From the Gay Village to Other Neighbourhoods

From the Greater Toronto section, Toronto Star, Tuesday, January 29, 2008, page A10, an article about gays and lesbians moving out from the the city's historically only gay village into other neighbours areas of the city as well:

"There's a lot of power in a centralized location, you feel that power, you feel in the majority. But in moving away you get the sense of being comfortable with anyone.'

U of T researcher Kevin Stolarick

SOMEWHERE BEYOND THE RAINBOW

As Church-Wellesley gets gentrified, gay, lesbian enclaves pop up all over turn

San Grewal
Staff Reporter

"I remember, as recently as the late '90s," recalls Bryen Dunn, "When being openly gay in the Gladstone probably wouldn't have gone over too well."

The Gladstone Hotel, once a honkey-tonk favourite of west-end down-and-outs lining up for cheap beer, tonight plays host to an entirely different demographic for "The Future of Queer Neighbourhoods in Toronto" panel.

Dunn, one of the organizers, laughs about how things have changed.

But not necessarily for the better, say other gay advocates who fear erosion of Toronto's gay village centred at Church and Wellesley Sts. comes at too high a price.

"The concern is the same over what's happening in San Francisco's Castro district, where gentrification is pushing out gay and lesbian people," says Kevin Stolarick, an expert on the geography and demographics of gay communities, who will participate in tonight's discussion.

Dunn, a local freelance journalist, helped organize the event as part of an ongoing series of public forums. Tonight's panel will include Stolarick, a University of Toronto academic who recently moved to Toronto from the United States, Michael Pare, the founder of the Gay West Community Network, Tanya White, owner of West Side Stories Video, in the Queer West Village and others who will open up a public discussion about the Toronto gay community's transition away from the traditional gay village.

With every new condo and the growth of Ryerson university in its back yard, the Church and Wellesley neighbourhood - within easy walking distance of downtown - has seen commercial and residential rents skyrocket in recent years.

That's part of the reason, says Stolarick, that traditional gay businesses and residents are now being squeezed out to make room for chain stores, developers and tenants willing to shell out the case.

At the same time, he recognizes the upside to a community that feels mature and confident enough to venture beyond its limited comfort zone.

Along with the west-end area around Parkdale, where the Gladstone and other gay-friendly businesses have repositioned themselves, gay and lesbian enclaves have emerged through Toronto. Once homogenous hetero neighbourhoods such as Riverdale, Leslieville and the Beach are now home to a growing number of same-sex couples.

"It's a good thing," says Dunn. "You can live your entire life in Little Italy and never learn to speak English. If that's what you want, fine, but you should have the option to move beyond that.

Moving beyond that is a sign of not only the gay and lesbian community's maturity, Stolarick says. It also signals a deeper tolerance among the heterosexual community, which is growing more comfortable with the idea of gay neighbours.

"The creation of a gay ghetto is a defence mechanism," he says. "There's a lot of power in a centralized location, you feel that power, you feel in the majority. But in moving away you get the sense of being comfortable with anyone."

He also says there's an economic advantage in the long run to interacting with a broader community of innovators, consumers and potential business partners.

Meanwhile, with more gay-friendly businesses and social venues catering to the community, cheaper-rent neighbourhoods across the city are attracting a more adventurous younger generation coming out in an entirely different social atmosphere than their predecessors.

"It's good that people don't have to move to (Church and Wellesley) defensively any more," Stolarick says.

But hs still likes the idea of independent gay and lesbian businesses, and resources being central in one specific neighbourhood.

"When my friends come up from Pittsburgh, (the gay village) is the first place we go."

But Dunn suggests that as the number of same-sex couples with children grows, more and more people will leave the gay village.

"It's a party area. More couples want to live in an area where they can take their kids to a morning hockey game with everybody else."

Rejecting Refugees on the Basis of Sexual Orientation

From the January 31, 2008, XTRA!, page 20, an editorial about the rejection of refugees because they fear for their safety because of their sexual orientation:

REJECTING REFUGEES

Editorial

Julia Garro

Imagine you are a queer born in a country where homophobic discrimination and violence are commonplace. If you have the chance to leave, wouldn't you choose to immigrate to a country that offers queers protection under the law and recognizes same-sex relationships?

Canada is the victim of its own successful queer-rights campaigns, in as much as it can be considered a bad thing that the country attracts hundreds if not thousands of queer immigrants and refugees every year. And I have no doubt that this is exactly the way Harper's Conservatives see things. Hell, they have enough trouble with their homegrown homos, they're not exactly going to fall over themselves to welcome more of us, are they?

It is too easy for legitimate refugee claimants to fall through the cracks. It's too easy for one immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) member's opinions or misconceptions about homosexuality to result in negative decisions. As it stands today Canada's refugee system offers limited options for appealing bad decisions (although there is a private member's bill working its way through parliament that could soon change that).

When an individual claims refugee status on the grounds of sexual orientation they must prove that they really are queer and that they really are experiencing persecution in their homeland as a result of their queerness. For those coming from countries where gay sex is criminalized outright this second criteria is relatively easy to establish. What is far more difficult are the cases of those individuals coming from countries where laws exist to protect queers from discrimination but where the state's ability or willingness to enforce these laws is lacking; where the dominant culture allows homophobia and homophobic violence to flourish.

In several well-published cases the IRB has ruled that queers coming from Latin America are not eligible for refugee status on the grounds that the situation for queers there isn't all that bad. These decisions point to democratic governments, human rights laws and burgeoning queer movements as proof. In some cases the decisions have cited "internal flight options," which is to say that queers within countries where gay ghettos exist ought to move to those ghettos and enjoy greater protection afforded by greater numbers. In other cases booming gay tourist industries in those same countries have been put forward as evidence that local culture accepts homosexuality, neglecting the glaring complicating factor of tolerance for economic gain.

The trouble with these metrics is that they don't adequately capture what things are like on the ground for real human beings. It's all well and good to say that homophobic violence is technically illegal in a given country, but if queers are afraid of reporting violence against them for fear of abuse from local police then those laws mean nothing. Moreover the laws are cold comfort to its citizens if a state can't adequately protect them from becoming victims of these crimes.

Take for example the case of Mexican refugee claimant Jose Arturo Contreras Hernandez. In 2008 the IRB ruled that his fear of persecution based on his sexual orientation was not well-founded that despite being thrown out of his home at age 14, beaten by his father, attacked by coworkers in his place of work and kidnapped and threatened with a gun after leaving a club, he has nothing to worry about in being returned to Mexico.

Hernandez was recently granted a second hearing by a federal justice (see page 19 for more), but in two other cases - those of Mexican Leonardo Zuniga and Nicaraguan Alvaro Orozco - the claimants are rapidly running out of options that would allow them to avoid being deported to countries where they fear for their safety. In these cases appeals have been made to Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to step in. As yet her office has been silent on these cases, in spite of appeals from fellow MPs, petitions and media pressure. (You can contact Finley at Minister @cic.gc.ca.)

As long as Harper's Conservatives are in power the ultimate fail-safe machanism in our flawed refugee system - the ability for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to step in and grant a ministerial permit in individual cases - cannot be expected to work in our favour.

Julia Garro is Xtra's associate editor.