Over the past 15 years, there has been a rapid rise in anti-SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) mobilization, primarily led by self-identified “parental rights” protesters in Metro Vancouver and across Canada more broadly.
In 2011, Burnaby School District’s Policy 5.45—designed to support 2SLGBTQI+ students and employees—was met with organized opposition from a parents’ group called “Parents’ Voice.” This group ran candidates for school board and protested the policy, citing a lack of adequate consultation.
In 2014, a similar controversy unfolded in Vancouver when the Vancouver School Board proposed updates to its anti-discrimination policies to better support trans and gender non-conforming students. In response, opponents formed a group called “Protecting All Children in School,” which gained visibility through press conferences and online petitions (Leung, 2017).
In 2016, the British Columbia government passed the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2016 (Bill 27), formally adding “gender identity or expression” as protected grounds under the B.C. Human Rights Code, following “sexual orientation.” To comply with these legal protections, the Richmond School District adopted Policy 106-G in 2018, a comprehensive SOGI policy affirming the rights of 2SLGBTQI+ students and staff. At the public hearing that June, hundreds of residents attended, including vocal opponents. The policy passed in a 6-1 vote, but media backlash grew, as many Richmond local media covered.
While the anti-SOGI conflicts of the early 2010s were largely localized and focused on individual school districts, by 2023 a national anti-SOGI movement had emerged, significantly broader in both scale and rhetoric. That year, a coalition of “parental rights” groups organized the “1 Million March 4 Children” (1MM4C), a self-described coast-to-coast protest against SOGI education in Canadian schools.
On September 20, 2023, rallies took place in dozens of cities across the country, marking the largest coordinated anti-SOGI mobilization in Canadian history. Metro Vancouver saw multiple protest sites, including a rally in downtown Vancouver where a few hundred anti-SOGI protesters gathered—though they were ultimately outnumbered by counter-protesters supporting 2SLGBTQI+ youth. Homophobic and transphobic rhetoric became more visible and direct during these events, fueled by rising pro-conservative and “anti-woke” sentiment circulating both online and in public discourse.
One question stands out: Who are these “parental rights” protesters? In Metro Vancouver, the anti-SOGI mobilization includes a diverse array of parents. Evangelical Christians of European descent were the most visible during the 1MM4C. However, given Metro Vancouver’s immigrant history and racially diverse population, Asian parents have also played a significant role in these protests since the early stages.
The difficult knowledge
This article explores the involvement of racialized immigrants in these mobilizations—especially in coalition with groups known for overt xenophobia, white supremacy, or Catholic fundamentalism.
Analysis for this issue is difficult for two key reasons. First, media and public discourse often depict racialized immigrants as inherently conservative, while downplaying the substantial participation of white, European-descended protesters. Second, within progressive spaces, the fear of reinforcing racist stereotypes can discourage open discussion of how some first-generation immigrants are being drawn into far-right, neo-fascist political movements.
Taking an anti-racist, anti-xenophobic, and intersectional approach to the anti-SOGI backlash, this article focuses on the participation of Chinese Canadian parents in Metro Vancouver as an entry point into the broader dynamics of parental mobilization. In doing so, it adopts the term “Sinophone” (Chinese language-speaking) rather than “Chinese” to refer to these “parental rights” protesters. This shift highlights the role of language in forming social groups and facilitating protest within immigrant communities. It also reflects the distinct immigration histories and population geographies of Metro Vancouver, and acknowledges generational differences between first-generation Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking immigrants and their children.
Sinophone parents’ engagement in anti-SOGI movements and media representations
Sinophone parents have been involved in anti-SOGI movements since their early emergence, often drawing on the language of “parental rights.” Their presence has been noted by many pro-SOGI media . Two patterns have emerged in how this participation is represented.
The first frames Asian parents’ involvement through the lens of ethnocultural conservatism—a concept that links specific ethnic groups to perceived traditional values, social norms, and conservative cultural beliefs. This framing often reinforces stereotypes and can invoke racism by singling out certain communities while rendering their white counterparts invisible. Meanwhile, some “parental rights” protesters have themselves strategically utilized discourses of ethnocultural conservatism, using ideas of cultural using ideas of cultural differences between the West and “family values” associated with their ethnicity to justify opposition.
The second pattern, which has been more common in mainstream English-language media, involves avoiding references to ethnicity altogether. However, as Leung (2017) observed in her study of the 2014 Vancouver School Board SOGI policy debates, Vancouver’s Chinese-language media often portrayed the controversy as a “Chinese issue,” with little critical reflection. In both scenarios, anti-SOGI organizers have pushed back against English-language portrayals that emphasize ethnocultural conservatism, even as they frequently invoke “family values” and “Chinese culture” in Chinese-language outlets as core reasons for their protests.
