I promised my American wife Canada was safe for queer couples. I'll vote to keep it that way
When I first invited my then-girlfriend (now wife) Julia to come visit me in Nova Scotia in 2019 from her home in the United States, I never once questioned whether Canada would be a safe place for 2SLGBTQ+ people like us.
I knew things weren't perfect for transgender folks here, but as a dual Canadian-U.S. citizen who keeps on the pulse on U.S. news, I knew it would definitely be better here than it was there.
That's still the case, but my confidence in Canada remaining welcoming and safe has eroded. I've seen and felt an anti-transgender movement rising here, leading me to watch the forthcoming federal election with equal measures of hope and dread.
I first met Julia online through social media and visited her at her home in the midwest U.S. in 2017.
It felt like coming home. We realized how much we enjoyed each other's company — or, as we like to say, "doing life together". We survived seven years of a long-distance, cross-border relationship, including almost two years apart during pandemic travel restrictions, and we eloped in 2021 so that no government could keep us apart again.
A couple of years after we married, I started to see much more hateful comments and disinformation about people like my wife and me on social media feeds. It had begun to spill over into real life in my community. School protests and destruction of Pride flags were happening all over Nova Scotia. But because we have sparse local news coverage in my area, I was worried that people here might think that anti-trans bigotry was just an overseas problem.
I submitted a letter to my local volunteer-run newspaper to draw attention to the upcoming Pride season.
I was very anxious to send it, and I honestly didn't expect it to be published. When you spend your whole life feeling invisible, you don't expect anyone to want to read your words.
So, in June 2023, when rifling through my freshly-delivered summer edition of the newspaper, I was overjoyed to find the letter I'd written printed in full.
Then, suddenly, it felt like the floor had evaporated from under me.
Right next to my letter was one from another community member, filled with the same trans-exclusionary talking points I'd been seeing all over social media. Catchy buzzwords like "social contagion" and "sex based rights" were mixed in with unsubstantiated fear-mongering about sexual predators getting "access to our private spaces under gender-identity ideology."
GLAAD, an American organization that advocates for 2SLGBTQ+ people in the media, says gender ideology is an inaccurate term deployed by opponents to undermine and dehumanize transgender and nonbinary people. By claiming gender identity is an "ideology," it says opponents attempt to diminish the very real need for legal protections and for social acceptance essential for trans and nonbinary people's safety.
So, on the one hand, the other writer illustrated perfectly why my letter to the paper had been necessary in the first place.
But I was revolted and heartbroken. I was in the middle of filling out the application to sponsor my wife for Canadian permanent residency, and I started to question whether I was doing the right thing. Was I bringing her to a good place to live? It made me feel unsafe and unwelcome.
But we proceeded with our application, and she was granted permanent residency. I'm glad we did because we love our life together on our lavender farm.
But if one letter hurt me so deeply, and made me question my wife's and my future in Canada, you can imagine how it feels when political leaders use trans issues as a wedge to whip up the electorate, or pretend we don't exist and ignore our needs completely.
In the U.S., the anti-trans movement has grown and state oppression of transgender folks has escalated quickly. Access to public washrooms, healthcare and identity documents with the correct gender marker are being stripped away. President Donald Trump has declared by executive order that transgender and nonbinary peoples' existence will not be recognized by the federal government. America has rapidly become a living hell for trans Americans, and my wife and I have survivors' guilt for being here when so many of our trans friends in the U.S. do not have any means of escape.
If you think it can't happen here, I think you're wrong. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has denied having any knowledge of nonbinary and two-spirit identities, and the Conservative party platform already includes a key anti-trans policy position opposing inclusion of trans women in sport.
I am afraid that under a Conservative government, many people will simply look the other way while our rights and freedoms are clawed back — as has already happened just across the border.
I implore all candidates not to ignore the rising tide of hate against transgender people and to do more to uphold our human rights. As for the other federal parties, I want to see bold leadership. Whoever forms the next Canadian government should withdraw from Safe Third Country agreement with the U.S., as its president has demonstrated it is a profoundly unsafe country for transgender people.
I want there to be clear and accessible pathways for trans folks to immigrate to Canada to seek a better life. But I also want those of us who are already here to feel welcome and accepted in the place in which we live and work.
I love my wife deeply. Just like so many other couples, we enjoy the simple pleasures of playing board games and reading comic books together. We have our own secret code words and inside jokes, and have found joy in visiting beautiful spots in the Maritimes together.
There are politicians who try to make 2SLGBTQ+ rights a partisan issue, but I have rural-living, Christian family and friends who have always voted Conservative — and they still support and love me and Julia.
