top of page

A conversation with Senior Editor, Mikaela Brewer, for The 44 North


Editor's Note:


In late July, I had the absolute privilege of speaking with Patrick de Belen on a warm afternoon in Trinity Bellwoods Park, near his brother's memorial bench. I'm immensely grateful. I hope our conversation reaches you in some way.


Photo by Cameron Peters
Photo by Cameron Peters

On The Last Note & The Experience of Grief


Mikaela Brewer (MB): I would love to start with your documentary, The Last Note


Patrick de Belen (PDB): Yes, The Last Note is an experimental documentary—an intersection of the Filipino immigrant experience, mental health, and suicide. It's also about the many different kinds of grief that come with being an immigrant family. And then, of course, it’s about losing someone—my little brother—and my attempt at trying to fill in the blanks that are left from suicide (alongside the acceptance that some blanks are never filled). It's full of music and art, because we were both artists, and also Toronto; the documentary was shot in the city with a few shots in the Philippines. It’s a Toronto story, and that was important to me because any young person who's grown up here will relate to it. We worked on it for 5 years, and finished at the beginning of 2026.


MB: I love what you said about how there are some things you don't find answers to—some gaps you can't fill. 
There are connections with archival work there—of our own lives, others' lives, and people we’ve lost in particular—and trying to piece things together. In bearing witness to your brother’s life, how did that shape your understanding of grief? Did it change the language around it, or the way you write poems, or engage with music, journals, and memory?


PDB: 
Yeah. I’ve been a storyteller my entire life, and professionally as an artist for 12-13 years. 
I think about storytelling as preservation—as a way of memorializing people—and that’s always been embedded in my work. I’ve written about grief for years, alongside mental health and suicide. And as someone who deals with suicidal ideation, it’s long been a theme across what I write. 


Working on the documentary specifically, while experiencing losing my brother to suicide, I felt a dramatic and drastic confrontation with these themes. When it’s just you, there's time—a lifetime to explore, change, and learn. 
But when [my brother died], it was so intense and sudden. It was a flood of new information, along with new emotions about grief that weren’t there before. 


It’s easy to talk about grief in a removed way, as a theme and as a concept, but when you go through it so intensely, the way you learn it is different. It’s all-consuming and overwhelms you. A lot of the documentary is that. 
It shows a person who thought they knew what grief was—thought they knew what mental health and suicide was—and then became totally immersed in it. That was the difference. I learned, in almost a desperate way to cope, and that led to this project. You can hear that desperation—needing information fast—because I didn’t think I could go another day without figuring out how to live with this huge hole. I was throwing little grains of sand into the hole, trying to fill it. That was it: The intensity and the urgency of learning. 
And you can tell in the documentary. That’s what's changed. But I also started to realize what the more cliché information about grief was—the platitudes I wasn’t really aware of before. 
For example, saying, “Time heals everything,” or, “God has a plan.” We say these to people from our own discomfort when they’re dealing with grief. Now, I realize how shallow those words were. All of this was sudden, intense, and all-consuming, and with that came a desperation to find answers fast.


Photo by Cal Campos
Photo by Cal Campos

On An Artist’s Sense of Responsibility


MB: Absolutely. And losing somebody to suicide, while also having similar thoughts and feelings, do you feel an extra sense of responsibility there as an artist? To try to put grief into words, or try to find better ways of speaking with people about it, aside from the platitudes?


PDB: Yes, definitely a heightened responsibility. Being an older brother was my first role in life; it was the first role I understood. Even as a child, with the way my family was—we had a rough, turbulent childhood—I understood my role, and it was difficult to be a parentified kid. But an older brother was something I understood quickly. 
That will appear in my work for the rest of my life—in writing, mentorship, and providing platforms and opportunities for young people to receive guidance and see healthy pathways to growing up. That’s always been something I’ve been doing, so I already had that responsibility. 


When you identify so strongly as someone who cares about youth, then lose your little brother to suicide, that just heightens and highlights that responsibility. 
But also, in a way, it became a weight for a few years, and I didn’t know if I could continue to bear it after losing the young person that I’d been caring for and mentoring for their entire life. Five years later, I’m more comfortable with that heightened responsibility, which led to the film. 
There’s going to be another young person who watches it—who needs to see it and who I believe needs to see it. That’s what drove me to the end of finishing it many times. It wasn’t easy to finish. 



MB: Yes. And there’s that blending of grief and the creative process.


PDB: And it’s a tale as old as time. So much of my work is about that. 
And that’s why it’s crazy to me to think about the lack of grief literacy in our society, because we’ve been consuming content about it since we can remember. Whenever you listen to emo music or rap songs, there are themes of grief—it’s embedded in the media we consume, yet it doesn’t always translate to actual grief literacy. That gap is part of what I wanted this documentary to fill. 
I want people to enjoy it as if enjoying any other piece of media, but leave with concrete tools to build more grief-literate relationships.


