We Muslims Used to Be the Culture War Scapegoats. Why Are Some of Us Joining the L.G.B.T.Q. Pile-On?

2023/06/24 Leave a comment

Good question:

The political right’s exhausting and cruel war on “wokeness” is now aligning with the efforts of some Muslim Americans to attack the L.G.B.T.Q. community under the guise of protecting religious freedoms and parental rights.

After enduring a gantlet of scapegoating after 9/11, you’d think we Muslims would have learned.

As a practicing Muslim American raising three children, I don’t find it in conflict with my faith to recognize that in a pluralistic, democratic society, all our communities must be able to live with security, dignity and freedom, even when there are profound differences on certain issues.

Last month a group of Muslim scholars and preachers published a joint statement titled “Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam.” In the name of helping families, the statement reiterates what is considered by many scholars to be traditional Islamic views on homosexuality but trades compassion, political foresight and pastoral care in favor of fear, panic and legalistic double talk.

It says that “there is an increasing push to promote L.G.B.T.Q.-centric values among children through legislation and regulations, disregarding parental consent and denying both parents and children the opportunity to express conscientious objection.” It appears to uncritically accept the zero-sum notion, pushed by right-wing politicians, that acceptance of the L.G.B.T.Q. community comes at the expense of giving up religious freedoms. It seems oblivious to the reality that if you replaced “L.G.B.T.Q.-centric” with “Shariah,” it would mimic the sentiments that have often been directed at devout Muslims in our country.

It’s also remarkable that so many religious leaders came together to speak with one voice on this particular issue, which one could falsely assume from the current political hysteria is the leading threat facing children. But as anyone who’s been part of recent debates within broader Muslim American communities knows, you’d probably never get this kind of concerted public statement from Muslim leaders on the issue of gun violence — the leading cause of death for American children — or climate change, which ultimately threatens all life. Somehow, though, this issue has managed to rally an array of Muslim scholars.

In Montgomery County, Md., outside Washington, D.C., the group Moms for Liberty, which has been designated an extremist organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center, has united with some Muslim parents who are protesting that the public school system no longer allows their children to opt out of reading books with L.G.B.T.Q. stories. “It’s not bigoted to want a safe space for all children, nor is it bigoted to provide reasonable accommodations to those with sincerely held religious beliefs,” says Raef Haggag, a Montgomery County public school parent and former high school teacher. When we exchanged emails, he told me that Muslim parents in Montgomery County had never called for a book ban, but that he believed an opt-out option would reflect parental rights and also be a reflection of “genuine tolerance, inclusivity and religious freedom.”

But is it truly inclusive and tolerant to signal to L.G.B.T.Q. kids or L.G.B.T.Q. parents that simply reading a book or learning about their existence might be so threatening and offensive that it requires an opt-out option in schools? How would Muslim parents feel if this was applied to children’s books about Ramadan or hajj?

Kareem Monib, a Muslim parent and a founder of the opt-out group Coalition of Virtue, recently appeared on Fox News and bonded with the host Laura Ingraham over what they saw as their fight for religious freedoms, apparently forgiving Ingraham for her past anti-Muslim bigotry: “Five years ago, Laura was saying we shouldn’t have Muslims in this country,” Mr. Monib told Semafor, “Now she’s saying: Thank God, the Muslims are here!” He seems to be referring to comments Ms. Ingraham made eight years ago, but either way, the irony is lost on him.

Muslims have also joined this campaign in Hamtramck, Mich., which has an all-Muslim City Council. Last week the council voted unanimously to bar Pride flags from being displayed on city properties — apparently forgetting that their Muslim immigrant forebears faced discrimination when they arrived in the city.

The increasing political demonization of L.G.B.T.Q. Americans is following the same script that has been used to marginalize Muslims and drum up fears about the supposed dangers of Shariah finding its way into the American legal system, all to pander to a constituency that is terrified of pluralism.

Let’s take a DeLorean back to the post-9/11 years, during which Islam, especially the specter of Shariah, was frequently made the villain.

Much like the recent deliberate efforts to mischaracterize critical race theory, Shariah was deliberately misdefined as a legal-political-military doctrine and the pre-eminent totalitarian threat of our time. Thanks to a well-funded right-wing machine, Shariah became a litmus test for Muslim American citizens to prove their moderation and loyalty.

