sexism in the child-care debate: it's worse than i thought

A few weeks ago, when Human Resources Minister Diane Finley made some horribly offensive comments about working parents, I noted:

I find it shocking how this discussion in Canada focuses almost exclusively on working mothers. I was so accustomed to hearing "working parents" in the US that when I moved here, I was really taken aback by the difference. To me, this is akin to seeing the choice of "Miss" on Canadian forms, or "Dear Sir or Madam" instead of "To whom it may concern". But those phrases, although important, are largely symbolic. The unquestioned assumption that women choose between staying home or earning income, while men do not make similar choices, should have been retired at least 30 years ago.

Little did I know, these assumptions about gender and child care are actually written into Canadian law! Perhaps Canadian readers already know this, but when I inadvertently discovered it a few weeks ago, I was shocked.

In my Research Methods class, we had a guest lecture by Melissa Fritz, a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto. Fritz is examining the language used in government policy documents, specifically child care policy. Her talk described her methods of analyzing Hansard transcripts, but I got stuck on the content of her research.

Fritz pointed us to Canada Revenue Agency and the Universal Child Care Benefit:

The Universal Child Care Benefit is designed to help Canadian families, as they try to balance work and family life, by supporting their child care choices through direct financial support. The UCCB is for children under the age of 6 years and is paid in instalments of $100 per month per child.

Leaving aside that these are taxable benefits, that the benefit amount ($100 per month) is totally inadequate for child care, and that the tax benefit does nothing to create quality child care for so many families that need it - leaving all that aside - the UCCB is actually sexist by design, stemming from the sexist assumptions embedded in the Income Tax Act.

On the application for the UCCB, Canada Revenue explains:

...there is a presumption that when both a male and female parent live in the same home as the child, the female parent is considered to be primarily responsible (see the definition on page two of this information sheet) for the child and should apply. However, if the male parent is primarily responsible, he can apply if a signed note from the female parent is attached to the application...

Primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of a child means that you are responsible for such things as supervising the child's daily activities and needs, making sure the child's medical needs are met, and arranging for child care when necessary. If there is a female parent who lives with the child, we usually consider her to be this person. However, it could be the father, a grandparent or a guardian. [See Income Tax Act, Section 122.6(f)]

This floors me. In the 21st Century, an antiquated, gendered division of labour is actually written into federal policy. And it's not like the present government wrote this. It dates back at least as far the 1970s. Although tax codes are constantly evolving, this has never been changed.

Obviously this blatant sexism offends me, but beyond that, it doesn't reflect the realities of contemporary life. Families with equally shared parenting responsibilities have to pretend otherwise to receive their $1,200. Stay-at-home fathers need a note from Primary Earner Mom before their responsibilities can be legally recognized. And same-sex parents... well, good luck with that. They have to convince Canada Revenue Agency that one of them - but not both of them! - is raising a child.

And it's not only the presumption of the mother as primary caregiver; if you look a little deeper, there are all kinds of assumptions going on. If the female parent is assumed to be the primary caregiver, then the male parent is assumed to be the primary income earner, which in turn assumes the female parent earns less than her male partner. Those are some pretty ridiculous assumptions to make these days.

According to Fritz, as recently as 1993, some women's organizations argued in favour of continuing the gendered presumption of care, feeling it protected women's benefits after divorce. Honourable ends, but ridiculous means.

In 2005, former MP Dave Chatters, a Conservative from Alberta, tabled a private member's bill to amend the Income Tax Act to remove the female presumption of child care. Chatters had a constituent who was a single father with full custody of his two children. At some point, the man's female partner - not the children's mother - moved in with him. She did not legally adopt the children, yet the child-care benefit was automatically paid to her! The man tried to fight it, without success. Canada Revenue would only pay the benefit to the man's girlfriend! Chatters sought to change the law on this man's behalf, but the private member's bill went the way of most, dying when an election was called. Chatters, a Conservative, has since retired.

Read More

in which another world makes itself known to me, and i wish it would go away

My filter is malfunctioning.

My trusty filter, the one that makes possible my total ignorance of celebrity relationships, reality TV and big-budget science fiction movies, appears to be broken. This filter is the reason I can honestly claim total ignorance of Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and Lindsay Lohan. I guess if my mental shield were invincible, I wouldn't even know those names. But come on, this filter blocked out the entire 2008 US presidential election campaign, so you know it has superhero powers.

But clearly, my filter is malfunctioning.

I have become aware that two people from the UK are getting married. Once married, they will Visit Canada, and some Canadians care. Some Canadians care quite a bit.

Luckily, plans for this Visit do not include Toronto, so we in the GTA won't have to deal with traffic and security and other annoyances, such as enthralled co-workers.

But still. The fact that some Canadians care so much about this impending Visit is depressing. I try not to be judgemental. We each have our own distractions, and some of mine are not exactly Mensa material. But for so many people, there's nothing but distraction - distraction and consumption. Work, watch, shop, repeat.

I can't help but think that a fascination with celebrity gossip somehow correlates with widespread cultural apathy and complacency. And if there's a more vacuous pasttime than celebrity worship, it's worshipping people whose fame is based on genetic lineage. I simply cannot understand why some people are thought to be inherently interesting solely because of where and to whom they were born.

I don't buy the "it's cultural" excuse. Plenty of Brits have no use for the monarchy, and plenty of Americans, whose country has no monarchist tradition, flip over anything royal. If you've got a reason we should care about the Visit, you'll have to do better than that.

For my part, I need to get my filter repaired. I don't care how many pictures of the Queen Jason Kenney puts in the Citizenship guide, I just Do. Not. Care.

Read More

diane finley and the harper conservatives insult all working parents

How could anyone take seriously a party that would say this out loud? And how could such a party come to govern this country for so long?

“It’s the Liberals who wanted to ensure that parents are forced to have other people raise their children. We do not believe in that,” Finley said in the Commons Thursday, the same day that Liberals were promising to revive the national program scrapped by the Conservatives five years ago this week.

Liberals are calling Finley’s remark an insult to working Canadian mothers and fathers and a clear declaration of bias in favour of stay-at-home parents — a rarity in Canada, where most mothers with children work.

“For decades we’ve realized that women are working, men are working and the second thing we’ve realized is that there’s a great benefit to children from working and playing with others and learning with others,” said Liberal MP Bob Rae. “The notion somehow that child care is some form of alien abduction is just completely preposterous.”

New Democrats, who have put forward their own national child-care legislation in the Commons, were also outraged by Finley’s characterization of child-care programs.

“Finley insulted all teachers, all early childhood educators, child-care workers, organizers of parents’ resource centres and even babysitters. She is trying to inflict guilt on all working parents — a truly shameful, divisive behaviour,” said NDP MP Olivia Chow.

On a sidenote, I find it shocking how this discussion in Canada focuses almost exclusively on working mothers. I was so accustomed to hearing "working parents" in the US that when I moved here, I was really taken aback by the difference. To me, this is akin to seeing the choice of "Miss" on Canadian forms, or "Dear Sir or Madam" instead of "To whom it may concern". But those phrases, although important, are largely symbolic. The unquestioned assumption that women choose between staying home or earning income, while men do not make similar choices, should have been retired at least 30 years ago.

