THE WAR IN SRI LANKA AND THE LEFT IN TORONTO

Article by Fathima Cader and Noaman Ali | May 27, 2009 | | No Responses Yet

Since the initial publication of this piece, LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran has allegedly been killed by the Sri Lankan forces and the Tigers have surrendered. According to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaska this victory in his military campaign against the LTTE has ushered in an era of peace on the island. Thus, the demands we made below for a ceasefire may now appear moot. However, because of the Sri Lankan government’s continued refusal to address the structural problems that led to Tamil discontent in the first place and its refusal to acknowledge the horrific manner by which it killed thousands of Tamil civilians in the Vanni in just this latest round of war, there is enough reason to believe that violence will flare up again in the country, perhaps sooner rather than later. Any peace that does not recognise its own limitations will be shortlived. For this reason, despite the ending of Eelam War IV, it is still necessary that we work toward more humane alternatives, involving strategies to push the Sri Lankan state into a political resettlement.
– May 19.

The recent burst of mass mobilizations by sections of the Canadian-Tamil community in Toronto has brought to the fore several contradictions concerning the conflict in Sri Lanka and its presence in and connection to Canada. Mainstream media’s responses to the protests have been overwhelmingly racialist, exposing many of the limits of Canadian multiculturalism. In order for Canadian multiculturalism to accept any given group of people as a cultural community, it must define that group by differentiating it from a supposedly mainstream Canadian identity. This focalising Canadian identity—in effect a non-identity—is white and middle-class. Thus, when the Toronto Star publishes an editorial entitled “Protesters vs. the public”¹ it effectively notes that the protesters are not part of the public by pitting (Tamil) protesters against the (Canadian) public. Rather than focusing on the war, media outlets have focused on the inconvenience posed to commuters, thereby shifting attention away from deaths in Sri Lanka to traffic regulations in Canada. Consequently, responses to the protests have largely demonstrated pernicious xenophobia. For instance, in the Toronto Sun, Peter Worthington argues that not using excessive force (e.g., water cannons) against Tamil protesters who block streets is tantamount to “reverse racism” against white Canadians.²

But if the coverage of the protests has made certain contradictions about the performance of cultural politics in public spaces in Canada apparent, other contradictions about the negotiation of those politics within cultural communities have also been rendered largely invisible. The impetus comes, once again, from a multiculturalism that defines ethnic, immigrant identities against a supposedly mainstream, local one. The act of defining a cultural community necessarily ignores the cultural, economic, and political differences that exist within that community. When these differences are ignored, political representation to mainstream political actors (i.e. those in the government, political parties, and state apparatuses) is mediated by non-elected, self-appointed community “leaders” who may not, and often do not, capture all cultural and political differences. In fact, the very articulation of those differences is precluded: a-cultural white English-speaking Canadians may lean left or right as individuals, or as voting blocs based on class and region, but the articulation of such political differences is absent in the representations of the politics of minority communities. The responses of politicians, activists, journalists, police and vocal sections of the public to the rallies protesting the war provide key examples of this.

The responses of politicians and police officials who addressed themselves to “the Tamil community” falsely suggest that all the protesters were Tamil and that all of Toronto’s Tamils supported the protests. The paternalism of Mayor David Miller’s deciding to tell “the Tamil community” what it “needs to hear from us”³ (whoever “us” is) feeds into the blatant racism expressed by other elements of the public. Thus, for instance, in The Globe & Mail Christie Blatchford uses the demonstrations to question not just protest tactics, but also the immigration policies that, according to her, have led to the presence of a worryingly large number of Tamils in Toronto.⁴

Parallel to Miller’s homogenization, though coming from the opposite direction, veteran dissident leftist Judy Rebick notes on her blog that, “in a brilliant action, the Tamil community [...] climbed the on ramp on to the Gardiner Expressway [...] and sat down blockading traffic for several hours.”⁵ While the action, as an object lesson in activist tactics, was brilliant, one can say with certainty that “the Tamil community” neither climbed onto nor sat down on the Gardiner. Rather, a more correct terminology would be what Rebick subsequently calls “a group of Tamil activists.” The tenor of her blog post, however, confirms that she views the Tamil community in homogenous terms. She goes so far as to end her post with the note that “we are all Tamils,” a statement that is problematic on two grounds. First, working in solidarity with others requires acknowledging the lived differences that separate us so that we might use those differences for the purposes of justice, rather than discounting them out of an unhelpfully over-forced empathy. Second, that kind of statement presupposes that there is only one kind of Tamil identity, which everyone else can access. Yet if Tamilness is an identity constructed solely on the basis of one’s presence at or support for the protests, not even all Tamils can be called such.