Photo by Herman Custodio
Photo by Herman Custodio

On Silence & Loudness


MB: I love that, and it’s a beautiful segue into something I wanted to ask you about, which is a phrase a person I used to work with said: That there’s a difference between the generative silence that leads to art versus the abysmal silence that leads to things like suicide. I’m curious if you have thoughts on that phrasing, or if it was part of your process putting the documentary together (or putting poems together)?


PDB: Could you tell me more about what generative silence is to you? 



MB: To me, it’s that quiet when words come to me, or an inspiration period where you have moments of thinking: “These words need to go into this poem.” 


PDB: Yeah: The good versus bad quiet—good silence, bad silence. After losing my little brother, I quickly ran to the Philippines—for months. There were weeks on end where I didn't say a word. 
I'd be by the ocean, either working on poetry or the film, in almost complete silence. I didn’t say much, except to my parents. In that way, the silence was a good thing. But the abysmal silence isn’t silence in its obvious sense; it’s more an unwillingness to have conversations that are important to have. And that’s a theme in the film: The idea that there’s so much that went unsaid, whether within my family or within Filipino culture as a whole, when it comes to suicide and mental health. 
That's why the documentary itself, I would say, is so loud, even though the process of creating it was very quiet. The actual piece itself is loud, top to bottom. The quietest part is the end. It’s almost a spite and anger towards that abysmal silence that led to such a loud project. Whether it’s the metal music or the explicit conversations around pain, grief, and suicide, that was my way of addressing that silence. I thought: “If we’re not going to talk about it for whatever reason, I’m going to make something that forces you to listen.” All of that discomfort was part of that process. 


It wasn’t a goal of mine to have this conversation with grace or gentleness. 
It was angry, and it was honest. It’s like that moment a kid yells at their parents for the first time. It’s always ugly, uncomfortable, and imperfect, but there’s a moment where you don’t feel seen in a place that you’re supposed to feel the most love and the most safe, and when you don’t, you no longer know how to communicate that properly. 
So you just yell. I feel that’s a good metaphor for parts of this documentary: It’s loud and confrontational. 


I do flow in and out of those [silences]. If anything, after this experience, I’ve become a lot more comfortable in the healthy, quiet silence, and it’s because I let so much out in the process of creating the documentary. 
It was cathartic; I was able to yell and wail, and again, that’s commentary on the silence within the Filipino community—whether the diaspora or back in the motherland—around mental health and suicide. And I think it’s intuitive: Some people know they’re supposed to have conversations, but the discomfort is what stops them. The culture and programming prevent the conversation from happening, which creates that [abysmal] silence. This project is very much here to criticize that, but also, ultimately, welcome people in. You cry, you yell at your parents, and then you apologize after. There’s a moment after you’ve yelled at them when they no longer see you as a kid. They can’t just [rely on] discipline, and you no longer see them as people who have to take care of you; they become just two people. Those are vulnerable moments of imperfection, and then ideally, you embrace each other [and apologize]. 
That’s in the film, too.


MB: Yes. When you give a voice to something, whether it’s a person, grief, or difficult topics—or spend time, I suppose, trying to figure out what that voice sounds like—then it comes out in a beautiful way. That’s what you've done, which is powerful, but also needed and beautiful. 



PDB: Thanks for calling it beautiful. 
I definitely think it’s the ugliest form of beauty. It’s not what people might consider beautiful off the bat. But you’re right, it’s beautiful in its ugliness and rawness. And that’s definitely the challenge of the documentary: To show ugly things and ask: Could this be something we need? And not only what we need, but what we can, by the end of the film, call beautiful? 
I believe we can, after watching it. 


MB: Yeah. Even if just in how you hold it. Maybe that’s the beauty: How you take [what you’ve held] into future conversations, to support people in your community or yourself, right? 


PDB: Yes. There’s a line in my poem, “Butterfly Knife,” which we’ll get to later, where I say: “Peace is something people died for.” 
And that’s always it. For a lot of what we consider beauty, we don’t understand the actual pain behind creating it. There’s a wider narrative here: Thinking we deserve beauty and joy without suffering. I understand it, but we also don’t look at the ugliness that came before all the beautiful things we love in the world, which is ultimately what allows us to feel that sense of beauty. And connected to the silence, Filipinos don’t like talking about this. 
The documentary is all about that. My Lola is in it—my grandma talking about her first confrontation with the idea of depression, wrestling with what it means. You can see that on screen: This person who grew up in the worst, poorest neighbourhood in the Philippines, learning about what depression is through the death of her grandson by suicide. I got to see that on camera, which was probably one of my favourite parts.


Photo by Matthew Guarrasi 
Photo by Matthew Guarrasi 

On Art from Scars & Wounds


MB: I can imagine. 
There are so many layers there. And it’s interesting you mentioned the poem—this is a bridge into the community work you do. There’s an idea a mentor told me (I've also heard it floating around) that when you’re an artist, and you’re creating things from personal experience, you should try to write from a scar instead of an open wound. This is also connected to something I was going to mention earlier: What we hold onto versus what we let go of, and how we let all of these things coexist in art. I’m curious how you resonate with that concept, or how true you think it is? Because we’ve been talking about the rawness necessary to represent something fully, which lends more towards an open wound. In an art sense, how do you create something that’s going to resonate with and reach people, while also being [true to] your own experience? 


