Can I speak to you?

By Maria Assaf

Imagine being invited to a cocktail party and at the moment the host is saluting all attendees, he deliberately passes you by as if you were invisible.

News outlets such as the Toronto Star and NOW Magazine know the feeling. They have been snubbed by Mayor Rob Ford since even before he was elected.

Media organizations are politicians’ link to the public. When it comes to city affairs, according to the Canadian constitution, every news organization has equal right to access information and ask politicians questions of behalf of the public.

Yet, some politicians are selecting which news outlets they speak to. At some instances, municipal politicians in Ontario have begun blasting local dailies for filling Freedom of Information requests.

Law graduate and former CBC reporter Lisa Taylor said, “These politicians seem to get hung up on the idea that they are not talking to the media, as if talking to the media, like an individual reporter is the entity.”

“They forget that the media is just the conduit for them to talk to the people. And the people are the ones who elected them and are the ones who pay their salaries. I am surprised there’s a public tolerance to it.”
The Toronto Star has not been silent about Ford’s approach to certain journalists.

The paper’s editor Michael Cooke said, “It’s a little short-sighted. I think it’s silly. [Ford] has a duty to speak to the citizens on the town and the best way to do that is to speak to the biggest newspaper of the town.”

Some news releases come from the mayor’s office. These arrive at news outlets on Ford’s list, but the Toronto Star, among others, is not included.

David Nickle, the City Hall Press Gallery’s president, stressed concern about this in a letter to the mayor reminding him that “boycotting, spurning or sidelining any media outlet or journalist by restricting the flow of official information is an abuse of power.”

The Toronto Star has had to rely on creative ways to acquire information Ford does not provide, said Robyn Doolittle, a City Hall reporter for the Star.

“This happens to every journalist, every day. Journalists are always trying to get information and we always have trouble finding it. Part of (finding it) is that we file a lot of FOI requests,” said Doolittle.

“I think it’s a joke and the only people that might suffer are readers who would be interested in knowing what goes on,” says Bert Bruser, the Star’s lawyer.

In general, Ford is not the most talkative host. He does not hold media scrums and when he rarely holds a news conference he limits questions to three. He doesn’t publish daily itineraries, though the Toronto Star has obtained them through filing a Freedom of Information request.

Doolittle uses alternative sources such as lawyers to tell Ford’s side of the story. “It’s just a different way of doing our job but it doesn’t stop us from doing it.”

Councilor Doug Ford, the mayor’s brother and one of his closest advisers, made news recently when he ripped the Toronto Star for filling what he thought were too many FOI requests.

Former Mayor David Miller didn’t speak to Sue-Ann Levy, the Toronto Sun’s City Hall columnist and a sharp critic of his. “Now that it’s the Star and big-fat Rob Ford is mad at them then it’s pretty powerful. But when it’s David Miller, the darling of the liberal set in Toronto and he’s not speaking to a very harsh critic from the Sun, people say, ‘Oh that’s his way. Maybe he’s right,’ ” said National Post writer Christie Blatchford.

Ford shut out the Toronto Star after an article it published last summer about him being forced out as a volunteer football coach at a Toronto high school. He sued the paper for libel but has not followed-up on it.
“We are not asking for him to talk to us. It’s his choice. We wish he would, and we think it would be good for everybody if he would,” said Graham Parley, the Toronto Star’s city editor. “But we are not going to print a front-page apology for a story that is correct.”

There’s no easy way through the icy relationship between Ford and the media.

When Ford was called for comment on this article, Adrienne Batra, his chief spokesperson, said, “The mayor is not available for these issues. Ever.”

Canadians held at gunpoint by Israeli Defence Force after attempting to break Gaza blockade

By Anastasiya Komkova

In early November, 27 activists generated attention through international media outlets by launching a campaign called Freedom Waves, which opposes what they believe is an illegal blockade of the Gaza strip. The blockade of Gaza was set up by Israel and Egypt in June 2007 after Hamas was elected to govern Gaza.

