APRIL 11
Not Our Budget!
NEWS
“What They Call Development, We Call Destruction” Grassy Narrows resistance to corporate logging continues By Chuck Wright
In December 2011, Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) released its “Long Term Management Direction,” a ten-year “development plan” for the Whiskey Jack Forest. Located in the Treaty 3 territory of northwestern Ontario, this forest is critical to the economic and cultural survival of Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek, also known as Grassy Narrows First Nation. “This document was developed without our participation or consent and is entirely outside the good faith negotiations we have undertaken with MNR since the 2008 Process Agreement,” said Grassy Narrows Chief Simon Fobister in a release. “It sets the stage for more clearcutting throughout our traditional lands, contrary to our Treaty and inherent rights. And we have not given our consent.” The 2008 Process Agreement was created to guide forest management discussions between MNR and Grassy Narrows after the previous license-holder, Abitibi-Bowater, withdrew in 2008 due to community resistance and public pressure. Grassy Narrows has struggled for decades with the destruction of the Whiskey Jack Forest from logging, while facing the legacy of residential schools and mercury poisoning in the English-Wabigoon river system. In 2002, Grassy Narrows’ residents established a blockade of a logging road into the Whiskey Jack Forest. Initiated after years of protest and petitions, the blockade became the longest standing in North American history and an inspiring site of learning, empowerment, and self-determination. In the Rainforest Action Network’s report, American Dream, Native Nightmare, Roberta Keesick, a blockader, trapper and grandmother, explained the necessity of the blockade: “The destruction of the forest is an attack on our people…The land is the basis of who we are. Our culture is a land-based culture, and the destruction of the land is the destruction of our culture; we know that…they want us out of the way so they can take the resources. We can’t allow them to carry on with this cultural genocide.”
2 ryersonfreepress.ca
Before the blockade began, a group of trappers— Andrew Keewatin, Joe Bill Fobister, and the late Willie Keewatin—sought a judicial review against the paper giant, Abitibi-Bowater, and the MNR. They argued that their treaty rights to hunt and trap were being infringed by decreased animal habitat and population. Eleven years after the trappers first presented their case, J.B. Fobister summarizes the 2011 court ruling: “[The Province] could not interfere with [their] right to hunt and trap.” Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., the MNR, and the Attorney General of Canada have since appealed this ruling. Pending the outcome, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently ordered that the MNR not authorize the harvesting of wood in the Whiskey Jack Forest north of English River without the consent of Grassy Narrows. Fobister illustrates the conflict between the interests of industry, the provincial government, and Grassy Narrows: “We are in the way of what they call development. What they call development, we call destruction,” he said. “Whatever happens on the land,” he added, “Grassy should get all the benefits.” In July 2011, KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. released an audit they conducted of forestry management in the 964,000 hectare Whiskey Jack. Validating concerns of forest mismanagement, the report produced 21 recommendations based on “observations of material non-conformances” to a law and policy as well as ineffective planning and execution. Some forest product manufacturers, such as Boise Inc. and Domtar, have publicly agreed not to harvest or purchase wood from Grassy Narrows’ territory until the MNR obtains community consent. In 2009, Calvert Investments removed Weyerhaeuser from its social index of sustainable and responsible companies due to Weyerhaeuser’s failure to respect the rights of Indigenous peoples. With only 30 per cent of the forest remaining intact, the Weyerhaeuser mill in Kenora, Ontario, continues to create a demand for wood harvested from the Whiskey Jack. Since
2002, the forest has supplied at least 40 per cent of the mill’s wood, accounting for 42 per cent of the total timber harvest from the forest. The mill produces Trustjoist Timberstrand product, an engineered lumber used for home building. In 2010, Weyerhaeuser pressured the MNR to approve “contingency” logging areas in the Whiskey Jack Forest without the consent of Grassy Narrows. Chief Simon Fobister issued an open letter to logging companies, retailers, contractors and investors at the time, calling “for the boycott and divestment of Weyerhaeuser Corporation due to their violation of our human rights as Indigenous Peoples.” With approximately 70 per cent of the mill’s product being sold in the United States, a successful boycott would require increased support. Since the beginning of the blockade, local organizations, such as Winnipeg Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement (WIPSM, formerly Friends of Grassy Narrows) and Boreal Forest Network, have supported the blockade to stop logging in their territory. Together with other allies, they are asking home builders and retailers to boycott Weyerhaeuser, “until they cease all logging and sourcing in the contested traditional territories of Grassy Narrows First Nation.” “A ‘no’ from Grassy means, no, stay off their traditional territory—no logging and no resource extraction,” said Thor Aikenhead, member of WIPSM. Damage to the community by corporations and the provincial and federal governments over the decades has taken a great toll, but the determination of Grassy Narrows and its allies could force this corporate giant out. “Grassy’s demands must be respected,” he adds. News items and suggestions for supporting Grassy Narrows can be found at freegrassy.org. To sign the petition for Weyerhaeuser to stop sourcing wood from Grassy Narrows First Nation territory, visit: borealforestnetwork.com. This article was originally published in the Dominion.
PHOTOS: RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK via FLICKR
New Refugee Law “Violates” International Law
If proposed Refugee Act existed in the 1980s, even Nelson Mandela would have been sent packing
The monthly newspaper for continuing education, distance education and part-time students at Ryerson Address
By Rehaana Manek Bill C-31, the Refugee Exclusion Act, is the newest attempt by the Conservative Government to overhaul immigration law and is meeting with heavy criticism from refugee and activist groups. The Act proposes to create provisions to create conditional residency for accepted refugees, with the potential to retroactively strip refugees of their status. It also puts in place a two-tier asylum system that shortens processing time, denies appeal, and determines worth based on nationality, giving the minister authority to designate certain countries as safe. Mandatory incarceration will also be put in place for many refugees and the Act also allows for the revocation of Canadian Citizenship for over 1,800 Canadians living abroad who the minister believes obtained citizenship through questionable means. According to Jason Kenney, the minister of citizenship and immigration, the reason for these massive changes is to address areas of immigration abuse. Member of Parliament John Weston recently stated that “In 2011, Canada received more refugee claims from the democratic and human rights-respecting countries of the European Union than from Africa or Asia,” costing taxpayers nearly $170 million dollars. The minister is hoping that by reducing this expense the Canadian government will be better positioned to resettle as many as ten
Ryerson Free Press
per cent of the world’s refugees. The minister wants Bill C-31 to challenge human smuggling efforts, and fight birth tourism (people travelling to Canada to give birth in order for their child to gain Canadian citizenship). The NDP believe that C-31 would create a second-class of refugee, many of who would be subject to detention for a year. According to Kenney, the NDP “does not understand Bill C-31…The changes the bill will make to the asylum system will not alter the fact that all asylum seekers from all countries, by means of all types of immigration, including smuggling, will have an oral hearing before the independent decision-makers of the Immigration and Refugee Board.” Much of the changes that Bill C-31 proposes, however, have brought about mass protest from advocacy groups, Human Rights and Civil Liberties groups all across Canada. Many of these groups agree with the NDP’s position and believe that the Act violates the rights of children and refugees. In an open letter to Members of Parliament, Human Rights Watch stated that the Act would violate human rights law by allowing a year of detention with no appeal or review for particular groups of people including 16 and 17 year old children, and prevent refugees from achieving permanent residency for up to five years. According to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, “The provisions of Bill C-31 stand
in stark contrast to Canada’s legal obligations under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a variety of international human rights conventions. Furthermore, this Bill represents a dramatic departure from the ethos and reputation of Canada as a compassionate, humanitarian voice on the world stage. It is critical that Bill C-31 be defeated.” The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers outlined on their website the ways in which the Act counters the statements of the Minister in very specific ways, for instance they state that the Minister would not bar political prisoners like “Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Nelson Mandela from making asylum claims in Canada,” however, the Act states that if “someone is convicted of a crime punishable by ten years or more, that person is not eligible to make a refugee claim. Nelson Mandela was convicted on false charges in South Africa because he opposed apartheid. Alexander Solzhenitsyn was convicted for subversion in Russia. The new law does not create an exemption for the use of criminal prosecution by repressive regimes as a tool of persecution of political dissidents.” According to migrant and refugee advocacy group, No One Is Illegal, “This Act is racist. It creates a two-tier system of refugee protection, increases incarceration, denies and revokes legal status, and violently targets and expels refugees and migrants from Canada.”
