Winnipeg, Feb. 14, 2012: Protesters pause outside the Department of Indian Affairs in Winnipeg to sing and dance during the Men's Gathering and Unity Walk for Missing and Murdered Women. Photo: Paul Graham
Winnipeg, February 14, 2012: A group of aboriginal men held a march to show solidarity with the families of missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada. While the march was organized by men, there were no restrictions on who could attend – all were welcome – and there was a good turnout of men, women and children of all ages.
Feb. 14, 2012: Protesters outside the Law Courts Building in Winnipeg during the Men's Gathering and Unity Walk for Missing and Murdered Women. Photo: Paul Graham
The march began at the corner of Carlton Street and Portage Avenue, the site of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, and wound through downtown Winnipeg, stopping at the Department of Indian Affairs, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Law Courts Building, before ending up at the Manitoba Legislative Building. Despite the marked police presence (several squad cars, a helicopter overhead), the marchers remained peaceful and good spirited. I use the word “despite” because it was clear the marchers would have preferred the cops to be putting their energies into catching killers and finding missing women.
While some estimates put the number of missing and murdered women at 600, no one really knows. What is clear is that not nearly enough is being done to locate these women and to stop the carnage.
Feb. 14, 2012: Protesters in front of a symbolic hearse at the Manitoba Legislature in Winnipeg during the Men's Gathering and Unity Walk for Missing and Murdered Women. Photo: Dwayne Crowe
Here are some links that can help you understand this issue in more depth:
December 9, 2011: Angered by the UN-caused cholera epidemic that has claimed thousands, Haitians rallied at the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) Base at St. Marc. Photo: from a video produced by Nick Stratton, Bureau des Avocats Internationaux. Watch it at http://ijdh.org/archives/24340.
Two years after an earthquake killed 158,000, the majority of Haitians continue to battle against hunger, disease, homelessness and political repression. Half a million people remain in refugee camps and many thousands who have found other accommodations are living in buildings that have been designated as unsafe and requiring demolition or major repairs.
Clean water is unavailable to almost half the population and sanitation, in the form or latrines, is available to only 34%. It is a formula for disease, and the 2010 cholera outbreak, traced to the criminally negligent sewage disposal practices of UN troops, sickened nearly 500,000 people and killed more than 6,500 others.
With all of the aid money that has been pouring into Haiti, it would not be unreasonable to expect living conditions to be much better than they are. Journalist Kim Ives, a writer and editor of Haiti Liberté, who spoke on this topic last Thursday at the University of Manitoba, provided this summary:
$2.4 billion in bilateral relief aid (emergency aid) delivered to date
$4.5 billion was pledged for bilateral recovery in 2010, 2011 (plus $1 billion for debt relief). As of Dec, 2011, $2.4 billion of that was delivered.
Donors have dispersed an additional $560 million in recovery assistance.
An additional $3.1 billion for relief and recovery from NGOs and other private donors. (The largest share of that came from the Red Cross, which raised $1.4 billion; of that, only 50% has been spent. I wonder where the rest went?)
Cholera treatment funding of $172 million has been promised; $130 million has been disbursed.
Clearly something is wrong. Kim Ives summarized the obstacles to effective aid and reconstruction as follows:
A weak and under-funded national government, as a result of two centuries of foreign intervention and plunder
A large presence of international aid organizations and UN agencies, accountable, first and foremost, to their donors and home governments
A right-wing presidency brought to power through an exclusionary and fraudulent electoral process
A foreign police and military force (MINUSTAH) dating from the 2004 coup d’etat and whose purpose is to preserve the status quo
Winnipeg’s fabled North End, long known for its contributions to the arts, popular culture and radical politics, has always had a reputation for being a tough place to grow up. These days, however, crime, violence, gangs and poverty seem to be its defining characteristics, at least in the minds of folks who do not live there.
On January 15, 2012, the United Jewish People’s Order and the Association of United Ukrainian Canadians — organizations with deep, historic roots in north Winnipeg, held a public forum entitled “The North End – the Good and the Bad.” Their intent was to engage North Enders in a discussion of challenges they face and to highlight some of the forces for progress in the neighborhood.
Moderator: Roz Usiskin, United Jewish People’s Order
Panelists (in order of appearance):
– Sel Burrows, Point Douglas community activist
– Kevin Chief, MLA, Point Douglas and Minister of Children and Youth Opportunities
– Cindy Coker, executive director, SEED Winnipeg, Inc.