This blockade is one of the many aspects that mark the ongoing and complex dispute between Israel and Palestine, and is often responsible for worldwide tumult and meddling. It was once again brought to international attention the a Canadian ship named Tahrir, accompanied by an Irish ship named Saoirse through the Freedom Waves campaign, set sail in an attempt to break the Gaza sea blockade. This was another in a series of attempts of human rights agencies funded from other countries to break the Gaza blockade through flotillas.

The activists argue that the blockade is a suppression of the Palestinian people since it damages their economy, doesn’t allow Palestinians to enter or leave, and permits only a minimum of supplies to be let in under Israeli inspection. They believe that the Israelis have trapped the Palestinians in a veritable cage.

The two ships left the port of Turkey on Nov. 2 with $30,000 worth of medical aid for the people of Gaza. Two days later, they were intercepted by three Israeli Defense Force (IDF) war ships, 50 miles off shore in international waters.

Kit Kittredge, one of the activists on board the Tahrir, wrote about her experience in the Dissident Voice newsletter. Kittredge said the IDF told them to change their course to Ashdod, a port in Israel, to have the ships searched. They refused, saying that the blockade was illegal.

The IDF surrounded them and climbed on board after spraying them with water cannons. Kittredge wrote that the 25 commandos sat them down and tasered one of the people aboard the ship. The IDF searched them, took away all of their technological devices and insisted that their hands be visible at all times.

They were held at gunpoint for three hours before reaching Ashdod, where they were strip-searched and handled by the Israeli Immigration and Deportation office. Kittredge was told that if she signed a paper stating that she entered Israel illegally, she would be deported the next day. She refused, spent three days in Givon Prison and was deported on Nov. 8.

This flotilla attempt to break Israel’s blockade was not the first. In May 2010, six ships on the same mission called the Gaza Freedom Flotilla were held captive by the IDF after refusing to follow the request to have the ships searched in Ashdod. Five of the six ships surrendered peacefully. On the sixth ship, called Mavi Marmara, havoc ensued when the IDF boarded it, leading to the deaths of nine activists and injuring nine soldiers. There is however, a dispute as to what exactly happened on the ship. A UN report stated that the IDF soldiers unjustly executed the passengers. A BBC documentary states that the soldiers acted in self-defense, when the activists began attacking them with knives, bars and sticks. This event caused a scandal that resulted in Israel easing the blockade.

Perhaps the aim of the activists who were responsible for the recent flotilla was to attract attention to themselves and their opinion of the blockade being illegal. If their main concern was to deliver medical aid, then they would have had their ship checked in Ashdod before proceeding to Gaza. The UN concluded that the blockade was legal in September 2011, so the activists should have taken a different route rather than once again engaging in another protest, the result of which should have been well known. Instead, they should put pressure on the UN to work out a method of having Israel allowing aid to be let through into Gaza. If the people’s well-being is their number one concern then that is what they should worry about.

After the Tahrir is stopped A day of state piracy, hijacking and kidnapping

The following 24-hour chronology was compiled by David Heap, from London, Ontario, one of the delegates on board the Canadian Boat to Gaza, The Tahrir, which set sail from Turkey at the beginning of November with the aim of penetrating the longstanding Israeli blockade around Gaza.

Friday, November 4

Approximately 8:00 a.m.
The Tahrir and the Saoirse enter Israel’s unilaterally declared 100 nautical mile military exclusion zone. We are in fact in international waters up until and after we are boarded.

12:30 p.m.
First spotted large military vessels (frigates?), one to port two to starboard.

12:30 p.m. to 13:00 p.m.
We begin to lose communications with the outside world (satellite phones blocked, also internet connection and TV transmission) and we expect the worst.

13:30 p.m.
First radio hail from the Israeli navy: Vessel Tahrir come in, this is Israeli navy. We didn’t answer at first, but eventually when asked to identify our course and destination… I respond with words I have been waiting over a year to use: Our course is the conscience of humanity. When pressed for more details, Ehab [Lotayef, Canadian] adds: Our final destination is the betterment of humankind.

14:15 p.m.
Last of the satellite phone connections is gone.

14:15 to 15:30 p.m.
Three-way radio communication between Israeli navy, Tahrir and Saoirse (the Irish Boat to Gaza). We will not give our consent to be boarded, nor will we resist.

