Author: Vincent Mousseau

  • Unmoored

    Unmoored

    The morning after the election, the city looks the same. Dry streets, brittle air, leaves pressed flat against the pavement. A jogger passes, breath clouding the cold, and somewhere, a car alarm starts and stops. Montréal continues its routine with the precision of muscle memory, a city that knows how to disguise grief.

    Inside, the kettle cools on the counter. I stand at the window, watching the light shift across the buildings. The light is hard, metallic, the kind that makes everything appear sharper than it is. The silence in the room feels heavy, almost physical, like something you could lift with both hands.

    Last night, Soraya Martinez Ferrada and Ensemble Montréal won the municipal election. The radio speaks of renewal, pride, stability. I picture the rented ballroom where speeches rang out: the clink of glasses, the smell of fabric softener and stage lights, laughter spilling into the dry streets, volunteers walking home beneath banners that promised progress.

    Progress, they say. But I can’t feel it. The air still carries the weight of something unspoken. Every party with a chance built its platform on the same foundations: language purity, economic austerity, the management of difference. Whether they spoke of pride, efficiency, or neutrality, the promise stayed constant: belonging for some, permission for others, surveillance for the rest. Strategic voting wasn’t the failure. The ballot was the trap.

    Some will say the vote split the left. They’ll insist that if we’d all lined up behind the same banner, things might have turned out differently, as if the problem were arithmetic and not ideology. As if the left they’re mourning hadn’t already increased police budgets, backed racial profiling, and dressed austerity in green. As if we were meant to keep voting for the same forces that have made so many of us less safe in our own neighbourhoods. There’s grief in watching people mistake management for care.

    Anger doesn’t erase love. It sharpens it. Even as the slogans collapse, I keep seeing the city’s face in the small things that once felt like home. I’ve loved this place through every version of myself. Montréal shaped my language, my work, my survival. It taught me the pace of winter light, the generosity of strangers, the way care grows inside contradiction. It held me through uncertainty and exhaustion. It’s where I built kinship, where I learned that love can live inside ruins.

    Lately, that love feels unreturned, and I know I’m not alone in feeling the distance widen. This loss feels like mourning in slow motion. What’s changing isn’t only the skyline or the slogans but the city’s sense of itself, the fragile coexistence that once made it possible to breathe here. Policies that promise safety and pride have become instruments of surveillance. Community centres lose funding while police budgets grow. Streets that once felt like gathering places now echo with a quieter kind of fear.

    I watch it happen and recognize the pattern. The same language of order and belonging spreads far beyond Montréal, across the provinces, across the border. It’s a choreography of control disguised as care, a politics that tightens around what it names as protection. Each new measure asks again and again: who gets to belong, and who must disappear? I grieve not only the policies but the narrowing of imagination they bring, the loss of what this city once taught me, that people can make worlds together even when institutions refuse to.

    The city that once felt expansive has begun to fold in on itself. The word values fills the news, followed by neutrality and order. The province denies systemic racism even as its laws rewrite language, dress, belonging. Policy takes the form of open arms that never quite reach. Every speech about inclusion carries the faint scent of repetition. This isn’t a sudden change. It’s the slow drift of habit, hardening like ice across the Saint Lawrence. The denial of injustice has become an everyday reflex. What I feel now isn’t surprise, but recognition. The city mirrors everything beyond it until reflection itself becomes suffocation.

    That reflection doesn’t stay on the glass; it settles beneath the skin. The air thickens around conversation. What begins as policy ends as posture. The city lives in the body: in the jaw that tightens before speaking, in the breath that hesitates before it leaves. Doing Black queer and abolitionist work here means learning to breathe within narrow margins, shaping language that can move through corridors built for silence, carrying whole conversations in the space between what’s said and what’s permitted. I’ve written reports no one read, proposals that came back without comment. Each silence taught me another dialect. I’ve learned the rhythm of translation, not of language but of self, a fluency in shrinking. That quiet labour settles deeper still. The lungs forget how to widen. The skin learns to anticipate tension. The body absorbs every moment of being misunderstood.

    And yet, grace persists.

    A friend leaves soup at my door. A neighbour cracks a joke, and we both laugh longer than expected. A kiki ball fills the night with sound, and laughter becomes a kind of heartbeat. These gestures don’t repair anything. They make living possible within a structure that resists it. The tenderness of this city lives in the people who refuse to stop loving it. They keep planting, cooking, teaching, dancing, writing. They hold each other through exhaustion. They create small interruptions in the machinery of forgetting.

    Love keeps me here. It isn’t safety. It is endurance, and endurance has a cost. I’m tired of pretending that staying is a choice. They say patience. They say progress. They say it takes time. But time is what they’ve stolen.

    I’m nearing the end of my PhD, standing in the quiet between endings and beginnings. I’ve started reading job postings from other cities, looking for roles that might let me live and work at a distance. I read slowly, careful not to look too far ahead. I tell myself that leaving could continue what began here, that movement could be a form of care. Still, there’s guilt in mobility. Even leaving is a privilege, though it doesn’t feel like one. I’ll cross borders others can’t, carrying a passport built from contradictions. But staying has its own kind of disappearance.

    Lately, I’ve been imagining what life might feel like elsewhere. The thought arrives gently, without certainty: rooms with different light, mornings that move without hurry, work that grows without needing to explain its own worth, air that feels generous. Beyond this city, there’s no clear refuge. Borders reopen old wounds. Fires, floods, droughts, storms, fear. Billionaires call their escape routes progress while governments trade care for resilience.

    I keep hearing the same logic in every headline. The slogans change, but the project’s the same: control the language, control the border, control the breath. What’s happening here isn’t local; it’s the rehearsal of a world learning to survive its own cruelty. Everywhere, the same sentence repeats: you’re on your own.

