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.

Ethics, fairness and News of the World

Rhiannon Russell

You don’t have to be a journalist to know that ethics are crucial to journalism.

Libel, misrepresentation, falsification and a lack of fairness have ruined many a reporter. There are all kinds of boundaries to ensure journalistic integrity and crossing those lines is frowned upon, and in some cases, even illegal.

In July, one of the world’s biggest newspapers shut down after claims that its staff broke privacy laws and disobeyed one of journalism’s most important commandments. Reporters at News of the World in Britain hired private investigators to hack into the phones of high-profile figures in order to publish exclusive stories.

Allegations of phone hacking had swirled around News of the World for years, but it wasn’t until earlier this year that the claims became inescapable.

The list of people whose phones were hacked include actress Sienna Miller, Prince William, murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and relatives of British soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation owned News of the World, and after he shut the paper down on July 10, he published ads in the British papers apologizing for the “serious wrongdoing” that had occurred.

“It was very clear that they had to be hacking people’s phones to be getting the kinds of stories they were getting,” said Suanne Kelman, associate chair of the Ryerson School of Journalism.

The paper, like many British tabloids, was known for its gossip-fueled stories and juicy exclusives.

Over the years, News of the World published scoops about Prince Harry’s drug and alcohol abuse, Sarah Ferguson’s attempt to sell access to her ex-husband Prince Andrew, and David Beckham’s alleged affair with his personal assistant.

To date, British police have a list of 4,000 possible victims of phone hacking and text message interception.
Is it likely such a scandal could happen on this side of the pond?

“I don’t think it’s a problem for Canada,” said Kelman. “We have very strict privacy legislation.”
As well, the Canadian news market is much smaller than Britain’s, eliminating cutthroat rivalry amongst papers.

The sheer number of national daily newspapers in Britain, including the Sun, the Guardian, the Independent, the Mirror, the Telegraph, the Times, and until recently, News of the World, pales in comparison to Canada.
“It’s as if you had five or six Globe and Mails instead of just the Globe and the National Post,” said Paul Knox, journalism professor at Ryerson University.

The British papers must, therefore, compete for the most eye-catching, startling front page.
“It’s the relentless competition you face all the time to get the bigger and bigger scoops,” said Knox.
Plus, Canada has never had a vigorous tabloid press. We don’t have the starlets, the royals, or, it would seem, the same scandal-hungry public.

The British public certainly played some role, however small, in the phone hacking debacle. News of the World had, at its time of closing, a circulation of about 2.7 million copies sold weekly.

Obviously, people wanted to read these kinds of stories. “This is part of human nature. People really like gossip,” said Kelman.

Both Kelman and Knox agree, however, that the public’s cravings for exclusive, dramatic stories do not, by any means, justify News of the World journalists’ tactics to get them.

“I think all journalists should be taught to say ‘no’ to doing anything they consider unethical,” Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, wrote during a live chat on the paper’s website.

As well, journalists should take extra care to maintain their integrity, especially in an age where it’s easier
than ever to get information.

“I would hope that journalists have their own personal code of ethics,” said Susan Clairmont, columnist at Hamilton Spectator. “[Ethics] come into play with everything we do as journalists.”

Most newsrooms have a code of ethics that they pass on to their staff.

For example, reporters at the Spectator, as at most papers, don’t contact a deceased person’s next of kin until they know the police have already notified them.

“There’s no legal reason,” said Clairmont. It’s just the ethical thing to do.

In the wake of the scandal, there have been cries for heavier regulations on journalists, but some question if that’s necessary or even possible.

“I’m not a fan of regulating news media. I don’t know how you’d do that without being unbelievably intrusive,” said Knox.

Kelman agrees. “You just have to enforce the laws that exist.”

After all, News of the World didn’t shut down merely because its editors made some poor moral decisions. It shut down because they broke the law.

“That’s a step that no regulator would ever achieve in a regulatory regime,” said Knox. “It’s a matter for the police.”

Although journalism is changing and newsrooms are adapting, the same basic principles of journalism: verification, objectivity and accuracy will continue to hold true.

