November 2010 Ryerson Free Press

nov 2010

NEWS

Four Years of “Dysfunctional Buffoonery” Anti-poverty organization responds to Ford’s victory

By David Newberry While less than half of a nearly unprecedented number of Toronto voters got what they wanted fromSeptember’s mayoral election, not everyone is celebrating. In a press release issued shortly after election results where announced, the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) accused the victor of consistently supporting cuts to Welfare and Ontario Disability Support Program, as well as speaking out against “social programs, community housing, affordable transit, the homeless, and immigrants.”

Ford’s campaign website mentions little about his opinion or policies relating to poverty, but OCAP is concerned about his track record as a city councillor. In 2002, for example, Ford vehemently opposed the construction of a homeless shelter in his ward, remarking that it would be an “insult” to his constituents to even suggest having a homeless shelter there.

In the same meeting Ford stated, “you want me to have a public meeting to discuss this? Why don’t we have a public lynching?” He has also allegedly told anti-poverty protesters to “get a job” several times in the past.

Despite OCAP’s concerns, Ford’s election results were impressive. Not only had Ford garnered almost 50 per cent of the vote, but did so in an election that drew more than 52 per cent of eligible voters to the polls (compared to 39 per cent in 2006 and 28 per cent in 2003). This means that about one in four registered adults in Toronto voted for Ford.

On top of this, his victory party was a veritable who’s who of Canadian Conservatism, with a guest list that included former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and current Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

So how could a city that faces growing income disparity and poverty-related issues so enthusiastically elect a mayor that apparently cares so little for the municipality’s least fortunate? “It’s more than an uncomplicated right-wing backlash,” says OCAP organizer John Clarke. “It’s not just that backwards, racist, anti-immigration supporters latched on to his campaign - though they certainly did - his rise to power was a more complex phenomenon.”

According to Clarke, Ford managed to position himself as the anti-establishment candidate, allowing him to take advantage of a city-wide sense that things needed to change, however “misguided“ that sense may have been.

While OCAP acknowledges that Ford may be “the most right-wing mayor anyone has had to deal with in living memory,” Clarke cautions people from putting too much emphasis on Ford himself.

“He’s coming to power at a time when there is a growing international consensus on the part of the rich and powerful to move in the direction of austerity and cutbacks.” Ford, he says, is just an appropriate “attack dog” for the broader agenda.

For Clarke, the evidence is clear. It is no shock to him that the likes of Harris and Flaherty were in attendance at Ford’s victory party, positing that “those who want to go on the attack recognize a kindred spirit.”

The post election press release from OCAP emphasized this by stating, “Ford’s agenda is the same as Mike Harris’ in the 1990s – attacking poor people to benefit the wealthy.”

OCAP’s reaction also reveals that Ford’s victory may not be an entirely negative event for those in poverty affected

and anti-poverty communities as they reminds Torontonians that Harris’ tenure in office brought on “unprecedented levels of civil dissent and disruption.”

OCAP is an organization that has always been most active, visible, and numerous during difficult times. They found their own membership highest during Mike Harris’ two terms in office, and successfully used Toronto’s Olympic bid as a motivational force to increase the visibility of their organization and the issues facing poor communities in Ontario.

Clarke says they intend to use Rob Ford’s particular character to bring broader issues to the forefront. “Rob Ford is embracing a larger agenda with a relish and enthusiasm that is going to lead to challenge, and we intend to jump on it for all its worth.”

But Clarke cautions against putting too much emphasis on Ford alone, referencing the fact that the more left-leaning mayor David Miller was responsible for the closing of hundreds of shelter beds. Clarke had just as much to say about Ford’s opponents, noting, “we would have faced the same kind of cutbacks and austerity with Smitherman, though maybe in a slicker package.” Still, Clarke suggests that Ford does have an element of “dysfunctional buffoonery” that OCAP intends to use to their advantage.

Predictably, OCAP promises not to wait idly by while Ford pursues his agenda for the city. While they have no specific plans at this time, December 1 will be the new mayor’s inauguration, and Clarke promises that the organization’s membership will be there to greet the new mayor in one way or another.

Child Soldier Pleads guilty to War Crimes

By Tyler Roach On October 25 Omar Khadr, the last Western prisoner in Guatanamo Bay, pled guilty to a number of charges including, murder in violation of the laws of war, attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, two counts of providing material support for terrorism and spying in the United States. Despite being only 15 years old, technically a child soldier under UN conventions, Khadr accepted a plea deal that would see him serve a maximum of eight years in prison with the inclusion of a corollary that would remove any rights for him to appeal but would open the doors to an option of being moved to a Canadian prison after serving a minimum of one year in the United States.

Omar Khadr was arrested in Afghanistan early in the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and was accused of throwing a grenade that killed two U.S. soldiers. In late October of 2002 Khadr was brought to Guantanamo Bay. While there were no eye witnesses that saw Khadr actually throw the grenade, U.S. military investigators had decided Khadr was the only person who could have thrown the grenade as he was the only one alive at the end of the fight. A fact that was later refuted by soldiers who testified that there were at lest two other insurgents seen fleeing after the fight was finished.

Throughout Khadr’s imprisonment humanitarian organizations have attempted to step in and aid Khadr by lobbying both the U.S. and Canadian government to treat Khadr as a child soldier and victim of the conflict, not as a murder. CSIS did investigate the matter, claiming to have found proof of torture including threats of rape while in custody in Afghanistan, in prisons not under direct control of the U.S. government and despite Canada signing the UN convention on the rights of a child, which includes the protection of child soldiers being prosecuted for war crimes, the Canadian government has stayed very quiet on the issue appearing uninterested in rocking the boat.

Last month Khadr decided to accept a plea deal that had been offered to him which will see him serve eight more years in prison. “The fact that the trial of a child soldier, Omar Khadr, has ended with a guilty plea in exchange for his eventual release to Canada does not change the fact that fundamental principles of law and due process were long since abandoned in Omar’s case” stated Khadr’s lawyer. “In exchange for repatriation, Omar was required to sign an admission of facts which was stunning in its false portrayal of him.” His lawyer also stated in earlier interviews with the CBC that Khadr “would have confessed to anything, including the killing of John F. Kennedy, just to get out of this hellhole.”

Despite the plea deal limiting the sentence to eight years and giving up his right to any appeal the military courts felt it important to make a symbolic gesture by sentencing Khadr to 40 years in prison for war crimes. Speaking to the sentencing and the plea deal Chief prosecutor, Capt John Murphy told the media that what this plea deal “represents to the government is the certainty of a conviction, it represents the end of a case that spans five years...It

2 ryersonfreepress.ca

ends all appeals. This case is over.”

Many of the Guantanamo Bay watch dog groups have been paying close attention to this trial and with its conclusion are finding blame for its injustices at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Jennifer Turner, who is a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union a team that observes Guantanamo Bay has said. “It’s particularly galling that a president who promised to restore human rights is beginning the first trial here with a child soldier who was abused for years in US custody and was taken to a war zone by his dad.”

However, not everyone is unhappy with the top courts decision. Tabitha Speer, widow of Corporal Speer who Khadr is accused of killing, had an opportunity to read a victim impact statement and confront Khadr during the trial. After the sentence was handed down Tabitha Speer told journalists that “today is a huge victory for my family…and for hundreds of families out there,” With the trial finished Khadr will likely soon be moved to a detention center in the U.S. where he is required to be held for a minimum of one year. Despite the plea deal, Khadr’s immediate future is still unclear as are many of the details of when and how Khadr will be returned to Canada. The Conservative government has made very few comments on the case appearing to want to stay very low key on an issue that is likely to be divisive within the party.

Photo: Nora Loreto

Ryerson Free Press The monthly newspaper for continuing education, distance education and part-time students at Ryerson Address 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

Legislation aimed to promote ethical mining practices Fails House of Commons votes against Bill C-300

Photo: protestbarrick.net

vote. While the majority of private bills don’t pass, Bill C-300 reached third reading and was defeated by just a small margin. This result speaks to the importance and attention many Canadians have given to regulate corporate social responsibility for the protection and promotion of international human rights and environmental standards.

Among the bill’s supporters, is a coalition of 23 advocacy groups called the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability (CNCA). Amnesty International, a member of the CNCA, has decried the defeat telling the Toronto Star “The defeat of this bill is another blow to Canada’s international reputation as a leader in the protection of human rights.”

Since the presentation of McKay’s legislation, however, the Canadian government and Canadian miners warned the passing of Bill C-300 would hurt Canadian mining.

As reported in the Canadian Mining Journal, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) advocated Bill C-300 would “send a strong message internationally that the Parliament of Canada has lost confidence in Canadian mining companies.”

They said this loss of confidence would “damage the image and reputation of Canadian mining companies with governments around the world” and would be used against them by international competitors.

Following the defeat of Bill C-300, the PDAC released a statement applauding the government for “exposing the flaws of the bill and working to defeat it.”

In a press release from the CNCA, Toby Heaps, founder and editor-in-chief of the magazine Corporate Knights acknowledges the imperfections and insufficiency of Bill C-300, but says it sends a strong signal about Canadian companies “by making a move to a credible accountability mechanism.” Supporters of the bill point us to the findings of a private report commissioned by the PDAC last year, which reinforces the importance of tighter regulatory

Features and Opinions Editor James Clark

Layout Editor Andrea Yeomans

Culture Editor amanda connon-unda

Photo Editor Dan Rios

Cover Design

By Richa Gomes A bill that would have reinforced Canada’s position as an advocator and upholder of human rights and environmental practices was defeated in the House of Commons on October 27.

Bill C-300 was aimed to crack down on mining practices of Canadian corporations operating overseas but lost by a narrow vote of 140 to 134. This defeat has resulted in widespread disappointment throughout the bill’s community of supporters, who feel Canadian lawmakers have lost an opportunity to improve corporate accountability.

Tabled by Liberal MP John McKay as a private member’s bill, Bill C-300 would have offered a complaints mechanism and sanctions to enforce tighter control on Canadian mining, oil and gas companies operating in developing countries. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would have been required to create guidelines for corporate accountability with respect to extractive activities.

Any complaints of companies violating these guidelines would be published in the Canada Gazette, along with the results of any examinations or reasons for deeming a complaint “frivolous.” The published complaints would be available to the public, offering critical transparency to Canadian extractive activity worldwide.