PDB: You know, I go back and forth with this concept a lot. As a spoken word artist working with young people, empowering them to explore their voice for the first time, I [witness] a lot of ‘open wound’ content because they’re deep in what they’re going through. And then, what you sometimes see—and this depends on guidance, facilitation, and the relationship between mentor and mentee—is that through writing and creating about an open wound, they begin to heal. 
The art itself becomes medicine. That’s why, sometimes, I’m critical of the concept of only writing from a scar versus an open wound. Because some people write to cope. Am I not supposed to create until my wound is relatively healed? Can I not use my art to cope now, like I’ve used my art to cope my entire life? 


I feel this is part of the overly-therapized language we constantly use: A utopian idea that struggle doesn’t need to be considered when talking about the best version of making things, or the healthiest version of making things. I agree that it’s the ideal future—where people only write from scars—but the reality is, people are open wounds all around us, and sometimes art is their way of healing. I don’t want anyone to stop creating from something just because it’s not healed. If you do, you also stop the potential for that art to be part of your healing process. What if it expedites it, helping you heal in a way that makes you feel joy faster or sooner, which could be great for people who deal with suicidal ideation, especially? If talking about suicide helps me feel less alone, which in turn helps me feel less like I want to die, don’t tell me to stop because my wound is still open. That’s my criticism of the concept. 



However, I do believe that some of the best work I’ve done isn’t after I’ve healed, but later on in my healing journey where [I have] more perspective. That life lived gives me more to work with, because then I can work around the story. I can leave the pain and look at other people, the world, and relationships. 
A lot of my work is [strong] now because I’m farther away from its [catalyst], but that doesn’t mean the work I wrote inside the pain was bad. It was uncomfortable. 
It was raw. And I think that’s part of why it was good. A lot of people are still listening to Nirvana while many criticize how unhealthy Kurt Cobain was. This is a fact—he was unhealthy—but there’s a reason why people still gravitate towards his music. It’s because they’re in open wounds [themselves], needing to see and hear something written by someone else in an open wound. That’s still, to me, a healing relationship—you feel less isolated in the feeling. 


As you can tell, I have a back and forth with that concept. 
It might be too binary, and lacking nuance. 
It comes from people’s discomfort with watching art that’s too uncomfortable, honest, or triggering, which is another pattern in overly-therapized language. We’re [taught] to protect people from truth or from watching hard things, but as someone who’s written about hard things my whole life, it’s part of my MO. It’s natural for me to push back against that without removing the actual health part of it—that’s still important.


MB: They coexist. These things don't cancel each other out. You’re so right about overly-therapized language. And also, the idea of being fully healed [isn’t real]—it’s not what happens. 
You gather additional life experience, maybe, that lends to how you think about or process something. And then you put it into words. The healing journey, or however you want to conceptualize it for yourself, is long and exists in non-linear time. 


PDB: Like grief. 
Grief is nonlinear, right? A scar can be an open wound again. 



MB: Because you pick the scab or someone/thing else picks the scab. 


PDB: Exactly. 
To have to wait to create until there’s a scab or a scar, to me, isn’t lending well to a conversation around nonlinear grief. My wound might be open 5 years later, and I'm still going to write from there. 


There are so many examples in history of people caring for others grieving the worst, darkest moments. And if we truly want to adapt this idea of community into an anti-capitalist way of existing, part of doing so is understanding our capacity for care and listening to people. 
Stop telling people to heal faster so that we can listen to them and feel less uncomfortable. That’s not it. Hold them in their darkest moments. Be there for them. Sometimes, you don’t require the trauma-informed, institutional training to [support someone]. 
Sometimes we can just show up, even in that discomfort.


Photo by David Grant 
Photo by David Grant 

On Friendship & Decolonizing Grief


MB: Yes. There’s such a conversation [centring] palatable ways of talking about grief, especially around love. And I do believe grief and love are intertwined—they always are. But grief is intertwined with anger and rage, too. When you’re writing, how does that feel for you? Do you see grief as resilience? I wonder if we’re decolonizing it by reckoning with what it brings up—fully. 


PDB: I love how you said that. Decolonizing grief is a crazy concept—I don’t think I’ve heard that yet. But yes, it’s leaving room for the harder parts. There’s a modern narrative around grief and mental health that’s an indirect byproduct of capitalism; it’s an unwillingness to be a true community and care for each other. [Grief] then becomes prettier—Instagram-packaged, [assuming] I can read [a post] about grief and [instantly] feel better about myself as someone who’s either grieving or supporting someone in grief. Really, though, the whole point is to sit in the not knowing, and acknowledge that you’re in intense pain and don’t know how to fix it. Capitalism makes us all want to fix things so we can go back into society and become working labourers once again. But we can choose to sit with people in [their grief]. And it’s going to suck, but I’m going to bear witness to it, and that’s it. Maybe I’m going to send you an Uber Eats order later, and you might not even go outside to get it, but I’m going to send it to you anyway. It’s this idea of care, and being a witness to people in grief. It doesn't need any more language. It needs, if anything, us to simplify it. We’ve over-complicated the process. What does it mean to be a friend? Have you had a friend in kindergarten who witnessed the moment you lost a favourite toy? When you cried and had a tantrum, what did your friend do? How did you maintain that relationship? 
Let’s go back to that and less [toward] trying to know the “right ways to say things,” you know? 