In 2011 the presidential aspirant Herman Cain said he wouldn’t appoint a Muslim to his potential administration or the federal courts because he feared they would “force their Shariah law onto the rest of us.” In 2015, Ben Carson echoed those talking points, saying he wouldn’t support a Muslim American for president unless he or she renounced Shariah. Ultimately, Donald Trump ran on a Muslim ban and put in place a modified travel ban with the help of the Supreme Court. By 2017, according to one report, over 200 anti-Shariah bills had popped up in 43 states over nearly a decade, based on trumped-up claims that Islamic law was infiltrating the U.S. judicial system.

Compare all that with now: Before the 2024 elections, the L.G.B.T.Q. community has emerged as the boogeyman du jour. Right-wing media and G.O.P. elected officials are routinely accusing liberals of being groomers. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene recently said that transgender people are “sexual predators,” and the Texas G.O.P.’s new platform explicitly rejects trans identity and refers to homosexuality as an “abnormal lifestyle choice.” In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis defended his “Don’t Say Gay” law by saying his critics support “sexualizing kids in kindergarten.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump, who remains the Republican front-runner for 2024, said that providing gender-affirming care to minors was equal to “child abuse.” As a result of this ginned-up hate, there are over 520 anti-L.G.B.T.Q. bills that have been introduced in state legislatures, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Now that queer Americans are being singled out, why are some Muslims so willing to go along?

We often forget that there are people whose lives are directly affected by these hateful words, statements and policies. I reached out to several L.G.B.T.Q. Muslims to ask them if they had any words for fellow Muslims who are supporting the right wing’s political attacks on L.G.B.T.Q. literature, rights and identities. “Don’t let Islamophobes and evangelical Christians vying for political power dictate the contours of your Islam,” Ramish Nadeem and Hanan Jabril, young Muslim activists, wrote in an emailed statement. “Is learning about L.G.B.T.Q.+ people, who do exist in the world we live in and even in our Muslim traditions, really gonna harm your kids’ faith? Is your Islam really that fragile that it must lead with exclusion, isolation and hate instead of mercy, openness and community?”

As Muslims in America, we have the capacity to be true to our faith and to embrace our neighbors — including members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community who may not share all our beliefs. And as citizens aware of how we’ve been treated, we should have better recognition of how the scapegoating of people for their sexual orientation or gender identity is a play from an old divide-and-conquer playbook. As the Times columnist Michelle Goldberg recently wrote, “Nothing drives conservatives to reach out to groups they once feared as much as another group that they fear even more.”

As a Muslim parent, I understand how difficult it is to raise our children in a political environment that still views them as perpetual suspects because of their religion and, in many cases, their skin color. However, we still have religious freedoms in this country that allow us to live our lives according to our values, even if they aren’t shared by the majority.

Ultimately, living in a pluralistic society requires reciprocity and respect, even if we occasionally make one another uncomfortable. It’s hypocritical, shortsighted and cruel for Muslims to align with hateful forces targeting vulnerable communities that, like us, are still fighting against bigotry and for acceptance. The way forward is to opt into a country where all our kids have a chance to be the heroes of their own stories.

Source: We Muslims Used to Be the Culture War Scapegoats. Why Are Some of Us Joining the L.G.B.T.Q. Pile-On?

Filed under LGBTQ, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Muslims opposed to LGBTQ curricula for their kids aren’t bigots

2023/06/20 Leave a comment

A justification from the Dean of an Islamic Centre to provide some context to Canadian and American protests and highlighting an alignment among the religious right across religions. Ingenuous to argue that it is not political given today’s environment:

We are witnessing a unique and welcome phenomenon: Muslims in the West are at the forefront of a social movement that transcends any one faith or ethnicity. For those following the news, protests led by parents have erupted across the United States and Canada against school boards that wish to teach schoolchildren content about the acceptability of LGBTQ lifestyles.

While parents of all ethnicities and religions are involved, Muslim parents have been playing a central role in all of these cases, both as organisers and protesters, and their highly visible presence is creating waves on social media.

It is understandable for parents to be concerned. In Maryland, for example, a school district has approved books that discuss homosexuality and transgenderism as normal realities for children as young as three years old. This is state-sponsored ideological indoctrination of toddlers who can barely form complete sentences, much less think critically.

Parents have a God-given duty and legal right to provide moral instruction and guidance to their children. This includes the right of parents and their children to reject ideologies that contravene their beliefs.

Yet, supposedly secular institutions like public schools are now dictating that students must accept and affirm LGBTQ ideology, at times with the threat that if they refuse to do so, they “do not belong” in their country, as one teacher in Edmonton, Canada, recently said to a Muslim student.