Under the Act, Canadian corporations contravening the guidelines would lose their funding from Export Development Canada and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, and could be prohibited from further activity in mining, oil or gas if international peace and security was breached to the point where an international crisis may result.

Despite a groundswell of support from international and domestic organizations, McKay’s Responsible Mining Bill failed to merit the support of Canadian miners and especially, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, along with 12 other Liberals who were absent from the House of Commons the night of the

News Editor James burrows

DAN RIOS

control for extractive industries and corporate accountability.

A pan-Canadian non-profit initiative and member of the CNCA, MiningWatch Canada managed to obtain a copy of the suppressed PDAC report and shared the contents. The report identifies that more than three quarters of the world’s mining and exploration companies are headquartered in Canada. The Winnipeg Free Press noted a third of Canadian companies were involved in 171 incidents since 1999 surrounding human rights violations and environmental degradation. This is a significant percentage of Canadian companies creating conflict and practicing unlawful or unethical behaviour in the international community.

Although the PDAC and Canadian miners argue that there are several voluntary corporate social responsibility policies in place, there is no monitoring or enforcement mechanism to reprimand Canadian companies threatening international peace and security. The sanctions outlined in the bill, such as the loss of funding and prohibition of activity would have forced stricter ethical practices in mining, oil and gas activities. Supporters insist implementing The Responsible Mining Bill would have spearheaded change for corporate accountability and shown Canada’s willingness to practice the same standards abroad as it does at home.

As a global leader in mining and exploration, Bill C-300 offered Canada the opportunity to raise the bar for international human rights and environmental standards. However, Canadian lawmakers voted down a bill aimed to promote a high level of corporate social responsibility and transparency of Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries.

“Passing C-300 would have boosted Canada’s national reputation and demonstrated that we take human rights seriously,” said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, in a press release following the vote.

Contributors JOHN BONNAR Desiree Buitenbos AMANDA CONNON-UNDA Sharanja Devasundar Otiena Ellwand EMMA FELTES RICHA GOMES Brea Hutchinson Scaachi Koul Anita Krajnc JOHN LOCKYER NORA LORETO NESKIE MANUEL MAX MERTENS DAVID NEWBERRY AMANDA PERRI NORMAN RICHMOND TYLER ROACH ANGELA WALCOTT 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

Ryerson Free Press november 2010 3

Barriere Lake continues 20 Year Struggle for Self-Governance

By Jon Lockyer

ABL’s list of seven demands for the provincial and Federal governments to uphold: 1 That the Government of Canada agree to respect the outcome of a new leadership re-selection process, with outside observers, recognize the resulting Customary Chief and Council, and cease all interference in the internal governance of Barriere Lake.

2 That the Government of Canada agree to the immediate incorporation of an Algonquin language and culture program into the primary school curriculum.

A little known, and seldom used provision of the Indian Act, Section 74 outlines the ability of the Federal Government, in conjunction with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (DINA), to undermine the sovereignty and traditional political structure of First Nations communities, imposing state-run band council elections.

For more than four years, the Federal government, in conjunction with the provincial government of Quebec and DINA, has attempted to force section 74 on the Algonquin community of Barriere Lake (ABL). The ABL has mounted a national campaign to bring awareness to what they perceive as a continuation of the colonization of First Nations sovereignty and the erosion of their cultural rights and freedoms.

Barrier Lake is a remote community located approximately 300 kilometers Northwest of Ottawa, in the province of Quebec.

It is also one of the few Algonquin communities in Canada whose majority population still speaks traditional Anishnaabe as their first language.

In March 2008, the Federal Government, under the direction of DINA, recognized Casey Ratt as Band Council Chief of the Barriere Lake community. The majority of the community, however, feels that Ratt has been, in effect, appointed to uphold government-dictated policies in the community.

Benjamin Nottway, who is seen by many as the rightful Chief of the community, has contested Ratt’s appointment, and is recognized by neighbouring Algonquin communities as the rightful chief.

Many feel as a result of Ratt’s leadership, the Federal and Provincial governments have been able to continue to operate the English-speaking school in the community, and to continue to ignore the sustainable development agreements signed over fifteen years ago.

These concerns came to a head on October 7 2008, when the Barrier Lake community again blockaded highway 117.

In a move that shocked many, the Sûreté du

4 ryersonfreepress.ca

Québec (SQ) was deployed on the protesters, using tear gas and flash grenades to dismantle what has been seen as a peaceful protest. The ABL claimed that several members of the blockade were injured following the SQ’s tactics.

Since the October 7 standoff, the ABL has continued to struggle against modernday colonial oppression. It has also left the community without proper leadership for nearly four years.

By the summer of 2010, it was announced that a representative from Indian and Northern Affairs would be entering Barriere Lake to conduct a band council election in accordance with section 74 of the Indian Act. In response, the ABL announced on July 22 that they would be erecting a peaceful blockade to prevent the DINA representative from entering.

“Because the government has not heeded its constitutional obligations or our community’s wishes, we are turning to peaceful direct action,” stated community representative Marylynn Poucachiche. “We will be preventing the nomination meeting from proceeding and are demanding the federal government immediately cease and desist in their attempt to abolish our customs.”

The ABL successfully blockaded the entrance of the DINA agent. On August 11, with enforcement from the SQ, a polling station was implemented on the Barrier Lake reserve, seeking nominations for a state-sanctioned band council election.

The current struggles of Barriere Lake date back twenty years to what residents feel is an ongoing denial of the basic rights to self-government outlined in a Trilateral agreement between the Federal and provincial governments and the Algonquins of Barriere Lake (ABL) in 1991.

The roots of this agreement go back as far as 1760, where the ABL, church, and settlers agreed through a Three-Figure Wampum belt, under the sign of the cross, that no interference would be made into the traditional Algonquin way of life.

The existence of the Trilateral agree-

ment is the result of a rejection of the more common “Comprehensive Land Claims” approach familiar to most, and commonly used in the original numbered treaties signed throughout the 1800s.

Through the trilateral agreement, the ABL are ensured an equal role in the management of their traditional lands, which total nearly 10,000 km2. The agreement was also to ensure any financial returns through commerce or resource extraction and allow the ABL to operate free of a government-imposed band council, instead operating through their traditional form of governance.

Within the year, however, the ABL felt that the federal and provincial governments were not meeting their end of the Trilateral Agreement, and before the end of 1991 had blockaded highway 117 running through Algonquin territory in protest of government encroachment on their inherent right to self-government.

Another major concern of ABL community members is the loss of traditional language over the next several decades.

Many parents in the community have pulled their children from the government-run, English-speaking elementary school. This follows claims by many of the students that they received strict discipline by non-Anishnaabe speaking teachers if their own language was used while at school.

Many members of the community feel this practice is essentially the same as the policies of assimilation carried out through the Residential Schooling system for which the government recently apologized.

One response by community memebers is to educate their children at a communityrun Anishnaabe speaking school known as Kitchi Migwam. More than two thirds of the children in the community attend Kitchi Migwam.

The Assembly of First Nations, under the leadership of Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, has passed a unanimous resolution of support for the ABL and condemned the actions of the Federal and provincial government.

3 That the Government of Canada honour signed agreements with Barriere Lake, including the Trilateral, the Memorandum of Mutual Intent, and the Special Provisions, all of which it has illegally terminated.

4. That the Government of Canada revoke Third Party Management, which was imposed unjustly on Barriere Lake.

5 That the Province of Quebec honour signed agreements with Barriere Lake, including the 1991 Trilateral and 1998 Bilateral agreements, and adopt for implementation the Lincoln-Ciaccia joint recommendations, including $1.5 million in resource-revenue sharing.

6 That the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec initiate a judicial inquiry into the Quebec Regional Office of the Department of Indian Affairs’ treatment of Barriere Lake and other First Nations who may request to be included.

7 The Government of Quebec, in consultation with First Nations, conduct a review of the recommendations of the Ontario Ipperwash Commission for guidance towards improving Quebec-First Nation relations and improving the policing procedures of the SQ when policing First Nation communities.

Photo: ggpht.com

Conservatives push for privatization of Reserves Critics say Fee Simple title on reserves could further erode Indigenous land base

By Neskie Manuel and Emma Feltes Last month, Peruvian economist and World Bank poster child Hernando de Soto visited Vancouver to speak in favour of the establishment of individual property ownership (Fee Dimple) on First Nations Reserves in Canada.

The First Nations Property Ownership (FNPO) conference — hosted by the First Nations Tax Commission — paired de Soto with a select roster of Indigenous leaders, lawyers, economists, and scholars from across British Columbia and Canada to promote a proposal that would allow fee simple title on reserves.

The proposal aims to give individuals living on reserve access to the same legal private property rights that exists in the rest of the country, as opposed to the collective title held by bands. Currently, collective title is bound by section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (a guiding provision of the Indian Act), which allocates legislative jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” to the federal government, constitutionally protecting existing Indigenous title.

“What [the proposal is] doing is putting a damper on 91(24) lands,” said Harley Chingee, a member of the First Nations Lands Advisory Board. “There’s no internal controls once you take 91(24) out of it. Because then the provinces — and Canada, for that matter — can have control.”

The proposal is championed by conference organizer C.T. (Manny) Jules, Chief Commissioner of the First Nation Tax Commission, former Chief of the Kamloops Indian Band, and one of Canada’s foremost proponents of private property ownership on reserves.

The conference came at the crest of an increasingly aggressive effort throughout recent months to generate support for the controversial proposal — a charge led by Jules alongside conservative political scientist Tom Flanagan.

Flanagan — a former campaign manager for Stephen Harper — has published a number of contentious books and articles prescribing solutions to First Nations economic development and land management. He most recently co-authored Beyond the Indian Act, which argues for federal legislation that would make way for Fee Simple on reserves.

In response to this effort, a growing group of Indigenous Chiefs and community members have been speaking out against the Jules/Flanagan proposal, making the argument that Fee Simple property ownership will leave collective Indigenous Title and Rights and Reserve Lands — which are affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 — vulnerable to encroachment by developers, corporate interests, and Federal and Provincial control. Chingee has been open in his rejection of the fee simple proposal, as has Arthur Manuel, spokesman for the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade.

De Soto, president of the Institute for Liberty and

Democracy (ILD), is notorious for advocating Fee Simple property ownership and market-led agrarian reform among Latin America’s campesinos. His ideas are promoted by international financial institutions like the World Bank, as well as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), who use his theory to back their own market-driven development projects throughout Latin America.

