Civil Resistance issue (Spring 2012) by The Toronto Globalist

the TORONTO GLOBALIST VOL VI, ISSUE I –Spring 2012 www.torontoglobalist.org

The University of Toronto’s international affairs magazine

MASTHEAD www.torontoglobalist.org Vol. VI, Issue 1 SPRING 2012 Editor-in-Chief Rajiv Sinclair

Editor-at-Large Nicholas Erwin-Longstaff

Deputy Editor Ian Wylie

Senior Copy Editor Mnrupe Virk

Development & Outreach Team Natalie Rizzo Ley Greig Ramin Gharavi Monika Kolodziej

Managing Editor Laura Correa Ochoa

Layout Designers Charlyn Reyes Crisell Sotalbo

Finance Team Fern Ramoutar Jessie Sun

From The Editor This has been an exciting year for The Toronto Globalist and we are very proud of the content that has become of it. During the summer of 2011, a team of three students travelled to Egypt for seven weeks to document the unheard stories of an historic social movement. Our team travelled all over the country from a desert oasis on the Libyan border to a seashore town on the Mediterranean, and from Tahrir Square in central Cairo to the outer limits of Upper Egypt. We partnered with local journalists and citizen bloggers, as well as the Canadian NGO Journalists for Human Rights. We sought to explore the human element of a revolutionary setting, using multimedia storytelling and an interactive web site that reflects the chaotic social nature of a political community. This will hopefully be the first of many reporting trips to come, coupled with experimental online experiences that make it possible for our audience to engage with the content and explore on their own terms, rather than consuming a pre-constructed narrative of the mainstream. We have included a small teaser of the Voices of Tahrir in the centre spread of this magazine, but for the full experience I invite you to visit our website. This issue is focused on the theme of Civil Resistance. This is a time of participatory politics and of people power. It can be exciting and it can also be frightening. The articles inside cover the broad spectrum of political experience around the world. I ask only that you consider each piece as a different perspective on the same grander puzzle of contemporary politics.

Your Editor, Rajiv Sinclair

C O NT ENTS

R E P O R T IN G Sovereignty Struggles – Worth Dying For

BY: luca saracanin

Tuition Reform – Britain’s Most Radical Extracurricular Activity

BY: MICHELLE JOHNSTON

Protest Technologies – Russia’s Internet Generation Stands Up

BY: Raji aujla

THE SPRE AD Voices of Tahir

BY: RAJIV SINCLAIR & ian wylie

C O N V E R S AT IO N S A Conversation with Augusto Osorno Gil – An M-19 Revolutionary

BY: Laura correa ochoa

COMMENTS Speech & Democracy – The Devil’s Got Your Tongue

BY: Sarah wang

Corporate Irresponsibility – Populist Mining for Dummies

BY: juan carlos jimÉnez

ART They Stay the Same

BY: Akbar Khurshid

REPORTING

Sovereignty Struggles

Worth Dying For

BY: LUCA SARACANIN

Bay of Bengal

State of Andhra Pradesh, INDIA

In the last decade, the number of politically-motivated suicides to demand Telangana statehood has risen. Apart from highlighting discontent, however, they’ve done little to effect concrete political change. — Telangana, a region in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh (AP), has sought separation from coastal Andhra ever since their merger in 1956. According to the people of Telangana, AP has ignored the safeguards intended to protect their assets, and has exploited their economy and natural resources. In places like Nizamabad, dams have been diverted, restricting water supply and stunting agricultural development. The Andhra Government, in contrast, supports the union. Not only does it receive increased access to the Krishna and Godavari rivers, but it retains Hyderabad as its capital. Hyderabad is one of India’s largest cities, with booming business in IT, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. It is likewise home to Tollywood, India’s second largest film industry (Bollywood being the first). Meanwhile, the Indian Central Government is trying to table a solution acceptable to both parties. Though it adheres to democratic procedure, the Center undoubtedly favours a united Andhra Pradesh. This stance reflects its original intent to organize provinces along linguistic lines – in this case, uniting Telugu-speakers. Division by any other means, it fears, might prompt other regions to seek statehood, and threaten India’s unity.

Unable to negotiate Telangana’s separation through formal channels, local politicians have urged Telanganis to organize statewide protests. These riots and rallies – both violent and peaceful – have been staged for decades to no avail. Workers and students have gone on strike, stopping traffic, and destroying landmarks and buildings. The most dramatic and disturbing show of dissent, however, has been public suicide. Traditionally rejected by Hinduism, suicide is considered socially acceptable if done for a worthy cause. The Central Government reports a rise in the number of ideologically motivated suicides, stating it doubled between 2006 and 2008. Since December 2009, more than four hundred people have killed themselves in hopes of securing statehood for Telangana. Some of these protesters include farmers, with failed crops and hungry families. Most often, however, activists comprise young adults from the educated urban elite. According to Sudhir Kakar, a prominent Indian psychoanalyst, young people die to “add meaning to what seem like meaningless lives.” Troubled by identity issues and family problems, they channel their angst into an acceptable political outlet: a cry for Telangana’s separation. Such was the case with M. Sunil Kumar, a 25-year-old reporter at a local newspaper in Warangal. After his father’s death, he obsessed over Telangana and eventually hung himself from a beam with one of his mother’s shawls. His suicide note read, “I am sacrificing my life for Telangana, to wake up our leaders.” Though dramatic in nature and prevalent in number, suicide protests have done little apart from troubling Telangani par-

REPORTING

ents and punctuating anti-Andhra sentiment. Sometimes, they prompt new rallies and marches; other times, they perpetuate themselves. In either case, no death has been powerful enough to change the minds of AP ministers. The one incident during which change almost occurred involved the declaration of a fast-unto-death by K. Chandrashekar Rao – Indian Member of Parliament and President of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) – in 2009. Rao’s rapidly failing health inspired strikes throughout Hyderabad, and worried the Indian Central Government, of which he is a part. The Center quickly expressed its intention to seriously consider Telangana’s statehood for the first time. After eleven days, P. Chidambaram – Union Minister of Home Affairs – announced that New Delhi would permit Telangana’s separation from AP, pending approval of a resolution in the Andhra Pradesh assembly. Rao agreed to end his fast, but ministers rejected the bill. The Central Government then created the Srikrishna Committee to assess the situation and recommend a solution. Eventually, it produced a 505-page report outlining six potential options, but expressing a preference for a united Andhra Pradesh, along with additional safeguards to ensure social, economic, and political development in Telangana. In other words, it affirmed the status quo. Since then, the people of Telangana have continued to agitate for independence. “I lost my son because of Telangana,” laments one woman. “Don’t burn your mother’s womb,” she warns to those who consider suicide. Sadly, her pleas fall onto deaf ears; for as long as a dream exists toward which to strive, countless others will end their lives, in hopes of birthing a new state.

Troubled by identity issues and family problems, they channel their angst into an acceptable political outlet: a cry for Telangana’s separation.

Luca Sarcanin studied International Relations at University of Toronto, with a special interest in security matters. After graduation, she lived in India for six months, interning as a Researcher and Analyst in the Political Section at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi.