Suite SCC-301 Ryerson Student Centre 55 Gould Street Toronto, ON CANADA M5B 1E9
Phone (416) 979.5000 x7715
Fax (416) 979.5223
Email ryersonfreepress@gmail.com
Website WWW.ryersonfreepress.ca
Editor-In-Chief Nora Loreto
News Editor James burrows
Features and Opinions Editor Scaachi Koul
Layout and Photo Editor Andrea Yeomans
Culture Editor manori ravindran
Cover Photo BEN POWLESS
Contributors lindsey addawoo Sarah-Taïssir Bencharif Mitchell Burton matthew cwihun eric do joseph Lee jon lockyer rehaana manek Ben Powless Ruane Remy kelsey rolfe amy ward sadiah Waziri chuck wright
Publisher CESAR The opinions expressed in the Ryerson Free Press are not necessarily those of the editors or publisher. Advertising Ryerson Free Press’ advertising rates are as follows. All prices are for single insertions. Discounts apply for Ryerson groups and departments. Full page—$750 Half page—$375 Quarter page—$195 Eighth page—$95
PHOTO: RICHARD BOTT via FLICKR
Ryerson Free Press April 2012 3
Ontario budget brings cuts to student support While 30 per cent tuition grant continues for some, multiple other bursaries and international student support slashed By Lee Richardson, CUP Ontario Bureau Chief TORONTO (CUP) — Cuts to student aid and support for international students are just some of the proposals included in the Ontario provincial budget released March 27. The post-secondary sector will, however, see the 30 per cent tuition grant continuing, with a recommitment from the Liberals to fund more post-secondary spaces, as seen in last year’s budget. There will be cuts, however, to “streamline student financial assistance” following the introduction of the tuition grant, according to the budget, which was tabled Tuesday by Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan. The Ontario Work Study program will be cut, as will the Ontario Special Bursary and the Dr. Albert Rose Bursary. Several other grants will be eliminated, such as the Small Northern and Rural grant, which helps smaller colleges provide programs to attract students from smaller communities. “With all the programs are being axed it actually means that for every dollar that’s being invested in student financial assistance, $1.20 is being cut back,” said Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario chairperson Sandy Hudson. “We’re actually taking away from students, not giving to them.” Funding for the recruitment of international non-PhD students and study-abroad scholarships would also be cut, if the budget is passed. But whether the budget will get the support it needs from the opposition parties remains to be seen. Conservative Ontario leader Tim Hudak said that his party would vote down the budget, saying that the passing of the budget as is could lead to a situation where Ontario wouldn’t be able to cope with an “economic shock.” “This isn’t structural reform in this budget; it’s simply knocking the can further down the road,” Hudak said, referring to the goal of eliminating the province’s deficit. NDP leader Andrea Horwath also expressed disappointment with the budget, specifically at the lack of a plan to create new jobs. The budget only mentions protecting 170,000 jobs. “There is nothing in this budget that speaks to the job crisis that Ontario has,” said Hor-
wath. “It falls short on key fronts.” Horwath announced her party would not necessarily vote down the budget immediately, because of concerns that doing so would trigger another provincial election only several months after the last. Instead her party will, according to Horwath, have a discussion with Ontarians to decide whether to vote down the budget. “We’re very frustrated by what we’ve seen in the budget,” said Hudson. “We hope that the opposition parties become a strong advocate for students — we need them to be.”
Tensions Rise During Anti-Police Brutality Protest By Eric Do On March 15, the International Day Against Police Brutality, a protester in Toronto ended up on the ground — allegedly the result of police interference. Trey Wraith, a familiar face from the Occupy Toronto movement, spoke about the incident. “Two officers scissored me with their bikes and proceeded to knock me over,” said Wraith. “The rear officer then pressed down on my ankle with his bike while I was on the ground.” He said he was okay, but many protesters noted the irony of an alleged incident of police brutality happening at a rally aimed against it. The protest began outside of 51 Division with about 50 people in attendance, including black flag anarchists. A large “FUCK THE POLICE” sign faced the street as speakers addressed the crowd. “There’s been a gang running through the streets of Toronto, killing people,” said Kabir Joshi-Vijayan, a coordinator with BASICS Free Community Newsletter. “If you don’t know by now…I’m talking about the Toronto Police Service.” He and other speakers went on to cite cases where individuals died after interactions with police. “They’re entitled to their opinions and they have the right to free speech,” said Insp. Gary Meissner of 51 Division. “I think what it has to be rooted in is in fact and there’s nothing wrong with discussing (facts)…but at the end of the day I think these matters need to be discussed and out in the open.” Open and transparent policing is what the Centre for Police Accountability is advocating for. Member Kris Pheasant said she was there because of police violence. “It’s every-
4 ryersonfreepress.ca
one’s responsibility to watch the most dangerous, publicly funded group among us,” she said. “We’re interested in keeping track of cases of violence when people have been seriously hurt, assaulted, killed by police.” Testament performed an a capella version of his song Police State. “It’s a police state, a police state. Stand up, rebel before it’s too late,” he rapped. Ezra Patel of Canadians Against Police Brutality noted, “We’re not anti-police.” But the crowd replied with “YES WE ARE!” and proceeded to chant, “An-ti Police! An-ti Police! An-ti-Police!” The demonstrators began their march going north on Parliament Street. A bystander gave his take on policing in Toronto. “I think there is police brutality, I think it does exist and I think it ‘oughta stop,” said Frank Saptel. “I think they ‘oughta treat people like citizens and they should not be tools of the state. They should serve to protect ordinary citizens like you or I.” The march then passed by a pizza store on Queen Street, with employee Htunn Kyaw standing outside. “Most of the police officers are good,” said Kyaw, “but some of them are very bad, so they should go back and redo their training.” The participants opted for unorthodox routes during the march, walking through Moss Park, and then through an alleyway onto Jarvis Street. Along the way, Constable Sheraz Arshad talked about the relationship between protesters and the police. “Everyone should come out and peacefully protest,” he said. “We can all coexist.”