He’s also been assailed with criticism from popular and grassroots organizations, such as Via Campesina — a global peasant movement — which maintains that the most common ramification of de Soto’s economic agenda is dispossession and deeper economic stratification.

Like de Soto’s proposal for Latin America, which aims to convert latent, or “dead” assets into market capital, Jules and Flanagan aim to transform collective rights into individual titles, which can be openly traded on the market. In Canada, collective land title is understood to be the inherent right of Indigenous Peoples.

In a letter against the fee simple proposal published in the First Nations Strategic Bulletin, Manuel asserts the power and protection of collective title. “No single individual can give up or extinguish our Aboriginal Title and Indigenous Rights. It would be suicide or extinguishment for our future generations to accept Fee Simple in exchange for our collective Title,” he wrote.

Chingee’s response to the proposal warns of the damaging impacts of privatizing reserve land. “The change would undermine signed Treaties across Canada; undermine our political autonomy; restrict our creativity and innovation; and place us in a dangerous position where any short-term financial difficulty may result in the wholesale liquidation of our reserve lands, or the creation of a patchwork quilt of reserve lands like Oka,” he wrote.

The Fee Simple proposal has come under further fire for implying that individual property ownership is the sole recourse for economic prosperity on reserves. De Soto’s frequent reference to reserve lands as “dead capital” was wholeheartedly adopted by the conference organizers, who littered promotional material with the promise to unleash this un-tapped asset.

A recent article by Dan Cayo in the Vancouver Sun explains that a common approach taken by individuals on reserve is to find substitutes for individual property ownership, such as long-term leasing and “certificates of possession,” which are enough to provide sufficient collateral to qualify for business loans.

“Certainly you don’t need Fee Simple standards to prosper. People have an illusion that’s totally false,” says Chingee, citing examples of First Nations who have achieved economic success without fee simple ownership. “You just have to look at Westbank First Nation out in Kelowna. And there’s count-

less others, like Squamish Nation in Vancouver, for example, Macleod Lake Indian Band, up north of Prince George, that are prosperous 91(24) lands. And I think there’s a lot more potential throughout Canada, it’s just people haven’t realized their potential.”

Ironically, it was Westbank’s economic success that the Fee Simple advocates tried to use to their advantage, adding former Chief Ron Derrickson’s name to the conference’s speaker’s list and promotional material without his consent or support.

Derrickson — known as one of the most successful Indigenous developers in the country — was alerted to this name-borrowing via Manuel. Once alerted, Derrickson voiced his disproval of the Fee Simple proposal and his name was removed from the list.

The FNPO website uses the Switzemalph 7 reserve near Salmon Arm as an example of a community with untapped development potential.

“Actually if you cut out the environmentally sensitive areas you come up with a picture that has a lot of development,” says Dave Nordquist from Adams Lake, refuting the FNPO’s claims about Switzemalph 7. The environmentally sensitive area is part of the Salmon River Delta, an area unsuitable for any land development.

Though Tom Flanagan is not a listed speaker at the conference, and is rarely named on the FNPO website, his presence is discernable. The cover image from Beyond the Indian Act graces the front page of the site, and his co-author, André Le Dressay, was a speaker during the Vancouver conference.

Beyond the Indian Act bears the subtitle “Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights,” implying that fee simple property ownership is a traditional right among Indigenous people in Canada. This message is reiterated in the forward and in a recent Globe and Mail editorial — both written by Jules, who evokes early Indigenous civilizations across the Americas to make the case that individual property rights and free market trade are fundamental to Indigenous peoples, and have been obscured and impeded upon by colonial legislation.

Nevertheless, the Fee Simple proposal also names the Torrens title system as a source of inspiration — a colonial model that hinges on the creation of an individual title registry. Its name pays tribute Sir Robert Torrens, a colonial Premier who introduced the title system to South Australia in the mid-nineteenth century.

Though proponents claim that the right to Fee Simple title is inherent, the proposal is curiously lacking in popular Indigenous endorsement. Whether or not de Soto will be able to drum up support for the proposal remains to be seen.

This article was originally published by the Vancouver Media Co-op.

Sex work laws to remain in place for several months

By Brea Hutchinson

In an unexpected turn, laws regulating Ontario sex workers will be in effect for longer than originally expected. In an agreement between the Crown attorneys and the sex workers who brought forth the constitutional challenge, the two parties have asked Judge Himel to allow the laws to be in effect for 120 days on top of the current 30 days permitted by the ruling.

Justice Himel ruled on September 28 that three key provisions in the regulation of sex work were unconstitutional by placing sex workers at increased risk. The three provisions that were thrown out had regulated bawdy houses, living off the avails, and communicating for the purpose of sex work.

The consequence of these laws often translated into law enforcement criminalising a legally valid means of employment. For example, law enforcement would consider a home with two or more locks, or paid security as a bawdy house. These reasonable means of protecting oneself were criminalised by law enforcement and sex workers would have to sacrifice safety for legality. Furthermore, sex workers who communicated to other workers that a client might not be safe were also considered to be violating the communication laws placed upon workers.

The move was requested by the Crown in order to ensure the new laws would have enough time to be drafted in a proper fashion. In order to support the motion to delay the current laws from expiring, the challengers to the law were promised by the Crown a quick

case at the Supreme Court.

“It is [essentially] wealthy dominatrixes allowing unconstitutional laws to continue to violate our rights in order to take a gamble for their behalf. They are gambling with our legality and its bullshit, I expected this from the government or from the police not from those who claim to advocate for our rights,” explains Nadia, one sex worker who was previously interviewed by Trent University’s student newspaper, Arthur.

The lawyer for the challengers, Alan Young a professor of Law at Osgoode Hall, says they will not agree to any further extension, and demand to either have the appeal heard by the Supreme Court by February or allow the laws to expire.

When defending her choice to agree to a 120 day extension, Valerie Scott claimed she wanted well-thought-out laws regulating sex work. She referred to her plans to open a brothel of her own. She felt the extension with the assurance that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court in the near future was a fair exchange.

“She wants to make sure the laws are favourable to her, and she uses her position to make sure it happens. She is now moving up, she is now going to be our pimp and she wants to make sure the laws are profitable and safe for her future investment!” Nadia continued.

Justice Himel agreed to the extension upon hearing the agreement between the two parties.

Ryerson Free Press november 2010 5

OPINION Rob Ford is the man with a plan

By Nora Loreto, Editor-in-Chief Don’t discount the power of a plan.

That’s essentially what delivered Rob Ford his election: his relenting drone on tax cuts was easy enough for everyone to understand and evidently, support.

Ford’s campaign had one answer: tax cuts, and one enemy: the gravy train. Did you beat your wife? Tax Cuts. Get arrested for impaired driving in Miami? Gravy Train. Make drugs available to your colleagues? Gravy Cuts.

Such answers probably would have helped Adam Giambrone.

It didn’t matter that none of his vacant catch phrases were rooted in fact. The catch phrases stuck and delivered him a strong mandate.

George Smitherman fumbled a light throw that should have been an easy catch. His campaign was realpolitik the whole way, and this destroyed his chance of winning. He skillfully torpedoed the only other viable candidate early into the race, leaving the left fragmented.

By the end of summer, his campaign relied heavily on fear mongering, and pressured people to ‘vote strategically’ [read: forget democracy, engage in group-think] or risk the impossible: four years of Ford. This message was so prominent that his campaign promises were overshadowed entirely. Strategic voting was Smitherman’s gravy train.

Problem is that while the latter is populist, the former is elusive. Elusivity cannot beat tax cuts.

Predictably, when stacked up against Ford’s catchphrases, these tactics failed.

The average person hates that shit.

During my time at Ryerson, I’ve ran

in my share of elections. While much smaller than running for mayor of Toronto, the foundation of a successful campaign is consistent: clear messaging, frame issues to be accessible to everyone and plow past controversy by repeating your mantra. Gravy-train. Gravy-train. Gravy-train.

Of course, my analysis of Ford’s victory is shallow and ignores the external political influences that delivered Toronto an absurd millionaire buffoon. But applying such an analysis to a guy like Ford somewhat assumes that he is intentioned and clever. Nothing I’ve seen about him suggests that he deserves such thoughtfulness.

Smitherman failed because his Liberal-ness lead to a campaign that tried to identify the middle of the road, run on a wishy-washy set of middle of the road promises and

basically locate himself in the centre of the Venn diagram of Toronto voters (hint: the area where the circles all cross over is the smallest).

Rocco Rossi and Sarah Thompson tortured us by blabbing through debate after debate only to drop out after the ballot was printed, a crime against humanity that deserves a punishment great enough to stop people engage in actions like this.

Pantelone was the victim of Toronto’s fractured left.

Despite the strong support received by progressive councilor candidates (and women) in this election, Pantelone was unable to eke out the broad support from Miller-types.

Considering the breakthrough of women candidates, maybe Ford would have been beaten by a progressive woman.

Ford took a gamble, picked his phrase, perhaps hit a high school kid on a football team, and targeted the gravy train.

Of course hindsight is that annoying kid in your class that you hated every time he raised his hand to answer a teacher’s question. But for those of us who were calling for a saviour to jump into the race (ahem Peggy Nash), the result was predictable.

For me however, Ford’s victory is sweet for two reasons. The first is because Ontario switched a conservative loudmouthed cabinet Minister for a progressive-ish and green cabinet Minister.

The second is because Ford is a gift to progressive Torontonians. We may actually have to fight for everything we believe in.

Four years of that will erase at least some of the cracks in our movements.

A(nother) open letter to Toronto Voters You know when you start dating someone new and it’s the most exciting feeling? Everything about the relationship is fresh. The dates are fun, the conversation is exciting, and the sex is great. After a few months, you get comfortable. It’s not thrilling, but it’s a decent existence.

Then, you meet someone new. He works out, he’s funny, he’s charming, he buys you dinner and curls your hair behind your ear when telling you how pretty you are. Suddenly, the person you’re with is looking worse for wear, a little out of shape, a little dull. And you realize that you’ve been settling all this time. So you leave the first person for the second, thinking you’ve found your bliss.

But after two years, you bump into your ex. He’s been going to the gym, he’s been dating casually, he’s been pretty happy without you and he looks better than he ever did when you were together. It’s in that moment, at the grocery store in sweatpants, buying bulk cheese that you realize you were right the first time. But it’s just too late.