15:30 p.m.
We observe Israeli naval vessels chase Saoirse and soak her from two sides with water cannons. Water damage causes an electrical fire on board the vessel.

15:45 p.m.
After spraying our foredecks with water cannons, heavily armed Israeli naval commandos board the Tahrir. Sprayed water creates slipping hazard for soldiers as well as for us. When Ehab and I refuse to leave our captain George alone in the wheelhouse, commando threatens — then uses — taser on my arm. Commandos take control of the Tahrir and carry out a thorough search of delegates, journalists and ship. Of course, no arms or ammunition of any kind are found (fact confirmed by commanding Israeli officer) but they nonetheless take our ship to Ashdod by force.

19:30 to 20:00 p.m.
Reach dockside at Ashdod. Five journalists leave when asked, as does George, our captain. Six delegates refuse to cooperate with our kidnapping by leaving our ship willingly. Change of uniformed personnel (IDF to police?). Karen [DeVito, Canadian] and Kit [Kittredge, U.S.] are escorted off, Ehab is pushed off, Michael [Coleman, Australia], Majd [Kayyal, Palestinian from Haifa) and I are dragged and carried off ship. One of the officers carrying me deliberately knees me in the right thigh, leaving a deep bruise that has me limping for the next two days.

20:00 to 22:00 p.m.
We are searched again dockside, and then again more thoroughly in tents inside a warehouse area. Asked to identify satellite phones, cameras and other electronics on a property table ­— we are told these items are tagged with our ID numbers and will be returned to us at the time of our deportation (in fact, we never see any of these items again). Identified as “trouble” for resisting, Michael and I are shackled and handcuffed when place on a bus, where we are joined by some of the Irish from the Saoirse.

22:00 p.m.
Taken by bus to an immigration processing centre. We are individually photographed and fingerprinted and told that if we sign a document voluntarily waiving our right to appeal our deportation before a judge, we will be deported within 24 hours. Ehab signs, the rest of us do not. Ehab signs a similar document two days later (Sunday afternoon, Nov. 6) but is not deported until Wednesday night (Nov. 9), at the same time I am. Additional security interviews seeking details of our organization make it clear our discreet departure from Turkey had taken Israeli security by surprise.

Saturday, Nov. 5

2:00 a.m.
We are again transported by bus (no shackles or cuffs this time) to Givon prison. More searches, paperwork. Last off bus and into cells at 3:30 a.m. Saturday morning.

9:30 a.m.
Consular visits and formation of political prisoners committee to press our collective demands.

Seasons greetings: the phony war on Merry Christmas

By Shannon Clarke

The only thing worse than shopping in the holiday rush, is working it.

A friend and I recently exchanged horror stories from our stints as cashiers during the holiday season. There’s always a lot of screaming, arguing, pushing and hyperactive children running around. Though shoppers are exponentially more frustrating during this time of year, they’re also full of festive cheer. “Have a nice day” is usually replaced with a seasonal greeting.

In the rush to check people out, my friend handed a customer her purchases with a smile and said “Merry Christmas,” much like I have.

“Good for you!” said the woman, “Saying Merry Christmas and not happy holidays.”
It took a moment for me to understand what made this worthy of praise.

Last year, Chilliwack, B.C. unanimously passed a motion to have the provincial school board change “winter vacation” back to “Christmas holiday.” In an interview with CTV, school board trustee Heather Maahs said of the two-week vacation, “It’s Christmas. That’s what it is so we should call it that.”

The story received support from Canadians decrying the loss of tradition to political correctness and over-zealous left-wingers who were bending to the whim of immigrants.

“Absolutely it should be called “CHRISTMAS”…Enough is enough when it comes to political correctness,” said one commenter on CTV’s website. “We celebrate Christmas here in Canada, if you don’t like the word, too bad. That’s how we roll here in Canada, deal with it!!”

The problem with this kind of argument, and so many others that claim persecution due to political correctness, is that it comes from a place of ignorance about Canada’s history, and of the privilege enjoyed by Christians in this country.