As Muslims, we refuse to be coerced into believing something our faith categorically condemns. This is not a political stance. It is a moral principle.

A recent statement I helped draft, titled “Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam”, has been signed and endorsed by more than 300 Islamic scholars and preachers across North America. In this document, we explicitly and clearly lay out the non-negotiable, normative Islamic position on sexuality and gender ethics.

We believe this statement will allow Muslim parents, educators, students and professionals to establish their right to hold their religious views without fear of legal reprisal. All too often, those who wish to live in accordance with mainstream, family-based morality are accused of being bigoted and “homophobic” if they refuse to endorse LGBTQ events. Many suffer social repercussions for holding such beliefs.

Worse still, children are expected to attend events in which drag shows and other actions deemed immoral by many people of faith are showcased.

This statement seeks to be a reference point to demonstrate to school boards and employers why Muslims must preferably be excused from activities that contradict our religious ideals.

The statement is explicitly non-partisan and states that the signatories are “committed to working with individuals of all religious and political affiliations to protect the constitutional right of faith communities to live according to their religious convictions and to uphold justice for all”.

Despite such clear declarations of non-partisanship and though the protesters, from Maryland to Ottawa, have insisted they are asserting moral agency rather than political allegiance, certain groups insist on turning this into a partisan issue.

Those who have committed themselves to a left-wing liberal ideology (including some progressive Muslims) are outraged and ashamed of anything short of the full affirmation and acceptance of all LGBTQ demands. They point to our own experience of oppression as a Muslim minority and say we should thus show reciprocity to other marginalised groups, even as LGBTQ advocates often refuse to show the same sensitivity on issues we hold sacred.

The fact that conservative media outlets have provided a platform for Muslim parents to share their grievances is supposedly conclusive proof that these protesters, and all of us who oppose the teaching of the LGBTQ agenda in schools, are aligning themselves with the far-right, including white supremacists. That is simply not the case.

To be sure, the sudden friendliness of politically-conservative groups and media outlets towards Muslims is indeed tempting some in the community to rush to forge new alliances with the political right after previously flirting with the left. They are making a mistake. Again.

Muslims across North America should firmly root their moral values in their faith, not in a specific political ideology. To understand why this distinction is so critical, we ought to heed a lesson from our recent past.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Islam in North America faced an existential crisis. Muslims were widely portrayed as the enemy. Scholars were deported. Bearded Muslim men and hijabi women were harassed, randomly questioned and detained at airports. Many worshippers avoided praying in masjids and some Muslims even changed their first names. The reality of Muslims in North America in the first decade of this century was one of fear, anxiety and extreme alienation.

The open hostility of the North American political right towards Islam and Muslims sharply contrasted with the comparatively sympathetic left. As a matter of pragmatic political (and in some cases, literal) survival, Muslims flocked to the liberal political parties of Canada and the United States. These left-wing institutions gave Muslims the best chance to survive against anti-Muslim forces largely represented by the conservative right. But embracing the left meant accepting an entire package of causes, some of which aligned ideologically with Islamic ethics (such as combatting racism), while others did not (such as the legalisation of certain drugs).

Many Muslims began approaching politics not as a tool but as an ideology. They felt motivated to resolve the cognitive dissonance between their political commitments and their religious beliefs, even if it meant radically reinterpreting the faith to allow for such accommodation.

Some progressives who identified with Islam began claiming, for the first time in our 14 centuries of scholarship, that the Quran has been misunderstood and that in its correct interpretation, it endorses alternative sexual lifestyles and sanctions same-sex marriages.

To be clear, Islamic law differentiates between a desire, which is in itself not sinful, and the deed, which could be a sin. Those struggling with same-sex desires but wishing to abide by Islamic law are our full brethren in faith and deserve all the love and rights of believers. They stand in contrast to those who flout Islamic law and take pride in disobedience. Muslim politicians and influencers, in particular, should be careful not to make religious claims on behalf of our faith.

In an authentic narration, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) says: “believer is not bitten from the same hole twice”. Muslims who are rightly indignant about the moral decay sweeping our society in the name of inclusivity ought to be cautious not to be a pendulum that swings from one extreme to another.

Our politics is not our ideology and our ideology is neither left nor right. Our ideology is centred in our unshakeable faith, grounded in our immutable creed, and firmly rooted in the timeless words of God and the teachings of His final Messenger. We are a “Middle Nation” and, as the Quran says (2:143), our role is to be moral exemplars for mankind.