    And yet, even in that sentence, I hear an echo — the sound of people refusing to let the world end quietly.

    I think about the scale of this unravelling, and about the people who still find ways to love. I think about how living with honesty feels like defiance. I want to spend what time remains building something that holds life, like a room with open windows. I want to work with intention, to write with purpose, to live without apology. I want to move through a world that gives instead of withholds.

    Montréal stays inside me: the bagels on Saint-Viateur at two in the morning, the smell of snow, the hum of the métro at night, church bells layered with ambulance sirens, the sound of languages mingling in a café, the sight of people helping each other carry groceries through the rain, laughter and smoke drifting from balconies into the dark. These memories form a pulse. They remind me that a city isn’t only its institutions; it’s the gestures that persist. I hold those gestures close. They’re what keep the city alive when the headlines fail it.

    When I walk to the river, I listen. The water moves without hesitation. It carries the weight of the sky and keeps going. I think of other seasons: the river in thaw, in flood, in stillness under ice. The city has always tried to contain it, yet the current keeps finding its own line. I stand at the edge and feel the cold reach my fingers. Behind me, the city hums. Ahead of me, the current folds into itself, steady and endless.

    Movement feels like a kind of truth. I don’t know if I’ll leave, or when, or where I’ll go. I only know I’ve started to listen for motion. Montréal lives in me: the rhythm of its languages, the tension of its contradictions, the lessons in its beauty and its harm. I’m still here. I’m already elsewhere.

    I want a life that breathes. I want to find places where care isn’t a performance, where living doesn’t require permission. I don’t know if those places exist, yet I move toward them, in thought, in hope, in practice.

    The river keeps its rhythm. The wind carries the scent of cold. I whisper gratitude for what this city has given, and for what I’ve learned in its arms. Then I turn toward home, where the kettle waits on the counter, and the light settles once more across the window.

  • There Is No Word for This Grief: On Gaza, Famine, and the World That Watches

    There Is No Word for This Grief: On Gaza, Famine, and the World That Watches

    I wasn’t supposed to be writing this.

    I’m supposed to be writing a comprehensive exam about temporality and health. About how Black queer people live and care for one another in timeframes not designed for our survival. I’m supposed to be providing therapy tomorrow—offering calm, presence, holding—for clients navigating their own overwhelm, grief, burnout. I’m supposed to be finishing a manuscript, drafting another talk, prepping for the next ball.

    But there is a genocide happening in Gaza.

    And I am broken.

    And that’s not what this is about. But it’s also what everything is about.

    Because I don’t know how to move through this world anymore.

    Not in a poetic way. Not in a metaphor. I mean literally. My body doesn’t know what to do with itself. I sit still and I shake. I eat and feel nauseous. I sleep and wake up in a sweat. I walk outside into wildfire smoke so thick that Tiohtià:ke now has the worst air quality in the world—and even still, I know I’m breathing freer than a child in Rafah.

    And what do you even do with that kind of knowing?

    There is a level 5 famine in Gaza.The highest designation possible.
    Thousands of children are already dead from starvation.
    More will die in the coming days.

    And the food is already there.
    Just metres away.
    Across the border.
    In trucks.
    In planes.
    In warehouses.

    Blocked.
    By policy.
    By intention.
    By design.

    This is not a crisis. This is not a natural disaster. This is not an unfortunate byproduct of war. This is a settler colonial genocide. A calculated campaign of extermination. Ethnic cleansing disguised as self-defence. Starvation weaponized. Infrastructure targeted. Grief made endless.

    This is the logic of Zionism.
    This is the logic of empire.
    This is what it means to disappear a people in real time.

    And the world watches.
    Scrolls.
    Shrugs.
    Argues.
    Donates, maybe.
    Then forgets again.

    Because forgetting is the luxury of the unaffected.

    And if you know what it is to be Black, to be queer, to be Indigenous, to be trans, to be displaced, to be criminalized, to be border-crossed or borderless, then you already know this truth: the world is not neutral.

    Not when it comes to genocide.
    Not when it comes to who gets to live.
    Not when it comes to who the world calls human.

    What’s happening in Gaza isn’t unimaginable.
    It’s entirely imaginable.
    That’s what makes it unbearable.

    This is what genocide looks like in the age of livestreams.
    This is what settler colonialism looks like when the camera’s always on.
    This is what fascism looks like when it doesn’t need to hide anymore.
    This is what it means to beg for mercy and be called a terrorist.
    This is what it means to scream for food and be met with silence.
    This is what it means when a child’s life is worth less than the narrative.

    And here we are. Watching.
    In real time.
    As Gaza bleeds.

    I’m not here to offer hope.
    Not the kind you can package.
    Not the kind you can sell.

    Because if you’re watching this and still talking about “both sides,”
    If you’re more outraged by broken windows than by bombed hospitals,
    If your solidarity is contingent on respectability, strategy, or PR optics,
    If your grief only activates when white bodies are harmed,
    Then your humanity is not mine.

    And I am not interested in convincing anyone that Palestinians deserve to live.

    Because life is not earned.
    Freedom is not a prize.
    Liberation is not a matter of debate.

    Palestinians do not need your approval to resist.
    They do not need your permission to mourn.
    They do not need to be perfect victims in order to be spared.

    They are not being starved because of Hamas.
    They are not being bombed because they resist.
    They are being exterminated because they exist.
    Because they are Indigenous.
    Because they are still there.
    Because they refuse to disappear.

    And I am wrecked by this.

    Not just as a witness, but as someone who knows what it means to be told that your life is too complicated to matter.
    Who knows what it means to scream into silence.
    To live in a body that the state treats as collateral.
    To walk through a world that sees your death as routine.

