Political instability plays havoc with Honduras

Kate Mills

With the war in Afghanistan, the protests in Iran, the riots in China, and the ousting of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, there has been no shortage of international news lately. On June 28, Zelaya was taken away at gunpoint in his pajamas in the middle of the night and exiled off to Costa Rica. Zelaya was removed by force from his position as President of Honduras.

In the wake of his removal, the Honduran Congress appointed Roberto Micheletti as the interim President of Honduras, who insists that Zelaya was ousted legally.

When Zelaya tried to return on July 5, he was blocked by the military on the runway at the Tegucigalpa airport. During this time, at least one protester was killed in clashes with the army.

Despite this, Zelaya has been recognized as the legitimate president by the United Nations (UN), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Obama Administration.

Eric LeCompte, national organizer for School of Americas Watch, thinks the Zelaya ousting sets a bad precedent for the rest of Latin America.

“The reality is that, if the coup isn’t reversed, we could face several military coups in Latin America, because of the message it sends, that the Obama Administration says it’s ok,” LeCompte said.

With a definite impasse between Micheletti and Zelaya, the US backed a plan to have Costa Rican President Oscar Arias act as the chief mediator between the two sides. Arias received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to end civil wars then plaguing several Central American countries. Unfortunately, the Honduran talks dissolved without a resolution on July 22.

Arias’s plan would have had Zelaya reinstated, but it would also have limited his powers and focused much of the country’s energy on a month-early election in late October. Micheletti had said he would consider stepping down or calling early elections, but on the condition that Zelaya not be reinstated.

On July 24, Zelaya briefly entered Honduras a few metres in from the border for a few minutes, and then went back to Nicaragua, a neighbouring country. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the move “reckless” and “not conducive to the broader effort to restore constitutional order.” The interim government who threatened to arrest Zelaya if he tried to enter Honduras dismissed the event as a publicity stunt and called it “ill-conceived and silly.” Interim Deputy Security Minister Mario Perdomo said authorities did not bother to arrest Zelaya because he barely entered Honduras.

But July 24 proved to be just the beginning of Zelaya’s flirting not only with the border between Nicaragua and Honduras, but also with peace and violence. On July 25, the body a 23-year-old Zelaya supporter was found dead, stabbed and beaten. Zelaya supporters accuse Honduran police of murdering the man.
By July 26, Zelaya and his supporters were camping out on the Nicaraguan side of the border in what Zelaya said was an effort to increase pressure on the interim government, and a call to Washington to enforce tougher sanctions on the coup government.

Prior to the ousting, tensions had been stirring in Honduras after Zelaya planned to hold a non-binding public consultation on whether there was public support in changing the constitution. This could have led to a lifting of a ban on presidents from seeking a second term. Venezuela’s leftist president, Hugo Chavez, an ally of Zelaya’s, held a referendum on February 15, 2009 to address the same question. The referendum was successful, and now Chavez can run for office an unlimited number of times.

Critics say that Zelaya’s referendum would have been in defiance of the courts and the country’s National Congress. Opponents feared Zelaya would use the referendum to remain in power after his term ends on January 27, 2010. The current Honduran constitution limits presidents to a single four-year term. When General Romeo Vasquez, Honduras’ top military chief was fired by Zelaya for refusing to go ahead with the referendum, he then proceeded to lead the ousting of Zelaya.

Zelaya came to power as a centre-right leader in 2006, but halfway through his term became a supporter of Chavez by joining his leftist alliance, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA). The alliance is a pact between a handful of Latin American and Caribbean countries, as an alternative to the US-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The alliance seeks to bring about social welfare rather than trade liberalization as with the FTAA. Chavez entices its members, such as he did with Zelaya, by providing their countries with subsidized oil from Venezuela.

And while the interim government refuses to reinstate Zelaya as the democratically-elected leader, the international community is showing flagging support for Honduras, one of the poorest countries in Latin America. The US has cut more than $18 million in military and development assistance, and the European Union has frozen $92 million in development aid. As well, the World Bank has suspended financial aid until “there is greater clarity on the legal status of the government.”

Lecompte says sanctions like these are the only action that will force the de facto regime to hand power back over to Zelaya.

“The end will be if other countries continue to level sanctions,” LeCompte said.

In the end, no matter what Arias’ proposals, Micheletti has said it is up to the Honduran Congress, courts and the national prosecutor investigating charges against the deposed president to follow suit. And since Congress is the body that decided to oust Zelaya in the first place, it will take a change of heart on its part to see the situation reversed.

The Honduran Defense Ministry at least appears to have a change in tone. It posted a statement on the armed forces’ website saying that it supports “a solution to the problems our country is experiencing, through a process of negotiation within the framework of the San Jose accord,” referring to a proposal made by Costa Rican President Arias.

One US official has said that Zelaya intends to come to Washington “for further discussions.”

Tale of Two Cities’ Trash

Windsor and Toronto continue to threaten workers

Kim Wilson

As the city strikes in both Windsor and Toronto came to a close at the end of July, clean-up issues and back to work plans were still being used by the two cities to threaten workers. Toronto Mayor David Miller commented that if the jobs were unable to be completed properly by the evening of August 2, the City would hire private contractors to remove the garbage from Toronto’s streets and parks.

Similarly in Windsor, one councilor put forth to council the possibility of outsourcing garbage collection immediately in order to avoid overtime hours and remove the garbage as soon as possible. Prior to the strike, council voted down a motion that would allow for the City to outsource garbage collection in the event of a strike. Union President of Local 82 in Windsor said that the councilor suggesting outsourcing at this point was “trying to keep the fight going” and noted that Maclean’s magazine rated Windsor second best city out of 31 cities in Canada for garbage collection, while it came 26 overall on how well the city operated.
In Toronto, 57 city-run daycares lost operation during the strike. Daycares and students out of summer jobs often became the highlight of Miller’s public declarations in what many saw as a means of diverting attention away from the failed negotiations at the bargaining table. However the stench of garbage and lack of space for the refuse remained a constant reminder that what affects public service workers affects the entire cityscape.

