June 10th. Twenty to six, and I’ve just arrived at Centre Saint-Pierre for RÉZO’s annual general meeting. The long tables usually here have been folded and pushed against the right-hand wall. Plastic and metal chairs in rows facing a screen. Fluorescent light. I find a seat and the shaking starts, low and steady. There is one woman in the room. No Black people.
By ten to six I can read who is staff and who is board. I take out my notebook. The body does what it does in rooms like this — holds itself a certain way, stays within a shape the space expects, files everything it notices without letting that noticing show. Fourteen days before, I had published a piece about this organization and sent it directly to its executive director and board. Two days after that, the executive director confirmed receipt and told me it had been received by everyone I had intended, that there would be more reflections soon. I had also published the piece publicly on LinkedIn, where the organization was named and tagged, visible to the funders and sector partners and researchers who follow it. Tonight is the annual general meeting. I have yet to receive a written response. I came because the meeting is public and the community this organization built a program for, and then let go of, deserves someone in the room when its year is accounted for.
Before the meeting opens, the executive director tests the sound. He opens a laptop, opens YouTube, types musique into the search bar. The algorithm returns Aya Nakamura first. There is a pause before he clicks. Copines loads. No sound.
He works through the settings. A young Black tech enters the room — the only other Black person who has come through the door, and he has come to work. He locates the problem, works on it. While they’re at it, the video ends and Tyla’s Water starts automatically, one Black woman’s voice following the other’s into the same silence, neither one selected, neither one heard. A few minutes later, the tech fixes the system. He leaves.
Rodrigo, the board’s president, opens by announcing he won’t be running for re-election. The territorial acknowledgement that follows is Concordia University’s, read verbatim. A text written for another institution’s rooms, carried into this one without the labour of being re-situated.
At twenty past six, Kevin arrives. He is the only Black member of the board, and the only Black person who entered this room as a member tonight. The meeting has been running for fifteen minutes. The opening, the acknowledgement, the beginning of the financial report — already done.
The financial audit is presented by a Black woman, external to the organization, hired for this function. The working sound system carries her voice across the room — this is what it was fixed for, this is the first voice it produces — as she presents a surplus of about twenty-four thousand dollars for the year and accounts for the organization’s finances with the precision of someone engaged for a single purpose. She finishes. She leaves.
The tech came to work. The accountant came to work. The two voices surfaced by the algorithm came to test whether the room could carry sound. I came as a community member and was not spoken to once — not by staff, not by board — for the hour and forty minutes I was there. There were looks, several of them, across the whole evening. The particular flicker of recognition from people who know exactly who you are and what you sent them fourteen days ago, who saw it posted publicly on LinkedIn with the organization named. Their recognition went nowhere. It registered me and moved on, and kept registering me and moving on, each time it happened, across the whole meeting, the room processing my presence the way it processed the two voices the algorithm returned: surfaced, used, set aside.
The budget for the coming year: a dedicated line of eighty-two thousand dollars for the chemsex project, in partnership with the Direction régionale de santé publique. A grant received six months ago that would have funded more chemsex workers had conditions not changed. Seven positions cut at the end of March. A new funding source for a program that cannot yet be named. The precarity of project financing acknowledged as the sector’s structural reality — and it is, I want to be precise about that, the instability is real and organizations across this city are living inside it. No dedicated funding line for Kominote.
Then the annual report, not yet published, available in two weeks. In the rundown of services, I hear the word Kominote spoken aloud in an institutional setting for the first time in two years.
Six meetings this past year. Eight people per meeting.
I sit with that for a moment. Two years of institutional silence, two annual reports in which the program and the person who built it didn’t exist on any page, and now the name said aloud, in this room, while I am in this room, unaddressed. He can say the name — that isn’t what the pause is about. The pause is about what comes after it, which is: nothing else. Convive, the Spanish-language group, gets its registrations and activities and long descriptions. The chemsex project gets its staff trainings, in active development. Kominote gets one breath and the meeting moves on. HoT, the group for trans men and trans masculine people, is mentioned as also continuing this year. I didn’t catch the details. I was still inside the hearing of the name.
The board section is thorough. The person presenting lists membership requirements carefully: there must be at least one person living with HIV. That requirement exists. There is no requirement about racialized members. There is no requirement about Black members. The 2020 report I wrote for this organization — the one it called un point tournant dans l’histoire de notre organisme — required a board composition of minimum 33% racialized members, including at least one Black person, as a governance requirement. Because the presentation tonight was detailed and specific, the absence is not ambiguity. Six years. It was never made a rule.
