10 Reasons why we’ll miss Rick Santorum

Joseph Lee

Rick Santorum was a presidential candidate who actually believed his own campaign’s rhetoric, which means he was an awful politician. Santorum was the kind of guy who knew his talking points and stuck to them. He was the sweater vest of American politics: bland, shapeless, and in dire need of sleeves. Sadly, he at least had a modicum of conservatism, unlike the winner of the Republican presidential primary, Mr. We-Share-Humorous-Type-Things-At-Our-Dinner-Events Romney. Romney is like sliced white bread, if it was dipped in mayonnaise and thrown in a vat of white glue. Even worse, his positions on key issues change more often than Lady Gaga’s outfits at an awards show.

Needless to say, Rick Santorum was perhaps the only viable, truly conservative presidential candidate in the Republican primary. Michelle Bachmann could have been one had she not been clearly insane, and Herman Cain could also have qualified, had he been more qualified.

But alas, it’s all over now, as Santorum is officially out of the race, and Mitt Romney is the last man standing. In honour of his time on the campaign trail, here’s ten reasons why we’ll miss Rick Santorum:

1 He may have seemed as boring as Mitt Romney (or RomneyBot) but he really wasn’t. He has family in Italy who are —gasp—Communists. I bet that beats Barack Obama and his madrasas in Indonesia anytime.

2 He’s the perfect Catholic. The U.S. didn’t have a Catholic president until JFK, and we all know how that turned out. Also, he has the perfect Catholic family. I mean, with eight children, I don’t know how he pays for the healthcare. (As long as the government doesn’t do it, who cares?)

3 Once, on the campaign trail, he called bullshit on a New York Times reporter for asking him if it was true that he said Mitt Romney was the worst Republican in the country. This was right after a speech several days before where he called Mitt Romney the worst possible Republican presidential candidate in the country. It sure doesn’t beat strangling someone a la Chrétien, but you know, Americans can only wish their politics were as interesting as ours. But the fact that he called out a reporter, that takes guts man, guts.

4 Now there’s no one to tell little boys they can’t bowl with pink bowling balls. While Romney is anti-gay now, it was a completely different story when he was governor of Massachusetts, so you never know. If Romney tests a new position on gay rights, and it turns out that more Republicans support it than oppose it, who’s going to be the anti-gay candidate in the election?

5 Santorum isn’t a Mormon. Now don’t get me wrong, Mormonism’s a perfectly acceptable faith, it even has its own musical. But as the leader of a party where Evangelical Christians are the most solid base of support, Romney’s going to have a lot of trouble convincing those folks, who by the way, don’t believe Mormons are Christians, that he’s not going to have them digging in their backyards for golden plates any time soon.

6 There isn’t going to be anyone waging a war on porn. We all know pornography is a scourge upon this world, but Santorum was the only one brave enough to stand up against all those twelve year old boys with sticky laptops and tell them that it’s time for a change.

7 Romney is a snob who went to university. It’s common knowledge that universities are places of liberal indoctrination. Who’s to say Romney isn’t a liberal sleeper agent just waiting to be activated? Now, Santorum may have went to three post-secondary institutions, but we all know he had enough moral fiber to withstand the liberal brainwashing, which is more than can be said for the majority of American youth.

8 Google “Santorum.” NSFW. Thank me later.

9 He hated libertarians. As awful as social conservatives are, they hold no candle to libertarians. Libertarians are like anarchists who happen to be members of the NRA. Ron Paul was great in that he was anti-war, but awful in that he came across as pro-heroin. Santorum recognized a dangerous, possibly extremist faction in his own party and vowed to combat it. Guts.

10 I may say a lot of outrageous things about conservatives, but I really do respect a person who holds true to their beliefs. In a sea of manufactured personalities, Santorum came across as genuine. As much as I disagree with his politics, and oh, how I disagree with all of them, I have to respect the man for at least putting his money where his mouth is and running on his beliefs. Hypocrites are a dime a dozen, but true-blue conservatives are hard to find.

Finally, let’s all give our condolences to Miss Congeniality, Newt Gingrich, who has finally accepted defeat and dropped out of the Republican primary. Let’s hope the trauma of losing doesn’t make him cheat on Callista.

F-35s and government lies: the Peter McKay story

Joseph Lee

For all the budgetary issues this country has, Canada can add one more to the ever-mounting list. The F-35 Lightning fighter, a fighter jet, is a multinational project that has been in development for a few years now. Initially, Canada signed on to purchase the jets along with the United States, Australia, Japan, Israel, and others. The idea was to spread the costs of the project over all of the nations which bought into it, so that the initial costs would go down. It was kind of like a Groupon discount.

The problem was that we signed on to the project while it was still in its development stages, so, as you know, costs are likely to go up, especially if the product in question is some sort of crazy war machine with a bunch of super-sophisticated bits and bobs.

So now the Canadian people have found out, through the Auditor General, that the cost of these jets is not $9 billion, which was the initial price we were told, or even $14.7 billion, which was the second price announced by the Defence Department. The cost is actually $24.7 billion. That’s a $10 billion discrepancy from the second announced price.

How does a government so enamored by their reputation as fiscally conservative deal with a discrepancy so huge? Well, first, they try to hide it. When that doesn’t work, there’s always the suppression of debate, and then the censorship of those who testify in front of committee.