If Toronto’s Tamil population is being flattened into one homogenized entity by politicians and many leftist activists, that process is certainly not being opposed by some sections of Toronto’s Tamil community. The Canadian Tamil Congress, one of Toronto’s more prominent Tamil political groups, notes that it is “the unified voice of Canada’s 300,000 Tamils.”⁶ Its FAQ page shows that it ascribes to all Sri Lankan Tamils the desire for a separate homeland (Tamil Eelam).⁷ The history and current reality of a diversity of non-communal and Tamil organizations and individuals within and without Sri Lanka, with varying goals and political objectives—and varying definitions of self-determination for Tamil people—is elided by this construction of Tamil identity. It is impossible for the CTC to be the unified voice of Tamils when Tamils don’t have a unified voice. In other words, to return to Rebick’s rallying cry, we are not all Tamil, if only because there is no one Tamil identity we can be.

At many of the protests, the LTTE-designed national flag of Tamil Eelam (which shares the Tiger emblem) has been a prominent fixture, LTTE soldiers have been venerated as freedom fighters, the prospect of Eelam has been seen as a necessary solution to the war, and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran has been venerated as a national leader. While this set of views may be influential and even hegemonic within Toronto’s Tamil diaspora, it is not universal. Just as the actions of many of the Tamil demonstrators are not and cannot be the actions of “the Tamil community,” so too are the opinions expressed at these demonstrations not those of “the Tamil community.” In fact, those are not even necessarily the views of all of the protesters present at the rallies, but dissenting, non-LTTE views are not being heard.

To signal toward complexity and difference within Tamil communities is not to deny the Sinhala ethnic chauvinism of the government of Sri Lanka; its use of undemocratic and authoritarian practices to crush dissent; or its use of mass murder, ethnic cleansing and internal colonization against Sri Lankan Tamils. Nor is it to deny that militant Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka has largely been a response to the systematized and legislated discrimination of the Sri Lankan state. The LTTE is, in fact, a legitimate national resistance movement and was—until recently— the de facto governing entity in several parts of Sri Lanka. However, in its progress toward and current operation of that position, it too has often represented an ideology of ethno-religious chauvinism; has used undemocratic and authoritarian practices to crush resistant views and movements–including against dissident Tamils; and has used mass murder, ethnic cleansing and internal colonization against Muslims. The point here is not that the LTTE is just as bad as the government of Sri Lanka—which many Sri Lankans, Tamils and otherwise, think it is—but that a critical left view cannot support the LTTE, except tactically in opposition to the oppression of the Sri Lankan state. Nor can it support the LTTE’s ideology or practice. Thus, the assumption should not be made that support for Tamils in opposition to Sri Lankan state oppression is consonant with support for the LTTE.

It is important that critical leftists in Canada take concrete steps, working with members of the Tamil population and the Sri Lankan population more broadly, to bring to an end the oppression being perpetrated by the Sri Lankan state, but without steamrolling the complexities of the conflict and those affected by it. We must stand for an end to Sri Lankan state aggression, but also for an end to the LTTE’s aggression toward dissident and minority groups. Toward these ends, some concrete steps we should seek to take include:

1. Demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire.

Critical leftists must stand up for the thousands being massacred in Sri Lanka. To this end, we should engage with supporters of the LTTE and others in demanding an immediate, permanent, and confirmable bilateral ceasefire. Protests calling on the Canadian government to take an active role in bringing about such a ceasefire are important and should be supported, though not uncritically.

2. Oppose the complacency and racism of the Canadian state, media and vocal sections of the general public; and oppose police violence.

The Canadian government continues to turn a blind eye to the conflict, tacitly supporting the Sri Lankan state’s actions. Politicians at all levels have spoken to “the Tamil community” in condescending ways. The media has focused more on the plight of commuters inconvenienced by the rallies than on the thousands of dying civilians. Many Canadian citizens have expressed their xenophobia calling upon Tamils to “go back home”.