The institution counted the sessions it did not sustain. It listed the requirements that were never written.
After the services section, the moderator asks if there are questions or comments.
The room tightens as people look around at each other, avoiding my gaze. A collectively held quality, bodies readied, the expectation of confrontation. Everyone in that room knows the piece exists. The executive director confirmed its receipt and forwarded it to every person with authority here. The tension has a specific shape: the room is waiting for me to make myself a scene.
I say nothing.
This is not retreat. The argument is already on the record, made carefully and in full, using the organization’s own documents as evidence, delivered to the people who could act on it. What a raised hand would produce is a different kind of record: the one where I become the disruption to be managed, the affect to be addressed while the substance waits. I have watched this organization manage that particular sequence before. At SMASH, their annual conference, in 2025, I pressed a white presenter on why a session built on photographs of Black people contained no analysis of what being Black meant for the people in those photographs, for the statistics being shown, for the rates of criminalization and healthcare exclusion the data was already documenting. What the institution managed afterward was my affect. Not the presentation. The following year’s SMASH program contained no Black-specific health content. The word does not appear in the document.
So I stay quiet, and the room’s readiness for a fight moves through the agenda and dissipates. Two silences in one room tonight. The voices that were loaded and never played. The voice that declined to perform. Both of them the post’s.
The meeting ends at quarter to eight. I close my notebook and go.
Here is what I knew sitting in that room that the room did not say.
RÉZO is not an organization that lost its federal funding and had to make impossible choices. The original Advance program — five years of federal money coordinated nationally by the Community-Based Research Centre, with RÉZO as the Montréal partner — funded Kominote, and it ended. That ending was real. But a second cycle followed. Advance 2.0 runs from 2022 to 2027 with the same partners, RÉZO still the Montréal coordinator. Federal money is flowing now. I was sitting in a room where the organization’s 2026-27 budget was being presented, and that budget exists inside an active federal funding relationship. The sector-wide precarity is real and I am not dismissing it. What it does not explain is where the cuts specifically landed — because that determination is institutional, made inside the precarity, and the record shows what it produced.
SMASH is what RÉZO built with those resources. The conference was created in 2019 as the francophone pillar of the Advance alliance and confirmed at the AGM tonight as continuing alliance programming. Which means the specific federal funding stream that once sustained a support group built by and for Black GBTQ men now sustains the conference where I was managed for naming anti-Blackness in one of its rooms — the conference that answered that naming by removing Blackness from its program the following year. RÉZO runs an independent budget and workplan, and the choices about what to build within the mandate belong to them. The redirection is RÉZO’s redirection. The same mandate. The same federal relationship. Different choices about what gets architecture.
HoT makes the choice legible. I was sitting in a room where HoT was mentioned as continuing in 2025-26 — the group for trans men and trans masculine people that, like Kominote, was an Advance-era program that lost its footing when the first grant ended. The most recent annual report shows HoT on its fourth cohort, named and described, with documented plans to expand. Kominote appears nowhere in that report, or the one before it. Both programs apparently ran this past year. The report in two weeks will show what each looked like. But the 2024-2025 record already answers the question the funding cliff raises: when two programs fall off the same cliff and the organization rebuilds one with institutional architecture and leaves the other to run on whatever labour held it together outside any documented support structure, the cliff stops being the explanation. What remains is the choice.
Which brings me to the six sessions. Eight people each time. Running in 2025-26 after two years of documentary absence, with no funding line, no named partnership, no dedicated position. Steve Bastien built Kominote and ran it through its first years. His name disappears from the 2024-2025 annual report alongside the program — gone in the same transition, without acknowledgment, the way the internal anti-racism committee also went: there in 2022-2023 as a named organizational priority, absent from the next two reports without explanation or account of dissolution, as though it had simply stopped being something worth noting. Whether Steve was the one who held those six sessions in 2025-26, or whether the community found another way to sustain what the institution had dropped, is not on any record I have access to. What is on the record is that the institution will count those sessions as its own in the report published in two weeks. The labour that made them possible will not appear in it.