    But this isn’t about me.

    It’s about a father holding the body of his child and saying I’m sorry I couldn’t protect you.
    It’s about people breaking apart stale bread to share with twenty others.
    It’s about the doctor who keeps treating the wounded in the rubble of a bombed out hospital.

    It’s about the poets still writing.
    The dancers still dancing.
    The children still drawing keys to homes that no longer exist.
    The elders still planting seeds in soil they know they may not survive to harvest.

    This isn’t resilience.
    This is refusal.

    This isn’t optimism.
    This is survival strategy.

    This isn’t a tragedy.
    It’s a crime.
    An atrocity.
    A catastrophe authored by cowards in suits and suits in tanks and tanks in children’s bedrooms.

    And still, somehow, there is singing.
    Still, somehow, there is prayer.
    Still, somehow, there is resistance.

    Still, somehow, they live.

    And I want you to understand what it means to keep living in the middle of a genocide.
    To not just breathe—but to love.
    To not just exist—but to refuse.
    To not just survive—but to fight.

    So no, I don’t have the words.
    I have this grief lodged in my throat like shrapnel.
    I have these tears that feel like they betray the scale of the loss.
    I have this ache in my chest from trying to hold space for others while knowing the world is falling apart.
    I have the unbearable knowing that every second I spend writing this, someone else is dying.

    And still—I write.
    Because silence is complicity.
    Because bearing witness is not enough, but it is necessary.

    Because abolition means all cages.
    Because solidarity means now, not after.

    Because Palestine is not a symbol—it’s a place, a people, a love, a struggle that stretches across oceans and generations.
    Because to be Black and queer and abolitionist and breathing in this world is to take a side.

    And I will say it again and again and again, even if my voice shakes:

    From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

    And may we live long enough to see that day.

    And may we never forget what we did—and didn’t—do until then.

  • How to Exit Without Offering Your Body as Proof

    How to Exit Without Offering Your Body as Proof

    for the ones who leave before they’re broken

    There are days when showing up costs more than it gives.
    You feel it before you can name it.
    In the jaw that tightens.
    In the breath that skips.
    In the way your screen feels brighter than usual,
    and your voice feels like it’s echoing back to no one.

    We are taught to explain. To translate.
    To make our exits reasonable, legible, polite.
    But this is not that.

    This is a quiet manual for leaving without spectacle.
    For protecting your softness.
    For holding onto what the world keeps asking you to give away.

    1. Listen to the tremor.

    Not the full collapse.
    Not the spiral.
    Not the point of exhaustion or shutdown.

    Listen sooner. Listen earlier.

    That flicker in your gut when someone says “can I ask you something?”
    The flat tone your voice takes in the meeting.
    The numbness that settles in your hands when you open the email.

    That’s the moment.
    That’s the window.
    You don’t need to wait for crisis.

    You are allowed to go
    before you unravel.

    2. Leave before you’re asked to perform it.

    The longer you stay, the more they’ll want to see it.
    The pain.
    The breakdown.
    The proof that you’re not just tired—but wounded.

    Because when you disappear quietly, they get nervous.
    They want a reason. A diagnosis. A narrative they can process.

    Refuse the translation.
    Refuse the trauma theatre.
    Refuse the expectation that your no must be explained, softened, or made teachable.

    You can exit in silence.
    And that silence can be a full sentence.

    3. Take the small exits. They count.

    You don’t need to leave the institution.
    You can leave the call.
    You can leave the conversation.
    You can leave the WhatsApp group.

    You can leave for five minutes.
    You can leave for five months.

    Not all survival is dramatic.
    Some of it is just:
    “I’m not going to this event.”
    or
    “I’m not replying right now.”

    We are allowed to step back without falling apart.

    And sometimes stepping back is what keeps us from falling apart.

    4. Stop narrating your no.

    You do not owe an origin story.
    You do not owe a justification.
    You do not owe context, citations, or clarity.

    We live in a culture that mistakes access for entitlement.
    That confuses transparency with care.
    That expects Black queer survival to be narrated in the key of pedagogy.

    Let them sit with the silence.
    Let them wonder.
    Let them misread you.

    That’s not your responsibility.

    Your no does not need subtitles.

    5. Let someone you trust hold the knowing.

    Refusal does not mean isolation.
    Refusal does not mean self-erasure.

    You can still reach out.
    Not to explain—but to be witnessed.

    Tell one person:
    “I had to leave.”
    “I’m choosing quiet.”
    “I need care, not questions.”

    Let your no be mirrored by someone who won’t try to fix it.

    Let it be honoured like a prayer.

    6. If you want to be found, leave breadcrumbs.

    You don’t have to go ghost.

    You can leave a note.
    A post.
    A playlist.
    A timestamp.
    A song only one person will understand.

    Not everything sacred needs to be hidden.

    But you get to decide:
    who sees it,
    who finds it,
    who earns the right to follow.

    The Exit Is Its Own Kind of Arrival.

    They’ll say you’re avoiding.
    They’ll say you’re unreliable.
    They’ll say you’re disappearing.

    Let them.

    What they see as abandonment
    might actually be a return.

    A return to your breath.
    To your boundaries.
    To your own pacing.

    You are not ghosting them.
    You are re-entering your own orbit.
    You are refusing to be consumed.

    You do not owe your exhaustion as evidence.
    You do not owe your breakdown as a learning moment.

    You are allowed to leave. Without offering your body as proof.

  • The Wrong Kind of Grief

    The Wrong Kind of Grief

    Who’s Allowed to Mourn in Public—and Who’s Not

    It was quiet at first. Just a few of us lying on the cold concrete outside of McGill University. Keffiyehs folded. Bodies arranged—not for spectacle, but for mourning.
    The die-in wasn’t meant to go viral. It was meant to say what the system refuses to name:
    Gaza is being erased.
    And health workers know what genocide looks like.