It’s hard to say which is worse: that the Conservative government didn’t simply own up to the total cost of the program; or that they attempted to cover it up for such a long time. If this information had been revealed prior to the 2011 federal elections, we might be looking at a very different political landscape in Canada.

So who’s to blame?

Well, no one and everyone. Apparently, the good folks over at the Defence Department already knew about the pricing discrepancy, and the Right Honourable Minister of Defence, Peter McKay already knew about the (very generous) rounding down of the price of the jets. The fact that it took a report from the Auditor General to inform the Canadian public of this error is a shaming indictment of the transparency of the current Canadian government.

How are we expected to trust a government that not only actively lies to the Canadian people, but does not see it necessary to have a certain amount of fiscal responsibility in a time where the majority of Canadian people are having trouble paying their bills, much less footing the bill for fighter jets that we may never have to use in a combat situation?

The truth is, we really can’t trust this government. More to the point, we really can’t trust our Minister of Defence, you know, the guy in charge of defending the country from foreign threats. Hell, if you can’t trust that guy, I’m not sure you can trust anybody.

Peter McKay’s not a bad guy. I mean, I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion that he’s only able to get plum cabinet gigs because of his dashing looks and minor celebrity status, but so far, he’s been relatively competent.

He hasn’t been at the centre of as many controversies as the current President of the Treasury Board, Tony Clement, and he didn’t leave classified government documents at a TV station like our current Minister of Labour and union-bashing expert, Lisa Raitt, but as you can see, short of throwing a tantrum at an airport and being married to Rahim Jaffer, there’s really no way to get kicked out of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Should Peter McKay lose his job over the F-35 scandal? Definitely. Will he? It’s highly unlikely. He was the leader of the federal Progressive Conservatives for a good four months, and he’s one of Stephen Harper’s handful of trusty lieutenants, so it’s more than likely that he’s not even going to get so much as a slap on the wrist for his extremely unprofessional and duplicitous conduct.

These are strange times we live in. We all know that politicians lie, but $10 billion is a lot of money, and we’re seeing our government disregard figures as large as this for the sake of complying with our NATO allies. We all have to ask the question: is fighting wars more important to this government than the economic well-being of the people of Canada? If it is, we have to seriously rethink the mandate we gave them in 2011.

The ten commandments of online dating

Kelsey Rolfe

A good friend of mine has always been much more interested in my romantic endeavors, or lack thereof, than I am. She suggested that I sign up for online dating, just for the fun of it. “At the very least,” she said, “you’ll get some funny messages.” After some cajoling, I decided to give it a try.

I’m no expert on dating online, but after a month of being online, as well as hearing friends’ online dating horror stories, I think I have a good handle on what work—and what doesn’t. There’s no shame in dating online, but you have to be smart about it. Take note of these cardinal sins, or else you may find yourself with very few quality responses.

1 “Hi how r u” is not a legitimate conversation starter: It might be in real life, but not as an opening line (especially not if it’s spelled that incorrectly). It’s boring and lacks creativity. The aim of the game is to show the other person you actually took the time to read something about her. Find an interest that sticks out to you, and ask about it.

2 Generic messages are a dead give-away: If you write the same thing to every girl, believe me, it’s obvious. It only takes you a couple of minutes to read the profile of a girl you’re interested in, and a couple more to think of something creative to say. Don’t be lazy.

3 Don’t word-vomit: Keep your opening messages under a paragraph—which is three or four sentences maximum, and that’s being generous. Looking at a wall of text is frightening for most people, especially when they don’t know the sender. And the longer you ramble, the more prone you are to devolving into nonsense. In online dating, as in show business, always leave them wanting more.

4 Ask her about herself: It’s not that she isn’t interested in you. But opening with a paragraph about how awesome you are just isn’t going to get a response, because it sounds narcissistic. Attaching one line to that paragraph that asks her about herself isn’t much better.

5 Backwards compliments will get you nowhere: A “neg” is an insult wrapped in a compliment. Some guys use them as opening lines, in the hopes of catching a girl’s attention. (Like saying, “I don’t usually go for nerds, but you’re cute so it’s okay.”) Be better than that guy.

6 Avoid the ab-shot at all costs: Taking a picture in the mirror of your abdominals is not the best choice here. It’s the equivalent of when 13-year-old girls make the duck-face. I’m so happy that you have a six-pack. But you are more than your abs. Let your picture showcase that.

7 Speaking of pictures, don’t use one of you and your last girlfriend: If that’s the only picture you have of yourself, take a new one. Please.

8 Don’t send photos of your peen to unsuspecting women: Give the poor woman some warning before you unleash the Kraken. Or, better yet, save it for Chatroulette.

9 You’re means you are. Your means your: And yes, it is important. Your sentences take on different meanings if you mess this one up. Same goes for other oft-confused words, such as they’re/their/there and its/it’s. Don’t be ashamed if you don’t know the difference; just Google it before you send the message.

10 Give your messages a cursory edit: A grammatically and syntactically correct message, with proper spelling, shows her you care. And, as an added bonus, you look 30 per cent smarter.

Just take these ten commandments into consideration, and you will do no wrong in the world of online dating. Unless you’re a bona fide creep. In that case, I just can’t help you.

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.

Next Page »