– Jim Silver, co-director, University of Winnipeg Urban and Inner-City Studies Program
It was an informative and useful discussion, as far as it went. I learned a lot. Cindy Coker and Jim Silver described some of the programs they and others are providing and the encouraging results that are emerging. Kevin Chief’s account of his election campaign showed that high levels of citizen engagement are manifesting in an area more known for political apathy. I particularly enjoyed Sel Burrows’ account of how the residents of the Point Douglas neighborhood banded together to reduce the local crime rate to levels comparable with those of much more affluent neighborhoods.
Michael Champagne challenges the audience to join with the young people of the North End who are "organizing ourselves to make a difference in our community." Photo: Paul S. Graham
That said, much was left unsaid, and I hope that UJPO and AUUC, in collaboration with other community-based organizations, offer future opportunities for discussion. Glaringly absent from this forum was any radical critique that would shine a light on the inadequacy of the social work approach to community development that seems so in vogue these days. Right at the end of the question period a young man named Michael Champagne stood up and challenged the audience to join with neighborhood youth who are self-organizing to reinvigorate their community. I hope that Mr. Champagne and others like him are on the podium the next time UJPO and AUUC hold a public forum.
Gerry Caplan is a former CUSO field officer, author of The Betrayal of Africa, a weekly, online columnist for The Globe and Mail, a featured television political commentator and a veteran CCF-NDP war horse. He was also my boss at CUSO for a brief period in the late 70s, something he doesn’t remember – which may be all for the best :-).
Gerry was the keynote speaker at a dinner held in Winnipeg December 10, 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of CUSO and the 63rd anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations on Dec. 10, 1948.
The title of his talk was advertised as “When good people do bad things.” Fortunately for those present and for his reputation as a rabble rouser, the theme that emerged would be more appropriately described as “solidarity, not charity.”
This event was sponsored by the University of Winnipeg Global College, CUPE Manitoba, the Manitoba Council for International Co-operation and CUSO-VSO. It was held at the Union Centre in downtown Winnipeg. Here is my video report.
Making war has been a human pursuit for thousands of years.
Playing at war, it would seem, is at least as old. This ancient Greek toy, a model of a war chariot, fashioned from clay, has survived the millennia to bear witness to our enduring attachment to violence and domination.
War requires warriors. Because killing is not something that comes naturally to most of us, a long period of preparation is usually needed. It begins, in childhood, with the toys we give to our children.
The design and marketing of war toys are anything but child’s play. According to an article in the New York Times, the US military and the American toy industry have a long history of working together. It’s a relationship where both parties benefit – toys are more realistic and often, toys have inspired weapons development. But there’s more. As the author observes:
“Because the newest generation of soldiers grew up playing with electronic toys and games, the symbiosis between them is nearly genetic. Today’s troops received their basic training as children.”
The popularity of violent video games inspired the US Army to develop its very own video game, which it provides free of charge from its web site. According to the late Gary Webb, an American investigative journalist of considerable renown,
“America’s Army isn’t merely a game, recruiting device or a public-relations tool, though it is certainly all of those things. It’s also a military aptitude tester. And it was designed that way from the start.”
A growing body of evidence confirms that exposure to violent toys, games and media can increase aggressive behavior, desensitize people to violence, and contribute to an exaggerated fear of the world.
Dr. Darlene Hammell, of the University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine explains:
“A close examination of the issue raises concerns that war toys teach children that:
war is a game, an exciting adventure.
killing is acceptable, even fun.
violence or the threat of violence is the only way to resolve conflicts.
the world is divided into “goodies” and “baddies” where the bad guys are devoid of human qualities and their destruction is desirable.”
For the past 10 years, Winnipeg’s Project Peacemakers has conducted an annual inspection of Winnipeg toy stores. The objective is to raise awareness about the levels of violence in children’s toys and games, and to call on retailers, government, and the wider community to take steps to limit this violence.
I tagged along with an inspection team, last month, as it looked at two of the eleven stores covered in this year’s survey and prepared this video report.
The envelope. please . . .
Here is how the stores performed in terms of providing peaceful, constructive playthings – as opposed to war toys.