MB: Absolutely. And I think we have to stop telling our friends, “I can’t handle that. You should go to a therapist.” It comes from a place of thinking we don’t have the tools or skills. And maybe that’s true for certain things. But we can show up—there are always ways we can show up. 



PDB: 100%. That’s why friendships these days—and our commitment to friendships—have changed. Maybe, generally, things like social media have shifted them, but we also pretend there’s a necessity for institutional help as a way of avoiding conflict. We forget that conflict is what makes relationships stronger. Instead, we [back away] when something feels too hard to talk about, and we say, “Please go somewhere else to do that.” 


Before the institutions existed, it was only us. What would we do? We’d mark your door, leave flowers, and do what we could. Maybe try to bring a meal. I don’t want to romanticize [the past] or all practices in it, because they weren’t always great. But there’s something to be said about how friendships have become more surface-level and low-commitment because of our unwillingness to have hard conversations. 


And there’s a difference between that and trauma dumping. That’s a different part of the story. If there’s one friend who’s constantly [consuming] the space and not sharing it with others, then yes, please tell them to chill and share the energy. But there’s a difference between that and me being unwilling to have hard conversations with my friend. 


MB: Exactly. 
Well said. Mic drop. 



PDB: Thanks. Sometimes I [worry] people think this is aggressive, or a hot take, but you know what? 
I’m ten toes. I stand on it. 


MB: But when we’re talking about grief, suicide prevention, and changing how we think about them, we have to be firm about it.


PDB: Yes. To me, there’s a level of urgency because we’re also dealing with collective grief. We’re watching death and war from around the world. 
And if we don’t get better at being a true community and caring for each other, I don’t know how we’re going to make it through these things.


Photo by Herman Custodio
Photo by Herman Custodio

On Mentoring & Relationships


MB: Exactly. This is a great transition into the role of a poet in community, being a facilitator, and the work you do there. The first thing I wanted to ask you is: How do you allow your own grief and life experiences to be visible when you’re mentoring, without, of course, making it about you, per se? When you’re teaching or guiding, how do you carry your own grief so others see you as somebody who’s not shutting it down within yourself?


PDB: Yes. Before I answer that question, a quote came to mind by Saul Williams: “A poet is the death doula for a dying empire.” 



MB: Well, my next tattoo is set.


PDB: Right? Saul Williams is so talented, but what a concept to think about. So, as a ‘death doula,’ guiding people through transitions, there are sensitivities around talking about your own story. But I always go back to when I used to do youth mentorship: 
I’d take these little kids to play basketball and talk about life. And when you think about being in school, and you [remember] your best teachers, most of the time, our favourite teachers were the ones who shared an authentic, personal moment with you. They sat kids down and said: “Man, I know this is fucking hard. 
It was hard for me. And I’m here for you.” That was an impressionable moment where they shared something beyond the hierarchical understanding of education. 
A good teacher is willing to bring lived experience into the classroom. Does that provide risk? 
Of course it does. But that’s the risk that comes with caring about the next generation. There’s risk because we have investment in it. 
We care. And with care comes risk. The conversation, for me, is not to avoid that, and rather, to learn how to protect ourselves and our students in the process. So when it comes to mentoring poets, it’s an intuitive thing. You’re [part of] the relationship, but not trying to impose your own growth or your own story. Instead, you’re trying to equip them with the tools they need to navigate their own growth. 
Sometimes that does come from sharing, “This is what I did, this is what worked, and this is what didn’t.” You have to trust that you’re guiding them toward becoming someone who can use their own discernment. Maybe there’s ego involved, and if there is, check yourself. I’ve made mistakes, too, but much like the conversation we had around grief, the goal for me is never to separate or create lines between people, but rather, to equip folks with better tools to go on this journey together, side by side. 



MB: I love that. And because we’ve been talking so much about grief: If anything to bring into those spaces together, it’s that. To have grief be a part of the journey for both mentor and mentee is [beautiful]—it’s one of the most universal, if not the most universal human experience. It’s something we will all feel in our lives, no matter what it’s connected to.


PDB: Exactly. 
The idea is not to ask how we take ourselves out of the equation entirely. It’s more about saying, “We both share this naturally, so let me help as someone who’s maybe been through it for longer or has more life experience.” 
How can we share this in a healthy way? 


MB: Yeah. And I don't think there’s a perfect answer. 