In any case, the Conservatives are neanderthals on this issue. If there was any hope for any kind of coalition government, we'd be rid of them in no time.

Read More

tunisia, egypt, who is next? around the globe, revolutions

Revolution is spreading. On the heels of massive protests and demonstrations throughout Europe, Tunisians take back their country, and now Cairo rises up against Mubarak.

This morning the Canadian mainstream media is all agog with a speech out of Washington DC that will change absolutely nothing. CBC Headline: Obama urges people to create brighter future! ( Oh gosh, does he really?!) Meanwhile, much of the world is actually trying to do just that.

It's so exciting! I wish I had time to follow it all more closely. I'm filled with awe and more than a little envy.

Read More

creskey: a government of "too many deals and not enough ideals": let them stay!

Jim Creskey, an editor of Embassy magazine, has written an excellent piece linking Martin Luther King, Jr., Dwight Eisenhower's prophetic retirement speech, the shamefully US-centric Canadian government, and the plight of courageous Iraq War resisters seeking refuge in this country. This is a brief excerpt; please click through and read the whole piece. It deserves our attention.

Today, both Eisenhower and King would be dismayed by the rampant and excessive militarism of America. The total for military-related spending in the US for 2010 exceeds a trillion dollars.

Canada, allowing itself to be linked to American military adventures, has doubled its direct spending in recent years. The excuses haven't changed since Eisenhower and King's time. The courageous sacrifices of soldiers are still used as justification for bad political decisions. The threat of terror in various forms is still raised and the dangling of military-related jobs in high-unemployment constituencies is still part of the soft-sell.

Martin Luther King would also have a hard time understanding why today's government of Canada is determined to deport American conscientious objectors back to military jails even though most Canadians believe they should be offered asylum. Would he still believe that Canada was another name for heaven?

Too many deals and not enough ideals on both sides of the border have brought both countries to this regrettable place in modern history. The idealistic but profoundly practical words of a former US Republican president and a martyred champion of non-violent resistance could be applied today to good effect.

Thank you, Mr. Creskey! Supportive letters can be sent to letters@embassymag.ca.

Read More

let them stay week 2011: please write a letter this week

It's time to show Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney that we have not given up. We have not gone away. We will continue to fight for the Canada we want to live in - the Canada that stands for peace, the Canada that is a "refuge from militarism". Canada said NO to the invasion of Iraq, and we should welcome people who - at great personal sacrifice - have done the same.

Tell Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney why you think Iraq War resisters should be allowed to stay in Canada.

Add your name to the Open Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney. (Scroll down to click on "add your name".)

And please take a few minutes to write your own letter:

The Right Hon. Stephen Harper
Prime Minister
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
pm@pm.gc.ca

The Hon. Jason Kenney
Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Kenney.j@parl.gc.ca

Thanks!

Read More

hockey fans for peace: support your team, not the war

Many thanks to Kimball Cariou of Hockey Fans for Peace for this excellent piece in The Straight. As a baseball-loving leftist, I relate on many levels!

It's been an interesting few days since Hockey Fans For Peace hit the media radar. As cofounder, I've watched the small membership of our Facebook group suddenly triple, and I've done some major radio sports-talk-show interviews.

This whole thing was largely sparked by Cherry's ugly rant at the inauguration of the new city council in Toronto. Cherry supporters argue that he simply "supports the troops".

That claim was demolished over Christmas in Kandahar, where Cherry fired off artillery, autographed bombs, and bragged about "chasing the Taliban".

But many hockey fans across Canada have been disturbed by a larger trend—the strategy of the Harper Conservatives to turn athletes and the Canadian Armed Forces into props for their war-making agenda.

It's difficult these days to find a major sports event which does not incorporate reference to "our brave troops in Kandahar". For me, the most gut-wrenching was at the Oct. 31 Saskatchewan Roughriders vs. B.C. Lions game at Empire Stadium in Vancouver.

The psychological aim of this strategy is to sow divisions among Canadians, particularly among the solid majority who want an early return home for the troops in Afghanistan. "Real" hockey fans and "real" Canadians, we are urged to believe, all "support the troops" and therefore back the alleged aims of the military mission.

Anyone who questions this reasoning is immediately under suspicion. Such individuals are somehow not considered true fans or "patriotic" Canadians.

Supposedly we "spit in the faces" of the troops. We are even accused of being "Taliban recruiters". (A Toronto Sun writer hurled this absurd slander at me on Jan. 7 during a call-in on 640 AM's "Opie Show"!).

Read it here, and join Hockey Fans for Peace here.

Read More

jack todd: don cherry is nothing but a phoney

Jack Todd, a sports columnist in Montreal whose book I wrote about here, has some thoughts on Don Cherry.

When Cherry dives in to right-wing politics with both feet firmly in his mouth, he is over the line - the line that separates commentary on hockey from such complex issues as public transit, health care and the war in Afghanistan.

Shameless to the core, Cherry has even devoted one entire segment of Coach's Corner to his own self-aggrandizement as Canada's self-appointed No. 1 soldier. But Cherry the soldier is as phoney as Cherry the bluecollar guy. I know someone who has held the same bluecollar job for at least the past 15 years. Cherry has walked past this person on a regular basis for all those years - and never once said hello.

Still, Cherry wants us to believe that he is blue-collar, while guys like me are the elite, bicycle-riding columnists.

You want a tough, blue-collar guy, Don? A real one, not a phoney? Well, I grew up with one. A father who was a combat veteran of the First World War. An ex-boxer with his hands all smashed up, his nose broken, his brain addled after 70 pro fights as a light-heavyweight and more amateur bouts than he could count. A guy who would drive a spike with his bare fist, then lick the blood off his knuckles.

My father had just about every fault in the book, but he was real. He voted solid Democrat. He stood up for the working man and the little guy. When he had almost nothing, he would give part of what he did have to a family that had nothing at all.

And he would have spotted a phoney like Cherry a mile off.

Read his great column here.

In case you missed it, Cherry recently finagled some media attention by doing his shtick at Toronto City Hall. Toronto was not impressed.

Thanks to The Galloping Beaver.

Read More

harper government's new citizenship test proves one more barrier to immigrants

Remember the Harper Government's new Citizenship Guide? It's working.

Massive failure rates follow new, tougher Canadian citizenship tests

Failure rates for immigrants writing citizenship tests have soared since the spring, when tougher questions and revamped rules made it harder for newcomers to become Canadian.

The new test, introduced March 15, was based on a bulked-up citizenship guide released a year ago to give immigrants a richer picture of Canada’s history, culture, law and politics.

The 63-page guide, Discover Canada, replaced a slimmer volume dating from 1995 that had fewer facts to memorize. The failure rate for the old citizenship test, with questions drawn from the smaller guide, ranged between four and eight per cent.

Failure rates for the new test, however, rocketed to about 30 per cent when it was first introduced — prompting officials to revise the rules to avoid clogging the system with thousands of would-be Canadians who, because they had flunked, often had to plead their cases before busy citizenship judges.

A reworked test introduced Oct. 14 is helping to cut the national failure rate to about 20 per cent, still far higher than historic levels and making the exam-hall experience much more nerve-wracking for newcomers.

People who are Canadian by accident of birth are required to do nothing but obey the law and pay taxes. Those who choose to become Canadian - people who uproot their lives and families, spend many thousands of dollars, often forced to start their educations and careers completely over, all for the privilege of living in Canada - are made to jump through hoops meant prove knowledge and loyalty.

