The Test Pen

This page is now Occupied

2011-10-26T14:03:00.000-07:00

by Lin Abdul Rahman
Photo by Deanna Budgell
The Sputnik, Fall 2011, Issue 6

On September 17, a group of protesters set up camp on Zuccotti Park in the Wall Street financial district to demand a reform to the US financial and economic system. Over the next few weeks, the number of campers swelled, media attention grew and the movement’s influence began to spread.

Although criticized as being leaderless, the movement’s goal of ending corporate greed and lobbyist control over government policies resonated across the globe.

On October 15^th, 900 cities around the world staged their own “occupations”. In Malaysia, over 200 people “occupied” Dataran Merdeka. In Spain, over 46, 000 people “occupied” Madrid Square. In Toronto, over 1000 people gathered at the corner of King and Bay Street and marched to St. James Park. Later, “occupations” sprang up in Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, London and Windsor.

Despite the movement’s growing popularity, authorities have shown little sympathy and no sign of acquiescing to occupiers’ demands. The occupiers, meanwhile, show no signs of leaving. Mainstream media attention has been largely pessimistic while critics question the movement’s ability to sustain itself. After all, these occupiers are just rabble-rousing anarchists and hippies without clear objectives, right?

This image seems to be at odds with the movement’s growing influence and my curiosity was naturally piqued. I decided to visit St. James Park myself.

It quickly became apparent to me that a lot of planning and organization had occurred even before the October 15 March took place. As soon as the contingent arrived at the park, various areas were cordoned off for specific purposes. The camping area came with family-friendly and female-only sections. The Sanitation Committee had prepared rows of port-a-potties and hand-washing stations. The Medic Committee put up signs saying “no photos” around the medic area, as would be the normal procedure in medical facilities. The Media Committee kept occupiers and everyone abreast on everything occupation-related. There was also a “free occupy library” with free reading materials and an occupation “must read” list.

There was no shortage of what society calls “hippies” but they were mostly involved with the basic mechanisms that kept movement running smoothly. There were trained marshal teams patrolling the park in the evening to keep it safe. The Sanitation Committee keeps the park clean. The Facilitation Committee keeps discussions going and ensured the movement remained as participatory as possible.

There was little semblance of anarchy at the park, except maybe for the multitude of signs hung on trees and tucked among bushes. – signs that cleverly and clearly articulated the need for change.

These signs highlighted problems regarding a myriad issues: inadequate health care; rising tuition fees and student debt; lack of citizen participation in government; infringement upon native, minority and immigrant rights; violation of workers’ rights; a failed capitalist economy; increased military spending; the list goes on.

To the movement’s critics, this underscores its lack of focus. To me, this illustrates one simple fact: there are so many things wrong with our system today that it’s hard to pinpoint one single problem that can be easily addressed. The global economic and political system has become so corrupt that it is harming rather than serving the interests of the people, also known the “99%”.

Evidently the Occupy movement’s slogan, “we are the 99%” is not an oversimplified concept designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. A research team at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich developed a complex model which demonstrates how a few transnational corporations (TNCs) own disproportionately large chunks of the world’s economy. Simply put, there is a small network of 1318 corporations worldwide, each owning several other corporations and businesses, each of which have ownerships in several other businesses. This multiple ownership gives these corporations control over 60% of global manufacturing revenues.

This means that most of the world’s wealth is going to top tier of this network, which largely comprises of financial corporations like Barclays Bank and the Goldman Sachs Group.

Hence, it makes perfect sense for the movement to begin on Wall Street and spread to Ontario’s financial hub on Bay Street and elsewhere on the globe. Our political and economic systems are closely linked and the problems we face are multi-faceted. Instigating change, therefore, will require a global effort.

While the movement has mobilized people from diverse backgrounds, it appears to attract a lot youths in particular. This is not surprising as the younger generation’s future hinges precariously on the stability of today’s economy, whether they are entering post-secondary education or the job market. Nonetheless, it is contingent upon society as a whole to ensure that there is an economy for youths to graduate into.

Students in Chile took this to heart when they protested against increasing privatization of universities and rising tuition fees. Over 80% of Chile’s population responded in support of the students, forcing the government to replace its Minister of Education, negotiate terms with the student movement and reform Chile’s education system.

Perhaps it’s time for us to do more than just gripe about our own rising tuition fees and increasingly unsatisfactory educational experience. If there’s anything we can learn from Chile and the Occupy movement it is that we all have a voice and, when we speak in unity, that voice will be heard.

Hunting for sources

2011-06-09T03:49:00.000-07:00

When you don’t have emails and fixed schedules to work with, the only way to get interviews is to physically find the interviewees.

That’s what my colleague Kwabena Ampratwum had to do to get two interviews for his radio documentary on the conflict between local farmers and Fulani herdsmen in the Agogo district.

At 10 a.m. we left for Agogo, a farming town located two hours east of Kumasi. Ampratwum had scheduled a meeting with the Agogo Chief’s secretary, Mr. Joseph Nti who would arrange our interview with the chief himself. But when we arrived at the chief’s palace, we were told that Mr. Nti had gone to Kumasi for a meeting. We were out of luck.

Ampratwum then called the Agogo Chief of Police, to confirm our meeting with him later that afternoon. He was reluctant to give an interview without first getting authorization from the Chief of Police in Kumasi, Mr. Muhammad Tenko. We were told to call again in 30 minutes.

After half-an-hour, Ampratwum called again, only to be told that Mr. Tenko had refused to give the authorization. The Agogo Chief of Police was not allowed to give an interview that day. Our trip to Agogo had been in vain. We boarded a tro-tro and headed back to Kumasi.

En route to Kumasi, Ampratwum called Mr. Nti once again and discovered that he was passing time at the Kumasi Zoo while waiting for his meeting. We hopped into a taxi as soon as we arrived in Kumasi and headed for the zoo.

After explaining the purpose of our meeting to Mr. Nti, he explained that he was also the Registrar of Traditional Lands for the Agogo district and was therefore in the capacity to comment on the issue. Plus, he had some time to kill before his next meeting. Bingo.

Mr. Nti’s assistant quickly found us a wooden bench and we located ourselves under a tree for some shade. Although the zoo was surrounded by 10-foot walls, there was still a lot of noise coming from the busy Kejetia market outside. Ampratwum had to put on his ear plugs to filter out the noise so he can hear Mr. Nti.

Luv FM Journalist Kwabena Ampratwum interviewing the Agogo Chief's Secretary, Joseph Nti at the Kumasi Zoo

When we were done interviewing Mr. Nti, Ampratwum takes another shot at getting authorization from Mr. Tenko. He lucks out; Mr. Tenko was willing to compromises – no interview with the Agogo Chief of Police, but Mr. Tenko himself was willing to talk.

We jumped back into a taxi and headed for the Kumasi Central Police Station for another impromptu interview.

It took us 15 minutes to get the information we needed and by the time we were done, it was past 4 o’clock. It was time to head back to the office and work on the story.

It took us an entire work day, a two-hour trip to Agogo and back to Kumasi, plus a visit to the Kumasi Zoo. In the end, we got the two interviews we were after, even though it wasn’t with the two people we originally intended.

The Daily Commute - Ghana style

2011-06-09T03:42:00.000-07:00

Tro-tros are one of the most common forms of public transportation in Ghana. They are minivans that have been refitted with extra seats.

A regular tro-tro in Kumasi can carry up to 17 passengers, including the driver, the conductor – called mate - and two people squeezed into the front passenger seat.

View from the back of a full tro-tro

My tro-tro ride to work, which takes about 15 minutes in congestion-free traffic, costs 40peswas per trip. That’s equivalent to about 30cents. A taxi ride would cost about 3Ghc, equivalent to about C$2.25.

There are no route maps or fare schedules – at least, not in Kumasi. There are, however, landmarks where passengers can ask to be let off and by which the mate determines the fare. For example, if I were to board the tro-tro and say, “Aseda House,” – as my colleagues had instructed me to do – he would respond with, “40 peswas.”

On my first few trips, hailing a tro-tro felt like hyper-speed-dating. In my case, I stand on the side of the street and try to make contact with the tro-tro’s mate, who would be shouting out the tro-tro’s destination. If it’s heading for Adum, where I’m staying, I wave it down. If I can’t make out what the mate is calling out, I’d try to mouth my destination as clearly as I can so that the mate or the driver can make out what I am saying and decide whether or not to pick me up.

This whole exchange happens within the few seconds when the tro-tro is heading towards my general direction.

Once on board, I simply wait until the mate is ready to collect my fare. During the entire journey, he would be busy opening and closing the van’s door, jumping in and out of the van and calling out for passengers. Handing him a bunch of coins when he’s not ready to take them is not smart, as I’ve discovered.

There are no designated tro-tro stops either. On my first day taking the tro-tro to work, I simply approached a large group of people waiting by a street corner. The lady I spoke to confirmed that the place we were standing was a regular tro-tro stop.