Excellent: Children’s Museum Commendable: A Child’s Place, Hans Christian Toys, Scholar’s Choice, Toad Hall Acceptable: BJ’s Toy Store, Kit and Kabooble Needs Improvement: Dollarama, Toys “R” Us, Zellers
Although a team visited a local Walmart, they were informed that Project Peacemakers would be unable to publicize its findings without first contacting Walmart’s public relations office. Project Peacemakers declined to rate the store, leaving you to draw your conclusions, if not about their toys, then about Walmart’s public relations savvy.
It oughtta be a crime
Under international law, most wars are crimes – though the likelihood of prosecution is low (unless you are on the losing side). War toys, however, remain perfectly legal in most places. Thankfully, there are exceptions. In 2009, Venezuela passed a “Law Prohibiting War Video Games and War Toys.” Prior to this, according to the Peace and Conflict Monitor, Sweden and Norway have “successful voluntary restriction” of war toy sales, Malta prohibits their import, Greece bans television advertising and Australia places some restrictions on imports. The Monitor says the European Parliament has recommended that its member states ban advertising of war toys and reduce their sale, though I could find no evidence that this has happened.
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting continues to raise the alarm over threats to our nation’s public broadcaster and well they should. While Heritage Minister James Moore promised in May to maintain and expand support for the CBC, Tory antipathy to the CBC is well known. Recent initiatives, such as the petition by Tory MP Rob Enders to end CBC funding cast doubt on the Tory pledge to support the CBC. (His surname says it all, eh?)
Because Harper is a notorious control freak, no Tory backbencher who wanted to keep getting nominated would post a petition of this sort without his blessing. This has to be taken seriously.
The Friends have taken a humorous approach in their current attempt to awaken Canadians to the Tory threat. I hope it works.
Under Harper’s majority government, we are beginning to see the unraveling of Canada.
Yesterday, they did something similar to western grain farmers when they effectively killed the Canadian Wheat Board without allowing grain producers their legally required right to a plebiscite on the question.
To complete the portrait of power drunk right wing ideologues, their response to falling crime rates is to build more prisons and jail more offenders for longer sentences in defiance of all the evidence that this approach has not worked anywhere it has been tried.
The next four years will be trying times for Canadians who do not want to see our society hideously disfigured. We will have to fight them every step of the way. Take a moment to see how you can begin this by supporting the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.
An open letter to Canada’s Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, and Senators, from a broad and diverse coalition of 46 organizations representing millions of Canadians –
Support Canadian Food, Canadian Farmers, and the Canadian Wheat Board
Bill C-18, if passed, will destroy the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz has repeatedly stated that he will not recognize the plebiscite recently conducted by the CWB, in which results were clearly in favour of keeping the CWB as the sole marketing agent for prairie wheat and barley intended for human consumption.
The CWB was created by an Act of Parliament, and is run by a 15-member Board of Directors, ten of whom are elected by farmers. The Wheat Board provides fair, equitable, reliable, and cost-effective services to farm families. It provides stability in uncertain times, and is a foundation of Canada’s grain sector.
Ending the single desk authority of the CWB would throw western agriculture into turmoil and would transfer wealth created by Canadian farmers to big, private, often foreign-owned grain companies—money now returned to farmers, who spend it in their communities. The Minneapolis Grain Exchange has already changed its rules to allow for speculation in futures contracts for Canadian wheat and barley—a move which will increase price volatility for purchasers without providing any benefit to farmers.
Canada’s political system is built on representative democracy. This means that the law, not merely the person in power, is to be respected and followed. The CWB Act is a law made by Parliament, and it requires a farmer vote before any substantive changes are made to the single desk authority. Our current government is ignoring this law—refusing to hold the required vote—and moving to eliminate the requirement for a vote. This is deeply concerning, as it strikes at the heart of our Canadian democracy.
We the undersigned:
Recognize the billions of dollars of economic value that the CWB creates each year—for farmers, rural communities, short line railroads, and the whole of Canada—as a result of its superior marketing ability, capacity to defend Canadian interests in trade disputes, and commitment to return to farmers all net proceeds from sales.
Are proud of the strong international reputation for quality and reliability that Canadian wheat and barley have earned—a direct result of the CWB and its companion institutions, the Canadian Grain Commission and Canadian International Grains Institute.
Deplore the government’s disregard for the outcome of the recent plebiscite in which 62% of farmers voted in favour of keeping the single desk for wheat and 51% supported keeping the single desk for barley.