Yet Canada cannot survive without immigrants. The country's non-immigrant population growth is less than zero. And once people are here, it should be as easy as possible to become citizens. Don't we want to encourage immigrants to have a full stake in the country? To put down roots, to build a future, to vote?

The idiots commenting on the news stories about this - themselves likely the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of immigrants - crow about Canada finally getting a grip, cracking down. About people "milking the system", the horror of hyphenated identity. Most sound like they can only dream of having the skills, resiliency and tenacity to emigrate to another country. Or for that matter, to brush their own teeth.

Read More

poll confirms what we all know: harper govt out of step with majority of canadians

The day after the Conservative-controlled Senate squashed the climate change bill, this from the Council of Canadians:

Poll suggests Harper Government out of step with Canadians

Thursday, November 18, 2010

With just over a week before the next major round of UN climate negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, results of an Environics Research poll suggest that the Canadian public has far different priorities than the government when it comes to climate change.

Over 80 percent of Canadians agree that too much focus on economic growth and consumerism is a root cause of climate change. They also affirm that industrialized countries – which have historically produced the most greenhouse gas emissions – bear the most responsibility for reducing emissions.

“The results indicate Canadians understand that the climate crisis requires a change in economic, social, and environmental priorities. If Canadians were deciding our climate policy we would be following a very different path,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy and Climate Justice Campaigner, Council of Canadians.

The poll also indicates that over 70 percent of Canadians support redirecting of military spending toward efforts that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the idea of a World Climate and Justice Tribunal to judge and penalize countries and corporations whose actions have contributed climate change. Over 80 percent of Canadians believe the Canadian government should invest in “green jobs” and transition programmes for workers and communities negatively affected by a shift off of fossil fuels.

“These polling results indicate willingness on the part of Canadians for significant change in how we understand and respond to the climate crisis that is in keeping with the main themes discussed at a massive climate conference held last April in Bolivia,” adds Rick Arnold, Coordinator for Common Frontiers.

More than 35,000 people attended the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia, including delegates from the seven organizations and unions that commissioned the polling. The questions used in the Environics poll were adapted from those agreed to by participants at the World People’s Conference. “The Cochabamba conference was about affirming the need for an alternative paradigm that promotes harmony with nature,” says Clayton Thomas Muller of the Indigenous Environmental Network.

“In sharp contrast to the polling results, the Canadian government continues to justify its inaction on climate change by asserting its need to be in lock-step with Washington,” says Donald Lafleur, 4th National Vice-President of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, which passed the House of Commons last May, was defeated in the Senate two days ago.

The Canadian Government supports the Copenhagen Accord which is not legally binding and does not include mandatory emissions reduction targets. “Even if all the countries that have supported this so-called Accord fulfilled their ‘voluntary’ targets, global temperatures would still rise by nearly 4 degrees Celsius above their pre-industrial levels. This spells disaster for much of the world,” adds John Dillon, spokesperson for KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives.

The results are a clear sign that Canadians need to be consulted concerning this government’s climate policy. “The Harper government should do what’s right, and undertake a national consultation on its climate policy,” says Raul Burbano from Toronto Bolivia Solidarity.

The poll was commissioned by the Council of Canadians, KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Indigenous Environmental Network, Common Frontiers, Public Service Alliance of Canada and Toronto Bolivia Solidarity.

Climate Change Poll Highlights

The telephone poll of 1,000 Canadians conducted October 27 to November 1 2010 has a margin of error of +/- 3.10%, 19 times out of 20.

87% of Canadians strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: “The root cause of climate change is too much focus on economic growth and consumerism. We need to have an economy that is in harmony with nature, which recognizes and respects the planet.”

85% of Canadians strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: “Industrialized countries which have historically produced the most greenhouse gas emissions, should be the most responsible for reducing current emissions.”

83% of Canadians strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement that: “The Canadian government should invest in green jobs and have transition programmes for workers and communities negatively affected by a shift away from reliance on fossil fuels.”

77% of Canadians strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: “There should be a World Climate and Justice Tribunal to judge and penalize countries and corporations whose actions have contributed climate change and damaged the environment.”

71% of Canadians strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: “The money spent on wars and the military would all be better spent on efforts that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of climate change.” 54% of Conservative Party supporters polled agreed with this statement.

Read More

protesting veterans, we support you. please lose the bigotry.

I was very encouraged and impressed to see Canadian veterans demanding better treatment from the country they served. Those red circles on MPs lapels mean as much as a "support our troops" car magnet - nothing - unless they're backed up by action. When Colonel Pat Stogran, the veterans ombudsman, spoke up about the raw deal being foisted on Canadian veterans, the Harper government did what they always do: they fired him.

I was afraid the issue might die there, but veterans themselves aren't letting that happen. I was saddened, though, to see the veterans protest information refer ungenerously to others in need.

It is shameful to think that the Constitution of Canada and the Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees "refugees" and other illegal aliens into this country, more right and privileges without application than a serving or retired member of of the Canadian Forces, RCMP or the Merchant Seamen/women. [Emphasis in original, not added.]

Why include this? The veterans deserve fair treatment, period. Why pit their rights against the needs of others?

Why the inflammatory quotes? This implies the writer doubts there is such a thing as a refugee. One would think that a veteran, who perhaps has seen countries devastated by war, famine and oppression, knows why refugees exist. And I reject the use of the phrase "illegal aliens," as if an immigrant without documentation is not human.

Why lie? Refugees and undocumented immigrants to Canada do not have more rights and privileges than Canadian veterans. Refugee claimants have some basic rights while in the refugee process. Undocumented immigrants have none. And no one has any rights "without application". Refugee claimants go through a formal process. Undocumented immigrants have no rights or privileges whatsoever. They certainly don't have more benefits than veterans. Where in the "Constitution of Canada and the Canadian Bill of Rights" does it say this?

Canadian Veterans are right to protest, and I fully support their demands for better and more comprehensive benefits. The Canada that they served - the Canada that's worth defending - isn't a country that turns its back on needy refugees, despite the political fashion of the day. It's a country that recognizes itself as a nation of immigrants from the very beginning - starting with the British and French who came here without invitation. Unless they're native peoples, every Canadian veteran is a descendant of immigrants of one kind or another. To the people who were already here, those ancestors were aliens, too.

I am saddened by the protest organizers' narrowness of vision. I hope it doesn't reflect the feelings of the majority of veterans who are protesting.

Read More

lawrence martin: "countless examples of the intolerant streak that marks this government"

In case you missed it, here's an excellent column by Lawrence Martin in the Globe and Mail from earlier this week. I'm pleased to note it bears a strong resemblance to something I recently wrote. I'm even more pleased to see Martin's prominent reference to US war resisters seeking refuge in Canada.

Canadians have gained a reputation as a fair-minded people. There have been exceptions through our history, but, by and large, we have been seen as a moderate and tolerant country.

We didn’t do guilt by association, for example. But that’s what so distressing about the character of today’s Conservatives. They revel in it. The most recent manifestation is the cancellation of a speech by the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress at the National Defence Headquarters. Many years ago, a former director of the group made some remarks – vile remarks – about Israelis over the age of 18 being legitimate targets for suicide bombers.