On the 2001 census, roughly 70 per cent of Canadians identified as either Roman Catholic or Protestant, but Canada is not a Christian country. Our governments and public schools are not governed by religion, and our constitution recognizes and protects freedom of religion. Despite the claims by Maahs, not every Canadian is celebrating the birth of Christ this December. Catholics and Protestants still make up a majority of this country, but according to Statistics Canada, there has been a steady rise in Eastern religions over the last decade. Add to this an increase in Canadians reporting no religious affiliation at all, and it’s no longer reasonable to claim rights to the holiday season.

The argument for protecting Canada’s religious heritage ignores that this country’s Christian and Catholic roots are a product of colonialism and aggressive assimilation. Since Europeans set foot on the continent, people have been forced to acknowledge and accept Christianity.  It makes demands to immigrants that they “go back to their country” laughable if they weren’t so misguided and presumptuous. You can, after all, be the most hockey-loving, winter-worshiping, English-speaking Canadian in the world and still celebrate Diwali, Hanukah, or Ramadan — religions equally foreign to this country as Christianity.

I was raised Anglican. December was the only time of year I saw my religion reflected outside of my home and my place of worship. Christmas parties in elementary school were complete with secret Santas, mandatory for everyone regardless of their faith. We held Christmas concerts and sang songs about the birth of Christ in our gymnasium. It never occurred to me to question the exclusivity of these activities because they were so commonplace. I assumed that outside of the school, everybody’s life was just like mine.
By the time I got to high school, “Christmas holidays” were being called “winter breaks,” and our assemblies weren’t just about Christmas. But there are still trees in every mall, lights and garland in every neighbourhood, displays in store windows of typical Christmas scenes.  The same hymns I sing in Mass are blasted out of speakers onto sidewalks.

So what traditions are being compromised when our secular government, school boards and communities acknowledge that, for millions of citizens, winter break is just a break?

In his book, The Unfinished Canadian: The People We Are, Andrew Cohen describes our “fetish with multiculturalism.” For 11 months of the year, we like to brag about our tolerance and love of other cultures. We pride ourselves on our cultural mosaic and our willingness to welcome immigrants with open arms, without discrimination or persecution.

But that means more than just pointing it out in a charter: we have to put it into practice, if only in the tiny act of expressing your wish that, for whatever reason, the holiday is a happy one.

People with disabilities unite and fight back

By Melissa Graham

The International Day of People with Disabilities (IDPD) is a day where people with disabilities across the world are encouraged to celebrate who we are, take stock of how far we’ve come, and look forward to the struggles ahead. The United Nations encourages us to use this day as an opportunity for inclusion and celebration, but also to organize and take action as we work to dismantle the barriers that keep us from full equality. Given the events of this past year, it seems appropriate that part of the theme for 2011 is “Together a better world for all.”

The UN noted that people with disabilities are largely excluded from civil and political processes and are overwhelmingly voiceless in matters that affect them and their society, but this year it seems we’ve found our voice.

In response to austerity cuts severely affecting social assistance programs in the UK, people with disabilities took to the streets in a “Hardest Hit” march. The organizers said about 5,000 people took part in the protest. Many travelled by coach and by train from as far a field as Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the south west to take part in what is being hailed as the biggest gathering of disabled people the country has ever seen.

When Occupy Wall Street began, people with disabilities were there and welcomed in to the fightback. When occupations sprung up across Canada and another 1,700 cities in solidarity with the occupations in the US, people with disabilities were both occupiers and supporters outside the camps. There is even a Facebook page dedicated to the inclusion of people with disabilities in the movement. At the Occupy Toronto site, People with disabilities were given accessible supports, such as accessible washrooms, that would ordinarily have taken months to receive in their day-to-day lives. This connection is an important one, because not only are people with disabilities part of the 99%, they are typically part of the lowest 1% of the 99%.

Here in Toronto, we were able to link the issues of the disability movement to the Occupy movement through the Toronto Disability Pride March. On October 29th, 2011, one hundred people showed up at Nathan Phillips Square, and took to the streets to march down to Occupy Toronto, carrying signs that said things like “Build Ramps, Not Bombs” and chanting “ No Cuts, No Way! Tell Rob Ford we’re here to stay!” Shortly after this march, a similar event happened at Occupy Wall Street.