Yasir Qadhi Dean of The Islamic Seminary of America and Resident Scholar of East Plano Islamic Center

Source: Muslims opposed to LGBTQ curricula for their kids aren’t bigots

Filed under LGBTQ, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Immigration Department partners with Rainbow Road agency to seek out LGBTQ refugees

2023/06/09 Leave a comment

Of note:

Canada has partnered with a non-profit to seek out LGBTQ people fleeing violence all over the world and refer them to Canada as government-assisted refugees.

Rainbow Road is based in North American and aims to help people facing persecution from systemic, state-enabled homophobia and transphobia all over the world.

Until now, the agency has done that by offering emergency relocation, crisis response and cash assistance to people in danger.

The partnership with Canada is the first that would see Rainbow Road facilitate government-sponsored refugee resettlement.

“What this allows us to do that we haven’t been able to do to date is really triage really vulnerable cases and urgent cases for protection,” said Rainbow Railroad CEO Kimahli Powell.

Persecution based on sexual orientation and gender identity is on the rise. Just last week, Uganda adopted one of the harshest anti-homosexuality laws in the world.

Canadian politicians of all stripes have condemned the law, which prescribes the death penalty for people who engage in same-sex intimacy involving a partner with HIV, and long prison sentences for “promoting” homosexuality and engaging in same-sex relations.

Persecuted people are already referred to Canada by the United Nations refugee agency, but the situation in Uganda illustrates why an agency focused on LGBTQ refugees is so important, said Powell.

“Many people are fleeing Uganda to neighbouring Kenya, that also criminalizes same-sex intimacy,” Powell explained in an interview. The discrimination they face in Kenya makes it more difficult for them to access traditional refugee resources.

“A referring partner that has expertise in LGBTQI+ persons, like Rainbow Railroad, especially in times of crisis, can make resettlement safer for LGBTQI+ people at risk.”

Since the law passed, Rainbow Railroad has had 600 requests for help from Uganda, which is more than double the number they had all of last year from that country.

Powell says 67 countries have criminalized same-sex intimacy.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser touted the arrangement as one of the first of its kind, and said in a written statement it will help Canada better respond to “emerging situations.”

The government is still negotiating how many refugees are likely to be referred through the program, but Powell hopes those referrals will begin as soon as possible.

Rainbow Railroad received some 10,000 requests for help last year.

Source: Immigration Department partners with Rainbow Road agency to seek out LGBTQ refugees

Filed under Immigration, LGBTQ Tagged with

Canada’s federal budget promises anti-hate action, but can the government actually do anything?

2023/04/15 Leave a comment

Valid questions, applies more broadly than LGTBTQ:

While the 2023 federal budget released last month had very little that was new for queer and trans communities, mostly pointing to previous investments that had been made, there was promise buried within to introduce a new Action Plan to Combat Hate later in the year. Just what exactly they’re promising is murky, and it’s hard to tell how many dollars are actually attached to this plan. It notes that between 2019 and 2021, police-reported hate crimes rose by 72 percent, but just how the federal government proposes to tackle that is unclear.

“To confront hate in all its forms, including hate faced by 2SLGBTQI+ communities, the federal government plans to introduce a new Action Plan to Combat Hate later this year,” the budget reads. “This new Action Plan will include measures to combat hateful rhetoric and acts, building on measures being taken in Budget 2023 to build safer, more inclusive communities.”

The dollar figure attached to that is $49.5 million over five years, starting in the 2023–24 fiscal year, with Public Safety Canada to expand its existing Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program. This largely goes toward things like providing more security to synagogues and mosques, which LGBTQ2S+ community centres could also access (if they haven’t already), but there aren’t many of them across the country, and most are situated in bigger cities. The budget indicates that this means an additional $5 million this year, and $11 million for each of the four subsequent fiscal years.

The infrastructure program is not without its critics within the queer and trans communities. The Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity (CCGSD), an education, advocacy and research organization, put out a statement decrying the lack of specific investment to combat anti-LGBTQ2S+ hate.

“In its current form, we do not feel confident that the Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program is structured in a way that will protect at-risk 2SLGBTQI+ events (such as pride festivals or drag story hours),” the CCGSD statement reads. “While we look forward to the Action Plan to Combat Hate, there is no indication in Budget 2023 that it will contain any specific funding dedicated to combating anti-2SLGBTQI+ hate.”