Even though the whole process seemed chaotic to me at first, I’ve discovered that there is a system at work here. Fares were collected, people were getting to work and children to school. When the tro-tro that my colleague and I were in broke down, everyone automatically and quietly disembarked. Someone grumbled but no one threw up a fuss or demanded a refund. Everyone simply dispersed to look for another tro-tro or a taxi.

Ghana’s tro-tros may not be as smooth-running and organized as what I’m used to back home, but it gets people to and from places all the same, and at a far cheaper price too.

Dancing to the beat of Kete drums

2011-06-02T03:59:00.000-07:00

Kete is a dance and drum ensemble commonly found in the Akan regions of Ghana. I managed to catch a live performance of Kete during the Jubilee Oil Exhibition’s opening ceremony at Kumasi’s Centre for National Art on May 24, 2011. Besides professional dancers in lapa cloths, students attending the exhibition also got a chance to showcase their own traditional dancing skills.

Two of them – one from Prempeh High School and the other from Ahmadiya High School – were crowned as the best dancers and were invited to hit the stage for one last performance. As someone who is deeply rooted in my own Malay culture, it was great to watch a young group of people proudly displaying their cultural heritage.

Watch the videos for a snippet of the event.

'Till the labour market do us part

2011-03-30T19:28:00.000-07:00

by Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Winter 2011, Issue 8 - The Green Issue

(Art by Bridget Parker)

Maclean’s magazine recently revealed that Canada’s immigration laws are not matrimony-friendly. The prevalence of Internet romance, a globalized labour market and the push for Canadian students to study abroad have encouraged people to “cross-pollinate like never before,”according to the article’s authors.

However, immigration laws turn a blind eye to matters of the heart and instead look at the demands of Canada’s labour market when deciding who gets to enter Canada and who doesn’t. If your future spouse can potentially join the work force in areas where the country needs him or her most, you can look forward to an easy process and a life of matrimonial bliss in Canada.

If not, you can expect a mountain of legal costs and administrative hassling to simply remain in Canada long enough to celebrate your next anniversary. So feel free to broaden your horizons, travel the world and meet new people. Just think long and hard before bringing that special someone home to meet your folks.

The forgotten struggle in Palestine

2011-03-16T19:45:00.000-07:00

by Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Winter 2011, Issue 7

On March 12, Israeli media reported that five Israeli settlers were murdered in the West Bank city of Nablus. Israeli authority immediately arrested 20 Palestinians and, as if in revenge, the Israeli cabinet approved the building of hundreds of new settler homes in the occupied West Bank the following day.

The expansion of Israeli settlements into occupied territories clearly defies International law and the Geneva Convention of 1949. However, this flagrant violation is lost in the hubris currently sweeping across the Middle East.

Jewish scholar and Palestinian solidarity activist Norman Finkelstein noted the lack of substantial reaction from Palestinians in light of the recent political upheaval in the Arab world.

Speaking in London, Ontario as part of his Northern Ontario lecture tour, Finkelstein admitted that there was little jubilation in Gaza when Egypt’s Mubarak regime was overthrown on February 11, 2011. This is despite the fact that the Mubarak regime has been complicit in facilitating Israel’s blockade on Gaza.

Speaking at Laurier Brantford’s Israeli Apartheid Week event, Alan Sears, Ryerson University’s Professor of Sociology and founder of Faculty for Palestine, said that the political upheaval of the Arab world makes Palestine’s struggle for freedom a timely topic for discussion.

This is because Middle Eastern governments such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, have largely ignored and thus facilitated Israel’s arbitrary clamp down on Palestine. Palestinians suffering under oppression are in turn left to choose between living as second-class citizens in neighbouring countries or living as non-entities in their homeland.

As pro-democracy protesters advance in Libya, Yemen and Morocco, Israel’s list of allies in the region grows short. Israel might soon have to reconsider the dynamics of its relationship to Palestine and its neighbouring countries.

Al Jazeera English’s Ali Abunimah writes, “... if Arab countries which host large Palestinian refugee populations undergo democratic transformations, new possibilities for Palestinian politics will open up.”

Potentially fuelling the combustible situation is Wikileaks’ release of the Palestine Papers – a record of negotiations between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israeli. The leaked documents revealed the PA to be a mere puppet – a front to give the impression that Israel is seriously engaging in peace talks and working towards a two-state settlement.

Borne of the agreement between the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel under the Oslo Accords in 1994, the PA was a temporary legislative body with limited authority over urban populated areas in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestine Papers, however, proved that the PA has been acquiescing to Israeli demands, relinquishing substantial Palestinian territories to Israel. The PA’s former leader, Saeb Erekat was recorded to go so far as to offer Israel “the biggest Yerushalaim (Jerusalem) in Jewish history.”

According to Abunimah, the PA should dissolve itself and return its powers to Israel, who will then be compelled by the Geneva Convention of 1949 to treat Palestinians with justice.

At the moment, the PA is merely acting as a buffer between Palestine and its oppressors. Now that the PA has been revealed to be Israel’s lackey, the logical next step would be for Palestinians to demand for the dissolution of the PA.

“It would be a recognition of reality and an act of resistance on the part of Palestinians who would collectively refuse to continue to assist the occupier in occupying them,” Abunimah wrote.

Israel has been fidgeting nervously behind the curtains as Egypt’s pro-democracy demonstrators began gaining momentum. When it was evident that Hosni Mubarak was on an irreversible downward trajectory, Israel’s media began inflaming the Jewish citizenry’s existing fear of getting an Islamic state for a neighbour.

What Israel really fears is the possibility of a new Egyptian government that isn’t willing to ignore the oppression going on next door to them.

In fact, within days of Mubarak’s resignation on February 11, the Rafah boarder was opened, allowing Palestinians to return home after living in exile just a stone’s throw away from their homeland. According to Ken O’Keefe, a Gulf War veteran and activist who calls himself a “world citizen,” Israel’s blockade on Gaza is showing positive signs of collapse with the election of Egypt’s new Foreign Minister, Nabil Elaraby.

As the former judge of the International Court of Justice that ruled against Israel’s separation wall in 2005, Elaraby has recently reaffirmed his stand that Israel’s blockade on Gaza is a clear violation of international law.

Early this month, O’Keefe carried the first sack of cement into Gaza. He is now finalizing plans to send another 30 tons of it to help Gazans rebuild their homes, schools, hospitals and factories. Could this be a signal that the tide is turning in the Israel-Palestine conflict? For the sake of the four million Palestinians living under Israel’s military control, let us hope so.

The iron fist of the Big Telecom giants

2011-02-16T19:57:00.000-08:00

The Sputnik, Winter 2011, Issue 5

The following is an article written by one member of the editorial board. The opinions expressed in this article represent a consensus formed by The Sputnik’s editorial board. They do not, in any way, reflect the position of WLUSP on any particular issue.

On January 25, the CRTC decided to allow Bell Canada to impose a usage-based billing regime
on its customers. This move by the CRTC is, to say the least, disappointing (there are other, more accurate adjectives but let’s keep things civil for the time being).

To the uninitiated, here’s the low-down on the debate: usage-based billing (UBB) allows Internet service providers, or ISPs, to charge Internet users based on their amount of download. Bell purportedly went to CRTC and played the “woe is me” card, citing that 80% of its bandwidth is being used by only 17% of its subscribers, also known as “Internet hogs.” According to Bell, these “hogs” need to be put on the proverbial leash. The CRTC acquiesced, allowing Bell to place a download limit of 25GB a month on its customers. Users will then be charged for every gigabyte of downloading over that limit.

Allegedly, Bell’s move is meant to hold these Internet hogs accountable for their above-average usage. The implicit outcome of that decision, however, is that the bulk of Bell’s customers – the 80% whose usage is well below average – will also bear the brunt.

Understanding the CRTC’s decisions of late requires impressive mental acrobatics. First, the CRTC puts in a proposal that would allow the broadcasting of false news, essentially paving the way for Fox News’ northern cousin, Sun TV Media (colloquially known as “Fox News North”).
Now it’s caving to capitalist interests by giving in to pressures from telecom giant Bell Canada.

Naturally, the decision caused a public outcry. Openmedia.ca, a non-proit organization, launched a campaign that called on the public to write letters and petition the CRTTC to reverse that decision. A dozen protesters showed up at Dundas Square in Toronto on Friday February 4 to stage a public protest. They were later joined by NDP’s Jack Layton and his posse, who attracted most of the media’s spotlight.

Consequently, CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein announced last week that the decision’s implementation, scheduled for March 1, will be put on hold for 60 days. He cited “public outcry” as part of the regulator’s reason for reviewing the decision.

Like the majority of the public who took to the streets and Facebook in protest, this editorial board is of the consensus that UBB “will kill innovation in Canada,” as one editor put it. As it is, Canada is one of the few countries in the world to charge users per gigabyte downloaded. We also rank somewhere at the top for highest cell phone costs. This recent decision by the CRTC is only propelling us further in the direction of undemocratic communications policies.

“The Internet is supposed to be a level playing ield,” said another editor. Allowing profit-driven telecom giants to arbitrarily shackle users with stricter pricing will turn the Internet into an exclusive playground of the rich.