Even with these great first steps, there is still much work to be done. Canadians have faced high profile disability hate crimes in the past few months. In August, a man who used a wheelchair died four days after being viciously assaulted in his Winnipeg apartment. Toronto has seen two situations involving police interaction with people with disabilities. In July, Police used handcuffs to restrain a nine-year-old disabled boy who they say “became uncontrollable” at a Toronto daycare centre. Around the same time, a man with a disability was killed during interactions with Toronto police.

Experience shows that when persons with disabilities are empowered to participate and lead the struggles for a better society, their entire community benefits, so in honour of his day, please take up the torch and get involved. Together we can build a better world

This article originally appeared in the December issue of Socialist Worker.

IslamoWhat?!

Haseena Manek

Dear Mr. Harper,

What is Islamicism?

Is there a Christianityism? Or a Judaismism? What is the difference between Islamicism and Islam?

In all my years of studying, exploring and practising my faith, surely I would have come across such a monumental distinction, or potentially relevant offshoot of what I thought was my religion.

Please Prime Minister, could you break it down for me?

See, I have a few ideas, but I’m not sure I’m on the right track. Is Islamicism like racism, but specifically against Muslims? ‘Cause that’s sure what it sounds like when you talk about it.

Or are you talking about religious fundamentalism? ‘Cause if you are, couldn’t you just say that? And if that is the case, where is the recently and specially coined term for religious fundamentalists that terrorize in the name of Christianity or Judaism or any other religion?

Why does Islam get a special term? Is it because it is so important to you, Prime Minister, to distinguish between terrorists and the rest of us? Because, you know, I think that’s kind of cool, that you would go through all that trouble to distinguish for the population that you don’t think all Muslims are a threat.

Because that would mean I’m a threat.

That would mean my parents, my grandparents, even my little cousins, are somehow threats to the country we call home, simply by virtue of our faith, the language in which we pray.

I’m sure that’s not what you meant. Because Mr. Prime Minister, if what you are really trying to say is that Islam is the threat to your oil-seeking conservative imperialist Zionist enterprise then I’m sure you would just come out and say it.

If you have the guts to justify the deaths of thousands of people every year—Palestinians, Afghans, and the Canadians that serve in your armies, surely you can admit that all of your talk of defence, security and justice is just a front for your racism, intolerance and Islamophobia.

Mr. Harper if you mean to say that every Muslim in this country is a threat to your security, your worldview and your peace of then that I dare you to come out and declare it.

Don’t add innocuous suffixes to make your words seem less hateful. Don’t make up words so you can avoid saying what your really mean.

You talk about security, but what about my security? What about protecting me from the hate-speech, the verbal violence that I have to fight every day when the topic of my religious persuasion comes up in conversation?

Then there is the physical violence, women assaulted because they are wearing hijabs, mosques vandalised, anti-Islam terrorism that goes unacknowledged.

Why is it that Norway’s recent tragedy, and attack by a white man was “out of the blue,” But “Islamic terrorism” is a constant and international threat?

Why is it that even though it has been reported that the perpetrator was actually targeting Islam and multiculturalism, his 1,500 page manifesto is being compared to “a jihadist manifesto,” a “a complete mirroring of al-Qaeda”? (Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defense College, told TIME.com. Read more here. <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084901,00.html>)
Did you know Mr. Harper, that the Prime Minister of Norway made a public address in a mosque to show support and empathy to the Norwegian Muslim community?

He reached out to the Muslim community to strengthen bonds and combat Islamophobia.

What the hell are you doing? You’re just feeding the fire with your created “isms” and your talk of terror.
You know who the real terrorists are, don’t you? Mr. Prime Minister don’t you see that by perpetuating Islamophobia, by propagating fear and hate among your citizens you are alienating a good chunk of them?
I have enough trouble justifying the fact that I am even Canadian, being a woman of colour, never mind having to defend my faith from the assumptions people are left to make after watching conservative news broadcasts with images of oppressed women and suicide bombers.

