Or Perhaps...

Student unions, choice, and freedom of speech

2010-12-07T07:43:00.005-05:00

SOURCE:
The Agitator: A Bulletin for the Student Left
November 14, 2008 • Issue no. 20 • Author unknown

Should student unions deny funding to student groups that are "pro-life"? In doing so, are student unions limiting free speech on campus? Isn't this stifling the free flow of ideas and debate?

These questions are not new but they've been raised many times on many campuses in recent years. Recently, the Guelph Central Students' Association passed a motion to deny student union resources and funding to a student group called Life Choice. The reasoning behind the ban is because the group in question is not merely "pro-life" but anti-choice.

Unfortunately, the whole debate has been distorted and misrepresented by the mainstream and even student media. In part, this is a problem of ignorance, but in many respects it is a deliberate attempt to draw the debate away from the actual issue at hand, while opening up student unions to yet more attacks by right-wingers.

What is choice?

Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. Pro-choice means that women have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies. If their views are pro-life, then they have the undeniable right to carry the pregnancy to term. If they choose to have an abortion, they also have the right to do this. Therefore, the notion that pro-choice and pro-life are irreconcilable opposites is simply not true.

There are also people who are pro-life but anti-choice. They seek to criminalize abortion and impose their religious and/or ideological views on others via the state. Church and state have no right to dictate the choices women make with their bodies. The intimidation tactics and imagery used by such groups is also offensive and disturbing.

When it comes to student unions, the pro-choice position has to be defended. In practice, this means that student unions fund a number of religious student organizations which hold pro-life positions. Student unions also fund explicitly pro-life groups. However, if such a group is advocating the criminalization of abortion, which would entail the state determining what women do with their bodies, then student unions have the right – via their democratic processes – to deny this group funding and resources.

Free speech

But, you may ask, isn't this infringing on freedom of speech? No. Student unions are not the arbiters of free speech on campus. Student union resources, funding and policies do not determine which student groups can setup tables, hold events, poster, flyer, and do other activities. Universities provide such services to students independently of student unions. A telling example from Carleton University in the fall of 2006 was when an anti-choice student group was criticizing the student union for infringing on their right to free speech by denying them resources and space. At the same time, this group was able to book an auditorium and hold a debate with a pro-choice organization. The notion that student unions can determine who has free speech on campus is nonsense.

A more interesting question to ask is why these sorts of arguments emerge. The fact is, if anti-choice student groups tried to organize an open campaign to get the student union to take an anti-choice position, it would be overwhelmingly defeated. The vast majority of students support a woman's right to choose. Anti-choice students who want to remove hard-won rights from women rely on diverting people from the real issue by lobbing baseless criticisms onto the student union. They do so to hide the fact they want to turn the clock back on women's rights.

There is also another right that needs to be defended – the democratic right of students to determine their student union policies and the use of their collective resources. Most, if not all student unions have policies that deny funding to student groups that are racist, sexist, and homophobic. Part of fighting sexism is fighting the notion that women can't control their own bodies without approval from the state. The Guelph CSA and all other student unions who have fought this battle are right to do so and must be defended. ■

What makes a source "credible"?

2010-12-05T22:08:00.008-05:00

"Use valid, credible sources for information"

University of Maine at Farmington, 2007

Just because you have located a book, article, website, or other resource on your topic, does not mean you should automatically use it in your paper or project. You need to choose your resources carefully to make sure you get the best and most useful ones.

How can you tell if the book, article, website, or other resource you located is a valid, credible source? It may be helpful for you to ask yourself six questions:

Who?

Who is the author?
What are her/his credentials?

What?

What information is available from this resource?

Where?

Where did the author(s) get the information?
Are citations provided?

When?

When was the resource produced?
For books, check the copyright date.
For articles, check the publication date.
For websites, look for a "created on" or "last updated on" date.

Why?

Why does this resource exist?
Is the purpose to entertain, persuade, inform, etc.?
Is the resource biased?

How?

How comprehensive is the resource?
Does it go into the depth you need?

SOURCE: http://plagiarism.umf.maine.edu/valid.html

Carson Jerema: Elitist agenda trumps journalism standards

2010-11-17T12:47:00.016-05:00

She must be opposed to academic standards.

Re: "Standards trump rights on campus," Nov. 15/10

On the surface, Carson Jerema might appear to be little more than a columnist who engages in reasoned debate regarding post-secondary education in Canada. But even if one sets aside his long track record of siding with right-wing ideology -- these days, the seeming raison d'être of Maclean's magazine journalists -- it's hard not to conclude that he's just another paid propagandist who ignores journalistic standards in the service of an obvious elitist agenda.

Granted, columnists aren't reporters. But columnists are still journalists; they write for newspapers and make factual claims, the key difference being that they explicitly advance arguments on the basis of those claims. And good journalism means adhering to accepted standards for journalism. Take, for example, the Canadian Association of Journalists' "Statement of principles and ethical guidelines" which, among other things, declares:

"We will give people, companies or organizations that are publicly accused or criticized prompt opportunity to respond. We will make a genuine and exhaustive effort to contact them. If they decline to comment we will say so."
"We will report all relevant facts in coverage of controversies or disputes."

Now, compare these standards with Jerema's critique of the Canadian Federation of Students' campaign slogan that "education is a right."

His argument is as follows:

"Education is a right" should mean "the 'right to pursue an education' or the 'right to an education for all qualified students.'"
This, however, "is not ... the position of the Canadian Federation of Students."
The Federation's position, he contends, is "you get to go because you breathe."

Given Jerema's relentless attacks upon the Canadian Federation of Students over the years, it's not unreasonable to wonder if his conclusion is just another smear intended to weaken the 29 year-old organization's credibility and legitimacy. After all, Canada's right-wing despises the Federation precisely because the Federation has, for decades, strongly and effectively opposed government policies that would turn higher education into an exclusive playground for the rich.

And that agenda certainly seems to be Jerema's preference. Indeed, he considers the argument that "access to education shouldn't be tied to ability to pay" -- i.e., that getting an education should be affordable for everyone. Jerema's not so sure; "why" this must be so, he slips in, "is unclear."

Of course, Jerema probably realizes that arguing for an elitist system of post-secondary education -- which is precisely what the Federation advocates against -- is probably not going to win him a lot of fans among the masses. So, better to paint the Federation as "unreasonable" and "radical" in other respects than to try to argue with the Federation's central message.

And so we return to his critique of the Federation's supposed "focus on students accessing the education of their choice without any qualification or reference to student ability" as being "on the far edges of education politics." Well, my goodness, that settles it! Clearly, we should pay no further attention to this crazy organization! Jerema's wet dream, right?

Indeed, his critique is just another fantasy. And it's classic card stacking.

Returning to those journalistic standards, consider: Did Jerema give the Federation an opportunity to respond to his criticism? If he did, was his effort genuine and exhaustive? If the Federation declined to comment, why did he not mention that? These questions go unanswered.

More importantly, did Jerema report all of the relevant facts? This one's easy: No, he didn't. So, please allow me to list a few facts that he, um, forgot:

The Canadian Federation of Students does not, and has never, advocated against academic standards. Indeed, Jerema fails to present any evidence to support this ludicrous claim -- apart from his loosey-goosey interpretation of a Federation policy statement. His selective citing of the policy is his only evidence -- and his entire column is based upon what the policy, by his own admission, "seems" to mean. Shoddy, to say the least -- especially in light of the history of the Federation and its campaigns.
The Federation's policy statement on "Accessibility" begins with the following declaration: "An accessible education is one which is available to all applicants who wish to attend a post-secondary institution." Clearly, an "applicant" applies for something -- and, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "apply" means "[t]o put oneself forward formally as a candidate for a position, esp. in a recruitment or selection process; to submit an application to do something, for a job or other position, or to an institution." "Available" means "within one's reach" -- e.g., financially.
The Federation's longstanding slogan, "Education is a right!", is derived from the United Nation's International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 13(c), to be more specific, declares: "Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education." I trust we can agree that "capacity" means "capableness."

So, yes, Carson, "here we are." We're still fighting for a system of post-secondary education that is accessible -- meaning affordable and free of generally recognized forms of discrimination. And there you are, over there, parroting the elites' call for an exclusive and privatized system of higher education. No doubt you're proving yourself well as a propagandist worthy of a great salary, and I'm sure you'll never have a problem finding a job. After all, who needs education with those kinds of connections? And who needs journalistic standards when you've got such a lucrative agenda?

Ontario Conservatives: Hypocrites, bullies

2010-11-12T06:42:00.005-05:00

Kimberley Rogers, 1961-2001

October 2004

To the Editor:

The hypocritical name-calling used by the Tories in the legislature over the past week towards Health Minister George Smitherman is laughable. As an education advocate, I witnessed first-hand how the Harris-Flaherty government bullied those who spoke out for public education.

During a post-budget announcement at the University of Western Ontario in 2001, I questioned then-Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on behalf of university students about Conservative tax cut policies that resulted in rising tuition fees. In response, Flaherty lashed out at me with hostility. That was the typical Flaherty approach to stakeholder relations.

Later, when democratically elected school trustees in Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa refused to make cuts that hurt classrooms, and spoke out in defence of public education, then-Education Minister Elizabeth Witmer deployed “supervisors” to take over the school boards. Conservative leader Bob Runciman took the most extreme stance when he demanded that school trustees be fired.

And let us not forget Kimberly Rogers, the pregnant college student from Sudbury who turned to social assistance while on student loans in order to make ends meet. As punishment, the Harris-Flaherty government sentenced her to a lifetime ban from welfare benefits. She was also placed under house arrest and found dead in her home shortly after.

Let’s keep this in perspective: the real bullies are Flaherty and the Conservatives. I shudder to think of how much more damage they might have done to education and health care had they been re-elected last year.

Rick Telfer

First-past-the-post: An affront to democracy

2010-11-12T06:36:00.007-05:00

October 2003

To the Editor:

The Star's Oct. 8 editorial, "NDP's late fight for party status," concludes that "arbitrarily changing the rules within days of every election in which the NDP loses more seats is an insult to voters — and to democracy."

I strongly disagree. First of all, such rules are already "arbitrary." Thus, that is not the problem. Instead, it is a political question that has serious ramifications for democracy in our province.

Granting official party status to the NDP would hardly be "an insult to voters." That is ridiculous. The NDP has a long history in Canadian politics and has played critically important roles as both government and opposition. Furthermore, the NDP captured a larger portion of the popular vote than it did in 1999.

The real insult to voters — and to democracy — is our antiquated "first-past-the-post" electoral system. The Star's suggestions for electoral reform, however, are weak at best. Dalton McGuinty has gone further by suggesting we should consider some form of proportional representation.

In other words, both The Star and McGuinty acknowledge the faults of the current system. The first step towards correcting them is to grant official party status to the NDP — a party that has and will continue to play a significant role in Canadian politics.

R. Telfer

Raining on parades

2010-11-12T06:11:00.006-05:00

To the Editor:

Re: "Gays and lesbians must earn respect," July 18/03

In reference to London's recent gay pride activities, Florence Warren remarked that "bizarre parades will not help people to achieve their goals." Funny, that. It's worked rather well for Santa Claus.

R. Telfer

Higher university enrolment does not mean equal access

2010-11-12T05:48:00.011-05:00

To the Editor:

Re: "University degrees worth the hassle," Mar. 12/03

The idea that "having a post-secondary education increases your earning potential" is generally true--especially when compared to not having a degree or diploma. However, a more careful reading of the recently released Statistics Canada census data reveals that Canadians under 30 actually earned less in 2000 than they did in 1980. Men under 40 have also experienced losses, while those over 50 have made substantial gains.

In other words, attaining a degree or diploma does not translate into instant prosperity. Rather, post-secondary education ensures prosperity if you happen to be male and over the age of 50. Recent graduates--who carry the highest student debt loads--are not necessarily doing so well.

It should also be noted that while university and college enrolment rates are on the rise, this does not mean that post-secondary education is accessible. Participation rates are neither a sufficient nor necessary measure of accessibility. That more people are enrolling in college and university does not indicate that people from all income backgrounds can afford post-secondary education equally.

In 2001, Statistics Canada reported that young people from the wealthiest quarter of the population were 2.5 times as likely to attend university as those from the poorest quarter. Given that tuition fees have risen by more than 126% during the 1990s, and that average student debt loads now exceed $25,000, this fact is not at all surprising.

R. Telfer

Anti-smoking: It's medical correctness, actually

2010-11-12T05:23:00.003-05:00

December 2002

To the Editor:

I read with great interest parts of the Simcoe Reformer's "war on smoking" series. Having lived outside of Norfolk for several years now, I almost forgot just how absurd tobacco farmers sound when they claim that smoking is not, in fact, harmful. Or that those of us concerned about the hazards of cigarette smoke are simply "anti-smoking zealots" with a penchant for political correctness.

My favourite pro-smoking argument goes something like: "My mother smoked all her life and lived until she was 92." How rigorous! My second favourite argument is that all those experts, including innumerable scientists and doctors around the world, have merely distorted the facts and statistics. How objective and comprehensive!

The good news is that the "war on smoking" is working. Perhaps once the last butt is stomped out, the tobacco industry will admit the truth that it obfuscates with anecdotes and aspersions. So long as it profits from others' addiction to disease and death, the industry will dispense with the basic morality of doing no harm to others.

In the meantime, I'll trust the expert word of those not reaping magnificent profits from the sale of cigarettes. That is, I'll take the advice of the 10 million doctors in 117 countries - represented by organizations like the World Medical Association - that say smoking kills. Period.

R. Telfer

Support workers and demand better from government

2010-11-12T05:19:00.011-05:00

To the Editor:

Re: "Government urged to fire all strikers," Apr. 3/02

Like Steve Scott in his Apr. 3 letter, I too have a complaint about the OPSEU strike. Specifically, I am outraged that the provincial government has failed to provide a fair settlement to our fellow workers, friends, and family members in the public sector.

The government strategy to dismantle the social safety net includes a concerted attack on the standard of living and rights of workers - whether in industry, manufacturing, or the public service. This attack is very much in line with the privatization of electricity, healthcare, education, and so on.

There is no group of people more strategically poised to save our public services from the privatization agenda of the provincial government and its corporate backers than the mass of workers employed in the public sector. At the same time, any gains made by the striking workers will set higher standards for all workers fighting for better living standards across the country.

I agree that under-employed - and unemployed - people need meaningful, well-paying jobs. But instead of firing the strikers to achieve this goal, we should instead fire the Ontario Conservatives and start questioning why it is that some people in our society, namely CEOs of the largest corporations, have daily incomes greater than the yearly income of Canada's average worker.

Rick Telfer

Deregulating tuition fees diminishes access to education

2010-11-12T05:14:00.008-05:00

To the Editor:

Re: "Deregulating UTM fees?" Feb. 25/02

The Medium's story, "Deregulating UTM fees?" (Feb. 25) correctly noted that despite recent media attention to the policy of deregulating tuition fees, the policy is not new. Tuition fees for graduate, post-diploma, and professional programs were first deregulated by the Ontario government in 1998. Since then, tuition fees for many of these programs have doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled.

The Ontario government deregulated tuition fees, removing limits to increases, precisely because it is neglecting its responsibility to fund post-secondary education adequately. Since delivering its devastating $400 million cut to colleges and universities in 1996, the Ontario government has re-invested little. In fact, Ontario currently has the lowest per capita funding for post-secondary education in all of Canada.

Proponents of deregulation argue that students in deregulated programs aremore "marketable" upon graduation and thus, should pay more. Of course, high future earnings do nothing to improve the sticker price of higher education and thus, accessibility. Proponents also argue that higher tuition fees ensure quality. Simply put, this claim is false. Ontario, for example, has the second highest tuition fees and the worst student-professor ratios in the country.

The complicity of university administrators in advancing arguments supportive of deregulation is telling. By acquiescing to the government's policy of deregulating tuition fees, administrators have reduced themselves to institutional fundraisers and apologists for the selling off of public education by stealth. That universities must "set aside" one-third of tuition fees for bursaries and scholarships speaks to the need for a broader, provincial program of up-front, needs-based grants. Forcing students into debt to fund their own student aid is logically flawed and fundamentally inequitable.

At a time when Canada is facing a shortage of one million skilled workers by 2020, one would think that our governments would re-invest in post-secondary education and make accessibility a priority. Instead, governments and administrators have allowed tuition fees to skyrocket. At the same time, it has been proven that students from middle and lower income backgrounds are gradually disappearing from post-secondary education. Unless Ontario students unite and swiftly take collective action, we will be facing the same attacks as students in British Columbia, where the government just announced its intention to fully deregulate all tuition fees.

R. Telfer

Governments and university administrations versus post-secondary education

2010-11-12T04:49:00.007-05:00

My younger years.

February 2002

To the Editor:

In recent weeks, students across Ontario and throughout Canada have undertaken various initiatives to raise awareness about declining access to our colleges and universities. In addition to meeting directly with government officials - including local MPs and MPPs - students have organized forums, petition drives, and letter-writing campaigns. At Queen's University and the University of Guelph, students occupied administrators' offices. On Wednesday, February 6, thousands of students will demonstrate on campuses and in communities from coast to coast.

Simply put, affordable, public post-secondary education is under attack. So severely have federal and provincial governments starved colleges and universities of needed funding, that campus infrastructure is crumbling, quality of education is declining, and accessibility has been compromised. In Ontario, this government-created crisis has been compounded by the deregulation of tuition fees for certain programs and the decision to allow the establishment of private, for-profit universities. The outcome: still higher tuition fees and declining accessibility.