    I remember the weight of my own breath as I lay there.
    Not heavy. Not performative. Just present.

    Someone walked by and snapped a photo without asking. Another didn’t stop at all.
    When we stood up, nothing had changed. Not on the street. Not in the news.
    But something had settled in my chest. Something that hasn’t left.

    Because we weren’t only laying our bodies down for Gaza.
    We were laying down with the knowledge that our grief is never allowed to be grief.

    Not when it’s Black.
    Not when it’s queer.
    Not when it’s tied to Palestine, or trans lives, or state violence.

    That kind of grief doesn’t get candles.
    It gets cops.
    It doesn’t get statements.
    It gets silence.
    And sometimes, if we’re not careful, it gets turned inward—
    Treated like something to suppress. Something to explain away.
    Too emotional. Too disruptive.
    The wrong kind of grief.

    Black Grief as Threat

    Black grief has never been read as grief.
    It’s read as aggression.
    As instability.
    As a problem to manage.

    A vigil for a Black life becomes a police incident.
    A protest gets framed as a riot.
    A mother weeps on camera, and the story pivots to property damage.

    This isn’t new.
    But that doesn’t make it any less violent.

    Even in so-called progressive spaces—health orgs, queer collectives, activist networks—there are unwritten rules:
    Don’t cry too hard.
    Don’t speak too plainly.
    Don’t say something that makes people uncomfortable.

    I’ve been in those rooms.
    Told I was “too emotional” for naming what hurt.
    Asked to “come back when calmer” as if grief needed to be reasonable to be real.

    But Black grief doesn’t belong to institutions.
    It doesn’t need to be tidy.
    It doesn’t need to be polite.
    It shows up where it’s needed:
    In kitchens. In bathrooms. In the street. In the quiet moment after the meeting ends.

    And maybe that’s what makes it dangerous.
    That we still feel.
    That we still care.
    That we refuse to forget.

    Because in a world trying to erase us, grieving is a form of resistance.

    Palestinian Grief and the Politics of Denial

    If Black grief is read as a threat, Palestinian grief is denied altogether.
    Or worse—criminalized.

    In recent months, we’ve watched mourning itself become a battleground.
    Vigils banned.
    Flags confiscated.
    Photos of murdered children labeled “too political.”
    The dead rendered offensive.
    The living forbidden to name them.

    The message is clear:
    You can grieve, but not like that.
    Not too visibly.
    Not too loudly.
    Not in a way that disrupts the narrative.

    The same governments funding the bombs demand silence about the bodies.

    But Palestinian grief refuses to stay quiet.
    It pours into streets, onto murals, through chants.
    It insists on being seen—even when the world tries to look away.

    And that insistence resonates.
    Because for many of us—Black, queer, displaced—it feels familiar.
    We know what it means to mourn in public and be told it’s too much.
    We know what it means to be asked to tone it down, make it palatable, put it away.

    Still, we mourn.
    Together.
    In public.
    Without apology.

    Queer Mourning and Rituals of Refusal

    Queer people have always built our own ways to mourn.
    No one gave us space.
    So we carved it out ourselves.

    In clubs. In alleyways. In bedrooms and chat threads.
    We’ve lit candles in parking lots.
    Laid flowers on steps where no police ever came.
    Held vigils that no news crew covered.
    Carried names no one else bothered to say.

    This is part of our lineage:
    ACT UP die-ins.
    Ashes delivered to government steps.
    Protests that doubled as funerals.
    Grief that refused to be silent.

    That legacy is still with us.
    Every time a trans name is whispered online because no outlet printed it.
    Every time someone cries in a bathroom after reading a headline and someone else holds them.

    Queer mourning doesn’t always look like mourning.
    Sometimes it’s awkward.
    Sometimes it’s loud.
    Sometimes it’s just showing up.

    But it’s always a refusal.
    A refusal to grieve quietly.
    A refusal to perform respectability.
    A refusal to act like this world hasn’t taken too much from us.

    This grief is a kind of care.
    Not the kind taught in workshops.
    The kind that says:
    “I see you. I’ll carry this with you. Even if no one else will.”

    Grief That Doesn’t Fit

    I’ve been in spaces where I knew I wasn’t allowed to grieve.
    Not really.
    I could speak, maybe. But not feel too much.
    Not shake the frame.
    Not say something that might get labeled “too intense.”

    Sometimes, the silencing is subtle.
    Someone avoids eye contact.
    A conversation gets politely redirected.
    A room falls quiet—not in respect, but discomfort.

    I remember being told I was ben énervé for naming the violence of Black bodies on slides, with no disaggregated data, no context, no care.
    Just images.
    Just performance.

    I wasn’t angry.
    I was grieving.
    Grieving the way our lives get reduced to symbols.
    Grieving the absence of real recognition.
    Even that was too much.

    Most of us learn to shrink our grief until it fits.
    Until it sounds strategic.
    Until it’s digestible.

    And when it doesn’t shrink, we’re called unstable.
    Disruptive.
    Unprofessional.

    But grief isn’t supposed to make people comfortable.
    It isn’t a moment.
    It’s a condition.

    It lingers in the breath, in the body, in the way your shoulders won’t release even when the meeting ends.

    Some days, I carry it like fog.
    Some days, like glass.
    Some days, it doesn’t arrive until I’ve taken off the mask and closed the door behind me.

    But I no longer apologize for it.
    Because I’ve learned something simple:
    Grief is proof that something hasn’t been taken from me.
    Not yet.

    Toward Abolitionist Mourning

    We need to stop pretending grief only matters when it’s quiet, clean, or backed by institutions.

    We need to stop asking the systems that harm us to validate the losses they cause.