What I’d really like to ask you Mr. Harper, is when you say “Islamicism” could you just qualify who you are talking about? Either come out and say you are accusing all Muslims, from my 92-year old great-grandmother down to my future children, of being terrorists, or differentiate between religious fundamentalism and religion.

And while I have your attention, could you please not generalize, essentialize and then demonize an entire faith? Unless your goal as Prime Minister is to lead a country full of fearful, accusative and ignorant people I suggest you lead by example.

Sincerely,
Haseena Manek

Riding Out the Orange Wave

Why you should vote NDP in the provincial election

Haseena Manek

It’s that time again.

It seems like just weeks ago I was trying to decide whether or not to vote strategically the federal election or toss my vote away on the NDP, the party I actually support.

Most people that I spoke to agreed; the thing to do was talk NDP but vote Liberal (basically anything to keep the Conservatives out of power).

Jack Layton proved me wrong. He proved us all wrong by winning he official opposition position for the New Democratic Party.

He inspired hope for the future and restored some semblance of my faith in our parliamentary process. The thought of Harper having a majority didn’t seem so bad of someone like Jack Layton was around to keep him in check.

Unfortunately, just months after his historic success, the leader of the NDP left us. But as anyone who was in downtown Toronto during the week of his passing could see, the hope he instilled during his life was still in our hearts, despite his death.

Now, in the light of the upcoming provincial election, we need to capitalize on what’s left of that hope, that energy. We need to keep it alive long enough for Andrea Horwath, NDP candidate for Premier, to ride what’s left of the orange wave and let it take her straight into our provincial legislature.

If there was a time that I would believe it were possible for the NDP to become the leaders of Ontario, it would be now, in the wake of Jack Layton’s success last May.

He may not be around to physically support Horwath during her campaign, but his spirit, and the spirits he raised in generations of cynical, apathetic or disinterested voters was the greatest gift of support he could have given her.

I feel an incredible sense of urgency with this election. If Andrea Horwath wins, and does well as premier, then she will have won a monumental battle for the vaguely left on the political spectrum.

If she succeeds, then serious progress will have one foot in the door to Canadian politics, the same door that Jack Layton opened in the spring.

The NDP might have a chance to demonstrate decades of campaign promises, and show Canadians that there is more to politics than the never-ending battle between the Liberals and Conservatives.

“In this election you have a choice,” says Horwath, “you can stick with the status quo that’s just not working, or you can choose change.”

This election isn’t just about improving the circumstance of Ontario’s goods and services for the next four years, it’s about making the NDP a serious contender, and changing the way voters see Canadian political parties and the entire electoral process.

“People are thirsty for positive change,” says Horwath. And I pray she can give it to us. Now, we as voters now have our part to play. Don’t fall prey to the previous routine of underestimating the NDP and voting liberal. We’ve had Liberal, we know we don’t want Conservative, so lets give the NDP a try.

The only way this will work is if all those thousands of people that lined up for Layton’s funeral and wrote messages of love on city hall put that same faith they had in the man into his party. And in Andrea Horwath.
Jack Layton may be gone but his official opposition still remains. Hope for Canada still remains. A progressive presence in parliament still remains.

Lets give Ontario that chance.

Survival of the fittest

Kelsey Rolfe
A couple of weekends ago, when August was nearing its end and I was gearing up to go back to school, I took the train home to visit my family.

Bulky, overweight suitcase in hand, I settled into my seat on the GO Train’s accessibility coach for some much-needed slumber.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t so lucky. I have the nasty habit of getting stuck near loud, obnoxious, or in other ways irritating people while on trains.

That Friday was no exception; only two seats in front of me was a middle-aged woman who thought her opinions were so important that she needed to share them with the whole coach. Twenty minutes into the ride I’d learned which part of Barrie she lived in, the names of her two dogs, and the age of her youngest grandchild, all without having asked, much less even having spoken to her.

When we were nearing the train’s final stop, she mentioned to her companion how the train ride home was her favourite part of the day.