This is the part where I start to raise questions, because I’m not sure just what the federal government should be doing about Pride festivals or drag story hours, given that those are largely under the jurisdiction of local governments. Yes, federal governments past and present have given funding support to Pride festivals through Canadian Heritage or tourism grants to help with things like operational funding, but how does the federal government enhance security at a Pride festival? While the CCGSD doesn’t specify what they think the federal government should be doing, I wonder what would those federal dollars be funding for security that shouldn’t be provided by the municipality through local police? I have a hard time seeing a case for millions of federal dollars to be dispersed to provide private security for these festivals, even if some of the larger ones in the country may rely on it as part of their festival operations, particularly because that private security is unlikely to be equipped to deal with potential hate crimes.

This is the part where I start to raise questions, because I’m not sure just what the federal government should be doing about Pride festivals or drag story hours, given that those are largely under the jurisdiction of local governments. Yes, federal governments past and present have given funding support to Pride festivals through Canadian Heritage or tourism grants to help with things like operational funding, but how does the federal government enhance security at a Pride festival? While the CCGSD doesn’t specify what they think the federal government should be doing, I wonder what would those federal dollars be funding for security that shouldn’t be provided by the municipality through local police? I have a hard time seeing a case for millions of federal dollars to be dispersed to provide private security for these festivals, even if some of the larger ones in the country may rely on it as part of their festival operations, particularly because that private security is unlikely to be equipped to deal with potential hate crimes.

Likewise, most drag story hours are held in public libraries, which are the responsibility of municipal governments, and the fervent right-wing animosity toward them are both recent and unlikely to be sustained, and shouldn’t justify permanent security infrastructure funding. Any protests are an issue for local police to deal with—and no, it’s not the federal government’s job to deal with the failures of local police in this country. Policing is a provincial jurisdiction, and civilian oversight should be with the hands of the local police services board (though their efficacy can depend on just how much local involvement there is).

I do think that a federal program to combat hateful rhetoric is a good thing, but we need to see more details about what this is going to look like. We also need to be aware that trust in government when it comes to delivering messages to the public has been eroded thanks to a steady stream of misinformation and disinformation during the pandemic, which capitalized on early mistakes by public health officials, and the evolving nature of our understanding of the virus itself. Because trust is low, combatting that rhetoric could be harder, because there will be those who insist that if the government is trying to combat it, then their homophobic and transphobic rhetoric must be justified. That’s going to be a problem.

If the idea is a national ad campaign that says we should embrace diversity, stamped with the Canada wordmark at the end, that is less likely to be as effective as something akin to providing communities with tools to local police or community organizations to help de-radicalize individuals and groups that are targeting these events. Those tools, whatever they may look like, are more in keeping with what kinds of supports that are appropriate for the federal government to provide.

There is also the ongoing funding for the 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan, and the various project and community funds that are part of it. This is helping a number of queer and trans organizations and communities across the country build resilience in the wake of increasing hate, but there should also be warning signs here—that groups receiving the funding should be thinking about capacity-building and sustainability. These funds may not survive a change in government, and there has been no move to create a self-sustaining endowment fund like has been done for the Black community, leaving the queer and trans communities that rely on this federal funding more vulnerable. Sustainability is work that these groups should be aware of and working towards.

Source: Canada’s federal budget promises anti-hate action, but can the government actually do anything?

Filed under LGBTQ, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Canada, meet your new LGBTQ2S+ MPs

2021/09/24 Leave a comment

Of note:

After a gruelling 36-day campaign, Canada’s 44th federal election has officially come to an end, and a new Liberal minority government is at the helm. 

Throughout the campaign, Xtra identified 61 openly LGBTQ2S+ candidates running for the major federal parties. We also surveyed each of those candidates about the issues that mattered most to them. Of those 61 candidates, seven have won their seats and now serve as MPs across the country—a record number in Canadian federal history.

That number is up from the last federal election in 2019, when four openly LGBTQ2S+ MPs were elected. Many of those elected this time around were incumbents re-elected to serve another term. And of those, only one MP is a woman and one is Indigenous.

Here are Canada’s new LGBTQ2S+ MPs.

Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach

Blake Desjarlais made history this election, becoming Canada’s first Two-Spirit MP elected to Parliament. A Métis/Cree man raised in the Fishing Lake Métis Settlement northeast of Edmonton, Desjarlais is one of just two LGBTQ2S+ first-time candidates to win their seat. Before entering federal politics, he served as director of public and national affairs for the Métis Settlements General Council. 

In response to Xtra’s survey to LGBTQ2S+ candidates, Desjarlais emphasized the importance of supporting and creating space for queer, trans and Two-Spirit folks, especially LGBTQ2S+ people of colour. 