That’s how I felt when Rob Ford was elected as mayor for Toronto.

I thought we had a good talk in the last letter I wrote to you, Toronto Voters. I was pretty clear on my stance: Ford as mayor meant that this relationship would be over. I left Calgary for you. I dumped the city I was raised in because you seemed so much better for me. You had arts funding, you had a semi-functioning transit system, you had a downtown core that has more than six bars and one school. I settled into my life as a Torontonian and thought we were going to be together for decades.

So imagine how I felt when hearing that Naheed Nenshi was elected as the new mayor of Calgary. Does his name sound funny to you, Toronto Voters? That’s because he’s a left-leaning, Harvard-educated, glasses-wearing Muslim. Calgary elected a brown guy to run their city and no one thought he was trying to blow up City Hall. Even The Calgary Sun endorsed him and their version of the Sunshine Girl is a 22 years old massage-therapy major with three kids, a cowboy-hat franchise and a metal belt that reads, “Ride ‘em hard.”

Still, I had faith in you, Toronto Voters. I knew that what we had was stronger than what I had with Calgary Voters. Sure, they were starting to look really toned in that way I like, but I’m not shallow. I wanted to work things out with you. What we had was real!

I told you that I wouldn’t stay if you voted for Ford. Not because I’m trying to be difficult, but because I only want the best for you. I didn’t want you to get hurt. I didn’t want voters from other cities to get the wrong impression about you; if an ignorant, hot-headed bigot could become the mayor of the biggest city in the country, would other cities think it’s okay?

Even though I loved you, I made it clear that I would not be able to stand by if you made such an egregious choice.

But when you voted to elect Ford by 47 per cent, you made your decision clear. This is

6 ryersonfreepress.ca

more of a break-up letter than anything else.

You can blame it all you want on a poorly run George Smitherman campaign or on Joe Pantalone’s unwillingness to drop out, thus splitting the votes on the left, but ultimately, this was something you picked. The votes weren’t even close. You weren’t fooled by Ford’s gravytrain message; you’re not that stupid. You just didn’t care.

Because that’s why he won. He wasn’t fruitful because his message was sophisticated, interesting or worthwhile. He won because the closer you were to downtown, the more likely you were to be too comfortable with the status quo. You, Toronto Voters, you thought that someone else would save you from a Ford term. The suburban population of Toronto won this vote, but by winning, they made the rest of us lose.

Ford’s greatest flaw, however, isn’t that he lacks constructive ideas for the city. The problem is that he’s a bully. If it weren’t enough that he was charged with domestic abuse against his wife, he wrote off both the CBC and The Toronto Star within days of the election.

The mayor represents the people. This is a vile representation of you, Toronto Voters. I thought I knew you better than this. I thought you were better than this. Calgary Voters chose to be represented by a calm, respectable first-generation Canadian. They chose to change the political makeup of Alberta, to expand their views and to vote based on reason and not fear.

You, Toronto Voters, voted for someone who claimed that AIDS only affects drug users and gay men. World Pride in 2014 is going to be AWKWARD. I suppose this is goodbye, Toronto Voters. I’ll always remember the good times we shared, like when we had some laughs over Adam Giambrone’s failed mayoral bid. Or when the city was in lockdown during the G20 protests? Or, oh, that time we spent together during Nuit Blanche last month. It was so romantic. We huddled together on downtown streets, looking at inexplicable art, watching live performances and standing in lines for hours only to find out that the line was, in fact, the gallery, and then losing our fucking minds in rage.

The memories!!!!!!!

You have been my greatest love and it’s with a heavy heart that I say this. I’ll be around, though, since I have some lose ends to tie up. I’ll see you around, Toronto Voters, in those little nooks that make Toronto great. Maybe in four years we can try again. Maybe by then we’ll get it right.

My heart will always be with you, but my politics are in Calgary.

I will come by later to drop off your stuff. Please have my copy of Groundhog Day ready and for the love of god, take that “Ford for Mayor” sign off your lawn already.

I get it: it’s over.

Scaachi Koul Photo: ccue.com

Jason Kenney Has got to go

By Sharanja Devasundar

Jason Kenney, Canada’s current Immigration Minister, has just got to go.

Why must he go?

Because recent controversial actions and decisions have shown his incompetence in responding to the plight of refugees or to those who’s political opinions completely differ from his own.

After the 492 Tamils who arrived on the coast of British Colombia aboard the MV Sun Sea in early 2010, Kenney introduced a series of amendments to Canada’s current immigration laws to make them “tougher or on refugees.” One of these changes includes Kenney receiving the power to separate refugees into two groups: irregular arrivals (which was what he had dubbed the Tamil migrants) and refugees who entered the country legally.

If a refugee is labelled irregular, then he or she may be held in detention for up to one year before their hearing, cannot apply for permanent resident status until they have lived in Canada for five years, and within that period are barred from sponsoring any relatives from their country of origin. These people will also be subjected to minimal health benefits, designed to be less generous than those belonging to regular Canadian citizens.

Perhaps this is placing too much power in the hands of Kenney. Who is he to call a certain type of refugee “irregular?” This type of decision has the power to alter the course of a number of people’s lives. Therefore it should not be up to a single man to decide in which category a

refugee fits. In regards to the Tamil migrants, most were held in detention for being viewed by Kenney as “potential security threats.”

Hundreds of sickly and hungered men, women, and children, who had spent the last three months on a barely liveable boat sailing from half away across the world, were held in captivity because of Kenney’s belief that some of them were terrorists.

The majority of those held in detention were subsequently released.

Kenney also wants to create a list of “safe countries,” which will contain the names of democratic countries with substantial human rights. The list will be used during the process of deciding whether or not a person can claim refugee status in Canada. If that person’s country of origin is on the list, then that will make it even tougher for them to pursue a refugee status. Supposedly, if their country of origin is on the list, then people seeking refugee status from those countries are not truly at danger from their government.

This list may just become a form of discrimination against individuals seeking asylum within Canada. It is essentially ranking world countries on the basis of whether they are the “bad or good guys.”

The existence of such a list is useless. How can one truly know if a country is safe for the individuals living within it? If

a person is willing to spend the time and great number of dollars to escape his or her birth country, than I believe that this adds suspicion to the safety of their birth country. In addition to this, Kenney has failed to clarify what factors will be considered when adding countries to the safe list.

The Minister had also recently barred a British MP, George Galloway, from entering the country. Galloway was set to embark upon a tour of Canada, his purpose being to speak about the situation in the Middle East. The MP, known for his anti-war views, was restricted from the country for the reason that he allegedly provided financial aid, clothing, food, and medical items to the democratically-elected Hamas government in Israel, a Palestinian group which Canada has labelled as conducting terrorist activities.

The decision was later appealed by a Federal Court judge, who felt that the decision to prevent Galloway from entering Canada was because his political views disagreed with those belonging to the Conservative government.

Kenney has committed a major error in his barring of Galloway. Not only has he foolishly made an enemy of the British MP, who is now suing him for defamation, he has shown that he wishes to keep people with opinions that differ from his out of the country.

Not exactly a quality that an Immigration Minister should have, is it?

Being a student can be expensive!

Join the Community Food Room & CESAR in an interactive workshop on

Cooking Healthy Ford is the Man, Man On A Student Budget

By Stephen Alton

I could not be any happier that Rob Ford will be our new Mayor of Toronto.

The one large testicale this guy has must absolutely be cancerous.

How can people not like a guy that wants to try and cut city council in half ? This means he’ll have to convince enough members that their jobs are pointless and that they should resign. Would you vote to lose your own job? I doubt it but I can’t wait to see this guy try. The sheer spectacle may just ignite me to care about politics again and it doesn’t stop there. Ford’s going to try and clean up all the graffiti plaguing the streets downtown. What I think Ford is unaware of is that he can’t clean graffiti off any buildings that do not belong to the city government (duh!) and that graffiti artists want a blank canvas to continue their craft.

Ford won’t stop the graffiti, however, he may spark a new interest for a new generation in the art form and that’s what Toronto is all about: building up the young into the leaders of tomorrow. And as bad as cutting AIDS awareness funding may sound one must realize that if a city councillor of 10 years still doesn’t know the basics of how to contract HIV/AIDS and who is most at risk, the funding is obviously a waste.

It’s clearly not getting through to the people whose job it is to be a representative face in Toronto and thus I don’t have a problem with it going either.

Rob Ford is going to do his best and you have to respect a man for trying. Even though he’s not a fan of bike lanes, which are very dear to my heart, he did explicitly state that downtown he will keep bike lanes (I know there are reports of him saying otherwise however the most current is this) and that it’s only a problem for him in the suburbs. Why is it a problem for him in the suburbs? Because people are getting hit and dying all the time hahahaha… it just cracks me up so much cause it’s not true hahaha… but I can see why he would think that.

Ford is anything but a politician and that’s what I love about him.

He likes to call Asian peoples Orientals, which reminds me of the good old 1950s; he loves to get drunk Photo: daylife.com

Tuesday, November 23 6:30-8:30pm

Cara Commons, TRS 1-150, 575 Bay St.

Admission:

Bring a canned good to donate to the Community Food Room

The Community Food Room is one of the five Equity Service Groups of the Ryerson Students' Union which include: RyePRIDE, RyeACCESS, the Women’s Centre and Students Against Racism.

at leaf games (who doesn’t?); he can call Giorgio Mammoliti a “Gino boy,” “Snake,” and “Weasel” and still get Mammolilti to endorse him (must be one hell of a seducer); and loves to own the road by driving around while impaired. Ford is the man and if anyone is going to change the politics in Toronto

we’ve chosen the right guy for the job. The worst he could do is break promises because he is not spending any money and after eight years of David Miller we’re very used to that.

The more we cheer the guy on the more he’ll do to try save us a few bucks.

Ryerson Free Press november 2010 7

COPS OFF CAMPUS

During the G20 the University of Toronto was host to private security officials, despite having been shut down to students. On Sunday, June 27, the Graduate Students’ Union building was raided and everyone inside was arrested. Now that most of those charges have been dropped, students, faculty, staff and community members gathered to demand that campuses become safe spaces, free of police presence. Photographs taken by John Bonnar.