    Abolitionist mourning doesn’t wait for permission.
    It doesn’t ask for policy.
    It doesn’t make pain legible to power.

    It mourns on its own terms—messy, collective, unsanctioned.
    It stays with what hurts.
    It lets the wound speak.

    We’ve always known how to do this.

    Black and Indigenous people have mourned in ways the state can’t hold.
    Palestinians have carried memory through exile and massacre.
    Trans people create rituals that no church would sanctify.

    We don’t need more professionalization of pain.
    We need more space for its truth.
    More honesty.
    More refusal.

    Because grief is not what breaks us.
    What breaks us is having nowhere to put it.
    And what repairs us—if anything does—
    is knowing we don’t have to carry it alone.

    We’re Still Mourning

    We don’t need the state’s recognition to make our grief real.
    We don’t need institutions to validate what our bodies already know.
    Our mourning isn’t excessive.
    It isn’t disruptive.
    It isn’t unprofessional.

    It’s memory.
    It’s survival.
    It’s care.

    And it’s not going anywhere.

    If the world refuses to hold our grief,
    then we will keep finding other ways to carry it.
    We will light candles where they say we can’t.
    We will chant the names they refuse to speak.
    We will gather in the cracks and hold each other there.

    Our grief isn’t the problem.
    The problem is a world that only makes space for it once we’re gone.

    We’re still here.
    We’re still mourning.
    And we’re not asking for permission.

    Fediverse Reactions
  • What Whiteness Mourns When a Plantation Burns

    What Whiteness Mourns When a Plantation Burns

    When the Nottoway Plantation burned down, it wasn’t just a building that went up in flames—it was a monument to white fantasy. And in the ashes, what surfaced was telling: white grief, not for the enslaved, but for the venue. For the photo ops. For the imagined innocence of a land that was never innocent.

    Comment sections filled quickly. We had our wedding there. Our anniversary photos were so beautiful. I can’t believe this piece of history is gone.

    But which history? And whose grief?

    What I witnessed wasn’t mourning. It was a performance. A familiar one. A white grief that isn’t about loss—it’s about possession.

    The Plantation as Fantasy

    There is nothing neutral about getting married on a plantation. When you choose that backdrop for your love story, you are choosing to centre aesthetics over atrocity. You are choosing nostalgia over memory. You are choosing the soft light of the golden hour over the screams that once filled those fields.

    A plantation wedding doesn’t just ignore history—it repurposes it. It turns a deathscape into décor. And when that fantasy is taken away, even by something as natural as fire, the outrage that follows is not about heritage. It’s about the loss of comfort. The loss of an illusion.

    White Grief and Anti-Black Sociality

    This grief isn’t misplaced. It’s foundational. As an Afropessimist, I understand it as part of a social structure that requires Black death to affirm white life. The plantation is not grieved because of what it represents—it is grieved despite what it represents. Or rather, because its representation has always excluded the dead.

    In this structure, Black suffering is not just ignored—it is rendered background noise. It is the scenery. The atmosphere. The soft echo behind the vows.

    And when the scenery burns, grief floods in—not for the lives lost on that land, but for the loss of a setting in which white fantasies felt uninterrupted.

    What I’ve Learned from Grief

    As a social worker, I spend much of my life witnessing grief. I know its forms—raw, raging, quiet, complex. And I’ve learned to listen not just to what grief says, but to what it silences. To who it centres. To who it allows to be remembered.

    The grief I saw after the Nottoway fire was not about mourning. It was about control. Control over the narrative. Over space. Over who gets to feel what, and when.

    It was, in many ways, a refusal to grieve what should have been mourned centuries ago.

    The Fire Was Not the Tragedy

    The real tragedy is not that Nottoway burned.

    The tragedy is that it stood for so long. That it was never turned into a memorial, a site of mourning, a place to honour the enslaved. That it became a hotel, a wedding venue, a tourist destination. That it welcomed guests in linen suits and lace dresses but never acknowledged the lives it extinguished.

    And the real tragedy is that so many people still believe it’s the fire that ruined it.

    Refusal as Mourning

    I didn’t mourn the plantation. I won’t.

    What I mourn is every Black child buried without a name. Every resistance that went unrecorded. Every descendant asked to forget. Every ghost made to smile for a photo.

    I mourn what whiteness refuses to see. What it refuses to carry. What it refuses to let go.

    But a plantation is not a loss.

    Its burning is a reckoning.

  • Independence Fantasies, Colonial Truths

    Independence Fantasies, Colonial Truths

    Alberta wants to leave. Again. And this time, it’s louder than usual.

    Calls for Western separatism—what some are now trying to brand as a serious referendum campaign—are gaining traction. Politicians are testing the waters. The Premier hasn’t ruled it out. And, predictably, they’re invoking Quebec’s sovereignty movements as a model.

    But let me be clear from the outset: I’m not defending Canada. I’m not clinging to the federation. I don’t believe states are worth saving—not this one, not any of them. I’m not interested in sovereignty narratives that just redraw the same borders with different colours. I’m an abolitionist. And as a Black queer person raised in Quebec, I know firsthand how nation-building is so often just empire with better PR.

    That’s exactly why Alberta’s separatist posturing doesn’t read as radical to me. It reads as settler revanchism—masked in the language of resistance.

    Yes, Quebec’s independence movements have been violent, colonial, anti-Black, and shot through with contradictions. But they emerged from something real: a distinct cultural, linguistic, and historical formation shaped by centuries of attempted assimilation. That doesn’t absolve them. But it contextualizes them.

    Alberta has no such context.

    There’s no endangered language. No collective memory of being colonized by the Canadian state. No suppressed literature or forbidden faith. What there is, is capital. Oil. Guns. White grievance. And an economy built on extraction and entitlement.

