the newspaper
www.thenewspaper.ca
toronto’s student community paper
Rebel With A Cause By Rehaana Manek Mississauga-Erindale NDP candidate Shaila Kibria has a bedroom in her office. It’s a spot where she can visit with her family, where kids are preoccupied with movies, and where she can catch up on a few hours of shut-eye between campaigning. “In my platform, children are first,” says Kibria, “whether it be issues of childcare, home care, education, youth programming, or university, I feel that our community wants to put children first, but our government is at a disconnect with that.” Kibria’s main focus is on equality for working families, stemming from the obstacles she faced from the university and the government while trying to start a child care facility at the University of Toronto at Mississauga (UTM). “Our university campus didn’t have childcare, I’m a mom of three, I needed a degree, and I didn’t know how to do that without childcare on campus.” Kibria took action with other student-parents and took over a room with the Student Union, she then ran as President and Vice-President of the student union in order to
raise awareness and funding. “It was hard because I'm a mother and I'm playing politics with the kids, but the kids were actually more grown up -I underestimated the student population. Our student unions want to do something about these issues. We attracted media, and the university was so embarrassed, and I didn’t realize that’s all it took.” UTM is now creating a larger child-care facility to support these parents. “This brought me to a realization: I cannot believe the government is so disconnected with its people.” Much of Kibria’s work surrounds food banks, on and off campus, “The government got a $40,000 pay increase, and our food banks are going broke. I'm going to give back my pay increase. Part of this campaign is to shake up this government.” Kibria’s family fully supports her shakedown. “It is quite the balancing act, but it’s not impossible. My partner brings the kids, so I see them everyday. My kids help, they wear the Shaila Kibria shirt, and they give their friends my pamphlets.”
While having a minority woman run is opening doors to those who may not have thought before to participate, Kibria faces a hard opposition. Kibria’s appearance is presenting a problem – where her validity as a representative of Canadian citizens is called into question, as a woman of colour but also as a Muslim. “A woman opened the door, and you think she’s a woman, a comrade; but then she asks ‘How long have you been here?’ and I think she means in Mississauga, but she means in Canada. She says that people get their citizenship so fast these days how can they know the issues? I was born here, I know the issues.” Kibria’s hijab is also a source of conflict, but she believes that for her, it’s a source of strength. “The general public still needs to know my hijab doesn’t mean oppression, it was something I had to do in hiding from my parents, because they wanted me to assimilate. I fought to wear it, it’s my right, it’s my right not to spike my hair, or colour my hair, but rather cover my hair as my expression. It’s my rebellion for society.”
the inside: the newspaper Profiles Brother Ali
pg. 5 The Neglected Garden
pg. 4 Can Being Fat Save Your Life?
pg. 12 Endings of Articles
pg. 2 & 5
Touchy Topics -From 9/11 To Anti-terrorism By Clayton Book
Laura Kusisto arguing for the government at the Hart House debate.
October 4 2007 Vol. XXX No. V
The words "Nine Eleven" marked the opening for the September 26th Hart House debate, and how appropriate when the resolve is: This House Would Fight the War on Terror without sacrificing Civil Liberties. Nine-One-One is the all-terror catchphrase of our modern lexicon. Yet, it carries an implicit connotation that such atrocities against humanity threaten us so severely that the sacrifice our civilian freedoms to executive government officials can secure our safety, democracy, and lives. Guest speaker Kent Roach, Chair of Law and Public Policy at the University of Toronto, commended the debaters for addressing what he considers "the defining issue of our time". Nicholas Shkordoff questioned the war on terror's aims; stating how previous executive powers were granted (sometimes unconstitutionally) during war times with a clear goal in mind -such as ending
Hitler's fascist regime. The Opposition's Jeremy Opolsky centered his argument on terrorist crimes being graver than conventional crimes and thus requiring proportionate counter measures, like torture. He argued that the government must do something to make the people feel safe, lest they succumb to the democracy-dissolving fear that terrorism inspires, while simultaneously provoking populous rage indiscriminately against ethnic groups. The government's Laura Kusisto delved into the philosophical heart of civil rights; how hard it is to win them once they are taken (or surrendered); how anti-terrorist law is unconstitutional; and how surveillance and no habeas corpus evokes insecurity, and how such unethical tactics are already unfairly ethnocentric. She ended on a strong point by stating that Guantanamo doesn't work and See HH Debate cont. pg. 5
Harper’s Cuts Slash Women’s Advocacy Groups By Aya Kiriliuk With the election race coming down to the wire, the Tory image has taken another hit with the uproar over budget cuts to women’s groups. Last fall, Harper’s government announced that federal funding would be redirected from advocacy and research organizations to groups providing direct services to women. While some see this as the latest cog in Harper’s grand scheme to repress Canadian women (along the lines of his opposition to subsidized child care and veiled voting of Muslim women), such an alarmist and short-sighted position misses the important future implications of the new policy. See Women’s Groups cont. pg. 2