Meissner later echoed that sentiment, saying he “absolutely” supports peaceful protest. “If there’s an issue with respect that needs to be brought to the public consciousness, then protest is one of the many means by which people do that.” Eventually, the protest reached police headquarters on College Street and police numbers almost equaled the protesters. People like Eric Mconnell watched on. “It (protesting) has it’s time and it’s place, at the same time when they’re blocking traffic they can’t expect not to be pushed around,” said Mconell. “Policing in Toronto is honestly better than most states in the U.S., so I’m not complaining.” The protesters then made their way to 52 Division, the last destination of the night. There, the tone of the protest intensified when one demonstrator claimed to have seen a videographer hand a memory card to the police. The videographer, Frank Delango, takes pictures and records many rallies in Toronto. Testament took the pole of the flag he was carrying, and shoved it into the lens of Delango’s camera. Balaclavaclad protesters then used umbrellas to block Delango’s view. The crowd expressed concerns that he never uploads any footage and accused him of working for the police. “All they have to do is check on my Facebook site…I put stuff there all the time,” said Delango. The situation cooled down, and as the event ended, people started talking plans for next year. “I’m a normal working class person, and I’m here because I believe this is a really important event,” said Pheasant. “Every year I’d like to see more people here…because we wouldn’t be here if police weren’t brutal.” PHOTO: SHIRA GOLDING via FLICKR
“We aren’t going back to shitting in pails in our house” Tyendinaga activist Shawn Brant reacts to contraband tobacco component of Ontario’s budget By Jon Lockyer Battle lines are being drawn in the fight over tobacco in Ontario. Ontario’s latest budget is targeting contraband tobacco, and some First Nations communities feel threatened by the move. Just over a year ago the Ontario provincial government asked Don Drummond to find a way to balance the province’s budget without raising taxes. Released in February the report proposed massive public sector cuts, especially to education and healthcare. The Ontario government’s March budget put most of Drummond’s ideas into action. Drummond, however, did cheat a few times: of his hundreds of recommendations regarding cuts, he proposed a handful of measures to increase government revenues. One of those was to crack down on the contraband tobacco trade. In many ways it was his most provocative suggestion. For over two decades there has been a long simmering conflict between the government and First Nations over tobacco. Currently tobacco on First Nations reserves is not subject to federal or provincial taxes and high off-reserve taxes on cigarettes has driven up the demand for cheaper on reserve tobacco. As many as 20 per cent of cigarettes purchased in Canada are illegal and the Ontario government believes that most of these are sold on or funneled through First Nations, such as Tyendinaga and Six Nations near Caledonia. Shawn Brant, who lives in the Mohawk community of Tyendinaga, is one of this country’s more notorious Indigenous protesters, and led a blockade in 2007 that shut down two highways and a rail line between Toronto and Montreal. Brant believes that the tobacco economy is vital for his community and is warning the government to stop threatening the tobacco trade. “The one thing we decided as a community is that, when it comes to tobacco, we recognize it as an economic foundation of our community,” said Brant in an interview last month. “We’ve decided that we are going to continue to utilize it as a resource…Tyendinega is a community that has emerged from impoverished conditions largely because we developed tobacco as a resource.“ The National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco recently congratulated the gov-
PHOTO: JOHN PERKINS via FLICKR
ernment on its budget, stating, “Ontario is demonstrating that it is taking the contraband tobacco problem seriously…And so they should: illegal cigarettes not only represent massive revenue losses for the government, but are also a cash cow for organized crime. “The budget identified that these measures will raise $375 million in revenues over the next three years, with $175 million in additional revenues in subsequent years.” Brant, however, believes that the conversation about tobacco is not properly contextualized within the larger issues of poverty facing First Nations communities. “Unfortunately, people don’t frame tobacco in a proper way,” stated Brant. “We’re forced to say “You need to allow us to engage in this illegal practice because we don’t have clean drinking water or because are kids are going hungry.” Brant also noted that the influx of money from tobacco has had a substantial spinoff effect for the rest of the local economy. “I’ve had running water [but not potable water] in my house for 12 years and that is something that was made possible because of tobacco. We have a great deal of development as a result; we have construction companies because there’s free money available for people to renovate their homes. Tobacco has been a stimulant: it’s helped create a number of strong, long-term industries. Brant views the economic conditions facing First Nations as part of an apartheid system that is forcing their communities to struggle. “Part of apartheid is that you don’t just imprison and impoverish people and isolate them from the rest of society,” said Brant, “but each and every day you torture those people. You have to keep them at a point where they struggle throughout their daily lives for water, to put food on their tables.” Brant said he will do whatever it takes to protect the economy that does exist in his community. “As we say, we aren’t going back to shitting in pails in our house.” Brant declared. “It’s not an Indian right, but a human right to raise our kids in a safe, happy, and healthy community and we have a right to live to a standard that is at least equal to our non-native counterparts.”
Ryerson Free Press April 2012 5
FEATURES Cover the Night Toronto By Lindsey Addawoo
Masturbatory controversy be damned, the Kony 2012 campaign, Cover The Night, will still be happening this month. The high-profile event started by the Invisible Children organization where people across the globe will meet on one night in their respective cities to cover their town in posters about Ugandan guerrilla, Joseph Kony, the head of the Lord’s Resistance Army. The goal was to ultimately make him famous, enough to garner U.S. military intervention. Because of the many controversies surrounding the organization, Cover the Night Toronto has chosen to take a different route. Cover the Night Toronto isn’t going to be what you may expect. Started by a group of university students, the goal of the event will be to run a charity drive for those in need. According to one of the event planners Jay Brown, the main goal of Cover the Night Toronto is not to donate specifically to countries in Africa, but to as many people as possible, overseas and at home. “We’ll be accepting clothing, food and medical supply donations” says Brown, a McMaster student. He and his planners Michelle Mierzwa and Matthew Marji are asking for a list of charities and organizations that participants want items donated to. “We’ll try to incorporate as many [charities] as we can, depending on how many donations we get.” Brown says that the people in the city should still try to put posters up, but they’re also hoping people can bring donations as well. For those planning on covering the night, he has some advice: “Do it in a civil manner. Don’t throw them in the street.” Brown says he was motivated to join in by how
6 ryersonfreepress.ca
quickly Invisible Children’s 30-minute video went viral across the globe. “I’ll admit,” he says, “I had no idea who Joseph Kony was [before the video].” He notes that even throughout the financial controversies and accusations put out against the motives of Invisible Children, “controversy isn’t over the idea of the video; there’s controversy over the actual organization.” In other words, the message is still plain and simple: help those in need. Brown makes it clear that Cover the Night in Toronto has no direct affiliation with Invisible Children. “To be honest, we haven’t even contacted them. We’re honestly acting on our own here.” But is any step taken a step forward? Many believe involvement and foreign aid in African nations like Uganda will be more detrimental to the locals than positive. It is difficult to determine which organizations are more likely get the donations to where they actually need to be, a long-standing complaint many people have against notfor-profits. This is even more frustrating when it’s discovered that these organizations are indeed, making a profit. Still, the intentions of Kony 2012 and Cover The Night are pure. “Imagine if every single city across North America got 30,000 people to donate 2 cans of food. That’d feed a whole ton of people. Then you wouldn’t have to post posters or vandalize or get a controversial video and publicize it all over the net. That’s as simple as it is,” says Brown. Brown says they’re expecting the 33,000 that confirmed their invite on the Facebook group, and that there might be more. “We’re hoping for at least 10,000 people on the night of the twentieth.”