National Post’s Tony Corcorran painted the UBB debate as another political tug-owar; specifically, it’s Liberal MP’s Dan Mac-Teague’s “talking point” in cabinet. It’s true that of the 2,300 or so people who replied as “attending” the protest against UBB on Facebook, only 12 of them actually showed up. It’s also true that NDP’s Jack Layton and his crew later boosted the protest’s dismal head count to a respectable one.

However, one editor noted that the absence of supporters during the protest does not prove that the UBB debate is purely political. Newspapers had already reported the day before that PM Stephen Harper and Minister of Industry, Tony Clement would address the CRTC regarding this issue. That, and most likely the weather, may have dissuaded people from showing up for the protest.

Some may argue that our discontent with UBB is indicative of our skewed priorities – we should instead try to cultivate relationships with people outside of the virtual world rather than just on Facebook. There are more important things in life than catching up on the latest episode of Jersey Shore.

But is that all we use the Internet for?

One editor points out that not all movies viewed online involves illegal downloading. University student are often required to watch documentary films as part of their classes and assignments. Since university students often live in shared housing, a 25 GB download cap can easily be used up by one student household in far less than a month. The UBB pricing regime, in this sense, would severely impede our learning process as university students.

So what’s the possible solution? One imaginative editor suggested that imposing UBB will only give rise to a “Napster of the Internet” – the one rogue free Internet service provider that will liberate Canadians from the shackles of telecom giants’ dictatorial terms of agreement. Provided, of course, that it doesn’t get sued into nonexistence and goes underground.

Imaginations aside, there are organized individuals out there who see the problem going beyond immediate issues like the UBB debate. ahumanright.org, for example, believes that information access and, by extension, Internet access is an inalienable human right. Every individual on the planet, from the political blogger in Quebec to the cocoa farmer in Cote d’Ivoire, should be able to access the Internet from their respective locations.

What ahumanright.org plans to do is simple: “[build] a free communication network that is available anywhere.” According to the organization, Earth is covered several times over in a day by satellites, and very few of them are operating at full eficiency. ahumanright.org plans to procure used satellite dishes and get satellite owners to donate their unused bandwidth to build a global, unfettered communications network. Access to the network will then be given free of charge to anyone, anywhere.

Sounds like a pie in the sky? You bet. But at least it’s one that could potentially feed us more gigabytes a month then Bell and the CRTC can.

The English Defence League's Canadian Debut

2011-01-19T20:01:00.000-08:00

by Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Winter 2011, Issue 2

The English Defence League (EDL), a controversial far-right group, has joined forces with the Jewish Defence League of Canada (JDL) in its war against “political Islam.”

At the time of this writing, The EDL’s maiden rally is planned for Tuesday January 18th. It will be organized by the JDL at its headquarters, the Toronto Zionist Building on Marlee Avenue, near Lawrence Avenue and the Allen Road. Last Tuesday, JDL held a “support rally” there during which EDL’s leader, Stephen Lennon a.k.a. Tommy Robinson spoke to supporters via online hook-up.

Protesters congregated in front of the building, chanting “EDL, go to hell!” Despite the presence of eight Mounties, protesters and JDL supporters clashed, resulting in two arrests and a vandalized police car.

Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, wrote in the Toronto Sun last week that he foresees a far worse outcome from Tuesday’s impending rally and is “[concerned] about the inevitable mess that will be left behind.”

Prior to the “support rally,” Farber also told the National Post that the CJC is disappointed that the Jewish Defence League would associate itself with a group “whose record in the U.K. is one of violence and extremism.”

The EDL’s controversial stand against Islam and what it calls “Islamic fascism” in the UK has alienated the group from mainstream British Jewish associations as well as leftist groups. The EDL is said to have strayed from its professed opposition against Islamic extremism and now opposes Muslims as a whole.

Britain’s respected Community Security Trust said, “They are no friends of the Jewish community, or of Israel.” Even the Board of Deputies of British Jews has rejected EDL’s attempts at supporting Zionism, calling it “empty and duplicitous.”

This unfavourable British climate may explain why EDL has now set its sights on Canada.

EDL’s grope in the dark managed to land on the Jewish Defence League of Canada, as many noted in dismay. However, this “troubling marriage,” as Farber calls it, should come as no surprise.

To some extent, JDL can be considered EDL’s kissing cousin in Canada. Although small, JDL has long held similarly controversial stands against Islam. Perhaps even more telling is JDL’s website, which lists Jewish assimilation into society, inter-marriage and “Jewish love for the non-Jew” as the biggest threats facing Jews in Canada today.

It’s important to note that JDL and its position regarding Islam is not representative of that of the larger Jewish community in Canada. EDL itself has been described by mainstream media as mainly consisting of “football hooligans” and are not expected to gain much traction with Canada’s middle-class majority.

Nevertheless, the scuffle from Tuesday’s ‘support rally’ shows clearly the ripple effect that can result from throwing a proverbial pebble that is the EDL/JDL union into a pond that is Canadian society.

Although the EDL/JDL propaganda is not expected to have much resonance, we should never the less be vocal about rejecting such propaganda here. Quietly rejecting an unjust act does not relief us of the responsibility for its outcomes.

Case in point: Terry Loughner. Sarah Palin, Fox New et al and the media in general have been largely vilified as the invisible propagator of the Arizona shooting. What’s missing in the equation is society’s role – we are as equally guilty for accepting such hateful vitriol as passively as we do any other piece of news churned out by the networks. Often times we have even unknowingly amplified their message by spreading and “retweeting” those hateful quotes. Very seldom do we realize the ripple effect that those tweets cause and what they say about our social mores.

As I am writing this, the EDL rally is still set to go on. There will most surely be a protest in response and possibly some degree of violence from both sides of the fence. Inevitable, intense media attention will ensue with one party being given more than its fair share of the spotlight. However, the way we respond to that will say a lot about our values as a society.

Before you ban my wardrobe, get your facts straight

2011-01-08T14:54:00.000-08:00

By Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Issue 1, Winter 2011

As France and Belgium rally to legislate a full ban on the hijab, the religious headdress worn by Muslim women, Quebec prepares to follow in the footsteps of its European counterparts. Jean Charest has introduced Bill 94, which bans full-face coverings “pretty much everywhere but the street itself,” according to Sarah Wildman of Politics Daily.

The axial debate centers on whether the ban would liberate Muslim women from religious subjugation or be an impediment to the religious freedom that Canadians are supposedly afforded by the Charter.

As with any contentious issue, the debate generates an intricate mesh of opinions. Counter-intuitively, the Muslim Canadian Congress supports the ban while secularists worry that it may be inherently “unsecular.”

According to Dr. Tariq Ramadan, one of Europe’s foremost scholars in Islam and philosophy, secularism is about limitations: limitations on the state’s ability to enforce its authority on the church vis a vis religious institutions, and vice versa. So when the state spreads its tentacles into churches, mosques, synagogues and temples as France has so boldly done, it is going against the very principles that it claims to uphold.

According to the Montreal Gazette, 80 percent of Canadians in general and 95 percent of Quebecois support the ban on full-face coverings. I wonder how many people out of that 80 percent of Canadians understand the origins of the burqa and its contextual implementation in today’s society.

Nota bene: I oppose the wearing of the burqa, if and when it is enforced upon Muslim women against their will.

If women were to wear the hijab, niqab or burqa out of their own volition, the ban is then an outright infringement on their religious freedom – one of the basic tenets of fundamental human rights, as afforded by the Charter. In that case, a ban on religious headdresses simply reeks of religious intolerance.

As President Obama said in his speech in Cairo last June, “We cannot disguise hostility toward any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. Indeed, faith should bring us together."

Another fallacious presumption about religious headdresses is that women who wear them are oppressed, whether they know it or not. As someone who consciously chose to wear the hijab, I feel insulted that I am subjugated into the underclass of the ‘oppressed.’ The fact is that not all women who wear the hijab are forced to do so. In fact, not all Muslim women wear the hijab. To claim that Muslim women in western societies who wear the hijab are oppressed is to openly admit that you know nothing about the very people whose rights you claim to fight for.

Yet, conservative rightists, pandering to emotional politics, do not hesitate to call for a sweeping ban that would violate our individual rights as citizens. The Toronto Star’s freelancer Maggie Gilmore writes, “It's a repugnant value system and I reject it. So should all Canadians who embrace secular feminism. So let's ban the burqa, the niqab, and while we're at it, the hijab.”

Notice that no substantial argument is given as to why the hijab should be banned.

This is the very statement that would compel 80 percent of Canadians to check “Yes” when answering opinion polls about the hijab ban.

The Toronto Star’s Haroon Siddiqui was right in saying that it’s ‘scary’ when the majority feels threatened by a minority. It’s even scarier when they start harnessing the power of the law simply to quell that unfounded fear. In human rights courses, we call that ‘tyranny of the majority.’ It’s the same unfounded fear that sent the Jews to the ghettos and later extermination. It’s the same fear that sent Canadian and American Japanese to internment camps during WW2. It’s the same fear that poured billions of dollars of American tax payers’ money into a so-called war against terrorism.