Sinophone parents’ involvement in anti-SOGI activism in Metro Vancouver grew steadily and reached a peak in 2018, when the Richmond School District’s adoption of Policy 106-G drew hundreds of protesters. Richmond, a gentrified suburb in Metro Vancouver, has the highest proportion of racialized residents in British Columbia, with Chinese Canadians making up over 50% of the population. The anti-SOGI campaign was widely interpreted as a form of political struggle within the Chinese community itself. This interpretation was reinforced by voting patterns in political elections, where many Sinophone Conservative voters campaigned through Chinese-language social media, framing SOGI policies as a central electoral issue.
The role of Chinese-language social media and local Chinese-language press expanded significantly during the 1MM4C protests. In downtown Vancouver, a few hundred anti-SOGI protesters gathered, including Sinophone parents carrying signs written in Chinese. WeChat groups in Mandarin and Cantonese circulated calls to join the march, along with videos of confrontations at school board meetings. One viral incident involved a Chinese mother with a baby allegedly being shoved by a pro-SOGI activist, which was framed as an example of the “intolerance” of pro-SOGI counter-protesters. Numerous WeChat articles in Chinese were published around the time of 1MM4C, and local Chinese-language newspapers such as Sing applauded the “parental rights” discourses.
While Sinophone parents’ participation in anti-SOGI movements cannot be adequately explained by ethnocultural conservatism alone, it remains important to acknowledge their insistence on being recognized as ethnic subjects (Leung, 2017). Equally essential is situating their mobilization within a broader Canadian—and indeed global—pattern of anti-SOGI movements shaped by transnational and generational dynamics. These dynamics take material form and have real consequences. Understanding them is key for educators, community workers, and policymakers seeking to counter harmful anti-SOGI mobilization among racialized immigrant communities.
Manifesting transnational and generational dynamics in the mirage of multiculturalism
Sinophone parental mobilization against SOGI policies in Metro Vancouver is shaped by complex transnational ties and generational divides. First-generation Chinese immigrant parents have often appeared alongside white Christian activists in these protests. As diasporic scholars have noted, many newcomers from China and Hong Kong are more likely to seek support through religious communities. Some have joined local Chinese Christian churches that connect them to transnational conservative networks dominated by right-wing ideologies. Limited social networks and language barriers can prevent these parents from accessing progressive or 2SLGBTQI+ affirming spaces, making them more vulnerable to misinformation and even conspiracy theories. Many have absorbed ideas from global conservative movements—particularly the “anti-gender” agenda circulating in the UK and U.S.—which frame SOGI education as a threat to children and to “traditional” family values. Slogans like “parents have rights” and “don’t mess with our children,” long popularized by American and European far-right groups, have been echoed by Sinophone protesters, revealing how anti-2SLGBTQI+ ideologies travel across borders and take root in immigrant communities.
Language plays a pivotal role in shaping these dynamics. Many Sinophone parents rely primarily on Chinese-language media—WeChat groups, Mandarin and Cantonese newspapers, and ethnic radio stations—rather than mainstream English outlets. On closed platforms like WeChat, misinformation and fear-mongering about SOGI policies spreads quickly. Because of heavy censorship of pro-2SLGBTQI+ content by the Chinese government, there are few counter-narratives available in the same linguistic space. Observers have noted that right-wing actors have successfully used WeChat to spread conspiracy theories in Sinophone communities (Lu, 2020). This linguistic echo chamber limits access to official information. Many parents never encounter the actual content of SOGI resources—which are mostly in English—and instead learn about them through secondhand translations or rumors. The assumption by school officials that English-language outreach is sufficient can alienate immigrant parents from the policy process. Many Sinophone parents who opposed SOGI reforms claimed they were never properly informed and only became aware through Chinese-language media coverage.
Generational divides further complicate the picture. Younger Chinese Canadians—the 1.5 or second generation—live in very different information circles and social networks than their parents. These youth attend public schools that actively implement SOGI policies and often support inclusive practices. Within families, this can lead to generational tension. Aggravated by the broader privatization of education—which, as Moore et al. (2025) argue, prioritizes the promotion of private values over public responsibility—many middle-class Sinophone parents channel their anxiety about losing connection with their children into heightened suspicion of public education. These anxieties are also tied to dominant narratives about the “desirable immigrant family,” particularly among first-generation parents who arrived in Canada through skilled worker or economic immigration streams. In this context, Metro Vancouver—and Richmond in particular—stands at the intersection of these transnational and generational tensions.
The involvement of racialized immigrants in anti-SOGI movements in Metro Vancouver highlights deeper contradictions within Canadian multiculturalism. While the Canadian Multiculturalism Act promotes the celebration of ethnic diversity, its application often remains surface-level. Scholars have described the “paradox of diversity” in multicultural policy: by emphasizing visible cultural differences, multicultural discourse tends to obscure underlying power relations, rendering structural inequalities and forms of oppression invisible (Bannerji 2017). In the context of anti-SOGI mobilizations, the “moral panic” over sexuality and a kind of “multicultural panic” over race and religion are often juxtaposed (Bialystok and Jessica 2019). Therefore, viewing immigrant parents’ opposition solely as ethnocultural conservatism under multicultural frameworks overlooks the intersectional, transnational, and generational factors that shape their positions.