Where are we in your
budget? The 2012 budget was released by the federal government on Thursday, March 29. Protesters in the gallery at the House of Commons greeted the budget wearing shirts that said Not Our Budget. The budget raises the retirement age to 67 and implements cuts that affect Canadians 55 and younger. 8   ryersonfreepress.ca
PHOTOS: Mitchell Burton and BEN POWLESS
Ryerson Free Press April 2012 9
OPINION From Avaaz to Amnesty: the reality of humanitarian intervention By Sadiah Waziri It is becoming increasingly clear that through their mandates, persuasive vernacular, and emotive imagery, prominent western NGOs are seeking to create new alternatives to sell the euphoria of humanitarian rhetoric, and to further manipulate the masses by manufacturing their consent. The recent KONY 2012 campaign lead by Invisible Children provoked a strong oppositional response from a swarm of analysts and journalists. Online rivalry ensued as the strong backlash to the campaign sought to expose the seemingly well-intentioned documentary about a warlord in Uganda. Less known, however, are various humanitarian campaigns lead by the global web movement Avaaz.org. Avaaz has been criticized for its role during the western-sponsored armed rebellion and uprising in Libya and continuing forth into Syria. Avaaz also circulates online petitions, soliciting offline demonstrations, and supporting independent press in conflict areas around the world. The developments surrounding the citizen uprisings in North Africa and Western Asia gave way to organizations such as Avaaz to take advantage and utilize the international platform, further expanding support networks for its supposed aid missions. Donations totaling $1.5 million were used to supply high-tech phones and satellite modems to citizen journalists in Syria. The most prominent activist to gain the spotlight in western media is Avaaz trained citizen journalist Danny Dayem, who had recently been exposed for his dubious double-role in reporting. Addounia TV, a Syrian government sponsored television network with the help of Rafiq Lutif exposed video leaks that depicted what is not shown in the mainstream media. Dayem’s credibility and honesty had been harshly criticized as he is seen in the company of armed terrorists orchestrating and fabricating war reports about a supposed Syrian government lead massacre against civilians in Homs. Although analysts do not overlook the criticism towards
the Syrian government, it is the lack of the mainstream media as well as NGOs to highlight the reality and agenda of the opposition that is troubling. Unusual tactics were also employed in Libya, claiming that Muammar Gaddafi was planning a genocide in Benghazi, where apparently 10,000 people had been slaughtered. Amnesty reports later- conveniently so, revealed that the massacre was a lie, used to impose an illegal “no fly zone.” In early February, Avaaz uploaded a YouTube video titled Help Smuggle Hope into Syria where Dayem is again seen calling upon the international community to help assist Syrians and the growing need for “humanitarian” intervention. “Where is the UN?” he asked. “Where is America?” He also requested the support of the Arab League (AL) as well as Israel. This is the same AL that the NATO member states used as their green light to further the UN resolution to bomb Libya. Libya is not a member of the AL, but the African Union, which strongly opposed humanitarian military intervention in Libya. The role of NGOs as facilitators to overthrow a sovereign nations government is criminal. Further, Amnesty International (AI) has yet to criticise the Syrian rebels and hold them responsible for terrorizing Syrians as well as the Syrian army. They have also failed to outline and denounce the foreign military aid given to armed rebel militias to further fuel sedition in the country. It is not farfetched to propose that the actions taken up by NGOs are not influenced by those they are funded and controlled by. AIUSA’s Frank Jannuzi was stated on Amnesty’s website, “I am thrilled to be joining Amnesty International and look forward to connecting the passion and expertise of AIUSA with the policy-making community in Washington that I know well.” Jannuzi, a former staff member of the Senate of Foreign Relations Committee, has intimate relations with the most powerful pressure group in
the world, The Council on Foreign Relations. It is no coincidence that George Clooney’s recent stunt and arrest in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington D.C. on March 16 was followed by an AIUSA email campaign on March 19. A red banner on the email campaign read: “What was actor George Clooney doing in jail, while Sudan’s president and indicted war crimes suspect Omar al-Bashir runs free?” A common theme seems to play into the Kony hysteria. These U.S. State Department endorsed NGOs play into the neo-colonial interests in Africa and Western Asia. They are not isolated from one another. The common theme of military intervention always lauds the usurpation of natural resources belonging to sovereign nations, and the supremacist agenda to further world domination. If it is not oil or rare minerals the West is after, it is to confiscate land to establish a regional military base as proxy for future wars in the region. Argentinean journalist Stella Calloni said it best when she recently condemned Avaaz.org for its role in the region, saying, “You presented yourselves as a network for justice, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, to serve dirty wars, unjust invasions, and genocides like those committed in Afghanistan, Iraq. You are as criminal and mercenary as those who kill without pity.” With that said, it is clear that human rights organizations now more than ever, play a pivotal role for western policies of foreign aggression on sovereign states. NATOs recent intervention in Libya has made it undeniably clear that the civilian deaths and destruction to infrastructure is a sinister compromise made under the guise of humanitarianism. As political analyst and journalist Sukant Chandan stated in an interview on Russia Today, “It’s high time that people across the world see these human rights organizations for what they really are—the Trojan horses of Western foreign policy.”
Apathy for Afghanistan By Rehaana Manek
Since 2001, the War on Terror, has become a normal part of daily life. An entire generation has grown up in this “era of terra,” knowing nothing else, only normalized global violence against particular kinds of bodies. When states train people to kill, should we be surprised when something like this happens? No. American, Canadian and British soldiers in Afghanistan are conditioned to see so-called “insurgents” as less than human. They are trained to be desensitized in the same way we as a society are trained to be desensitized—we see images of children bleeding and maimed on the news, but it sparks little to no incentive to question or fight for change. We are all under the impression that if our soldiers are involved or if NATO soldiers are involved, it is part of the greater good. So we aren’t surprised when an American soldier kills a 15 year old, because we “know” he must have been a terrorist. We aren’t surprised when a young woman becomes a suicide bomber, because that is something that “those” people “over there” do. We never ask why she did it. When we hear about soldiers committing these acts of violence, it isn’t surprising, because we have seen it before. We saw it in 2004 when American soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq tortured and sexually abused detainees. We saw this in 2002 when 15-year-old Omar Khadr was arrested for terrorism and war crimes, and subsequently charged and convicted after nearly a decade as Guantanamo Bay’s
10 ryersonfreepress.ca
youngest prisoner. This conviction went through despite repeated attempts by the UN and Human Rights Watch, pleading his case as a child soldier. We saw this when just last month several American soldiers took copies of the Quran and began to burn them in a landfill. And we see it again now, as American Soldier Robert Bales was charged with the massacre of 17 Afghans, both adults and children, and for injuring six others. We should have seen it coming. These events become normalized because Afghans, and much of the global south are seen as less than human, both by soldiers and Western societies. These situations are positioned in media and public relations discourse as development initiatives armed with a rhetorical toolbox, containing hammers to save Afghan women, nails to stop warlords, and saws to cut off al-Qaeda’s influence. This ceased to be a war many years ago. A war implies two sides, one that might lose, and one that might win. When American forces invaded Afghanistan it was not going to war, it was beginning an occupation. Afghan activist and politician Malalai Joya, echoing other public intellectuals, believes that the U S.-led occupation of Afghanistan needs to end, and soldiers need to leave, “We have three enemies: the warlords, the Taliban, and foreign occupation. When the occupation ends, we’ll only have two.” The way that the people of Afghanistan are dehuman-
ized in this occupation is a neatly packaged throwback to much of the way that colonization all over the globe was organized, but also how it was told to the folks back home: that colonization and occupation would help the people being colonized. War strategy throughout human history has seen the “good” guys being told to view the enemy as the seed of evil, strategies that governments hope will control dissent. The American military is a well-oiled machine that functions as a whole. These soldiers are fed pro-war propaganda and false patriotism that insists on holding onto honour, justice, and freedom as its cornerstones, words that hold little meaning when children are unfairly convicted of terrorism. In fact, the U.S. Army is known for sending soldiers back or keeping soldiers who were diagnosed with PTSD in full deployment. From 2000 to 2011, the Army diagnosed over 70,000 soldiers with PTSD. Of those soldiers, over 60,000 were diagnosed at some stage of their deployment. In a statement to legislators following the massacre General John Allen, said to Al-Jazeera, “We are making a difference. I know this and our troops know this.” But what does this mean in light of the last decade of violent change and power struggles? It means nothing, because nothing has changed. In Canada, we see these events in the news, read about them, see them on the news ticker in the subway. Then we go about our day.