Meanwhile, university administrators have been reduced to institutional fundraisers and public relations apologists for the selling off of public education by stealth. Their role, essentially, has been to act as the buffer between detrimental government policies and the rest of us. Indeed, university presidents and administrators pay lip service to the lack of government funding. But their behind-the-scenes government "lobbying" amounts to begging for such policies as the deregulation of all tuition fees, enrollment caps, and regressive student loan repayment schemes.

Like complacent messengers of government, administrators tell us that tuition fee increases are necessary in order to maintain quality and excellence. Indeed, they even make this argument in Ontario, where tuition fees are the second highest in Canada and student-professor ratios are among the worst. Moreover, administrators tell us not to worry because tuition fee increases do not compromise accessibility. They make this argument - using partial data sets and spurious correlations - despite a rapidly growing body of evidence to the contrary emerging from Statistics Canada, numerous independent studies, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, nationwide public polling, and international experience.

In a nutshell, administrators' arguments defy basic logic and common sense: it doesn't matter if we raise tuition fees to a million dollars because we'll "set aside" a certain percentage for students in need. Heck, who needs government funding or up-front grants for students when you have magnificent user fees, student-funded financial assistance, and back-end debt remission based on post-graduation income? Why not just tell government to cancel funding completely since we already have the solutions in students' pocketbooks? Besides, once we're entirely private we won't have to ensure accessibility, anyway: education is a service, students are customers, and we need to remain competitive in this rapidly changing knowledge-based economy. Period.

Universities are governed by undemocratic boards of governors dominated by influential corporate sponsors. Such is a world in which it is not what or how you argue, but what you own or control that matters. Students must rely on their numbers and mobilizing power to defend the right to education. We happen to think that education is a right and a necessity. Students also rely on their immediate allies, including faculty members and support staff. So it comes as no surprise that Western's own administrators might try to pit us against each other, stifle our mobilization efforts, oppose tuition fee freezes, and then deploy the same old arguments each year to justify tuition fee hikes.

Of course, students know better - and we have the public on our side. In Ontario, 82% of people support tuition fee freezes and reductions. Now is the time for a united front to demand adequate government funding to freeze and reduce tuition fees. Sadly, administrators' thinking has not quite caught up with the rest of us.

Jesse Greener

Rick Telfer

On being "anti" globalization

2010-11-12T04:39:00.010-05:00

Anti-FTAA protests, Quebec City, 2001

To the Editor:

Re: Editorial cartoon on globalisation, July 31/01

Last week's editorial cartoon depicting an anti-globalisation protester is indicative of one of two standpoints. Either the artist behind the cartoon supports the neo-liberal and right-wing agenda of government and corporate leaders, or the artist is completely ignorant of the issues facing our increasingly "globalised" world.

The fact that things are produced and consumed on a world-wide scale is not the target of the anti-globalisation movement. Rather, anti-globalisation protesters recgonise that world leaders are making far-reaching decisions with little or no mandate from those they purport to represent. Instead, they meet in secret with an agenda to bolster the already magnificent profits of trans-national corporations.

That agenda includes eroding a country's tax base. That agenda means dismantling social programs like education, health care, and pensions. That agenda means eliminating legal protections for the environment, workers, and basic human rights. Indeed, the effects of this agenda are already being felt by many of us.

What anti-globalisation protesters want is an open, public debate about the direction of our lives and our nations. Anti-globalisation protesters do not fear "globalisation" per se. They fear the world-wide inequality and exploitation that our so-called leaders are expanding and enforcing with an iron fist.

R. Telfer

Scapegoating struggle: Why bolster bigotry, Mr. Coren?

2010-11-09T21:16:00.040-05:00

Labeling: To what end?

To the Editor of The London Free Press:

Re: "Straight-talking struggle," Nov. 6/10

[http://www.lfpress.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/11/05/15992596.html]

Michael Coren is well known as a~~n evangelical~~ Christian. I feel confident, therefore, that he knows the Bible well and is familiar with the scapegoat story.[1] [Note: Apparently I missed the news that Michael Coren switched back to Roman Catholicism in recent years. Still Christian, but no longer evangelical.]

Thus, one might think that Coren would name scapegoating when he sees it. Instead, he lauds the jingoism and xenophobia spewed by right-wing mouthpieces like Mark Steyn.[2]

I also cherish free speech. But let's shift the debate from Steyn's speech to its effects. In uncertain times, Steyn's rants direct attention away from the economic elites who got us into the present mess. Instead, minorities and social critics take the beating--including Muslims, feminists, leftists, gays, academics, and others.

Fascism has many characteristics including, to name just a few, hyper-patriotism, labeling enemies/scapegoats, and contempt towards intellectuals and human rights.[3] Clearly we are not now living under fascism, and surely we want to avoid a drift towards that kind of viciousness and authoritarianism.

But consider Steyn's rhetoric and ask yourself: In what political direction are he and Coren trying to lead us?[4] It's a troubling drift and, in a society where free speech is not equally accessible to all[5], why is it surprising that victims of scapegoating may sometimes feel compelled to resort to censorious tactics?

Rick Telfer

(Sent November 6, 2010)

FURTHER/RELATED READING & EXAMPLES/EVIDENCE:

The real elites are Margaret Wente's BFFs

2010-11-08T16:38:00.017-05:00

SOURCE: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html

To the Editor of The Globe and Mail:

Re: "Do you belong to the Elites? Take this test and see!", Nov. 6/10

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/do-you-belong-to-the-elites-take-this-test-and-see/article1787865/]

Margaret Wente wants us to believe that the population is divided into just two groups: working-class folks and cosmopolitan middle-classers. According to her, the latter are "Elites."

I am from a rural working-class background and, owing to hard work and a debt-financed education, I now live a comfortable urban existence. I like intellectual debate, the arts, and good food and coffee. I worry about growing inequality and I care about human rights.

But none of that makes me elite. Individually, I have virtually no influence over government decision-making and, like 99% of the population, I will probably never experience life like Canada's $22 billion Thomsons, $7 billion Irvings, $6 billion Westons, $5 billion Pattisons, or $5 billion Rogers. I do not always see eye-to-eye with my friends and family in the countryside and suburbs, but we're ultimately the same. We work hard for a living. Our wages and benefits are constantly falling behind the cost of living. We worry about retiring in dignity.

We also know what Wente's up to. There's no greater champion for the real elites -- meaning the corporate economic elites and their friends and family members in politics and the media -- than her. So, what better way to support her elite friends than to promote divisions among regular working people? If we turn against each other instead of the real elites, then we'll fail to ask the most important question: Why are we all getting poorer while they're getting incredibly richer?

Rick Telfer

(Sent November 6, 2010)

What is "truth"?

2010-11-06T18:31:00.010-04:00

Summary of Theories of Truth

by Dr. Sandy LaFave • January 6, 2005

This is a very brief summary of the main theories of truth. [...]

1. The Correspondence Theory

The correspondence theory is the "default" theory of truth. It's the one most people think is obvious. According to the correspondence theory, a claim is true if it corresponds to what is so (the "facts" or "reality") and false if it does not correspond to what is so. Most scientists and many philosophers hold some version of the correspondence theory of truth.

Example: The statement "The opera Aida had its first performance in Cairo" is true just in case the opera Aida had its first performance in Cairo, and false otherwise. "Snow is white" is true just in case snow is white.

Problems: Is the correspondence theory itself true? If so, what does it correspond to?

How do we figure out what is so? This latter question belongs to metaphysics. A metaphysical realist will hold that the reality that "corresponds" is objective and mind-independent. An idealist may hold that it is objective yet not mind-independent.

You may think it is easy to figure out what is so. [...] [There is] overwhelming psychological evidence that there is no such thing as "pure" perception or "pure" linguistic description. If everybody comes from somewhere, nobody has complete God-like objectivity. So some people have rejected the correspondence theory because they say we simply can't discover what is so in any "objective" way.

Think about this argument in the light of [...] the subjective-objective distinction! [...]

([Y]ou DON'T have to reject the correspondence theory of truth even if it's true that there's no pure perception.)

2. The Pragmatic Theory

According to the pragmatic theory, a statement is true if it allows you to interact effectively and efficiently with the cosmos. The less true a belief is, the less it facilitates such interaction. A belief is false if it facilitates no interaction. The most famous advocate of the pragmatic theory is the American philosopher William James. A contemporary adherent is Richard Rorty.

Example: My belief that inanimate objects do not spontaneously get up and move about is true because it makes my world more predictable and thus easier to live in. It "works."

Problems: Sometimes unreasonable beliefs "work". A tribe might believe that human sacrifice brings their crops back each year. The crops do come back after the human sacrifice, but not because of the human sacrifice.

The pragmatic theory of truth might invite relativism in the case of beliefs that are compatible with all states of affairs, e.g., religious beliefs. (Someone might say the belief "God exists" is true because it "works for me," i.e., it helps this person "interact more effectively with the cosmos.")

The notion of "more effective and efficient interaction with the cosmos" is objectionably vague.

The pragmatic theory of truth invites the notion that there are degrees of truth (some beliefs might be more effective than others), and thus invites us to reject the law of non-contradiction ("a claim is either true or false").

3. The Coherence Theory

According to the coherence theory of truth, a statement is true if it is logically consistent with other beliefs that are held to be true. A belief is false if it is inconsistent with (contradicts) other beliefs that are held to be true. We should doubt claims that are currently inconsistent with the rest of our beliefs. Willard Quine is a famous contemporary philosopher who advocates the coherence theory.

Example: [W]e don't believe in solipsism primarily because it contradicts so many of our other beliefs.

Problems: a belief can be consistent with all our other beliefs and yet have no independent supporting evidence. For example, many metaphysical beliefs are consistent with all imaginable states of affairs (e.g., "the universe came into existence five minutes ago complete with historical records and memories").

For a comprehensive overview, see:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

"Truth and Public Reason" - a very interesting argument:

http://www.philosophersdigest.com/ppa/%E2%80%9Ctruth-and-public-reason%E2%80%9D-joshua-cohen

What is (social) "theory"?

2010-11-06T18:22:00.011-04:00

theory

A theory is an account of the world which goes beyond what we can see and measure. It embraces a set of interrelated definitions and relationships that organizes our concepts of and understanding of the empirical world in a systematic way. Thus, we may establish a statistical relationship between poverty and crime, but to explain that relationship we might have to employ a number of theories: about people's motivations, the social meanings attached to poverty and crime, and the structural constraints which keep sections of the population in poverty.

Generally speaking there are three different conceptions of theory in sociology. Some think of theory as generalizations about, and classifications of, the social world. The scope of generalization varies from theorizing about a particular range of phenomena to more abstract and general theories about society and history as a whole. Others believe that theoretical statements should be translated into empirical, measurable, or observable propositions, and systematically tested. Thus, in the example above, we should test assumptions about motivations, social meanings, and so forth. This approach is usually characterized (rather unhelpfully) as positivism. Finally, yet others argue that theory should explain phenomena, identifying causal mechanisms and processes which, although they cannot be observed directly, can be seen in their effects. For example, Marxists might use the alleged contradiction between the forces and relations of production (unobservable) to explain fluctuations in the levels and development of class struggle (observable). The label realism is sometimes attached to this view.

SOURCE: A Dictionary of Sociology. John Scott and Gordon Marshall. Oxford University Press 2009. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed: November 6, 2010 [http://www.oxfordreference.com]

What is "critical thinking"?

2010-11-06T18:10:00.007-04:00

A Super-streamlined Conception of Critical Thinking

by Robert H. Ennis • June 20, 2002

Assuming that critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do, a critical thinker:

is open-minded and mindful of alternatives;
tries to be well-informed;
judges well the credibility of sources;
identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions;
judges well the quality of an argument, including the acceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence;
can well develop and defend a reasonable position;
asks appropriate clarifying questions;
formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well;
defines terms in a way appropriate for the context;
draws conclusions when warranted, but with caution;
integrates all items in this list when deciding what to believe or do.

For further detail, see references and items on the web site:

http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis

Another delineation is available at:

http://cte.uwaterloo.ca/teaching_resources/tips/promoting_and_assessing_critical_thinking.html

What is "fascism"?

2010-11-05T22:52:00.021-04:00

CONTENTS

"Fourteen defining characteristics of fascism"
A definition of "fascism" (with historical background)

Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism

by Dr. Lawrence Britt • May 2003

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each. They are:

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism

Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic, or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists; etc.

4. Supremacy of the military

Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion, and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled mass media

Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with national security

Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and government are intertwined

Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate power is protected

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labour power is suppressed

Because the organizing power of labour is the only real threat to a fascist government, labour unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts

Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent elections

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

fascism • Originally, the term denoted only the Italian political party founded by Benito Mussolini in the aftermath of World War I, and the state that was created during the 1920s following the party's seizure of power, although in ordinary usage it has since become a generic term used to refer to almost any authoritarian right-wing ideology, political party, or state. It nevertheless retains a certain precision within political sociology. In the latter context, it has come to refer to parties, ideologies, or states that either advocate or embody a typically terroristic domination of a fused state apparatus, within which there is no separation of powers or rule of law, by a single party infused with a frequently racist and always nationalist petit-bourgeois ideology. On this basis, the German Nazi (National Socialist) Party founded by Adolf Hitler, the ideology he elaborated, and state that he created after his seizure of power, have become the archetypes of fascism in place of their Italian equivalents. Naturally, there were many variations on the fascist themes current in inter-war Europe, and these are concisely discussed in Eugen Weber, Varieties of Fascism, 1964.

SOURCE: A Dictionary of Sociology. John Scott and Gordon Marshall. Oxford University Press, 2009. Oxford Reference Online. Accessed: November 6, 2010 [http://www.oxfordreference.com]

Mark Steyn: Education = Doom... or just blame it on the Muslims

2010-11-04T23:30:00.061-04:00

SOURCE: http://www.edwinaitken.com/

To the Editor of The Gazette:

Re: "Steyn speaks to full house," Nov. 3/10

[http://www.westerngazette.ca/2010/11/03/steyn-speaks-to-full-house/]

I read with interest The Gazette's coverage of Mark Steyn's visit to London. North American society is deteriorating, he says, because we're too educated and infantlized, and because Islam is taking over. How original.

I can only assume that Steyn's been in hibernation for the last few decades. Otherwise he might have cited the real problem: corporate elites[1,2,3,4] and their politician puppets[5,6,7,8] who are driven by greed[9,10,11] and have therefore led humanity into wars without end[12,13,14,15,16,17], environmental destruction[18,19,20], gross inequality[21,22,23,24], and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression[25,26].

What the world needs is a democratized economic system that puts human needs and the ecosystem first.[27,28] Of course, that would cut into the mega-profits of the economic elites who are leading us all to doomsday. And that's where elites' lapdog mouthpieces, like Steyn, come in.

Unfortunately, it's surprisingly easy to get rich and famous by distracting people from the real source of society's problems. History is full of scapegoating.[29,30,31,32,33,34,35] Xenophobia and racism divide the masses[36,37] while elites continue to plunder the Earth, hoard the wealth, and drive down our living standards[38,39,40,41,42,43].

Thus, it's not surprising that Steyn would also attack education.[44,45,46] We just might learn something from history and start asking the most important question: Who's sailing this ship, anyway?

Rick Telfer

Related commentaries on this blog:

FURTHER/RELATED READING & EVIDENCE/EXAMPLES:

An opinion: Wearing a poppy = Endorsing propaganda

2010-11-02T00:35:00.012-04:00

Peter MacKay, Conservative MP and Canada's Minister of National Defence

by Prof. Dr. Michael P. Carroll • November 12, 1998

I know that many people have good reasons for wearing a poppy. For some, it commemorates the death of a relative; for others, the memory of soldiers willing to risk their lives on behalf of their country. As a result, each year I feel sorely tempted to follow suit and wear a poppy myself. Then someone (an announcer, a newspaper editor, etc,) says "it."

"It" is the claim that we need to wear poppies to honour those who died so that we could be free. This construction is derived from the propaganda slogans of World War I – and that's the problem. Those slogans were wrong then and they're wrong now. Canadian democracy wasn't threatened by the events surrounding World War I.

That war was a pissing contest between European colonial powers led by arrogant and insensitive political leaders who found themselves hopelessly entangled in a Byzantine maze of military alliances. Canada was dragged into that war because of its colonial heritage and its sycophantic ties to Great Britain.

The only serious resistance to this folly, not surprisingly, occurred in Quebec where the British colonial nature of the war was, for obvious reasons, more apparent than elsewhere. In any event, more than 60,000 Canadian soldiers went to a useless death, partly because they followed orders issued by marginally competent British or British-trained officers but mainly because they and the Canadian public believed the propaganda slogans about "making the world safe for democracy."

I am not willing to legitimate a propaganda slogan that got more than 60,000 people killed.

World War I, of course, is not the only war in which Canadians fought and died, but the "they died to make us free" model seems equally inappropriate to Canadian participation in the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the (so-called) Gulf War. World War II is a different matter – Hitler and Nazism were obvious evils which had to be eradicated. Even granting this, there are moral ambiguities associated with that war which we still have difficulty acknowledging.

In 1992, for instance, Brian and Terence McKenna made a documentary (The Valour and the Horror) which looked carefully at the bombing of German cities by Canadian aircrews. Although careful to praise the personal valour of individual airmen, the McKenna brothers pointed out that these bombs rarely hit military targets but did kill thousands of civilians.

Furthermore, they noted, the Allied command knew perfectly well that these bombs were missing military targets and killing civilians but continued the raids nevertheless, as a way of demoralizing hostile populations. Finally, the documentary suggested these mass killings contributed little if anything to winning the war. There was nothing new in any of this. Academic historians had been saying similar things for years – but nobody listens to academics. A documentary on the CBC was another matter.