Moving forward
It is critical for educators, community workers, and policymakers committed to creating safer environments for 2SLGBTQI+ children to meaningfully engage with immigrant parents who participate in anti-SOGI mobilizations. As Helen Hok-Sze Leung (2017) suggests, we must “create spaces that meet specific cultural and linguistic needs as much as possible while cultivating an ethos of dialogue and solidarity.” This approach can build on emerging practices already developed by and for immigrant communities.
Local Asian diasporic organizations have provided services tailored to the distinct needs of various linguistic and generational groups. Asian 2SLGBTQI+ individuals and collectives have worked to shape cultural subjectivity through film festivals, exhibitions, and performances, often using multilingual materials to reach broader audiences—including first-generation parents of queer and trans children. Scholars have also contributed by publishing Chinese-language articles that explain and contextualize SOGI policies.
Yet these individual and community-based efforts cannot fully shift anti-SOGI perspectives without institutional change. This article has shown how easily the rhetoric of “protecting children” can become a rallying cry—scapegoating SOGI policies to obscure deeper tensions around belonging and power in a multicultural yet unequal society. It is time to initiate sustained, multilingual dialogue within and beyond schools, and to support the coalition-building work already underway in diasporic 2SLGBTQI+ communities. Only by transforming this “difficult knowledge” into collective action can we move toward truly inclusive and equitable educational spaces.
References
Bannerji, Himani. 2017. “The Paradox of Diversity: The Construction of a Multicultural Canada and ‘Women of Color.’” In Asian Canadian Studies Reader, edited by Roland Coloma and Gordon Pon, 169–187. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442630291-012.
Bao, Qian. 2018. “Chinese Residents Fight for Representation in Richmond Politics.” The Thunderbird, October 25, 2018. https://thethunderbird.ca/2018/10/25/chinese-residents-fight-for-representation-in-richmond-politics/.
Bialystok, Lauren, and Jessica Wright. 2019. “’Just Say No’: Public Dissent over Sexuality Education and the Canadian National Imaginary.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 40 (3): 343–57.
Burnaby School District. 2019. Policy 5.45: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Revised November 2019. Burnaby, BC: Burnaby School District. https://burnabyschools.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Policy-5.45-Sexual-Orientation-and-Gender-IdentityJune191.pdf.
British Columbia. 2016. Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2016, Bill 27, 5th Sess., 40th Parliament. Victoria: Queen’s Printer. https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/billsprevious/5th40th:gov27-1.
City of Richmond. 2023. Ethnocultural Hot Facts: Richmond 2021 Census Highlights. Richmond, BC: City of Richmond. https://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/2006_Ethnicity20987.pdf.
Leung, Helen Hok-Sze. 2017. “Our City of Colours: Queer/Asian Publics in Transpacific Vancouver.” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 18 (4): 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649373.2017.1387091.
Lu, Shen. 2020. “Liberal Chinese Americans Are Fighting Right-Wing WeChat Disinformation.” Foreign Policy, November 13, 2020. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/13/liberal-chinese-americans-fighting-right-wing-wechat-disinformation/.
Moore, Shannon D.M., Matthew McCorquodale-Bauer, and Kevin Lopuck. 2025. “Placating Private Values: A Fourth Pathway to Education Privatization.” Our Schools/Our Selves, Winter/Spring 2025, 23–26. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/our-schools-our-selves-2025-winter-spring.pdf.
Moreau, Jennifer. 2011. “Parents’ Voice upset about racist comments.” Burnaby Now, October 28, 2011. https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/parents-voice-upset-about-racist-comments-2931033
Xiong, Daisy. 2018. “Updated: Parents Protest SOGI Policy at Richmond School Board.” Richmond News, June 15, 2018.https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news/updated-parents-protest-sogi-policy-at-richmond-school-board-3077591.
Wood, Graeme. 2017. “Parents: LGBT Policy Could Convert Heterosexual Teens.” Richmond News, February 28, 2017. https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news/parents-lgbt-policy-could-convert-heterosexual-teens-3047646.
BC Bay. 2024. “卑诗省选胜负分水岭？3/4认为政治正确已走太远.” BC Bay, October 6, 2024. https://www.bcbay.com/news/2024/10/06/930124.html.
Sing Tao Canada. 2018. “數百市民場外示威 列教局 6:1 通過 SOGI.” Sing Tao Canada (Vancouver), June 28, 2018. https://www.singtao.ca/1928069/?variant=zh-cn.
Sing Tao Canada. 2023. “突发！加拿大80城市爆发示威活动！百万家长走上街头…乱套了！” Sing Tao Canada (Toronto), September 20, 2023.
加拿大多伦多新飞扬留学. 2018. “加拿大BC省性教育深度揭秘：幕后推手原来是他们.” 加拿大多伦多新飞扬留学, September 13, 2018. https://www.canadaae.net/gaozhongnews/21678.html.