Out with Rob Ford And in with _________

Forget Margaret Atwood, Amy Ward delves deep into the world of Toronto stardom and encourages us all to support her picks for Toronto’s next mayor

In the latest battle in the war between Conservatives and artists, first brother Doug Ford said library-defending author Margaret Atwood should run for mayor if she wanted to have a voice in local politics. While Atwood mulls the speculative fiction that is Toronto politics, here are some other Toronto celebrities who might want to throw their top hats in the race.

Don Cherry
He showed his pink political stripes during Rob Ford’s inauguration, but who wouldn’t love some Rock’em Sock’em governance? Instead of all-night council sessions to air voter grievances, Cherry could implement a sudden-death overtime round: the last councillor without a concussion gets his or her motions passed.

Backwards Rider
Straight off his starring role in his self-titled Bicycle Film Fest documentary, Leslie Slowley, the reverse-cycling daredevil, could show some fearlessness in the face of Toronto’s bike-car wars. First motion: restoring the Jarvis bike lanes. As Slowley writes on his blog, “Fordwards is backwards and Backwards is forward,” a sure sign of progressive leadership in a post-Ford era!

Richard Florida
University of Toronto scored an academic star by wooing the Rise of the Creative Class author from Carnegie Mellon University in 2005 to head up its Martin Prosperity Institute.  The sociologist knows a theory or two about building a prosperous city (hint: keep the creative types happy), and the beleaguered artist class could use a compassionate ear while they gather at galas to whine about their grants.

Terri-Jean Bedford
Canada’s most famous dominatrix is on extremely familiar terms with many of the city’s movers and shakers and keeps her skeletons uncloseted so she’s virtually unblackmailable. As applicant and media spokeswoman in a legal challenge to declare Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional, Madame de Sade stood up for the rights of women and small business owners everywhere. She also knows her way around a whip, so she’ll have no problem dealing with unruly councillors.

Galen Weston, Jr.
New York hasn’t imploded under the rule of its billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg, so why not roll out the mayoral carpet for Canada’s second-wealthiest citizen, Loblaws heir Galen Weston, Jr.? From the company that brought you Joe Fresh clothing and no-fee Presidents Choice banking, the company figurehead would be the President’s Choice for keeping quality city services at low cost to taxpayers. No worries about the gravy train; it’s from the low-fat Blue Menu.

Jeanne Beker
City Hall would be more stylish with Fashion Television’s queen designing the future of our city. Forget public service cuts: this season is all about maxi-length civic investments, bespoke community engagement and retro subway expansions. A little colour at City Hall can go a long way.

Russell Peters
Low turnout at council meetings? Not with Brampton’s most famous comedian at the mic. Mayor Peters could pay off the city’s budget deficit by selling DVDs of election speeches and returning all constituent phone calls…for $1.99 a minute plus a 99 cent connection fee. Opposition councillors beware, somebody’s gonna get hurt real bad.

Rachel McAdams
Hollywood sweetheart and Annex resident McAdams could charm the voters while releasing her inner Mean Girl in council chambers. The actress would base her policy decisions on long-term outcomes revealed to her as the Time Traveller’s Wife. And if the crime rate gets worse, she can always call Sherlock Holmes.

Frank Gehry
The postmodern architect of the AGO’s renovated Dundas Street presence has been called “the most important architect of our age” by Vanity Fair. Although he now calls Los Angeles home, Toronto could woo the starchitect home with ample opportunities to apply his eye for criticism of societal goals and the functional necessity of urban planning. Perhaps the new Fort York pedestrian footbridge should be redesigned to resemble his Lady Gaga hat.

K’naan
The hip hop Troubadour is a uniter, not a divider, showing an affinity for working with acts as diverse as Metallica, U2, and Amadou & Maryam. This would translate well to City Hall negotiations.  His work with the UN and calls to end violence in Somalia convey a message that transcends the political squabbling to get at the heart of the issue. Exactly the kind of Wavin’ Flag that City Hall needs.

Doug Ford
Wait, never mind.

Norway was Attacked by Al Qaeda?

Anastasiya Komkova

As the news about the July shooting and bombing in Norway were first surfacing, media were quick to falsely portray Al Qaeda as the organization responsible.