REPORTING

Tuition Reform

Britain’s Most Radical Extracurricular Activity

BY: M IC HELLE JO HNSTON

Deceived by the Lib-Dem Party, students in the United Kingdom took to the streets, expressing their outrage at a 300% increase to tuition caps. — Tuition costs have always been a subject of heated debate amongst post-secondary students. The UK recently experienced a massive wave of student protests. The Liberal Democratic Party, who had signed a pre-election pledge to oppose any rise in tuition, announced their decision to approve an increased tuition cap in UK Universities from £3000 to £6000 and £9000 in special circumstances; a 300% increase in costs for UK students. The outcry The outcry of UK youth fol- of UK youth followed by several days of protesting lowed by several days of pro- and demonstrations was testing and demonstrations an immediate response to was an immediate response the devastating let down to the devastating let down that the Liberal Democratic Party handed them that the Liberal Democratic – a party that they had inParty handed them – a party vested their trust in.

that they had invested their trust in.

According to several BBC News reports, approximately 50,000 were in attendance during the protests of November 2010; some taking place in Trafalgar Square, while other more violent demonstra-

tions took place at the Conservative Party and Liberal Democratic Party headquarters. Students present for these protests acknowledged that violent protesters were taking advantage of the situation. However, even peaceful protesters themselves demonstrated outrage towards the news. One student, in frustration, made a comment towards the government asking “why tuition fees [were] going up [in the UK] when in other parts people have free education.” The increase in tuition fees was a result of government funding cuts of the Higher Education Fund by 40%. While most protests were peaceful, violent demonstrations led to burning of signs and smashing of windows that resulted in 153 arrests and left several injured. Violence that took place during these heated demonstrations was condemned as “despicable” by the National Union of Students who originally staged the protest. Union President Aaron Porter commented that “this was not part of [their] plan” and that “this action was by others who [came] out and used this opportunity to hijack a peaceful protest”. Although the tuition protests of November 2010 marked their place in history as the first of their kind, they were no comparison to the French student occupation protests of 1968 that almost led France into a state of civil war. These protests were significantly more violent and resulted in military intervention. More recently, universities across the UK have taken full advantage of the approved Liberal Democratic bill to cap tuition rates at £6000 and £9000 in “special cases.” It was the hope of

REPORTING

the Liberal Democratic/Conservative coalition government to neutralize tuition fees at an average of £7500. Instead, UK universities are trending towards the special case £9000 tuition cap. Manchester University, who is now 8th to announce the £9000 tuition cap, explained that “full fees are necessary to ensure and approve quality of teaching”. Among the 8 schools to announce their commitment to full fees are Essex, Surrey, Imperial College of London, Oxford, Cambridge, Exeter and Durham. Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, Nick Clegg, admitted that he “should have been

more careful” when he signed the pre-election pledge to oppose any rise in tuition fees. As a result, UK post-secondary students are suffering from the tremendous fee increase recently introduced by their universities.

Michelle Johnston is a third year student of history and political science at the University of Toronto. She is interested in local and international politics and human rights. She is currently the President of U of T Liberals.

REPORTING

Protest Technologies

The Next Russia: The Internet Generation Stands Up BY: Raji Aujla

In the wake of last December’s controversial elections, demonstrations are breaking out across Russia, challenging the old view that the Russian people prefer stability over freedom. — A little girl stands in a corner of Nathan Philips Square waving a Russian flag. It is Christmas Eve, a time when families and friends come together to celebrate. The girl takes a seat on a wobbly stone bench and offers tea to the strangers that trickle in from the busy streets. It is -15 degrees celcius and a light dusting of snowflakes are falling. Gathered together in the cold are a collection of strangers: members of the Russian diaspora in Canada, most of whom have never met in person. They have been brought together by the organizational power of the Internet and a hefty dose of righteous anger. At the centre of the protests is a growing frustration with the Russian government and widespread accusations of electoral fraud. The protesters accuse Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party of vote stealing during the December 4th parliamentary elections. Some of the protesters wave signs of Putin as the green Grinch, captioned with the line “how Putin stole votes.” Led by Ivan Yushin, organizer of the Toronto protest, they chant “New Elections, New Elections” and “Russia without Putin.” ••• As predicted by most political analysts, thanks to the support of Kremlin-friendly oligarchs, Putin won the Russian presidential election on March 4th. Although his popularity has plummeted in the face of vote-stealing allegations, most analysts agree that there are no candidates who can realistically hope to replace him.

To understand why Putin’s popular support remains so strong up to this point, it is important to understand the “Wild 90s,” a time of severe economic hardship for most Russians. Many observers, both inside and outside of Russia, credit Putin’s administration with restoring economic stability to the country. At the World Leaders Forum in Columbia in April 2008 most attendees agreed that Russia’s annual economic growth rate of 6.5 percent was largely thanks to policy changes enacted under Putin’s leadership. And although Westerners like to argue that Putin’s authoritarian consolidation of state power is undermining Russian democracy, a few authors suggest that Putin has also introduced basic liberal democratic institutions. In a discussion of Putin’s presidency in the magazine Foreign Affairs, Michael McFaul and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss are quick to point out that “Russians are richer today than ever before.” Though critical of Putin, they praise his economic policies as the major achievements of his presidency, highlighting Russia’s low taxes and prudent fiscal management. Professor Aurel Braun, a Political Scientist at the University of Toronto, claims that Putin persuaded Russians to exchange democratic freedom for economic stability, and if public opinion polls taken inside Russia can be trusted, then it seems that many Russians have been happy to accept this apparent tradeoff. As McFaul and Stoner-Weiss note, during the last Presidential election, which Putin was constitutionally barred from running in, current Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was able to campaign successfully on the promise of maintaining Putin’s “strong” state and successful economic policies. Perhaps in the aftermath of the economic chaos of the 1990s Russians were ready to accept authoritarian government as the price of stability. These days, however, Putin’s “strong” leadership no longer seems reassuring. The centralization of power 9

REPORTING

has created numerous examples of political corruption, social oppression, arbitrary impositions of law and now the seemingly brazen rigging of elections. All of this has undermined the legitimacy of the Russian government and is leading to some reevaluations as to whether democratic processes should be abandoned so casually. Professor Braun quoted Benjamin Franklin, “if you trade freedom for security at the end of the day you’ll have neither.” On the other hand, the experience of the 1990s has left many Russians suspicious of political reform. “In Russia the word democracy has very bad connotations,” explains documentary filmmaker Anastasia Trofimova. Adding, “when the Soviet [Union] fell apart, we were transitioning to a capitalist market and the wild 1990s ensued. There were three economic collapses. Russians don’t look at democracy and the promises of democracy the same way as North Americans do.” Braun argues that Putin’s brand of “authoritarian stability is not a long-term solution.” When Putin became President in 1999, Russians were eager for stability and may have welcomed the appearance of strong leadership from the President. Now, more than a decade later, many Russians fear that if Putin returns as President, his iron grip could result in a return of political and economic zastoi, or “stagnation,” similar to that during the Brezhnev era. The same traits that once made him appealing may now be unnerving many Russians. According to Braun, this is a great opportunity for Putin. If protesting becomes a common form of expression against the Kremlin, then Putin should reconsider the exchange of civil liberties for stability. “He has the chance to lead transition to democracy and bring Russia into the modern era,” argues Braun, “...an era of democracy adopted by other states such as Germany, Italy and Japan.” Anatoliy Kats, a popular blogger who has become the Press Liaison for the protests, says that although Russians are not opposed to democracy, they are very afraid of change. “Rocking the boat of authoritarianism will break everything that [Russians] worked so hard for. Entrepreneurs stole natural resources during the economic free-for-all in the 90s.” As a result, protest organizers maintain that these protests are to be peaceful. Trofimova explains, “Russia had revolutions before and we have come to regret the bloodiness and not want a repetition of that.” Unlike the Arab Spring, few Russian protesters are calling for 10