8 ryersonfreepress.ca

PHOTOS: JOHN BONNAR

Ryerson Free Press november 2010 9

FEATURES the case for the global BDS campaign

By Anita Krajnc Omar Barghouti, a human rights activist and cofounder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), said on a Canadian speaking tour, that he is among the most optimistic in the global BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement against Israeli apartheid, but is himself surprised at the rapidity of its growth.

The support for BDS/PACBI campaign, launched in 2005 by Palestinian civil society groups, is growing among student activist groups on campuses around the world, human rights and community groups, major musicians (American rock band The Pixies, Britain’s Elvis Costello, rock guitarist Carlos Santana, and poet-musician Gil Scott-Heron), leading academics and cultural figures, trade unions across the globe, queer groups, and others. “We never thought we would get here so fast because in the South African experience of the anti-apartheid movement it took about 25 years... to see anything happen in the mainstream of Western society.”

Barghouti explains the dramatic growth of the BDS movement not only because of the “wonderful activists” in “SAIA, CAIA, QuAIA... Faculty for Palestine... Independent Jewish Voices and [groups in Palestine], but it’s not just about that.” There was also an “objective opening in the political spectrum” related to changes in public opinion, even in the establishment, that emerged in the wake of the United States and its allies’ wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The BDS/PACBI campaign is based on the “application of international law consistently to everyone,” and basic, liberal human rights principles. Its primary goals, says Barghouti, are to pressure Israel to uphold international law and end its illegal occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and to introduce universal human rights principles involving full equality rights for Palestinians: “The main aspect of the BDS call is its rights-based approach...Its focus is on three basic rights of the Palestinian people, which together constitute the minimum of the requirement to realize the right to self-determination: (1) [ending] the occupation of the 1967 Occupied Territories, all of them, (2) ending the system of racial discrimination within Israel, which is a system of apartheid, and (3) [instituting] the right of return for Palestinian refugees, who constitute the majority of the Palestinian people.”

Barghouti says, “Ultimately, as the indigenous population, the most generous offer we can give to our colonial settlers is equality, but nothing more. Don’t ask for colonial privileges. You will not get it.”

In the Q&A period, Bargouti said the PACBI campaign

is a mainstream, consensus movement focused squarely on BDS. Although Barghouti says he personally supports other progressive agendas, such as the anti-neoliberal globalization movement, women’s rights, and so forth, the BDS movement focuses narrowly on BDS goals in order to remain broad-based and effective.

It, however, defers to groups around the world on how to implement BDS in their local communities, whether they are “half measures, quarter measures, one one hundredth measures, that’s okay. The University of Toronto does not have to boycott Israel tomorrow.

We’ll be very happy if they clean out their pension funds of stocks of companies invested in occupation that are in direct violation of international law.

We’ll be happy if they don’t even go that far and just condemn Israel’s siege of Gaza. We’ll be happy if academics in the Faculty Senate call for the end of the occupation. These are half message along the way-any step helps-so long as you recognize our basic rights-that’s the key issue.”

But Barghouti does not support the Sullivan Principles promoted by some in South Africa, which called for codes of conduct by transnational corporations in apartheid regimes, such as equal treatment of employees, regardless of race, because those companies’ presence and taxes still support and legitimize apartheid in the state. He supports the critical statement Bishop Desmond Tutu made in reference to the Sullivan Principles: “We don’t need anyone to polish our chains. We want to break the chains altogether.”

The conversation with Barghouti, entitled “Questioning the Boycott of Israel: A Path to Justice or an Obatacle to Peace?” was presented by the University of Toronto Middle East History and Theory Workshop, and endorsed by the Political Spaces Research Cluster of the Department of Geography and the

Graduate Students’ Union’s Social Justice Committee at the University of Toronto. The event was introduced and moderated by Jens Hanssen, Associate Professor of Middle East and Mediterranean History at the University of Toronto.

The Mighty Sparrow Honoured in Toronto

By Norman (Otis) Richmond aka Jalali The Mighty Sparrow aka Slinger Francisco is alive and well. Francisco opened his show at the Ontario Science Centre with one of his classics “Sparrow Dead”. While the Calypso King of the World, has slowed down, and sat at times during his performance, he still has a lot in the tank. Besides his classic calypsos, he found time to croon “Only A Fool Breaks His Our Heart’ and “My Way.” C.L.R. James opined that had Sparrow ended up in the United States he could have made in the R’n’B arena.

Sparrow performed along with Sean Sutherland, E.B.John, Jay Douglas, and Syl and McIntosh. The production company Homegrown presented “Vintage A Tribute to the Mighty Sparrow and Frankie McIntosh.”

McIntosh, who was born St. Vincent and the Grenadines and is a gifted musician who has worked extensively with artists throughout the Caribbean such as Kitchener, Black Stalin, Baron, Hopeton Lewis and of course the Mighty Sparrow. The show was produced

by Raymond England with assistance from Garnet Neblette, Jean Sheen and Raf Ollivierre.

The award was presented by CHIN radio personality Jai Ojah Maharaj and Trindidad and Tobago’s, Consul General Michael Glenn-Art Lashley.

Recently, former Toronto resident Odimumba Kwamdela (J. Ashton Brathwaite) wrote a book, Mighty Sparrow: Calypso King of the World.

Sparrow was kind enough to sign my copy. The author included the following blurb by your’s truly: “Until I left my native Los Angeles in the 1970s and settled in Toronto among many Caribbean Black folks, I knew little about The Mighty Sparrow, little more about calypso, nothing about J. Ashton Brathwaite (who later would be Odimumba Kwamdela) whose writings I keep up with...I also became familiar with the genius of Sparrow.”

Sparrow’s classic critique of Capitalism, Capitalism Gone Mad has been included in the

10 ryersonfreepress.ca

volume, Los Poetas del Caribe: Antología. This volume was put together by Dr. Keith Ellis.

I have always loved Sparrow’s political commentary even though I have not always support his point of view. I loved his anti-apartheid songs and respected him for refusing to perform in that pariah state. I had the pleasure of presenting him with an award for his correct stand on South Africa. I did this as a member of the Biko-Rodney-Malcolm Coalition (BRMC). The BRMC was a broad coalition of organizations and individuals in Toronto that did work around the cultural boycott of South Africa.

The BRMC was formed in 1983. The group gave awards to artists who refused lucrative offer to perform in South Africa.

The Mighty Sparrow was one of the artists who was rewarded.The BRMC also rewarded Gil Scott-Heron, Linton Kwesi Johnson, Bobby Womack, David Ruffin, Eddie Kendricks, Dan Hill, Ann Mortifee, Four The Moment, Phyllis Hyman, Third World, Eddie Grant, UB40, Steel Pulse, Holly Near, Sweet Honey in the Rock, Randy Weston, Roy Ayers, The Commodores, Kool and the Gang and Gladys Knight and The Pips.

The idea to award artists was inspired by Roberta Flack who turned down $2.5 million to perform in Sun City.

The Grenadian-born Sparrow has found himself on the right side of history on the question of South Africa.

Norman (Otis) Richmond aka Jalali is the producer/host of Saturday Morning Live (SML), Diasporic Music on CKLN-FM and Diasporic Music on Uhuru Radio. SML can be heard every Saturday from 10 am to 1pm at www.ckln.fm. Diasporic Music is on CKLN every last Thursday 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. image: SPHRQUEENS.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM

Call out for the World Festival of Youth and Students “In the winter of 2010, a delegation of young activists from across Canada will join with over 20,000 youth in Johannesburg, South Africa for the 17th World Festival of Youth and Students (WFYS). For an entire week -- the largest gathering of progressive youth and students in the world! ... We call on all youth supporting justice, friendship and internationalism; who desire a better Canada and a better world without exploitation, oppression, racism, sexism and homophobia, colonialism and war; who support aboriginal peoples’ national rights to sovereignty and self-determination; who wish to reinforce the struggle for peace, solidarity and social transformation. Join us!”

Thus begins the declaration and all-Canadian call-out to a remarkable and magnificent event. As the cold fall winds begin to blow around Ryerson campus, students and youth from across the city are making plans to head somewhere warmer. But the adventure of participating in the Canadian delegation to the Seventeenth World Festival of Youth and Students in South Africa isn’t about a sun tan. It is probably the most powerful and broad international political expression of solidarity with all the struggles of the youth, for peace and social progress.

Urgency The youth who are building for the festival will be gathering at a critical movement. The environment faces enormous threats. The imperialist war in Afghanistan drags on. As the economic crisis drags on, major victories have been achieved for people’s struggles in Latin America, and Europe is rising up in mass strikes. Yet elsewhere there have been dangerous signs – a re-doubling of efforts by the far-right, not just in the U.S. with the Tea Party but even closer to home here in Toronto.

Yet the vast majority of the youth around the world, the festival movement says, have not given up. They continue the long rebellious tradition of the young people – demanding new ideas, better futures, to realizing dreams and hopes of justice in our lifetime. It is easy to forget that past. Just a few weeks ago, Remembrance Day passed by, re-branded by the Canadian Harper government. These war “hawks” would rather we forget history. But the fact is, the young women and men who fought in World War II ended that conflict with a sentiment that was deeply pro-peace.

Roots of the WFYS Sixty-five years ago, young people had perhaps suffered the most in terms of casualties, and it was the youth who were at the core of the partisan movements who had fought fascism. A massive conference of these young women and men in London, from all countries of the world, launched the first efforts to build a festival of students and young people that sent a powerful demand for lasting peace, democracy and friendship.

The young people who gathered were on the edge of the nuclear age. But they bravely rejected the politics of the cold war, the bomb, and the arms race. They denounced the racialization and demonization of all those who resisted imperialism around the world, choosing to stand with the peoples and countries breaking from colonization and forging a new future. The best way to do this, they felt, was through a giant progressive festival.

For a better world Over the next six and a half decades, the festival movement has brought as many as 30,000 youth together at one time. With a special orientation towards youth in the global south, youth festivals have occurred in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe. The festival’s became a unique platform where youth could meet face to face and overcome an “information blockade” about their struggles for a better world.

Each festival, young people have learnt the facts about major struggles of their time -- like about the Vietnam war from Vietnamese youth; or Apartheid from black South Africans; or meet the General Union of Palestinian Students and hear their perspectives; or talk to youth from Chile during the hopeful times of Allende – and after. Fighters like Yasir Arafat and Angela Davis attended festivals. Hundreds of thousands of grass-roots activists have come.