PDB: That’s what makes it great: It’s not perfect. 
I don’t want to see my mentor as a perfect person. That doesn’t help me learn from them. 
I want to see them in moments of brokenness and vulnerability. That makes me feel that it’s okay for me to go through it too. Mentors don’t have it all figured out. That’s such a lie.


MB: It really is. It reminds me of the moment you realize a parent or a teacher is another human—that they’re not on a pedestal where they don’t struggle with things. And that’s healing. 



Photo by Herman Custodio 
Photo by Herman Custodio 

On How Grief Makes Us Feel Alive


PDB: It’s an epiphany. 


MB: Yeah. It’s a beautiful exchange. Especially with grief, and especially right now, because of the way that everybody’s grieving—personally, globally, and collectively. It’s vital to acknowledge it because, in a strange way, grief makes us feel alive.


PDB: 
100%. You know, I don’t think I’ve ever said it in this way. 
And I don’t know if I’m going to get it right, but I do think that over the past five years, there have been moments where I’ve never felt more alive than after going through this intense grief. 


MB: Yes. And leaning into this idea that grief makes us feel alive, I wanted to ask you about your spoken word poem, “Butterfly Knife” from In Between the Lines. I wondered if grief always comes in twos—there’s always the griever and the grieved. Maybe there’s a kind of carrying that happens there. But then, I noticed there are actually two butterfly knives in the image for the track. We started our conversation with butterflies, which symbolize growth and rebirth. So I’m curious what the process of putting that poem together was like, considering how all of these things are related?


PDB: Yeah. It’s everything we've talked about: This practice of carrying multiple things at once in a world where we want something so packaged and easily understood. I think of the workshops I do with grief, and this journey toward understanding that we can hold all aspects of grief at the same time. And “Butterfly Knife” is that, too. It’s the hurting and the healing. The joy and the grief, the gratitude and the grief. A lot of my work is constantly asking: What about this, and this, and this, and this, and this? Can this all be at the same time? And I get how that can be hard to understand and hold, but it’s such a liberating feeling when you realize that we can—that we’re able to. Once we do, we can see love and care in their most human forms, and the world gets better. 
I really do [believe that]. 


On Specific Projects & What’s Next


MB: Agreed. I was definitely a better person after reading/listening to that poem. Thank you. And I suppose the very last thing I wanted to give you space to talk about is a few specific projects you’re working on: Empty Spaces, The Rebel House, and Youth Poetry Slam.


PDB: It’s impossible for a full departure from the themes we’ve been talking about, but yes: 


Empty Spaces is a grief writing workshop series. I’ll run it again in the fall, and it’s funded by the Toronto Arts Council. 
It’s another beautiful byproduct of my own personal experiences with grief, and how I’ve been opening up to the community to help people use storytelling as a tool to explore their own grief. I’ve run it a few times now, and it’s been amazing. As someone who does grief counselling, too, it’s another level of healing when you get to witness other people’s grief consistently, and then watch them alchemize it into art or storytelling. If I could spend the rest of my life doing that, I would.


The Rebel House is my residency where, as a commentary on the oppressive, destructive history of museums, I like to reactivate and sometimes reclaim the space by introducing stories by folks who are often in the margins, or are racialized storytellers. That manifests as showcases, workshops, and other pieces in the museum and around the museum space. 
That’s happening now into next month, and into the fall as well with some dinner shows. 


Finally, the Toronto Youth Poetry Slam. It’s another platform I’ve been running for years, where young poets like me look for a place to say something—a place for others to witness their stories. We just had our festival a couple of weeks ago, and it was awesome: 200 people from across the city came to support youth sharing poetry. They’re so talented. We’ll be back again in September. 


As an adult, I know what I needed when I was younger. Now, I’m part of a team of awesome people who are going through these same realizations, creating platforms for other young people to have that opportunity. 


MB: Oh, I love that. And as you were talking, I thought of something we briefly touched on earlier: How important it is to document our lives and help others document their lives, whether that’s through poetry or archival work (such as in the museum), and especially for immigrant communities and people whose voices aren’t heard. That is grief work. I love how all of [your projects] intersect, and the role that you have as both a creator and a guide for how to approach grief from different angles.


PDB: That was a great way to tie this conversation together with a ribbon. Thanks a lot for doing this.


MB: Of course. 

About Patrick de Belen

Photo by Cameron Peters
Photo by Cameron Peters

Patrick de Belen is a Toronto-based Filipino-Canadian storyteller, arts educator, spoken word poet, writer, and filmmaker. His work—spanning poetry, film, and multidisciplinary projects—delves into themes of mental health, Filipino identity, liberation, community, grief, and healing.


Renowned for his poetic collaborations with the Toronto Raptors, the NFL, CBC, and more, Patrick has released two spoken word EPs and written/directed multiple cine-poems. He made history as the youngest poet to win a national poetry slam championship and has been honored with both the Canadian Poet of Honour and Youth Poet of Honour titles, along with several other storytelling accolades. Over the years, he has shared the stage with artists like The Roots, Shane Koyczan, and The Halluci Nation.