Revolution or full-out political reform. The words revolution and democracy have not been prevalent online or in public demonstrations. The demands articulated by the protesters are much more basic. Kats highlights three central demands motivating the initial protests. 1. The nullification of the Dec 5th election results; 2. The scheduling of free and fair elections on March 4th; 3. That Vladimir Churov, head of the central election system and widely seen as corrupt, resign from his position. Ivan Yusin, organizer of the Toronto protest, is confident that the Russian people will continue to demonstrate and demand democratic elections every four years to prevent a Russian tyranny. At the same time, people are hesitant to rock the boat. “Everybody is interested in stability,” agrees Kats, “both government and opposition.” Neither side wants another revolution. ••• When civil unrest first broke out, Putin claimed that the majority of participants were paid by the United States of America. According to protest organizers, this clumsy attempt to discredit the protests failed and only emphasized the widening disconnect between the Russian people and Putin. The protests continued to build momentum worldwide in the face of the Kremlin’s blasé reaction. Putin’s own comments to the press did little to help him initially. When asked on a live call-in radio show about the white ribbons some protesters had pinned on their clothing, Putin claimed not to understand what they symbolized. “I didn’t get it,” he said, before continuing on that, “it’s impolite to say it, but I’ll be honest, I decided it was propaganda against AIDS, that these were, pardon me, dangling contraceptives.” Mistaking the ribbons for condoms and alleging protesters were paid off offended Putin critics and encouraged the demonstrators. It was another indication that Putin was losing touch with the Russian electorate by speaking in a high-handed and arrogant manner. Ultimately, Putin’s comments only served to further inflame Russian activists on the Internet, a powerful organizational tool that helped protestors catch the Russian government by surprise. “Social media allows for you to connect with likeminded individuals,” Kats explained. Due to the heavy censorship and unreliability of state-run broadcast, online culture is one of the only ways to share information and dialogue. Kats says that, “bloggers have been talking about Putin’s political stagnation for a number of years now. Their discussions allowed for a free flow of information.” Now, that information is being used to mobilize thousands of people. The popular discontent stirred up by Putin’s comments towards

REPORTING

Aurel Braun, political analyst and Professor at University of Toronto, says Putin persuaded Russians to exchange democratic freedom for stability. According to several public opinion polls, until recently, most Russians accepted this apparent tradeoff between political freedom and faster economic growth. the December 10th protesters lead to even larger demonstrations on Christmas Eve. Putin made a more tactful comment this time. “When this kind of situation emerges, there is always an attempt to devalue and undermine the legitimacy of everything that happened in the public sphere, including and, most of all, the electoral process,” he said and, “therefore, everything must be done in order to ensure that elections are understandable, transparent and objective.” This more contrite tone may reflect Putin’s recognition that the protests are a serious challenge to his regime. “Social media is more important than the Kremlin expected,” explains Braun. Mass protesting is an uncommon form of expression in

Kats says social media can also contribute to the polarization of politics, in both Russia and North America, remarking that “this is a threat to the protests happening right now in Russia. [But] It’s a hypothetical danger that hasn’t manifested itself.” For now, however, the Internet has been an indispensable tool. Russian bloggers are able to express views through online mediums rather than the heavily censored traditional print, radio and television media. Kats agreed that Russian bloggers have been talking about the political stagnation for a few years now. But this information through Russian blogs, mostly published in Russian, is only available to Russian readers. The international community, although it has access, are not able to understand the blog posts. Therefore the international community is faced with different types of information, most of it coming from an unsupervised and uncensored blogging and social networking culture. The information that is available online – whether political propaganda or amateur political commentary – has the power to influence the thoughts of a wider audience. Braun says the Kremlin and the international community did not recognize how significant the problems were. He states that “with Russia no longer a superpower, we don’t pay that much attention to Russia anymore. We tend to believe that an authoritarian rule is stable. Russia hasn’t had much experience with democracy and failed when attempted.” According to Braun, the Russian state has maintained a tight grip on traditional forms of mass media. State control of television and radio is “expansive”, he says, and journalists risk their lives when they buck the status quo. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Russia ranks as the fourth deadliest country for journalists, and by one estimate there have been 892 journalists killed since 1992, including the recent murder of Gadzhimurad Kamalov on December 15th, 2011.

Russia. Yet in the month of December, organizers claimed that more than 100,000 Russians have participated for free and fair re-elections and an estimated 100,000 turned out on Christmas Eve. Conservative numbers offered by the police suggests 30,000 came out. This would still mark the biggest mass demonstrations since the Soviet Union movement 20 years ago. Jim Karygiannis, a Liberal MP in the Canadian Parliament and multicultural critic, agrees that Russia has become a very different place than it was even ten years ago. He notes, “social media has a great effect on the way politics are being done. Its ability to mobilize Russia in the protests and cause spontaneous reactions worldwide was spectacular.”

Kats explains further that thoughts regarding the current affairs in Russia and its corruption have been exchanged and social media has allowed a thought to build up that there is something wrong with the country. However, the online community lacked a trigger for that thought to turn to action until the recent elections. Because the state has been so heavy handed and blatant in censoring traditional mediums of communication, it is unsurprising that protesters have come to rely so heavily on the Internet. The total state control of television raises doubts amongst the population and merges with a generally cynical view of the government. When a counter-protest was organized by the Kremlin on December 5th, most protesters made comments strangely parallel to Putin’s; many claimed that the protesters had been bought and paid for, a perception reinforced by videos 11

REPORTING

Rising Tide Internet Users (per 25000 people) GDP per capita (US$)

Russian economic performance plummeted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, causing many Russians to associate ‘democracy’ with unemployment and starvation. The beginning of Putin’s presidency coincided with a dramatic rise in economic growth, though analysts continue to dispute the degree to which this can be attributed to Putin’s policies.

leaked online. Kats recalls a video that he saw on YouTube of a woman who was asked why she came to the protest. She made a couple of memorable quotes in ungrammatical Russian. She claimed that United Russia gave [Russians] things and that is why she supports United Russia. Among the ‘things’ United Russia gave her were “more better clothing and more land and more seeds to plant.”

“Russian Internet” – get the chance to be active participants in the online blogging community, rather than merely passive receivers of information. Many of the demonstrators turning out on the streets of Russian cities first learned of the protests through websites such as Facebook, Vkontakte or in particular, LiveJournal, where everyone from Dmitry Medvedev to prominent anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny maintain profiles.