Can anyone fill Jack’s shoes?
The perfectly predictable tale of the Toronto-Danforth by-election By Joseph Lee If there was anybody out there who thought that Toronto-Danforth would elect anyone but an NDP candidate, they were very mistaken. The riding, held for the NDP in the late 70s and early 80s by Bob Rae, and subsequently by Lynn McDonald, another NDP MP until the Liberal Dennis Mills took the riding for 16 years, is known as a bastion of left-wing ideology. Craig Scott, the NDP candidate, won with almost 60 per cent of the vote. It’s clear who lost: the Conservative candidate, Andrew Keyes, received less than five per cent in the byelection. Will Scott be able to live up to the legacy of the late Jack Layton? We don’t really know. He’s a rookie when it comes to politics, but he certainly has the right credentials for an NDP candidate—he was a former member of the Board of Directors at the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, co-founder of the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, and a commissioner on the Truth Commission which is was “created by human rights organizations after the 2009 coup in Honduras.” Whoa. The by-election was his to lose. There was little chance that the Liberal candidate, Grant Gordon, would win, though his credentials scream NDP as well—he created and runs a marketing firm specialising in ethical and environmental products. There was clearly no chance in hell that the Conservative candidate would win. Mr. Scott has some big shoes to fill, and it would be a miracle if he was able to do it. Layton was the ultimate amalgamation of Pierre Trudeau’s charisma and the Canadian everyman: he was like a political unicorn. Before him, few would have believed that a politician like that could exist. I mean, the two things people always say are the least trustworthy features of a politician are baldness and facial hair, and he had both! Even Trudeau, who is still viewed with reverence bordering on hero worship by the Liberal Party could never hope to qualify as an everyman. I loved Trudeau because he had the slightly patronising tone of a professor who was teaching the country something that it needed to learn. But I loved Jack because he was like a dad trying to teach us lessons through his actions and his words. He was the perfect representative for the average Canadian. There’s no doubt about that. He was a man who could speak about the things he believed in and make you believe in those things just as much as he did. If Craig Scott could accomplish just half of what Jack was able to do, it would constitute a victory for the New Democrats. I know that this by-election didn’t really capture the imaginations of Canadians around the country (voter turnout in the riding was under 50 per cent) but it matters. We saw the left trounce the right by an insane margin. Maybe in the next federal election (2015!) the results of the by-election in Toronto-Danforth will be echoed throughout all the ridings in this nation. We’ll call it Canada Wars IV: A New Hope, and Craig Scott is our Luke Skywalker. With Thomas Mulcair, the new NDP Leader as Han Solo. Bob Rae, or whoever they choose to be their leader (fingers crossed for Justin Trudeau) can be Admiral Ackbar of the Rebel Alliance. You know, that guy from Mon Calamari who looked like a fish (to all the Star Wars fans out there, I am aware that he was not in A New Hope. Deal with it). And hopefully Canada won’t go the way of the planet Alderaan in the face of Emperor Harper’s Death Star. Our Han Solo was once a Quebec Liberal. I could write an entire article about Mulcair and his future as the leader of the federal NDP and call it Enter The Dragon: The Fiery Politics of the New Left. Because, you know, puns. Thomas Mulcair, more than anything, is a dedicated centrist. He is not in line with the
historical position of the NDP on the political spectrum, which is probably why he incurred the wrath of the elder statesman, Ed Broadbent, who does not approve of his style and thinks it is wrong for the party. Of course, Mulcair and old Ed are going to have to kiss and make up, because the divisions within the party that this leadership convention exposed are deep. Layton’s death was like an earthquake and the cracks that it spread in the foundation of the party could be too much for them to handle. That is not to say that Mulcair isn’t prepared to lead. He is. I mean, he is the only NDP MP in parliament who can say that he’s had cabinet experience as a Quebec Liberal, I’m sure he knows his way around a whip. (Party whip! I’m not making anything sexual out of this. Or am I?) So will the NDP be able to maintain the Orange Crush through to the next federal election? After watching Mulcair’s underwhelming speech at the leadership convention, all I’ve got to say is that it takes much more than awesome facial hair to win over the hearts and minds of the Canadian people. Jack showed us that. And unless Mulcair can get his act together, and show us some of this fiery passion that he’s known for, there’s little chance the NDP can keep from fracturing like the Liberal Party at the end of the Chrétien era. If he fails, like Ignatieff or Dion, then the Liberals might just be in for a Rocky Balboa-style comeback in 2015.
All Hail CESAR! By Matthew Cwihun
I am writing to you on the basis of hope, faced with a shortage of time. I am an older student at Ryerson, yet I am a fairly new fellow involved with CESAR, Ryerson’s continuing education student’s union. It is time students such as myself find the courage to stand up and declare enough is enough! It is time we gather the courage to declare as one voice how we are tired of the rise in tuition fees, we are tired of the lack of benefits, we are tired of being treated as second class students simply because we are not enrolled under a full time designation. This is marginalization: a form of student segregation that is unjust, unqualified, and unfair. Change needs to occur, but how did we get into this position? As part time and continuing education students, we must ask ourselves who represents us and where do they stand on defending our rights and bringing us the social protections we are entitled to as a right. As part of our tuition fees, we pay for a body of democratically elected students to represent us and fight for causes of concern to us. Wanting to know more, I started to get involved with CESAR. From attending the political meetings this year and having a one on one conversation with past and present executive members, however, I began to see why student concerns have been left unanswered. I admit I was blatantly appalled to find out there has been a branch of particular CESAR executive members, who will remain nameless, have wasted our valuable time. They spent two semesters working on amending the CESAR by-laws and creating a new political framework. At the last meeting, they saw only 16 students capable of voting on issues. Is this democracy? A student proposal brought forth to the executive before the public meeting started was shot down before she could explain her issue. Her proposal was to have the minutes, or summary, of last year’s meetings released. The executive shot her down. Why does the curPHOTO: MATT JIGGINS via FLICKR
rent executive at CESAR want to keep their meetings secret from the student body they were elected to serve? The reason why you have not received an update on CESAR’s fight to bring you childcare benefits or health benefits you deserve as a union member, is due in part from the fact your CESAR executive was more concerned with his or her own self interest and in maintaining their positions than fighting for your rights. When they had time to campaign for greater student aid and social welfare, there were occupied with amending and then rewriting bi-laws that required no such re-drafting. The situation gets worse when it was revealed, that The Ryerson Free Press’ funding was nearly revoked by these same executives. The almighty CESAR executive attempted to do away with one of your student voices at Ryerson, clearly unaware or ignorant of the fact that free associations are the foundation of any democratic organization. But there is hope. With the coming CESAR elections, it’s time we vote for change. Although there has been some stagnation within CESAR as of late, there are good people involved with it who are proudly and boldly carrying the social fight within a realm of threatened autocracy. I ask you to do the same. If you are curious, come to the political meetings and see what the new movement seeking to bring social justice back to the forefront of CESAR is all about. I, or anyone else motivated by a cause, can write an article—that’s the easy part. The challenge, and the opportunity, is for us to work together as a collective student body. Only then will lower tuition fees, childcare, and health benefits become a reality for part-time and continuing education students The time for turning our hope into action is now.