The response to the McKenna brothers was electric. Although many veterans were glad someone had finally had the courage to challenge the official version of history, other veterans and many veterans groups throughout Canada uttered squeals of rage. They used their influence to spark a Senate investigation and the CBC was pressured (with some success) to define the documentary a "docudrama." In other words, it was fiction not history – in contrast of course to the sanitized version of history promoted by veterans organizations. It was a disgraceful episode in recent Canadian history.

If we want the future to be a better place, we must confront the horrors of the past, even if that includes horrors for which Canada (or the United States or Great Britain or any of the other official good guys) were responsible – and that means challenging all sanitized versions of history, even those that come masked beneath the emotionally charged image of a blood-red poppy.

White poppies for peace

http://www.ppu.org.uk/poppy/

Omar Khadr: Child soldier

2010-11-01T18:58:00.021-04:00

Not a child? This is how Omar Khadr was found when he was captured.

Was Omar Khadr a "child soldier"? One can answer this question both legally and morally/philosophically. What is clear is that, at 15, Omar Khadr was a "child" as defined by the United Nations. Whether he was a "child soldier" -- as defined by international law -- is disputed by the Canadian government and many right-wing commentators. Here are some of the best assessments I've found that lead me to conclude that Omar Khadr was a child soldier.

"Omar Khadr as Child Soldier" (from "The Omar Khadr Case")

Amnesty International: "Children and Human Rights"
Via UNICEF: Optional Protocol (of the Convention on the Rights of the Child) on the involvement of children in armed conflict
United Nations: Statement of SRSG Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy on the occasion of the trial of Omar Khadr before the Guantanamo Military Commission

Additional considerations, arguments, facts, and opinions:

Click here to join Amnesty International's call to repatriate Omar Khadr to Canada.

First posted on November 1, 2010.

Noam Chomsky and the importance of evidence and sources

2010-10-31T07:02:00.012-04:00

Noam Chomsky

by John Bartels • June 22, 2010

Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive, according to the New York Times (site accessed 22 June 2010). He is author of many bestselling political books. He is a professor in the Department of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). A few hours watching Chomsky debating on YouTube quickly illustrates his formidable debating abilities. One reason that Chomsky debates so powerfully is that he supports his arguments with evidence and reliable sources.

Why are Evidence and Reliable Sources So Important?

An opinion without evidence remains just an opinion. Without evidence to support an opinion it is not open to refutation and consequently unsubstantiated and very weak. When evidence is offered it can be checked and if it passes muster the argument is greatly strengthened. It also shows that the arguer has done his or her homework.

Sources must be reliable. This is very important. All powerful debaters, even those with the intellect of a Chomsky, have to rely on the evidence of other people, usually experts in a particular field. The worth of this evidence will stand or fall on the reliability and reputation of the person providing the evidence. Relying on a person or organization with a track record for proven expertise and honesty adds great strength to an argument.

How Does Chomsky Use Evidence and Sources During Debates and Talks?

Chomsky quotes the supporting evidence and source at the same time that he makes his point. Here is an example from page 116 of Chomsky’s book, Imperial Ambitions published by Penguin Books, London 2006. In arguing his position, Chomsky clearly identifies a source that supports him: a leading columnist writing in the Financial Times of London. Chomsky does this often in his writings and during debates viewable on YouTube.

When an Opponent Has No Evidence

Chomsky does not argue against unsupported opinion. During one interview, the host quoted an article that was critical of something Chomsky had said or written. Apparently, the article consisted of just unsubstantiated opinion. Chomsky pointed this out immediately by responding that he had read the article and as it contained no evidence he was not in a position to comment.

When an Opponent Offers Evidence

When an opponent offers an opinion as argument, the response should be to ask for the supporting evidence. Chomsky does this during debates. The failure of the opponent to furnish evidence could mean the end of the debate there and then. However, the opponent may offer evidence. In this case, what is a reasonable response?

The opponent should be asked to point out the source of the evidence. If the source is an unknown person or organization this is as unpersuasive as no evidence at all. If the source is reliable and well known, then it should be honestly discussed.

The Power of Honesty and Ethics

Whether or not a person agrees with Chomsky's views, a reasonable person should agree that Chomsky is honest. Why? Because he constantly gives reasons and refers to sources so that any thinking person is put in a position to refute his conclusions. Karl Popper would support this intellectual integrity. Chomsky's arguments are based on principle, ethics and the defence of basic human rights. Perhaps his moral integrity is his major strength, apart from an IQ that is off the scale.

Following the Chomsky Example: Create a Database

Any person wanting to argue as convincingly as Chomsky obviously cannot acquire Chomsky’s intellect, I.Q. and experience. However, he or she can start a database of information about topics regarded as important. The database can be a Google Sites page. Each piece of information should include the date and source. Links can also be put into the web page. The database will help in formal and informal discussion. The web page should be restricted as private.

Summary of a Recent Interview with a Hamas Leader, by Stephen Lendman (Oct. 25/10)

2010-10-28T06:15:00.007-04:00

The following text appears at:

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2010/October/25%20o/Israel%20Shooting%20and%20Electric-Shocking%20Palestinian%20Children%20By%20Stephen%20Lendman.htm

On October 19, palestinethinktank.com published a wide-ranging interview with Khaled Mesh'al, since 1996, Chairman of Hamas' Political Bureau. Exiled in Damascus, he became the movement's overall leader after Israel assassinated Abdul 'Aziz Rantisi in 2004. His comments below are based on a July published interview in Jordan's Arabic language Al-Sabeel newspaper.

(1) Negotiating with Israel

Calling it a thorny and sensitive issue, he stressed that it's "not absolutely prohibited....from a legal or political perspective," but must be subject to "equations, regulations, calculations, circumstances, contexts and proper management...." Otherwise, "it becomes a negative and destructive tool."

Currently, he calls it the wrong choice, given the imbalance of power favoring Israel, saying it "refuses to withdraw from the (seized) land, and does not recognise Palestinian rights." Negotiations under such conditions are fruitless. Israel demands but won't give. On equal fair terms, negotiations are very acceptable.

(2) Recognizing Israel

As things now stand, he believes recognition means legitimizing occupation, "aggression, settlement(s), Judaization, murders, arrests, and other crimes and atrocities against our people and our land." Recognition must be earned, not demanded or given, based on equity for both sides. Israel shows no sign of agreeing.

(3) Suggesting Israel and international insistence on recognition a sign of weakness, not stength

"Without a doubt, the enemy is concerned about (its) future....no matter" its regional strength. "The demand for recognition is certainly a sign of weakness, an expression of....inferiority, (and) a feeling that it is illegitimate and still rejected" by regional states "as alien" intruders.

However, superiority feelings also come into play, or in other words, the way "Western nations deal with third world countries," believing they alone dictate terms from a position of strength, including negotiating preconditions.

(4) Why Israel and the international community reject Hamas' proposed long-term truce

First, "the logic of power." Second, "they see Arab and Palestinian parties making (better) offers." Third, Israeli and Western experience suggests pressure works best, forcing adversaries or counterparties to succumb.

(5) Hamas' resistance model

It's "a natural and authentic part of the experience of the Palestinian struggle" for liberation and ending the occupation.

(6) Hamas and international relations

First, the "conviction that the Palestine battle (is for) humanity against Israeli injustice and oppression. Second, "the necessity of promoting (the) legitimate right to resist occupation and aggression." Third, the importance of using the world stage to address injustice. Fourth, concern for developing relations at all levels. Fifth, doing it begins in the region, "the plant (to) harvest (in) the West."

(7) Hamas and Jews

"We do not fight the Zionists because they are Jews; we fight them because they are occupiers," and commit crimes against the Palestinian people. The struggle isn't about religion.

(8) Hamas and women

"Women in the Islamic concept of thought, jurisprudence, mandate and role are - indeed - one half of society, and (have) been given (their) prestige and respect. However, there is a huge difference between respect and appreciation for women and (their) rightful role (on the one hand), and abusing (them) and presenting (them) as cheap commodit(ies) as is done in the Western civilization (on the other)." In Palestine's struggle for liberation, women play a distinctive role,"not only as mothers, wives and sisters," but as activists, teachers, fighters, and providers of logistical assistance.

(9) Zionism's future

It "has no future in the region." It's in decline, and except for attacking Beirut in 1982, Israel hasn't won a war since 1967. "This is an important indicator of the Zionist project's ability....In my estimation, the 'Greater Israel' project has come to an end, simply because the Zionist enemy is no longer able to accomplish it, and because Israel continues (self-destructively) on the same path as did apartheid South Africa."

(10) Israel's role as a regional strategic asset

It's no longer so, especially after the Goldstone Report and Gaza Flotilla massacre. As a result, "Israel is falling morally, and its true ugly face is being exposed. This is a very important development." It signifies "premature aging of this enterprise....In short, the Zionist project, like all other" forms of occupation, colonizations, and aggression, "has no legitimacy because it is alien to our region and lacks the elements of survival." It will end like all the others.

(11) The region's future

It's very much in flux with years before better resolution. However, we're "confiden(t) and hop(eful) that the future will be to the benefit of the nation and the Palestinian resistance and cause....Our reading is not fanciful, and is certainly not defeatist." It's realistic and achievable.

"We are a great nation, proud of ourselves, our religion, our land, our history, our culture and identity." Palestine and Jerusalem as one is "our beating heart and an indicator of our life and survival."

Radical right-winger Eric Duhaime: Propagandist or just ignorant?

2010-10-21T04:52:00.013-04:00

To the Editor of the London Free Press:

Re: "Hypocrisy reigns in Israel-boycott movement," Oct. 21/10
[http://www.lfpress.com/comment/columnists/2010/10/20/15767566.html]

Eric Duhaime characterizes Israel as a bastion of democracy and equality. Either he is a propagandist or he is ignorant of the facts.

Opposing Israel's human rights abuses and war crimes is simply criticism of the actions of a state.[1] It is not racism. One can criticize the actions of the Canadian state without hating the people who live here.

There is nothing "democratic" about Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.[2] As countless scholars, journalists, and international observers have concluded, Israel is an apartheid regime that subjects millions of Palestinians to constant misery.[3]

As a gay man, I was shocked by Duhaime's suggestion that Israel is a gay paradise. Not so. Israel denies equality rights to gay Palestinians[4], Orthodox Jews are vicious towards gays[5], and an Israeli court recently ruled that inheritance laws do not apply to gay couples[6].

Duhaime must be using Israel's twisted definition of "democratic."[7]

R. Telfer

RELATED/FURTHER READING & EXAMPLES/EVIDENCE:
http://j.mp/asCX4y
http://j.mp/ayU1sj
http://j.mp/9J99MQ
http://j.mp/aXbyBi
http://j.mp/aRJAi7
http://j.mp/ao1Dkh
http://j.mp/aaUAqS

Why Pride? A reply.

2010-06-22T03:16:00.006-04:00

Foreword

June 2002

I wrote the following piece about three years ago in response to a friend. In fact, the friend was one of my high school French language teachers, Mme. Margo Weber. In months just prior to receiving Margo's e-mail, I told her that I was gay. She reacted positively -- as I had anticipated -- although, I knew Margo was a "traditional" woman living in rural Ontario. So, after she watched clips of the Pride celebrations in Toronto on television, her questions and reactions neither surprised nor offended me.

A few years have passed since my reply to Margo. And sadly, at an early age, Margo herself has passed on. Last year, I visited her on campus, in the hospital. We had a delightful discussion. A few months later, I received the sad news by e-mail from another of Margo's friends. My shock and despair were deepened upon learning that I had missed the funeral. Thus, I dedicate this piece to her memory -- to her joviality, patience, openness, and friendship. Margo was a gentle, passionate teacher with a big heart.

Looking back, I remember sharing this piece with a very close friend. His main criticism was that my reference to the "three, burly, young men" was too melodramatic and seemed to reaffirm the stereotypical juxtaposition of effeminate, helpless gay men and threatening, aggressive (presumably) straight men. I agreed with him, in part, but my recount was as I had experienced it. So, I left the piece untouched and then sent it to a larger, public audience throughout the internet.

Within the last year, I moved to Toronto and became rather active politically. Yet, despite these recent changes in the direction of my life, I still hold the views I expressed to Margo a few years ago. However, because of recent life experiences, if I was replying to Margo today, then I would likely emphasize different themes -- and downplay others. My political involvement, for example, has led me to march in this year's parade with an activist contingent under the banner, "people not profit." Moreover, for the first time in my life, I was recently gay-bashed; thankfully, I survived the incident with minor injuries. (The violent attack was a sucker-punch in the mouth -- resulting in my own "blood on the dance floor.")

In other words, I'd probably add emphasis to the notion that one can never be too careful. And I'd likely advocate -- in stronger terms -- for a more humanity-focused Pride with the aim of building towards global peace, justice, and liberation from oppression and economic exploitation. Pride serves certain positive purposes, but it could -- and should -- rid itself of corporate influence while simultaneously challenging police and state repression. Indeed, a better world is possible, and I think that the humanistic ethos of Pride would be a good start.

Though I've already written -- by way of introduction -- far more than I had planned to, I wish to conclude with words borrowed from the author of another e-mail that was recently forwarded to me:

"As long as gay teenagers are disproportionately at risk of suicide, we will have a Gay Pride Day. As long as Canadians are still beaten or murdered for being lesbian or gay, we will have a Gay Pride Day. As long as the government will not allow us to marry the person of our choice, we will have a Gay Pride Day. As long as people are still denied jobs, promotions or denied accommodation because of their sexual orientation, we will have a Gay Pride Day. As long as we are still made to feel uncomfortable when holding the hand of a partner while walking down the street, we will have a Gay Pride Day. As long as our books are still censored by the government and banned from schools, we will have a Gay Pride Day. As long as our relationships remain unrecognized in hundreds of provincial and territorial laws, we will have a Gay Pride Day."

I hope that even after justice is ours we will continue to have Pride -- and the conviction to spread justice to others.

* * *

Why Pride? A reply.
Richard S. Telfer
London, Ontario, Canada (c. 1999)

What follows is my response to an e-mail from a friend.

Let me begin by stating that I can't possibly speak on behalf of every gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender(ed) person. As a young, white, Anglo, decidedly middle-class and "rural-turned-urban" gay male, my perspective is just that -- my own. Nonetheless, although my standpoint is privileged in many ways, I strive to be self-reflexive and always critical, to see (myself in) the bigger picture and to identify what one might call "common threads" (though, certainly not "universals"). Having disclaimed as such, I'll do my best to answer your questions -- but I'll wrap it with a narrative.

Last Friday I had an appointment with a close friend to have my hair cut and styled (he's a hair stylist) just before the big Toronto Pride weekend. When we were finished, we crossed the street from the salon to one of London's more, shall we say "high-brow" and "artsy" coffee shops where we joked, chatted, gossiped, and made loose plans for the weekend, all in the company of another friend. We're all gay -- some more "obviously so" than others.

Just before parting from one another on the street, outside of the coffee shop's doors, I kissed my friend (the hair stylist) on the lips as part of our "good bye" -- as we usually do. In a short performance of humility, our 40-something year-old friend cringed and light-heartedly scoffed. But for the two of us, there was no shame -- until we noticed a table of three, burly, young men at a nearby table on the terrace, all sporting dark clothing and sunglasses, over which they glared at us in silence. Their reaction was less an act of surprise than a gesture of intimidation. Our own response went unspoken, but my friend's eyes reflected my mixed-bag of sentiments: fear, embarrassment, and anger. We parted. I couldn't help looking over my shoulder as I walked alone toward the bus stop. You can never be too careful.

After watching some of the Gay Pride parade telecast from Toronto, you stated that "it all seemed rather artificial, contrived, self-conscious, and freakish." And after reading the Sunday Star's articles you felt somewhat "offset by the issue." Where do I begin?

I did, of course, attend the Gay Pride celebrations in Toronto with my boyfriend. I also read some of the newspaper coverage of the event. Let me remind you that the press is, by its very nature, "artificial." Nothing can capture "eventness" in the same way that actual, lived experience can. Our modern methods of mass communication both beget and epitomize artificiality, especially when they're not self-reflexive. Similarly, any narrative is "contrived." Just as my recount of the event is rationally ordered and selectively pieced together, so too are news stories.

My 48-hour experience of Gay Pride was no less than carnivalesque. The festivities were a hullabaloo of laughter, music, dancing, interaction, performance, dialogue, absurdity, contradiction, tension, compromise, negotiation, food and drink. Gay Pride is a kaleidoscope of real, thriving, "queer" culture. Of course, there were schedules and line-ups, maps, fences, parking attendants, authority figures, and the usual, predictable clusters of vendors and opportunists. Nudists planned to be nude -- or at least, almost nude -- and drag queens planned to don outrageous wigs, pumps, and colourful gowns. Many -- "boys" and "girls" alike -- couldn't wait to exhibit their chests. Others couldn't wait to witness it.

If "to contrive" means to self-stylize with ingenuity and creativity, then I agree that Gay Pride is, in many ways, contrived at both the individual and collective levels. But Gay Pride is not contrived in the negative sense; it isn't conspiratorial, and it does not adhere to minute details of a rationally construed program. Above all, Gay Pride is about being oneself, or experimenting with new forms of oneself. It's not about being "fake." On the contrary, Gay Pride is about honesty, if nothing else.

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-conscious." Again, this is one of those concepts with a dual connotation. In a positive sense, it can mean "to be aware of oneself as an individual" or to be self-aware and in control of one's own destiny. Negatively, it means to be "uncomfortably" aware of oneself or "ill at ease" -- to feel ashamed before an audience. Let me sort this out by saying this: the former connotation reflects the way I felt at Gay Pride; the latter reflects the way I felt after I kissed my friend outside of the coffee shop in London. Thus, Gay Pride resembles a cultural oasis on the enormous terrain of a dry, asphyxiating mainstream. And, in any case, I'd rather be self-conscious than unconscious.