If the elections were a trigger for action, social media was the gun used by the intelligentsia and protest organizers. Kats confirms that protest organizers “have rarely met each other”, meaning that they had to rely heavily on Google Docs and Facebook as “remote collaboration tools.” This has come naturally in a country where Internet users are largely from Russia’s growing middle class. They tend to be educated youth and urban intelligentsia, and they have a different experience visiting a blog site rather than a news site. The format is looser and more collaborative, and allows for interactivity and exchange in views and dialogue. On a news site, information is available but there is little back and forth.

Navalny, an active political and anti-corruption blogger, reaches tens of thousands through his blog. When asked about Navalny, Braun said, “it is remarkable how bloggers have been able to speak to millions of people.” Navalny has more than 172,686 followers on Twitter alone. When he labeled Putin’s administration a party of “crooks and thieves,” tens of thousands could instantly read his words. Thanks to people like Navalny, the Internet was one of the key instruments in mobilizing the agitated Ruten generation and getting them to take to the streets. The Internet also lends the protests a sense of dynamism; according to Kats, “[Navalny] has the fresh street credit.” Navalny’s crusade against Russian corruption has contributed greatly to his position as a possible opposition contender.

Internet users who log onto Ruten – the Russian-language websites and social media hot-spots that collectively form the 12

REPORTING

If the elections were a trigger for action, social media was the gun used by the intelligentsia and protest organizers. Ironically, some of the information circulating on the Internet is only available thanks to reforms that Putin spearheaded. Kats explained that “[the] President passed laws that made government information, such as tenders for government purchases, more accessible”. Having the government more open and government information more available allows for a citizen check and balance system. He said that “Navalny was able to make a name for himself exposing official corruption by looking at irregularities in government purchases.” Through using these techniques, Kats says “we went from crying how corrupt our government is and we have started to become more proactive in investigating corruption.” ••• In a few weeks social media has changed the face of Russian politics. initially Putin’s dismissive attitude toward the protesters betrayed a level of casual arrogance that his administration can no longer afford to indulge in. Going forward the Russian government will no doubt seek to appear more contrite and humble. President Medvedev, who is not running for re-election, has publicly acknowledged that Russian democracy is young and troubled. In early February, Medvedev also introduced a bill in the Russian Duma that, if it passes, will re-establish direct elections for Russia’s regional governors. In 2005, Putin put an end to this practice in favour of direct appointment by the President. Even Putin seems to have accepted that the Internet will now play a more important role in Russian politics. The once and future President has even tried his hand at blogging, recently contributing two English language newspaper articles he penned to the online news and opinion website The Huffington Post. Perhaps the great surprise, however, has been reserved for Russia’s fragile middle class. Trofimova says the Russian intelligentsia once criticized Russia for not taking to the streets. “The protest was a big breakthrough that nobody was expecting at all. All Russians – around the world – were surprised.” The ability of social media to reach and capture a larger audience creates new prospects for electoral mobilization and democratic reform. With an estimated 60% of Russian’s - mostly concentrated in urban spaces - now enjoying regular Internet access, a new era is dawning. Control of capital intensive forms of communication like cable news will no longer grant the state a de facto control over political discussions. Moving forward it seems as though anyone with a laptop and an Internet connection will have the opportunity to make their voice heard. The Internet may be the crucial tool the Russian electorate has needed to hold its leaders accountable.

The scale of the Russian demonstrations following the December 4th elections has demolished the Kremlin’s naive faith in a quiet and conservative domestic population. It has also instilled a new sense of hope and optimism. Yusin believes that there has been a popular awakening, noting that “there is solidarity among people. We are not afraid any more.” That sense of solidarity extends beyond Russia’s borders, all the way to the individuals standing in Nathan Philips Square on Christmas Eve. For Yushin – who was born in Russia but lives in Canada – coming out to the demonstration at Nathan Philips Square was a way of reconnecting with his homeland. He says that he is demonstrating “for my friends who are still there” and with the hope that it is possible to peacefully improve Russia’s institutions. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the terrible experience of the “Wild 90s” cemented a widespread belief in Russia that stability and political freedom were mutually antagonistic. For most Russians, the “democracy” of the 90s meant losing state guaranteed health benefits or salaries paid in cheap vodka because the government could no longer afford to pay workers in cash. Now, a growing number of Russians are questioning the underlying logic of this supposed trade-off. Perhaps, with an engaged and politically active electorate, along with the mobilizing potential of the Internet, it may be possible to foster a political system in Russia where both stability and freedom can

Raji Aujla is a fourth year student at the University of Toronto pursuing a major in Visual Culture and a specialist degree in Political Science. She is a staff writer for The Toronto Globalist and a foreign correspondent for Day And Night News.

Abdu Alawi

VOIC ES OF TA HIR BY: RAJIV SINCLAIR & ian wylie

The Toronto Globalist travelled throughout Egypt last summer, capturing the hidden stories of Egyptâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s revolution. We spoke to everyone who had a story to tell. Our project is called Voices of Tahrir, named for the new freedom that gave lift to the words of the people we met. Here, in print, we present a brief example of the stories you will see and hear if you visit our interactive online storytelling platform at http://www.voicesoftahrir.com 14

It is 1:00 a.m. in Siwa and from the town’s mosque, an imam’s voice eminates from a crackling loudspeaker. The voice carries into Abdu Alawi’s restaurant, located a hundred meters away from the faithful at prayer. Tonight, Abdu is seated at one end of a bank of picnic tables. Between puffs on a hash joint, he tells the story of his marriage over the sound of recited surahs. The restaurant was necessary for his marriage. In his early 20s, Abdu inherited the restaurant from an uncle. The uncle built it for tourists when they began to arrive in the late 1970s, yet the restaurant attracted local men alike. When it became Abdu’s, it was the town’s preferred venue for resolving conflicts and conducting business. Abdu’s social standing in Siwa climbed as its new proprietor. He impressed the family of a distant cousin and was bethrothed to her after a traditional courtship. Considering the value the restaurant has for his marriage, Abdu’s wife never visits him at work. Tradition in Siwa proscribes a separation by gender, where the men care for a public sphere and the women tend to a private world at home. So tonight, the last group of patrons Abdu waits on are a table of his friends. The men are at ease, drinking tea and sharing in Abdu’s hash. When they leave, Abdu will close his restaruant and return to his family. The separation between Abdu’s home and work is like the separation of the restaurant from the mosque down the road; one feels free of the more traditional modes of conduct while the other upholds it. If you ask a Siwan, both contribute to the town’s continued existence. Tourism, and with it an influx of money and different ideas, have revived Siwa’s economy.