By all accounts, new director Imam Zijad Delic repudiates that extremism. By all accounts, he is trying to bridge the divide. But the Conservatives tar him with the same brush and won’t allow him to give a speech at the National Defence Headquarters. Imagine the harm it would have done!

There are countless examples of the intolerant streak that marks this government. Canada opposed the Iraq war, yet we won’t allow a haven to Americans who opposed fighting in that war, as we did with Vietnam. We’re probably the only G20 country that tried to bar George Galloway, at the time a British MP, from coming to speak. Minister of State Diane Ablonczy was stripped of some of her responsibilities for her support of Gay Pride week. Those criticizing aspects of our Afghanistan policy are berated for not supporting our troops. If a bank executive like Ed Clark criticizes government economic policy, he’s pilloried for supposedly being motivated by politics rather than economic expertise.

The tolerant Canada of old would have allowed Omar Khadr his basic Charter rights. The tolerant Canada of the past would have allowed our federal scientists to express their views, not have them vetted by political operatives. It would allow sophisticated research at the Justice Department to see the light of day even if it contradicted government sentencing policy, and it would give full wing to data collection by Statistics Canada. . . . [Read more here.]

I'm sure most Canadian wmtc readers are planning to read Martin's new book, Harperland, if you haven't read it already. It's the first book on my winter-break non-school reading list.

Read More

quiet? invisible? as if: american immigrants to canada get noticed

We've been discovered! Globe and Mail editorial.

The quiet Americans who are Canada’s invisible immigrants

Research into the least studied immigrant group shows that many come in pursuit of ideals

Canada takes pride in being a country of immigrants. Scholars devote much time to researching the social and economic outcomes of newcomers, most of whom hail from visible-minority communities. It is fitting, then, that someone has delved into Canada’s fourth-largest immigration source: Americans.

These invisible immigrants – there are one million, more than at any time since the Vietnam War – are a unique group. According to a leading American geographer, they come to Canada not for economic opportunities, but for the country’s set of values.

Of course, every immigrant’s motivations are intensely personal. However, extensive research by Susan Hardwick, a professor at the University of Oregon, shows that the over-arching inspiration for moving north of the border is an idealistic one.

Americans are attracted by their view of Canada’s more liberal culture. That includes support for a universal public health-care system, positive attitudes toward gays and lesbians, gun control laws and multiculturalism.

In British Columbia, for example, Prof. Hardwick found that most recent arrivals from the U.S. reported their primary reason for leaving was the idea that Canada is a safe refuge for liberal thinkers and idealists.

There are also a growing number of what she calls “midlife mavericks,” who are seeking new lives in what they see as the promised land.

The trend, it seems, is enduring. Reciprocal migration means Canadians need not worry about the brain drain south.

Prof. Hardwick attributes the spike in American immigration, in part, to dissatisfaction with the conservative policies of former president George W. Bush’s years in office.

Now that President Barack Obama, a Democrat, is in the White House, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper leads a Conservative minority government, will liberal Americans sour on Canada? Early research results show that American immigrants are not inclined to move back, especially in light of Canada’s stronger economy.

As well, given Tea Party activism, anti-immigration policies in states such as Arizona, and popularity of commentators such as Glenn Beck, liberal Americans remain unsettled by U.S. political culture.

American-Canadians are enthusiastic Canadians. Even those who retain dual citizenship embrace their new identity. Two-thirds of American immigrants have a “very strong” sense of belonging to Canada, according to the Canadian Ethnic Diversity Study. For many, Canada is the “America idealized” in the post-9/11 world, says Prof. Hardwick.

American-Canadians also earn higher salaries and are more educated than other immigrant groups in Canada.

Canadians should embrace these newcomers, and be careful not to tar them as overly individualistic, flag-waving or materialistic – stereotypical traits often, wrongly, associated with Americans.

The presence of American immigrants is doing as much to shape Canada as the influence of newcomers from China, South Asia and the Philippines.

Canadians should resist the urge to repeat negative clichés about the U.S., and view Americans as among the most buoyant new Canadians.

Read More

we missed the ottawa-baghdad train, now break the chain and let them stay

Jeffrey Simpson's column, "We’re glad we missed the Ottawa-Baghdad train," is a bracing reminder of recent history. Canada easily could have been in Iraq, not only "holding the bully's coat" (thank you Linda McQuaig) but exercising its own occupying muscles, as it is in Afghanistan.

Canada could have been wasting its own young lives, wasting its resources, killing yet more people who have done Canada no harm, all in the service of KBR, Bechtel and the rest of the US corporate empire. But Jean Chrétien said no - and the overwhelming majority of Canadians now understand that that was the correct decision. Even Stephen Harper has admitted that the war in Iraq was "absolutely an error".

Since Canada didn't fight in Iraq, and since most Canadians agree that was the right thing to do, doesn't it follow that we should give asylum to others who came to the same conclusion? Canada has been down this road before, to the tune of 50,000 Vietnam War resisters. Despite the persistent lies of detractors, the truth is about 10,000 of those were not drafted, but volunteered for service, then deserted.

This is an excellent column by Jeffrey Simpson, but I must again point out - and we all must continue to point out, all the time - that the US occupation of Iraq has not ended. More than 50,000 US troops and at least another 75,000 private mercenaries (also funded by US taxpayers) remain there. Hell, fresh troops are still deploying!

Simpson refers to the Iraq War's "intellectual supporters in Canada". One prime intellectual Canadian supporter was still in the US, using his intellect, writing talent and position with The New York Times to advance the cause of the Bush administration: Michael Ignatieff.

The haze of collective memory shrouds how many Canadians wanted this country to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Newspaper archives, however, do not lie nor do the recollections of those in the maelstrom of that debate. The decision was, in public opinion at least, a near-run thing.

Public opinion polls showed the country split, with a majority in Quebec opposed to participation, and a majority elsewhere in favour. The National Post beat the drum of war in every single issue. As did, of course, the Sun chain, most of the writers at this newspaper, the AM Radio right-wingers, the Canadian Alliance (including a chap named Stephen Harper), a lot of business people who worried about relations with the United States, a bunch of senior Liberals, and plenty of citizens who believed that the right thing to do after 9/11 was to stand by our U.S. ally, take out Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, put democracy in place in Baghdad, help make Israel safer and respond resolutely to terror and the associated threat of chemical, biological and maybe nuclear weapons in Iraq.

If Canada had had a different government, or even a Liberal prime minister other than Jean Chrétien, we might have been there, perhaps not on the front lines but somewhere in what the U.S. defence secretary called the “coalition of the willing.” Fortunately, Canada remained unwilling to lend its name or treasure to the war. It was an intelligent decision made in the face of severe domestic opposition, especially in English-speaking Canada.

The method by which Mr. Chrétien made his momentous announcement – responding to a planted question in the House of Commons – was not worthy of the occasion or the obligation one might have thought we owed our traditional friends and allies for a considered, lengthy explanation. But that kind of explanation was not Mr. Chrétien’s style or his instinct. Make a decision. Get it out there fast. Get on with business.

In the end, the method of conveying the decision counted for far less than the profoundly correct decision, given the terrible losses in personnel, money and reputation the U.S. suffered in Iraq. Politically, Mr. Chrétien’s reputation was enhanced, in contrast to that of Tony Blair, whose reputation never recovered from British participation.