The overflowing garbage bins and city parks, the most visible signs of the failures between municipal workers and their city employers to negotiate a collective agreement in both Toronto and Windsor, are however, being cleaned up. Media images of overflowing garbage and recycling in public trashcans and city parks have now been replaced by city workers beginning the unpleasant task of cleaning 39 days of waste in Toronto and a 101 days of waste in Windsor.

On June 22, 30,000 workers, minus 6,000 considered essential, began to strike in Toronto that led to garbage collection, city-run daycares, swimming pools, summer day camps and ferry services come to a halt that is just now beginning to get back on track. Public parks that were turned into mountainous temporary trash sites and overflowing illegal dumping on commercial streets became symbols of both the negotiation failures and the necessary work of city employees.

On August 1, Toronto City Council voted 21-17 in favor of an agreement previously ratified by civic workers’ CUPE Locals 416 and 79. The main sticking point in negotiations was banked sick time but a compromise was reached that meant that current employees would be eligible to receive pay for that time at the point of retirement, whereas new employees would not be able to carry over their banked sick time, in essence phasing out the condition that allowed employees to carry over their banked sick time from year to year. The increase in wages workers are to receive is about 5.6 per cent over the three-year contract term.

On July 27, 1,800 city workers were back on the job in Windsor after a final 48 hours of negotiations. The four-year contract included a 6.3 per cent wage increase over that time period. The highly disputed issue of new employees receiving post-retirement benefits was given up by CUPE in the end. They will be given the option to participate in a self-funded benefits program.  After 15 weeks of picket lines outside City Hall, members of CUPE Locals 543 and 82 voted overwhelmingly to accept the agreement.

Garbage collection began in the parks over the August long weekend to attempt to remove the accumulated trash, while regular residential services began August 4. It’s been noted that while the removal of the heaps are immediately manageable, it will take more time and energy than a weekend to clean-up the parks in order to return them to their original states before the strike.

CUPE victory shows solidarity can win!

Michelle Robidoux

The CUPE city workers strike has been an inspiration to workers across the province.
Throughout a grueling 39 day strike—the longest municipal strike in Toronto’s history—CUPE Locals 416 and 79 drew a line in the sand on concessions. Despite relentless anti-union hype in the media, CUPE members stayed strong and built solidarity throughout the strike.

In particular, both locals went out together, stood together and went back together. It’s easy to talk about solidarity, but the experience of building it and maintaining it under tremendous pressure—as Toronto city workers did—is filled with lessons for the labour movement, especially in these hard times.

The artful way in which that unity was played out between Locals 416 and 79 in the last days of the strike deserves study. When Local 416 president Mark Ferguson announced that a framework agreement had been worked out for outside workers, he said clearly that the next step for city negotiators was to hammer out a fair deal for Local 79. When that was done and Local 79 had ratified its agreement, Local 79 leaders made it clear they would not return to work without 416 getting a back-to-work protocol.

At both these moments, if one union didn’t stand up and hold out for the other, neither would have won the victories they did. Solidarity made all the difference.

This was a defensive battle against an attempt by Mayor David Miller and the City of Toronto to take away hard-won gains from city workers. The contracts that were negotiated unfortunately represent a step back on wage settlements compared to other public sector workers in Ontario. This was, after all, the aim of Miller in these negotiations.

But he did not succeed in taking away the sick leave bank, which is in reality deferred wages. This is an important victory for CUPE and the entire the labour movement.

Message in a battle

But along with the important lessons of solidarity, there are big questions raised by the strike that the labour movement must address if CUPE’s victory is not to have set the stage for setbacks down the road.

1. Miller’s attacks on city workers throughout the strike (blaming CUPE members for the hardship faced by welfare recipients, kids in daycare, summer camp participants, as well as the potential spread of swine flu, rats, etc.) showed that even a mayor who came to office because of labour’s support succumbed to the same neoliberal arguments as his predecessor Mel Lastman.

2. While it was disgraceful to listen to Miller attack city workers day after day, more alarming was the fact that labour-endorsed city councillors did not say a word in support or in defence of either CUPE local through the duration of the strike. So we have the irony of striking workers having less support from city politicians than they did under Mel Lastman’s regime!

Union members worked hard to put these councillors in office. Labour has to look hard at what it means when we support and endorse candidates, and what we expect when they win. When Miller said “This is a strike against the children of Toronto” he sent a signal to every employer that it is open season on workers.
To have deafening silence from city councillors day after day, as the media and the right-wing whipped up hatred against strikers, is disgusting. A shiver would have been hard pressed to find a spine to run up among these ‘left’ city councillors.

Some people are now very worried that Miller is finished, and that a right-wing regime with a contracting out agenda will come to power in the next election. We need to say that this is Miller’s doing. When you demonize city workers day after day, then put your bargaining position on a website to try to cow workers back to work, don’t be surprised when the right wing takes that as a stick to beat you over the head with.
That is what happened to Miller.

The answer is not to say “We shouldn’t criticize Miller because it will fuel the right.” The answer is to call the “left” politicians to account while building on this victory.

Other strikes are already underway, and more can be expected in the weeks and months ahead. Employers everywhere continue to exploit the global economic crisis to roll back wages and benefits, force concessions, and weaken the labour movement. Labour must find a way to build on the momentum of the city workers’ victory, and learn and generalize the lessons.

CUPE’s victory shows that solidarity works, and can win big battles for workers. If workers can replicate these tactics elsewhere, we can ensure that the CUPE victory is not the exception, but rather the rule, when it comes to defending jobs, pensions, wages and benefits.

This op-ed is based on an article that originally appeared as a Special Supplement to Socialist Worker on August 5, 2009. To read the original article, please visit
www.socialist.ca/En/index.html

Men And the campaign to stop violence against women

Adriana Rolston

When Jeff Perera noticed that he was one of three men attending a Ryerson panel discussion on violence against women last year, he knew something was wrong.

He asked panel member Todd Minerson, the executive director of Toronto’s White Ribbon Campaign (WRC), how he could get more men who need to hear these stories involved. It was then that the social work student decided to bring the work of the WRC to Ryerson as part of his third-year social work placement.

The WRC is a worldwide movement of men seeking to end violence against women by urging men to speak out against violence and by educating men and boys. When men choose to wear a white ribbon, they are also choosing to take a pledge “to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women and girls.”