My advice is, before you form an opinion on the hijab/niqab/burqa ban, find a woman who wears one and ask her why. That way, you can claim to be part of an informed public that supports democracy rather than an 80 percent majority that has possibly been misinformed. It is precisely this misinformed majority that is still amateurishly hung up on issues of assimilation versus isolation when discussing Muslims in the west. The possibility of convergence between immigrants’ culture of origin and their newly adopted one is rarely discussed.

Meanwhile, millions of Muslims in western societies already live as functioning and contributing citizens in Europe, America and Canada. They call themselves French, British, American and Canadian just as comfortably as Scientologist Tom Cruise calls himself an American or as Jewish Sacha Baren Cohen calls himself a Brit.

To borrow an oft-used expression: “Muslim women are here; they wear the hijab; deal with it.” There are far more important things we can spend our time and energy on.

The Islamic f-word

2010-11-25T14:58:00.000-08:00

By Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Issue 8, Fall 2010

I was admiring my burqa-clad Barbie at the F-Word Symposium last week when a journalism student cornered me with his notepad.

“What is Islamic feminism?” he asked me at point blank. I rubbed my chin in an effort to appear pensive and to buy myself some time. After spouting some painfully vague answers, I finally admitted that I know very little about feminism. That’s the reason why I’m one of the many wide-eyed wanderers at this event.

As for Islamic feminism – well, I didn’t even know the ideology existed until he questioned me about it.

Admitting that was embarrassing, to say the least. But I console myself with the fact that this kind of situation is out of my control – they are one of the drawbacks to being one of the few visible Muslims on campus. The hijab covering my hair is the equivalent of a bulls-eye on my back. I’m a natural target for all Islam-related curiosities.

For that very reason, my ears perked up when one of the symposium’s panellists, Margaret Toye, spoke of her experience as ‘the token feminist’.

“How ‘out’ do I want to be about my politics?” Toye said in talking about the dilemmas she faced during her earlier days of dabbling in feminism.

Of course, she eventually came clean about her newly-adopted ideology. Toye said she was subsequently and inevitably given role of “the token feminist” – the person people turn to when they need a short cut to understanding what feminism is all about.

Likewise, I stepped into the role of “the token Muslim woman” when I agreed to be interviewed at the F-Word Symposium. I became the shortcut to ticking off the “Muslim perspective” checkbox on this particular student’s checklist of people to talk to.

Don’t get me wrong – this isn’t a personal diatribe against interviews. I’m always happy to help a fellow student and I’m even happier to have my voice heard.

But in the same degree, I worry that people looking to me as an example of a Muslim may not realize that my voice is a minority within a minority. I am a far cry from being a credible representative of a group that is highly diverse politically, geographically, and even religiously.

That’s a huge responsibility, and one that I will probably never be able to handle. As it is, the public is already so grossly misled about the diversity that exists within the global Muslim population, thanks in large part to the mainstream media. When people think about Muslims, they think “Middle East”, and when they think of the hijab, they think of “oppression”.

This fallacious understanding of Muslims was almost perfectly played out, again, during the aforementioned interview that I felt more amused than upset. In the middle of answering yet another question, I realized why our conversation was such an uphill battle from the get go.

After several futile attempts, on my part, to explain the Arab culture’s treatment of women, I decided to come clean, even if it means I’ll have to turn my interviewer away empty-handed. I took a deep breath and confessed, “I’m not Arab, actually. I’m Asian,” I said.

His reaction to that confession told me that this is news and that the interview was about to come to an abrupt halt. I gave a mental sigh of relief, even though I had one regret; I wish I could explain to this student that race, religion and gender politics can intersect one another in ways that are very different from what he’s used to.

Alas, his eyes were already scanning the room for better prospects and I had promised someone else another interview.

As we took our leave, I formulated a disclaimer for the next person who might approach me for an interview: Ask me anything you want but be sure to check your presumptions at the door. Otherwise, this conversation ain’t getting nowhere.

What do Omar Khadr and Russell Williams have in common?

2010-11-11T15:10:00.000-08:00

By Lin Abdul Rahman

The Sputnik, Issue 7, Fall 2010

As two prominent Canadians contemplate the realities of their newly received prison terms, my fear-induced headline-consuming paranoia jumps ahead to the day when these convicted murderers will rejoin society.

Russell Williams, the former senior Canadian military commander, plead guilty in October charges of murder, sexual assault and burglary.

He received two life sentences for the murders, two ten-year sentences for the sexual assaults, two ten-year sentences for forcible confinement and 82 one-year sentences for his ‘secret visits.’

The sentences make it sound as if Williams will draw his final breath behind bars but in reality, the prison terms are being served back to back; Williams will be eligible for parole in 25 years.

Then there’s Omar Khadr, the 15-year old Pakistani-Canadian who has spent a good portion of his young life at Guantanamo Bay. He was charged with, among others things, the murder of U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer during a standoff in Afghanistan in 2002. Khadr has recently pleaded guilty to five counts of terrorism and war crimes as part of a strict plea bargain and is now awaiting his extradition to Canada. He will be eligible for early release in 2013.

MacLean’s magazine recently published two different articles that attempted to profile these vastly different criminals whose crimes hold no semblance to one another. But after reading the articles, which were published weeks apart, I realized that the journey Khadr and Williams took prior to committing their crimes somewhat mirror one other.

According to Maclean’s Michael Friscolanti, Khadr was a child soldier who was inducted into terrorism at a very early age. He was “[brainwashed] by a fundamentalist father, raised in the shadow of Osama bin Laden, and sent into battle as a Kalashnikov-waving teenager, he is – in the famous words of one Foreign Affairs bureaucrat – ‘a thoroughly screwed up young man.’”

The phrase “screwed up” automatically conjured images of Col. Russell Williams in his stolen floral green bustier. Growing up, he was as close a definition to an average kid, if there ever was one (newspaper reports of Williams have revealed little to nothing out of the ordinary in his childhood besides the fact that his parents divorced when he was six years old) and he held a stellar record as a Canadian army officer; that is, until his vicious crimes were discovered.

If Omar Khadr the grenade-throwing, Kalashnikov-waving teenager is a product of his upbringing and insurgent combat training, it’s possible to conclude that Russell Williams the stealth rapist and murderer is a product of the average Canadian upbringing and, more frighteningly, his years of training by the Canadian Forces.

Now that’s a scary thought, indeed.

Steyn in Canada, but only at select venues

2010-10-29T15:19:00.000-07:00

By Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Issue 6, Fall 2010

Plans for Mark Steyn’s talk titled, “Head for the Hills: Why everything in your world is doomed,” has encountered a hiccup. But since the speaker is Steyn and the group under attack is Muslims, the matter that is a molehill is fast growing into a mountain.

The talk, organized by three right-wing bloggers from strictlyright.com, was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Western Ontario. Due to swift ticket sales, the organizers booked the London Convention Centre in anticipation of a bigger crowd. Their reservation was later turned down when the LCC’s operators discovered who the speaker was.

According to the LCC’s general manager Lori Da Silva, Steyn poses a bigger security concern than what the center is able to handle.

Protesters were expected to be present at the talk and the LCC worried that the potentially rowdy crowd would make their other clients uncomfortable.

Da Silva insisted to the Toronto Sun that the decision to pull the venue was purely a business one; the LCC didn’t want to alienate its clients by hosting the talk.

That concern is justifiable, given Steyn’s controversial views on Islam and the fact that London has a sizable Muslim population.

However, the bloggers, along with conservative news sources such as the National Post and the London Free Press, claim that the LCC caved in to pressures from local Islamic groups; the only clients that the LCC is afraid of offending are Muslims.

One of the writers on strictlyright.com, Andrew Lawton, pointed out that the LCC is owned by the City of London and, as such, should not be made to cater only to a specific part of the city’s demographic.

True, the LCC is a city-owned operation and its business decisions are catered towards the interests of its clients. However, for Lawton to say that the LCC’s refusal to host Steyn’s talk as serving the interests of only its Muslim clients is to say that LCC has no clients other than Muslims.

Since the LCC is a premier conference facility and caters to the needs of the entire London demographic, perhaps even those living outside of London.

Furthermore, by demanding that the LCC disregard the alleged pressure by Islamic groups, the organizers are assuming that the only people opposed to Steyn’s talk are Muslims, which does not make sense either.

It’s important to note at this point that the organizers did not submit a required ‘client profile’ to the LCC as part of the process of booking the venue. The LCC’s operators discovered the identity of the speaker through a newspaper article and subsequently called the talk’s organizers to confirm.

Is it possible that the bloggers knew that Steyn’s appearance at the LCC would be an issue and were trying to pull a fast one?

Anyone who has ever tried to organize an event can attest to the fact that logistical problems occur no matter how meticulous you are. Last minute changes have to be made; speakers get delayed or sometimes even cancel their appearance; and some venues have their own policies as to whom they choose to host.