Matters in Iraq have finally turned out to be something better than had been feared three years ago, but far worse than all those fanciful scenarios that danced in the heads of the Bush-Cheney administration and its intellectual supporters in Canada.

For Barack Obama, the judgment on his decision to withdraw begins now and will depend on whether Iraq can remain united, avoid sectarian warfare and endemic violence while somehow managing to govern itself.

Who really knows how many Iraqis died in the war? The figure is well in excess of 100,000. As for the Americans, more than 4,400 were killed and more than 30,000 wounded. The country spent about three-quarters of a trillion dollars, at a time of increasing deficits. The Bush administration cut taxes, went to war, and kicked the bill down the road, a decision of gross irresponsibility for which Americans are paying today.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as United Nations inspector Hans Blix kept saying. But his finding was not what the Bush-Cheney crowd wanted to hear. They had started planning for war shortly after 9/11, even though the experts on al-Qaeda told them that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were mortal enemies.

Saddam was unquestionably a gruesome leader of the kind the Arab world has periodically known. But he was being contained by a variety of measures that could have been sustained at a pittance by way of cost. He was Iran’s sworn enemy, having fought a bloody war against that country. His relations with Syria were frigid. He had created his own diplomatic isolation, booming rhetoric notwithstanding. His departure created a power vacuum into which the Shiites of Iraq have stepped, with the concomitant result that Shia Iran’s influence has grown.

From geostrategic, reputational, economic and straight political perspectives, the invasion was a mistake. We can only be thankful that Canada took no part, although to repeat: It was a near-run thing in public opinion.

Read More

petition to stop "fox news north"

Please read and consider signing this petition from Avaaz. I don't agree that a TV station is the cause of the US's poisoned politics and I don't believe that the proposed right-wing TV station threatens Canadian democracy. But democracy and media fairness is always worth defending, and we don't need the CRTC manipulated by government and corporate media, or the reverse. So while I would tone down this overheated rhetoric by half, I'll still sign the petition.

Prime Minister Harper is trying to push American-style hate media onto our airwaves, and make us all pay for it. His plan is to create a "Fox News North" to mimic the kind of hate-filled propaganda with which Fox News has poisoned U.S. politics. The channel will be run by Harper’s former top aide and will be funded with money from our cable TV fees!

One man stands in the way of this nightmare -- the Chairman of Canada's Radio and Telecommunications Commission Konrad von Finckenstein. And now, Harper is trying to get him out of his job. Sign the petition below to send a wave of support to von Finckenstein and forward this campaign to everyone -- we'll publish full page ads in Canadian papers when we reach 100,000:

To CRTC Chair von Finckenstein and PM Harper:

As concerned Canadians who deeply oppose American-style hate media on our airwaves, we applaud the CRTC's refusal to allow a new "Fox News North" channel to be funded from our cable fees. We urge Mr. von Finckenstein to stay in his job and continue to stand up for Canada's democratic traditions, and call on Prime Minister Harper to immediately stop all pressure on the CRTC on this matter.

Harper hatched his scheme in a secret lunch last year with media-mogul Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News. Harper's top aide Kory Teneycke also came to the lunch, and then left the government to head up Suncor Newspapers and the new "Fox News North".

Fox News fuels hate. While constantly claiming to be “fair” and “balanced”, it allows hysterical anchors like Glenn Beck to compare Obama to "Lucifer" and "Hitler". Bill O’Reilly, another anchor, has threatened to boycott Canada, and Anne Coulter says Canada is “lucky the US allows it to exist on the same continent.” The network has calculatingly spawned the tea party movement in the US, a mobilisation of the fringe right which threatens violence upon its opponents and wears guns to political rallies.

This is a fight for the soul of Canadian democracy. Our media is not perfect, but a ‘news’ network that slavishly serves a political agenda through mass manipulation and fear threatens the fabric of our democratic society.

The CRTC is part of our democracy -- it was made an independent commission precisely in order to protect against this kind of government manipulation of the media. Harper knows that he must bully his way through this institution in order to create "Fox News North". And there are dark rumours in Ottawa that if von Finckenstein will not leave his job, Harper will simply force him to give in. Konrad von Finckenstein is upholding the best tradition of Canadian democracy and civil service in the face of a full scale attack on that tradition. Let's show him, and Harper, that Canada stands with him.

"Fox News North" is Harper's long term strategy to make radical conservatism the political centre in Canada, tearing down the country we love to make us look like the U.S. Thankfully, Konrad von Finckenstein and the CRTC are standing in his way -- let's stand with them.

Sign here.

Read More

seth klein: what has happened to canada's compassion?

I hope you will read this excellent Op-Ed by Seth Klein, director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' BC office, writing in The Province:

What's happened to Canada's compassion?

If the 492 Tamil asylum-seekers who recently arrived by boat on B.C.'s shores are "queue-jumpers," then I guess my parents were too.

They came as Vietnam War draft dodgers from the U.S. in 1967. Like a couple of the Tamil women who just arrived, my mom was pregnant with me. My parents did not seek advance permission from Ottawa to immigrate. They did not fill out any paperwork before arriving. And they could no more seek permission to leave from their home government than these Tamils could, for what they were doing, as far as the U.S. was concerned, was illegal and would result in my father's arrest.

Of course that's the thing about being an asylum-seeker — you don't get into a queue. When you've got to go, you've got to go.

My folks didn't even know Montreal, where they landed, was a predominantly French-speaking city. They just showed up. A key difference, however, was that in those days, they got landed-immigrant status in 20 minutes at the airport. While estimates vary, over the course of the Vietnam War, as many as 100,000 American war resisters came to Canada. Yet here we are setting our hair on fire about 492 people.

But those aren't the only numeric comparisons I find curious.

Among the common reactions to the arrival of the MV Sun Sea is the proposition that Canada's alleged lax immigration laws make us a global sucker — a target for many of the world's migrants. This is absurd.

World conflicts, environmental disasters and a global economic system that keeps billions impoverished has resulted in millions upon millions of refugees and displaced people. In Pakistan alone, the current flooding has produced as many as 14 million internally displaced people. Globally, the United Nations says, there are more than 43 million "forcibly displaced people," of which some 15 million are refugees.

The vast majority of these globally displaced people are not being absorbed by wealthy countries, but rather internally or by neighbouring poor countries — the places least able to afford the costs and with the bleakest economic prospects. The number of refugees accepted by Canada has declined in recent years, and last year we accepted fewer than 20,000 — just over 0.1 per cent of global refugees. Surely, when a few hundred people arrive on our shores, we can afford to treat them with respect and grant them due process.

Here's another curious comparison: The real and much more significant Canadian immigration story of recent years, at least measured numerically, isn't about refugees or people arriving by boats. It's about the explosion in the number of temporary foreign workers. The number of those workers entering Canada each year now exceeds 200,000 and surpasses immigrants.

But the Harper government hasn't been sounding the alarm about this. On the contrary, the federal government has been promoting and facilitating the massive growth in this category of migrants. Why? Because unlike regular immigrants and refugees, these workers are being specifically requested by employers, their indentured status makes them unable to exercise key employment rights and leaves them highly vulnerable to exploitation and unsafe conditions, and they are unable to make the same claims to the social and economic rights that Canadians take for granted.