“The vision is fairly straightforward: it’s just to create a safe, inclusive space for women on campus, to end the violence and to get men to be involved and engaged. I think whatever we do is toward that focus and toward that end goal,” Perera said.

Perera sought out Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) president Jermaine Bagnall to co-chair this initiative. Sitting in Bagnall’s RSU office with a lengthy “to do” list scrawled on a large whiteboard, the leaders of this initiative met to discuss their future plans.

The pair is now in the planning stages of creating a student awareness campaign for September, seeking out funding and brainstorming a theme and upcoming events with the Ryerson community.

The WRC was launched by a group of men in Canada in 1991, two years after the Montreal Massacre at École Polytechnique, when 14 woman students were killed.

Armed with a rifle and a hunting knife, the killer entered a classroom on December 6, 1989, separated the female and the male engineering students, and claimed to be fighting feminism before shooting all nine and killing six. He continued to target women as he made his way through the university killing eight more woman before shooting himself.

Perera is a member of Ryerson’s December 6 Memorial Committee, which will be holding a series of events this year entitled, “Looking Forward with 20/20 Vision: A Future with No Violence Against Women.” The committee will organize 20 events leading up to the 20th anniversary of the December 6 massacre.
Ryerson’s White Ribbon Campaign (RWRC) will partner with and support the development of these events. The first of which will be a screening on campus of the recent film adaptation Polytechnique. Later the committee will host “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes,” a fundraising event on October 1 in Nathan Phillips Square.
According to Perera, men often feel defensive or uncomfortable having these discussions because they feel that they are being labelled as oppressors.

“What we want is a very uplifting and forward-thinking message. We want to get men to recognize the realities for women and recognize how their internal behaviours and attitudes contribute to that, and how they’re part of a patriarchal society. Male privilege is everywhere and not to say that you’re part of the problem, it’s that you can become part of the solution,” said Perera.

An example of “masculinity” that Perera witnessed as a child was his father’s abuse toward his mother.

“When I was about four, I remember seeing my mother covered in bruises… So growing up, I was very disconnected from men. I had a hard time having relationships with men while at the same time, as a heterosexual male, having relationships with women. So it reached a point where I had to redefine for myself what it was to be a man.”

Bagnall feels that today the definition of being a man is in flux, because you’re either hyper- masculine or hyper-feminine.

“Everyone is trying to distinguish what brand of man I am,” said Bagnall.

Perera recognizes that, although there is a lot of pressure on men to be tough and emotionless, except when expressing anger, manhood can be a beautiful thing when you define it on your own terms.
He hopes that the RWRC will create safe spaces for men to have these conversations on campus, in the same way that the Women’s Centre provides that environment for women at Ryerson, and that it will empower women instead of placing them in the role of victim.

During an open RWRC meeting on July 19 in Oakham House, Virginia Tran, co-director of V-Day, suggested that the campaign should include herstory information to educate students about women’s cultural roots. She also suggested involving stories and images of different forms of violence against women for students to witness.

“When you see it in front of you, it makes it that much more real and touching,” said Tran.
Seated in a circle of chairs in Thomas Lounge, almost half of those in attendance at the early afternoon meeting were men, as an informal discussion bred ideas for events and visual elements of the campaign.
Other participants raised the issue of the intersectionality of violence and how it affects women from all different life experiences. Because violence is so layered, Bagnall wants to work with community groups in September to address issues of racism, abelism, poverty, faith and homophobia.

Jai Morgan, Vice-President of Events and Outreach for the United Black Students at Ryerson, stated that WRC should provide men with the tools and resources to support women who are experiencing violence.
Bagnall is excited to include more male role models in the discussion, like members of Ryerson’s athletics community, who can inspire others to get involved at sports events.

“That way the athletics community is taking it on and it can also tie in with the other faculties to have challenges between RTA and journalism or engineering and commerce to see who can bring out the highest number of students,” said Bagnall.

Perera’s personal goal is for women on campus to be able to recognize 10 male allies around the issue of violence against women by the end of next year. He is convinced it will become everyone’s work to create a safe space on campus.

RWRC is looking for a few good men and women! For more information about getting involved, please e-mail whiteribbon@ryerson.ca

After the Tamil protests; Do we really care about human rights?

Angela Regnier

A few months after being yanked out of a peaceful human chain by riot police, face-planted into the highway, arrested and charged with mischief for participating in the Gardiner Expressway protest, I have had the charge against me finally withdrawn. Not even the arresting officer could produce for the courts a reason for my arrest.

While I’m happy the charge has been dropped, I’m still uneasy about the whole situation. Here in Toronto—the most diverse city in the world, and in Canada, a supposed leader in human rights—we are still plagued by xenophobic attitudes and a laissez-faire approach to human rights and international solidarity.

The conflict in Sri Lanka is no doubt complicated. It is rooted in decades of segregation and discrimination against Sri Lankan Tamils who seek an independent nation, an armed rebellious uprising and ongoing civilian casualties.

It is estimated that between 20,000 and 30,000 Tamil civilians were slaughtered in fighting in Sri Lanka since January 2009. Diasporic Tamils all over the world appealed to their nations’ governments to support a ceasefire and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In Toronto, weeks of letter-writing, information picketing, lobbying political officials, petitioning and permitted demonstrations generating crowds of over 10,000 people—all these garnered no response from the Canadian government, which stood on the sidelines as violence escalated in Sri Lanka.

The weekend of May 9 and 10, the war in Sri Lanka reached its peak. On Saturday, May 9, I attended a march that brought out thousands of Torontonians calling for a permanent ceasefire in Sri Lanka. Still, the Canadian government did not respond to calls for help. On Sunday, May 10—which was Mother’s Day in Canada—approximately 3,000 Tamils were killed in a single day of fighting in Sri Lanka.

In response, members and supporters of the Tamil community in Toronto took their protests to a new level. Thousands of people who had been demonstrating at Queen’s Park began marching through the streets of downtown Toronto, stopping at intersections for impromptu sit-ins. At one point, the march reached the base of Spadina, just south of Front Street. It was here that protesters began streaming onto the Gardiner Expressway, after climbing the west-bound on-ramp.