"Freakish" indeed! It's not every day that one has the opportunity to see what exists beyond the mundane boundaries of the normal. Gay Pride represents a rupture in mainstream culture in which humility and hilarity may be conjoined in innovative ways that both entertain and enlighten. It's ever-so puzzling to me that transvestism and nudity are perceived by some to be infinitely offensive and yet "dressing up" is a built-in feature of many mainstream rituals, while nudity is a basic, human and dare-I-say "natural" state. Let's face it, the Gay Pride parade is just that: a parade. The parade is a steady flow of theatre and conscious-raising. The parade is an avenue for diverse, marginalized voices and the subversion of suffocating normalcy. Without its circus-like features, the parade would not be a parade.

"Is all this parade stuff intended to draw awareness to homosexuality?" No. I think that Gay Pride celebrations (including the parades) have much larger "purposes." One might say that there are both "internal" and "external" goals. Internally, Gay Pride brings together diverse individuals for the purposes of networking and effecting understanding. The availability of otherwise unknown resources for people in need becomes public knowledge. The celebration allows friends who haven't been in particularly close touch for some time to check up on one another -- to ensure that they're in good health and that they're taking care of themselves. The night clubs, dance parties, and street festivals enable singles to meet others, to form new relationships, and -- if so desired -- to get sex. Gay Pride provides a sense of community, belonging, and solidarity to people from all walks of life.

Perhaps the "external" goals of Gay Pride have become less important since the 1970s. I often hear members of older generations lament that Gay Pride has lost it's original meaning and purpose. Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that Gay Pride has evolved, in some sense. For better or worse, Gay Pride has become more commercialized and corporately sponsored. On the surface, Gay Pride seems to have less to do with politics and resistance and more to do with pleasure and aesthetics.

And yet, I think that the "original meaning and purpose" of Gay Pride has been preserved. I don't necessarily think that politics and resistance are incompatible with pleasure and aesthetics. After all, it seems to me that the political front emerged in defense of particular desires and styles of living. Some ground has been gained, and although the face of Gay Pride has changed, without it the solidarity necessary for larger cultural and political battles would be difficult to invoke. If nothing else, Gay Pride reminds the mainstream of our presence, pride, and perseverance.

Back in London. I just returned from a relaxing evening at the same coffee shop where I was glared at for being gay. I sat on the terrace with my boyfriend and two female colleagues, only a table or two away from the one where my opposition had been sitting four days earlier. I wondered if they were around. And when I parted from my boyfriend -- he had to leave the city -- there was an inkling of concern inside of me for his safety as he walked down the street. You can never be too careful.

But the experiential residue of the weekend's events gave me comfort. Gay Pride reminded me of a number of things: there is power in numbers; we must take care of each other; we must communicate; together, we must laugh, dance, eat and drink; above all, we must respect and remain open to differences, to negotiate the terms of our relationships continually, and to venture into new spaces with pride, every day.

In politician mode, Doug Elliot gets it wrong on Pride

2010-06-18T09:06:00.011-04:00

Doug Elliot

June 2008

One would expect "one of the country's leading lawyers" to be good at argumentation. In the courtroom, the best logic and evidence carry the day. Good lawyers therefore know the difference between a good argument and a bad one. They can spot illogic and obfuscation from a mile away.

Of course, this ability is also what makes so many good lawyers good politicians. They know how to make a good bad argument -- convincing but, when subjected to scrutiny, untenable.

And so it is with Doug Elliot's recent speech at the Law Society of Upper Canada's 2010 Pride event. He took the occasion to pontificate about the recent controversy surrounding Pride Toronto's decision to censor the words "Israeli apartheid."

Given the content of his speech, I can only assume he was in politician mode.

Factum

The record shows that there are two primary requirements for participation in Pride. One, a participant must be either part or supportive of the LGBT community. Two, the participant must be law-abiding.

The group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) meets both of these requirements. It is a peace and human rights group that engages in lawful political speech.

Contrary to the hysterical -- albeit predictable -- accusations of the Israel Lobby, QuAIA is not a "hate" group. Nor does QuAIA violate any anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policies.

Thus, singling out one group that meets the requirements and then banning its lawful political speech is censorship. Plain and simple.

In Canada, freedom of expression -- including lawful political speech -- is constitutionally protected as a fundamental right. That right is a foundational pillar of any liberal democracy.

But I have a feeling that Doug knows all of this.

Warming up

But I'm not making a legal argument. The applicability of the Charter to Pride events is debatable. And frankly, I don't care. I am making a political and moral argument. The central question: Is the censorship justified?

Don't ask Doug -- if you want a clear answer, that is. Almost 3300 words later and one ends up a boiled frog.

Gay Christmas

The first two-thirds of Doug's speech is a veritable trip down memory lane. Stonewall. "Legal attacks" -- meaning censorship, somewhat ironically. Anita Bryant. State violence. Bathhouse raids. The Pride movement. Public harassment. AIDS. Death, fear, grief. Yet struggle and perseverance.

According to Doug, in those years Pride was a much needed pit-stop from the trials and tribulations of the struggles. It was a time "to celebrate being out and proud, and to just have fun for a change." Makes sense, given the historical context.

Doug laments, though, that Pride wasn't very inclusive. It was basically a bunch of activists. Mainly gay white men living downtown. Like Doug. "We marched for those who could not," he says.

Heading into the late 1980s, and with growing numbers, Pride began attracting corporate sponsorship. Queer liberationists eventually won the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Then came the 1990s. Equality rights were being won in the courts. Pride went mainstream. And it got big. Really big.

In 1995, Doug notes, the Pride board "collapsed." City councillor Kyle Rae -- another one of those gay white men living downtown -- "saved" Pride. With the help of corporate bucks, mind you.

Moving into the new millennium, Pride was declared a "national institution." Same-sex marriage was won. One million in attendance at Pride. Pride has become a kaleidoscope of cultural and sexual diversity.

For Doug, Pride is "first and foremost about our freedom to be who we are, without fear." It is about, he continues, "celebrating our diverse sexual orientation and gender identity." It's all about coming out.

Getting real

The final third of Doug's speech turns to the recent censorship controversy. "Some people in our community have decided to turn their energies inward against other members in our community, and to make Pride their political punching bag."

Doug frets that Pride's existence is "threatened" because of the "poisonous politics of the Middle East." And that's not an LGBT issue, he opines.

The Israel Lobby claims "hate speech." The "opponents of Israel" claim "free speech." (I note that Doug chose the word "opponents" rather than "critics." I can only speculate as to whether his word choice was deliberate.) To the whole lot of them, Doug says: "Get real." And then he advances three arguments.

First, Doug seems to side with free speech. Pride is full of stuff that some people consider "offensive." Spandex. Politics. Minority struggles. He rightly says that "criticism of Israeli policy is not the same as anti-Semitism." All well and good. I'm with you, Doug.

But then, Doug makes the classic "platform" argument. QuAIA, why must you be in the parade? Can't you go protest somewhere else, some other time? You're ruining our celebration! There are "limits" on free speech, you know. Keep it up and guess what? No more Pride for anybody!

Lastly, Doug returns to his overarching theme. Pride is about our freedom to be queer. Yes, we're diverse. Yes, we have lots of different concerns -- "from poverty to racism." But those aren't "the focus of this parade." Push those issues and -- boom -- no more Pride. So much for those closeted kids in the countryside. Don't you feel selfish, now?

Not going back

Doug advises: Activists, if you want to go back to the "good old days," then relocate and start over. Move to a homophobic society. Fight the good fight over there. Try Montenegro. Or Lethbridge. Enjoy the social hostility. I'll stay here in Toronto, celebrating, thank you very much.

We need the government and corporate sponsorship, Doug says. Without it, you guessed it: No more Pride.

Solutions? Doug has a few. Separate events, like the Dyke March. Or an "anarchist zone," perhaps, for "total free speech." A "libertarian march." The irony of separating people against their will seems lost on Doug.

In closing, Doug says, in a nutshell: Hope! Joy! Diversity! Freedom! Solidarity! Love! Peace!

I certainly feel better, now. Don't you?

Re-cap

Much like a good politician, and very much unlike a good lawyer, Doug makes his arguments subtly using sneaky rhetoric. It's hard to pin down where he really stands.

Analysis and induction become necessary, but that leaves the investigator vulnerable to the rhetorician's trap door: "That's not what I meant." The trap is nearly always deliberate.

What's Doug really saying? I'll give it a shot.

1. Pride emerged out of very trying times: activism, repression, struggle, protest, discrimination, legal battles, illness, death, and so forth.

2. Thus, Pride rests upon, and is therefore about, the struggle for freedom to be out as queer. It's about celebrating ourselves as queer people, first and foremost. Everything else is secondary.

3. "Some people" -- who shall remain nameless -- are injecting Middle East politics into Pride. It's a non-LGBT issue. It's poisonous. It doesn't fit. It's selfish. It's dangerous. It's like hostage-taking. (Hijackers! Terrorism! Run!)

4. Free speech, yes, but with limits. And only if it doesn't threaten the sponsorship dollars from governments and corporations. If you threaten the moolah, then you're being sent to the anarchy zone.

Yeah, but no

I can agree with Doug's first two arguments. It's the second two that I reject categorically.

First, Doug misunderstands and/or misrepresents QuAIA's position. QuAIA's starting point is that Israel has become an apartheid state: "Israeli apartheid." The argument is not a comparison with South African apartheid but instead a comparison with the legal term "apartheid" as defined by the International Criminal Court.

And there's nothing new about the comparison. It has been argued and/or considered by Michael Ignatieff, Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, John Dugard, Richard Falk, Uri Davis, Judy Rebick, Naomi Klein, and even Israel's own Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, among many others. A 2009 study of the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa also concluded that Israel is an apartheid state.

QuAIA's next point is that, under apartheid, LGBT people suffer immensely. Apartheid is enforced destitution. Destitution is fertile ground for ignorance, fundamentalism, and hate. Prison rules. Destitution makes queer struggle virtually impossible. LGBT people are forced underground and face untold violence. They cannot escape; they are literally walled in by Israel's apartheid wall. Israel controls Palestinian borders but does not extend equality rights to Palestinian people. Israeli queers have rights. Palestinian queers do not.

In short, the only way that Doug could reasonably believe that the Israel/Palestine "conflict" is not "an LGBT issue" is if he believed that Palestinian LGBT people do not exist. And, of course, that's not reasonable at all.

Second, Doug is surprisingly relaxed -- despite being a constitutional lawyer -- about tightening up on Charter freedoms in return for sponsorship bucks. He's willing -- quite literally -- to sell our rights away. He describes "limits" on free speech not in terms of Canadian jurisprudence -- or even John Stuart Mill philosophy -- but rather in terms of money, money, money. Why? There is no alternative. If we don't shut up, then Pride dies. Say "Israeli apartheid" and -- poof! -- it's all gone.

Somehow I doubt it.

Doug also mispresents QuAIA's position on free speech. QuAIA is not asking for "anarchy" and "total free speech." To insinuate as much is a straw man argument. It's simply not true. QuAIA is merely asking for the same treatment as everyone else. And it is to that point that I now return.

Back to the factum

Reiteration. There are two primary requirements for participation in Pride: a participant must be either part or supportive of the LGBT community; and, the participant must be law-abiding. QuAIA meets both of these requirements. Singling out one group that meets the requirements and then banning its lawful political speech is censorship.

The central question, then, is obvious: Doug, do you -- or do you not -- support the censorship? Really, we can do without the rest of your opinions. They are, frankly, irrelevant and only serve to obfuscate the basic facts.

Doug says that, had he been on the Pride board, he could not "honestly say which way [he] would have voted." I think I know. The proof, as my mother likes to say, is in the pudding.

Take a look. How is Doug's speech being received?

Pride Toronto -- and supporters of Pride Toronto's censorship decision -- have been promoting it. Website, check. Facebook, check. Twitter, check. Like! Like! Like!

Why? Because it reinforces everything that the Israel Lobby and Pride Toronto have been saying in order to justify the censorship decision.

Pride is about queer stuff only. It's a celebration. The Middle East has nothing to do with being LGBT. Free speech has its limits.

Blah, blah, blah. And I mean that sincerely. We've heard it all before, Doug. Don't you read the news?

Ultimately, for people who do not like controversy and just want the whole mess to go away, Doug's speech makes them feel good. It's a "Can't we all just get along?" appeal that surreptitiously paints the victims of censorship as hostage-taking anarchists. For the people doing the silencing, that benefits them; it wins support for their decision.

Doug doesn't mention Martin Gladstone, another lawyer. Nor does Doug mention B'nai Brith or the Simon Wiesenthal Centre -- major players within Canada's Israel Lobby. No mention of the city hall players either, like Kyle Rae. (Pride's old saviour, remember?) The Toronto Sun and the National Post: Off the hook. As for Pride Toronto, we'll just ignore all that back-room dealing, the disastrous PR, and those outright lies.

These parties may have orchestrated an aggressive pressure campaign to de-fund Pride -- just to oust QuAIA, a group that meets all the requirements -- but QuAIA really should have known better than to opine about the relationship of queer struggle to another struggle for human rights. Shame on them!

Good old days

Doug takes a jab at the supposedly old timer activists who seemingly want Pride to return to the good old days. But Doug's clearly out of touch.

Many -- if not most -- of QuAIA's members belong to younger generations. They're not yet "leading lawyers," like Doug. While Doug was focussing on his career -- and respect to him for his achievements and important contributions to LGBT equality -- they were growing up in a very complex and troubled world.

For them, multiculturalism and diversity always were. They don't remember the before. They know only the after. They are from diverse backgrounds themselves. Their perspectives are therefore different, and the knowledge they gained from schooling different. More recent, too.

Doug is rightfully concerned about the rise of the Right in Canada. But lost on Doug is the fact that censorship serves the Right. Harper loves it. Siding with the Israel Lobby also serves the Right. The Israel Lobby loves Harper.

Heck, let's put it all out there. Israeli apartheid is an embarrassing outcome of the imperialist race to control resources of the Middle East, primarily oil. That's why the USA supports Israel virtually unconditionally. This is no secret.

Palestinian queers exist, and they need our help. We should use our freedoms to fight for theirs. "We march for those who cannot," as Doug said he once did.

All struggles for human rights are indeed connected. They're connected because they all place demands on the world's elites. A threat to human rights anywhere is a threat to human rights everywhere. And a struggle for human rights anywhere is a challenge to elites everywhere.

Really, it is Doug who wants to return to the good old days. Or rather, to preserve the good old days: A simple definition of the meaning and purpose of Pride. Urban white queers who are concerned with equality, but not so much with poverty or racism. Can't we just go back to that and hold it in place with corporate sponsorship? Please?

No, we can't, Doug. And, on that note, I'm giving the final word to Barbara Smith:

"Those white gay men who have disposable income and who think that all they need to do is get rid of the most blatant homophobia in corporate, government, and military settings, in the legal system and on TV, and everything will fall into place, that they'll have a nice life in their little enclaves -- they're dreaming. Let's say they got rid of homophobia in those places that I mentioned -- which is not really getting rid of homophobia, it's getting rid of it in places that make their lives difficult -- but suppose they were able to do that. If they were living in or near a city that has imploded, like Los Angeles, because of racial and economic exploitation and oppression, then how free are they going to be? I don't know why people can't understand how interconnected our fates are as creatures on this planet."

Terrorism: What is it?

2010-06-17T07:02:00.013-04:00

With all the references to "terrorism" these days, it helps to have a sense of how the word is defined and historically situated.

Basic Overviews

Definitions of Terrorism
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism.htm
Canadian Security: Anti-terrorism Act
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/
Terrorism Guide
http://uk.oneworld.net/guides/terrorism?gclid=CO6OlsX-pqICFYp95QodGn7OQw
Book:
Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction
Author: Charles Townshend
Published: December 2002
ISBN13: 9780192801685
ISBN10: 0192801686

Critical Perspectives

Terrorism (various articles)
http://www.globalissues.org/article/357/terrorism
"Is violence necessary to win social change?" (2001)
http://socialistworker.org/2001/374/374_13_Violence.shtml
"Terrorism before and after 9/11" (2002)
http://www.zcommunications.org/terrorism-before-and-after-9-11-by-mark-selden
"The world's leading perpetrator of terror" (2002)
http://socialistworker.org/2002-1/398/398_09_Chomsky911.shtml
"The truth about the war on terror'" (2003)
http://socialistworker.org/2003-1/444/444_03_WarOnTerror.shtml
"Who becomes a suicide bomber?" (2005)
http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/555/555_06_SuicideBombing.shtml
"Terrorism: The chosen tool of the weak against the mighty" (2007)
http://www.zcommunications.org/terrorism-the-chosen-tool-of-the-weak-against-the-mighty-by-eric-rouleau

Sound Reasoning

2010-06-17T04:13:00.010-04:00

Two pillars of rational argumentation are logical reasoning and verifiable/credible evidence. Thus, to help you evaluate your own arguments, and those of others, I offer the following resources.