    What Alberta wants to separate from isn’t oppression—it’s accountability.

    This isn’t a fight for freedom. It’s a tantrum from a province that’s never been told no. A province that has long enjoyed disproportionate political power, federal subsidies, and a privileged place in the settler imagination. And now, as the climate crisis accelerates and global scrutiny mounts, Alberta doesn’t want to change. It wants to opt out.

    It’s not seeking liberation. It’s demanding exemption.

    And when Alberta reaches for Quebec as its excuse—as its supposed precedent—it exposes something deeper. It shows how shallow this separatism really is. Because for all of Quebec’s failings, there is a cultural infrastructure here: a language, a kinship system, a literature of struggle (even if that struggle has too often excluded Black and Indigenous people). Alberta has none of that. Just the myth of rugged individualism and the fantasy of permanent control.

    This is not decolonization. This is a colony refusing to share.

    Alberta separatism borrows the postures of liberation movements to double down on domination. It mimics the rhetoric of resistance while clinging to the very systems that are killing us. And that’s what makes it so dangerous: it masquerades as anti-state politics while defending everything the state was built to protect—white wealth, settler power, and the right to extract without consequence.

    As someone who has lived through Quebec’s nationalism and survived the Canadian state’s violences, I don’t mistake any of this for freedom. I’ve seen what nationhood does to those of us who don’t fit its image. I’ve watched how state-building chews up the very people it claims to uplift. I’ve learned that not all exits lead somewhere better.

    Abolition isn’t about preserving Canada. But it’s not about celebrating every departure from it, either. Especially not the ones led by those who already have everything and just want more.

    So no—I won’t romanticize Alberta’s separatist dreams. I won’t let them smuggle white supremacy into the conversation under the banner of autonomy. I won’t let them use Quebec as cover while erasing the very people Quebec has tried to silence.

    Alberta isn’t trying to escape oppression. It’s trying to protect it.

    And some of us are done pretending not to notice.

  • After the Election: No Victory, No Salvation, Only the Work Ahead

    After the Election: No Victory, No Salvation, Only the Work Ahead

    Yesterday’s election unfolded the way it always does in a decaying settler state: desperate, fragmented, unmoored from any real possibility of change.
    Mark Carney won a minority government.
    Not because he inspired anyone.
    Not because he offered a vision of something better.
    But because fear of collapse keeps people clinging to the wreckage.
    Carney’s victory is a victory for capital, for managed decline. He will govern not with transformation, but with technocratic violence, offering competence while administering crisis. He represents an empire trying to manage its own decay without ever questioning the structures that brought it to this point.

    The NDP, meanwhile, collapsed into near-irrelevance.
    Not by accident.
    They spent years softening their demands, trimming the edges off movements that once demanded real justice, chasing approval from the very systems that were built to contain and destroy them.
    By the time they realized who they had abandoned, it was too late.
    The base that built the NDP—racialized, working-class, Indigenous, disabled, queer communities—has already moved on.
    Many of us have stopped looking to electoral politics for salvation.
    We learned long ago that there is no ballot box for liberation.

    And then there’s Poilievre.
    His personal defeat is not a victory.
    He lost his seat but grew the Conservative base.
    He played with the fire of white rage, conspiracy, and open fascism, and those flames are not going out.
    They will find new leaders, more dangerous ones.
    The centre did not hold. It barely even tried.
    What we are seeing is not a reversal of right-wing momentum. It is its acceleration, even in the absence of the man who helped bring it to this point.

    Taken together, tonight’s results confirm what many of us already knew.
    Canada, as a project, is dying.
    Not with a rupture that could birth something new, but through a long, grinding erosion that tightens its violence while pretending to offer stability.
    There is no vision here. No future being built.
    Only a managed decline, administered by people too invested in the structures of extraction, policing, and dispossession to imagine anything different.

    For Black, Indigenous, racialized, queer, and trans communities, this election does not change the terrain.
    The state was never our protector.
    It was never ours to reclaim.
    There was never a version of this country where we were meant to survive with dignity.
    That’s not pessimism. It’s clarity.

    The task ahead is the same as it has always been.
    To build outside of the crumbling systems.
    To invest in abolitionist infrastructures: mutual aid, communal care, survival networks that are not dependent on the permission of the state.
    To protect each other when the safety nets fail, because they were never designed to catch us in the first place.
    To refuse despair, not because we are hopeful about the system, but because we are committed to each other beyond it.

    Carney’s victory is hollow.
    Poilievre’s downfall is dangerous in disguise.
    The NDP’s disappearance is a cautionary tale about what happens when you sell your soul for electoral respectability.

    But our survival has never depended on who wins elections.
    It has always depended on how fiercely we remember who we are to each other.
    How fiercely we build in the cracks they cannot seal.
    How boldly we refuse to accept the limits they place on what we can imagine.

    No ballot was going to save us last night.
    No parliament will save us today.
    Our future will not be built in the halls of power.
    It will be built in kitchens, basements, parks, community centres.
    It will be built in memory, in movement, in revolt, in care.

    No victory.
    No salvation.
    Only us.
    Only everything we still have to build, together.

  • When Institutions Demand Our Labour but Not Our Voices

    When Institutions Demand Our Labour but Not Our Voices

    There is a particular kind of exhaustion that comes from being invited into a space only to realize that your presence was the priority, not your voice. The expectation was that you would show up, fill the quota, sit on the panel, make the institution look good—without challenging its structure, without demanding more than what was already decided.