The occupation of the Gardiner made history. News outlets all over Canada—and around the world—picked it up. Suddenly, everybody was talking about the Tamils, and their decades-long struggle for justice in Sri Lanka. After weeks and weeks of being ignored by government leaders, the Tamil community had finally caught their attention. The community also forced a debate in the broader public about what role Canadians should be playing in opposing war and injustice abroad, and how we stop a genocide from happening.

Not all responses were positive. Some motorists on the Gardiner expressed only frustration about being delayed, completely ignoring the issue at hand. Some reporters in the mainstream media focused almost exclusively on reactions like these, helping to cultivate a backlash against the protests in particular and against the Tamil community in general.
Sadly, many of these reports were characterized by their xenophobic and racist overtones. The Globe and Mail’s Christie Blatchford lamented whether Tamil Canadians should be allowed to participate in civil protests in Canada.

She wrote: “Many Torontonians have long been puzzled by how without any public discussion they remember, let alone any consensus, their city has become home to so many folks from around the world who periodically hold the rest of the place hostage while they make their voices heard….”
Over and over again the humanitarian crisis was obfuscated by discussions on whether the Tamil Tigers have “reaped what they have sown” (Jonathan Kay of the National Post) or whether it was acceptable to “inconvenience” people by blocking roads. Some bloggers and campus newspapers mused whether it was appropriate for students’ unions, the labour movement, other non-profit organizations and individuals to extend solidarity to the demonstration or to those targeted by the police. I was personally attacked as a “mouthpiece for terrorism” while my supporters in the student movement were criticized for addressing a “non-student” or “pan-national” issue.

The GTA is home to the highest number of diasporic Tamils in the world: estimates are between 100,000 and 200,000 people. Universities in the GTA are likely to have the largest proportion of Tamil students in Canada. Isn’t it reasonable then to assume that, when their loved ones are faced with violence and strife, Tamil students experience duress as members of our campus communities? At the University of Toronto, this has been the case. We know this because Tamil students called out to their students’ unions for support.

The suggestion by a University of Toronto spokesperson—that students’ unions should limit their mandates exclusively to “student” issues only, or to lobbying administration—is problematic. And it’s annoying for students who have recently had their voices muzzled, following the administration’s undemocratic implementation of a flat fee tuition fee structure for Arts and Science students. In fact, students at the University of Toronto, who attempted to voice their concerns about flat fees to the Governing Council, were met by police officers who prevented their access to the public meeting. University legislation clearly outlines the right of students to attend.

Our public universities and colleges are part of civil society. Every civic, provincial or federal election that passes, we lament low voter turnout among youth. And yet when students take a stand on matters of political importance—such as human rights and international relations—many rush to silence them. If students cannot engage in such critical debate on their campuses, then when and where else should they do it?

I feel strongly about exercising my right and responsibility to civic engagement. I write letters to government officials. I have written submissions and given testimony to governments on legislation. I sign petitions, go to rallies and volunteer in my community.

In the face of the Tamil struggle, I had been to other demonstrations and events and felt ashamed that there were not more non-Tamils showing support in response to our own neighbours’ cries for help. The two of us arrested and charged that night were non-Tamil Canadians, who were then prevented from going to demonstrations as part of our bail conditions. It seems that this was a direct message to non-Tamils to keep away from this struggle. With this, and the sheer repugnance displayed by so many against the blockade, it’s no wonder that some people seem so turned of by civil disobedience and international solidarity.

Just because our government categorizes the Tamil Tigers as a “terrorist” group, does that excuse us from defending and supporting the Tamil community, or from speaking out against the deaths of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians?

Gandhi is known as the founder of civil disobedience—non-violent actions that challenge the law—when he was protesting colonialism in India. Nelson Mandela exercised civil disobedience in his anti-apartheid efforts—actions that we honour. But a six-hour blockade of the Gardiner, mainly by people of colour, is offensive and “barbaric” to some Canadians. Accusations flew that Tamils were using women as shields, making it seem as though women were being placed in front of speeding vehicles or that they were incapable to protest for themselves.

Women have historically been at the forefront of peace movements. With no exception, Tamil women have been active in seeking a peaceful resolution in Sri Lanka. On the Gardiner, women willfully decided to create a human chain with backs to the riot police as a sign that we, Tamils and non-Tamils alike, would peacefully wait for a government response to the catastrophe in Sri Lanka.
Today, even though the Sri Lankan president declared victory against the Tamil Tigers and assured equality for all, almost 300,000 Tamil civilians now live in deplorable conditions in concentration camps, with an estimated 1,400 Tamil refugees dying every week. Human rights groups have decried the gross human rights violations that continue to be committed by the Sri Lankan government.
Despite that, the Sri Lankan government plans to increase its military spending next year to $1.6 billion, prompting international human rights groups and a growing list of national governments to question a recent $2.5 billion loan to Sri Lanka approved by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The loan is ostensibly for reconstruction, but not a single human rights condition is attached. I am still waiting for our own government to step up to the plate on a global scale, and oppose human rights violations—not only in Sri Lanka, but also in Honduras, Iran and in our own backyard.
In the meantime, we must not forget what’s happening in Sri Lanka, now that the war has been declared “over” and the issue no longer makes front-page news. The Canadian government will only respond to pressure when it comes to opposing human rights violations. And so the links that were made and the relationships that were forged during the Tamil protests in Toronto must become the foundation upon which to build a more integrated and accessible solidarity movement.

The potential for such a movement is greater in the wake of the Tamil protests, thanks to the success of the Tamil community in winning new allies and in raising the public consciousness about the history of Tamil oppression in Sri Lanka. The Tamil struggle for liberation, both in Sri Lanka and in Canada, is entering a new stage. Non-Tamils now have an even greater opportunity and responsibility to be part of that struggle, and to show the kind of solidarity that can make a real difference in achieving peace and justice for Tamils.

Solidarity is not a criminal offence!

Angela Regnier was arrested during the Tamil solidarity protest on the Gardiner Expressway on May 10, and later charged with “mischief.” Now that the charge against her has been dropped, Angela recounts the timeline of her arrest and her experience in the court system.