Desjarlais also spoke to the significance of Two-Spirit and Indigenous LGBTQ+ representation: “Being Two-Spirit is an honour and it’s important to ensure other Two-Spirit folks see representation in Canada,” he wrote. Desjarlais currently stands as the only openly LGBTQ2S+ Indigenous MP in Parliament.

Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt–Saanich–Sooke

Randall Garrison will be serving his fourth term as MP in the B.C. riding he first won back in 2011. Garrison has a long history serving LGBTQ2S+ Canadians; notably, in 2013, he tabled private member’s bill C-279, which would have added gender identity and expression as protected grounds against discrimination to the Criminal Code. He has also served as the NDP’s official LGBTQ+ SOGIE (sexual orientation and gender identity and expression) spokesperson. 

Garrison told Xtra via our candidate survey that his first priority would be banning conversion therapy on a national scale. (Bill C-6, which would ban the discriminatory practice, did not pass through the Senate before the election call.) “Calling an election was clearly a bigger priority for the Liberals than ending the torture and mental health challenges caused by this fraudulent idea that members of our community are broken and need to be fixed,” he wrote.

Garrison also pointed to the continued harassment and discrimination LGBTQ2S+ communities face in Canada. “Discrimination persists in government policies and programs and in the community at large, especially against transgender and non-binary Canadians,” he wrote. “While some progress has been made, we still have a lot more work to do in order to make sure that everyone in the community is treated fairly.”

Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West

Rob Oliphant will be serving his fourth term as MP in the Toronto riding of Don Valley West. Oliphant was first elected in 2008 and served a term as MP before leaving office for the private sector; he returned to federal politics in 2015. In 2019, he served as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs.

Oliphant did not respond to Xtra’s candidate survey.

Seamus O’Regan, Liberal, St. John’s South–Mount Pearl

This marks Seamus O’Regan’s third term as a Liberal MP in Newfoundland and Labrador. First elected in 2015, O’Regan served a number of roles in the Liberal cabinet, including minister of veterans affairs and minister of Indigenous services. Before the election call, O’Regan was minister of natural resources.

O’Regan did not respond to Xtra’s candidate survey.

Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre

Randy Boissonnault returns to Parliament after losing his seat in 2019. First elected in 2015, Boissonnault was appointed Special Advisor to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 Issues one year into his term as MP. In the role, he helped usher through Bill C-16, legislation that enshrined protections for trans and gender nonconforming Canadians in the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act. He also played a role in issuing an apology to former government workers affected by the gay purge.

In response to Xtra’s candidate survey, Boissonnault emphasized the need to pass legislation to ban conversion therapy. “This horrendous practice must be ended and I will fight every single day to see that improved and expanded legislation to ban it is tabled, debated and passed as quickly as possible,” he wrote.

Though he is one of five white, cis queer men elected to Parliament, Boissonnault also noted importance of recognizing intersections within the LGBTQ2S+ community. “As a white, cisgender member of the community I understand that my experiences are different than other members of the community. I understood this when I was first appointed as Special Adviser on LGBTQ2 issues,” he wrote. “We knew how important it was to ensure that voices of trans, non-binary, BIPOC members of the community were heard as we were consulting on the formation of the role and its mandate. I will always listen and be an ally to all parts of our community.”

Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry

First elected in 2019, Eric Duncan will be returning to his Ontario riding as MP for a second term. Duncan became the unofficial LGBTQ2S+ spokesperson for the Conservative Party after his win in 2019 as the only openly-gay Tory in caucus. He’s best known for his calls to end the blood ban against queer men and trans women; in November 2020, he made headlines when he asked Minister of Health Patty Hajdu if she would accept a donation of his blood as an openly gay man. That fight, he told Xtra in April, is a personal one—he couldn’t donate blood as a closeted gay teen without outing himself. 

Duncan did not respond to Xtra’s candidate survey.

Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill

Melissa Lantsman has become the only openly queer woman in Parliament with her election in the Greater Toronto Area. She’s long been associated with Conservative politics, working as a communications advisor to former prime minister Stephen Harper and a spokesperson for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party in 2018. In 2020, Lantsman infamously tweeted that it was more difficult for her to come out as Conservative than it was to come out as a lesbian.

Lantsman did not respond to Xtra’s candidate survey.

Source: https://xtramagazine.com/power/lgbtq2s-federal-election-queer-mps-209072

Filed under LGBTQ, Politics Tagged with ,

Newer posts →