The last WFYS took place in Venezuela. Youth could see with their own eyes the process of the

Bolivarian Revolution.

This year’s festival will also occur on another historic anniversary – twenty years since the release of Nelson Mandela and the beginning of the end of one of the most repressive regimes in human history, South African Apartheid. This will be a special context to discuss today’s genocide of the Palestinian peoples with South African activists drawing convincing parallels between the two struggles.

A magnificent event The 17th WFYS will be truly a fantastic opportunity for progressive young people. It is not to late to get involved.

Delegates will participate in much more than a conference. Four conferences will take place over the festival, as well as a large number of regionally-themed seminars from the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asian and the Pacific; there will be sports events including a soccer contest against imperialism, and a marathon for peace; and poetry, hip hop, music, photography, and painting contests.

There will also be fourteen inter-exchange meetings – large gatherings where youth from different struggles and communities from all around the world can compare their experiences – including aboriginal youth, young trade unionists, youth of faith for peace, students, young artists, recent detainees, independent media, young artists, youth involved in municipal politics, and young women.

The schedule of the 17th WFYS is perhaps best described as magnificent. The programme comprehensively covers a wide-range of youth and people’s struggles for peace, sovereignty and self-determination, sustainability and socialism, and against war, racism, sexism, homophobia, racism, xenophobia and other social malaise caused by imperialism.

On the ground Organization is moving ahead. The festival movement received a strong boost earlier this fall as Latin American leftists Fidel Castro, Socorro Gomez (president of the World Peace Council) Manuel Zelaya and Hugo Chavez all endorsed the cultural, social, and intellectual meeting of activists. This WFYS will be the first festival held in an English-speaking country since the festival movement began at the end of the Second World War and the first in subSaharan Africa.

On the ground in Johannesburg, an international organizing committee is busy with preparations, visiting and reviewing internal mass transit, sites for accommodation, conference centers, halls for seminars and inter-exchange meetings, and spaces for the solidarity fairs, information fairs, as well as sports and cultural events.

A reflection of youth activism The challenge for the all-Canada organizing committee is to build a delegation that reflects the diversity of the youth and student activism across the country, and that returns with a stronger, fighting sense of being part of a youth movement. These ideas are expressed in a declaration of the Canadian delegation.

Efforts to build a cross-Canada delegation have resulted in local committees in Halifax, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Guelph, as well as a Quebec National committee in Montreal. Toronto, Hamilton and Niagara will also launching committees soon and work is beginning in Edmonton and Winnipeg.

Youth interested in promoting or attending the WFYS should get in touch with the local committees; or write directly to the festival co-chairs: David Molenhuis (chairperson@ cfs-fcee.ca) or Johan Boyden (johan@ycl-ljc.ca). Financial supporters should be advised that donations to the Youth Festival are eligible for a tax receipt as the festival is working with a registered charity (make cheques payable to the Marty Skup Memorial Fund and send them to S. Skup, 56 Riverwood Terrace, Bolton, ON, L7E 1S4).

Most recently the Canadian Festival Committee received a warm endorsement from the International Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions conference in Montreal; joining a growing list of student organizations, peace, environmental and other activist groups, trade unions and labour councils, have endorsed the Festival and are building towards the event with excitement!

Wrestling with Remembrance Day

By Stephen Alton In the wake of Remembrance Day, a student as myself would go about my day with a sense of reverence for the men and women who fought and died in the two world wars.

However, I find myself conflicted as to how much I should really care? Do I weep in the streets howling the names of those who perished? Or do I just buy a poppy and wear it out when I get really drunk?

I know these men gave their life for my country, however, I find there is a large disconnect between the reasons armed forces during the two world wars gave their lives for their country and why they do today.

There is a disassociation for what Remembrance Day means to me because we still have men and women fighting and dying overseas. My bonds for this country don’t come from the national anthem, matching uniforms or the Canadian flag but from my friends and family that live here and a unique love we share for hockey. Yet, Canada is my home so I stay conflicted. As I try to decide whether or not to buy a poppy I think of mustard gas, trench foot, scabies, and lice, rats the size of dogs chewing me in my sleep and the automatic death sentence every morning as men filed out of trenches to be gunned down one by one. I try to put myself in the shoes of the nurses who were nearly wiped out due to the Spanish flu and the factory workers who gave up their wage just so they could protect their country. These were monumental sacrifices but the question I keep asking myself is how is it relevant to the war Canadian forces today are fighting? Men and women these days don’t go to war for honor and glory but for jobs and education. Some join the armed forces in hopes they would never have to go to war and others believe in Canada’s foreign policy and the effort to stop atrocities.

I always laugh when people try to explain to me that the only reason the U.S. went to war in Iraq was for oil. This is far from the truth. The complexities of the American republic are profound and it is overly basic for Canadians to think it is something as simple as oil for a nation to go to war. War puts countries into huge amounts debt and the United States and Canada for that matter would not subjugate itself for a war. War is a complex matter with the highest of stakes. Yet, I quickly remember that the horrors of war were brought about by a few egotistical men.

It makes me think that although the great wars may seem like a long time ago, they still resonate with the world we live in today. I forgot that although our troops sign up to take the responsibility and sacrifice war may bestow upon them it is our policy, our elected officials that decide their fate. The policies resurrected from the Great Wars are still implemented today and if we don’t remember what happened a near century .ago how can we understand and influence what happens to our troops today?

All these thoughts roll around my head as I stare at the young Boy Scout who is trying to raise funds for his club by selling poppies. I look at him in his beige and brown matching uniform. This young individual is the future of this country and we have to take a serious look at what this country stands for before we start sending our sons and daughters to their death. War is not autonomous; it is all encompassing and involves the Canadian flag, the matching uniform and national anthem I normally feel so distant from. These are the symbols that represent our country in places like Afghanistan. If we can’t remember the past, we’ve forgotten the present. I decide to buy five poppies to ensure that during the next couple of weeks I won’t forget.

Ryerson Free Press november 2010 11

Fighting Debt and Fees in the United STates

By Scaachi Koul

Ontario’s post-secondary students can expect the streets of their campuses to be flooded with the Drop Fees campaign this month, similar to years past. Last year, the campaign organized a day of action ever across the province for “a poverty free Ontario.”

Protesters met at Queen’s Park Legislature to call for lower tuition fees and kinder loan policies for students.

This year, the campaign demands that ‘Education is a Right’ and calls for changes to be made to post-secondary policies in Ontario and across Canada.

But while Canada is host to rallies and campaigns against provincial governments by students with ever-mounting debt, American students are also in the fight for lower fees and greater accessibility to colleges and universities. Organizations like the USSA — the United States Student Association — works with student associations across the U.S. to promote post-secondary accessibility and affordability.

Lindsay McCluskey, president of the USSA, says that while tuition fees in the U.S. rise, programs for financial aid are diminishing. “The focus nationally is gaining more federal spending on college programs,” she said. “Clearly we have a huge crisis. Even public colleges are becoming increasingly unaffordable and inaccessible.”

McCluskey estimates that the average tuition for a public four-year institution in the U.S. is anywhere between 15 and 25 thousand a year.

“Our organization’s biggest concern is need-based financial concern rather than meritbased,” she said. Grant programs have been shrinking in the past few decades — scholarships that once covered nearly 80 per cent of tuition expenses now only cover around 15 per cent of the recipient’s total costs.

“The cost of higher education is sky-rocketing.”

Canada’s student movement is heavily focused on reducing poverty and lowering tuition fees. In the U.S., however, debt isn’t always the main focus. Many campus groups are dedicated to a civically engaged and educated campus. Campus Compact, a nation-wide coalition, participates in university partnership, community services and engaged scholarships.

“We think that civic engagement, if it’s done well, is a methodology by which students

can find their voice, be critical thinkers, understand teamwork. All the things you need to be a successful person in the world.” said Maureen Curley, the president of Campus Compact. The group connects university presidents across the country to promote democracy education amongst post-secondary students. Still, Campus Compact is another university group trying to make education more accessible to those in financial need. Much of the focus, however, is preparing students in junior and senior high for the challenges of postsecondary work since graduation rates are lower in the U.S. than in Canada.

“Affordability is not the focus,” said Curley. “[The question is] can students get in and when they get there, can they graduate. There’s a number of reasons why students drop out so that’s where we focus a lot of our energy.”

The USSA focuses much of its efforts on pushing for government funding through rallies and protests. “Here internally, we want the federal government to intervene,” said McCluskey. “It’s something that we’re going to have to create together.”

Similarly to the Drop Fees Day of Action, the USSA held a protest on tuition fee increases last March where there were student actions in over 30 states. There was another call to action in October of this year.

“We’re in the midst of a very critical midterm election which will determine who our leadership is going to be for the next couple of years,” said McCluskey. “It’s critical that we’re also engaged in doing electoral work that the fight will actually have rational, student friendly decision-makers.

With fewer schools and fewer resources, Canada’s movement also differs in what can be undertaken by students. While U.S. college tuition fees are significantly higher, we have a dearth of financial resources when it comes to loans and scholarships.

While students will be protesting the Ontario government for greater accessibility to post-secondary education, groups in the U.S. will be fighting for a similar cause, along with promoting civic engagement.

“Investments in education stimulate the economy,” said McCluskey.

“It’s essential that people can attain an education level that allows them to be part of the middle class. Right now we don’t have a system to allow that.”

The Strategic Generation for Newspapers

By Otiena Ellwand

If all other newspapers die, you’ll still be able to expect one to arrive at your doorstep for at least another 18 years.

An agreement that was signed between the Globe and Mail and its printer, Transcontinental, means that the printed word will continue to be delivered hot off the press. But even though the newspaper launched a prettier, glossier, more colourful redesign on October 1, many are still ditching their subscriptions. One Ryerson journalism professor told me that even though the university pays for his subscription, he’s decided there’s no point to having it. The first thing he checks in the morning to get his first shot of news is his computer.

The “dead wood” just ends up being a hassle that fills up the recycling bin.

Twenty days after the Globe’s grand unveiling, I’m sitting in a room full of journalists, media consultants, students, and academics at a Canadian Journalism Foundation event entitled “Newspapers: The Strategic Generation.” In front of

12 ryersonfreepress.ca

us is the editor-in-chief of the Globe, John Stackhouse.

The suave newspaper-businessman emerges telling us that the redesign is about engaging and exciting readers; that they want to be the “daily pause” and reach “concerned, curious, Canadians,” and most importantly it’s about journalism.