Sunday, May 10 was Mother’s Day. That morning, I updated my facebook status to read: “Happy Mother’s Day everyone! Work for peace today in honour of mothers everywhere.” My original intention was to finish a government submission I was working on. But after I had called my mother to wish her Happy Mother’s Day love, news reports and text messages conveyed to me that there was something more pressing.

I began to receive calls for support for a growing Tamil-led demonstration blockading the Gardiner Expressway, which was effectively shut down at 6pm. Protesters were asking the government to respond to the massacre once and for all.

I arrived with friends at the Expressway at approximately 10:30 pm, after participating in the vigil at Queen’s Park—where my whiteness was so notable that many photos were taken of me as I stood there with a candle. Hours later, I went to the Gardiner to join thousands of demonstrators sitting or standing on the pavement. The highway was being blocked by what seemed like hundreds of police and dozens of emergency vehicles. Women decided to line up, linking arms in front of riot police—who were decked out in helmets, batons and shields.

I joined the women in the human chain. We stood peacefully while the crowd chanted. The police began to push on our backs with their shields in an effort to agitate the crowd. The women next to me asked the police to stop pushing, but they didn’t. Many demonstrators close to the human chain sat down as a sign of the crowd’s intent for peacefulness.

Moments later, riot police started pushing the line again. Some struck protesters on their heads with batons. I then saw two riot police grab a demonstrator near me by the neck of his clothes. BeforeI knew it, police had grabbed me too, and knocked me to the ground. My face landed on the pavement and my glasses were crushed onto my face.
The police dragged me for a while as they yelled at me to get up—a difficult task since they were dragging me.

With three of us handcuffed (a Tamil woman had been arrested as well), a group of police huddled nearby. I overheard them say: “What are we arresting them for? Mischief? Yeah, okay. Let’s say mischief.”

Then one cop came up to me and asked me if I was aware that I was being arrested for mischief. I think I said: “apparently.”

An officer asked me for my name, birthdate and address, all of which I gave to them. I was then placed in a police van where I was held for about two hours.
I was later frisked a second time, and again asked for my name, birthdate and address. They asked me if I had any injuries. I said yes, that my face had been banged up. They asked me what happened to my face and I said the cops had dragged me on the highway. A cop was instructed to begin an injury report.

They then asked me a series of questions; including if I had been read my rights. I had not, so I shook my head. A cop answered for me that I had been read my rights, which was a lie—I had not. So I continued to shake my head. I was then asked if I knew I had the right to legal counsel. I said yes, and that I would like to call legal counsel.
I was then moved to a meeting room where I had presumed I would get my phone call. I waited for about 40 minutes.

Instead of receiving my phone call, two detectives came in. They said they wanted information about what had happened. I said that I wanted to talk to my legal counsel. He said that he just needed to get some information from me and asked if I understood that. I said that I did understand, but that I also understood that I was entitled to contact legal counsel. He told me that I was being uncooperative, and so he had to charge me with mischief.

He then told me that I would be strip-searched. They escorted me to the front desk area. The officer at the front desk asked if I was aware that I was going to be detained and charged. I said I understood that, but that I still wanted to phone legal counsel. He sounded surprised: “She still hasn’t received her call?” He then told the officers to take me back to have my phone call. It was now 2:30 am and thus becoming more unlikely I would reach anyone.

I called a friend whose number I remembered. I was told to leave a message, including the division’s phone number, presumably so he or a lawyer could call me back. I was instructed to leave a message with the details of my bail hearing. When my friend attempted to phone me back, the detectives refused to allow him to talk to me. He left a message for me with a phone number for a lawyer. I then left a voicemail for the lawyer.

I was then taken to be strip searched. Afterwards, I had to remove my jewelry. I explained that I had received two new cartilage piercings that day and that it could be harmful to remove them so soon afterwards. They said I had to remove them anyway, which was very painful and caused my ears to bleed. I asked if I would be able to get the jewelry back—they said they would put it with my other stuff. I requested that they put the jewelry in a plastic bag with my other belongings, but they refused. I have yet to have my jewelry returned from the police.
I was then returned to the meeting room. The two detectives came back into the room with another round of questions. One asked me if I was employed. I said that I did not want to answer any questions until I spoke to a lawyer. He threatened that I may not have a lawyer at the bail hearing (which is a lie: if you do not have your own lawyer, duty counsel is assigned to you). He said the courts would want to know if I was employed and what my connections were to society. He said it would be easier for me to get bail if I was employed. He said that if I didn’t answer the question that he would write “unemployed.”

That seemed ridiculous, but I didn’t answer. He asked me who my employer was. I then told him that I was the executive director of a non-profit organization. His attitude towards me changed once I mentioned my job title. He stopped questioning me and left the room. Seconds later, he came back in and said: “Did you know that there are a bunch of people outside asking for you?”
Of course, I didn’t know, and I said no. They then asked me if I wanted to speak to them. Of course, I did.
I spoke to a friend who put me on speaker phone so I could hear greetings from the others waiting outside the police station for me. It was really uplifting hearing from them, although it reminded me of how arbitrary all of this was. They assured me that they would get a lawyer to my bail hearing, to the hearings of any others still detained.
When the detectives returned to the room, they again threatened that a lawyer may not show up to the bail hearing. I wasn’t sure why they kept threatening this except simply as an intimidation tactic.

I was then transferred to a single cell. It was so cold in there—as if the air conditioning had been maximized.

In the morning, three cops came to escort me to the police wagon. One cop jeered me the whole way. He said: “Here’s the shit-disturber. She just goes to rallies to cause shit. Really cool to be such a shit disturber…” This perturbed me to no end, but I kept my mouth shut. Thousands of people had just been killed in Sri Lanka, I was thinking. Were we so unenlightened in Canada that we could so cavalierly dismiss a nation’s pleas to end a worsening humanitarian crisis?
I arrived at the bail court at 7 am and was placed in a holding cell.

As promised by my supporters, a lawyer met with me that morning. She had negotiated bail conditions with the Crown Attorney, which I agreed to accept. But then at the bail hearing, the Crown Attorney was quite obnoxious. She claimed that I had pushed people into police and had been uncooperative by withholding my name and address. This was maddening and a plain lie, but I was in no position to object.