“ a U P t f c o l t b d g

The money enabled the townspeople to upgrade their housing and to purchase motorbikes, replacing donkey carts. Yet even under the influence of Western tourism, the value of tradition in Siwa is unquestionable. Tradition asserted itself when the local authorities, brought to Siwa from Cairo, had little regard for the Siwans; the relationship is represented by a hospital built on the town’s outskirts in the 1980s and rumoured as a front for money laundering, since it was never staffed. The presence of police that treated Siwans as a source of bribes made it valuable too. Under these threats, the Siwans defined themselves from Cairene authorities with their language, Amezzeri, and their tribal forms of governance. With the revolution, Abdu hopes for a better goverment, one that protects the interests of Siwans as well as his community. Abdu follows Siwan traditions in his life. Abdu choose an arranged marriage. He had never spoken to or seen the face of the woman he was to marry until their wedding night. He would see her at the weddings of friends, separate from the men and among the women, wearing a deep blue burqa. As he finished his story, he said he found love with his wife. Yet before he could return home to her, he remembered he had a blanket to drop off with a tourist planning a safari the next morning. With that, Abdu ran off into the night, balancing his responsibilities across two worlds.

Here are some of the people we spoke with in building Voices of Tahrir. If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d like to hear what they have to say about the experience as Egyptians, then visit our online social map at http://www.voicesoftahrir.com. Our interactive storytelling platform represents the stories of individual Egyptians on an interactive map, illustrating how people are connected together in a political community. 17

C O N V E R S AT I O N S

A Conversation with

Augusto Osorno Gil An M-19 Revolutionary

BY: Laura Correa Ochoa

C O N V E R S AT I O N S

As a young university student in Medellin, Colombia, Augusto Osorno Gil joined the 19th of April Movement or M-19. The M-19 was a nationalist and populist guerrilla movement, inspired by Bolivarian ideals and committed to revolutionary socialism. As a self-proclaimed revolutionary, he continues the struggle for justice and equality though diverse social and political channels. —

What was the political and social context that gave rise to the M-19? The M-19 emerged in 1970 when a third party called ANAPO (National Popular Alliance) whose candidate was General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla won the election; but the National Front, a coalition of the traditional Liberal and Conservative parties stole the election, and Mr. Misael Pastrana Borrero remained as president. From this, it became clear that political power could not be attained through electoral channels. Hence, a closely allied sectors to ANAPO called ANAPOSOCIALIST and other disenchanted sectors with the ELN and FARC guerrillas came together to create what was then called the April 19 Movement (M-19), in memory of the stolen elections of April 19, 1970.

Why did the organization opt for an armed struggle, over other forms of protest? Do you think this helped or in the long-term compromised the legitimacy of your cause? We opted for armed struggle because legal channels were closed. Anyone who dissented and raised discussion on the issues I just mentioned was branded a terrorist and guerrilla, and was subsequently jailed. Don’t forget about the nefarious Turbay security statute in this time that violated the most basic human rights. This was a disastrous epoch for democracy, where journalists and writers like Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the poet Luis Vidales, the artist Feliza Burstin and other human rights advocates such as Alfredo Vasquez Carrisoza were persecuted. Our cause was legitimate because it always championed democracy and the struggle for minimum redistribution for the popular sector. We can never forget that in Colombia there is much inequality, much inequity and immense social injustices!

What attracted you to join the movement? What did you hope to achieve? Was it common for university students at the time to be involved with revolutionary groups?

When the M-19 was formed, what was the movement trying to accomplish? How did it aim to improve the lives of Colombians? The objectives of the M-19 were to defeat the National Front and at the same time rescue Bolivarian nationalists thought. At this time Colombia could only be Liberal or Conservative, all other roads to establish in Colombia democracy and true rule of law were closed. We wanted to change the playing field in terms of a division and real autonomy of the branches of government: legislative, executive, judicial and electoral. We also fought for respect for human rights, for real agrarian reform, and for a military that was not in the service of a political class. We wanted to improve the lives of Colombians by implementing a set of minimum reforms: a) A new constitution b) Educational reform c) Land reform d) Antitrust law e) Defense of our natural resources f) Fight against politiqueria, clientelism and corruption 3 g) Protection of human rights and that to think differently was not considered a crime h) A new parties’ law i) Guarantees for the opposition j) Confrontation and defeat of para-militarism k) Elimination of sieges

I was attracted to join the movement because its ideology broke away from the schemes that were then configured by the Cold War, as the FARC were supported by Russia, the PLA by China and ELN by Cuba. We ruptured from all these schemes and with the sword of Bolivar as our symbol, we were dedicated to fight for the dispossessed. We started talking about the national stew and we isolated ourselves from the silly and sterile discussions on Marxist-Leninism. In our project, we housed absolutely all sectors of society without distinction of creed and race, and began to develop spectacular actions that appealed to the most profound sentiments of the masses. What we hoped to achieve was a dramatic change in the state. It was about breaking the spine of politiqueria, clientelism and corruption. We wanted to construct a just and egalitarian society, where so many social differences didn’t exist! Yes, it was common for students to be involved with revolutionary groups. But it was not as a hobby nor because it was fashionable. It was about righteous ideals of societal transformation, as universities magnified the class struggle and provided a space that allows one to elucidate why a state is repressive and oppressive; and one begins to understand that there is need to change this state of affairs.

C O N V E R S AT I O N S

What was your role within the organization? In which major M-19 events did you participate? Our organization was compartmentalized and we had a superior command made up of revered and versatile leaders with great intellects and the vision necessary to build a country that looked like our dreams. My role within the organization was initially logistical, later on ideological training after directing and coordinating mass actions; and obviously as a commander to direct and coordinate all operational activities in Colombia and abroad.

Outside Colombia, the movement is often portrayed as “terrorist” organization and attributed with being one of the first modern movements to use kidnapping as a a revolutionary political tool. What is your response to these critical assessments? The M-19 was not listed as a terrorist group because this connotation didn’t exist at the time. We conducted intrepid actions like appropriating milk vending carts, chocolate, and food, and distributed it in poor neighborhoods. One New Year’s eve we stole through a tunnel 5,000 arms of the canton north of Bogota without firing a shot! We retained a number of journalists to send messages about the violation of human rights in Colombia. We also retained multinationals’ executives to show the world how they were stealing our wealth. We used kidnapping as a political weapon, as we did in the Dominican Republic Embassy to denounce the abuses perpetrated by the military, who tortured and disappeared political opponents. Jose Marti once said that the people have the right to insurrections and to raise up against dictatorial and unworthy governments. That’s exactly what we did, we rose up in arms against an oppressive state!

It is generally accepted that the attempted military takeover of the “Palacio de Justicia” staged by the M-19 was sponsored by El Cartel de Medellin and even Pablo Escobar. Do you agree with these allegations and if so, what were the motivations for this volatile alliance? What did the M-19 seek to gain by mixing their struggle with the criminal activities of the narco-trafficking world? 20

It is false that the M-19 allied with El Cartel de Medellin to take over el Palacio de Justicia. Storming el Palacio de Justicia was only to pass judgment on President Belisario Betancur, who had negotiated with us a peace settlement in the towns of Corinto, Cauca and Hobo, in Huila. Obviously, we now recognize it was wrong, but the story would have been different if we had taken over the Congreso de la Republica building that was next to the courthouse. At the time, we thought that the only power that could do an evaluation and trial the whole peace process and the Government of President Belisario Bentancur was the distinguished supreme court Judge Alfonso Reyes Echandia. But unfortunately the military believed it was time to kill the M-19, and for this reason removed his security personnel. They also saw this as an opportunity to burn the files of ongoing investigations on high ranking generals for the torture and disappearances of many citizens.