We therefore call upon the Prime Ministers, MPs, and Senators to immediately stop undermining the single desk authority of the CWB. We further insist that Parliament must comply with the Canadian Wheat Board Act, Section 47.1, which requires a binding plebiscite (vote) of farmers before any substantive change to the CWB’s single desk authority is initiated.
Signed:
Agriculture Workers Alliance
Bathurst Street United Church, Toronto
Big Carrot Natural Food Market
Biofreedom
Brandon University Students’ Union
Briarpatch Magazine
Canadian Auto Workers (CAW)
Canadian Labour Congress
Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW)
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)
Canadian Wheat Board Alliance
CCNB Action (Conservation Council of New Brunswick)
Centre for Social Justice
Coalition On The Niagara Escarpment
Council of Canadians
Council of Canadians – Moose Jaw, Sask. Chapter
Council of Canadians – Prince Albert, Sask. Chapter
Council of Canadians – Winnipeg, Man. Chapter
CWA/SCA (Communications Workers Union) Canada
Food Action Committee of the Ecology Action Centre
Food Secure Canada
Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board
GE Watch Comox Valley
GRAIN
Grain Services Union (GSU)
Greenpeace Canada
Growing Food Security in Alberta
Health Sciences Association of Alberta
Inter Pares
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 529
Lardeau Valley Seed Savers
Les AmiEs de la Terre de Québec
LIFT (Low Income Families Together)
National Farmers Union
National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE)
New Brunswick Common Front for Social Justice
Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) – Windsor
Organic Food Council of Manitoba (OFCM)
Oxfam Canada
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL)
Saskatchewan Union of Nurses (SUN)
Society for a GE Free BC
The Ark Farm, B&B, Vegetables, & Native Plants
Union paysanne
United Church of Canada
United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)
Stop the steamroller
Make your voice heard by sending a message to the PM and your MP at Stop the Steamroller.
Occupy Winnipeg took its opposition to Bill C-10, the so-called Safe Streets and Communities Act, to Winnipeg’s West End Library and then proceeded to occupy the constituency office of Manitoba’s Justice Minister, Andrew Swan for 24 hours.
Before doing so, an Occupy Winnipeg spokesperson read the November 17, 2011 statement of the Canadian Bar Association entitled “Ten Reasons to Oppose Bill C-10.” My alter ego, Red River Pete, captured some of the moments.
The Canadian Bar Association statement is available at its web site. Or you can read it below.
November 17, 2011
10 Reasons to Oppose Bill C-10
Bill C-10 is titled the Safe Streets and Communities Act — an ironic name, considering that Canada already has some of the safest streets and communities in the world and a declining crime rate. This bill will do nothing to improve that state of affairs, but, through its overreach and overreaction to imaginary problems, Bill C-10 could easily make it worse. It could eventually create the very problems it’s supposed to solve.
Bill C-10 will require new prisons; mandate incarceration for minor, non-violent offences; justify poor treatment of inmates and make their reintegration into society more difficult. Texas and California, among other jurisdictions, have already started down this road before changing course, realizing it cost too much and made their justice system worse. Canada is poised to repeat their mistake.
The Canadian Bar Association, representing over 37,000 lawyers across the country, has identified 10 reasons why the passage of Bill C-10 will be a mistake and a setback for Canada.
1. Ignoring reality. Decades of research and experience have shown what actually reduces crime: (a) addressing child poverty, (b) providing services for the mentally ill and those afflicted with FASD, (c) diverting young offenders from the adult justice system, and (d) rehabilitating prisoners, and helping them to reintegrate into society. Bill C-10 ignores these proven facts.
2. Rush job. Instead of receiving a thorough review, Bill C-10 is being rushed through Parliament purely to meet the “100-day passage” promise from the last election. Expert witnesses attempting to comment on over 150 pages of legislation in committee hearings are cut off mid-sentence after just five minutes.
3. Spin triumphs over substance. The federal government has chosen to take a “marketing” approach to Bill C-10, rather than explaining the facts to Canadians. This campaign misrepresents the bill’s actual content and ensures that its public support is based heavily on inaccuracies.
4. No proper inspection. Contrary to government claims, some parts of Bill C-10 have received no previous study by Parliamentary committee. Other sections have been studied before and were changed — but, in Bill C-10, they’re back in their original form.
5. Wasted youth. More young Canadians will spend months in custodial centres before trial, thanks to Bill C-10. Experience has shown that at-risk youth learn or reinforce criminal behaviour in custodial centres; only when diverted to community options are they more likely to be reformed.
