No Canadian sovereignty on Canadian soil

In case any of my Canadian readers were still under the illusion that Trump’s fascism wouldn’t bleed into our country, I present to you Bill C-23, a law which strips us of several immigration rights at border check points between Canada and the United States… even if the check point is on our side of the border.

U.S. border guards would get new powers to question, search and even detain Canadian citizens on Canadian soil under a bill proposed by the Liberal government.

Legal experts say Bill C-23, introduced by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, and likely to pass in the current sitting of Parliament, could also erode the standing of Canadian permanent residents by threatening their automatic right to enter Canada.

The bill would enshrine in law a reciprocal agreement for customs and immigration pre-clearance signed by the governments of Stephen Harper and Barack Obama in 2015. Both houses of Congress passed the U.S. version of the bill in December.

Michael Greene, an immigration lawyer in Calgary, says C-23 takes away an important right found in the existing law.

“A Canadian going to the U.S. through a pre-clearance area [on Canadian soil] can say: ‘I don’t like the way [an interview is] going and I’ve chosen not to visit your country.’ And they can just turn around and walk out.

“Under the new proposed bill, they wouldn’t be able to walk out. They can be held and forced to answer questions, first to identify themselves, which is not so offensive, but secondly, to explain the reasons for leaving, and to explain their reasons for wanting to withdraw,” said Greene, who is national chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s citizenship and immigration section.

“And that’s the part we think could be really offensive and goes too far.”

Howard Greenberg, a Toronto immigration lawyer who has chaired the immigration law committees at the Canadian Bar Association and the International Bar Association, says the law raises the prospect of a Canadian being arrested simply for deciding he or she has had enough with a certain line of questioning.

“At some point, it may change from a situation where you’re simply responding to a question, to a situation where you’re failing to respond to a direction of an officer. So the ambiguity is somewhat dangerous for the traveller.”

Yes, that’s right. American border agencies can detain you in your own country.

I have to say I’m somewhat blindsided by how obsequious our government seems to be. In what world would a country be okay with citizens being detained on their own soil by foreign powers?

My new Member of Parliament has already gone on record to criticize the law, but even if the Conservatives wake up and throw their weight in with the NDP, the Liberal supermajority can still make it pass.

I don’t think I had any intentions of visiting the United States as it is, but just the symbolism of “Americans can arrest Canadians on Canadian territory” strikes me as a stunning invasion of our so-called sovereignty.

Here’s hoping the Liberals come to their senses.


Zeus cancelled Christmas

A lightning bolt in Norway killed 300 reindeer, which will no doubt result in a labour shortage this upcoming Christmas when Santa is tasked with a worldwide delivery of toys:

More than 300 wild reindeer have been killed by lighting in central Norway in what wildlife officials are calling an unusually large natural disaster.

The Norwegian Environment Agency has released eerie images showing a jumble of reindeer carcasses scattered across a small area on the Hardangervidda mountain plateau. The agency says 323 animals were killed, including 70 calves, in the lightning storm Friday.

Agency spokesman Kjartan Knutsen told the AP it’s not uncommon for reindeer or other wildlife to be killed by lightning strikes, “but we have not heard about such numbers before.”

I guess you could say this news is…



Wooooo I’m employed


Blaral;gha;eslkrhta;seltkhas;elth I got the job offer guys.

Hurrayyy material security.

You know you’re making it in life when you move up a tax bracket.


Alberta passes carbon tax


The Alberta government has announced that its proposal to implement carbon taxes has passed in Legislature:

The Alberta government passed its contentious carbon tax bill Tuesday but opposition MLAs decried the NDP’s unwillingness to accept amendments.

It was the final bill to pass as the spring session came to an end.

Premier Rachel Notley and house leader Brian Mason will speak about the bill and the session LIVE at 1 p.m.

The tax, which comes into effect Jan. 1, 2017, will be paid by Albertans through their home heating bills and at the gas pumps. Lower-income Albertans will start receiving rebates in January.

MLAs sat until 4:37 a.m Tuesday while the bill went through the committee of the whole. Only one of 21 amendments proposed by the opposition last night were passed.

Government MLAs defeated amendments that would have disclosed the amount of the carbon tax on fuel receipts, set performance measures to test the effectiveness of the tax, and provided exemptions or rebates to charities.