When I cast my ballot, it will be for a party that affirms the existence of people like me and my wife, that sees our value and that supports our inclusion in all aspects of public life. I want the leadership of this country to keep Canada as open and welcoming a place I promised my wife that it has been and that I hope it will continue to be.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Edmonton Journal
2 hours ago
- Edmonton Journal
Conservatives aiming to amend Criminal Code so immigration status won't be a factor in sentencing
Article content The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence. Ontario Court judge Paul O'Marra wrote that a criminal record would likely prevent the offender from sponsoring his wife to also become a permanent resident, as well as delay the offender's eligibility for Canadian citizenship and jeopardize his ability to become a licensed engineer. Article content O'Marra concluded that 'a custodial sentence would be unduly harsh' and instead handed down a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation, which included three months of house arrest. In establishing the basis for his reasoning, he wrote: 'The Pham decision stands for the principle that collateral consequences, while not determinative, can justify a lower sentence within the legal range to avoid disproportionate hardship,' Article content In an Alberta case cited by Rempel Garner, a man in Canada on a visitor's permit was accused of groping an 18-year-old woman in a nightclub twice. The judge ruled that 'in consideration of the devastating collateral immigration consequences to recording a conviction, I conclude that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Singh is a conditional discharge with a probation order of maximum duration, 3 years.' Article content Article content Rempel Garner insists that when 'it comes to sentencing non-citizens, Canada has essentially adopted a system of two-tier justice where judges can and have given lighter sentences to individuals who are non-citizens.' Article content The Conservatives are proposing a bill that would prohibit immigration discounts in sentencing. Great news! Courts have been more lenient on non-citizens since 2013, at times going light on sex offenders to help them remain in Canada. That can change if Parliament wills it. — Jamie Sarkonak (@sarkonakj) August 13, 2025 Article content Article content Rempel Garner said the Conservatives intend to introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code. 'Our bill will add a section after Section 718.202 … which will expressly outline that any potential impact of a sentence on the immigration status of a convicted non-citizen offender, or … their family members, should not be taken into consideration by a judge when issuing a sentence.' Article content Acknowledging that the vast majority of immigrants and temporary residents in Canada abide by the law, she said 'removing non-citizens convicted of serious crimes is a no-brainer. Conservatives will always fight to protect Canadians, the value of our citizenship and the safety of every person who lives here. Becoming a Canadian is a privilege, not a right.'
Vancouver Sun
2 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Conservatives aiming to amend Criminal Code so immigration status won't be a factor in sentencing
When Parliament resumes this fall, a Conservative MP says her party will introduce legislation to end consideration of immigration status when a judge is sentencing a convicted criminal who is not a citizen. Michelle Rempel Garner, MP for Calgary Nose Hill and shadow minister for Immigration, said the practice has essentially resulted in a two-tier justice system that allows non-citizens to get lighter sentences than Canadians convicted of the same crime. 'This offends all principles of fairness that should be foundational to our justice system,' Rempel Garner said at a press conference in Ottawa on Wednesday. She pointed to a 2013 Supreme Court of Canada decision that she says has permitted judges to consider immigration status at the sentencing stage of a case. In that case, R. v. Pham , the accused was a non‑citizen, convicted of two drug‑related offences. The trial judge imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court noted that under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a non‑citizen sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least two years loses the right to appeal a removal order against him or her. In reducing Pham's sentence, the Supreme Court ruled that 'collateral immigration consequences' are relevant factors that a sentencing judge may take into account in determining an appropriate sentence, but added that those consequences should not influence whether or not deportation occurs. Rempel Garner cited a few recent cases that relied on the Pham ruling in handing down a sentence. In the first example, a permanent resident was convicted of trying to buy sex from a police officer posing as a 15-year-old in an online sting operation. The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence. Ontario Court judge Paul O'Marra wrote that a criminal record would likely prevent the offender from sponsoring his wife to also become a permanent resident, as well as delay the offender's eligibility for Canadian citizenship and jeopardize his ability to become a licensed engineer. O'Marra concluded that 'a custodial sentence would be unduly harsh' and instead handed down a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation, which included three months of house arrest. In establishing the basis for his reasoning, he wrote: 'The Pham decision stands for the principle that collateral consequences, while not determinative, can justify a lower sentence within the legal range to avoid disproportionate hardship,' In an Alberta case cited by Rempel Garner, a man in Canada on a visitor's permit was accused of groping an 18-year-old woman in a nightclub twice. The judge ruled that 'in consideration of the devastating collateral immigration consequences to recording a conviction, I conclude that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Singh is a conditional discharge with a probation order of maximum duration, 3 years.' Rempel Garner insists that when 'it comes to sentencing non-citizens, Canada has essentially adopted a system of two-tier justice where judges can and have given lighter sentences to individuals who are non-citizens.' The Conservatives are proposing a bill that would prohibit immigration discounts in sentencing. Great news! Courts have been more lenient on non-citizens since 2013, at times going light on sex offenders to help them remain in Canada. That can change if Parliament wills it. Rempel Garner said the Conservatives intend to introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code. 'Our bill will add a section after Section 718.202 … which will expressly outline that any potential impact of a sentence on the immigration status of a convicted non-citizen offender, or … their family members, should not be taken into consideration by a judge when issuing a sentence.' Acknowledging that the vast majority of immigrants and temporary residents in Canada abide by the law, she said 'removing non-citizens convicted of serious crimes is a no-brainer. Conservatives will always fight to protect Canadians, the value of our citizenship and the safety of every person who lives here. Becoming a Canadian is a privilege, not a right.' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
CBC
2 hours ago
- CBC
Border security frustrations mount after alleged illegal Sarnia jet ski crossing
Leaders across levels of government are demanding more supports to keep international crossings secure, as an alleged illegal border crossing into Michigan continues to be investigated by law enforcement. The CBC's Jennifer La Grassa reports.