A Conception of Critical Thinking
by Professor Robert H. Ennis
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis/SSConcCTApr3.html
Fallacies
published by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
Recognizing Propaganda Techniques
published by Cuesta College
http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm
The Importance of Evidence and Sources
by John Bartels, LLB
http://great-philosophers.suite101.com/article.cfm/noam-chomsky-and-the-importance-of-evidence-and-sources

Jewish Voice for Peace: Book List

2010-06-16T18:19:00.018-04:00

The following recommended reading appeared on the website of Jewish Voice for Peace (USA) until some time in 2010. Since JVP's website was redesigned, I have been unable to find the book list. Thus, I am reproducing the list here. Note that some links are broken/outdated, but of course the actual book references (titles, authors, publication dates, etc.) remain unchanged. Visit JVP's website at: http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

go to: GENERAL INFORMATION ON ISRAEL/PALESTINE

If you only have time to read one book on the conflict, JVP's Liat Weingart suggests Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (2000) by Avi Shlaim, while Plitnick recommends Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (2000) by Charles Smith.

HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT

Charles Smith. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (2000) (Probably the most balanced basic history. Very readable, and the best introductory text.)

Avi Shlaim. Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (2000) (Excellent historical study of Israeli policy towards the Arab world since 1948.)

Avi Shlaim. War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History (1994) (Short book giving a very general overview of the Middle East in the 1980s and early 90s. Goes beyond Israel and thus demonstrates how Israel both affects and is affected by other regional crises)

Ilan Pappe (Editor) Israel/Palestine Question. (1999) (Collection of revisionist essays covering many aspects of the conflict throughout the years.)

Hadawi, Sami. Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of Palestine (1990) (A Palestinian History of the conflict.)

Tom Segev. One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate (2000) (Extensive study of period of the Palestinian Mandate, especially of Britain's role in creating the conditions that would lead to the conflict as we know it today.)

Meron Benvenisti. Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948. (2000) (The former deputy mayor of Jerusalem explores the process by which the geography of Israel has been "made Jewish" in an effort to eliminate the Palestinian connection to the land.)

Walter Laqueur & Barry Rubin (editors) The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict (2001) (Very mainstream collection of many documents, reports, and speeches from throughout the history of the conflict.)

Gershon Shafir. Land Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 1882-1914 (Acute analysis of how the beginnings of the conflict played out on the ground among laborers and in the economy of Palestine.)

THE UNITED STATES' ROLE IN THE CONFLICT

Noam Chomsky. Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians. (1999) (Chomsky charts the US-Israel relationship throughout the years. He makes the case that US interests have driven this relationship.)

William Quandt. Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 1967 (2001) (Detailed history of the peace process by a scholar and former National Security Council official in the Ford and Carter administrations.)

George Ball. The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present. (A highly critical analysis of the U.S. support for Israel by a former Assistant Secretary State.)

Abraham Ben-Zvi, Decade of Transition: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the Origins of the American-Israeli Alliance. (1998) (Academic study based on declassified documents that explain the origins of the US-Israel alliance between 1958-1968.)

Avner Cohen. Israel and the Bomb. (1998) (Currently, the best work available on the Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons and U.S.'s role in the process.)

J.J. Goldberg. Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. (1996) (Highly readable, journalistic study of the power, influence and limits of the Jewish establishment in determining American policy decisions.)

Naseer Aruri. Dishonest Broker: The US Role in Israel and Palestine (2003) (Hard-hitting analysis demonstrating how the US has exacerbated, rather than mediated, the conflict.)

Stephen Zunes. Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (2002) (Excellent analysis

THE 1948 WAR

Benny Morris. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949. (1987) (The most famous work on the creation of the refugee crisis. Though Morris has been criticized from all sides, this work remains the best and most detailed account of how the Palestinians were driven from their homes during the war for Israel's birth. This book was re-released in 2003 as The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. The updated version features new research and more information, but also some more questionable conclusions than the original.)

Avi Shlaim and Eugene Rogan. War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. (2001) (Edited collection of essays on different aspects of the history of 1948. In particular, Rashid Khalidi's critique of Palestinian behavior during the 1948 war is extremely important reading.)

Avi Shlaim. The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, the Zionists and Palestine, 1921-1951 (1999) (Excellent account of the collusion by Israel & Jordan in 1948-49 to divide Palestine between them.)

Khalidi, Walid, All that Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. (1992) (Encyclopedic account of Palestinian villages destroyed during the 1948 war.)

Simha Flapan. The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities. (1987) (Early, and sometimes flawed work by a leading leftist politician addressing many of the myths surrounding the creation of the Israeli state. Very readable and a good introductory text, but must be balanced with better researched works.)

EARLY YEARS OF ISRAEL

Ilan Pappe. The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1947-51. (1988) (Important revisionist work on the British role in the early Arab-Israeli conflict.)

Tom Segev. 1949: The First Israelis. (1986) (Early re-examination of the issues surrounding Israel's founding by a leading Israeli journalist/historian. Particularly interesting for its chronicle of how Middle Eastern Jews were treated in Israel's early years.)

Amos Elon. Israelis: Founders and Sons. (1971) (Classic portrait of the early days of Israel and Israel's conflicts and contradictions from a Labor Zionist perspective.)

Masalha, Nur. Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of Transfer in Zionist Political Thought: 1882-1948 (1992) (Hard-hitting, sometimes overly speculative, examination of political trends that led to expulsion of Palestinians.)

Fouzi El-Asmar, To Be an Arab in Israel.(1978) One of the few Palestinian-Israeli takes on the first ten years of the Israeli occupation)

Sabri Jiryis, The Arabs in Israel. (1977) (A Palestinian-Israeli chronicle of the life of Arabs in Israel from 1948-1966)

PALESTINIAN NATIONALISM AND HISTORY

Baruch Kimmerling & Joel Migdal. The Palestinian People: A History. (2003) (Historical account of the Palestinian people.)

Rashid Khalidi. Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. (1997) (Excellent analysis of the development of the Palestinian National consciousness during the early part of the century.)

Walid Khalidi. Palestine Reborn. (1993) (Essays on Palestinian nationalism by a leading Palestinian academic.)

Muhammad Y. Muslih. The Origins of Palestinian Nationalism. (1988) (Intelligent account of the early years of Palestinian Nationalism?thru 1920s)

Beshara Doumani. Rediscovering Palestine: Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700-1900 (1995) (Academic study of Palestinian life under the Ottoman Empire).

Edward Said & Christopher Hitchens (editors). Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question (1988) (Collection of essays from many authors exposing poor scholarship which has served to severely distort the question of the Israel-Palestine conflict.)

Shaul Mishal & Avraham Sela The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence and Coexistence (2000) (In-depth exploration of Hamas in all its dimensions.)

Helena Cobban, The Palestinian Liberation Organisation: People, Power and Politics (1984) (Comprehensive political analysis of the Fatah movement and the internal dynamics of the PLO.)

ZIONISM

Theodor Herzl. The Jewish State (1896) (The founding father of political Zionism's seminal text.)

Zeev Sternhell. The Founding Myths of Israel. (1997) (A scholarly critique of the Israeli Labor Party that argues the Labor party was less committed to socialist ideals than to nationalism.) duh

Ian Lustick. For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. (1988) (Excellent study of the ideas and motivations of Jewish fundamentalists and an examination of fanatical religious Zionism.)

Boas Evron and James Diamond. Jewish State or Israeli Nation. (1995) (Excellent analysis of the conflicts between Israel as a secular state and a religious nation. Raises questions about Jewish nationhood and whether Israel is more properly defined as a Zionist or a Jewish state.)

Laurence J. Silberstein. The Post Zionism Debates: Knowledge and Power in Israeli Culture. (1999) (Useful discussion of the debate within Israeli society over the future of Israeli identity as a Jewish state or a state of its citizens.)

Bernard Avishai. The Tragedy of Zionism: How Its Revolutionary Past Haunts Israeli Democracy (Critical appraisal of the diverse history of Zionism.)

Zachary Lockman, Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in Palestine, 1906-1948 (1996) (An examination of how Arab and Jewish workers in pre-state Palestine influenced each others' political development.)

THE HOLOCAUST AND ITS IMPACT ON JEWS AND ISRAEL

Peter Novick. The Holocaust and American Life (1999) (Fascinating, ground-breaking analysis of America of how Americans have become obsessed with the Holocaust. Doesn't deal very directly with Israel, but has lots of implications for US attitudes and ideas about Israel.)

Tom Segev. The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust. (1993) (Israeli journalist/scholar analyses the effect that the Holocaust has had on the Israeli psyche and how it has become a dominant theme in Israeli life. Also gives damning analyses of lack of action from Zionists in Palestine during World War II and poor treatment given to survivors in early Israel.)

Marc Ellis. Beyond Innocence and Redemption: Confronting the Holocaust and Israeli Power: Creating a Moral Future for the Jewish People. (1990) (Examines the theological Implications of the Holocaust for Jewish and Israeli perceptions of their own power.)

Finkelstein, Norman/Birn, Ruth Bettina. A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth. (1998) (A clear and powerful refutation of Daniel Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners".)

FIRST INTIFADA

David Grossman. The Yellow Wind. (1988) (Eloquent account of an Israeli novelist and his experiences during the early days of the Intifada.)

Norman Finkelstein. The Rise and Fall of Palestine: A Personal Account of the Intifada Years.(1996) (Finkelstein's account of the Intifada, as a Jew staying with a Palestinian family in Beit Jala.)

Zachary Lockman & Joel Beinin (Editors). Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Jewish Occupation. (1989) (Containing first-hand accounts of the Intifada.)

Raja Shehadeh, The Third Way (1982) (A personal diary of a Palestinian living under Israeli occupation)

Staughton Lynd, Sam Bahour, and Alice Lynd (eds.) Homeland: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians (1998) (Pesonal histories and reflections of many different Palestinian narrators)

THE OCCUPATION

Robert Friedman, Zealots for Zion (1992) (Interviews with and analysis of Israeli settlers on the West Bank, looking deep into their ideology and motivations.)

Amira Hass. Drinking the Sea at Gaza: Days and Nights in a Land under Siege. (2000) (An Israeli reporter's extraordinary account of her experiences living in Gaza.)

Yaron Ezrahi. Rubber Bullets: Power and Conscience in Modern Israel. (1997) (A fascinating one that delves into the Israeli mindset and the difficulties of dealing with Jews having power for the first time in generations.)

Penny Rosenwasser. Voices from a 'Promised Land': Palestinian and Israeli Peace Activists Speak Their Hearts (1992) (Vivid interviews with Israeli and Palestinian activists, mostly women, about the experience of the conflict and occupation)

CAMP DAVID II AND SECOND INTAFADA

Tanya Reinhart. Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948 (2002) (Meticulously researched and powerfully argued account of the collapse of Oslo, Camp David and the beginning of the second Intifada.)

Roane Carey. The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid (2001) (Collection of essays from a diverse group analyzing all aspects of the state of affairs between Israel and the Palestinians)

Ramzy Baroud (editor) Searching Jenin: Eyewitness Accounts of the Israeli Invasion, 2002 (2003) (Crucial eyewitness accounts detailing what they saw during the infamous Israeli invasion of the Jenin refugee camp)

Edward Said. The End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After (2000) (Numerous essays that are deeply critical of the Oslo Peace Process, and offer an explanation as to why the process collapsed.)

Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (2005) A critique of Alan Dershowitz's Chutzpah as well as the concept of the "new Anti-Semitism" and a review of Israel's human rights record during the second intifada.

VOICES OF PEACE

Rosemary Radford Ruether and Marc H. Ellis (editors). Beyond Occupation: American, Jewish, Christian, and Palestinian Voices for Peace. (1990) (Edited collection of essays about the Occupation.)

Roane Carey & Jonathan Shainin (editors). The Other Israel: Voices Of Refusal and Dissent (2002) (A collection of essays from Israeli activists, academics, and refuseniks)

Hanan Ashrawi. This Side of Peace: A Personal Account (1996) (Ashrawi's autobiographical work that reveals much about Palestinian politics and the hope for peace.)

Adam Shatz, editor. Prophets Outcast: a Century of Dissident Jewish Writing about Zionism and Israel (2004) (Essays by Jews who had different views of Zionism and Israel, both past and present)

OTHER IMPORTANT READING

Yael Zerubavel. Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition (1995) (Fascinating exploration of collective Jewish mythology, and how this mythology was altered and adapted for use to form parts of the collective Israeli ideology)

Norman Finkelstein. Image and Reality of Israel-Palestine Conflict. (1995) (Rather radical series of critiques of other revisionists including biting criticism of Benny Morris's book of Palestinian refugees.)

Zionism & Anti-Semitism

2010-06-11T01:10:00.019-04:00

1948: 700,000 Palestinians violently expelled from their homes and land.

What follows is a collection of references on the topics of anti-Semitism and (anti-)Zionism. It is important to understand that, first and foremost, Zionism is a political ideology and nationalistic project. Anti-Semitism is a form of discrimination/prejudice/hatred/racism that targets Jewish people as a religious, ethnic, and/or racialized category of people. Opposing Zionism, alone, does not make one anti-Semitic -- contrary to the politically motivated and defamatory accusations of the Israel Lobby's propaganda campaigns.

"Anti-Semitism: Zionist myth vs. truth and reality" (2010)
http://www.alanhart.net/anti-semitism-%E2%80%93-zionist-myth-v-truth-and-reality/

"Anti-Semitism Q&A" (2004)
http://www.zcommunications.org/anti-semitism-q-and-a-by-uri-avnery

"Zionism and anti-Semitism" (2002)
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr265/sagall.htm

go to: GENERAL INFORMATION ON ISRAEL/PALESTINE

General Information on Israel/Palestine

2010-06-10T04:48:00.030-04:00

The history of Israel/Palestine is often described as "complex." I disagree. It is merely detailed. Here, I offer some research, references, and other resources as a basic starting point for understanding the ongoing "conflict" in the Middle East.

* = essential basics

The Creation and History of Israel

"Israel: Colonial-settler state" *
http://tinyurl.com/2a3nt5s
"Zionism's colonial project" (from The Struggle for Palestine)
http://socialistworker.org/2010/06/10/zionisms-colonial-project
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (book review/summary) *
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4715
The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab Wall (book review/summary)
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/153

The Role of the USA

"Israel's loyal friend" *
http://socialistworker.org/2010/06/15/israels-loyal-friend
"Israel: An outpost of empire"
http://socialistworker.org/2010/04/16/israel-outpost-of-empire
"Stability" (from Fateful Triangle)
http://www.chomsky.info/books/fateful02.htm

Islam, Hamas, & Terrorism

"How racist caricatures of Islam are used to justify war and occupation" *
http://socialistworker.org/2007-1/628/628_04_Islamophobia.shtml
"Behind the myths about Hamas" *
http://socialistworker.org/2009/01/21/behind-myths-about-hamas
"Who and what is Hamas?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbVZgrUUSnA

Related Issues & Events

"Ten reasons why East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel" *
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/03/23/jerusalem_israel
The Holocaust Industry (book discussion)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BaJCRXsgt4
"Israel and Palestine: Roots of conflict, prospects for peace"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MON2HL02mec
Fact sheets on various topics relating to Israel/Palestine
http://www.cjpme.org/ItemCollectionPage.aspx?ICID=4

In-depth Compilations, by Topic

Zionism & Anti-Semitism
http://orperhaps.blogspot.com/2010/06/zionism-anti-semitism.html
The Israel Lobby in Canada
http://orperhaps.blogspot.com/2010/06/zionistisrael-lobby-in-canada-some.html
Apartheid in Israel
http://orperhaps.blogspot.com/2010/05/israel-is-apartheid-state-and-heres-why.html

go to: BOOK SUGGESTIONS FROM JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE

The Israel Lobby in Canada: Some References

2010-06-09T08:34:00.027-04:00

What follows is a compilation of research, references, and other resources detailing the Zionist/Israel Lobby in Canada, some of its attacks upon free speech and open debate, and the kinds of aggressive and threatening tactics that it employs against academics, activists, and all others who dare to criticize the State of Israel and its supposed "liberal democracy."

"The New Israel Lobby in Action"
by David Noble, November 2005
The new Israel lobby in Canada — the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA) — has enormous power, derived from abundant resources, corporate connections, political associations, elaborate and able organization and a cadre of dedicated activists.
LINK: http://tinyurl.com/25cccab

"AIPAC North: 'Israel Advocacy' in Canada"
by Dan Freeman-Maloy, June 2006
Canada's new Israel advocacy apparatus has too strong a base in the Canadian establishment, and is too thoroughly supported from the United States and Israel, for its work to be stopped entirely. But its own polls reveal that Canadian public opinion is opposed to its agenda.
LINK: http://tinyurl.com/26l3f7e

"Canadian Lessons from 'The Israel Lobby'"
The consolidation to form the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC) was driven by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), a group of Jewish business leaders organized in 2002 with the intent of harmonizing policy initiatives in Canadian Jewish organizations.
LINK: http://tinyurl.com/cjpmefsil

"Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid"
by Yves Engler, February 2010
Despite claims to the contrary, Canada is not, nor has it ever been, an “honest broker” in the Palestine-Israel conflict. The different elements that make up Canada’s foreign policy – from diplomacy to security services, to tax policies related to charities, to “non-governmental organizations” such as churches – have largely sided with Israel.
LINK: http://tinyurl.com/25q2leu

"Canada's Israel Lobby"
by Peyton Vaughan Lyon, March 2010
The Israel Lobby took formal shape in 1967 when the three major Canadian Jewish organizations, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Zionist Organization and B'nai Brith, established the Canada-Israel Committee (CIC) to act on behalf of Israel.
LINK: http://tinyurl.com/32j8dz5

"Israeli Lobby in Canada"
by Canpalnet-Ottawa
LINK: http://tinyurl.com/28a87an

Also see the following lecture on YouTube about the Israel Lobby in the USA: "Dr. Mearsheimer: What is the Israel Lobby?" (2008)

Notable censorship campaigns launched by the Israel Lobby in Canada:

Also see the following blog from Jewish Voice for Peace, a USA-based organization:

MuzzleWatch: Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy

go to: GENERAL INFORMATION ON ISRAEL/PALESTINE

The basic facts about Toronto Pride and Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA)

2010-05-26T04:21:00.016-04:00

Let's always keep at the forefront of our minds the basic facts about Pride Toronto and Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA). The facts are simple and clear.