Even though Anders Behring Breivik, the one allegedly responsible and in custody for the murders, was a Norwegian Christian, who killed 77 people to draw attention to the fact that he believed Muslims should not be able to immigrate to his country, Al Qaeda was still either compared or directly blamed for the massacre by many journalists. The mistake was eventually revised and corrected by most news sources, but why were these conclusions drawn when nothing about a particular moment is certain?

CTV for example, gave the impression that it could have been Al Qaeda. When Kristian Berg Harpviken, director of the Peace Research Institute in Norway, was interviewed on the show he was asked who could have been responsible and if Al Qaeda had anything to do with it. Harpviken replied, “It’s of course far too early to say anything specific about who is behind this, but as you indicate the most concrete trends that has been directed at Norway in the recent few years has indeed been by Al Qaeda.” Not exactly damning evidence, but this didn’t stop CTV from asking questions only about Al Qaeda’s motives. The idea that this attack could have been executed by anyone else never came up.

CNN’s ‘terror expert’ Paul Cruickshank said that it was too early to say who was behind the attacks but that they bore the resemblances of Al Qaeda bombings. However, FOX news did not even hesitate. Laura Ingraham on the Bill O’Reilly show led with “Two deadly terror attacks in Norway in what appears to be, once again, the work of Muslim extremists.”

This misunderstanding could have occurred when Will McCants, a terror analyst, translated a statement by Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami (the Helpers of the Global Jihad). In the statement the group indicated that Norway was attacked because its forces are in Afghanistan and because six years ago Norway reprinted cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad. The group also seemed pleased that Norway was punished but nowhere in the message did they take credit. That is not, however, how McCants saw it and not how journalists decided to portray it.

Other news sources, such as the New York Times focused on Al Qaeda being the inspiration for the event. It was written that Thomas Hegghammer, who is a terrorism specialist at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, said, “It seems to be an attempt to mirror Al Qaeda, exactly in reverse.”

Since September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists have dominated the news. Organizations such as Al Qaeda are notorious and made out to be feared by the general population by scandal-hungry media outlets. Therefore, Al Qaeda makes sense to be laid the blame, since it is already so familiar. Local terrorists trying to attract attention to their message are unknown and their motives are not as appealing. Al Qaeda opens up more topics for discussion than Breivik. A group of terrorists is scarier than one psychopath, since a group can strike repeatedly.

Even though real journalism should be about reporting with as much accuracy as possible, mainstream journalism actually seems to be about getting a story out which is going to create interest and more sales. Fact checking becomes secondary to sensationalizing.

Terrorism statistics collected by the FBI show that during from 1980 to 2005, Latino organizations carried out the highest number of attacks in the United States, which was 42 per cent of all incidents. Only 6 per cent were organized by Islamic extremists. However, it was the attack by Islamic extremists that killed the most people at one time in an extremely shocking and alarming manner. It is the reason why news about Al Qaeda still evoke so much emotion and hatred to this day.

Another reason for unreliable and flawed news comes from the importance of being the first to report major news in an accurate tone. This is because the publicity and recognisability of that newspaper or news show will increase dramatically. The first to report the story, even with only a hint of accuracy, will most often get credited as the official source. The same story reported by other media networks will just be restating what was already said and will not be as important, dramatic or attention-grabbing.  It is easier to print a retraction than to print the news late.

Since Al Qaeda seemed to be the most likely attacker at first, it was reported as fact. The media needed to put together a story and this one seemed the most plausible, the most interesting and the most thought provoking as it can be easily tied in to other topics, such as the debate of building a Mosque blocks away from ground zero in New York City.

While it may be understandable why journalists will resort to deceitful stories about what they “think” has happened instead of actually trying to uncover the truth, it is unfortunate. This over-sensationalizing by journalists is simply fear mongering. However, introducing fear into everyone about Islam without explaining that not every Muslim is a jihadi warrior and not every man with a turban is Osama bin Laden is quite dangerous. This fear generates hate and instigates hate crimes against innocent people.

After 9/11 some Sikh men were killed in the U.S. and Canada by people who confused Sikhs with Osama bin Laden, as if that is some sort of defence. The confusion resulted because they were wearing a turban.

Islamaphobia is growing amongst people because they believe that every Muslim person goes to the Mosque to plan a new attack on the non-believers.

This is simply not true and our mainstream journalists are not doing enough to make this clear.