How do you think this affected the position of the movement? In retrospect, do you think the organization should have acted differently? We accept the mistake and have apologized 1,000 times to the victims and society and everyone! This summoned us to reflect on the state of war and the situation in the country, and we came to the conclusion that this state of confrontation and war could not continue. Obviously we should have acted differently, because the armed forces responded with retaliation, hatred and revenge. The military is not being judged for retaking El Palacio, because this was their obligation after all; they are being judged for the atrocities they committed, including torture, disappearances, murder and burning a defenseless people. There is strong evidence of countless people who left El Palacio alive and were later found burned and shot at close range inside El Palacio.

Eventually the M-19 agreed to a ceasefire and demobilization. What factors contributed to the decision to redefine the militant struggle for a legal one? And what lead to the dissolution of the movement into various political parties? I want to point out that it was precisely the political retention of someone like Dr. Alvaro Gomez Hurtado that drove us into

C O N V E R S AT I O N S

the dynamics of politics, dialogue and negotiation. We realized that the guerrilla struggle we had undertaken would not be fruitful for several reasons: a) Colombia was fully urbanized, over 60% of the population lived in big cities b) Guerrilla war had become marginal c) The power centers were in urban areas d) Drug trafficking was permeating all areas of society and was driving all violence in the country e) The Colombian people prefer “vivir a no vivir”, that is they rather live poor, humiliated and outraged than be killed f) Paramilitaries were carrying collective massacres throughout the entire country g) The war in the country was degraded to incommensurable extremes and to something never seen before h) It was necessary and urgent that someone visionary take the first step to negotiate with the state demobilization and reintegration We took this decision to disarm and demobilize, and we have never regretted it. Simply and wholly because we achieved that Colombia would establish a National Constituent Assembly that was installed in 1991 and drew up the constitution we have today. A constitution that we have and must continue to defend for all the achievements it represents, tutelas; the move from a representative to a participatory democracy, for outlining the fundamental rights of citizens, the creation of a public prosecution office, the Constitutional Court, and the institution of the electoral branch as another public power. Finally, we surrendered our weapons in exchange for the constitution of 1991! We do not believe we dissolved, instead we created an alliance with other political parties called ADM-19 (Democratic Alliance M-19), and as such participated with 20 constituents in the Constituent National Assembly whose presidents were Navarro, Serpa and Alvaro Gomez. This alliance disappeared and was replaced by the Alternative Democratic Pole, who is experiencing some divisions and is in the process of building another political project called Progressivists.

Do you think the same process of amnesty and demobilization applied to M-19 is a viable strategy to deal with existing guerrilla groups like FARC and ELN? Or do you think other tactics are required given the countless human rights violations the continue to perpetuate? Today, it is not possible to apply the same strategy with the FARC, the ELN for various reasons. Today, crimes against humanity are not pardoned or subject to amnesties. These groups have to understand that they cannot continue to play dirty with society. The fundamental premise is that dialogue can ex-

ist as long as they release hostages and make an unwavering decision to demobilize. This has to be very clear, you can negotiate certain claims and reforms but they have to abandon the armed struggle and stop using violence as political instrument. We have to be sufficiently creative, resourceful and imaginative to invent new methods and options that allow members of the the FARC and ELN to sit down to negotiate with the state.

Personally, why did you decide to demobilize? And what political channel did you opt for to continue the struggle, and improve the country’s social, political and economic situation? I decided to give up the armed struggle when I became convinced that violence was not the way and that democracy offered very important spaces to keep fighting to conquer my dreams, illusions and utopias. Thus, in political spaces like in the legislative (Councils, Assemblies and Congress) and the executive, I have been fighting to improve the living conditions of the most humble. But also in community spaces such as Juntas de Acción Comunal, grass-roots housing associations, business associations and cooperatives. In all these areas we have made important advances that through the use of arms would have never accomplished. I have nothing to regret, the specific conditions of each moment of life reveal to us which path to take: I decided to take up arms, because it was appropriate at that time, and when I decided to lay down my arms, it was also appropriate, and today we are happy trying to build new roads of peace, tolerance and coexistence. Augusto Osorno Gil is a veterinary doctor from La Universidad de Antioquia. He also holds a masters degree in Public Health from ESAP and a professional degree in Environmental Management from the Universidad de Antioquia. He has held various public positions including, Public Spokesman for the M-19; Assembly Deputy of Antioquia 1991-1993; first Environmental Manager for Antioquia until 2001; National Director for Clean Water; and Manager of Corforestal. He authored the book Cultura de la Paz (Culture of Peace) and has been a frequent columnist from El Diario and El Mundo. Laura Correa Ochoa is a third year student of history and political science at the University of Toronto. She is currently a lead analyst for the G8 Research Group and is conducting independent research on internal displacement and transitional justice in Colombia.

COMMENTS

Speech & Democracy

The Devil’s Got Your Tongue by: sarah wang

The Westboro Baptist Church is notorious for protesting the funerals of American soldiers. The church raises questions about the limits of free speech in the United States. — As Albert Snyder buried his twenty-year-old son Matthew in 2006, members of the Westboro Baptist Church stood at a nearby street corner brandishing signs thanking God “for dead soldiers” and declaring that “God hates fags.” Though the Church remained on a public sidewalk throughout their “protest”, the tops of their signs were still visible to Albert during his son’s funeral. Matthew, a Lance Corporal in the United States Marines, was killed in a driving accident while stationed in Al Anbar province, Iraq. The members of Westboro Baptist Church, a congregation of some 70 people consisting almost exclusively of Pastor Fred Phelps’ extended family, had traveled more than a thousand miles to picket Snyder’s funeral. This was their way of voicing their belief that every American soldier who dies in Iraq is a punishment from God for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. Although Albert Snyder did not get a good look at Westboro’s protest during his son’s service, he saw the content of their signs during a news broadcast and felt compelled to research them online. On their website he found statements affirming that his son was in Hell, that Albert and his wife had raised Matt “for the devil” and had taught him to “defy his Creator” and to commit divorce and adultery. He also learned that Matt was neither the first nor the last soldier singled out by Phelps and his family. Though no exact number has been confirmed, Westboro Baptist Church is known to have staged protests during at least 50 separate funerals for members of the American military. Outraged, Snyder sued Fred Phelps, two of Phelps’ daughters, and Westboro Baptist Church for invasion of privacy, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. While the defamation charges were dismissed, a subsequent jury trial awarded a hefty, multimillion dollar judgement in Snyder’s favour. Ultimately the case made its way to the United States Supreme Court, where, on March 2, 2011, it was dismissed on First Amendment grounds in a dramatic eight to one decision. For the ultimate arbiters of American law, the nine justices of 22