The two primary requirements for participation in Pride are to be:
(1.) part or supportive of the LGBT community; and,
(2.) law-abiding.

QuAIA [http://www.quaia.org] meets both of these requirements. Singling out one group that meets the requirements and then banning its lawful political speech is censorship [http://tinyurl.com/censordef2].

In Canada, freedom of expression -- including lawful political speech -- is constitutionally protected as a fundamental right. That right is a foundational pillar of any liberal democracy.

Pride Toronto, Inc.:
Shut up! Drink beer! Celebrate!

See complete and ongoing coverage here.

Israel is an apartheid state (and here's why)

2010-05-21T11:25:00.049-04:00

Israel's apartheid wall.

What follows is a collection of information resources that are useful for evaluating the applicability of the term "apartheid" to the State of Israel. The term "apartheid" is often defined by dictionaries with special reference to the history of South Africa. More importantly, the term "apartheid" is defined by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Israel and apartheid
Public Forum Letter
Updated: 04/26/2010 01:59:20 PM MDT

Apartheid is not just about discrimination. It is a matter of international law. Apartheid regimes codify into their domestic laws three pillars of apartheid:

The state adopts a preferred identity, then establishes laws granting preferential status and privileges to the preferred group.
The state segregates the population into geographic areas based on identity. The favored identity receives preferential access to land, water and other resources and benefits. The non-preferred group is confined to ever-shrinking, non-contiguous besieged enclaves.
The state passes security laws to suppress all opposition. Those opposing apartheid are labeled terrorists. Domination is enforced through assassinations, imprisonment (often for years), torture and cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment.

Using these criteria, an international legal team sponsored by the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa recently completed a study that concluded that Israel's practices against Palestinians reach the level of apartheid as measured by international law.

Even those Americans who do not care about justice should be concerned. Apartheid is an international crime, and those giving aid to apartheid states can be found complicit. Given U.S. political and financial aid to Israel, we could find ourselves with one more economic burden -- paying reparations to the Palestinian people.

Frances ReMillard
Kamas

SOURCE: Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14961831)

International Criminal Court (ICC)
Definition of "Apartheid"

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1 [above], committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

SOURCE: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

Additional references:

Fact sheets published by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
http://www.cjpme.org/ItemCollectionPage.aspx?ICID=4
Fact sheets and papers published by Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions - USA
http://icahdusa.org/facts/
The Israeli separation barrier: A West Bank wall (photo gallery)
http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/In-Pictures/A-West-Bank-wall
Israeli Apartheid Week website information resources
http://apartheidweek.org/en/resources
Electronic Intifada website information resources
http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/149.shtml
Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid information resources
http://www.caiaweb.org/activistresources
Fact sheet available on itISapartheid.org
http://itisapartheid.org/get_informed.html
"Apartheid 101" on the website of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid
http://queersagainstapartheid.org/apartheid/
"Irshad Manji: A Multifacted Fraud" (2003)
http://www.zcommunications.org/a-multifaceted-fraud-by-justin-podur
Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa study
"Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?" (2009)
http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml
"Israel accused of 'colonialism and apartheid'" (2009)
http://sudhan.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/israel-accused-of-colonialism-and-apartheid/
"Israel and apartheid: A fair comparison?" by Edward C. Corrigan (2010)
http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/03/israel-and-apartheid-fair-comparison
"Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction" by Naomi Klein (2009)
http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/01/israel-boycott-divest-sanction
Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide by Ben White (2009)
http://israeliapartheidguide.com/
Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid by Yves Engler (2010)
http://yvesengler.com/yves-books/
"Israel and the apartheid analogy" entry on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

In the media:

Nelson Mandela:
"First memo to Thomas Friedman" (2001)
http://www.mediamonitors.net/arjan28.html
Michael Ignatieff:
"Imposing a two-state solution is the last chance for Middle East peace" (2002)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/19/israel3
Desmond Tutu:
"Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid'" (2002)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1957644.stm
Jimmy Carter:
"Carter: Israeli apartheid 'worse'" (2006)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6169107.stm
John Dugard:
"UN envoy hits Israel 'apartheid'" (2007)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6390755.stm
Ehud Olmert:
"Israel risks apartheid-like struggle if two-state solution fails, says Olmert" (2007)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/30/israel
Uri Davis:
"Israel: Apartheid state or democracy of the Middle East?" (2007)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgQcPTPc73U
Richard Falk:
- "UN official slams Israel 'crimes'" (2008)
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7774988.stm
- "New report fuels UN-Israel debate" (2008)
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7689706.stm
Ehud Barak:
"Barak: make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid" (2010)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/barak-apartheid-palestine-peace
Mustafa Barghouti:
"Palestinian peace activist explains why statehood is devolving into apartheid" (2010)
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/07/holding_obama_to_his_word_in_the_middle_east
Judy Rebick:
"Israel is an apartheid state and that is why they are losing legitimacy" (2010)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17940
Stéphane Hessel:
"Global citizens must respond where governments have failed" (2010)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephane-frederic-hessel/gaza-flotilla-global-citi_b_612865.html
"Against Israeli apartheid" (2002)
http://www.thenation.com/article/against-israeli-apartheid
"Israel's apartheid at 60" (2008)
http://socialistworker.org/2008/05/22/israels-apartheid-60
60 Minutes segment on CBS (2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAgyv2MKyI
"Israel's apartheid is worse than South Africa's" (2009)
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-s-apartheid-is-worse-than-south-africa-s-1.4590
"The youngest casualties of the conflict in Gaza (13 pictures)" (2009)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/jan/09/gaza-human-rights
"The making of Israel's apartheid" (2009)
http://socialistworker.org/2009/01/06/making-of-israeli-apartheid
"Inside Story" televised debate on Al-Jazeera English (2010)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ac1SnQfOfw
"Israel's apartheid road" (2010)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/17/israel-palestine-highway-443-segregation
"Israel's apartheid" (2010)
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/03/08/MurrayDobbinIsrael/
"Israel knows apartheid has no future" (2010)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8012a780-40d3-11df-94c2-00144feabdc0.html
"Is Israel an apartheid state?" (2010)
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/03/apartheid-state-israel-hand
"Targeting Israeli apartheid" (2010)
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/03/targeting-israeli-apartheid.html
"Israel apartheid" (2010)
http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=453

go to: GENERAL INFORMATION ON ISRAEL/PALESTINE

Toronto Pride: Definitional Trickery and Other Falsehoods and Illogic

2010-05-14T15:57:00.031-04:00

Kyle Rae

The following commentary was originally sent as an e-mail to Toronto city councillor Kyle Rae, Pride Toronto officials, and various other relevant parties. Mr. Rae has not replied - which I take to mean that he's not interested in genuine debate and/or that he is already aware that his rhetoric falls flat when evaluated against easily verifiable facts, the historical record, and basic principles of logic. The commentary differs only slightly from the original e-mail.

Today (14 May 2010) Xtra.ca published the following statement attributed to Toronto city councillor Kyle Rae in regards to the current Pride Toronto/Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) debate:

"What Pride is, is a demonstration against homophobia. That's where it started in 1981 — protest against state-sponsored homophobia."

Well, this is a new one. We've also been told that:

Pride is only about LGBTQ rights/issues.
Pride is only a celebration.

Of course, these arguments have been refuted -- handily. Indeed, Tracey Sandilands, the Executive Director of Pride Toronto, wrote to me recently and stated: "We wish to clarify that 'queer rights and celebration' have not previously been the sole criteria for permitting participation in our Parade." She added: "In the 2010 Parade, we are requesting that entrants tailor their messaging to be in accordance with the theme of the festival '30 Years' or the organization's 'Global Human Rights for Queers: What Out is About' program."

So now we're onto a new argument: "Pride is only about anti-homophobia." Well, actually, there's also a second new argument as uttered by Kyle Rae: "This is a culture grant, not a political grant. There are expectations that when you give money for a cultural experience, you're not offending people."

I'll address each of these arguments.

Just "anti-homophobia"?

It is simply not true that Pride is solely about LGBTQ rights/issues, celebration, and/or "fighting homophobia." If any of those were the sole criteria, either alone or in combination, then a great number of participants would have to be excluded from Pride. Looking at the record, the only criteria seem to be that participants are either part or supportive of the LGBTQ community, and that they are law-abiding. (Pride Toronto would not deny that this is the de facto policy and it should also be noted that "law-abiding" includes lawful political speech -- as protected by the Charter's "freedom of expression" provision.)

I'll add that past themes of Pride have referenced "unity" and "diversity"; these concepts refer to a vision of Pride that entails breaking down all forms of oppression -- because they are all connected. As one commenter wrote on the Xtra.ca website:

Sure, Pride is about fighting homophobia, no doubt about it. But defining it as merely "anti-homophobia" is defining it in the most narrow way possible that will exclude numerous other legitimate queer voices. What about transphobia? Aren't trans people (such as myself) an important part of Pride? Isn't feminism an important component? Also, many feel that there are internal issues in the queer community still to be resolved -- including class privilege and race issues (just look at how poorly Pride has treated Blockorama and how it has disrespected Blocko's organizers). Does Rae really want to shut the door on all these issues just to come up with a lame rationale for excluding QuAIA? That I think is what the "we're proud of our politics" thing is about.
Just "cultural"?

"Cultural" and "political" are not mutually exclusive concepts. Indeed, one can speak of "political culture" or "cultural politics." Furthermore, as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has argued -- and in commenting on this particular controversy: "Exhibitions and theatre performances may [also] present a point of view on a controversial subject that make individuals from a specific community uncomfortable. These considerations alone should not, however, preclude them from receiving public funding." Certainly, many people in wider society find the entire concept and event of Pride to be "offensive" -- on "religious" grounds, for example: Does this mean that the city should not support Pride? Are politics not a part of our society's culture? And is culture always (or ever) apolitical?

Lastly, how do we account for the presence of various politicians and especially political parties in Pride? They are political by definition. If the presence of the Conservative Party in the parade offends a great number of people, then should the Conservatives be banned and/or city funding withdrawn?

Those who wield power and who seek to silence opposing opinions often do so with definitional trickery. That's nothing new, and it's precisely why rational argumentation and deliberation demand terminological clarity from the beginning -- as in the court system, for example. Definitions are therefore political, but they should also be truthful. And the truth is that Pride is not solely about LGBTQ rights/issues (narrowly defined), celebrating, and/or anti-homophobia. Nor is "culture" apolitical. Nor is "offensive" expression offensive to all -- nor is it always unlawful, discriminatory, or harassing.

All of that being said, review the facts:

The group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid is a part of the LGBTQ community and engages in lawful political speech; this fact is indisputable, and this fact alone qualifies the group for full and equal participation in Pride. Furthermore, although some disagree despite the availability of much evidence that refutes their disagreement, QuAIA is focused upon LGBTQ rights in Israel/Palestine. The simple fact is that apartheid -- or, if you like, apartheid-like conditions -- result in the denial of equality rights for many LGBTQ people, namely LGBTQ Palestinians. Moreover, living under apartheid makes homophobia worse.
QuAIA contributes to the political culture of the LGBTQ community and to wider society. Like many forms of artistic expression, QuAIA challenges oppressive aspects of culture. QuAIA, unlike the political parties and many of the politicians who participate in Pride, is non-partisan. If QuAIA is to be excluded on the basis of it being "political," then will every other parade registrant be vetted to ensure that it does not engage in anything "political" -- e.g., advocacy, lobbying, campaigning, etc.? Never mind the obvious point: to be "anti-homophobia" is a "political" stance.

To participate in the Pride parade, a registrant need only be part or supportive of the LGBTQ community, and to be law-abiding. QuAIA meets these requirements -- and the record proves it, no matter how much definitional trickery and dishonesty Councillor Kyle Rae chooses to advance.

Pride is a "big tent" -- and that bigness is beautiful.

Family lawyer Murray Maltz threatens Pride and opposes lawful political speech

2010-05-10T03:38:00.009-04:00

U P D A T E

I received the following reply from Mr. Maltz on May 10, 2010:

Thank you for your letter. I will decline to reply as it is my opinion any reply will not promote a non emotional debate. I wish you the best of luck in your position.

I suppose he has a point. Wrongfully accusing people of "hate" - a despicable and criminal act - might evoke an "emotional" response from them.

May 10, 2010

Open Letter to Murray Maltz

Dear Mr. Maltz,

I am an Ontario resident and, as a gay man, a member of the LGBT community.

I read with interest your letter of May 7, 2010, addressed to representatives of Pride Toronto and the City of Toronto regarding "Pride March 2010 and Queers Against Israel [sic] Apartheid"; I have appended a copy of your letter to this e-mail.

I am hoping you will answer the following questions that I have about your letter.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that you are a lawyer who practices in the area of family law. Is it the case that family lawyers, like yourself, are also trained experts in the areas of municipal governance, taxation, litigation, non-profit corporations and charities, human and Charter rights, hate crimes, and harassment and discrimination? I ask because your letter touches upon all of these highly specialized areas -- despite the fact that you seem not to be a specialist in any one of them. Kindly explain.
While I certainly agree -- without reservation -- that "[p]ublic money should not be given to any group that permits the dissemination of hate," I am left wondering about your claim that the "group known as Queers Against Israel [sic] Apartheid" is being permitted by "the parade organizers" to "disseminate hate literature." Would you be willing to provide concrete evidence of the cited "hate literature" -- or is your claim unsubstantiated? I was under the impression that lawyers -- regardless of their specializations -- were trained to support their claims with evidence. (Note that the Toronto Police Service defines "hate propaganda" as publicly "[a]dvocating genocide," "incit[ing] hatred against an identifiable group that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace," and/or "willfully promot[ing] hatred against any identifiable group." You should also be aware that the Toronto Police Service advises you to "[c]all the Police immediately" if you are aware of a hate crime. So, have you called the police?)
In a similar vein, you claim: "It is quite clear that the Pride Parade, by permitting this group to march and speak in the parade, has breached the cities [sic] antidiscrimination and human rights policies." Again, do you have concrete evidence to corroborate your claim -- or is your "clear" assertion baseless? Additionally, are you aware that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has expressed an opinion that is essentially the opposite of your own? Perhaps you are aware that the CCLA, founded in 1964, is a highly respected defender of civil liberties and civil rights -- especially within the legal realm. For more information, I refer you to: http://ccla.org/?p=5098
After carefully reviewing your letter, I had some difficulty discerning where you stand on the question of political messages and debate within Pride. It is clear that you oppose "the dissemination of a political message steeped in hate." On this point, I doubt that anybody disagrees with you; however, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that "hate" will be permitted in Pride (see my question #2, above). Subsequently you assert that "[t]he Pride Parade is clearly not the forum or the place for discussion concerning international politics as it relates to Israel" and that "[i]n this case the City of Toronto should not be using taxpayers' money to fund a parade that promotes a political debate." What, precisely, is your rationale for this position? I ask because, in my humble opinion, it is perfectly legitimate for Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) to participate in Pride; the group is, after all, a group of LGBT peace and human rights campaigners who are working to ensure that all LGBT people within Israel/Palestine are granted equality rights. Apartheid results in the denial of equality rights to many LGBT people; therefore, does it not seem to you that this issue reflects Pride's "Global Human Rights for Queers: What Out is About" program?
You open your letter by stating that the organization you represent -- "The Toronto Party for a Better City" -- has before "sued the City in order to assure that they [sic] comply with both city policy and the City of Toronto Act." You close your letter by stating that "The Toronto Party for a Better City will look at the option of using the court system" should the validity of your opinion not be accepted. I'm curious: Do you often threaten a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)?
In 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) explained that the Charter-guaranteed "freedom of expression" includes "political speech." The SCC commented that "[p]olitical speech [...] is the single most important and protected type of expression. It lies at the core of the guarantee of free expression [...]. The right of the people to discuss and debate ideas forms the very foundation of democracy [...]. For this reason, the Supreme Court of Canada has assiduously protected the right of each citizen to participate in political debate." Thus, I am left wondering: Do you support lawful political speech -- or only that with which you agree?

I look forward to your reply, in earnest. Note that you may wish to avoid baseless accusations of "hate" as they may be libelous and, therefore, legally actionable; you are quite right to observe that freedom of expression is not without its reasonable limitations.

Sincerely,
Rick Telfer

MURRAY MALTZ PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MURRAY N. MALTZ
BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR
1200 EGLINTON AVENUE EAST SUITE 203
TORONTO ONTARIO M3C 1H9
TEL: 416-398-6900 416-398-6845

May 7, 2010

Tracey Sandilands Sent by fax: 416-927-7886
Executive Director
James Cullen
Co-Chair
Genevieve Diorio
Co-Chair
Pride Toronto
14 Dundonald Street
Toronto, Ontario
M4Y 1K2

And to

Rita Davies Sent by fax: 416-392-5600
Executive Director
Cultural Services
Toronto City Hall
9th Floor, East Tower
100 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N2

Dear Sirs and Mesdames,

RE: Pride March 2010 and Queers Against Israel Apartheid

I act as solicitor for The Toronto Party for a Better City. As you are aware we are an association of taxpayers which monitor the affairs of the City and in particular irregularities of spending. In past we have sued the City in order to assure that they comply with both city policy and the City of Toronto Act (COTA). The matter of the City of Toronto funding the Pride Parade has come to our attention and the activities that are taking place during the parade. In particular it has come to our attention the parade organizers are permitting a political group known as Queers Against Israel Apartheid to march as well as disseminate hate literature. Public money should not be given to any group that permits the dissemination of hate or its political views as it is not within the objectives of COTA in providing grants.