It seems like a big advertisement for the Globe, but I have a feeling that he’s talking to the wrong crowd. At the Q&A it becomes obvious that this audience is eons beyond the printed copy— most of the questions relate to improving the Globe’s online presence: how are you going to moderate and generate interesting discussion in the comments section?

Why doesn’t the Globe use “link journalism?”

Stackhouse’s answers? Well, we’re working on that, we hope to improve eventually, he says.

Finally, I get up to ask a question. “This past week there was an article published about Rob Ford’s fat. It was taken down off the site. What do you think the ethical dilemma is of

taking content off the Web permanently?”

There is a collective buzz in the audience. This is the kicker question that everyone has been meaning to ask.

Stackhouse says that the Ford article, written by novelist and Esquire columnist and New York Times contributor, Stephen Marche, “didn’t stand up to a number of Globe standards” and while editors apparently took issue with it, it was still published in print and online. The Globe quickly took the article down from the site, but of course this being the Internet-age, nothing is secret. The article got so much attention for being taken down that it soon became news itself— spreading contagiously through the blogosphere and Twitterverse. The Globe is now getting rid of Marche’s column. “It was an imperfect answer to an imperfect question,” Stackhouse says.

If only these were the good ol’ days when old news and bad mistakes were buried once they arrived at the recycling station. Not anymore, Mr. Stackhouse.

PHOTO: The United States Student Association

CULTURE Drawn to Develop creates social change through art

By Amanda Connon-Unda, Culture Editor On October 14 the industrial looking Fermenting Cellar venue in Toronto’s Distillery District was transformed into an activity hub as many people filled the building, originally built in 1859 by Gooderham and Worts. People were gathered for Drawn to Develop, an annual gala event that raises money for Street Kids International, a development project. The evening, with a ticket price of $75, was fully catered with an open bar and guests were invited to participate in a silent auction to win photographs taken by celebrated Canadian photographers. Many often goodlooking attendees moved around the room to read the original stories and drawings from street kids from Bolivia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Nepal that inspired the photographic works up for bids. Guests mingled around the room and bid on photos by putting their name and contact information down on a piece of paper with their highest offers.

Some of the bid lists grew long and photographs went for anywhere from a couple hundred to a couple thousand dollars each.

Engaging people though art as a means for social change is a powerful process, and such is the case for Drawn to Develop. Not only are donors invited to participate in bidding on art pieces for their homes or offices, but they also read the stories of street kids who influenced the photographer’s work. They know that the money donated will benefit the kids. Meanwhile, the kids who receive educational programming from Street Kids International are

also taking part by sharing their stories. The kids know that it’s their story that is the catalyst and inspiration for the professional photographers who are helping to raise money for their educational programs.

The way Street Kids International works is through creating sustainable programs in which selected local youth train to become trainers. The youth trainers then go on to train 70 street kids in their first year alone. Street Kids programs also claim to be adaptable to the culture and experiences of the local youth they work with in Ethiopia, India and the Philippines, Poland, Sierra Leone, Bolivia, Peru and other places. Behind their programming is the belief that youth on the streets are remarkably resilient and are driven to become self-reliant. The organization’s mission is to provide a transformative learning opportunity that enables kids to earn a living through employment, starting their own businesses, furthering their education or reuniting with their families.

Jo Cutajar, co-founder and chair of Drawn to Develop explained, “Drawn to Develop is not just a one night event. It’s a celebration of the work that is done throughout the year.” Drawn to Develop was founded in the spring of 2008 by Cutajar and a group of her friends. When she started Drawn to Develop she was a strategist at DeCode and was involved on youth projects already. “By giving education and empowering young people, particularly when they’re living

in challenging situations, you can change someones life forever,” she said, remembering what drew her to volunteer at Street Kids International.

“My personal goal was to ... involve the youth who benefit from the funding,” explained Cutajar, “I had a passion to raise funds in a creative and compelling way and engage youth at the same time.”

At this year’s event, many youth from Street Kids International programs contributed their stories and there were youth as young as 7 years old who participated. “We’re not sharing one story of street kids [as a group,] but rather sharing diversity through their stories,” she said.

One 18-year-old woman named Roji Rai from Nepal shared her story about a dream she has for women to be empowered through women’s groups. Rai wrote, “Soon there will be a better situation for women living in Nepal, we will not be married by force, made to work in bad situations or sold like goats.

In my dream the society is better, and it is better for everyone.” Photographer Shanghoon, a specialist in commercial still-life photography, was inspired by her story and created a photo of a rocky landscape with a single hopeful green tree in it.

Cutajar says that her event is not just about the money and she compares it to other charity events in which participants sometimes come for the party, but don’t learn about the work being done. She said, “With our event you leave feeling enriched – you leave taking something with you.”

The first annual Vimeo Awards in New York City

By Amanda Perri

What’s cool about Vimeo? Everything. And that’s probably the first thing many people say when they login to connect to the online video sharing community. Vimeo is an online hub where amateur and professional film makers tend to connect and showcase their work: everything from in-your-face documentaries, cartoons, and dramas to films that can’t even be classified under a specific genre. It is full of different thought provoking work that will either inspire viewers to action, or sometimes distract them from their homework.

In October Vimeo had their first ever festival and awards event. People from all around the world submitted their pieces online in order to celebrate new original work and to recognize the Internet as a medium of expression and delivery that is just as potent as our TV screens. Why? Because the Internet unites people from all around the world and through communities like Vimeo, individuals have the opportunity to share their ideas and play with others from around the world.

The festival highlighted many short films and more than 6,500 entries were submitted into the award competition, several of which were from Canada.

At the awards, several different categories were chosen and the best video in each category premiered in an offline setting throughout New York City during a one week period. The festival was responsible for generating huge hype within the art and video community of New York. The success of the festival revealed that when ideas can freely be shared in a respectful community, they inspire further growth, encouragement and transformation.

It propelled people with ideas and resources to create. The award winning work can now be seen at www.vimeo.com/awards/finalists.

What really impacted Cutajar to continue raising money was her trip to Kenya in 2009 to volunteer at Street Kids International to get kids to tell their stories. She said, “When you embark on that kind of a learning experience, you go with the intention of giving something of yourself when you’re there. But, you leave with the feeling that they taught you and changed you. [You feel like what you gave] can’t even compare with what they’ve just shared with you.”

The funds Drawn to Develop has raised has gone up over the years. “In our first year we net just over $16,000... Last year we raised over $30,000, and this year we reached $60,000,” said Cutajar.

Even though the auction is over, Rogers and FIDO customers can still donate $10 to Street Kids International by texting “drawn” to

“youth” (96884).

“I think if you could take out the money it would still be a positive process,” said Cutajar. “The moment a youth in Kenya picks up a pen to tell their story that’s a positive thing.

Drawn to Develop is about their story, their life and their future goals.”

She said, “Then the photographer receives the drawing and they get to connect with someone across the globe who’s working toward a better life. As an audience we get to share the captivating beauty, but also reading the youth’s stories about their lives and their courage is so inspiring.”

“What I would say to students who are passionate about creating social change is, ‘don’t wait,’” said Cutajar. “We all have the potential to be change-makers and it’s about taking the initiative to share your passion.”

Writers get schooled at the International Festival Of Authors

By Angela Walcott

Kate Cassaday looks intently at a bundle of pages while Kim Moritsugu reads from a manuscript. “The thought of returning to cold winter days and nights was depressing …My usual visits were for vacations but this time I had gone to bury my father.” The verdict: “It is not the right way into the story,” Cassaday comments. “It’s too heavy.”

The editor of Harper Collins Canada, Kate Cassaday, is participating in The Word Doctors Are In: Master Class as part of the week-long International Festival Of Authors series at the Harbourfront Centre where writers were asked to submit the first page of their non-fiction and fiction works for critique.

In conjunction with the Humber School for Writers, Kate Cassaday and Kim Moritsugu (a creative writing teacher at The Humber School for Writers) offer honest critiques of what that first page of narrative fiction and non-fiction should contain in order to survive the “thanks but no thanks” pile and make the “that seals the book deal” pile.

Cassaday goes on to explain that there should be more action by replacing the first paragraph with the second as well as including more interaction between characters. In other manuscripts she skillfully points out subverting roles, confusing perspectives and omniscient narrators while offering ways toward improvement.

“I always read past the first page at Harper Collins to assess if this manuscript is a pass or a project worth pursuing,” Cassaday assures. “I know how much time and effort writers have poured into their writing.”

As an editor, Kate Cassaday says she receives numerous manuscripts in a day. As to the exact amount, “This varies wildly. Most often several a week, but at busy times of the year, it can be several a day,” says Cassaday.

From time to time, Cassaday says she will come across a manuscript that she was considering for publication but just wasn’t sure about. In that case she relies on a collaborative team where she can go to for a trusted second (or third) opinion.

The master class session also included award-winning writer Nino Ricci’s advice for “What Every Writer Should Know.” His tongue-in-cheek talk was full of things to avoid and not avoid in writing. The list, drafted

by Ricci, was comprised of popular Do’s contrasted by common Dont’s.

“There are no rules because writers break them,” he said. He followed this with “don’t write what we don’t want to know,” “write what you don’t know to increase discovery” as well as “know what you write.”

Ryerson Free Press november 2010 13

Reviews

ALBUMS Aloe Blacc – Good Things

F

or those who watch HBO’s How To Make It In America, the comedy-drama about two best friends trying to succeed in New York City’s fashion scene, you are already familiar with Aloe Blacc. The

Diamond Rings – Special Affections

Q

uestion: Who is John O’Regan? Is he the man who performs under the stage name Diamond Rings? Former guitarist of Guelph indie rock favou-

I

rites The D’Urbervilles? A charismatic performer who regularly appears on-stage and in his music videos wearing glitter, leather jackets, tights and rainbow eye shadow? Or a talented musician whose breezy electropop single “All Yr Songs” was named “Best New Music” by none other than Pitchfork themselves in 2009? Answer: O’Regan is all of these, and more. After putting out a string of singles, some of them as solo efforts and others with Kingston band and frequent tour mates PS I Love You, we finally have the debut full-length album from O’Regan’s solo project called Diamond Rings.

Special Affections is made up of ten, unabashedly pop songs that are guaranteed to make you want to dance.