His vision can still be won

A country mourns Jack Layton

Haseena Manek

At 61, Jack Layton was by no means a young man. He had lead a long and full life compared to most.

But as the first NDP leader to make the New Democratic Party official opposition in Canadian history, I would say he still had a lot of life to live.

The one thing we can do, as Canadians, is to make sure that his visions and his hope and optimism for Canada’s future did not die with him.

This year’s federal election was a first in many ways. It boasted the a higher voter turnout than the previous election, but what’s more important, those votes changed the landscape of Canadian politics.

The majority of Quebec’s ridings were won by rookie NDP MPs, and rendered the Bloc Quebecois more or less obsolete as it lost party status for the first time since its first election.

The Liberal party, for so long considered Canada’s natural governing party, fell into third place.

Neither of the party leaders, Gilles Duceppe and Michael Ignatieff managed to secure even their own ridings, never mind a foothold for their parties in Parliament.

Elizabeth May became the first Green Party candidate to win a seat in the House of Commons.
As of May 2 the view from Ottawa was a majority blue (how that happened I will never understand) but with a strong contrast of orange, and maybe a few drops of green.

But above all, the view was a hopeful one. For the first time in my living memory, there appeared to be a chance for reform in Canada at the federal level. I’m convinced the only person that could possibly inspire hope after seeing a conservative majority was Jack Layton.

His post-election speech was seriously awesome (in the biblical sense), I remember being at a loss in understanding how it was Harper was still in power, and there was Smiling Jack, up on stage, waving his cane like a banner, barely able to get a word in above all the cheering.

As far as I am concerned, Jack Layton won the election. He secured official opposition, a huge achievement, and was ready to use that influence to make some serious change in parliament.

Now that he has left us, we cannot lose that hope he had in the face of another term with Harper. If he could look to that future and still have hope, so must we as well.

I refuse to believe that without Jack Layton the New Democratic Party will fall from its current state of grace.
We cannot allow his success to be fleeting. Though I feel this incredible despair with his passing. I believe his winning the official opposition really was a historical moment and I pray that his hope and optimism (so refreshing in our culture of apathy) do not become a blip in Canadian political history.

In a letter to written two days before his death, Jack Layton said to the youth: “I believe in you. Your energy, your vision, your passion for justice are exactly what this country needs today. You need to be at the heart of our economy, our political life, and our plans for the present and the future.”

I hope that young people really acknowledge the importance of his accomplishments and recognize that we need to carry on in that same direction if we are going to see a change in the face of Canadian politics. We are at a tipping point. We can either carry on and really see a difference in Canada and its international role, or fall back to the same destructive, oppressive, conservative system.

To all Canadians, Jack Layton said: “ We can offer better futures for our children.  We can do our part to save the world’s environment. We can restore our good name in the   world. We can do all of these things because we finally have a party system at the national level where there are real choices; where your vote matters; where working for change can actually bring about change.”

Jack Layton may not have lived to make the changes he dreamed of and worked for, but he laid the foundation for it. He left us early, but he left us with an official opposition that can and will challenge the Harper government.

He left us with a totally new political terrain for Canada.

He left us further ahead than I think we have been in a long time, and finally, he left us with hope. Let us not give up that hope.

“Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done,” Jack closes his letter.
In Jack Layton’s memory, let’s fight for a better Canada.

An open letter to cyclists and drivers

Max Mertens

I am a cyclist. No, I don’t own a pair of lycra shorts or a brightly-coloured spandex racing jersey. No, I’ve never raced in the Tour de France. No, I’m not a card-carrying member of any Toronto cycling group, union or non-profit organization. I’m not writing this to push a “bikes are good, cars are evil, end of story” agenda on anyone that happens to be reading this. Unlike several of my classmates and friends from Ontario, I have my full driver’s license. Growing up in a rural community in Nova Scotia, I couldn’t imagine not getting my license.

Since I moved to Toronto, though, my bicycle has been my primary mode of transportation, mainly because I can’t stand the cost and unreliability of the TTC. The debates and issues between cyclists and drivers in Toronto aren’t always black and white, with one side being right and one side being wrong. I firmly believe that just like there are good and bad drivers, there are also good and bad cyclists.