[Read more…]

The Transgender Debate Trope



Content Notice: Transphobia, angry invocation of t-word slur

Most of the time, when implementation of explicit rights for trans folk is “debated,” my face looks something like this:

Very sincere


This is because, like any issue that undergoes debate, there is often an opposing side that the media feels has to be represented to see the “full picture.” And while that is its own kind of stress when someone is representing patently falsifiable claims, it takes a higher toll on you when you are the topic of debate. The opponent isn’t merely representing misinformation, they are representing ideas and policies that actively antagonize your safety, and the whole “we have to represent the whole debate” neutrality business starts to feel a bit callous because the hosts are pretending there is any merit to Buddy McDoucheFace’s arguments. You’re supposed to sit silently while Buddy calls you a predator for being who you are. You’re supposed to give him his turn to speak. You’re supposed to be civil, when Buddy basically called for you to be institutionalized against your will, imprisoned for crimes you never committed. Buddy invokes Holocaust imagery to describe the way you should be treated, and you’re supposed to smile and remain calm in the presence of someone who just admitted they’d murder you in different circumstances.

Enter the Transgender Debate Trope.

[Read more…]

Signal boosting: Trans ally feminist edition


M. A. Melby was–possibly still is?–a regular commentator here at FtB, but also a contributor at Trans Advocate and a storify curator of online harassment and/or online stupidity. While I personally haven’t seen her in the comments section as of late, I do wonder if she still reads this. In the event she does encounter my blag: Hi! I appreciate your work from the bottom of my soul, and I hope you’re doing well.

Y’all should check her work out if you’re curious to see how bad the anti-trans harassment can get.


Passing, trans men, and toxic masculinity


I’ve encountered a few interesting conversations on some trans groups with a predominantly trans masculine membership. A few of these conversations blew up about toxic masculinity and “passing.” As these groups probably wouldn’t appreciate direct links to their private chats, I’m just going to try and represent the conversation with my own words.

Content Notice for cissexism, heterosexism, and (obviously) toxic masculinity.

To begin, a few disclaimers:

  • This is my opinion, not concrete fact and definitely not research data.
  • I’m a trans woman, not a trans man; however, I’ve experienced toxic masculinity from within as well as without, and I’m obviously aware of identity policing given the slough of anti-trans hate groups on the interwebs and in various governments.
  • I’m not linking directly to the source material because haters already periodically disrupt activity with trolling, we really don’t need to give them help.
  • I could link to examples of toxic masculinity (discussed below), but that would increase traffic to MRA sites and seriously, it hurts my brain to be anywhere near that shit. If you really need confirmation, just go to an MRA site and read like the first 3 articles.
  • Some of the material discussed here is transferable to femininity and trans women; however, that is not today’s topic, so I’m not going to constantly qualify my analysis by saying “this affects trans women too.”

Part One: “Passing”

I put “passing” in quotation marks because it’s a really problematic concept. It works something like this:

  1. Someone decides, usually after protracted questioning, that they are transgender and need to transition.
  2. They experiment with their gender expression to see what feels right.
  3. They get unsolicited tips on how to “look like a cisgender man/woman.”
  4. It is never questioned on whether said trans person wants or needs to “look cis.”

Passing is the act of a trans person going about their life without anybody knowing they’re trans until/if they disclose.

The assumption that all trans people want to look cis can come from a few different angles. Maybe someone believes that looking trans is bad–and they’d be right, but only because of the discrimination cis folk feel entitled to enact on trans folk, not because gender variance is inherently wrong or gender norms are inherently right. Maybe someone believes that all trans people want to “look cis,” which isn’t always true. Thirdly, there is almost always the assumption that men and women “look” a certain way, which informs the whole “looking cis” business.

Of course, men and women don’t have just one look, and when people feel the need to police or “correct” trans folk’s gender expressions, what they typically have in mind is conventional masculinity or femininity. That even cis people occasionally choose to deviate from gender norms is lost on them. “Looking cis” is never defined except in nebulous terms relying on other people’s judgement.

People will make a guess about a person’s gender based on more than just their appearance. There is also the matter of their behaviour and body language.

[Read more…]

Why I need Pride, 2016


It’s the actual Pride Parade today, although in my city “Pride” is about a week and a half long and includes all kinds of Queer events, not just the parade.

I do one of these each year, although this is the first time I’ve had a platform like FtB to do it on.

So, discrimination is bad, right? Most people will pay lip service to that idea. Discrimination bad. *nods along*

But what does discrimination look like?