Immigration is central to the story of Canada. Waves of people came, mostly to meet a domestic need for labour, but sometimes fleeing harm and conflict. But historically, once people arrived, either as immigrants or refugees, they were upon landing met with a social contract: They could avail themselves of the social and economic rights Canadians enjoyed, and in a few years could be granted citizenship.

With the explosion of temporary workers and tightening of regular immigration, the government is effectively saying, "that deal is off — we're happy to have temporary indentured labour, but don't think you can be a Canadian."

When my parents arrived, some Canadians slapped unwelcome labels on the war resisters, but the government itself refrained from such labelling. By and large, the draft dodgers were welcomed, and went on to make valuable contributions to Canada. Much the same can be said of the Vietnamese boat people who arrived in the late 1970s. Why can't better receptions be the norm?

A key difference today is that the government itself immediately labelled the Tamil asylum-seekers as terrorists, criminals and queue-jumpers, before any due process. In doing so, they set the tone of the debate, and gave licence to a particularly nasty wave of xenophobia.

Here's what troubles me most. In a world still coming to terms with the reality of climate change, the truth is that the number of global climate migrants and displaced people will soon dwarf the UN numbers cited above. Will the recent ugliness mark each new unexpected arrival, or can we have a rational conversation about what our moral obligations and humanitarian response should be to the global realities ahead?

Supportive letters can be sent to provletters@theprovince.com. Wouldn't hurt to mention our current crop of war resisters, either.

Read More

let the tamils stay: "don’t listen to mr harper and his baying dogs"

I loved this letter in yesterday's Toronto Star.

Lots of room for everybody

I have again realized Canada is a great big place with nobody in it, having just returned from a “skate” through Atlantic Canada and a visit to the Pacific coast. We need to foster immigration to fill in the gaps, not inhibit it!

Immigrants, rather than being a drain, very quickly create greater wealth for everyone. Witness the English, the Irish, the Ukrainians, following the French. Witness the Italians, East and South Asians — thriving, all. Witness the culture added by the Haitians in Montreal and the Islanders everywhere. Witness more recently the entrepreneurship of the Persians, Russians, Bosnians and Afghanis (do, please, fly your kites). Welcome all. Our economy grows after every wave.

Canada, don't be worried and don’t listen to Mr. Harper and his baying dogs, evidently taking their script from the fear-mongering, talking-T-bags. We have nothing to lose but a few, mostly empty acres and everything to gain by opening our doors to the world. It surely needs the safety valve.

We have the room, the resources and the ability. I believe we have the goodwill, too — it’s part of us, ever since the Underground Railroad.

If only our leaders could muster the vision to fulfill this multicultural dream, instead of appealing to base fears, pandering to ignorance in search of quick votes.

Chris Way, Mississauga

Chris Way, I couldn't agree more. I'll add one more wave of immigrants that has contributed to Canada: Vietnam War resisters, so woven into the culture of the country that few people seem to remember they were immigrants at all. Iraq War resisters can be the same way. Let Them Stay!

Read More

toronto star: daring to object

There's an long article in the Toronto Star today about US Iraq War resisters in Canada, and the differences between their experience and that of Vietnam War resisters. Many thanks to immigration writer Nicholas Keung for taking the time to interview, investigate and write such an in-depth and thoughtful piece.

Daring to object: Iraq war resisters, though often veterans themselves, have been met with a cool reception, much different from the draft dodgers of the 1960s

by Nicholas Keung

It was the dead of winter when a buddy from Cornell University drove war deserter Dick Cotterill through the Maine-New Brunswick border for a new life of freedom and peace in Canada.

At the border station near St. Stephen, N.B., a Canadian official hassled the young Marine officer but within minutes let him in as a permanent resident, with the papers of a job offer from a beef farm.

That was March 1972, on the eve of Cotterill’s deployment to the Vietnam War.

“The Canadian government and people welcomed us in those days,” recalled Cotterill, 60, who now runs his own yard and garden equipment business in Truro, N.S.

A very different welcome has greeted Iraq war resisters, who have been coming to Canada since the war began in 2003.

These U.S. service men and women have met with roadblocks in seeking status in Canada, for fleeing from a war they consider illegal and immoral.

Their asylum claims, and immigration applications made on humanitarian grounds have been rejected, under review or challenged in court; some of the applicants have been deported and jailed in the U.S. including Robin Long, 26, sentenced to 15 months in 2008, and Clifford Cornell, 29, to 12 months last year.

“What bothers me is this is going against the strong Canadian tradition as a haven from militarism,” Cotterill lamented.

What a difference in the years between the Vietnam and Iraq wars, neither of which Canada had participated in, due to public, and finally, very official opposition.

“We have always made clear that Canada will require the approval of the U.N. Security Council if we were to participate in a military campaign,” Prime Minister Jean Chretien then said of Canada’s decision not to support the Iraq invasion.

History suggests that by refusing to join the Iraq war, Canada implicitly opened the door to others who felt likewise. At the Nuremberg trials of Nazi members following the WWII, the United Nations recognized that foot soldiers cannot justify their participation in war crimes on the excuse of following their superiors’ order.

The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that conscientious objectors (those who refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience and religion) can apply for asylum in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.

Thus, critics of the Harper government’s current harsh policy argue, U.S. court marshal and jail sentences for desertion constitute persecution, and are grounds for asylum.

On Sept. 27, Parliament will debate and vote on Bill C-440, a private member’s bill that would cease deportation of these war resisters and create a program to give them landed status if they get medical and criminal clearances – their last hope to remain in Canada.

Two non-biding motions seeking the same thing were adopted by the House of Commons in 2008 and 2009, but have been ignored by Harper’s minority government, forcing the opposition parties to go through the tedious – and binding – route by submitting a formal bill.

If it passes second reading in the House, it will then go to the immigration standing committee for reviews and return for a final vote in the parliament.

All three opposition parties have expressed support for the bill, and chances appear better-than-average that it can actually pass into law.

That is, provided there is no fall election to push the bill to start from zero again under a new government.

The story includes thumbnail profiles of six men "who said no to war": Canadians (and former Vietnam War deserters) Michael Klein, Andy Barrie, Michael Wolfson, and Iraq War resisters Chuck Wiley, Phil McDowell and Robin Long.

More here.

Read More

we should let the tamil refugees stay, and be proud to do so

Since when did a boatload of refugees become "illegal immigrants"? When I heard Public Safety Minister Vic Toews refer to the 490 fleeing Tamil people off the coast of British Columbia as "illegal migrants," I thought (sarcastically), hmm, I wonder where that lingo came from. More US-isms creeping their way into Canadian government.

Toews says Canadian intelligence should stop asylum seekers at the source. So what would that look like on the ground? Should our tax dollars be used to prevent people from escaping crisis situations around the globe? Should Canada be in the business of aiding governments that have criminalized separatist movements? Do we want to help governments lock people up so they can't make their way to a better life - the way so many of our ancestors did? Very Canadian, Mr Toews. You do the country proud. I'm not usually sarcastic, but these lying bastards bring out the worst in me.

Fear and loathing of refugees is not new to Canada. There are always people who fear and resent the arrival from far-off places of people whose names sound - and faces look - different than theirs. But this time, unfortunately, the sitting government is either made up of those people or pandering to them.