That said, the last few months haven’t been the easiest for cyclists in this city. While it would be easy to put the blame on Mayor Rob Ford, it certainly hasn’t helped that he was once infamously quoted as saying, “I can’t support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.” In mid-July, city council voted in favour of eliminating bicycle lanes on Jarvis, Birchmount and Pharmacy Streets. My first reaction to this news was, “Oh great. Now my mother can worry about me being run over by a car, on top of her son living in the most expensive city in Canada.” (The Globe and Mail had published a story several days earlier about Toronto surpassing Vancouver as the most expensive city in the country.)

But rather than packing it in and moving to a more two-wheel-friendly city, Toronto’s cycling community has refused to go away quietly. Pink buttons with the slogan “Bike Riding Pinko,” introduced by

Toronto-based magazine Spacing, became the hottest fashion accessory last winter. The BIXI bike-sharing program was finally brought to the city this summer. On July 20, approximately 1,000 cyclists gathered at Allan Gardens and rode to City Hall to protest city council’s decision to remove the bike lane. In August, the Toronto Bicycle Film Festival drew some of its largest crowds ever for a three-day event that included short films about cycling, art shows, panel discussions, live music and parties. These are just some examples of how Toronto cyclists have built a tight community in the face of rising challenges and problems.

So where do we go from here? Despite the resolve of the Toronto cycling community, there still exists a rift between them and drivers. We need to take a look at how other cities such as Amsterdam and Montreal have balanced the needs of both parties, study their models and see what changes Toronto can adopt. This won’t be an overnight process of course: it’ll take time, resources and, above all, cooperation between city council, planners, cyclists and drivers. For now, we can work on rebuilding and strengthening relationships between cyclists and drivers. At the risk of sounding preachy, a little civility and respect for one another goes a long way. There’s enough room for everybody in this city.

“P” is for Palestine and Pakistan

Henna Khawja

I would like to open with this disclaimer: the following is based on my humble personal narrative, not fact or statistic. Contrary to other Muslims/South Asians/women of colour seen in the media, I do not speak on behalf of my community, nor would I ever attempt to. Also, the statements in this article apply to other ethno-religious communities; however, I can only speak from what I directly experience.

I was born and raised in a suburb of Toronto, to parents who left their home of Pakistan in the 1970s, mainly thanks to Mr. Trudeau. I identify as a Pakistani-Canadian woman who is also a practicing Muslim, raised in a home where both the Pakistani culture and the Islamic religion were enforced in a strong, yet flexible, manner.

As the stereotypical youngest child, I came into this world choosing to channel my inner rebel. Yes, I chose to become a social worker (insert gasp here)—not the other traditional career paths expected from doting, hard working, immigrants of colour, parents whose selfless prerogative for abandoning their homes was to provide their children with promising educational opportunities.

Unfortunately, my career is not highly respected in the South Asian/Muslim communities, as the daily realities of my job are also daily taboo. Regularly, social workers deal with issues of oppression—you know, all of the “isms.” In my opinion, social work does not simply mean working in a school or child protection. On the contrary, I believe the core focus for social work should be the ideal of social justice.

In the words of one of my heroes, Saul Alinsky, it is “better to die on your feet than to live your life on your knees.” Let’s utilize some deductive reasoning here, shall we? If social work is based on social justice, and social justice is based on action, then action must mean not just talking the talk, but walking the walk.

I have a strong passion for the Palestinian cause, and I define Israel’s interactions with this beautiful country as Apartheid. That said, I have always made a strong effort to mobilize around this cause: organizing events at Ryerson University or marching the beautiful, bustling streets of downtown Toronto in solidarity with thousands of others.

Here is my dilemma: so often I am posed with the accusing, sometimes confused, statement: “Why do you care about Palestine?” The question is usually, and sadly, followed by, “but you’re Pakistani!”
You see, I have internal sirens that initialize when surrounded by hate, oppression, discrimination or any sort of negativity. It is a condition that was present at birth; I believe it is called compassion.

There are many reasons that I care about Palestine. One, Palestine has historical parallels to my Indo-Pakistani ancestry. In 1947, British India separated religious demographics, leading to the Declaration of Independence of Pakistan on August 14, 1947. Consequently, mass violence ensued, as did the forced migration of millions. This era is commonly referred to as “Partition,” and it was a violent affair; the ripples of hate are still felt today in both Pakistan and India.