“It’s so relaxing to leave Toronto,” she said. “Everyone’s so mean there, and always in a rush. When I’m going home it’s like I can feel the tension just leaving my system.”

My natural response was righteous indignation — Toronto is such a nice, happy place to be, and how dare she think it’s not? — but then I stopped and considered the facts; maybe Loud Lady wasn’t so wrong after all.

When I first came to Toronto, just over a year ago, I was a timid little thing, generally afraid of crowds, and crossing at the Yonge and Dundas intersection just seemed so overwhelming to me.
I was also what I like to (not so) fondly refer to as a “Sunday walker” — the equivalent of a Sunday driver, but on foot.

Shuffling along the sidewalk, gawking at everything like a tourist, slowing other people down. Tall, serious-looking men in business suits and women in slim dresses and clickity-clack heels would skirt around my friends and I and shoot us looks that were, to understate, unappreciative.

Fast-forward a couple of months, and, without my realizing it, the city had changed me.

Maybe it was just because I frequently left myself so little time to get anywhere, because of a new reliance on the TTC, but I moved faster, slipped through crowds like a ghost (okay, now I’m just bragging), and started to feel a nagging irritation when I was stuck behind slow pedestrians or a gaggle of teenagers in the mall. (You know the ones — they come in groups of three or more, and walk in a horizontal line, thereby eradicating your ability to get around them. Oh, and they’re slower than molasses.)

After a year in the city, I will fully admit that I embody the women in the clickity-clack shoes who used to pass me by.  Now I’m the one who is making huffy noises and passing doe-eyed tourists and new-Torontonians on the street, trying my best not to turn the stink-eye on them.

My high school friends, when we’re together, complain I walk too fast, or ask me to please stop dragging them across the intersection when the walk sign is on for a four-way cross at Yonge and Dundas.

Getting caught in the Eaton Centre at peak hours is a horror show. When people wander into my path, clearly unsure of where they’re going, I have a habit of mentally muttering, “Do you know how to walk, or what?”

And heaven help the person who gets in front of me on the stairs at the GO station when I have a heavy suitcase, and decides that is the appropriate time to move slowly. If I have the ability to move faster than them while carrying a suitcase half my weight, there is a problem.

Whether we like to admit it or not, Toronto is a harried, fast-paced city; if you don’t know how to move and think quickly enough, it chews you up and spits you out.

And I firmly believe you can tell the inhabitants from the visitors if you look closely enough.

We cross the street with two seconds left on the timer, push past people to get onto a crowded subway car, and use whatever means necessary and mostly legal to get to where we’re going on time.

So, maybe the lady on the train was right. But if you can’t handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Canadian Citizenship: like a full bus

Anastasiya Komkova

Whether we are proud of it or not, no one can deny that Canada is one of the most multicultural countries in the world. It is also no secret that many immigrants live in the most metropolitan parts of Canada such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, rather than in smaller cities or towns.

A rough estimate of 250,000 people migrate to Canada every year, most of which are from the former British empire. The several different immigration categories are family reunification, entrepreneurs, people with a degree or recent work experience in Canada, provincial nominees, and skilled workers.

Skilled workers make up the majority of the immigrant population and have the most difficulty getting settled. They either possess experience in the 20 or so extremely necessary professions, or need to be invited by a Canadian employer to work here for their firm.

The problem is that the worker’s university degree means very little to politicians, policy-makers, employers and regulatory agencies. The belief of the Canadian government and other decision-makers is that Canadian education is of a higher standard compared to the rest of the word. This forces skilled workers to spend a lot of time and money trying to have their education recognized in Canada.

The most shocking moment I experienced was when I met an Indian man while performing general labour at a factory, making wine boxes. I discovered that he had a PhD in biology from a university in India and was planning on moving back.

Since he is a respected member of Indian society I understand why going back sounds like a fine idea, since staying here means everybody ridiculing his doctorate. Perhaps he was just an unlucky person, but this is not the only example of this kind of discrimination.

The people who, I feel, are in the toughest situation are foreign doctors. It is very clear that there is a shortage of doctors in Ontario.

The wait time for an appointment with a specialist is about one to three months. Nevertheless, accepting doctors from any other countries is an extremely difficult process, with some people having to repeat medical school.