This "Brief history of Canada’s responses to refugees" shows that, historically, Canada has had both very generous and very punitive responses to refugees - and those responses are often ideologically driven. When the Harper government was pushing Bill C-11, its refugee "reform" bill, it commissioned a public opinion poll on Canadian attitudes towards refugees. When the poll showed that the majority of Canadians are proud of their country's reputation for compassion, and want Canada to maintain a fair refugee system, the government buried the results. I learned of the poll from refugee lawyers opposing C-11; I can't find a copy of the actual poll online, but it is referred to in several articles about C-11, such as this one in Embassy.

This fact sheet can be downloaded as a pdf from No One Is Illegal.

Myth 1: They are illegals who are jumping the queue.

There is no 'queue' for refugee claimants. Refugees are forced from their homes in emergency situations due to human rights abuses committed during wars, military occupations, or persecution against a minority group. We cannot expect refugees to wait for Canada to select them from overseas. We must understand that they undertake long and dangerous journeys to protect their lives and the lives of their families. According to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, to which Canada is a party, there are no penalties on refugees who arrive without pre-authorization and irregularly.

Myth 2: They are terrorists.

There is no evidence to substantiate this. Rohan Gunaratna, the government’s primary source, has already been discredited by lawyers as well as an Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator for being uncredible. Last October, when the 76 Tamil asylum-seekers came on Ocean Lady they were similarly labeled as terrorists and security threats. However by Jan 2010, they were all released from detention when Canadian Border Services Agency admitted they had no evidence of a terrorist connection.

Furthermore, officials are just relying on stereotypes of Tamils as all being associated with the Tamil Tigers to create unnecessary racist hysteria and mistrust of asylum-seekers. National security laws in the post-911 climate have directly targeted and marginalized immigrants, refugees, and racialized people. These laws and policies are less about protecting society than creating a culture of fear. Many of these policies – such as Security Certificates – have been struck down in the Courts after years of human rights and anti racist campaigning. The rhetoric of the War on Terror serves as a convenient distraction from the reality that people’s daily lives are increasingly unsafe and insecure due to global neoliberal economics and war-mongering that leads to mass displacement, poverty, and human rights atrocities.

Myth 3: The situation is getting better in Sri Lanka.

According to a 2010 Amnesty International report, in the past 12 months the Sri Lankan government has continued to jail critics and clamped down on dissent. Some 80,000 Tamils remain in refugee camps, while 400,000 displaced Tamils survive in communities where homes and infrastructure were destroyed. The government continues to extend a state of emergency, restricting many basic human rights, and thousands of arbitrary detentions are justified under the guise of detainees being suspected Tamil Tigers. This past month, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed a panel to investigate war crimes and genocidal acts committed by the Sri Lankan government against Tamils.

Myth 4: They are a burden on tax payers.

The biggest resource expenditure has been the government’s choice to spend thousands of dollars in an unnecessary security operation, including resources spent on incarcerating women and children. Only a tiny fraction has been spent on the health and well-being of the migrants, whose lives are worth more than dollars. Furthermore, scapegoating migrants for being a financial burden lets the government off the hook. All residents continue to receive inadequate access to necessary social services because of misplaced government priorities – choosing to bail out banks and sink billions into the police and military – not because of the lack of resources to provide a social safety net for all in need.

Myth 5: Canada has a generous refugee system; we cannot keep accepting people.

Despite border panics, only a small minority of asylum seekers make claims in the Western world. There are about 20 million refugees worldwide and most migrate into neighboring countries of Africa, Middle East, and South Asia. Canada accepts fewer than 20,000 refugees per year, which is less than 0.1% of the world’s displaced population.

Furthermore, Canada’s system is not generous. Deportations from Canada have skyrocketed 50% over the last decade, with 13,000 deportations in the past year. With the Conservatives, the number of approved asylum claims has dropped by 56%. Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney’s recent refugee reforms create two tiers of refugees, establishing a hierarchy based on nationality. There are countless structural flaws in the system, designed to make it near impossible to claim asylum. Immigration and Refugee Board members are political appointees; certain avenues such as the Pre Removal Risk Assessment have acceptance rates of 3-5% while others such as the Humanitarian and Compassionate claim do not have to be processed prior to deportation. In addition, the refugee system has been termed a “lottery system” because acceptance rates can vary from 0-80% depending on the judge. The Safe Third Country Agreement between the US and Canada creates a “Fortress Canada” by disallowing up to 40% of asylum seekers.

Myth 6: It is not our problem.

The Canadian government has recently been forced to apologize for racist and exclusionary historical measures including the Chinese Exclusion Act and Komagatamaru incident. These apologies and the rhetoric of multiculturalism is hollow when current policies and practices perpetuate racism and exclusion. The recent backlash that repeats the tired-old refrain about ‘illegals’ and ‘criminals’ has meant that right-wing neo-nazis such as Paul Fromm and the Aryan Guard have resurfaced publicly and are being given a platform to spew their hate about sending the boat back. Is this really the side that we are on?

Immigration and refugee issues are not simply about Canadian benevolence or charity. We need to rethink what function and whose interests the state border actually serves. The current trends of global migration reveal the ways in which patters of Western domination and corporate globalization have enriched some countries by creating economic and political insecurity that forces people indigenous to their lands to migrate. The Canadian government continues to maintain economic and diplomatic ties with the government of Sri Lanka, instead of supporting those who have survived the brutality of that government, which makes us complicit in their displacement. Also, we must always remember that Canada is a settler country, built on the theft of Indigenous lands and the forced assimilation of Indigenous communities. On what basis is a colonial government denying colonized people their right to livelihood? Finally, we must challenge the idea that some are more worthy than others to a life of dignity; instead we should reaffirm the universal value that people have the freedom to move in order to seek safety and to flourish.

Read More

twenty years since oka: a talk by ellen gabriel

Yesterday marked 20 years since the start of the incident known in most of Canada as the "Oka Crisis". Before coming to this country, I had never heard of Oka. At the the Marxism conference in late May, I attended a talk called "20 years since Oka: the fight for indigenous sovereignty," given by Ellen Gabriel.

Clicking around various stories online yesterday, I saw so many ugly, racist comments about Oka - praising the heroic Canadian soldiers for not simply exterminating the Mohawk resistance, trashing Mohawks as terrorists and cowards, and using the date as an excuse to malign all Native peoples. I'm going to use this occasion to write about what I heard from a woman who was behind the barricades herself. My notes and my memory can't convey the passion and eloquence of Gabriel's talk, but perhaps I can honour her with this small gesture.

Ellen Gabriel is the President of the Quebec Native Women's Association and holds many other titles and distinctions within her Mohawk nation and within the larger Native community. She used the words "Oka crisis," reluctantly, and in quotes. To Gabriel, this was not a one-time crisis, but one episode in the context of hundreds of years of resistance, generations of struggle - for sovereignty and autonomy, against racism and oppression - a struggle that continues today.

For Gabriel, the Indian Act made aboriginal people wards of the state - legal children - and that parent-child construct still exists. The Canadian government and private corporations licensed by the government take resources from Native land, then dole out some of those profits to Native communities as they see fit. Gabriel doesn't want deals for better royalties. She wants Native nations to be treated as the sovereign nations they are, and to see her people control their ancestral lands.