Then the Crown Attorney read bail conditions which were different than the ones already negotiated with my lawyer. She asked if I would agree to refrain from unlawfully demonstrating between Yonge, Bloor, Spadina and Queen’s Quay. This was a surprise, as the Crown and my lawyer had previously agreed that I would refrain from frequenting the Spadina ramp to the Gardiner Expressway.
My lawyer expressed frustration that the Crown Attorney changed the bail conditions on the fly. She came to consult with me and I asked for clarification. I asked for clarification on unlawful demonstrating. I mentioned to my lawyer that there were sometimes responsibilities associated with work for me to attend marches and parades. I asked if I could go to permitted events such as the Pride Parade. The lawyer asked the Crown Attorney. She responded very sarcastically. “Yes. Gay pride is not a political demonstration.” I disagreed with her analysis of Pride, but nevertheless agreed to the bail conditions.

The cop who escorted me back from my bail hearing was indignant to learn about my participation in the blockade. She asked me: “How could you do this? How could you inconvenience people on the highway? They probably had to pee.” I said that it was an even worse inconvenience that thousands of people had been killed in Sri Lanka that day. She then asked me “Are you even Canadian?”
I was offended by this question. I said: “Yes. Born and raised.” I said that I felt strongly that the Harper government should take action. She told me that if I cared so much that I should just “go there.” I asked if she meant I should go to Sri Lanka. I explained I did not want to go into a war zone and that external aid and media were not even allowed in. She repeated that I should just “go there” if I cared so much. She chastised me until I was back in the holding cell.

After close to a full day of being detained, I finally left the court. Daylight felt so remarkable! Since the court was very close to Queen’s Park where a hunger strike was still underway, I hopped into a cab so I didn’t immediately break bail.

I then had three court appearances where the Crown was supposed to disclose evidence against me. The police did not produce any evidence, not even from the arresting officer, which is why at the third court appearance the charge was dropped.

Letters!

SUBJECT: coments [sic] on your dreadful “news” paper:

Hello:
I am a part time instructor at Ryerson and I just picked up your “newspaper.”  I think it is extremely sad that student fees go to essentially a leftist propaganda rag.  There is no attempt at even handedness, you are just a group of sophomoric writers so blinded by rage and arrogance that you simply will not entertain any contrary opinions.  You write that organic farming is the key to the future.  If we went to organic farming across the earth the productivity of land would plummet and estimates have 2 billion people dying of starvation.  Oops, not really a champion of the masses are you there?

You simply give a platform for CUPE and offer no alternative views.  My children are missing swimming lessons so these whining brats can fight for benefits that virtually nobody else could even hope for.  You make the absurd comparison to “golden parachutes.”  Well two wrongs don’t make a right and do you see garbage men and city works and private sector executives doing the same role?  You have no cares for the single mothers who are losing jobs because they have no day care, you have no concern for inner city youth who have no pools to go to.  You make no attempt to compare the benefits they ask for to other workers, you claim to be a champion of the masses and yet you advocate for one segment of society with little education and few skills to get benefits that must be support by taxpayers who get none of them.  And of course there is the standard mindless extolling of the GM bailout.  Again, my children will be paying higher taxes so one industry that has been grossly mismanaged can stay afloat.  We will end up an [sic] oversupply of vehicles and

GM and their ilk will be heading for the public trough every few years.  I won’t even comment on your typically one sided rants against our one real Middle Eastern democracy.  I see no negative comments about Darfur, nothing about the human rights violations in Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, etc, you have no sympathy for people who have been tossed into jail (for nothing more than contrary political views) in the police state that is Cuba.  It is easy for you to spend other people’s money (no one would ever pay for this rag) — it is a nothing [sic] more than political masturbation, you are pleasuring yourself, it is absolutely self indulgent writing.  There are two sides to stories, you might want to identify a few and stop merely acting as a soapbox for whatever leftest with the shrillest agenda (you can fill in the blank with anti Israel, pro union, pro Islamist, aboriginal  victimization (I’m getting bored), anti American etc.), how wonderful it is in the Utopian Cuba etc. And as you sit in Canada with your Starbucks coffee and write paeans to every leftist flag waver out there you might consider that there are other opinions and they are not unreasonable.  The unreasonable person is the propagandist that refuses to listen to contrary opinions, the unreasonable person is the one so blinded by their own self-righteousness that they end up walking around, seeing nothing while claiming to see all.

Paul Finlayson

Editor’s note: We encourage feedback from students who like or do not like what they read in our newspaper. Letters are especially encouraged from people with constructive ideas on how to improve coverage and provide more insightful reporting.

We have decided to run Mr. Paul Finlayson’s letter unedited so his arguments can stand as he made them. We have also decided to not address the issues he raised. The Ryerson Free Press is an unapologetically progressive newspaper and we’re upfront about our politics. We provide an alternative venue for students to write about issues that do not normally receive coverage elsewhere. We also pay contributors for every article published and written in our newspaper. We encourage all students to pitch stories to the editorial team or attend a writer’s meeting to become more involved with our newspaper.

A long history of media concentration in Canada has resulted in very few, mostly privileged, voices dominating the political discourse. The Ryerson Free Press attempts to challenge and re-shape this discourse by creating a space where students can contribute to and engage with news, features, opinions and culture reporting that cannot be found in the mainstream press, either on campus or off.
We are a newspaper that advocates for human rights, social justice, Indigeninous liberation, and the recognition of marginalized voices and issues. We believe that students are open and interested in progressive ideas; the breadth and depth of the stories pitched and written by our writers reflects this. In our twentieth year of publishing, we promise to continue reporting on issues that are underreported in the mainstream media, and to give voice to alternative perspectives that deserve a much wider hearing. We do this to highlight the need and potential for meaningful social change, and to support progressive struggles. Not everyone will appreciate this perspective. Some, like Mr. Finlayson, will denounce it. That’s fine, but we make no apologies.

To Mr. Finlayson, we say this: if our coverage makes you so upset, we suggest that you stick with the National Post. We hear they could use a few more readers these days. Sorry, Mr. Finlayson.