the Supreme Court, Phelps’ hateful rants about divine punishment and “fag soldiers” were constitutionally protected. Reacting to the decision, an overjoyed Phelps declared that the ruling would “quadruple funeral protesters.” To Albert Snyder, for whom the emotional ordeal of the trial had poisoned the positive memories of his son, the ruling conformed that “there’s not a damn thing anybody can do.” ••• The First Amendment is the bedrock upon which American political self consciousness rests, as well as the most cherished value of many English speaking liberals on either side of the Atlantic. For many political pundits, the guarantee given by the First Amendment – which forbids the American Congress from passing laws that regulate religious beliefs, freedom of speech, the activities of the press or “the right of the people [to] peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for address of grievances” – is a guarantee against excessive government power. The idea here is that by allowing people to gather and share ideas without fear of government retribution, society will flourish. Yet the figure of Fred Phelps is sufficient to make many people deeply uncomfortable with unrestricted free speech. Surely the highly personal nature of the attacks, and the attempts by Phelps to hold up Matthew as a symbol of American evil, must cross the line into unacceptable speech. Writing for the majority, however, Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed this argument. After all, though the attacks were of a personal nature, nothing Phelps revealed about Matt’s life was private: the scant details Phelps revealed on his website had been taken from an obituary published in a newspaper. As for the hateful assertion that Snyder’s death was divine punishment, Roberts noted that Phelps was clearly engaging in a political act by commenting on an issue pertaining to “the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy.” Roberts was equally dismissive of claims by Snyder’s lawyer that a family funeral constituted a “captive audience” who could be protected from unfair speech. However distasteful the Westboro Baptist Church’s demonstration may have been, it occurred on public space and obeyed all police instructions. Many governments, including Canada’s, permit restrictions on what opinions their citizens are permitted to voice in public. In many European countries it is illegal to deny certain

COMMENTS

historical events such as the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide. Even in the United States, there is a limit to free speech: you cannot shout “Fire” in a crowded theatre, and it was only until recently, in the case of Texas v. Johnson, that the Supreme Court affirmed that Americans cannot be prosecuted for burning or otherwise desecrating the flag. Indeed when the First Amendment was originally drafted it applied exclusively to the Federal government of the United States. It was in 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, that the Supreme Court determined that state governments were obliged to obey the Bill of Rights. If the state legislature of New York wanted to outlaw criticism of the government, then no federal law or statute would have prevented them from doing so prior to 1925. Examining the history of free speech quickly illustrates that it is not and has never been an absolute right. Throughout American history, the guarantees understood to be under First Amendment protection have changed, often reflecting social and political changes in society itself. It can be said that the shared understanding of the First Amendment will continue to evolve with the passing of time. Nor can we assume that these changes will always lead us towards a more democratic or inclusive political system. For example, in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that political donations made by corporations and unions are a form of free speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The predictable result of that particular interpretation of the First Amendment has been a frenzy of corporate lobbying in an electoral system already dominated by moneyed interests. Many people will agree that Fred Phelps is a hatemonger. But he is also a test case for one of the most cherished values of liberal democracy. In today’s society, his beliefs appear extreme to the point of self parody. The extent of his vicious and mean-spirited ideology almost defy common sense and logic. In fact, as a strict Calvinist, he doesn’t believe in salvation for anyone. According to a posting on his website, God already knows who will be saved and who will be damned. When he appears at a funeral brandishing signs saying “You’re going to Hell” he isn’t trying to warn anyone about taking the wrong path. He’s gloating. As far as Phelps is concerned, if you’re going to Hell, there’s really nothing you can do. He just wants to make sure that you’re keenly aware of how much God hates you. He has stated more than once that to him, the belief “God loves everyone” is “the greatest lie ever told.” Currently, much of the world is locked in an inchoate struggle to redefine the social contract of our global society. From Russia to the Middle East, from China to North America, waves of demonstrators and protesters are rising up, often united by little more than a desire for sweeping change to the status quo. As we weigh the pros and cons of silencing an individual such as Fred Phelps we must ask ourselves: what other controversial questions would we be willing to censor?

Throughout American history, the guarantees understood to be protected under the First Amendment have changed

Asking this question does not presuppose that Phelps’ right to speech is absolute. The highly personal nature of his attack on Matthew Snyder and his father suggests that the Supreme Court may have overlooked a strong precedent upon which they could have punished Phelps on relatively narrow grounds. Each of us, however, is obliged to give these kinds of questions the careful and thoughtful consideration that is due to them. What we are allowed to say - about each other or to each other - is a fundamental question of modern politics. It is incumbent upon each of us to face these dilemmas head on and to acknowledge the hard moral choices that will always confront an engaged and active citizenry. Sarah Wang is a second-year student majoring in international relations and philosophy. She has worked teaching English to migrant workers in Beijing and has interned with the Advocacy Project monitoring civil society in Iran.

COMMENTS

Corporate Irresponsibility

Populist Mining for Dummies

by: Juan Carlos JimÉnez

Canadian companies are connected with a recent string of deaths and abuses at mining sites around the world. Local antimining movements are popping up and pushing back. —

From championing corporate social responsibility models to applauding the “humanitarian” efforts of their chairpersons, mining corporations go the extra mile to present a positive public image. Peter Munk, of Barrick Gold - the world’s biggest mining company - and donor to the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs, is one such oft-praised CEO. In reference to his philanthropy, Margaret Wente of The Globe and Mail writes that Mr. Munk “makes Canada proud”, and that “for those who live in nastier parts of the world, they should only hope that someone like him is in their future.” However, behind these sympathetic media portrayals of Canadian mining companies lies a horrific history of human and environmental destruction.

Accusations against Canadian mining companies are finding their way to Canadian courts ... The Ontario government settled the case with Platinex by offering the company a $5 million handout.

In May 2011, 800 artisanal miners stormed the North Mara mine in Tanzania - a subsidiary of Barrick Gold - to steal pieces of gold from the rubble to sell. Small artisanal mining is the livelihood of many locals, whose traditional occupation has been affected by the North Mara project. In response to this raid, police forces shot at the miners, killing seven and injuring many more. In addition, Mining Watch Canada, the industry watchdog, reports that the mine is currently investigating allegations of sexual assault and gang rape on its premises. These are just the most recent incidents surrounding the North Mara mine. In May 2009, toxic waste was reportedly spilled into River Thigithe, creating an environmental crisis. Reports from surrounding villages allege that 20 people and between

700 to 1,000 livestock died from the contaminated water. Villagers living near the mine continue to report illnesses tied to the spill. However, in spite of the evidence on the ground, Barrick Gold has consistently denied responsibility for the spill. The allegations against Barrick Gold are just one example of Canada’s association to violence and environmental degradation in mining communities. Companies such as Gold Corporation, New Gold, Pacific Rim, HudBay Minerals and others, are regarded as being responsible for acts of murder, rape, intimidation and health problems amongst the communities in which they operate. As a result, these corporations are often met with protest movements demanding that they begin to respect local interests or leave. However, instead of promoting positive change, activists allege that the company and government response to these protests is often more violence. Pacific Rim Corporation, headquartered in Vancouver, has faced strong opposition in the province of Cabañas, El Salvador. A proposed mining project, which would have been located near the town of San Isidrio, has stirred controversy since Pacific Rim first explored the site. The Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) is an activist group that has followed the protests in San Isidrio. CISPES wrote that the town protested the presence of Pacific Rim in their community after learning of the costs of mining operations in other Salvadorian communities. The townspeople stopped company vehicles from approaching the mine and successfully pressured the Salvadorian government to revoke the company’s permit. Strong community resistance in San Isidrio has come with huge costs. San Isidrio was affected by the deaths of four anti-mining activists, and the continued intimidation of those condemning Pacific Rim’s activities. Activists Marcelo Rivera, Ramiro Rivera and Dora Sorta Recinos were murdered in 2009. Recently, Juan Francisco Duran Ayala, a university student and member of the Environmental Committee of Cabañas in Defense of Water and Culture, was found dead on June 14, 2011. While the National Civil Police has made arrests, no investigation was undertaken to identify whether the murders were arranged by opponents of anti-mining activists in San Isidro. In May 2011, protests in Puno City, Peru, halted plans by Van-

