Methodology

The goal in both Eastern and Central Canada was to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews of 25 to 30 participants who self-identify as 2SLGBTQI+. A total of 25 interviews were conducted in Central Canada, while 17 interviews were conducted in the Atlantic provinces. At the request of the contractor, the two projects were ultimately merged to produce one report. Appendix 1 shows the demographics of the participants.

The interviews were conducted by phone, recorded and transcribed. Identifying information was removed and the transcripts were anonymized. Audio recordings were erased, usually within a week of the interview. Participants were sent a $50 honorarium.

The interviews aimed to collect personal narratives and to more fully understand participants’ experiences in resolving justice-related issues. The interview guide drew from the CLPS to identify the key legal issues:

Although the CLPS formed the basis of the interviews, we developed additional probing, qualitative questions, in consultation with 2SLGBTQI+ community members and leading academics who study 2SLGBTQI+ issues. In particular, questions were added about whether participants were satisfied their problem had been resolved (or if it had been), and how they perceived the justice system.

Findings from the interviews are presented along each of the focal areas listed above, providing extensive direct quotes from participants. Rather than the researchers interpreting their voices, the participants speak for themselves.

The importance of Intersectionality

Intersectionality is a concept that acknowledges that everyone has their own unique experiences of discrimination and oppression and we must consider diverse factors that can marginalize people, including sex, gender, race, class, sexual orientation, marital status, physical ability, etc. Several participants commented on the intersectionality of their identities, that is, the identity markers beyond and including their 2SLGBTQI+ identity that played a role in their experience with the justice system. Overall, 11 participants commented on intersectionality, nine from Central Canada (36 percent of 25) and two from Eastern Canada (11 percent of 17). The following participant from Central Canada commented on their experience with child custody. They did not feel their sexual orientation was a factor in the case, but, rather, their gender identity:

I think that my sexual orientation – it wasn’t so much my sexual orientation but my gender that seemed to me to be a factor in the comfort that was urged by the court, the feel. That because I’m a woman and my ex-wife is a woman that that’s a really good scenario, that the kid is better off with two women, because two women are better than one. I don’t feel that my sexual orientation ever became any kind of factor in the decision-making. But I do feel that the fact that I’m a woman had something to do with an air of ease in some sort of decision-making (CC#19).

Another participant, from Eastern Canada, felt that their HIV status played a role in being denied insurance coverage. “I was denied, again it has to do with the judge and not my sexual orientation, so I’m not sure. And this is the bit I mentioned to [Redacted] as well, in the gay community, it’s very difficult to separate, especially in the gay male community, to separate the HIV issue with being gay, given the high infection rate” (EC#16).

An Indigenous participant noted how discriminatory the justice system is. They describe its foundation as being built on stereotyping, observing that there is a very rigid set of extra-legal rules (or “a box,” as the participant put it) that informs the system. They noted what they see as the justice system’s tendency to dismiss the truth of statements made by people living with various challenges (addiction, homelessness, low-income status, race, and so on):

It sucks. It’s built on a system of stereotyping, you know? I don’t know. It’s not our laws, that’s for sure. And it definitely doesn’t look at things from an Indigenous point of view and definitely doesn’t look at the fact that we see things in a different way. It doesn’t. It’s very cold. It’s very rigid. It’s in a box and they’re not stepping out of the box and it doesn’t work, because I’ve been through the legal system. I’m 9 years clean and sober so I’ve had numerous run-ins with the law. And when you become an Indigenous person who lives on the street, you see wild stuff. And they’re not taken into account. That’s never taken into account. Because anything you say as a homeless person, automatically it’s not taken as truth. If you don’t have an address and if you’re not making a certain amount of dollar bills, you’re not looked at. You’re disregarded in this society. And I firmly believe that they built this society for white, wealthy people and anybody else can just go by the wayside (CC#20).

Participants also said that intersectionality shaped their difficult experiences with housing and social supports. One participant, from Eastern Canada, talked about the role their HIV status played in being denied access to services such as housing and health care.

But they informed me that they removed all support for housing for HIV positive men from their platform and focused more on drug addiction prevention, like needle programs and stuff. And so they denied me any kind of service, and they said, the reason is, according to them, that the government that they report to, the federal government through Health Canada, that there are only 6 HIV cases in New Brunswick. And my doctor alone has 300. So they took away, and the highest rate is from gay men, and that issue is not being addressed. It’s completely pushed aside for other issues. I’m not sure that they’ll like what I have to say because it’s really that – access issues (EC#16).

The following participant from Central Canada noted their multiple identities and the role they all played in their discriminatory treatment:

I’m in a legal dispute with my housing provider. I’ve submitted a Human Rights Tribunal claim that is on pause while it works its way through. It’s intersectional based on my disability, sexual orientation, and security of housing. I was threatened by a fellow neighbour and my housing provider failed me (CC#21).

On the interview theme of fear of reporting to police, a participant from Central Canada noted the intersectional effects of income status, ethnicity, or any minority identity:

Like the way that I feel is like, there’s so many reasons like being LGBQ is a big reason, but like being poor or just being a minority, like somebody who isn’t the norm – that doesn’t just mean ethnicity or anything. Anybody who doesn’t have power in one way or another, they don’t seem to be prioritized. That’s how I feel at least (CC#16).

To sum up, several participants perceived that they were subject to multiple layers of discrimination and exclusion because of their multiple identities. It was not their sexuality alone that shaped their interactions with the justice system, but their other, similarly marginal, identities.