Stephen Harper, Your Host

Jean Hodgkinson

After former Governor General Roméo LeBlanc’s funeral in early July, a video of the service was posted on YouTube and sparked a minor controversy. In the video Prime Minister Stephen Harper is shown taking a communion wafer and it was initially asserted he had put the wafer in his pocket, but Speaker of the Senate Noël Kinsella assured the press that the PM did in fact consume it.

LeBlanc was Catholic. The PM is an evangelical Protestant. Theologically speaking, the communion wafer (also called the “Eucharist” or “host”) means something entirely different in their respective religions.
Although it doesn’t seem like much of a political hot potato, two things must be remembered. The first: Stephen Harper calls himself a religious man, yet it appears only the rites and rituals of his own particular version of Christianity are of interest to him. (In this respect, it must be admitted, he is hardly alone.) The second: religion is a notoriously explosive issue and over millennia it has inspired much vigorous disagreement, right up to and including war. Fortunately this communion controversy is nothing as serious as the religious wars of medieval Europe, but there is precedent nevertheless.

In 2005 former Prime Minister Paul Martin called himself “a very strong Roman Catholic” in response to criticism by Church officials of his government’s failure to support the Vatican’s uncompromising position on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Perhaps remarkably, Martin’s parish priest John Walsh categorically refused to follow an official directive to deny him the sacrament of communion.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May, an Anglican and graduate of a Eucharist course, recently blogged that she “thought the furor was based on the simple reality that a non-Roman Catholic may not (no, never) receive communion in a Roman Catholic Mass.” She also wondered why after the media got hold of the story the PM said he “never refused” communion.

“According to Catholic law Harper shouldn’t have accepted it at all,” Msgr. André Richard told the CBC on July 8. “To Roman Catholics it could have been offensive,” May concluded, “but it is for them to complain.”
That a significant percentage of them did not is fortunate, at least from the viewpoint of Stephen Harper’s political machine. In the last census to break down religious demographics (2001), Catholics numbered 12.7 million or 43 per cent of the population. In second place was “No religion” at a mere 4.7 million people (16 per cent), and the next five largest groups—the United Church (2.8 million), Anglicans (2 million), other Christians (780,000), Baptists (729,000) and Lutherans (606,000)—came to a combined grand total of only 6.9 million, or 23 per cent of all Canadians. So the prime minister could have paid a steep political price indeed for his failure to observe Catholic doctrine and protocols.

“Most people will know that the wafer (or bread) symbolizes the body of Christ,” May wrote. “For the Roman Catholic Church it is more literally the body through transubstantiation.” Luckily for the PM most Catholics don’t know their catechism as well as Elizabeth May does. Nor do they seem very curious about the history of the rules specifying who can and can’t receive communion.

After a theological debate of 300 years, the Fourth Council of the Lateran declared transubstantiation the Church’s official doctrine in the twelfth century. But the argument was far from over, and for centuries it remained one point of contention among many between European Protestants and Catholics.

Reacting to the Reformation initiated by Martin Luther early in the sixteenth century, the Council of Trent re-affirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation in October of 1551 and it has remained orthodox Catholic dogma ever since. Section 1413 of the official Catholic catechism states that in the “consecrated species of bread and wine” which is the Eucharist, “Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.”

Luther himself had argued against the doctrine and his defiance encouraged other people to begin voicing challenges similar to his own. Many began to argue in favour of consubstantiation, whereby Christ’s “body exists together with the substance of bread.” Some Protestants regarded the host as plain old bread, and therefore purely symbolic. Others still simply discarded the ritual of communion altogether. As the most sacred element of the Catholic faith, the only time of the year communion is unavailable is Good Friday, the day which marks the crucifixion.

For a man who uses the phrase “God bless Canada” as liberally as the prime minister, Harper’s ignorance of Catholic protocol was an astonishing oversight. On the other hand it’s completely in character, for this is a man who once said “As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed.”

Al-Jazeera: Coming soon to a TV screen near you?

Sachin Seth

Al-Jazeera English: a station known across the Middle-East, Africa, Asia and Latin America as one that objectively and honestly reports issues neglected by the West. It has been praised by journalists from the New York Times, Time, USA Today, the Jerusalem Post, the CBC and others. The list goes on and on.

But oddly enough, it’s also a station whose credentials have been widely disputed by some organizations in North America. The reason? Its sister station, Al-Jazeera Arabic. Some critics claim that Al-Jazeera Arabic has broadcasted call-in shows that pander to and promote anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.
In its bid for a Canadian broadcasting license Al-Jazeera English has taken a lot of heat, having to stand idly by as these groups began whispering, questioning Al-Jazeera’s integrity and purpose. The main concern was whether the station’s leaders could, one day, be manipulated to air controversial programming similar to its Arabic sibling, a highly unlikely scenario since the English language network’s managing director is Tony Burman, former CBC News chief.

Accusations of anti-Semitism have been the chief obstacle that Al-Jazeera has had to overcome in Canada, even though the channel replaced the BBC in Israel in 2007 as the international news network of choice. Regardless, organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) have campaigned against its broadcast in Canada, and have committed to keeping a close eye on the station if it gets picked up.

CJC CEO Bernie Farber has expressed his reservations regarding the station’s ethics. However, after meeting with Burman and having his “concerns” addressed directly, Farber now claims he’s now more open to the station being broadcast in Canada.

“We look forward to working with Tony Burman and Al-Jazeera,” he said, comfortably.

Burman reportedly made it clear to Farber that Al-Jazeera English and Arabic cater to polar opposite audiences, and both, though they share resources, have separate editorial boards that determine their content.

Many groups have offered their full support to Burman and Al-Jazeera. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) was one of the first to back the bid, not surprisingly since its president, Arnold Amber, is a former colleague of Burman’s.

Amber, a three-time Gemini Award-winning journalist, praised the station’s objectivity and urged the Canadian Radio-television Communications Commission (CRTC), the body in charge of regulating Canadian programming, not to stifle another news source.

“We’re a country that believes in free speech and mass media so we can’t afford to choke off and cut off another source of information,” said Amber.

Burman’s advocacy and the support he has garnered from initial naysayers have all but secured Al-Jazeera English’s place in Canada. It’s perfect timing, too. The need for a station so global has never been greater in the Great White North.

