furthest from our Kyoto target. The Kyoto Protocol required a 6 percent emissions decrease by 2012. Since the Accord was established, we have increased emissions by 26 percent. One of our biggest emitters is the Alberta Tar Sands project.

“The Alberta Tar Sands are becoming Canada’s number one global warming machine,” says Tony Clarke, Polaris Institute Director, in his book Tar Sands Showdown.

With Middle East and African oil presenting problems of price fluctuations and political uncertainty, Alberta’s unconventional but secure sources of oil are looking increasingly attractive to global markets. However, production of one barrel of oil from these bitumen deposits produce three times more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than conventional oil. The project pumps out 27 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions per year, or 16% of the total emissions of Canada.

And the government only has plans for expansion. The project is expected to multiply as much as four to five times by the year 2015 to meet growing demand. That’s 108 to 126 megatonnes of GHG poured into the atmosphere annually. That would make the tar sands the single largest industrial contributor of greenhouse gases in North America.

Reducing GHGs by 80 percent, as Canada pledged last week to do, while planning to expand the tar sands project, is simple math that does not add up. We can’t have our cake and eat it too – or in this case, have our bitumen cash crop and claim sustainability. Even if our only emitting producer were the tar sands project and we lived in some eco-utopia otherwise, we are still overextending our GHG emissions with further development of this project.

Singlehandedly, the tar sands sabotage any possibility of Canada fulfilling a Copenhagen climate agreement.

Yet in last Saturday’s Globe & Mail, in an interview with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he said: “A realistic commitment (in the battle against climate change) is consistent with growth in the oil sands.” Frankly, no, it’s not.

[Next week in Part 2 of 3: why carbon-capture and storage is no silver bullet solution for the tar sands]

Emily Hunter is an environmental journalist and This Magazine’s resident eco-blogger. She is currently working on a book about young environmental activism, The Next Eco-Warriors, and is the eco-correspondent to MTV News Canada.