    I have been in these spaces too many times to count. I have watched institutions that claim to care about Black voices, queer voices, abolitionist voices drain the life out of people who enter them believing, against all odds, that they might be able to create change from within. Universities, funding bodies, social work organizations, community initiatives—they all know how to position themselves as inclusive. They know the language of equity and representation. They know how to craft the right optics. But when we speak, when we name the contradictions, when we refuse to be flattened into their diversity statements, they make it clear: our labour is welcome, but our voices are not.

    It is never just one moment. It is a pattern. A structure. A way that institutions operate to extract what they need from Black thinkers, activists, and community workers while maintaining control over the spaces they claim to open up for us.

    The Many Forms of Institutional Extraction

    In universities, it looks like being invited to speak on “diversity and inclusion” panels, but never being asked to lead research that critiques the institution itself. It looks like racialized scholars being pushed into unpaid emotional labour—mentoring students, chairing equity committees, doing the messy relational work of care—while white colleagues focus on their research without the added burden of proving their value. It looks like funders celebrating Black scholarship in their marketing materials but only financing projects that do not threaten their power.

    In social work and community organizations, it looks like Black and Indigenous practitioners being called on to educate white professionals on anti-racism while working within systems that refuse to meaningfully change. It looks like organizations that parade their commitment to decolonization, trauma-informed care, and community leadership, while maintaining the same hierarchical, settler-colonial structures that prevent Black and Indigenous workers from exercising real decision-making power. They want our knowledge, our cultural competency, our ability to reach the communities they claim to serve. But when we ask for autonomy, self-determination, or actual redistribution of power, they ghost.

    Even in ballroom and grassroots spaces, the pattern repeats itself. I have seen corporations, brands, and even queer organizations tokenize ballroom culture while offering nothing in return. They will sponsor a ball for optics but never fund the survival of the community. They will parade ballroom as a symbol of queer liberation, yet ignore the material conditions of Black queer and trans people beyond the performance. Major brands will put ballroom performers in ad campaigns, yet pay them a fraction of what they give white queer influencers. They will co-opt our language while refusing to invest in the spaces that sustain us. They want the spectacle, not the politics. They want the culture, not the care. They will use the language of “house” and “family,” but their investment stops the moment the cameras turn off.

    The Cost of Being Seen But Not Heard

    The cost of this is not just burnout, alienation, or frustration—though it is all of those things. It is the weight of being asked to perform expertise without being given the tools to enact it. It is being invited into a room only to realize that your presence is symbolic, not transformative. It is the slow realization that these institutions were never designed to hold us fully, only to extract what is useful before discarding the rest.

    This is how institutions make us question our own instincts—by making us believe that if we just advocate harder, just soften our words, just play the game a little longer, we might be able to shift something. But that shift never comes. Instead, we exhaust ourselves in a system that only rewards our presence when it is convenient, and punishes us when it is not.

    For a long time, I thought the answer was to demand more from these institutions—to advocate, to push back, to make them understand that inclusion without power is meaningless. But I have learned that institutions are not built to listen. They are built to extract. They are built to absorb critique without transformation. And so the question is not how we make them see us, but how we decide where to place our energy.

    Choosing Refusal Over Extraction

    Refusal is a skill. It is an act of survival. It is learning to recognize the spaces where our work will be extracted and discarded and choosing, instead, to build elsewhere. It is understanding that we are not bridges to institutional legitimacy—we are architects of something entirely different. It is naming the harm without softening it, without waiting for an invitation to be palatable. It is leaving the table when the meal was never meant to sustain us.

    I no longer waste my time trying to be heard in places that have already decided what they are willing to hear. Institutions will always seek our labour, but we get to decide where we give our energy. Our work belongs to us—not to the systems that refuse to listen.

  • The Weight of Absence: On Boundaries, Accountability, and the Politics of Disappearance

    The Weight of Absence: On Boundaries, Accountability, and the Politics of Disappearance

    There are moments when absence carries more weight than presence. When the space someone leaves behind doesn’t just signal distance, but a rupture. A confirmation of something you hadn’t yet said aloud. Not all harm is loud. Some betrayals unfold in silence. Sometimes, the deepest wounds are not from what was done, but from what was not.

    I have always believed that friendship is a site of responsibility. To love someone is to be present. To recognize that relationships require more than shared joy. They require care, reciprocity, and repair. That belief has sustained me, but I have seen how quickly care turns conditional. How easily people disappear when accountability enters the room. Some people are only available for ease, not for the work that love demands.

    This was not just one moment. It was not just one conversation. It was a pattern, a structure, a political reality that plays out in the intimate corners of our lives. I have seen how non-Black people, particularly those whose identities grant them proximity to whiteness, expect the safety of Black friendship without the responsibility of real care. They want the warmth. The way we hold space effortlessly. The way we know how to make people feel at home. But the moment we ask them to hold something heavy, they vanish.

    I used to think these disappearances were about me. That if I had softened my words, made my pain easier to hold, things would have turned out differently. But I know better now. This is what proximity to whiteness teaches—to evade, to deflect, to disappear rather than engage. It is a refusal to be seen as someone who can harm. A retreat into silence, into absence, into the ease of never having to reckon with what it means to be in real relationship with Black people.

    I named what had hurt me. I set a boundary. I said: this is where I end. Instead of sitting with discomfort, they called me rigid. Unforgiving. I have seen this before, and I refuse to let it shape what I build next. Black people are told we are too accommodating, too forgiving, too available. Yet, the moment we assert our limits, we become too harsh, too difficult, too unwilling to let things go. This contradiction is not accidental. It is structural. It is what happens when you are seen as something to be held for comfort, but never engaged with as an equal.

    And so they disappeared. Not with an apology. Not with an attempt to repair. They vanished in the way that people do when their presence was never meant to be sustained. A blocking, a shutting down, a refusal to sit with what had been broken. A settler-colonial logic of disposability, played out in friendship.