Experienced organizers such as the trio at strictlyright.com should be well aware that the potential for problems increases tenfold in the case of controversial speakers such as Steyn.

I mean, come on - even the peace-loving, guitar-waving Yusuf Islam (formerly known as Cat Stevens) has been banned from entering the US, and all he does is sing and play music.

Furthermore, the talk’s organizers have had experience dealing with such problems. Their recent attempt to bring Anne Coulter to UWO faced similarly controversial roadblocks. So why are they making such a big issue of this matter?

Judging from the responses of local Londoners on this issue, it seems that they’d be willing to camp out on a soccer field to hear Steyn talk.

I, for one, would love to hear what he has to say. Even though I disagree with Steyn’s views 99-percent of the time, I religiously follow his column in Maclean’s. To me, his criticism of Islam and Muslims, however inaccurate or misguided, are tethered to some sort of reality.

The least I can do is to stay informed. Plus, he’s a damn good writer.

Interestingly, since this issue hit the news, Lawton proudly reported that the event has been moved to a bigger, albeit more expensive venue and the number of attendants has risen to around 1000 people. I guess the saying is true then; no publicity is bad publicity.

There’s a happy ending for everyone involved in this matter, after all.

Canada's Human Rights Tribunal come under fire

2010-10-14T15:28:00.000-07:00

By Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Issue 5, Fall 2010

Canada’s Human Rights Tribunal is under public scrutiny again when its Ontario Tribunal (HRTO) interceded on a human rights complaint. Professor Emily Carasco, one of the two candidates shortlisted for the post of Law Dean at the University of Windsor, claimed she was
rejected for the position due to racism and sexism among members of the university’s search committee. Professor Carasco now wants the HRTO to stop U of Windsor’s search for a new Dean of Law and immediately appoint her for the position.

Early last month, the tribunal came to a decision deemed by some as invasive. It ruled in the interim that, while the tribunal investigates the complaint further, the university could continue searching and hire a replacement for outgoing Law Dean Professor Bruce Elman. However,
if the tribunal ruled in favour of Professor Carasco at the end of their investigation, the HRTO reserves the right to replace the current dean of law with Professor Carasco.

Professor Carasco’s story hasn’t been given much attention by the mainstream media, which is perhaps appropriate, given the gravity of the issue. Only cursory coverage of the news can be found in the Windsor Star and the National Post. However, the way this matter has been described in the newspapers doesn’t feel quite right on several levels.

First of all, the issue is downplayed as a squabble amongst faculty. A particularly disparaging article from the National Post likened university faculties to a ‘snake pit’. Professor Carasco’s debacle with U of Windsor’s Law School was trivialized as a ‘faculty-lounge politics’ that had gotten out of control.

I hardly think that a person of Professor Carasco’s credibility would run crying to the HRTO over trivial matters. Her oficial complaint to the HRTO detailed many instances throughout her career at U of Windsor where the university and, in particular, the faculty fell short of
meeting with equitable employment standards.

The gravest of them was where professor Carasco, among others, was clearly proven to be underpaid by the faculty. The matter was settled internally through the university’s built-in remedial mechanisms and the issue’s resolution seems to have been accepted by the parties
involved. Case closed.

Judging from this incident, I ind it hard to believe that professor Carasco’s complaint to the HRTO was simply a case of sour grapes at having been rejected for a position she coveted.

Professor Carasco also claimed that a colleague, professor Richard Moon had sabotaged her reputation by bringing up past allegations of academic misconduct. However, the matter was quickly dismissed rather than being further investigated upon. Instead, according to Professor Carasco, the search committee jumped at the opportunity to question her integrity in an effort to mask their discrimination and ultimately reject her application.

She said she felt betrayed by her colleagues and those in power at the institution. The way her allegations of sabotage by professor Moon were dismissed left her “psychologically bruised with a sense of hopelessness.”

Another National Post article highlighted professor Carasco’s resume as the inspiration for her complaint. To her credit or discredit, depending on your position on the matter, professor Carasco’s career in law has been heavily invested in gender and race equity.

She served as a member on the Status of Women Committee of the University of Windsor Faculty Association (WUFA) from 1983-88, as an executive of WUFA from 1985-86 and as the Vice President of WUFA from 1987-88. She has since served in various capacities on numerous
committees overseeing human rights issues pertaining to women, visible minorities and immigrants. Clearly, the university’s many inequitable practices have been under her microscopic lenses for a while now.

Professor Carasco claims that, in her years at the faculty, there has been a tradition of white male dominance in the faculty’s upper echelon. She details in her complaint how the university’s law dean has always been a white male except for Dean Juanita Westmoreland-Troare. It’s
important to note that Dean Westmorelan-Troare was also the only dean in the faculty’s history to have been hired without a tenure. She left U of Windsor before her term ended.

I asked Dr. Rebecca Godderis, Assistant Professor at Laurier Brantford’s Health Studies, if activism-paranoia (for lack of a better term) is at fault here. Professor Godderis suggested a simple observation, “Just look at who your professors are. The majority are white, for sure...
and, although it’s starting to shift a bit, the majority are still men.”

I quickly did the math on the professors I have for this semester; two of them are white males, the other a white female. OK, maybe this semester is an anomaly. But then, in my three years at Laurier Brantford, I’ve had 19 male professors – 18 of them were white, one of them was an African – and nine female professors who were all white. Interesting. Does that mean that Laurier Brantford is unfair in its hiring process?

Perhaps, but professor Godderis pointed out that it’s important to look beyond instances of inequity. Very often, many factors would have been at work to put an individual at a position of disadvantage when it comes to employment, thus excluding them from making it onto the
shortlist.

“If all [the] best candidates are white men and the other candidates are women of visible minorities [and] their resumes aren’t as good, there could be something happening there in terms of the opportunities that those individuals have to develop their resumes before they get
to that moment.”

So it’s possible that there is systemic discrimination going on and, in professor Carasco’s case, it’s being dragged out into the open. But it’s not that easy to scream bloody discrimination
in an age when there are explicit preventative measures.

As feminism started gaining tract in the 1950s and 1960s, sexism, for example, became subtler and harder to see. Feminists have consequently coined the term the ‘chilly climate’ to describe the way environments have been made overtly hostile towards women without being covertly
discriminatory.

“I don’t know that I will ever be the same – not so much because I did not get the job – but because of how it happened and how many people permitted it to happen,” professor Carasco wrote in her complaint.

It is obvious that discrimination has become more subtle and complex as we grow into a more and more diverse society. Even though there are laws against it, it doesn’t mean that we live in a society that is completely fair and just. The onus is on us as a society to properly examine the
case before dismissing it simply as an inane squabble.

The vote is in - the election matters!

2010-09-29T20:29:00.000-07:00

by Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Fall 20101, Issue 4

I was busy in my kitchen when a campaign worker knocked on my door last week. She was canvassing my neighbourhood for returning candidate Councillor Marguerite Ceschi-Smith. She talked a little bit about Ceschi-Smith’s campaign, her platforms and why I should vote for her. A few minutes later Ceschi-Smith herself walked up the street waving at me, obviously pleased with a conversation she just had with my neighbour.

She greeted me with her standard-issue greet-thy-constituent smile and launched into a first-person account of what her campaigner had just explained to me, capping off her spiel with a handshake while I promised to vote for her.

The truth, of course, is that I won’t because I’m not a voter. The very thought of politics leaves me nauseated. As a writer put it, politics is like raw sewage treatment – it’s important but you don’t want to have anything to do with it.

However, a small voice in my head asked, “Well, if it’s important, shouldn’t you care?”

“Yes,” I answered to no one in particular, “I guess I should.” So I Googled Ceschi-Smith and her contenders for Ward 5. Of the other eight candidates competing for the position, I found information on only one of them – a Twitter page belonging to candidate Frank More. Marguerite Ceschi-Smith, on the other hand, had an official web page on the city’s website detailing an impressive curriculum vitae.

It occurred to me that anyone doing the same search would make the same discovery as I did. As the existing councillor, Cechi-Smith clearly has a running start. Information about the other eight candidates was hard to come by, even for a keen researcher like myself. That didn’t seem right to me. I started to wish I had paid more attention to the election campaigns so I could find out the potential the other candidates had.

To educate myself on this matter, I decided to write an article. I conducted a brief street survey, in which I discovered that my initial attitude mirrors that of a majority of students at Laurier Brantford. We are naturally indifferent to the outcome of Brantford’s municipal election because we truly believe we are immune to its outcome.

Many students are on campus four or five days a week, for less than eight months a year. This may have put students under the assumption that whomever becomes the next mayor will not affect them. Unfortunately, this assumption is an illusion.

The reality is that our campus is very much intertwined with the city of Brantford – much more than any of us would like to think. The decisions made by city councillors can heavily impact the short stints that students spend in Brantford.

For example, several of the students I interviewed wanted more student housing close to campus. Another mentioned the scarcity of student jobs. More places to eat and shop were also pretty high on the list. What’s the solution to these grievances?