Ryerson Free Press April 2012 11
Robo-Wha?
Robo-calls, electoral fraud and the Conservative Party of Canada By Joseph Lee I don’t believe the Conservative Party of Canada exists. What I do believe is that there is a party out there whose sole purpose is to cater to the whims of our Dear Leader, Supreme Magnificent President Super Happy Fun Time Stephen Harper. Or Prime Minister. Who can tell the difference—he sure can’t. He holds an iron fist over the government and an iron fist on our hearts. Now on to the robot stuff. In the last federal election, there were actually two different kinds of robo-calls. One from the Liberals and another from some guy named Pierre Poutine. I heard he was a separatist.
12 ryersonfreepress.ca
The Liberal robo-calls were essentially attack ads against a Conservative candidate, and were ethically wrong, since the calls did not specify that the Liberal candidate funded them. That candidate eventually won the riding. Pierre Poutine’s robo-calls were of an entirely different, and much more fraudulent nature. According to the Globe and Mail, there have been roughly 31,000 complaints made to Elections Canada, who were quick to say that the majority of the complaints were not from people reporting actual incidents. Elections Canada would not specify the number of people who have actually reported
personal incidences, but the Globe interviewed a few people who reported receiving the calls which notified them that their polling station had been moved. Moved where, you may ask? Well, they were moved to conveniently non-existent locations! The Globe also interviewed Charles Cochrane from Saint John, N.B., who said he had received a call from the Conservatives a short time before Election Day, asking him if he would be voting for them. He responded with “definitely not.” On election day, he got a call from “Elections Canada” telling him that the polling station he had been going to for the last 28 years had been moved. So are these robo-calls weakening our already fragile democracy? Or are the anti-Harperites just freaking out over nothing? As an ardent Liberal, my first response would be to immediately decry these robo-calls as an attack on the very essence of Canadian democracy, which, in one sense, they are. In another sense, this really is a non-issue, because it’s not like the Conservatives can’t withstand a little fraud allegation. They’ve done it before. The Conservatives are a force to be reckoned with, a seemingly monolithic right-wing bloc composed of social and libertarian conservatives, hell-bent on changing the very nature of the Canadian democracy. Conversely, you might just call them...Albertans. (That’s a joke, of course. I don’t mean to offend any Albertans by calling them Conservatives without proof.) With the Conservatives so strong in a majority and our democracy so consequently weak), it is almost guaranteed that little to nothing is going to be done about this Pierre Poutine fellow. So should we just get over it and move on? Of course not. Canadians have to be loud about the state of our now-lazy democracy. Almost as loud as Bob Rae. Almost. On the other side of the controversy is the point that this robo-calls scandal is really just a non-issue. This is just one facet of the Conservative war machine, and a relatively small one at that. But of course, the Liberals had a little robo-call scandal themselves, didn’t they? So far, the only complainants the Conservative Party could find were themselves. And Elections Canada is actively refusing to take a stance on the Liberal robo-call issue. Bob Rae has said that the Liberals will co-operate with any investigation launched on them because of this allegation. So at least one party’s willing to own up to their mistakes. If we look at this situation pragmatically, there are a whole host of other, more important issues to fight over. Take, for example, the passing of Bill C-10, a crime bill which would cost the provinces of this nation millions, if not billions of dollars in the long run. The bill titled, The Safe Streets and Communities Act, makes some colourful changes to our criminal code, a few notable ones being restricting a judge’s right to offer alternative punishments to prison time, forcing harsher punishments on young offenders, and advocating for minimum sentences on drug charges. Overall, it would be a major drain on the finances of the provinces and territories who would have to implement it, and would do no good for the people of this nation. Now that’s an issue to get behind. If Stephen Harper were running a minority government, this issue would probably be enough to bring it down––at least to its knees. The problem is, he’s running a majority government, and he won’t be out of office until 2015—maybe. So unless we’re willing to sit tight and fight this one through for the long haul, there is very little hope that this issue will matter come the next election. And that’s really what it’s all about, isn’t it? Needless to say, as awful as this issue is, the “alleged” Conservative behind it did pick a pretty awesome cover name. “Pierre Poutine” just has that great alliterative, stereotype-laden feel to it. You really couldn’t make up a better news story.