His short documentary, Tell Me A Story About Someone You Miss, was a finalist in the 2023 TVO Short Doc Competition, and he is currently in post-production for his debut feature documentary, Last Note—the recipient of the inaugural Kalabaw Bursary from the Reel Asian Film Festival.


Beyond his artistic work, Patrick is a dedicated educator and community builder, collaborating with schools, libraries, non-profits, addiction centers, jails, and mental health organizations to champion diverse storytelling and create space for voices often unheard. 


by Sylphia Basak for The 44 North, Contributing Writer - Politics



Editor's Note:


The following article reflects the views & analysis of the author. As with all opinion and essay submissions, the piece has been edited for clarity and reviewed carefully for factual accuracy, but the interpretations & arguments are the author’s own. The 44 North publishes an array of perspectives & voices to encourage and ensure thoughtful engagement with complex social, political, historical, and cultural issues.


"And perhaps the microcosm of FIFA acts as a stand-in for the political climate, where we're still rooting for the underdog to win against evil, against the impossible odds."

To so many around the world, the beauty of football (soccer) is its democracy. From the grass fields of England to the barrios of Brazil and the sandy back alleys of Morocco, the simplicity in its setup—a ball, an open patch of land, and two markers for goals—allows it to be a meritocratic sport where anyone can find themselves on the world’s stage, regardless of country, race, or class. Seemingly, the only prerequisites are hard work and perhaps a touch of talent. The unparalleled accessibility for both players and spectators has arguably made soccer one of, if not the, most universal sports, gathering billions of players and adoring fans in parks and stadiums across the globe. At the peak of FIFA 2026, there’s an undeniable sense of unity and community ritual as bars draw crowds that spill onto the street. Everyone seems to be in a flurry of doom and uncertainty: For a few months, they believe that their team—and by extension themselves, the underdog—can win in a world that feels like a magnet for loss.  


But how does that cultural and democratic ideal hold up within the institution of the sport?


FIFA, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, has served as the global governing body for football since 1904. As described by one Reddit user, FIFA is essentially “the UN of football”—a unifying council designed for nations to confer with one another beyond the nitty-gritty of bi-partisan politics. 


FIFA’s statutes explicitly state that the soccer governing body must remain “neutral in matters of politics and religion.” However, the 2026 World Cup series has proven itself inseparable from the social, political, and literal climate it’s operating under. 

 

After Iran’s elimination from the first round of 48 countries, many have called out the treatment of the team, alleging that certain matches were rigged in order to eliminate them from the playoffs. Further, they’ve pointed out biased questions from the press and the circumstances within which they were allowed to play in the United States.


Several countries, including Iran, struggled to obtain the necessary visas to attend matches, both spectators and teams alike. 


“We can’t wait to welcome soccer fans from all over the globe,” the U.S. State Department’s website reads, quoting President Donald Trump. However, the White House's rules on who can enter the country vary widely depending on the travellers’ country of origin. At least four competing countries—Haiti, Iran, the Ivory Coast, and Senegal—are subject to a full travel ban (which affects tourists but not players), and a handful of others must undergo heightened screening to enter the country (Council of Foreign Relations).


The compromise for the Iranian team was for them to stay in Tijuana, Mexico, while competing in their matches on U.S. soil. This meant a four-hour flight and TSA security protocol between each game, leaving them exhausted and lacking the presumably crucial rest and practice between matches. Despite this, Iran never lost a game. Having tied each, they were eliminated by the Algeria and Austria draw, which theorists on X point to being fixed. In the same vein, Muslim spectators in America were harassed and assaulted, including women having their hijabs torn off, according to Novara Media.


Following the matches, press conferences also seemed to veer into politics for players and coaching staff of the Global South. Such was the case when a reporter asked the Iranian captain directly about their views on LGBTQ+ rights (a tactic known as ‘pinkwashing,’ wherein queer or women’s rights and lack thereof are used to propagate Western hegemony and justify foreign intervention in the Global South). The assumption—that many speculate the (American) reporter was making by asking the Iranian captain his views on LGBTQ+ rights—was that he would provide an incendiary (negative) opinion which could then be used to delegitimize a favourable view of Iran or the Iranian people, while the American team, and by extension, America, would be positioned as the morally superior of the two nations. The Iranian captain gave a heartwarming response regarding his and his team’s acceptance of all, alongside a reminder of why they were there: To play football. While reassuring to hear the Iranian teams’ welcoming attitudes toward Queer people, many have rightfully pointed out the blatant double standard in this line of questioning;


Not only is this line of questioning a violation of FIFA’s “apolitical” policy, but an argument could be made that it should be extended to all nations, including and perhaps especially America, as one of this year’s FIFA hosts. Why should one team be questioned on the state of human rights in their country while the American team hasn’t been questioned about their views on the Trump administration’s deployment of ICE in civilian communities, alongside its rollbacks on LGBTQ+ rights and protections?