Well, there’s Richard E. Casey, for one. As one of the mayoral candidates, he claims to have his ears on the ground on what we students want and need. According to Casey, he plans to create more permanent jobs for residents so that students can fill in the gap for part-time and temporary jobs. There’s also Chris Friel, the candidate who thinks that creating more jobs for students will help them get along with locals more cohesively.

For those who think that the campus needs more residences, take a look at what each candidate has proposed for the newly demolished South Colborne Street. Plans for its development are yet to be set in stone but there have been talks of including some student residences and a gymnasium. For those who want a better experience living in the downtown, however brief that may be, here’s an easy chance for you to make a change. All you have to do is vote.

The voting process itself is de facto simple and relatively easy. Laurier Brantford students who are citizens of Canada and live in Brantford for the school year are eligible to vote. All they have to do is make sure their names are on the voters’ list (which is another easy process).

Rest assured that I am in no way campaigning for one candidate or another. As it turns out, I’m not even qualified to vote. However, I am campaigning for students to get involved with the city at the most fundamental level – through the simple yet powerful act of voting.

East vs. West: Cultural differences in the job interview

2009-05-01T16:13:00.000-07:00

East vs. West: Cultural differences in the job interview

David Ahenakew's Seven Year Saga

2009-02-24T20:48:00.000-08:00

Freedom of Beliefs and Opinion, or Incitement of Hatred?
The Sputnik - February 26th, 2009

After seven long years, two controversial trials and a hotly debated appeal, David Ahenakew finally received the verdict he feels he deserves. Provincial Court Judge Wilfrid Tucker handed a verdict of not guilty on Monday, clearing Ahenakew for the second time of the charges to wilfully incite hatred. Although Justice Tucker described Ahenakew’s statement against Jews in 2002 as ’revolting, disgusting and untrue’, he did not find that the crown managed to successfully prove that the statement was intentioned to incite hatred.

While Ahenakew heaved a sigh of relief over winning another legal battle - perhaps not the last as a result of his careless, bitter diatribe - a collective gasp of surprise echoed beyond the courtrooms where the verdict was handed down. Just as the disgraced, former senator’s statements were found to contravene article 319 in the Criminal Code of Canada in 2005, so did the verdict of not guilty contravene the public’s consensus on the matter. How was he found not guilty?

Article 219 stipulates that to be found guilty of the crime, a person must : 1) communicate statements, 2) in a public place, 3) incite hatred against an identifiable group, and 4) in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace. Now, consider the context within which the alleged crime was committed by Mr. Ahenakew; The controversial statements - among others, Ahenakew’s famous labelling of the Jews as ‘diseases’ that Hitler was trying to clean up during the Holocaust - were made during a recorded interview with a reporter following a public assembly. Prior to the interview, Ahenakew had just given an expletive-laden speech concerning public health of the First Nations People. He was supposedly fired up and was further provoked by reporter James Parker’s questions. The backdrop of the story alone provides several issues that are so pervasive they are almost unnoticeable to Ahenakew.

Ahenakew’s main defence was that the statements were made during a private conversation. To begin with, Ahenakew was fully aware that he was speaking to a reporter. Throughout the media’s coverage of the case, it was not mentioned anywhere that Ahenakew had insisted on going off the record. Seen in this light, it seems almost foolish for Ahenakew to plead innocence of Parker’s intentions and ignorance of how his obviously explosive statements might be transpired by the reporter.

The next pertinent point to consider is the venue of the alleged crime; The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations health conference where Ahenake gave his equally bitter speech was a public gathering. Members of the media were in fact invited to come as observers. If Ahenakew were to plead innocence by invoking the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms - particularly the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression - I might have been partial towards his case, albeit with a few bones to pick. Any individual is afforded his or her own opinion and belief, and rightly so. But for someone in a highly esteemed and public official position such as Ahenakew’s to harbour such hateful sentiments - not to mention freely expressing them during past occasions - is nothing short of flirting with danger.

Like dirty secrets, such sentiments are bound to make themselves known sooner or later through our communicative faculties. The flaw, I would say, that brought about his downfall was Ahenakew’s lack of subtlety in expressing or concealing his sentiments. I do not for an instance support anti-Semitism. I am, however, an ardent supporter of article 2(b) of the Charter. It was Ahenakew’s personal right to hold such beliefs as he did, but I truly feel that it was wrong of him to transmit those beliefs either intentionally or unintentionally, if that is at all possible. Given the context, it is inevitable that his views would be made public. To issue such statements in such a context and later plead innocence, I think, implies a certain degree of malicious intent to incite hatred.

Among the many manoeuvres made by Ahenakew’s legal defence team - one of them being a claim that his anger was possibly caused by his insulin imbalance - one proved intriguing to me as student of journalism. Doug Kristie, Ahenakew’s lawyer, initially demanded that similar charges were brought upon the reporter, James Parker. Assuming that Ahenakew was in fact guilty of inciting hatred, Parker - by reporting and making the statements public - played a part in that incitement. Logically, if Parker had not reported on it, Ahenakew’s now famous statements would not have reached a wider audience than those present during the conversation. Technically, I think that argument may hold water. However, although Parker may have transgressed some ethical boundaries in his reporting, several points stand in his favour.

In the case of a recorded conversation, prior consent is required of only one party involved in order for the contents of the recording to be usable. This does not mean that the recording may be broadcasted. However, Parker did broadcast the interview and Ahenakew claimed that he did not consent to being recorded. This is perhaps where Parker may done himself a disfavour and put his ethical practices as a journalist in a harsher light.

Technicalities aside, let’s assume that Parker reported on the interview only in print. His report would still reflect Ahenakew’s anti-Semitic view which could eventually find their way towards a welcoming audience somewhere. What if Parker had taken this into consideration and refrained from reporting on Ahenakew. Would such sentiments done less harm if they were left unnoticed, ignored, unchecked? I would argue that it will do even more harm once they are disseminated into the public after years of festering in secret.

While his methods were questionable, I think Parker’s reporting on the controversial issue did a big favour to the Canadian public - while it stirred controversy - and one liable to continue for several more years - we were made aware of the presence of such malice in an influential figure in our society. The ensuing public outcry and Ahenakew’s subsequent removal from office was a result of that report. I think Parker deserves a collective pat on the back, at least, for having the guts to break the rules for the greater good.

Residents of Brantford Burn a Candle for Peace in Palestine

2009-01-07T21:06:00.000-08:00

The Sputnik - January 7th, 2009

A fire is burning despite the cold night. Matches were passed around while candles were lit from hand to hand. As traffic along Brant Avenue slowed down to a trickle, a flurry of activities was causing a stir near the statue of The Unknown Soldier at the corner of Brant Avenue and Dalhousie Street. The Palestinian Association of Brantford (PAB) recently held a candle light vigil near the statue on Saturday evening. Their aim was to peacefully protest against Israeli aggression on Palestinians and to raise an awareness regarding the escalated conflict on the Gaza strip.

The dawn of 2009 saw Palestine shrouded in a familiar cloud of anxiety. Peace talks between Hamas and the Israeli Government failed yet again resulting in both parties engaging in air attacks which lasted for nine days and saw hundreds of Palestinian civilians dead. On Saturday, Israeli troops officially began a ground invasion of the Gaza strip at around 8 p.m. under cover of darkness. Israeli troops bisected the city in their efforts to locate and destroy Hamas’ military stronghold. The Associated Press reported that at least 20 Palestinians have been killed since the ground invasion began. Many fear that the number will increase as Israeli forces progress in their efforts.

An estimated fifty people attended the vigil to support the peaceful protest. They included local Muslim families as well as students from Laurier and Mohawk College. Supporters stood at the street corner holding placards, waved the Palestinian flag and chanted ‘One, two, three, four! Stop the killing, stop the war!’. Several motorists passing by showed their support by sounding their horns and waving their hands at the protesters. One protester passed out flyers to motorists stopping at the traffic lights. The flyers contained information regarding the situation in Gaza and how the Canadian Government can help end the conflict.

‘It’s a crime against humanity’ says Mohammed Chaudary, a resident of Brantford and ardent supporter of the Palestinian cause. ‘You tell me, anywhere in the world [do] you bomb a place of worship. Everybody’s telling them[Israeli government] to have a seize fire, let people live in peace but yet since they have the power, they think they can do anything. Just murdering women, men, kids, old and young.’ Mr. Chaudary’s passionate speech echoes the feelings of many. There has been world wide outcry of protests since the Israeli invasion began on Saturday.

Hamas claims that they began air strikes as a retaliation against the blockade that the Israeli Government imposed on the Gaza strip even while both parties were engaged in peace talks. Mohammed Chaudary believes this to be true. ‘When somebody comes to take your home, what [are] you going to do? You will resist!‘ he says.

Sumaiyah, a Palestinian-born resident of Brantford tearfully relates how her family living in the Gaza strip have been deprived of the basic amenities of clean water and electricity for the past nine months as a result of the blockade imposed by the Israeli Government. Born in 1948, she has been a witness of Israeli aggression on Palestinians all her life.