6. Punishments eclipse the crime. The slogan for one proposal was Ending House Arrest for Serious and Violent Criminals Act, but Bill C-10 will actually also eliminate conditional sentences for minor and property offenders and instead send those people to jail. Is roughly $100,000 per year to incarcerate someone unnecessarily a good use of taxpayers’ money?
7. Training predators. Bill C-10 would force judges to incarcerate people whose offences and circumstances clearly do not warrant time in custody. Prison officials will have more latitude to disregard prisoners’ human rights, bypassing the least restrictive means to discipline and control inmates. Almost every inmate will re-enter society someday. Do we want them to come out as neighbours, or as predators hardened by their prison experience?
8. Justice system overload. Longer and harsher sentences will increase the strains on a justice system already at the breaking point. Courts and Crown prosecutors’ offices are overwhelmed as is, legal aid plans are at the breaking point, and police forces don’t have the resources to do their jobs properly. Bill C-10 addresses none of these problems and will make them much worse.
9. Victimizing the most vulnerable. With mandatory minimums replacing conditional sentences, people in remote, rural and northern communities will be shipped far from their families to serve time. Canada’s Aboriginal people already represent up to 80% of inmates in institutions in the prairies, a national embarrassment that Bill C-10 will make worse.
10. How much money? With no reliable price tag for its recommendations, there is no way to responsibly decide the bill’s financial implications. What will Canadians sacrifice to pay for these initiatives? Will they be worth the cost?
Canadians deserve accurate information about Bill C-10, its costs and its effects. This bill will change our country’s entire approach to crime at every stage of the justice system. It represents a huge step backwards; rather than prioritizing public safety, it emphasizes retribution above all else. It’s an approach that will make us less safe, less secure, and ultimately, less Canadian.
Stephen Harper’s Conservatives like to present themselves as tough on crime, committed to accountable government and respectful of the rule of law. Given their record, we have to ask ourselves, when will we march them off to the nearest penitentiary to begin serving the mandatory minimum sentences they so richly deserve?
Like a Rocky Mountain avalanche in the making, a growing mountain of evidence of Harper’s cynical disregard for the rule of law threatens to bury even the pretense of Canadian democracy. Here are some examples . . .
Canadian Wheat Board Act Violated
On Oct. 18, 2011, Harper’s Conservative government introduced Bill C-18, the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, which aims to remove the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly over exports of western Canadian wheat and barley. Not only are they proceeding with this legislation in defiance of the expressed will of most western farmers, they are in breech of Section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act which requires the permission of grain producers prior to the introduction of this kind of legislation.
2006 Election – the In and Out Scandal
During the 2006 federal election, the Conservative Party tried to get around election spending limits by giving $1.3 million dollars to 67 riding offices that had not yet reached their individual spending limits. The ridings then returned the money to the party, claiming that it was being used to buy advertising. The money was used by the national campaign to fund an advertising blitz in the final weeks of the campaign. The scam might have gone undetected but for the chutzpah of some riding officials who applied to Elections Canada for a 60% reimbursement of their advertising expenses. Four senior Conservative Party members were charged under the Elections Canada Act with overspending and submitting false or misleading election expense documents. Just this month, the Tories successfully plea bargained their way out of facing these charges, agreeing to plead guilty to what the Tory spin-doctors are calling “administrative errors.”
The Cadman Affair and the Criminal Code of Canada
In 2005, the minority Liberal government of Paul Martin was in deep trouble. The Tories were intent on bringing them down, but the vote would be close. In Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, Vancouver writer Tom Zytaruk tells the story of attempts by Conservative Party officials to offer financial inducements to independent MP Chuck Cadman in return for his support in bringing down the Liberals. The Tories were unsuccessful in getting Cadman’s support. However, an interview with Stephen Harper conducted by Zytaruk makes it clear that Harper was aware of his Party’s efforts to buy Cadman’s vote. And vote buying is a serious offence under the Criminal Code of Canada, one that carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.
Harper has a majority government and opposition parties have been unwilling to step outside of Parliament to hold governments accountable. For these reasons, Harper will remain untouchable unless we organize a broad movement to hold him accountable. There is a clear leadership role for well-resourced organizations such as The Council of Canadians and The Canadian Labour Congress. Perhaps we should remind them.
Paul S. Graham 