Of course, the FIFA World Cup is unfolding amid the US/Israeli war on Iran, as well as Israel’s continued genocide and ethnic cleansing campaigns in Palestine and Lebanon, largely funded by the United States. America was still allowed to host, and Israel, though not securing a playoff spot, was still allowed into FIFA stadiums, while the Russian team has been banned since 2022, citing Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s war crimes in Ukraine. Despite arrest warrants via the International Criminal Court (ICC) for both Putin and Israel’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, only one nation remains banned from FIFA. 


In the wake of Cape Verde and Egypt’s losses against Argentina, discourse has arisen online regarding seemingly biased treatment toward the Argentinian team, resulting in a deliberate reconfiguring of rules to give them an advantage on the field. In a video circulating online, there appear to be multiple instances of the Argentinian team flouting rules and injuring their opponents, which were ignored by the referee. There have been extensive efforts to remove this video from social media, which has been cited as further evidence of more institutional bias.


Legacy news outlets such as BBC and TSN have reported these losses as “bad luck,” however, to many, it has become increasingly hard to ignore the glaring disparities in how certain teams have been treated, and the deliberate-seeming attempts at ensuring Africa and West Asia didn’t have a chance at playing in the finals, regardless of talent. 


Even before entering the field, Haiti had also experienced discrimination; FIFA banned their initial jersey design, citing their increasingly selective “political” label. While FIFA didn't elaborate on which components of the jersey were deemed problematic, the issue almost certainly stemmed from the small image of a group of people holding the Haitian flag that appeared on the right hip of the jersey. A spokesperson for the team confirmed an image depicting the Battle of Vertières and independence heroes raising the Haitian flag, commemorating the Haitian revolt against slavery, apparently “too political” for FIFA (The Conversation). 


Via ESPN
Via ESPN

This year’s FIFA World Cup, more so than other years in recent memory, has put on the global stage the financial and social disparities between European and North American teams and teams from the Global South. Undoubtedly, the significant sponsorships that Western teams are often more privy to greatly support their athletic performance. Coupled with likely favour from FIFA, it has become clear to many that not all nations are given the same starting line, and that this may be more deliberate than we as spectators have been led to believe. The Global South is once again in a position of playing socioeconomic matches before they even step on tournament turf, while Western teams are not only uplifted by sponsorships but, alongside their fans, act as though their success rate is a matter of talent, meritocracy, and superiority. As one X user says; 


FIFA, like all global institutions, cannot be exempt from the climate in which they exist. Apoliticism in the context of active genocides amounts to tone-deaf complicity and ignorance, and it becomes particularly insidious when covert colonial ideology seeps into institutions like FIFA via their treatment of people who fall outside of Western hegemony. 


As spectators, we must reckon with yet another form of reappropriating liberal ideals of diversity and unity to essentially minimize and obfuscate the current reality of imperialism manifesting itself, even within the game. 


So who gets to be a champion?


Such is the ask of any institution under capitalism. The essence of sport and art—and why we feel drawn to watching the greats and rooting for unexpected underdogs—is degraded when they’re married to systems rooted in the oppression of others. Ultimately, there’s no way for those systems to avoid absorbing the manifestations of colonialism, racism, sexism, etc., because these are the foundations on which many institutions—even beloved cultural icons such as FIFA—have been built upon. Diversity within these structures can then easily become another form of tokenism. Despite this, the talent of athletes in the global south shines through and holds its own against bias from the top down. And perhaps the microcosm of FIFA acts as a stand-in for the political climate, where we're still rooting for the underdog to win against evil, against the impossible odds. 


Sylphia Basak is a journalist/writer and activist who uses a variety of mediums to convey the story she wants to tell. Her work prioritizes a decolonial lens, and seeks to counteract and analyze Western media and culture as a way of highlighting the primary contradictions of the current political climate.


by Catherine Mwitta for The 44 North, Contributing Writer - Politics


An artistic rendering of immigration via figurines walking across stamped passports while pushing suitcase trolleys.
An artistic rendering of immigration via figurines walking across stamped passports while pushing suitcase trolleys.

Editor's Note:


The following article reflects the views & analysis of the author. As with all opinion and essay submissions, the piece has been edited for clarity and reviewed carefully for factual accuracy, but the interpretations & arguments are the author’s own. The 44 North publishes an array of perspectives & voices to encourage and ensure thoughtful engagement with complex social, political, historical, and cultural issues.


As Canada faces a cost-of-living crisis, politicians are reviving a long history of blaming newcomers—this time, targeting international students. 


In 1869, the Canadian Immigration Act discriminated against immigrants on the grounds of class and disability. The federal government enacted further measures to restrict Chinese immigration, including a head tax and the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923. Additional racial and national restrictions were introduced after the First World War: Under a revised Immigration Act in 1919, the government excluded specific groups from entering the country, including Communists, Mennonites, Doukhobors, and other groups with particular religious practices, such as Judaism, as well as nationalities whose countries had fought against Canada during the First World War, such as Austrians, Hungarians, and Turks. 