‘Israelis want land with no people…nobody understand[s] this. And they have been trying to do this for 61 years,’ says Sumaiyah. She expresses fear for the lives of her family members who currently live in the Gaza strip. Sumaiyah explains that the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government will not end as long as there is Israeli presence in Palestine. ‘We go from war to another war….the problem is not Hamas. They(Israel) need the land. What do babies [have to] do with Hamas?’ she asks.

Many Non-Government Organizations world wide have been untiringly calling for their respective governments to condemn Israel’s invasion of Palestine and for people to rally together and take action anyway they can. The candle light vigil held by the PAB is one of those efforts to bring peace to Palestine and bring the world‘s spotlight onto their plight. As one protester puts it, ‘I’m here to give my support. When people see this [protest], they will know about it and then maybe they will do something.’

WLUSU Is Cooking Up A Winter Storm

2009-01-07T21:04:00.000-08:00

The Sputnik January 7th, 2009

Students, get ready to be hit by a blizzard - a blizzard of fun, that is! WLUSU has a whole week of delectable activities planned for Laurier Brantford beginning January 26th. Amanda Flanagan, head of the 2009 Winter Carnival Executive Committee, likens the carnival to a second O Week where there will be a lot activities that students can get involved in, have loads of fun and win some prizes. Although, different from O Week, students will get the chance to form their own teams of ten to 15 members with two captains heading each team. ‘It’s going to be a week of random activities,’ says Amanda, and teams can have their members participate in activities that interest them and according to their availability. Keeping in mind that students still have classes to attend, WLUSU has a schedule of events so that students can make the most of the activities planned. ‘We don’t expect students to say, “OK, I’m not going to class for a week because it’s Winter Carnival”.’

The carnival’s flexible structure will most certainly help facilitate students’ participation in it’s activities. Amanda explains that the carnival will be a good chance for students to get to know one another. She feels that Laurier Brantford needs to boost it’s school spirit, and the Winter Carnival’s main objective is geared towards just that. ‘I find that [is] extremely important in Brantford because we don’t have varsity teams.’ Amanda explains.

Students can look forward to such fun activities as a cheer-off competition, a fort-building competition, some relay races and regatta games. There will also be a scavenger hunt where, at the beginning of the week, teams will be given a list of items which they will collect and hand in at the end of the week. Each item will carry different points. Amanda hints that the items may vary from maybe a pen to a goat. Teams will have to exercise their full resources to secure such item as a goat! ‘I feel like I can say with confidence that the winter carnival has something for everyone.’ Indeed.

Although the Winter Carnival is a continuing tradition at Laurier Brantford, Amanda explains that this is the first time that there has been a concerted effort to organize it into a full week of events. ‘Winter carnival every year has been so different that you could call it so many different things,’ says Amanda. WLUSU began planning for the carnival way back in November when it was still warm and sunny. It’s executive committee was hired to better organize specific components of this year’s event. ‘Last year’s was just thrown together at the last minute,’ Amanda recalls. Of this year she says, ‘…we took the structure out of Waterloo campus and kind of brought it here(to Laurier Brantford).’

Teams intending to participate are required to register at the Peer Connect Desk on either January 19th or January 21st. There will be a registration fee of $15C for each team. According to Amanda, there are already two full teams registered to participate and she expects there to be a lot more in the coming week. She hopes the Laurier Brantford Winter Carnival will continue with the support of the student body. ‘It’ll just be our tradition from here on out,’ she says with a determined nod. With WLUSU’s hard work and Laurier Brantford students’ participation, this annual event promises to be the start of a tradition that we can all be proud of.

Me, Myself and My Car

2008-11-24T20:43:00.000-08:00

JN201 Fall 2008

In a crowded market square in India, a young man sits under a tree and eyes his car in the fading dusk. He then gets into the driver’s seat, puts the car into gear and drives it straight into a wall. With a devilish grin, he shifts into reverse and drives the car full forced into an opposing wall.

Next, he sits an elephant down on the front hood of the car, flattening it and crushing the headlights. He produces a sledge hammer and starts pounding the car’s body. Then came a hammer and chisel. The glow of a blow torch accompanies him into the night.

Dawn saw him, again, looking at his car. He holds a magazine centerfold up at an arm’s length, compares it to the car and smiles with satisfaction. Later in the evening, he drives the car down the street, windows down and radio blaring. He eyes a beautiful lady by the road who returned his advances with a seductive glance.

This is the commercial for the Supermini Peugeot 206, released in 1998. The young man was trying to mould his old model Ford into the newly released model that he saw in the magazine centrefold.

The jocular portrayal of this young man’s obsession in acquiring the new Peugeot 206 - by hook or by crook - is novel. However, the obsession itself depicts society’s attachment to automobile that, according to Dr. Ken Paradis, verges on the ridiculous.

An English professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, Dr. Paradis deals with the way cars are ‘fetishized’ through popular media in some of his lectures. ‘Basically a car is just a piece of metal that gets you from place to place,’ he says, ‘it’s popular culture that layers these values on them.’

He says, ‘Popular culture is about making images seem valuable…and cars are a primary part of [that].’ According to him, the way cars are portrayed gives people the false sense that they can express themselves through their cars, attributing to the cars a ‘fetish value’.

So, what triggered this bond between cars and their owners? According to Dr. Paradis, it’s an historical factor. ‘Prior to the 1940’s, almost all of built environment in North America is walkable,’ he says. Now, however, one needs a car in order to move around, ‘especially,’ adds Dr. Paradis, ‘in the suburbs.’

When a car is a necessity, not owning one indicates that you can’t afford one, and therefore ownership of a car symbolizes income status. According to Dr. Paradis, this is how the car acquired it’s ‘status value’.

Dr. Chris Alksnis, a professor of psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University, agrees that the economy has allowed for this attachment to develop into an obsession. According to her, continued dependence on the car as a mode of transportation has led people to see it as an extension of their personality. However, Dr. Alksnis feels that it is quite natural for people to channel their personalities through their cars. ‘People want to say something about themselves [and] it’s not unnatural to do that,’ she adds, ‘we express ourselves…by the way we dress, the cars we drive.’

Elwood Phillips claims his attachment to his car has a lot to do with nostalgia. ‘I’ve been in cars all my life,’ he declares proudly. As President of the Brantford Kinsman Club, Mr. Phillips organizes the club’s Annual Car Show. He fondly recalls acquiring his first car, a 1932 Ford Coupe, at the age of 14. ‘I used to go all over the country, I used to have a lot of fun with that car,’ he says.

Mr. Phillips now drives a Ford Ranger, ‘It’s my baby,’ he adds. Newer car models, according to Mr. Phillips, are not as easy to customize as old car models - a detriment to him because he says, ‘I like to see customized cars that have been chopped up and channelled.’

Although an avid car enthusiast himself, Mr. Phillips feels that the line between passion and a ridiculous obsession with cars has a fiscal value. In customizing a car, he says, ‘A reasonable amount would be around $10,000 US,’ but he adds, ‘It all depends on how far a person wants to go.’

Despite his affection for his ’32 Ford Coupe, he later traded the car in for a 1957 Ford Racer. When asked about how he was able to dispose of something so sentimentally significant to him, Mr. Phillips explains simply, ‘I had to, I wanted a [Ford] racer.’

Mr. Phillips’ attitude correlates with Dr. Paradis’s observation on the influence of consumer culture towards our behaviour. ‘What we’ve gained is a sense of individual self-definition,’ he says, ‘[where] every individual needs to tell the world who they are by buying things.’

Mr. Phillips‘s view on the matter echoes Dr. Paradis‘s, albeit in much simpler terms; ‘It’s an expression of you; you get known for your style and what you’ve done to your car.’

Slacker Uprising

2008-10-28T20:35:00.000-07:00

Starring Michael Moore as…the `Journalist`?
JN201 Fall 2008

Michael Moore’s latest addition to his repertoire of satirical films about the US has caused as many tongues wagging and heads rolling as did his previous cinematic endeavours. Released less than 2 months prior to the 2008 US Presidential elections, Slacker Uprising was strategically placed on the election timeline to swing voters and carried a palpable message - vote the Republicans out of the White House. While the film has somewhat fulfilled its cause of propagating awareness among Americans about their responsibility as voters, some of the issues Moore raised in this film merit further scrutiny.

Throughout his tour to battlefield states, Moore consistently utilised a word to it’s full potential - ‘truth’. He fervently states that his film is not a propaganda. In the film, he chastised the press for letting themselves be used as a tool of propaganda by the government and that the American people would have opposed the US government’s decision to invade Iraq had they been properly and truthfully informed. ‘My movie exists to counter the managed, manufactured news which is essentially a propaganda arm of the Bush administration. My movies are the anti-propaganda,’ says Moore. This statement in and by itself is problematic. Slacker Uprising’s main objective was to influence public opinion, specifically from being for the Republicans to being against them. Propaganda, by the definition given by Britannica Online, is exactly what Moore is spreading through Slacker Uprising. In other words, Moore is running a campaign of his own, just like the politicos he is criticizing. The only distinction here being his approach - non rhetorical and aimed at middle America at the grass roots level.