I agree that someone who is foreign-trained should be competent in English, be required to take a course to integrate themselves into Canadian society and then maybe work under supervision for a little while, but is foreign education really that different?

It’s extremely unlikely.

If they are able to communicate with the patient and their colleagues, it is doubtful that they will be unable to diagnose what most of the time are very common diseases.

The immigration process consists of a points-based system in order to determine whether a particular person will be of a benefit to society. Why? So that, when that person’s education will not be taken seriously, they can become a hotdog vendor or a cab driver, instead of going into their field of expertise where they are needed?

The people with the most points will have completed their education and will have experience within their field.

It is very likely that these professionals will be coming here with their spouse and children signifying that these skilled workers won’t have endless time, money or energy to spend on starting over.

Why invite these people here if we don’t provide the opportunities for them to get a job?

Canada can be compared to a full bus, where everyone who wants to live here, is trying to squeeze into. While outside, you push your way through and ask everyone to please make room for one more.

However, when finally the magical line is crossed and you are on the bus you tell the people still pushing to stop and wait for the next bus.

Canada’s immigration policy needs to be revised so that it may better help immigrants access the Canadian workforce.

Pakistan: change begins with us

Hafsa Mulla

Constant Twitter updates via various media portals flashed before my eyes, day and night. Each scroll revealed political turmoil, injustice and destruction. And one country in particular that dominated my timeline was none other than my motherland, Pakistan, home to nearly 187 million people.

Every outbreak, every horrid update, hit a little too close to home – a 90-minute plane ride from the comfort of my suede couch in Dubai, to the horrifying reality in the city of Karachi that is overlaid with terror, bloodshed, instability and horror atrocities done in the name of God, ethnicity, political leanings and power.
As an overseas Pakistani, yielding to the temptation of an easier life, I asked myself: what have I done for my country? How have I helped my people? What contributions have I made? Besides sporadically donning a Shalwar Kameez, drinking Chai, and gloating over my father’s philanthropic involvement in attempts to resuscitate Pakistan, how have I played a part in being a devoted Pakistani?

The answer was clear as a bell – I hadn’t done my bit.  And it’s people like myself who are to blame for Zia’s Pakistan, rather than Jinnah’s Pakistan.

When Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, addressed the Central Legislative Assembly in 1935, he said,“….Religion should not be allowed to come into politics….Religion is merely a matter between man and God.” The reality, however, is far off.

Today, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq’s rigid token of religious extremism encapsulates the State and an overwhelming majority of the Pakistani population that is ignorant, radical and bent out of shape is cultivating this extreme mindset.

Poverty-stricken, misinformed youth who are denied the basic right to education are caught in the cobwebs of draconian rules and are induced into practicing a distorted and violent “Islam.”

According to Jinnah, the youth are the nation’s leaders of tomorrow, but if a staggering 54 per cent of the Pakistani population is illiterate, where is the nation headed? Is Pakistan’s future in shambles? If a 15-year-old suicide bomber can target worshippers in Jamrud mosque during Ramadan, a time of reflection and repentance for Muslims, and blow himself up, killing 55 people, then yes, Pakistan is in some serious predicament.

What we need is a progressive and tolerant Pakistan, not a theocratic State ruled by hard-line clerics who spew hate and manipulate the masses.

As Pakistanis, our patriotism shouldn’t be limited to setting a world record in singing the national anthem, speaking the language and devouring our ethnic delicacies while tragedy after tragedy continues to unfold in Pakistan. We need to go beyond that.

We must move forward and stay united. We should raise awareness and invest in Pakistan.

We can salvage the nation’s troubled economy by investing sufficiently in education and higher education in order to transform the unschooled youth into productive, worthy, principled citizens of this country. Failure to commit and support is not an option.

Pakistan has many peaks to conquer.

This rocky road ahead may seem long and strenuous, but steps must be taken to work towards betterment, because with cooperation and unity among Pakistani citizens, the nation’s fate can be altered – one that shows willingness to succeed and allows the existence of opinions and beliefs.

Next Page »