Via The Canadian Encyclopedia: Southeast Asian refugees at CFB Griesbach Military Base in Edmonton, August 1979. Photo: © Murray Mosher. Courtesy of The Canadian Immigration Historical Society.
Via The Canadian Encyclopedia: Southeast Asian refugees at CFB Griesbach Military Base in Edmonton, August 1979. Photo: © Murray Mosher. Courtesy of The Canadian Immigration Historical Society.

Until 1976, it seemed immigration in Canada was largely an “open door” policy privileging whiteness and interest in Western Canada settlement. Changes to prior immigration policies occurred to address severe labour market shortages and adjust to shifting global demographics. As Canada’s economic goals expanded, immigration policy evolved to include multicultural policy embedded in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 and again in 1988 via the Canadian Multicultural Act. Both have promoted economic growth by increasing the labour supply while promising strong human rights and safety guarantees for newcomers from diverse backgrounds. Over time, the demographics of immigrants arriving in Canada shifted from largely British and Western European to Asian (Indian, Filipino, Chinese).


Over thirty-five years later, 2024 saw the highest levels of immigration in over a decade. 483,390 new permanent residents arrived in Canada, and approximately 292,970 new international students received permits. At the same time, housing and healthcare issues within the country came to a head. 


Long wait times in hospital emergency rooms and the shortage of family doctors are among the many issues the Canadian healthcare system faces, which have led to worsening patient outcomes. Similarly, rent prices in Canada rose 5.9 percent in 2024 compared to 2023. The Toronto metropolitan area, in particular, saw an overall 5.1 percent increase in rent for two-bedroom units, from $2,560 in the first quarter of 2019 to $2,690 in the first quarter of 2025. 


Canadians have raised concerns about the cost of living and quality of life with their members of parliament. During Canada’s last federal election and in its wake, both Conservative and Liberal politicians have used these pain points as campaign guideposts. This isn’t unusual, but something is different this time: Several mostly Conservative leaders and MPs have positioned international students as the main reason for their concerns. 


Immigration Minister Marc Miller and Ontario Premier Doug Ford have both placed blame for the rapid growth in international student enrollment on private colleges, with the federal Liberal Party going so far as to announce a cap on international student enrollment from 2025 to 2027. Further, according to the Centre of Excellence of the Canadian Federation, there has been a sharp rise in anti-immigration sentiment across all age groups in Canada. Online rhetoric, such as from notable TikTokers, is stoking anti-immigrant views. 


The Eye Opener, a Toronto Metropolitan University Newspaper, interviewed South Asian international students about the rise of xenophobia in Canada. Aasim Ul Haq Khwaja, a second-year business technology management student, said the first thing his family asks him when they call is whether he feels safe. Priyanka Prakash, a third-year food and nutrition student, and Harshi Shah, another third-year nutrition and food student, both said phone calls back home predominantly consist of family members asking about their safety in Toronto. 


Between 2020 and 2023, police in the Waterloo region logged 387 race-based hate crimes, with a significant increase in incidents targeting South Asians as international student numbers simultaneously surged. In 2023 alone, South Asians accounted for one in six reported race-based hate crimes, up from one in ten the previous year. Most of these crimes involved threats or graffiti, but 12 percent escalated to physical assault.


Via Waterloo Regional Police Service
Via Waterloo Regional Police Service

Meanwhile, in Ontario—the province with the second-highest cost of living—the Conservative Party plans to remove rent control, has expanded funding for private clinics to 300 times that of public hospitals, and has changed OSAP policies in favour of loans rather than grants, reducing post-secondary affordability. Politicians and government officials have yet to take accountability here. Hypothetically, if the influx of international students and immigrants is too great for our healthcare, living, and education systems, then there’s still a vital distinction to make: This is most likely a government policy failure, not necessarily the fault of international students and immigrants.


Whenever a country faces systemic failures, it’s easy to use immigrants as a tool to either bolster the economy or excuse governmental failures. Canada is no different, despite the “goodwill” pedestal it tends to stand on, courtesy of its proximity to the more overt anti-immigration practices in the US. International students have long been used as “cash cows” for underfunded public and private universities and colleges, especially in Ontario. They’ve worked jobs no one else wanted, particularly under-the-table jobs, which frequently resulted in unfair treatment and abuse in the workplace. Yet, amid rising housing prices and the cost of living rising exponentially each year, politicians seem more desperate, and therefore, more apt to use international students as scapegoats instead of repealing harmful policies. 


Currently, the federal government is looking to launch a new cap on international students by 2027. These sentiments were reinforced by King Charles and Prime Minister Mark Carney. As Canada continues to dismiss or ignore systemic issues within its society, the blame is bound to shift to another. 

Catherine Mwitta has a bachelor’s in creative writing from Kwantlen Polytechnic University and a certification in Journalism from Langara College. She is an editor at Augur Magazine and INKspire. Likewise, bylines at Stir Vancouver, SAD Mag, This Magazine, C Magazine and Bluffs Monitor.


bottom of page