During an interview about Slacker Uprising on Larry King Live, Moore summarized the 2008 presidential race as ‘Obama versus ignorance.’ He theorizes that, while people who vote for Senator McCain may do so out their firm belief in him as a leader, a large number of people will vote for the Senator out of ignorance. What Moore is directly implying here is consistent with his stand conspicuous in the film - that the US public has been kept in the dark about matters of war, economy, healthcare and others. However, the undertone of that statement and, most obviously, the movie, connotes that followers of the Republican camp are largely ignorant. The film was saturated with clips depicting Republican supporters as painfully inarticulate and, despite their admiration for Senator McCain, were unable to even form one coherent sentence of praise. On the other hand, supporters of Moore and his campaign against the Republicans were consistently portrayed as passionate, discerning and articulate about issues that concern the American public. This lop-sided portrayal of sources brings to question Moore’s integrity as a ‘journalist’ - as one who claims to be trying to clear up the ‘misstatements and untruths’ apparently spread by the American national media. His portrayal of Republican supporters can easily be seen as a conveniently ‘managed’ piece of information ‘manufactured’ to support his propaganda.

However, one has to question; is the journalist and the human being that he or she is to be kept separate? If the answer is yes then, how does one go about doing that? Linda Greenhouse, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter for the New York Times, exposed herself to a barrage of criticism when she voiced her disappointment in the US government during a public speech. This, despite her clean record of unbiased reporting throughout her career at the Times. Ergo the question - when does the journalist get to voice his or her personal stand? The answer to that hinges upon the context within which the journalist is operating. Michael Moore the concerned, patriotic, somewhat left-wing radical citizen has every right to stand up for his convictions. But, Michael Moore the neo-journalist, illuminator of misstatements and untruths, holds the obligation to disseminate to the public information that is non-partisan and independent of his bias.

Preserving The Arts

2008-10-21T15:25:00.000-07:00

Why Should We?
JN201 Fall 2008

‘A bunch of people at a rich gala’. This was Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s description of those who objected to his proposed $30 million reduction in arts funding several weeks ago. While Canadians initially expressed their support for Mr. Harper’s plan, his vitriol against artists seemed to have been a step in the wrong direction. Opposition party leaders rushed to the scene with alternatives to ‘save’ the arts. Artists, already greatly perturbed over the planned cuts, criticised Mr. Harper for his singling them out as the ‘niche’ crowd. Paladins of the arts such as Margaret Atwood went so far as to publicly repudiate government funding as necessary to its survival.

Across the country there was a widespread shaking of heads regarding the Prime Minister’s narrow definition of the arts. Canadians, as it turns out, have a greater awareness towards art and its tautology to culture. Although Mr. Harper has since backtracked on his proposals, Canadians – artists and non-artists – are still riled up and making noise. So what is it about the arts that merit such concern?

Lorrie Gallant of the Woodlands Cultural Centre which received over $50,000 in government funding in 2007 thinks that art is a vital component of education. ‘Art goes hand-in-hand with education – it’s a total package that must come together,’ says Ms. Gallant. The centre, which focuses on First Nations art and education, relies heavily on the use of art in its classrooms. From her experience as an Education Expansion Officer at the centre, Ms. Gallant firmly believes that art in the classroom is indispensable. Says Ms. Gallant, ‘We absorb more in learning by engaging our sense of touch, our sense of smell, sense of taste – your food is an art. We absorb so much more than compared to just learning from a textbook.’

Dr. Lisa Wood, a professor of English and Contemporary Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University, strongly agrees. She regularly uses popular media such as images and films in her class to stimulate discussion amongst her students. Compared to conventional lectures, she finds that they are more comfortable talking about abstract ideas when there was something palpable to refer to. ‘Ideas are ideas,’ she explains, ‘but if they [the students] are not able to relate to those ideas, they become irrelevant.’ Apart from education, Dr. Wood also believes that art plays a vital role in our culture. ‘It’s a sterile world if we don’t pay attention to aesthetics,’ she says.

The First Nations people, like many other cultures, rely on their artwork in defining their cultural identity. Motives in a beadwork, according to Ms. Gallant, can explain the history of the family that made it. She feels that, because the world is growing so fast, different cultures have begun to merge into one. That has made it even more important for First Nations people to hold on to their distinctly unique heritage through the preservation of their art.

For Brad Woods, veteran Storyteller and frontman for The Great Wooden Trio, art has the power to bring people together. He recently organized a ‘house concert’ where he invited his neighbours to a night of music and stories. ‘We drive by their houses in our car every morning and we hardly know them,’ he says. For Brad, the impromptu concert was an example of what his art of storytelling did for his community.

The impact of art in our culture and education varies significantly from one community to the next or even from one individual to another. However, there is no denying the importance of its preservation, as Brad Woods says, ‘There is no substitute for art. If there’s no art, there’s no culture, no community.’

Profile of Haley Chiappino

2008-09-22T12:35:00.001-07:00

JN201 Fall 2008

Christened Haley Chiappino, she was born on September 23, 1990 to Italian and Trinidadian parents. This seventeen year old grew up with three step-siblings and a half-sister. Haley admits that her parents' separation is already a norm. Despite a close relationship with her father, she said that they have, in recent years, drifted apart. However, Haley discusses her childhood as a happy one. She kept busy on her school's rugby and ice hockey team and enjoys snowboarding in winter.

--------------------------------------

Ontario born and bred, Haley Chiappino is a junior varsity student who boasts a distinct ethnic heritage. ‘I come from a pretty diverse background. My mom is from the Islands and my father is European,’ she said in describing her family.

Her mother hails from Trinidad while her father is an Italian. Born in Oakville on 23 September 1990, this bubbly teenager attended school in her native hometown before going on to high school in nearby Burlington. Her summer job experiences include working as a sales person and waitressing. ‘I like waitressing better,’ she said, because her sociable nature enables her to ‘handle customers with different personalities’.

A proud member of her school’s ice hockey and rugby tem, she claims to be a passionate sportswoman. ‘I’m generally a nice person, but on the ice or field, I’m a big meanie!’ she added. Her athletic escapade extends into winter when she snowboards while her family vacations at the Alpine Ski Club. However, the field and ice are not the only places where she performs with courage and confidence.

In 1993, her parents’ marriage came to an end and young Haley went to live with her mother. ‘I’m perfectly OK with it,’ she answered nonchalantly when asked about her parents’ divorce. She recalls her childhood as being happy and fulfilled. Haley enjoyed a close relationship with her father despite living apart from each other although, she admits, they have grown apart over the years since her father remarried. Nevertheless, she enjoys a balanced and happy family life with her mother, step father, two step siblings and a half sister. She explains how living with separate parents can have its perks. ‘Two Christmases, two birthdays, two thanksgivings, how can you complain!’ she said, laughing.

For this buoyant teenager, it seems that every cloud really does have a silver lining.

Haley Chiappino Profile, Draft 1

2008-09-09T10:40:00.000-07:00

75 word version

Christened Haley Chiappino, she was born on September 23, 1990 to Italian and Trinidadian parents. This seventeen year old grew up with three step-siblings and a half-sister. Haley admits that her parents' separation isn’t a difficult subject. Despite a close relationship with her father, she says that they have, in recent years, drifted apart. However, Haley discusses her childhood as a happy one. She played on her school's rugby and hockey team and in winter she enjoys snowboarding on the slopes.

--------------------------------

300 word version

Ontario born and bred, Haley Chiappino is a junior varsity student who boasts a diverse ethnic background. Her mother hails from Trinidad and her father is an Italian. Born on 23 September 1990 in Oakville, Ontario, this bubbly teenager attended school in her native hometown before going on to high school in nearby Burlington, Ontario. Her summer job experiences include working as a sales person at an Aldo Shoes outlet and waitressing at the Montfort restaurant. ‘I like waitressing better,’ she says, because her sociable nature enables her to ‘handle’ customers with different personalities. She claims to be a passionate sportswoman and was a proud member of her school’s ice hockey and rugby team. In winter, while her family vacations at the Alpine Ski Club, she braves the slopes and goes snowboarding. However, the sports arena is not the only place where she performs with courage and confidence.

In 1993, her parents’ marriage came to an end and 3-year-old Haley went to live with her mother. ‘Oh, I’m perfectly OK with it,’ she answers with a wave and a shrug when asked whether or not her parents’ divorce was a sensitive topic. She explains how living with separate parents can have its perks – ‘two Christmases, two birthdays, and twice as many presents!’ she says with a laugh. She recalls her childhood as a happy one, where she enjoyed a close relationship with her father despite living apart from each other. Haley admits that they have grown apart over the years since her father remarried and had a family of his own. Nevertheless, she enjoys a balanced and happy family life with her mother, step father, two step siblings and a half sister. It seems that, whatever the crisis, there is no love lost for this upbeat teenager!

Test Page

2008-09-09T10:17:00.000-07:00

This is a test page.

"I am here because this is what I want to do right now."