Generally speaking, discrimination occurs in three areas: individually, institutionally, and structurally.

If you live in Canada, you’ve probably heard of Bill C-16, which in recent memory is the government’s second attempt to explicitly protect trans rights at the federal level (thereby obligating the provinces to follow suit). That means discrimination’s over!!

…Except, not really. First of all, the Bill hasn’t passed yet. The Senate is still stacked with Conservatives, including Don Plett, who was responsible for killing the last Bill. Even if it passes in Parliament, it still has to go through them before it goes to the Queen for rubber stamping Royal Assent.

Second, those pesky levels of discrimination come into play anytime a minority’s rights become enshrined in law. Institutional discrimination, where minority rights are either omitted, unaddressed, or actively antagonized, is what ends when a government declares that this is unacceptable and follows through with changes in its own policy.

And if everyone subscribed to their various institutions flawlessly and without question, that would be the end of discrimination. However, there’s still structural discrimination (where minorities receive unintentional fallout as a result of a law that never had them in mind) and also personal discrimination.

Thirdly, just because something is illegal, doesn’t mean it never happens.

Unfortunately, there are many sectors of life where opportunities for personal discrimination can occur. An employer can still secretly dismiss a candidate for being trans, as long as they pay lip service to something about merit. A landlord can still evict a tenant for being trans, as long as they find some slight to exaggerate as a violation of the tenancy agreement. A teen can still lose their home if their parents decide to kick them out. People legitimately feel justified in murdering trans women in what would otherwise be recognized as barbaric “honour killing.” That murder has always been a crime and, with Bill C-16, a hate crime, is small consolation to my deceased sisters and brothers.

So, how much of this or this goes away because of Bill C-16?

Sixty-three percent (63%) of our participants experienced serious acts of discrimination—events that would have a major impact on a person’s quality of life and ability to sustain themselves financially or emotionally. Participants reported that they had faced:

  • Loss of job due to bias
  • Eviction due to bias
  • School bullying/harassment so bad the respondent had to drop out
  • Teacher bullying
  • Physical assault due to bias
  • Sexual assault due to bias
  • Homelessness because of gender identity/expression
  • Loss of relationship with partner or children due to gender identity/expression
  • Denial of medical service due to bias
  • Incarceration due to gender identity/expression

“Despite being very well educated, we found that trans people have a median income of $15,000* a year,” she said.

*$15,000 CDN/year. To put that in perspective, the general population for non-family adults had a median income of $23,000 CDN/year in 2013.

You know which ones I’ve endured? School bullying, loss of job and sexual assault. I couldn’t get the latter prosecuted as a regular crime, never mind a hate crime, so Bill C-16 offers me no vindication on that front. As for the loss of job, it’s laughably easy for an employer to exaggerate the faults of an employee and fire them under the pretense of performance. Or not hire them in the first place for the same reason.

Change isn’t going to occur until people start changing their minds about the trans community, until they understand the needs unique to our lived experiences, until they understand the poison that informs so much of our discrimination on a personal level. People need to acknowledge and yes–check–their privilege, because without doing so explicitly they will find their opinions to be subconsciously informed by prejudice. Some of these people will have institutional power over me. Some of them will know to pay lip service to the areas (skill, merit) where it’s legal to discriminate. Those people will not have their mind changed by Bill C-16 alone.

So, this year? I need Pride because the people opposing Bill C-16 are trying to paint me as a predator despite the fact that I’m several orders of magnitude more likely to be a victim at cis hands than their cis, gender conforming girls. I need Pride because there are wiseguys picking up on the cues offered up by the likes of Governor McCrory and bringing that bullshit here. I need Pride because trans activists are being assassinated, whose murderers are treated to judicial slaps on the wrist, whose deaths broadcast a message: “you are more expendable than a man’s so-called honour.”

Most of all, I need Pride because there are a lot of people, including ones in Pride, who don’t seem to give a shit about these problems. The cis gays might be ready to just throw a massive week-long party, but I’ve still got swords to sharpen and battles to fight. I can celebrate that Bill C-16 has been introduced while also acknowledging that it has a long way to go before becoming law, and even if it passes, that informal social change is still necessary for integrating trans people into broader society.

It's a visual pun. "Leather" and "Pride." GET IT?

It’s a visual pun. “Leather” and “Pride.” GET IT?

That’s why me and my conditioned booties need Pride this year.