Don’t let the synths and club-ready beats on album highlights such as “Wait & See” and “All Yr Songs” fool you though - underneath the music, are the singer’s emotional confessions and insecurities. Remember O’Regan’s name, because this isn’t the last you’ll be hearing of him. —MM

No Age – Everything In Between

ntelligible lyrics? Slower song tempos? More polished production? (gasps) Who is this band and what have they done with No Age? Never fear though, the duo of singer/guitarist Randy Randall and drummer Dean Spunt haven’t lost their sense of urgency or unhinged musicianship, that made them the unofficial spokesmen for the Los Angeles’ D.I.Y. all-ages scene

14 ryersonfreepress.ca

Stones Throw-signed singer/rapper’s “I Need A Dollar” is the show’s theme song, a soulful tale about a down on his luck drifter just trying to get by, that perfectly fits the series’ protagonists’ “us vs. the world” mentality. While there’s no other song on Good Things, Blacc’s second full-length album, that comes as close to being as catchy “I Need A Dollar” (and its “Hey! Hey!” chorus,) this is a solid offering by the Orange County, California native. Listening to Good Things you could easily mistake it for a long-lost soul record that was discovered in a crate, sandwiched somewhere in-between Al Green and Marvin Gaye, in someone’s dusty basement. Yet even though the horn-flecked “Green Lights” and the singer’s touching ode “Momma Hold My Hand” evoke a decidedly retro sound, its hard to miss the modern day social commentary on songs like “Politician” and “Blind World.” Meanwhile you haven’t heard The Velvet Underground’s “Femme Fatale,” until you’ve heard it transformed into a slow-burning lounge number. ‘Good things’ indeed. —Max Mertens

that was profiled in the New Yorker in the first place.

Rather, Everything In Between, their third album finds the band settling down while expanding on 2008’s Nouns, an album that drew high praise from critics and fans alike. That means more blistering guitar solos from Randall, chaotic drum-bashing from Spunt, and experimental noise tendencies that owe greatly to bands such as Dinosaur Jr. and Sonic Youth (there is one song on the album named “Valley Hump Crash,” a very Sonic Youth-esque title.) Yet the band has also stated their goal of making this their most ‘mature’ album to date, which has resulted in some of the most structured, not to mention decipherable, No Age songs to date. The best example of this past-meets-future approach is on album standout “Glitter,” with its over catchy garage rock hooks, colliding drum kicks, and screeching effects pedals. Randall delivers some of the most poignant lyrics he’s ever written: “I don’t fear God, I don’t fear anything at all,” sings Randall, “I’ve been wondering, when is it my turn to get a win.” Cathartic, yes, but also brutally honest. With Everything In Between, Randall and Spunt prove that growing up doesn’t mean growing boring. —MM

MUSIC Hugh Masekela Bridges the Language Barrier with Music

S

ongs dominated with a foreign dialect commingle with sounds of a bass guitar, keyboard and bongo drums. I am lost, not in the Zulu translation, I am lost in a world of lively rhythms thanks to the legendary Hugh Masekela who possesses the ability to bridge the language barrier with music.

Masekela uses all manner of communication to emote feeling not only through music, but movement as well while he performs. Dressed in a black shirt with a green, yellow and red collar, Masekela is swept away by the music and intersperses his traditional African dance moves throughout the performance. Breaking into a low stance akin to traditional African performers, he displays remarkable agility and love for his culture.

When not dancing, or singing, he uses the trumpet. In an interesting display of music as a tool of communication, Masekela uses words that represent everyday sounds in one stirring song about the plight of South African miners. With onomatopoeiac references, he mimics the noise of the train in Stimela. This coal train, Masekela explains, stops in the deserted mining villages where diamond miners work for 16 hours a day for little pay -- experiencing

loneliness, frustration and degradation. “Chuga chuga, choo-choo” -- desperate cries--echo through the newly-renovated Koerner Hall at the Royal Conservatory of Music as the audience listens in silence. Masekela’s 4-piece band brilliantly assists in this stirring rendition of pain, suffering and poverty.

Born in Witbank, South Africa, Masekela began by singing and playing the piano. After increasing brutality within the Apartheid state, he left his homeland. Masekela visited the US where he attended Manhattan School of Music in New York and studied classical trumpet. He had hits in the U.S. such as “Up Up and Away.” In 1987, his hit single “Bring Him Back Home” became an anthem for the movement to free Nelson Mandela.

Masekela’s diversity as a musician is evident as he flips from jazzy tunes to African rhythms rife with electric guitar magic as we see by the end of his performance. At this last performance of his world tour, Masekela succeeds in providing an unforgettable show. Judging from the way that people are dancing in their chairs and in the aisles it is obvious they have enjoyed the performance -- this I can fully understand. —Angela Walcott

FILM Water on the Table captures an unforgettable portrait of Maude Barlow on a mission to save H2O

And the River Flows On at the ImagineNATIVE Festival

T

he documentary, And the River Flows On, gives it all away in the title— Yes, the people do win and manage to oppose the destruction of their community in the end, but not without their share of trials and tribulations. As anyone who has ever tried standing up against the government and corporations knows, it’s a long and tumultuous process that often ends without success.

An Indigenous community in Mexico, many of them “campesinos” (farmers), soon learn all about this when they launch their campaign opposing the government’s plan to approve the installation of a hydroelectric dam in the state of Guerrero. The proposed dam would flood their villages, located south of Acapulco, and force approximately 75,000 people to be dislocated.

This documentary was screened as part of this year’s ImagineNATIVE, a film and media arts festival with a mission to showcase the newest works by Indigenous peoples around the world.

While this film is far from being a polished Hollywood doc, there are some riveting and emotional scenes. In one, a young woman explains how her husband, who’d been advocating against the dam, was shot down by a pro-dam supporter. Later, she goes to the jail to testify against his murderer. It’s really an occasion for her to yell her grief out at the man while a silent, curious mob looks on. He doesn’t yell back, but shakes his head and smiles as if she’s the one who has got it all wrong, even though she saw him fire the gun.

Director, Carlos Efraín Pérez Rojas, doesn’t shy away from showing the grittier side of the story, including a violent protest against police, but he eases the tension by injecting it with some hilarious and light-hearted moments. Like an interview with an older woman who says that she doesn’t want to give up her land to the dam because she likes having enough space separating her from her neighbours so that when she farts they can’t hear her and vice-versa.

It’s an age-old story of struggle, of corporations controlling the government that then controls the people by bulldozing ahead while completely ignoring and censoring the desires of the majority. While you’d expect a film like this to end on a depressing note, it doesn’t because the people win, proving that there is strength in numbers, in sheer willpower and determination, and in grassroots community organizing. —Otiena Ellwand

I

s water a resource like oil that we can commodify and sell?

Or is it the basic right of every living being on the planet, including the Earth itself? These are the questions that drive Liz Marshall’s first feature-length documentary Water on the Table (WOTT), which recently won “Best Canadian Feature” at the Planet in Focus Film Festival in Toronto.

At first glance, it’s easy to try to argue that WOTT is just another documentary about the freshwater crisis much like other recent films such as Flow, One Water, Blue Gold and Waterlife, but Marshall’s film stands out as different. It is a character driven film that is focused on Canada’s water heritage and our complicated trade relationship with America.

Maude Barlow, Chair of the Council of Canadians and wellknown critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement, is WOTT’s main character. She is the ultimate water-warrior, saying “Rivers have a right to flow to the sea.” Barlow - relentless, even obsessed to the point of mild exhaustion at time – wants to protect H20 from corporate exploitation. In the film she says she believes we are living in the “myth of abundance,” which she explains is the idea that Canada has much of the world’s freshwater supply and is therefore equipped to ship much of it out to America. However, Barlow argues, as soon as privatization becomes real, it will cause a divide between those who can afford water and those who cannot. It will also jeopardize the sustainability of our planet.

It’s interesting how Marshall uses the Alberta Tar Sands (which Barlow refers to as “Mordor” - the smokey hell in Lord of the Rings) as a precedent for how we will trade water with America in the future. The fact that 60 per cent of the world’s energy investment is in Alberta, and the fact that we are already supplying an oil-hungry America, is coupled with the idea that we will also be selling our blue gold to the thirsty, dehydrated country. As Barlows says, “People know the tar sands as an energy issue and environmental issue, but it’s also a water issue...

It’s a way of commodifying water, and in fact giving the right to American energy companies operating there to own and control that water.”

The scenes in the film that were shot at the Alberta Tar Sands show water wedged between waste and plumes of greenhouse gas-emitting fumes. It’s a scary picture, filled with man-

made machines and barren landscapes, yet somehow the water is always a reminder of the balanced beauty of nature. Marshall essentially makes H2O itself another main character in the film through creating hypnotizing, dream-like images of streams, rivers, lakes, taps, beaches and cinematographic waterfalls. She shows a flow of water that is older than time itself. It’s mesmerizing, forcing viewers to consider that water is the substance that sustains existence.

While it is apparent which side of the water debate WOTT is presenting, Marshall does try to be objective through giving Barlow’s opponents a voice in the film. Among the people featured is Terence Cocoran, Editor of the Financial Post, who calls Barlow an extremist, and who ironically points out the film’s main issue when he says, “I think it [water] should become a very complicated, sophisticated, and multi-dimensional business like any other ... It’s so obvious that human beings use nature. We’ve been doing it since day one...Whenever human beings became capable of thinking...they have been using nature.”

Other opponents include Marcel Boyer of the Montreal Economic institute. Boyer has already devised numerous methods for transporting freshwater over to the United States and he maintains that reasonably exploiting the resource will mean huge profits which will be shared with drought stricken nations.

However, Barlow argues “The sharing has to come in our generation - through changing our lifestyles and implementing an economic system in the world based on diversity, fair trade, eco-sanity, stewardship and social justice.”

WOTT is effective because it will truly make you worry about the Canadian freshwater supply in the shadow of America. However, it will frustrate you to see how fiercely Barlow is fighting against a blasé United Nations council and a largely ignorant general public. The film sets the story up as one of disappointment vs. triumph, economy vs. ecology and left vs. right. It presents the solution to the freshwater crisis as political involvement with the issue and the cessation of consuming bottled water.

Marshall has captured an unforgettable portrait of a woman on a mission and created an alarming documentary that will make you want to get up and do something about the water crisis. —Desiree Buitenbos

Ryerson Free Press november 2010 15