It is quite clear that the Pride Parade, by permitting this group to march and speak in the parade, has breached the cities antidiscrimination and human rights policies. Further, the objectives of the letters of patent of Pride clearly state and I quote: "that pride is the annual celebration and informational, educational and cultural festival by and for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and transgender people of their sexual and gender orientations and identities and their histories, cultures, communities, organizations, relationships, achievements and lives". The funding by the City of Pride is based on the objects as outlined in their letter patent. Pride, by permitting the dissemination of a political message steeped in hate, is clearly in breach of the very objectives it uses to apply to obtain its grant.

The Pride Parade is clearly not the forum or the place for discussion concerning international politics as it relates to Israel. To argue freedom of expression begs to understand that the catch phrase can be screamed at the top of ones voice, but the use of the words freedom of expression can be so easily abused. There is a need to guard the words carefully to assure that it is not used to defend hatred without consideration for the forum or the content of the message. In this case the City of Toronto should not be using taxpayers' money to fund a parade that promotes a political debate. To argue that the parade could permit pro Israel supporters to march in defence to the apartheid group will quickly have the parade degenerate from its true objects and the purpose of the City funding the parade. Certainly funding a parade that permits hate mongering is improper use of taxpayers' money and is not in keeping with what Torontonians respect; that being the harmonious and diverse culture living peacefully together.

We understand that there are various political groups that are dealing with this matter and we hope that a proper conclusion will be reached. Our opinion however is that the only conclusion that the parties can reach is to not permit Queers Against Israel Apartheid to march or have any voice in pride. Should a proper conclusion not be reached The Toronto Party for a Better City will look at the option of using the court system to obtain proper relief for the greater good of the citizens of the Toronto.

Yours truly,
Murray N. Maltz
MNM/sb
Cc: S. Thiele

B'nai Brith vs. Pride Toronto: Falsehoods and Illogic vs. The Queer Community

2010-05-07T18:54:00.010-04:00

Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) in the Toronto Pride Parade

So far, B'nai Brith has chosen not to reply to my letter. I'm not surprised. In my experience, Zionists tend to flee the scene of the debate whenever they're asked to provide evidence, cite their sources, and adhere to basic principles of logic.

May 7, 2010

Open Letter to B'nai Brith Canada

Dear Mr. Dimant & Mr. Rabkin,

I am an Ontario resident and, as a gay man, a member of the LGBT community.

I read with interest your media release (with today's date) entitled "B'nai Brith Canada urges exclusion of anti-Israel agitators from Pride Parade"; a copy of it appears at the end of this e-mail.

I have some questions about your media release that I'm hoping you'll answer.

What is your definition of "anti-Israel"? I know this may seem like a silly question but I think it's important that we're all on the same terminological page. Note that the Oxford English Dictionary defines "anti-" as "opposed to" and "Israel" as "[a]n independent Jewish State established in 1948 in the country formerly called Palestine". Does any criticism of the policies and actions of the State of Israel, therefore, count as being "anti-Israel"? Similarly, if I were to criticize a policy of the Canadian government, would that make me "anti-Canada"? Conversely, would "pro-Israel" mean unconditional/uncritical support for all policies and actions of the State of Israel? Kindly clarify.
You reference the "stated agenda of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid" presumably because you disagree with it. Could you please identify the exact text of the "stated agenda" with which you disagree? I know it sounds academic, but I think properly citing your sources is important.
You mention "propaganda" which may be understood as "information provided by individuals or groups that have a vested interest in furthering their own cause or damaging an opposing one." Assuming you agree with this textbook definition, would you consider your media release to be "propaganda"?
You claim that information communicated by Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) caused "open expressions of hatred and antisemitism against the Jewish State and, by extension, her supporters of the [sic] both the Jewish faith and others." Please clarify: Are you alleging that QuAIA itself committed a hate crime, engaged in racist activity, or attacked individuals on the basis of their religion? If so, kindly provide concrete evidence.
You argue: "Israel is the only country in the broader Middle East which respects and values the rights of its GLBT community. No where in the region is it even conceivable to hold a celebration similar to Pride Toronto - nowhere except Israel." Are you aware that this is a red herring argument which is a logical fallacy -- "a digression that leads the reasoner off the track of considering only relevant information"? In other words, the argument distracts from the central issue: apartheid-like conditions in Israel/Palestine that result in the denial of equality rights to many LGBT people. In neutral terms, if we can agree that A is better than B, does that mean that A should never be criticized -- for anything?
You state: "The goal of Pride Toronto is clearly to promote human rights and diversity, values Canadians hold dear." I have three questions related to this statement.

Do you have a citation for "[t]he goal of Pride Toronto"? Or is this your own definition of Pride and, if so, do you think it's appropriate for B'nai Brith to define Pride for the LGBT community, or should the LGBT community itself be permitted to decide upon that definition?
Do you agree, as many do, that various policies and actions of the State of Israel represent gross violations of the human rights of Palestinians and of LGBT people within Israel/Palestine who are denied equality rights because they are denied citizenship?
Do you agree that the Charter also reflects values that Canadians hold dear? Specifically, do you agree that freedom of expression, including lawful political speech as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, is a cherished right in Canada -- and that QuAIA has merely exercised that right?

In the final analysis, does your media release not rest entirely upon:

vague, undefined terminology (e.g., "anti-Israel");
politically-loaded jargon (e.g, "agenda");
conjecture and unsubstantiated claims (e.g., "hatred");
logical fallacies (e.g., "Israel is the only country...");
critical omissions of fact (e.g., lawful political speech); and,
emotional appeals (e.g., "values Canadians hold dear")?

I look forward to your reply, in earnest. Kindly avoid the various intellectual deficiencies, such as those identified in my question #7, that constitute your media release.

Sincerely,
Rick Telfer

-----Original Message-----
From: B'nai Brith Communications [mailto:communications@bnaibrith.ca]
Sent: Fri 5/7/2010
Subject: B'nai Brith Canada urges exclusion of anti-Israel agitators from Pride Parade

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

B'nai Brith Canada urges exclusion of anti-Israel agitators from Pride Parade

TORONTO, May 7, 2010 - B'nai Brith Canada has contacted the organizers of Toronto's Pride Parade to urge them ensure that the agenda of the annual Pride Parade is not allowed to be hijacked by the propaganda of anti-Israel agitators. The Jewish human rights organization has also contacted the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Ontario, and the Mayor of Toronto, all contributors to the Pride Parade, asking for a review of the funding in light of the stated agenda of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.

"In past years, propaganda by Queers Against Israeli Apartheid has led to open expressions of hatred and antisemitism against the Jewish State and, by extension, her supporters of the both the Jewish faith and others," said Frank Dimant, B'nai Brith Canada's Executive Vice President. "Due to this, we have called on Pride Toronto organizers to immediately take steps to remove the anti-Israel invective being injected into their event.

"Israel is the only country in the broader Middle East which respects and values the rights of its GLBT community. No where in the region is it even conceivable to hold a celebration similar to Pride Toronto - nowhere except Israel.

"The goal of Pride Toronto is clearly to promote human rights and diversity, values Canadians hold dear. Regretfully, this goal is in danger of being subverted in the worst way."

-30-

For more information, please contact, Dan Rabkin, Communications Officer:
416-633-6224 X 140 / cell: 416-312-9173

B'nai Brith Canada has been active in Canada since 1875 as the Jewish community's foremost human rights agency

Plan for a Fair, Safe, and Peaceful World

2009-12-07T05:45:00.007-05:00

Here's something I quite like from the article "First step is to understand how capitalism really works" by John Courtneidge in The CCPA Monitor (Vol. 16, No. 6, Nov/09).

Seven-Point Co-operative Commonweal Action Plan to create a fair, safe, peaceful world

1. Co-operatives and peace - not corporations and coercion

Convert competitive, market-based activities into workplace co-operatives, and remodel monopoly activities as community co-operatives. Each co-op would demonstrably operate according to the Co-operative Values and Principles of the International Co-operation Alliance and, from the commonweal and the planet, would have respectful, time-limited co-stewardship of appropriate land and knowledge resources.

2. Not-for-profit banking and financial structures as co-ops - pre-distribution, not redistribution

Distribute the added-value/created-wealth from these workplace co-ops through nationally collected, co-operative corporate taxation, distributed into local, democratically-controlled Community Banks, and so make money and credit available for eco- and socially-responsible wealth creation, community development, and global care.

3. Step-wise abolition of money as access to needs - global co-stewardship for needs and care, not private resources for profit

Maximize necessary service provision (health, education, libraries, transport, and so on) on a co-operative, free-at-the-point-of-use basis: retaining money only as a mechanism for acess to discretionary purchases.

4. Fair, Guaranteed Incomes - Near equal/Equal Income for all

Introduce guaranteed fair income for all, within upper and lower brackets: based upon a liveable, fair Citizen's Income, and so do away with the need for direct and indirect personal taxation - income tax, sales taxes, and so on.

5. Abolition of for-profit money - An end to usury/riba, and of banking as global warfare

Abolish money-lending and credit-creation for profit, and so operate banking as a community-controlled, co-operative public service.

6. Regulated international relations - An and to global exploitation through financial speculation

Reintroduce international exchange controls, a Tobin Tax, etc., as necessary.

7. All our sisters our brothers, and all our brothers our sisters - One is all, all as one, all in one

Make capital grants (not loans) to developing countries.

Join the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives!

Off with my head!

2009-11-16T01:19:00.010-05:00

Earlier this fall, I learned that two former executive members of Western's Society of Graduate Students (SOGS), Jonathan Meyer and Dan Dechene, were circulating a petition to initiate a referendum to disaffiliate from the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). It's no secret that I am strongly opposed to disaffiliation. I have been very open and honest about my support for student unity through the Federation. Of course, my vocal support for the Federation has made me a convenient political target for those seeking to discredit and weaken the Federation -- even before I was elected as President of SOGS.

Just as university presidents are united provincially through the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) and nationally through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), and just as academic staff and faculty are united provincially through the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) and nationally through the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), I believe that graduate students at Western should remain united with other students across Canada and in Ontario through the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and its National Graduate Caucus (NGC).

With strength in numbers, we stand the best chance of advancing our interests -- as students -- through government lobbying and grassroots mobilizations. By working togther with other students' unions, we can advance a progressive agenda for accessible and high quality post-secondary education: for reduced tuition fees, for needs-based grants (not loans and debt), for adequate government funding, and for greater equity in graduate and research funding. And why should we? Because we want nothing less than a vibrant and equitable system of post-secondary education. Because we believe that education is a right, not a privilege. Because we believe that education shouldn't be a debt sentence.

Demanding that governments place priority on post-secondary education inevitably creates political enemies; governments dislike bad media attention and elite interests prefer to hoard wealth. Certainly, the Federation is a "big tent" organization in which students from all walks of life and political stripes work together for common goals. However, there have always been those whose partisan allegiances supersede any interest in such common goals. Students' struggles for education and social justice have always been met with resistance. Sometimes that resistance comes from other students; often those other students have a partisan agenda.

For instance, it is now very well documented that young Conservative Party activists across Canada, and on various campuses including Western's, are leading the recent attacks upon the reputation of the Canadian Federation of Students. With each passing day, the political strategy becomes clearer and clearer. Hand-in-hand with the petition drives for disaffiliation referenda is a well coordinated smear campaign. The Conservative Party activists know well that, in politics, repetition is truth; their real agenda is easily obscured with repeated references to "corruption." And so we hear it, again and again -- and again. Eventually, even some of the most critically minded thinkers become believers: "I've heard it so many times! It must be true!"

What, then, might be the real agenda of the Conservative Party activists? The Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) recently hit the nail on the head: It's "a desire to cripple one of the most activist, committed and progressive student associations not only in Canada but internationally." Let's state the obvious: The Conservative Party of Canada hopes to win a majority in the next federal election. The Conservatives want maximal power to implement the most radical right-wing agenda that Canada has ever seen. So, wouldn't that be easier without those pesky kids and their annoying demands as developed and expressed through the Canadian Federation of Students?

Of course it would. Many, if not most, of the Federation's positions stand in direct opposition to the reactionary positions of the Conservative Party. Personally, I think that's an achievement to be celebrated: For nearly three decades, students in Canada have been building one of the most progressive organizations in the country -- and in the world. We value equality of opportunity, freedom, fairness, and community. We seek to dismantle oppression; therefore, we vigorously oppose sexism, homophobia/heterosexism, transphobia, ageism, ableism, and racism. Does this sound like Stephen Harper's utopia to you?

Returning to Western: My political opponents, Jonathan Meyer and Dan Dechene, are undoubtedly scheming as I write this. Their next line of attack? Impeachment. Already there has been submitted a petition to commence proceedings to recall me from the position of SOGS President; an official announcement will likely follow in the very near future. It wasn't enough for them to defame me prior to me announcing my candidacy for the position. Their interference in the election process didn't work, either -- despite their corrupt collaboration with the Chief Returning Officer as she attempted to invalidate my election. (She failed miserably and then quit.) But Jonathan Meyer and Dan Dechene have persisted in their attacks.

Why? Because I support membership in the Canadian Federation of Students. Clearly, they do not. They orchestrated the petition drive for disaffiliation at Western and have also participated in a Facebook group -- created by (surprise!) Conservative Party activists -- established to "highlight a number of reasons why de-federation is necessary." So, of course, Jonathan Meyer and Dan Dechene are undoubtedly preparing for a defederation referendum in early 2010. Having me as President might therefore be, um, inconvenient. Surely they're hoping for minimal opposition as they implement their smear campaign. Even when they're repeated ad nauseam, it's a tad difficult to pass lies for truth when the President routinely de-bunks them.

And so: Off with my head!

Oh, certainly: They won't be honest about their real goals. They'll say that I'm a nasty person. They'll exaggerate their grievances about my missteps. They'll say I'm "unfit." Lather. Rinse. Repeat. But do not be deceived: The agenda is clear. Jonathan Meyer and Dan Dechene have aligned themselves with the Conservative Party activists who would shatter student unity and who detest the progressive vision of the Canadian Federation of Students. They have no interest in "reforming" the Canadian Federation of Students: Like the Conservatives, they simply want to smash it to pieces.

I ran to become the President of SOGS because I hoped to return our students' union to a progressive and advocacy-oriented track. For too long, SOGS has served as little more than a lapdog of the administration and a resume-padding paradise for opportunists. SOGS staff often treat graduate students with disdain while a clubhouse clique of insular executives has worked to disenfranchise criticism and progressive voices. From the beginning, I knew that this wasn't going to be easy. I predicted -- even before taking office -- that my opponents would eventually attempt to impeach me. Frankly, I'm surprised it took them this long.

Student journalists (and their victims): FYI

2009-11-12T20:50:00.025-05:00

Based upon many years of personal experience, I believe that many student journalists could use a few lessons in basic journalistic standards. At the same time, those who find themselves in the crosshairs of politically motivated and/or unskilled student journalists could often use a set of standards by which to evaluate and criticize unfair and biased reporting.

Ethical Guidelines

To everyone, I offer the following ethical guidelines for journalism as published by the Canadian Association of Journalists which "is a national non-profit public interest advocacy and professional development organization serving Canadian journalists from all media, including print, broadcast and online. It is the only group of its kind in Canada. Founded in 1978, and counting more than 1,500 active members across the country, the CAJ is run by a volunteer board of professional journalists."

Et voila...

#1 - "Statement of Principles and Ethics Guidelines for Journalism":

http://www.caj.ca/principles/principles-statement-2002.htm

#2 - "Statement of Principles and Ethics Guidelines for Investigative Journalism":

http://www.caj.ca/principles/principles-statement-investigative-2004.htm

Defamation & Libel

Also noteworthy is the following description of defamation—including libel, which is published defamation—in accordance with Canadian law, from the law firm Blakes:

http://www.blakes.com/DBIC/guide/Dispute/html/defamation.html

In a nutshell, Blakes explains that "[a] defamatory statement is any statement that would lower the reputation of the plaintiff in his or her community in the estimation of 'reasonable' persons." However, a statement is not defamatory if it is true, fair comment, or privileged. Nevertheless, neither fair comment nor qualified privilege are valid defences if the party who made the statement did so with malicious intentions.

Also important: "In defamation cases, damages are presumed." This means that monetary compensation for defamation is not based, for example, upon a calculation of losses as a consequence of defamation. Courts simply award varying amounts of monetary compensation based upon circumstances and precedent.

Blakes explains: "The largest award in a Canadian case was for C$1,600,000, half of which was for 'punitive' damages, intended to punish the defendants for their highly malicious conduct. Most Canadian damage awards for libel are under C$100,000. The advent of the Internet may, however, push damage awards upwards, as at least one appellate-level court has found that damage awards for defamation over the Internet should be higher than those awarded for print publication."

UPDATE - Oct. 28/10

In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established a new defence to a libel claim: "responsible communication." More information is available at:

Wonder who's leading the recent attacks against the Canadian Federation of Students? That's easy.

2009-11-02T01:16:00.079-05:00

Sadly, much of the recent student media attention upon the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS)—Canada’s largest and oldest (est. 1981) national student organization—has focused upon supposed dissatisfaction with the Federation among students on certain campuses. Instead of focusing upon the Federation’s critically important advocacy efforts on behalf students nationally and provincially, significant attention has instead been dedicated to criticisms of the Federation as advanced by a spotlighted fringe minority. Many such criticisms have also been propagated online. A key question therefore arises: Who is leading this vocal minority?