I want to add something I didn’t say in the last piece. The 2020 report specified a campaign against racism in LGBTQ+ spaces, with its form to be determined by a consultative committee made up exclusively of racialized people. The campaign that launched in 2022 was real. It said what needed saying. I wrote that before and I meant it. What I didn’t write: it was produced through a professional advertising relationship with Upperkut, with community members as consultants to production rather than governing committee. Participants from Kominote — people who had described, in sessions built on trust, what it felt like to be reduced to the surface of their bodies in spaces that were supposed to hold them — had those descriptions worked into campaign content and distributed on the apps where those reductions happen. The apparatus that named the consumption reproduced it in the act of naming. Both things are true and I have stopped needing them to resolve.
And the extraction has operated twice, not once. The 2020 report produced institutional currency — the turning point language, the sector legitimacy, the funder credibility of an organization that had commissioned rigorous community research and named what it found. That currency was spent. Then the BLM statement, published six days after George Floyd’s murder, naming Kominote specifically, naming the structural obligations the moment required — that statement is still live on the organization’s website. Still in circulation, still producing legitimacy, still available as evidence that the organization understands structural racism and is committed to addressing it. The structural transformation it named is not documented as implemented in any annual report. The commitment is retained. The obligation is not met. Tonight: Kominote’s name spoken once after two years of silence, six sessions counted, next ones unfunded, the page still live with Dates à venir! The naming costs nothing. Each naming produces another small increment of the same currency the turning point produced in 2020, and the obligation that would have required actual redistribution remains, as it has remained, unnamed.
I have been in relation to this organization since 2017. That summer I was a young outreach worker doing harm reduction in communities the state had largely abandoned, learning two things simultaneously: what care looks like when it actually reaches people, and what an institution looks like when it houses harm without naming it. I had no full language for what I was reading then. The body read it anyway, developed its grammar for it — the low shaking that started tonight before the meeting opened, settled across the ninety minutes into something steadier, the room’s recognition of me without address becoming just another thing the body metabolized and kept.
What nine years of that grammar has produced is this understanding, which I want to state plainly.
The anti-Blackness I have been describing does not work by exclusion. Not the door closed, not the service refused, not the hostility you can locate and confront. That form is real and it is not this form. This form welcomes you in. It hires you. It commissions your knowledge and calls what you produce a turning point. It launches the program your community asked for. It funds the program while the funding architecture compels it to. It builds a campaign from your community’s testimony and receives the coverage. It keeps the commitment on its website. It confirms receipt of the analysis that names all of this and says there will be reflections soon.
And through all of it, it does not change its structure. The governance requirement is never written. The training is never documented. The program is not rebuilt when the resources return — or it runs on absorbed and unrecorded labour, and the institution counts the sessions it didn’t fund. The money moves toward the conference. The accountability infrastructure disappears from the record. The meeting that was going to happen, happens.
What makes this form distinctive is that it cannot operate without us. It needs the needs assessment, the community’s attendance, the testimony, the turning point, the Black voice the algorithm surfaced into the search bar, the Black tech at the sound board, the Black accountant at the podium, the Black member in the plastic chair not speaking during the période de questions. We are not incidental to what this institution presents itself as. We are the input. The welcome is not the opposite of the extraction. The welcome is how the extraction works. We are brought in so that what we carry can be used, and the structure that would make our presence binding rather than useful is the one thing that is never built.
The body knew this in 2017. The language has caught up.
The piece went out on May 27th. Receipt confirmed May 29th. More reflections soon. The AGM was June 10th. No written response has arrived in the fourteen days between. The budget presented that night was the budget. The board requirements listed in detail were the requirements. Nothing in the fourteen days of looking into it produced an amendment to either. The deferral was named, and the AGM is what came after it.
I don’t know where this lands. The annual report arrives in two weeks and I will read it the way I read all of them — alongside everything else this organization has published about itself, because its own documents have always been the evidence. Something is in motion. I am not in a hurry. The work doesn’t depend on the institution answering. It depends on staying in relation to the people the institution was supposed to be answering to, which is what required being in that room, and what will require being in the rooms that come after it.
One Black woman’s voice returned by algorithm as the answer to a search for music, clicked into the silence, not heard. Another arriving automatically behind her, also not heard. Neither one reached for, both of them used, the apparatus moving on when they didn’t produce sound, the shaking in my body settling across the evening into something steadier, the body done warning and simply present.
I closed my notebook. I got up from the plastic chair. I went.
Leave a Reply