Similarly, on November 29, 1947, the United Nations approved Resolution 181, which aimed to “resolve” the Arab-Jewish conflict by segregating the population into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. This, too, resulted in mass violence and the forced uprooting of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Palestinians refer to this period of time and exodus as the Nakba or “catastrophe.” The Jewish state of Israel was officially born on May 15, 1948, leaving the state of Palestine in hearts, memories and, unfortunately, quotation marks for many.

Furthermore, Pakistan and Palestine are important causes to support because both nations have a strong experience of displacement. In 2006, the Canadian Census counted approximately 125,000 Pakistanis—five years ago! I should also mention that Toronto held the largest diaspora nation-wide, with approximately 66,110 Pakistanis.

That said, the Pakistani community has fairly strong numbers in this nation, and we should exercise our freedoms and civil liberties. This means, building solidarity, mobilizing and respecting the experiences of other communities. In contrast, I am unable to even provide a statistic for Palestinian-Canadians, as it is grouped under “Arab” with loads of other communities (cue head scratch).

As Canadians, we are a privileged bunch; we watch atrocities occur overseas from the safety of our living rooms, read about them in the Metro on the GO Train, and watch clips of mass destruction on our handy smart phones. It is common knowledge, I believe, that this generation is largely a desensitized one. As a student, with tears in my eyes and envy in my heart, I read about the American Civil Rights Movement, Tiananmen Square, the Iranian Revolution, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Women’s Suffrage Movement. There was one constant in all of these revolutions: mobilization. There was also one constant demographic: students.

But from my first Toronto rally on January 18, 2003 with thousands of others, to my most recent Nakba demonstration on May 15, 2011 outside the Israeli Consulate, I have felt the absence of both Pakistanis and students. So often, I hear about drones, suicide-bombers, hate-filled individuals, Federal Court judges and misogynistic men massacring my people in Pakistan. Why am I not sharing my pride in Pakistani mobilizations? Well, they simply do not exist in Toronto.

By contrast, I see how strong the Palestinian community is, and how passionate Palestinians are about their cause. It pains me to see small Palestinian mobilizations, and my blood boils when the Jewish Defense League (JDL) verbally abuses peaceful protestors with profane language. It also truly punctures my heart to hear a person accuse my support as misplaced.

On the other hand, I grin from ear to ear when I see individuals of different ethnicities and religions showing solidarity. My heart melts every time a child, on the shoulders of his/her caregiver, screams words of peaceful protest, in unison with the rest of the crowd. My feet itch to dance when individuals, Palestinian or not, huddle together, break out into song and dance: simply for the sake of bliss. My eyes well up with tears when I see perfect strangers embracing: wordless gestures to say thank you—for supporting my people, my nation and me. Is that not a beautiful thing?

The next time a person stops and accuses me of not having the right to support the Palestinian people, I hope to turn my keffiyeh-clad neck, and have a much more positive response. On that day, I also hope to see you by my side, fist raised, smile on your face—and yes, I mean you!

Solidarity forever!

Henna Khawja is a practicing social worker in the GTA, although she longs to return to life downtown. She is also Ryerson and U of T alumna, but definitely considers the former to trump the latter. She can be reached at hkhawja@gmail.com.

Attacks on Pride: An open letter to Toronto councillors

Elle Flanders

Dear Councillors,

I am sure you have many other things to do with your time apart from endlessly debating the issues of Israeli Apartheid and its positioning within Toronto Pride. I have appealed to you before, but do so once more as in the July 1 issue of daily Israeli newpaper, Ha’aretz, Irwin Cotler (Canadian MP, co-founder of the Canadian Parliamentary Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism and former justice minister) has finally put this argument to rest when he states unequivocally that criticism of Israel as an apartheid state is within the bounds of legitimate discourse.
While my Jewish voice and those of countless others did not allay your fears in this regard, I hope the man who has led the charge not only against anti-Semitism in Canada, but who coined the phrase “the new anti-Semitism,” can allow cooler heads to prevail.

I have written to you before as a member of the Jewish community and the gay community, as someone who has fought for justice my whole life, be it for Jewish rights, gay rights or, now, justice in Palestine. What being Jewish (and gay) has taught me is to fight for the rights of others, not only my own.

Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, Councillor James Pasternak and Councillor Doug Ford, I hope you are listening: Cotler has suggested that it is not only legitimate criticism, but it is an important principle of democratic speech. Neither you, Councillor Mammoliti, nor you, Councillor Ford, nor your brother, Rob, the Mayor, have terrific records when it comes to defending LGBT rights in this city, and it is becoming more and more clear to most of us, that any problem with Queers Against Israeli Apartheid has become a ruse to defund Pride (and no doubt other minority cultural organizations to follow).

Councillor Mammoliti, you claim that “hate groups” (read the article here: http://bit.ly/pBlA1K) (however, I do not believe that as a Jew of conscience I have been participating in a “hate group”) and “politics” have no place in parades, yet to be clear, you fund Pride as a cultural organization. Also, to be more clear, your own city staff and manager have told you that the term Israel Apartheid does not contravene city policy.

Now, Councillor Pasternak, I understand you want to change that policy (although you all voted unanimously to adopt the report), but again, I suggest you read Mr. Cotler’s views on that: he has a few years experience when it comes to anti-Semitism and the law. I too have fought anti-Semitism in this city, when neo-Nazis David Irving, Ernst Zundel and the like were active here in Toronto.

Banning/threatening Pride because of a group, in which many of whom are Jewish, that criticizes Israeli state policy cannot be compared to the real work of ridding a city of discrimination and anti-Semitism. These charges are clearly wrongheaded and dangerous thinking.

Councillor Mammoliti, perhaps it is also unclear to you that the way Pride and many other institutions came to be is exactly through “activism,” “politics” and engagement in civil rights. You would not have an anti-discrimination policy if it were not for the tireless work of the Dudley Laws in this city or the Doug Stewarts (Black Cap) or, frankly, the Tim McCaskells (of the Toronto Board of Education, Aids Action Now and now QuAIA) or Tony Souzas (also of QuAIA, founder of Gay Asians Toronto, etc). Frankly, your homophobic comments over the years do not make you a great candidate to take on this debate. It’s hard for most of us not to have suspicions that perhaps you have another agenda.

As for Team Ford, it’s hard for us there as well not to think that with Rob Ford’s absence from all Pride events and with the upcoming deficit we are now facing (which you admitted on AM 640 talk radio was indeed one of the concerns of re-funding Pride), that this isn’t about anti-Semitism, hate or anything of the sort, but rather a reason to slash culture funding wherever you can (and maybe with a smattering of homophobia?). I mean, what else can we think with your voting record on LGBT issues?

I urge you to drop the witch-hunt against the LGBT community and the larger agenda to defund Pride (and no doubt other city cultural events) and to calm the rhetoric. Do we really want to be a city that doesn’t allow the expression of political opinions, in or outside of parades, marches, cultural events? TIFF, which you support generously, has a political position many times a day with films that espouse them from all over the world; so too does Luminato, Caribana, etc. And they are not all opinions you personally (or other constituents) might find “tasteful.” The LGBT community has always had strong opinions on many matters, some specifically LGBT-related, some about unions, and even some about the military. This is what makes for democracy.

Finally, if you think we are successful and affluent enough to be able to fund ourselves (as Councillor Mammoliti also stated in several interviews), then perhaps we should take our parade elsewhere (or let it die) and all the millions of dollars we bring with it. You might have quite a few very angry businessman and taxpayers when you have to add those lost millions to the deficit.

And to be even-handed, you will have to cut off TIFF and Luminato and all the other cultural events that make this city not only great, but frankly put even more dollars in your coffers. A city without culture is not only dead, but also poorer in all senses of the word.

You cannot begin to cherry-pick with culture; policing the speech and actions of the LGBT community is not part of your job any more than deciding which films get played at TIFF or what plays happen in the theatres. Funding culture with the knowledge that it pays back tremendously is what is fiscally and morally responsible and hence part of your jobs as Toronto city councilors. We are your gravy.

Elle Flanders is a Canadian filmmaker and a driving force behind Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (queersagainstapartheid.org). This article originally appeared on rabble.ca on July 6, 2011: rabble.ca/news/2011/07/attacks-pride-open-letter-toronto-councillors

« Previous Page — Next Page »