PHOTO: PETE PRODOEHL via FLICKR
CULTURE On Staring Back Confronting the male gaze of Ian Brown and his friends By Ruane Remy The oldest man to noticeably undress me with his eyes was sitting outside a nursing home. Well past age 70, he beckoned me as I strolled by. Thinking he needed help, I approached, much to my regret. He smacked his wrinkled lips at me. They were shriveled over toothless gums. And all the while he had that look in his eyes: the look that only gets creepier as the age gap widens. Being stared at by men, young and old, is nothing new for women. But having the respected, 58-year-old Ian Brown of The Globe and Mail get paid to write about staring at the backside of a 20-something girl on a bike (who’s young enough to be his daughter) made me realize women are infinitely more discreet at gazing at men—and that I should get paid to write about it, too. Brown’s article told readers something they already know: men stare. But how do women really feel about it? Like Brown, I polled Torontonians, but instead of anonymizing them with the very bland “X” and “Y,” they are called by their favourite dessert because every person can look delicious to another. The male gaze has been focused on Strawberry since puberty. “I hate it,” she says. “Mind you that, for me, looking and staring are two different things. Men are free to look, but when it turns into staring, truthfully, I want to punch them in the face.” It still makes her uncomfortable as an adult, but she’s more confident to handle it. “Excuse me, can I help you?” she asks men. “It feels good to call them out on it, at least that way they know how foolish they look,” she says. “If the stare is engaging, non-threatening and invitational, it feels like oxygen,” says Red Velvet. Breathe in, ladies, because there’s something special about walking into a room and having eyes turn to you for all the right reasons. Though, Red Velvet continues: “If his glance makes me feel objectified, panicked or cheap, it’s a setback and a reminder that I—my body—still inhabit a marginalized place in the culture.” It’s when that look turns into a leer, as Brown calls it, that the “creep” factor comes into play. “I think any stare over five seconds is inappropriate and uncomfortable,” says Strawberry Cheesecake. What the ladies agree on is that looks from men are more acceptable when they aren’t accompanied by comments. “You look lovely,” would be more appreciated than “hey baby,” a comment about a woman’s backside or an offer to get into a man’s car. “It is natural to be attracted to the opposite sex,” says Blueberry Pie. “And, as a man, it is natural to acknowledge that a woman is physically attractive,” however subjective attractiveness may be. Blueberry Pie believes too much emphasis is placed on appearance. “If it gets to the point of staring at women for purely their physical appearance then it is essentially reducing them to objects of desire,” says Blueberry Pie. “This does not acknowledge their dignity.” But what happens when women look or stare back? Men are generally flattered when women stare, according to male 20- and 30-somethings. Yet, it is unlikely that Chocolate Chip Cookies would approach such a woman. “I would opt for a woman with more discipline,” he says. Warm Apple Pie, on the other hand, says, “Women stare at men as subtly as they wish men to stare at them.” He wishes he would receive more obvious looks from the ladies. Blueberry Pie, however, is uncomfortable with that idea. “I feel it is wrong for a woman to judge me based on my physical appearance, especially when she doesn’t know who I am.” Yet, in the passing moments on the way to work, a glance is all you may have. On the topic of staring, a woman we shall call New York–style Cheesecake, says, “Women do the same thing to men. If they see an attractive guy looking good in whatever outfit he may be wearing, they are just as guilty to stare. There shouldn’t be a double standard. There may be men who might also not like getting stares.” It was last summer in a supermarket parking lot when I openly stared at a man for far too long. Let’s call him Cupcake, my favourite dessert. I hadn’t seen him in 10 years and he had become super muscular. His physical transformation left me speechless as my eyes scanned him elevatorstyle. In shock, all I could bring myself to say was “you’re hot” and “how’s your sister?” (I hardly ever spoke to his sister.) Cupcake looked at me with amusement. When Brown sees the girl on the bike, he writes, “My first sight of her felt like a light blow to the chest.” Perhaps Cupcake was my taste of how men feel on a regular basis. On an average day, do the women of Toronto PHOTO: JEFFREY POTT via FLICKR
check out strange men as they pass by? “I don’t,” says Strawberry. “It takes a lot for a man to catch my attention, and these days there isn’t much good to look at. Men dress very poorly, they rarely have a sense of style or taste, and it seems that going to the gym isn’t something they do anymore.” Some women disagree. “There are a lot of great-looking men in the city of Toronto. The problem is we are all so socially awkward that no one communicates to each other,” says Chocolate Hazelnut. New York Cheesecake gives double-takes, especially if the man smells good. (Take note, gentlemen.) Chocolate Cake makes eye contact because how else do you know someone’s looking at you if you don’t look back, she argues. “I start a conversation, verbally or non-verbally, even if it’s in an elevator, church lobby or grocery store,” says Red Velvet. “Men at their best are complicated, dimensional, and in many cases highly visual—facts I accept and embrace and leverage.” She adds: “I respect openings and make the best of the moment. That said, I adhere to closed doors and do my best to take social cues.” Yet, social cues like eye contact can be misleading. Chocolate Brownie will see a good-looking man, look at him, perhaps smile and then move on because she hopes he doesn’t try to talk to her. Some women just enjoy a fleeting encounter, an intentionally missed connection, something to smile about as they walk away. The same week a taste of summer hit the city and Brown walked Toronto’s streets taking advantage of the scenery, I left home in a red and white summer dress, my first of the season. Glances came from men and women. The female gaze lingered on my dress. The male gaze was quick, rarely involving eye contact as if I were Medusa. With my sunglasses on, men were more likely to look longer and at my face, as if sunglasses were a mirror with me on the wrong side. Tapioca, a man, says that men are afraid to confidently gaze into the eyes of a beautiful woman and Brown’s article is a “reactionary cry” to the current social climate that has caused this. But Blueberry Pie points out Brown’s own admitted shame. “I found the article offensive and [disrespectful] towards women,” says Blueberry Pie. “The columnist is clearly someone who can’t exhibit self-control and a sense of moral decency. Even more disturbing is the fact that the columnist has a daughter himself. How would he feel if other men stared at his daughter? I believe deep down he knows staring is wrong.” Whether or not Brown’s argument that men should keep staring is creeping out 20-year-olds across the country, I hope the next man to confidently glance my way is closer to my age than that of my father. And, then, maybe I’ll glance right back.
Ryerson Free Press April 2012 13
Reality check: The Bloor Cinema gets a second chance By Amy Ward In the age of Youtube, Netflix, and video on demand, as more and more local institutions are falling under the shadow of a 30-storey condo development, Toronto is seeing a cinema renaissance. Less than two years after the TIFF Bell Lightbox opened and revivals of the Toronto Underground Cinema and the Carlton Cinema were launched, the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival recently unveiled its newly renovated home at the Bloor Cinema. According to Bloor Hot Docs Cinema programmer Robin Smith, the growth of user-generated media is not a threat to theatregoing, but it is building an audience eager to find good documentaries in theatres. “I think online video proliferates documentary fans,” he says. “iTunes and Netflix say that documentaries are popular, but audiences are not necessarily getting a chance to see them.” Enter the Hot Docs Bloor Cinema. Following nine months and $2 million in renovations supported by Hot Docs and film distribution partner Blue Ice, the former repertory theatre reopened on March 12 with a free screening of the garbage art doc Waste Land. While the cinema won’t shun the occasional work of fiction, such as the Sunday afternoon “Back to the Bloor” series that revisits classic features like Monty Python’s Life of Brian, reality will be at the forefront of the programming. “We all loved the Bloor in the past, but it wasn’t notoriously a box office bonanza,” says Smith. The new incarnation of the theatre will explore a mix of films with broad and fringe appeal, while respecting the desire of former owners Carm and Paul Bordonaro to keep the venue operating as a theatre rather than sold to condo developers. The renovations show respect to the 70-year-old theatre with a little polish and a lot of technical enhancement, without detracting from what already worked. The basic layout is the same, but the lobby now features a window into the theatre, which is covered by a curtain during screenings. A new concession stand sells local baked goods, hot popcorn with complimentary butter, and ostensibly small drinks that prove more than satisfying when you realize the popcorn wasn’t salted for a camel. Aside from the window, the renovations are more functional than showy. The main level features new high-back seats with cupholders, much like the average multiplex-goer is accustomed to, while Bloor Cinema loyalists can still find the loveseats upstairs, now with fresh upholstery. A larger screen is mounted higher on the wall so that viewers in the balcony can read the subtitles, and a superior audio system
14 ryersonfreepress.ca
means you can sit up there and hear the movie, too. While Smith says opening week went “enormously well,” the theatre’s efficient operations mean that the venue can support itself with as few as 35 of the 710 seats filled. “Knowing you don’t have to fill a theatre every night takes a heck of a lot of monkeys off my shoulders,” he says. The sustainable business model frees the programmer to take risks on edgy or niche films instead of sticking to safe films with guaranteed mass appeal. The opening week run included what Smith calls “an homage to the old Bloor,” with the documentary Corman’s World, a profile of filmmaker Roger Corman, shown alongside retrospective screenings of three of his essential films. Other events included a fundraising reception with primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall in conjunction with a screening of the documentary Jane’s Journey, and the Sundance Special Jury Prize winner Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey. Films screening in April will cover topics as diverse as the cel-
ebrated designers Charles and Ray Eames, aspiring mixed martial artists and models, and a community of Siberian fur trappers. From April 26 to May 6, the Bloor Cinema will be at the epicentre of 10 theatres showcasing the Hot Docs Festival, and will host this year’s opening night film, Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry, a biopic of the Chinese artist and activist. Meanwhile, the venue will continue to hold special events such as the Banff Mountain Film Festival World Tour, which ran in March, and the Feminist Porn Awards on April 19. Fortunately, the renovation investment hasn’t been matched with sky-high ticket prices. Regular screenings cost $11, but a membership ($33, or $22 for students) drops the ticket price to $6 and comes with other perks, like free tickets on your birthday. Single tickets to the Hot Docs Festival are available for $14.50, while screenings after 11 p.m. cost $5 and daytime screenings are free for students.