Might it just be some ordinary students who are genuinely fed up? Or perhaps it's a well organized network with roots in the Canadian Right? Let us consider some of the credentials and commingling evident here at The University of Western Ontario.

Amber Ruddy, pictured above at a Conservative campaign table (top, on right) and also with Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper (bottom), opposes the "stances" taken by the Canadian Federation of Students. Hmmm... I wonder why. Could it be because the Conservative plan for social programs, like post-secondary education, is to steadily erode them? Perhaps.

One leader is Amber Ruddy, the creator of an anti-Federation Facebook group. Ms. Ruddy is a former official of Western’s University Students’ Council—a students' union that aligns itself with others that have, over the years, favoured tuition fee increases. Ms. Ruddy is also a Conservative Party activist. (The other group "admin" is Eric Merkley who is also a Conservative Party activist.) On Facebook, Ms. Ruddy is pictured in photographs with Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper and with other Conservatives in a variety of official Party settings. She is a “fan” of both the Fraser Institute and Milton Friedman—both proponents of radical right-wing economic ideologies and supporters of dismantling social welfare, including the privatization of post-secondary education through tuition fee increases, student debt, withdrawal of government funding, and the establishment of private for-profit institutions. We have them to thank for justifications supporting higher tuition fees and debt accumulation.

Introducing Jonathan Meyer—caught with his pants down. He thinks I'm “unfit" and he calls this image "intellectual property." Says Meyer of himself: "it was a dare to walk across the street with my pants down. it was pretty funny.."

On October 7, Western’s student newspaper, The Gazette, reported that graduate student Jonathan Meyer declared that I am “unfit” to be the President of Western’s Society of Graduate Students. Together with graduate student Dan Dechene, Mr. Meyer had been busy collecting signatures—sometimes from alcohol-consuming pub customers—on a petition to initiate a referendum to disaffiliate from the Federation. Of course, there can be little doubt that Mr. Meyer’s real concern is not with my presidential “fitness” but rather with my support for the Federation—about which I have always been open and honest. (Note that, earlier in the year, Mr. Dechene complained about the “process” to unionize certain graduate student workers—a typical mask for general opposition to unionization, as made obvious by his participation in the Facebook group “Vote NO Unionization of Western Grad Students”. Oh, how often it all begins with a bogus “process” concern!)

As posted by Mr. Meyer, Dan Dechene is photographed while finding humour in the stickers sneakily placed on the back of his friend, Kai Pisters—who is also a member of Ms. Ruddy's anti-Federation Facebook group. Wait a minute! What are those stickers?

Ah, yes. The Federation's anti-discrimination/anti-homophobia campaign sticker. Questions: Why do they think it's acceptable to make a mockery of this campaign in public? And why do they think it's okay to waste campaign materials in this way? Ms. Ruddy's anti-Federation Facebook group declares that “the CFS uses its resources to take stances on countless social and political issues irrelevant to postsecondary education.” Is this the kind of social issue that she thinks a national student organization should ignore?

Certainly, it’s no secret that my opinion is in perfect alignment with that of Jim Turk’s, the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). CAUT is the national voice for academic staff. In response to criticisms paralleling those of Conservative Party activists, like Ms. Ruddy, Dr. Turk recently described the Federation as “one of the most activist, committed and progressive student associations not only in Canada but internationally.” He added: “The Canadian Association of University Teachers has worked closely with the Canadian Federation of Students for years, and we consider them our closest national ally in pressing for high quality, accessible post-secondary education.”

I also agree profusely with the President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)-Ontario, Sid Ryan, who recently responded to such criticisms by describing the Federation as “one of Canada’s most progressive and effective organizations speaking on the interests and issues affecting students.” In regards to the criticisms themselves, he highlighted that “the not so hidden agenda here is to hog-tie the CFS, so that they are no longer able to challenge universities and governments that continue to saddle Canadian families and students with upwardly spiraling tuition fees and debt.” Many unionized student (and other) workers in post-secondary education are members of CUPE.

Returning to Mr. Meyer, one is left wondering: On which side of the fence is he located? The proof, as my mother likes to say, is in the pudding. While Mr. Meyer claimed only to desire “debate” about the merits of Federation membership—his supposed motivation for the defederation petition drive—he was quick to join Ms. Ruddy’s explicitly anti-Federation Facebook group. As a member of that group, Mr. Meyer posted a comment in which he called me (among other things) a “hack” of the Federation and also a “proclaimed [sic] homosexual,” as though one’s sexuality is an appropriate target for consideration in a forum established to identify political opponents. Indeed, apart from its commitment to right-wing economic ideas espoused by the likes of Milton Friedman and the Fraser Institute, one is immediately reminded of the Conservative Party’s—um, shall we say—less than celebratory treatment of sexual minorities.

So, beware: He supports reduced tuition fees and he’s also a “homosexual”! Impeach the “unfit” president before it’s too late!

As time passes, I have no doubt that the true colours of the anti-Federation mouthpieces—like Ms. Ruddy, Mr. Meyer, and Mr. Dechene—will increasingly come to light. They always do. Of course, this story almost always begins with “concerns” about “democracy,” “transparency,” and “process.” Those concerns are then broadcast across the land with the help of fiercely partisan bloggers—and often being uncritically regurgitated in the student press. Many students, finding it hard to believe that anybody would actually favour higher tuition fees and student debt, are persuaded that the Federation must really be “corrupt.” But, with a little effort, the mouthpieces can be exposed. The connections to radical right-wing ideologies and agendas are seldom far beneath the surface. (And they sure do get testy when those connections are pointed out! What's that old expression about protesting too much?!) And so there appears Stephen Harper, smiling beside Ms. Ruddy—a freshly minted graduate of the school of Preston Manning, the Manning Centre, which “is committed to [...] finding ways for conservatives of all ideological and regional backgrounds to work together toward common objectives.” Yikes! Could one of those objectives be a carefully coordinated attack upon one of Canada’s most progressive and effective organizations?

Are these the people we want crafting policy for post-secondary education? Representing us? Can we trust the baseless opinions of those mouthpieces who parrot Conservative talking points about “corruption” within the Canadian Federation of Students?

Regarding post-secondary education policy and human rights, I must confess that my own underlying values depart significantly from those of the Conservative Party of Canada. Indeed, I’d be “unfit” as a Conservative Party activist. You could say that I’m with the CAUT. And CUPE-Ontario. And you’re damn right that I’m with the Canadian Federation of Students: It’s the only national student organization in Canada that has, for years, tenaciously fought for ordinary students and their families, and for a vision of post-secondary education that guarantees equality of access for all regardless of socioeconomic background, and regardless of those other vicious social barriers that serve to divide rather than unite us—like homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ableism, and racism. It's certainly not a vision favoured by Canada's ruling elite. So, naturally, Ms. Ruddy’s Facebook group calls that vision “far-left radicalism.” And me? I call it worth fighting for.

Is your university administration watching YOU?

2009-09-25T01:55:00.003-04:00

It's a little creepy what a Freedom of Information (http://tinyurl.com/y9jkxql) request will turn up. I recently queried the e-mail records of senior administrators at The University of Western Ontario and found this (among other intriguing things):

Fred Longstaffe is the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost of the university. Paul Davenport is the former President. Linda Miller is the Vice-Provost (Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies). Gitta Kulczycki is the Vice-President (Resources & Operations).

It seems that the most senior administrators of the university were concerning themselves with (lil' ol') me even before I was elected President of Western's Society of Graduate Students (SOGS). And it's rather intriguing that Dr. Longstaffe had been keeping tabs on my years of advocacy work (i.e., with "the CFS"--the Canadian Federation of Students).

Perhaps I should be a little flattered, but really I'm more creeped out. Kudos to Dr. Longstaffe, though, for his accurate "reading of the future."

G8 Countries & Most Populated Countries

2009-08-30T21:59:00.013-04:00

G8 and EU countries

Here are some basic facts and figures about the G8 and G20 to help demystify the nature and global location of these "economic clubs" -- i.e., imperialist networks -- established by and for elites in order to negotiate the expansion of capitalist greed at the expense of the working masses and Earth's fragile ecosystem.

G8 Countries
(from largest economy to smallest [i] with populations in parentheses)

The Group of Eight (started in 1975 as G6) most advanced industrialized nations includes [ii, iii]:

[1] United States (307.2M)
[3] Japan (127.1M)
[5] Germany (82.3M)
[6] United Kingdom (61.1M)
[7] Russia (140M) - limited participation from 1991 as USSR, became full member in 1998
[8] France (64.1M)
[10] Italy (58.1M)
[13] Canada (33.5M) - joined in 1976 resulting in the creation of the G7

POPULATION TOTAL: 873.4M (12.9% of the world) [iv]

Top 8 Most Populated Countries
(from most to least)

China (1338.6M) [i, v]
India (1166.1M) [i, v]
United States (307.2M) [v, vi]
Indonesia (240.3M) [v]
Brazil (198.7M) [i, v]
Pakistan (176.2M)
Bangladesh (156.1M)
Nigeria (149.2M)

POPULATION TOTAL: 3732.4M (3.7B; 55% of the world, 50.4% without the US) [iv]

NOTES

[i] Economy size according to GDP at purchasing power parity.

[ii] The European Union (EU; economy = largest in the world, population = 491.6M) is represented within the G8, but not as a fully participating member. The EU is also a member of the G20.

[iii] Large economy countries not part of the G8 include:
[2] China [iv], [4] India [iv], [9] Brazil [iv], [11] Mexico (111.2M), [12] Spain (40.5M)

[iv] World total = 6790.1M (6.8B).

[v] Member of the G20 (created in 1999). The other G20 members are: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey. The 20th member is the European Union.

[vi] The US is the only G8 country in the Top 8 Most Populated Countries.

SOURCES

CIA World Factbook (accessed Aug. 30/09)
URL: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

UofT G8 Information Centre (accessed Aug. 30/09)
URL: http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/what_is_g8.html

UofT G20 Information Centre (accessed Aug. 30/09)
URL: http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/g20whatisit.html

A checklist for public decision-making

2008-12-15T22:43:00.005-05:00

Ursula Franklin

Every lawmaker, big and small, should have this checklist on hand at all times.

"Should one not ask of any public project or loan whether it:
(1) promotes justice;
(2) restores reciprocity;
(3) confers divisible or indivisible benefits;
(4) favours people over machines;
(5) whether its strategy maximizes gains or minimizes disaster;
(6) whether conservation is favoured over waste;
(7) whether the reversible is favoured over the irreversible?"

- Ursula Franklin, The Real World of Technology (1990, p. 126)

On so-called "strategic voting"

2008-10-02T05:25:00.004-04:00

Many on the progressive side of politics will be considering "strategic voting" in the federal election. Understandably, we're worried about the possibility of the most extreme right-wing (majority) government that Canada has ever seen: the Harper Conservatives. The Conservatives are taking Canada in the wrong direction: economically and socially.

Personally, I'm voting:

in accordance with my core beliefs, principles, and values;
to register publicly my support for a particular party, platform, and vision; and,
to ensure that my party of choice gets more campaign funding next time.

For me, those are the strategic considerations: my integrity, being counted, and financial resources. As I see it, voting for any party other than NDP would be akin to voting against myself. Further, the party leader, its candidates, its campaign workers, its members, and the general public, need to see voting numbers to know that there is support for the party, its platform, and its vision; this is important on many levels. Finally, public funding for a party's election campaign is tied to the number of votes that the party received in the last election; for this reason alone, there is no such thing as a "wasted" vote.

The following commentary, on a popular blog by an Ottawa writer, provides more food for thought about "strategic voting":

"Think Twice About Voting Strategically"

Excerpt: "There is one issue I'm going to weigh in on during this election, and that's the advocacy of so-called 'strategic voting'. It's based on faulty assumptions, is frequently clumsily calculated and executed (often by people with hidden but vested interests), and most seriously: it can lead to quite perverse outcomes."

Link: http://www.punditsguide.ca/2008/09/think-twice-about-voting-strategically.php

How much is $50 billion? How does it compare to Canada's budget?

2008-10-01T04:29:00.004-04:00

The Harper Conservatives, with total support from the Dion Liberals, are giving away $50 billion in tax cuts to big corporations. Now, this magnificent giveaway might thrill their friends sitting around the boardroom tables -- but, in these uncertain times, who is looking out for the concerns of those sitting around Canada's kitchen tables? What about childcare? Catastrophic drug costs? Care for seniors? Hiring more doctors and nurses? Skyrocketing tuition fees?

Jack Layton and the NDP promise to cancel the Conservative-Liberal tax cuts for corporations. Canada's corporate tax levels have already been reduced in recent years. Canada's corporate tax levels are already highly competitive; they're lower than China, Brazil, India, Korea, the United States, France, and Japan! And besides, tax cuts -- as a one-size-fits-all approach -- are not a guaranteed method of stimulating the economy. Sometimes corporations just take the money and run. There are other strategies.

To (un)appreciate this wrong-headed Conservative-Liberal corporate giveaway, one needs to look at comparative figures. That's what I'm providing, here. What follows is a chart detailing Canada's expenditures (and surplus) for the one-year fiscal period ending in 2008. How does our federal government spend its money? Instead of giving away $50 billion to corporations, couldn't we use that money to improve our society and to invest in our economy's productive capacity? Couldn't we, the people, give OURSELVES a raise -- instead of the big corporations? YES WE CAN.

Just look at the numbers, and then imagine: more for health care, industrial development, education, culture, the environment, research, and housing. For $50 billion, we could double investments in all of those areas -- for drug coverage, green jobs, strategic business development, lower tuition fees, arts funding, environmental protection, and helping the homeless out of the cold. And we'd still have money remaining in Canada's surplus. We'd also save billions more by bringing our troops home from the disastrous and deadly war in Afghanistan.

We've been told for years and years and years -- by the same-old Liberals and the same-old Conservatives: "Sorry. It can't be done." And yet, they can find $50 billion to give away to their friends on Bay Street. We, the people, deserve better. It's our country and it's our government. We've worked hard. We've sacrificed. We've waited for the "trickle down." But we're feeling squeezed -- and the rich just keep getting richer (a well-established empirical fact and trend). We're one of the richest countries in the world. It's time to share some of that wealth, to bring relief to working people and the middle class, and to make poverty history.

Only Jack Layton and the NDP will deliver. The choice is clear: $50 billion more for the corporations, or $50 billion to improve our society and to ease the burdens of our everyday lives. If you want the same-old, same-old, and if you want to give more money to corporations, then vote Conservative or Liberal. But if you're sick of the broken promises, and if you're sick of waiting for all that wealth to magically "trickle down," then WAIT NO MORE! Elect Jack Layton as Prime Minister!

The NDP plan is prudent, it's fiscally responsible, and it's based upon cautious economic estimates. So, what ultimately separates it from the plans of the Conservatives and the Liberals? Simple. Either we invest the $50 billion in ourselves -- in Canada -- or we just hand it over to the big corporations so they can enjoy record-breaking profits AGAIN.

As I see it, the choice is a no-brainer. It's time to try something new. Strong New Democrats for Canada!

RELATED NEWS STORY: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=02139407-6d38-4236-8e73-2aa8efe2d88a&p=1

What is a "good economy"?

2008-09-08T14:53:00.003-04:00

I've been hearing that the Conservatives are "good" for "the economy." Really? Where did that idea come from? Before making that assumption, let's consider what a "good economy" might look like.

The Good Economy

FROM: http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/compass/documents/ANewPoliticalEconomy.pdf

What is the economy for? Too often the economy (narrowly defined) is wrongly assumed to be an end in itself. The good economy should advance the good life and help us to create a good society. It is not merely a means to pay for these things – a good economy should itself embody and actualise our values of social justice, quality of life, mutual responsibilities, democratic accountability and environmental sustainability.

The good economy provides for public goods as well as private consumption. Generating tax revenues to pay for excellent public services is a leading purpose and benefit of prosperity, not a drag to be minimised and apologised for. The good economy promotes social justice. Inequality and poverty are redressed through progressive taxation to fund redistributive benefits and services, which are universal and free at the point of use unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. Women, minorities and disadvantaged groups are treated equally and people are fairly treated in the marketplace.

The good economy is a caring economy. It provides living wages, secure pensions and affordable housing for all. It supports a progressive shortening of working hours, with productivity gains taken as time as well as income, as happened through much of the twentieth century but has stalled since the 1980s. It offers everyone the opportunity to enjoy the fulfilments of both work and caring, rather than having too much of one or the other. It supports the household, care and voluntary economies.

The good economy is a democratised and accountable economy. It promotes good working conditions, democratic workplaces, more work time flexibility and more employee control over work. It contains responsible corporations held to account through legal and fiduciary duties and frameworks. It has a more collectivist framework for decisions, not a purely market choice driven approach. It is embedded in a social Europe and international governance mechanisms, and helps promote sustainability, pro-poor development and democracy worldwide.

The good economy is environmentally sustainable. Tax and pricing structures make conserving energy and resources profitable, and waste costly. Smart regulation prevents damage before it happens, rather than trying to clean it up afterwards, and creates opportunities for green businesses.

The good economy outperforms the deregulated ‘feral’ economy in traditional economic terms. By preventing businesses from causing social and environmental damage, it removes the need for expensive remedial programmes, allowing better use of public resources while still improving the public realm. Public interest decisions improve the long-term viability of businesses and their resilience to trade and environmental shocks. Contented and secure workers bring more to their work, are better able to meet its challenges, and more ready to be innovative and enterprising.

But the good economy measures its success not primarily in terms of monetary growth, commercial competitiveness, or narrow efficiency, but in terms of human well-being, longer-term resilience and security, and environmental sustainability. It is one in which people want to live and work, and where companies invest with confidence.