COMMENTS

couver-based Bear Creek Corporation to mine silver in the Puno region. Believing the mining development would pollute the region’s water, protesters began demonstrating along the PeruBolivia border and eventually moved to the capital. Around 15,000 people, mostly Aymara people, marched and blocked off access to the city. The protesters demanded a 12 month freeze of all mining activities in the territory and that the concession to Bear Creek be revoked. Clashes between protesters and police resulted in 6 deaths and many more injured. The Canadian government is indirectly implicated in corporate misconduct abroad. On August 12, 2011, the Canadian government signed a free trade agreement with the Honduran government of Porfirio Lobo. Despite allegations of electoral fraud surrounding Lobo’s regime, the Canadian government continues to support his government. In addition, the free trade agreement between the two governments enables Canadian mining corporations to operate with little accountability to local governments. In the Siria Valley, Gold Corp. manages the San Martin mine, a mine notorious for its detrimental environmental practices and attacks on community activists. Accusations against Canadian mining companies are finding their way to Canadian courts. The case of Adolfo Ich Chaman is one such example. Chaman, an indigenous Mayan Q’eqchi’

community leader in Guatemala and critic of mining activities, was killed September 27th, 2009. Chaman’s family launched a lawsuit in the Canadian Federal Court, claiming that he was murdered by personnel from HudBay Minerals. The same steps were taken by Rosa Elbria Ich Choc and ten other Guatemalan women who claim they were raped during a forced eviction of the Lote Ocho community by HudBay personnel. However, these cases lack a solid standing in the Court and thus the potential for justice is limited. Under Canadian law, there is no cclause that enables the Court to hear cases claiming a violation of international laws outside of Canada. However, a private member’s bill currently before Parliament would allow foreign individuals to place lawsuits on Canadian corporations. Known as Bill C-323, it would resolve the uncertain standing of these cases. Yet, as a private member’s bill, it is unlikely to become law and a similar bill was narrowly voted down in 2010. In Canada, communities affected by mining operations are mounting protests of their own. In Ontario, the Aboriginal community of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) has continually resisted attempts by mining corporations to develop their land. In 2008, Chief Donny Morris and five other community members were jailed for violating a court order when they entered reservation lands slated for mining by Platinex Corporation. While the Ontario government settled the case with 25

COMMENTS

Platinex by offering the company a $5 million handout, the government was unwilling to assure the KI community that unwanted mining exploration would stop. Now, enabled by the Ontario Mining Act, gold exploration company Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Lake Resources poses the latest threat to the KI community. So, do Peter Munk, Canadian mining corporations and the Canadian government make Canadians proud? Given Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s global image as an advocate of human rights, the media reports and court cases documenting allegations of abuse, environmental destruction and disregard for the livelihoods of native communities leave little for Canadians to be proud about. The pattern of conflict in mining communities portrays a problematic relationship between local stakeholders and multinational mining corporations. Protests against the activities of mining companies are found in many of the communities where they operate, from mountain villages in Guatemala to Aboriginal reservations in Northern Ontario. Unless a sustainable framework is found and the interests of community members are upheld and protected, confrontations with mining companies will likely continue.

Juan Carlos JimĂŠnez is currently a second year student majoring in equity studies at the University of Toronto. He is a community organizer, doing work with mining impacted communities as an environmental and migrant justice activist. He is involved with CUPE 3902. He has written for The Varsity in the past.

ART

They Stay the Same BY: Akbar Khurshid

Hear the words I sing! War is a horrid thing. At noon bells will ring, And you’ll feel a sharp sting. Coming from the sands, Or even from the grass. The young pluck these strands, Stumbling on the impasse. They cry out with bloody dolour, Revolution! Thinking it can be a complete, Solution. In their haste they embrace total Convolution. The children believe they will earn Restitution. I’ve no faith that you’ll find more than Destitution. The Ideologies dance switching pairs, For country, workers, or laissez faires. No one stops anymore and stares The end comes to peddle his wares. On the rain soaked mound I see, Severed hand clenching still. To revolution a dream to be, More than counted as another kill. War never changes.

Akbar Khurshid is a third year student of anthopology and political science at the University of Toronto. He is currently an active member in the University of Toronto Campus Lions Club and an analyst for the G8 Research Group. He has been an associate editor for the Muslim Voice Magazine.

CRED ITS www.torontoglobalist.org Vol. VI, Issue 1 SPRING 2012

Art & Photography Credits All graphics licensed for our use under Creative Commons Cover Design by: Charlyn Reyes Map, page 4 By: Crisell Sotalbo Photography, page 5 http://goo.gl/p3DMD http://goo.gl/ZaU6t Photography, page 6 By: Andrew Moss http://goo.gl/HzGPz Photography, page 7 By: Bob Bob http://goo.gl/xaX8B By: Lewishamdreamer http://goo.gl/ADVQI Illustration, page 8 By: Winnie Chang Photography, pages 14-17 By: Rajiv Sinclair http://goo.gl/EnoX9 Photography, page 20 By: Camilo Correa Ochoa Photography, page 23 By: M.V Jantzen http://goo.gl/vFXYn Photography, page 25 By: Uncle Kick-Kick http://goo.gl/RLTH9 Photography, page 26 By: Antitezo http://goo.gl/mz3bN

the

TORONTO GLOBALIST

we care about a rare kind of journalism that is honestly compelling and intimately human. we believe storytelling can help us understand the world around us and how people live in it. we love to talk with sources close to the action, and to give a voice to those left out of the news. we are impossible to ignore. we are The Toronto globalist.

last summer we went to Egypt to interview bloggers & bedoins. if you would like to help us plan our next trip, then introduce yourself.

work@torontoglobalist.org

Join our fantastic team of dapper graphic artists, fastidious web designers, keen copy editors, curious photographers, clever writers, poignant audio/video storytellers, consistent communications coordinators, ebullient event planners, compelling ad men & women, and well-dressed professional beggars.

B AC K COV ER

T h e To r o n t o G l o bal i st i s a member of

Global 21

w w w. g l o b a l 2 1 o nl i ne. org

Yale University

•

University of Toronto

London School of Economics 30

•

University of Sydney

Beijing University

•

Hebrew University

University of Cape Town

•

Science-Po de Paris

University of South Australia