PHOTOS: JOSEPH MICHAEL
Reviews
STAGE Seeds
S
eeds, a documentary play, will confound anyone looking for a definitive truth on the divisive Monsanto vs. Schmeiser legal battle. The case unfolded in 2004 when Monsanto, a leading biotech company, sued Saskatchewan canola farmer Percy Schmeiser (played by Eric Peterson) for the illegal use of their seeds. Schmeiser has always maintained that Monsanto’s canola seeds were either blown into his field from a neighbouring field or from a passing truck. What Schmeiser calls a contamination of his land by genetically modified seeds, Monsanto alleges to be a theft of seeds and a patent infringement. And while the courts sided with Monsanto, this documentary play digs up old dirt and gives the case many shades of grey. To write the script, playwright Annabel Soutar (played by Liisa Repo-Martell) conducted interviews with all the main players, lawyers and industry and university experts. She used these interviews and the publicly available court and legal documents to write a compelling script “based on verbatim interviews,” the audience is told. It is through this script and an excellent use of multimedia technology that director Chris Abraham weaves historical context, information and engages the audience. Much like in a print investigative piece, Soutar takes the time to explain basic concepts of biology and patent laws to the audience. She does so in her asides and by using video to help the audience visualize the biology behind the brawl. The rebroadcasting of past coverage of the case—both on television and radio—and a smattering of headlines recreate the tense climate around the case. The play takes us from Act One in which Monsanto successfully sues Schmeiser to Act Two, which depicts the glorification of Schmeiser’s rebuttal of genetically modified foods and of the tech goliath’s intimidation tactics. Though the bridging of journalism and theatre has created here a space to explore the case on the stage, the line between documentary and drama remains unclear. By coincidence, for example, Repo-Martell’s pregnant belly is real and Soutar was actually expecting during much of her investigating. Alex Ivanovici takes on the role of Schmeiser’s lawyer, accurately portraying his gait as affected by his Multiple Sclerosis. How is the audience to know which details are accurate and which are theatrical devices? For instance, did the Monsanto representative carry a Starbucks coffee cup with her so frequently—often gesturing with it— or is that used as a theatrical symbol of corporate culture? How much of the script is identical to the recorded interviews—the script only, or the cadence, the tone, the intonation? What the audience does know to be a subjective reality is Soutar’s perspective on the case. In Seeds, we follow her and her recorder as she goes from one scene to the next. She is standing between the two feuding sides in the tense courtroom, drifting seamlessly on the integrated set to Schmeiser’s quaint home, to the laboratories with the experts, and to the centre of the stage, which sometimes serves as a field, where Soutar shares her thoughts along the way. The most perplexing of questions, to her, is how a profit-making company can own a patent on a gene, the very language of life. And so she rightly asks throughout the play, “What is life?” Overall, we get the sense that Soutar, who herself is growing life inside her, is more sympathetic to Schmeiser’s case, to his reverence for farming and the life he sows. She is aware of this bias, of her generous attention to this mythical David. She even admits to being somewhat blinded by her admiration for Schmeiser’s stance against the multinational, forgetting that perhaps Schmeiser had earned a bad reputation among the community, that he could be manipulative (using his political skills as former mayor of Bruno), or that he even could have been lying to her. Seeds is a compelling piece of documentary drama in which the author does not come to any clear conclusion. The play presents the facts of the case in a subjective context to the audience, leaving them to do the tilling and harvest the truth. — Sarah-Taïssir Bencharif
FILM
Till debt do us apart: Atwood’s Payback on film
O
n March 13, Jennifer Baichwal’s documentary, Payback, based on the titular non-fiction novel by Margaret Atwood, premiered at the TIFF Bell Lightbox to a packed theatre. The screening was followed by a discussion with both Atwood and Baichwal, moderated by Sasha Chapman, a senior editor at The Walrus. Atwood had written Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth in 2008 for the CBC’s Massey Lecture series, but said that the response hadn’t been overwhelmingly positive at first. “When I proposed my subject to [the] Massey Lecture series and Anansi Press...apparently they went into the back room and said, ‘Why’s she writing about [debt] and how can we get her to write about something else?’” she said. The idea of doing a documentary on Atwood’s book came from Ravida Din, the producer of the film, who suggested it to Baichwal and gave her the book to read. Payback opens with a gorgeous panorama of northern Albania and a layered soundscape of music and the click-clacking of Atwood typing on her keyboard, then focuses in on a conflict between two neighbours. Years prior, a man, in a fit of anger, had fired shots at his neighbour, which were not fatal. Under the Kanun, an ancient Albanian code, the victim took his revenge by confining the shooter and his family to their property indefinitely; if they left it, their neighbours could (and would) shoot them. The conflict in Albania is just one of five vignettes used in the film to illustrate different versions of debt and how it can be repaid. The four others are the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the way it was inadequately managed; a gross human rights violation in Florida, where tomato pickers were being enslaved; interviews with Conrad Black about his time in, and views on, the prison system; and interviews with Paul Mohammed, a chronic reoffender. The latter two work well together as proof of why the current justice system may not be effective; Black feels no remorse for his actions (a central part of debt), and Mohammed exhibits cyclical behaviour — he’d get out of jail only to wind up back in it, often only months later. Both men raise the same question: is jail, as it is right now, really the answer for dealing with debts to society? Each of the five stories helps to examine how the way we perceive debt — to society, to the environment, or to others — changes the way it is dealt with. Payback shows how radically different our current version of debt payment is in comparison to when the first penitentiary was built (the root word “penitent” means to feel remorse for having done wrong) and used to teach inmates how to be functional members of society. The camerawork in Payback is phenomenal (specifically, several horrifying shots of the oil spill in the Gulf, and its effects, which are jaw-dropping), as is the background audio. Tying it all together are shots of Atwood reading paragraphs of her book out loud (and sometimes making edits), in her home and at the Massey Lecture series in 2008. Baichwal said that, until she had added that footage in, the film had been lacking in some way. “Once I had [Margaret’s lecture], with all the people reacting, and that energy in the room, I felt like [we could begin].” — Kelsey Rolfe
Ryerson Free Press April 2012 15