    I have seen it before. I have learned. People who cannot meet me in presence do not deserve my time. Moving forward, I am choosing relationships where care is not an afterthought, where presence is not conditional, and where accountability is not treated as a burden.

    Care without accountability is not care at all. It is convenience. And I refuse to make myself convenient.

  • Joy, Survival, and the Refusal to Be Broken

    Joy, Survival, and the Refusal to Be Broken

    Notes from a Night of Performance and Resistance

    As Saidiya Hartman reminds us, Black life moves through the tension of mourning and survival, a condition intensified for Black queer and trans people whose very existence challenges the terms of the social order. In a world structured by anti-Blackness, where exhaustion is manufactured and joy is framed as indulgence, Black pleasure is a radical act of refusal. It is a practice of world-building amid dispossession.

    This refusal, this reclamation, is what I found myself reflecting on last night at the Wiggle Room in Tiohtià:ke, where I attended a burlesque show wrapped in the language of tarot and transformation. The performances that unfolded were not simply acts of entertainment, but rituals—embodied acts of storytelling that spoke to the precarity and possibility of life under structures that seek to contain us.

    Each performance was shaped by the energy of a different tarot card, an invocation of mysticism woven into movement and presence. The night had been playful, filled with laughter and cheers, until Phoenix Inana took the stage. Unlike the other performances, theirs was not burlesque—it was performance art, and it demanded silence. A rupture in the rhythm of the night.

    Phoenix embodied The Devil, but through deliberate intervention, they transfigured the archetype—not as a warning of corruption, but as an opening toward self-possessed liberation. They wove The Devil into the figure of Lilith—a symbol of defiance, a body ungoverned, a refusal to be subdued. In dominant narratives, The Devil is a sign of excess, indulgence, a descent into desire. But in Phoenix’s hands, The Devil became something else entirely: an opening, a confrontation with the self, a refusal to abide by the moral logics that have long been used to discipline those cast as deviant. Their movement, measured and defiant, enacted what Mackey calls affective choreography—a performance that is not for spectacle but for insurgency, refusing the logics of discipline.

    As Hortense Spillers reminds us, the body under colonial and patriarchal orders is always already marked for discipline. To reclaim the figure of The Devil—through Lilith, through the rejected feminine—is to refuse the very foundations of that discipline. The room held its breath as Phoenix moved—deliberate, magnetic, speaking in a language beyond words. They did not perform for an audience; they conjured something larger, something uncontainable. A reckoning with desire, with shame, with the ways we have been taught to fear our own hunger for pleasure, for freedom, for more. In that moment, The Devil was not a force of corruption but of possibility—the permission to exist outside of the constraints imposed upon us.

    Before the performance began, I noticed a tarot card had been left on my seat—the Eight of Cups. I didn’t think much of it at first, but later that night, after stepping into the cool air outside the venue, I pulled out my phone and looked up its meaning. Departure. Choosing oneself. The aching, necessary act of walking away. The card’s imagery—cups abandoned, a figure moving forward—settled into my chest.

    It was a lesson I have met before. One that keeps finding me. To leave is not to retreat but to carve out the possibility of elsewhere—to refuse the exhaustion of extractive institutions and instead move toward Black queer possibility. In the afterlife of slavery, where Black life is both hyper-visible and disposable, departure is not just a metaphor—it is a method of survival. We leave institutions, relationships, even versions of ourselves, because survival demands movement.

    I carried that message with me as I lingered after the show, laughing, exhaling, held in the kind of embrace that only chosen family provides. The space between us—our breath, our joy, our indulgence in the moment—was a refusal. Not an escape, not a reprieve, but an insurgency. These nights are not outside of struggle; they exist in direct opposition to the anti-Black, capitalist systems that demand our exhaustion, our suffering, our depletion.

    These spaces of performance, of radical belonging, exist within a lineage of Black queer world-making. One of the most enduring examples of this is ballroom—a subcultural movement rooted in the survival of Black and Latinx queer and trans communities. Ballroom was born out of necessity, a direct response to anti-Black and anti-queer exclusion from white-dominated LGBTQ+ spaces in the mid-20th century. It became not just a venue for performance but a site of kinship, a world where categories of gender, beauty, and realness were reimagined on Black and brown terms.

    Ballroom operates as a Black queer counterpublic—an insurgent archive of survival, where kinship is built outside the logics of capitalist extraction, and where the aesthetics of gender, performance, and belonging are constantly being rewritten in real-time. While ballroom remains deeply rooted in Black and Latinx history, it has also grown into a space where others who have known displacement, resistance, and the urgency of chosen family can find belonging. As Godmother Phoenix Inana Sankofa LaBeija, she has taken up the role of mentor and guide, carrying forward the commitment to craft, care, and those who come after. Her position within ballroom is not just a title; it is an obligation—to those who seek space in a world that denies them room to breathe.

    The world grinds us down. It tells us that we must earn rest. It frames joy as frivolous. And yet, we choose otherwise. We gather. We celebrate. We insist upon ourselves.

    To persist is to resist, but to insist on joy is to demand livability—not as a concession, but as an act of abolitionist defiance, a refusal to let extraction be our only inheritance.

    The Eight of Cups is a departure, yes, but it is also a return—to self, to possibility, to the world we are making together. As I walked out of the Wiggle Room, my fingers still tracing the Eight of Cups in my pocket, I felt something shift within me. Sometimes, the universe delivers its messages in grand gestures. And sometimes, they arrive in a performance piece that demands silence. A tarot card left on a seat. A night spent in the presence of those who see you fully.

    And sometimes, those messages are simple but profound:

    Keep going.
    Keep choosing yourself.
    Keep finding joy.

    Because that, too, is resistance. That, too, is survival. And even when the world gives us nothing, we will make ourselves—together.