To the young Native activists in the room, she said, "Do not bomb or do violence in our name. Peace is our way." She said the "myth of the warrior" is often misunderstood: true warriors do not promote violence. A warrior understands her true nature, and works for the good of her people.

* * * *

Gabriel said the Mohawk community is usually divided about development on their lands. Many people, often residential schools survivors, live with an internalized oppression, thinking "at least we're getting this, it's better than nothing". Oka, she said, was one of the few times that the community showed real unity.

A private developer wanted to cut down a forest that had been part of the Kanesatake community for centuries. The forest, which developers wanted for a golf course, included pineland and a burial ground with standing tombstones. The Mohawks previously had filed a land claim for the area, but the government rejected the claim.

Ottawa set a deadline for comment on the development that was impossible to meet. The golf course went ahead, and now the developers wanted more land for condos. The Mohawk community said, Enough. They erected a barricade and held the developer off their land.

On July 11, 1990, a SWAT team moved in. There was a standoff for three hours, then Sûreté du Québec (the Quebec provincial police) threw tear gas and concussion grenades, and opened fire.

* * * *

Gabriel said that the barricade, which remained up for for 78 days, was not on a highway, as often represented in the media. It was on a dirt access road. The highway wasn't blocked until the police blocked it themselves. The Kanestake resistance community staffed the barricades around the clock, sometimes with 20 people, sometimes with two people, depending on who was available.

Resistance grew, joined by solidarity actions across Canada and the US. As the Kanestake Mohawks refused to dismantle their barricade, the SQ erected a highway blockade to restrict access to Oka and Kanesatake. Other Mohawks blockaded the Mercier Bridge, which connects the Island of Montreal to the South Shore suburbs, where the bridge passed through Mohawk territory.

Gabriel said that the Mercier Bridge blockade, so condemned by local residents, undoubtedly saved lives by blocking a second attack by the SQ and RCMP. Behind the barricades, the people of Kanestake were denied food and medical care. They set up a health centre, and a system for food to be delivered in secret. The SQ would block food deliveries long enough for the meat to spoil and become inedible. They would block of basic supplies, medical care and diapers.

When it was clear the SQ had lost control of the situation, the RCMP was brought in. But they, too, could not contain the resistance. Gabriel spoke with kindness for the individual troops: "They were only kids themselves." Her focus was solely the government that sent them there.

At the height of the standoff, the Mercier Bridge and three highway routes were all blocked. There were huge traffic jams. Local Quebecers burned and hung effigies representing Mohawks. This racism was echoed in - and stoked by - local media, especially on the radio. An MP said the Native people of Quebec should be deported to Labrador. Some Châteauguay residents started building an unauthorized four-lane highway around the Kahnawake reserve. (The Quebec government later finished the highway.)

When an SQ officer was killed, and everyone assumed a Mohawk did it. Gabriel says this has never been established. To the people who were inconvenienced by the bridge blockade, every Mohawk was a terrorist. Mohawks who were arrested were beaten and tortured.

Gabriel said that during the standoff, "We thought we were alone." Only later did they learn that there were solidarity rallies all over Canada, from other Native communities and from Canadians who stood beside them. But, she said, "I never felt so safe as I did with my community during that time. There was peace behind the barricades."

* * * *

On August 12, Kanestake leadership wanted to sign an agreement, because they were starving. But the negotiations were only focused on breaking the blockades. International human rights groups later agreed that Canada and Quebec did not negotiate in good faith, and that the Mohawks' basic human rights had been denied.

Eventually some Mohawk men wanted to open the Mercier bridge, and talks broke down. The Kanestake Mohawks learned this through the media. By the time they knew, the army was already there. "The ink wasn't even dry," said Gabriel, when the SQ broke the agreement, storming the area and brutalizing anyone in their path.

It is often said that the Mohawks had an army tank, and military-grade weaponry. Gabriel said this tank was never found. It couldn't have been found, since it never existed. She herself never carried a weapon, and she is grateful for that, "because carrying a weapon changes you."

The siege ended on September 26, after 78 days. The resistance was evacuated with ruthless brutality. Women were cut with bayonets. People were thrown to the ground, beaten and kicked. The Kanestake later tried appealing Quebec's human rights commission, but were told the commission had no jurisdiction over Native claims. How convenient. We can take your land - that's in our jurisdiction - but if you try to speak up about how we treat you, that is not.

* * * *

One year later, the Kanestake commemorated the resistance with a march through Oka. Gabriel said many incidents have occurred since that are seen as retaliation and punishment for the Oka resistance: punitive arrests, arson. But for the Mohawk nation, this story didn't begin with Oka. It began almost 300 years ago, when French Catholic priests stole the land.

"We are not a 'minority' to be seen as a problem," Gabriel said. "We are a sovereign nation, and our identity is linked to the land. That is why the government has tried so hard to break us, so that they can fully exploit our land." Right now, she said, the Mohawk people are joined with the Quebec Farmers' Association in a battle against mining interests. "Our water is already contaminated," she said. "We don't want royalties. We want them off our land."

* * * *

Within the context of the struggles of aboriginal people, Mohawk women have another level of struggle. The Indian Act, Gabriel said, was designed to undermine the primacy of native women. Mohawk women own the title to their land, and this concept runs contrary to the band system set up by the Canadian government. She also said that Mohawks tend to be less assimilated and more radical than some other nations.

Gabriel spoke very forcefully about the travesty of Canada not signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a shame this country shares with the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The Declaration includes reconciliation with modern governments. The Mohawks, Gabriel said, are willing to do that, "but we need a government that respect the rule of law."

* * * *

"We Natives," she said, "know a lot about Canadian history, but Canadians know very little about us."

She listed a few books and movies about Native struggles that she recommends, which I asked her to list later.

There are a series of documentaries about by Alanis Obomsawin the most famous being "Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance". Other films Gabriel mentioned were "Rocks at Whiskey Trench," "Smoke Signals," "Muffins for Granny," about residential school survivors, "Stolen Continents" and "Indian Givers".

* * * *

In an MSNBC story about the 20th anniversary of Oka, Gabriel is quoted.

Even at the height of the crisis, he said, Ottawa refused to budge while he struggled to find common ground between the Mohawk leaders and the government. Ottawa dragged its heels, and continues to do so today, [former Quebec native affairs minister John] Ciaccia said.

It's an opinion echoed by Ellen Gabriel. In 1990, the then 31-year-old firebrand acted as chief Mohawk negotiator, working alongside Ciaccia to bring an end to the stalemate.

Now president of a native women's association, she says Oka's only legacy is a greater awareness of native issues across Canada. "If anything it was a waking up," she said, adding that people realized "in a simplified, clichéd way, there are still ongoing Indian wars."

The initial transfer of the Oka land took place in 1717, when France gave it over to a missionary group. "It's a 290-year-old fight," said Gabriel. "So history's not changing. It's business as usual as far as the government is concerned."

I'll close with one last thing that Ellen Gabriel said. She believes that the solidarity demonstrations and the public pressure on behalf of the Mohawk Nation was tremendously important. "Without your solidarity, the outcome would have been much worse. Without the eyes of Canada and other Native nations watching, I might not be here to talk with you today."

Read More