After September 11, 2001, our news landscape became much less local, and with the beginning of the Iraq War, the world became much more interested in Middle Eastern issues. It stands to reason that a real knowledge of Middle Eastern issues can only be gained by relying on an organization that has a real connection to the region.

Al-Jazeera’s main headquarters in Doha, Qatar, is east of Saudi Arabia, on the Gulf of Aden. It also has broadcast stations in Kuala Lumpur, London and Washington, DC, which successfully cater to the Asian, European and North American news markets, respectively.

Al-Jazeera’s 69 global bureaus (70 if approved in Canada) educate viewers about issues that affect areas that North American news stations largely neglect on a daily basis. Even when reporting on international affairs, stations like CNN often cannot delve deep enough into the problem, largely because they do not have the appropriate international resources.

Case in point—during the Gaza crisis earlier this year, Al-Jazeera English was the only English language station on the ground in Gaza. Both Palestinian and Israeli journalists praised their reporting. I repeat: Jewish journalists praised a group owned by an Arab government while Israel was at war with Hamas. That proves objectivity.

Al-Jazeera English will satisfy Canadians’ craving for international knowledge. But the station doesn’t only report on international issues purposefully and objectively, it also employs people from all over the world.Working in Al-Jazeera’s 69 global bureaus is 1,200 staff of more than 45 ethnicities.
These statistics make the organization the most diverse news network in the world. If you watch the channel, you’ll know their anchors, reporters and weatherpersons come in all colours. As an aspiring journalist of colour, I think this is a good thing to see from a major news network—finally!

The inclusion of Al-Jazeera English in Canada’s media landscape would prove Canada is a land of a free press. We, as Canadians, should rally behind new sources of information. After all, we are the ones who constantly whine and complain about the content of our current ones. Al-Jazeera coming to Canada will revolutionize the way we consume daily news, for the better.

For more information about Al-Jazeera English in Canada, please visit http://www.canadiansforAl-Jazeera.ca/

Dead Sea Scrolls: Protesters say Scrolls are ‘looted artifacts’

Joseph Ho

The Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) calls it a “once in a lifetime opportunity to see one of the greatest archaeological finds of the 20th century.” But not everybody is flocking to downtown Toronto to see the world-famous Dead Sea Scrolls. A number of pro-Palestinian groups have criticized the museum for displaying “looted artifacts”—and have held weekly pickets outside the exhibit throughout July.

One of the groups, the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA), is demanding that the ROM dissociate itself from the Israel Antiquities Authority, with which the ROM has partnered to display the scrolls. The coalition also wants the ROM to recognize that the scrolls are looted Palestinian artifacts.

“We’re asking people not to go to the ROM and not to see the show because it’s being used to justify what Israel’s doing in Palestine,” said Sue Goldstein, a member of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, and Women in Solidarity with Palestine. “These artifacts were taken from Palestine and they rightfully belong in Palestine—they’re not Israeli property.”

Protesters are trying to inform the public about the controversy around the scrolls, especially those attending the exhibit.

“We want to be out on the streets every Friday during the run of the exhibition to let people know that the Canadian public should be questioning our cultural institutions’ relationships with institutions like the Israel Antiquities Authority,” said Emma Goldman, a member of CAIA and Women in Solidarity with Palestine.

The Israel Antiquities Authority is responsible for the excavation, preservation and study of the country’s artifacts, but CAIA says that the acquisition of the scrolls was illegal under international law, which forbids the exportation of cultural property from an occupied territory during an armed conflict.
According to CAIA, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered between 1947 and 1956, were illegally seized by Israel during the Six Day War in 1967. Despite unanswered questions about the legality of the exhibit, the ROM has refused to address the protesters’ concerns.

“We actually did request the ROM to explain why they would be willing to work with the Israel Antiquities Authority in violation of United Nations conventions and they refused to answer us,” said Goldman.

A statement from Palestine House suggests that the ROM and the Israel Antiquities Authority both have a mutual interest in mounting the exhibit, even if it’s illegal. It argues that the ROM will profit from the attendance, revenue and profile that the exhibit generates. Likewise, Israel will be able to improve its image, even after violating UN conventions and international law. According to Palestine House, the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit is part of Israel’s attempt to “rebrand” itself, as part of an ongoing publicity campaign to promote Israel abroad.

“Israel’s public relations project is made possible with the ROM’s complicity and collaboration,” the statement says.

Israel’s campaign doesn’t resonate with protesters.

“It’s like saying, ‘Israel is full of culture. Israel is a great place to be,’” said Goldstein. “The New York Times magazine has run ads for the last few years showing people at the beach in Tel Aviv when you know just kilometres away there are checkpoints and Palestinians trapped in their villages who are being fenced off and locked in by the wall.”

The controversy surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit has drawn attention to an issue that continues to tarnish Israel’s image: its treatment of the Palestinian people and its seizure of Palestinian land.
“The Israel Antiquities Authority is politicizing the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were found in the West Bank on Palestinian land by a Bedouin man, a Palestinian. But they’re being used, I feel, to justify what Israel’s doing in the West Bank, Gaza and within the confines of Israel where Palestinians are second- and third- and fourth-class citizens who have no rights,” Goldstein says.

She continues: “In fact, there is now a plan afoot in Israel to change place names like Jaffa into Yafo, which is its Hebraicized name. Jaffa is a city just north of Tel Aviv. Instead of using its Arabic name, Israel is going to use a Hebrew version instead. They’re taking the Arabic names of Palestinian villages and towns and they’re Hebraicizing them. Why are they doing that? They want to erase any connections Palestinians have to the land.”

The coalition argues that actions like these prove that Israel is an apartheid state.
“There is a lot of debate around the term ‘apartheid’ and why we use it as a coalition,” added Goldman. “According to the UN definition, a state is considered an apartheid state if it exhibits just one of nine characteristics of apartheid. Israel exhibits eight of those nine characteristics. That’s why there’s so much debate in the international media. [Former US president] Jimmy Carter has called Israel an apartheid state. [Archbishop] Desmond Tutu has called Israel an apartheid state.

“What we’re trying to do is bring attention to this as a political issue. It’s about resisting colonization and ongoing violations of human rights…”

For more information about Israeli apartheid, please visit CAIA

Next Page »