Meanwhile, at the rallies, protestors have on several occasions been literally caged into tight areas and police officers have often used excessive force on them. Protestors have been arrested merely for speaking out,⁸ and, at times, have been brutalized with no provocation.^9,10

Police violence and the complacence and racism of Canadian foreign politics, the media and vocal sections of the general public must be opposed loudly and forcefully.

3. Push for a political solution.

This conflict has no military solution. Critical leftists must not stop at the call for a ceasefire, but also push for a comprehensive political settlement that involves more than just the Sinhala-dominant Sri Lankan state and the LTTE. There are many more legitimate representatives of Tamil (including Tamil-speaking Muslim) aspirations and political views than the LTTE, whom the LTTE has repressed. Support must be given to them. However, there can also be no political settlement without the involvement of the LTTE.

The Canadian government does not label organizations as terrorist on the basis of objective criteria, but politically opportunistic ones. Moreover, designating certain groups as terrorist does little to clarify conflict situations, but more often obscures issues. Canada’s banning the Tigers as terrorists suggests that the problem of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism is not one of discrimination and disenfranchisement, but of immeasurable violence and terrorism, and that therefore the solution to this conflict must inevitably and solely come through the military elimination of said terrorist group. Critical leftists, however, must remain firm that any long-term and viable solution to the Sri Lankan conflict cannot be military; it must involve a political settlement.

4. Work toward cross-ethnic solidarity.

Following from the support for repressed and marginalized voices, critical leftists must promote cross-ethnic solidarities in Sri Lanka and in the Sri Lankan diaspora. The fictions of ethnic homogeneity constructed by Sinhala nationalism and by Tamil nationalism must be punctured and repudiated. This does not mean an opposition to the principle of self-determination. Yet however the majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka choose to define self-determination, a lasting peace has to be based on the recognition of the vast complexity, intermingling, and transcendence of ethnic boundaries that constantly occurs in Sri Lanka – both in Sinhalese-dominated and in Tamil-dominated areas. Non-communal political formations must be supported.

To that end, critical leftists in Canada should work toward facilitating the kinds of cross-ethnic solidarity movements and conversations that have been mostly foreclosed by the terroristic strategies employed in Sri Lanka by the armed forces and by the LTTE. While acknowledging and addressing the limitations of Canadian multicultural policies here, we need to capitalise on our distance from the conflict, and the relative peace afforded by that distance (however racialised and restricted it is), to facilitate dialogue.

5. Oppose the Sri Lankan state; criticize the LTTE.

Successive Sinhala ethnic chauvinist governments have precipitated the crisis in Sri Lanka. They continue to do so with impunity. Critical leftists must be absolute in their opposition to the ethnic chauvinism and practical depredations of the parties controlling the Sri Lankan state. The Sri Lankan state has been one of the most significant obstacles toward the achievement of a lasting peace.

At the same time, the LTTE has used civilians as human shields and has engaged in forced conscription. It must be therefore also be criticized and its particular human rights violations not excused or glossed over.

6. Oppose the role of international imperialism in the conflict.

The ideology of twenty-first century imperialism is manifest worldwide. In particular, in South Asia, the discourses of “wars on terror” in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are smokescreens for governments and imperial actors like NATO and the United States to obscure real, legitimate and popular grievances by focusing instead on military campaigns. This is precisely the strategy currently being used by the state in Sri Lanka against its local Tamil grievances. Furthermore, the Sri Lankan state receives military aid from, among others, Pakistan and Israel—lackeys of American empire. China, too, in increasing its international political reach, has steadily provided arms and funding to Sri Lanka for several years. India has also played a major role through its intervention or absence of intervention, in line with its hegemonic designs in South Asia. Moreover, it should be noted that the governments of Russia, China, Iran, India, and many others are no better for the people of South Asia than traditional Western imperialists. The political elite of all these countries contributed heartily to the massacres of thousands of Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka.

The international dimensions of the conflict are too complex to be examined in detail here, but we should engage in further study of the conflict’s global connections, because in resisting the violence of the Sri Lankan state, we are also taking a stance against certain operations of international imperialism. We must recognize, however, that ultimately the problem is one of Sinhala ethnic chauvinism and the lack of meaningful political representation of national minorities in Sri Lanka.

In conclusion, it is important to note that these six items should be regarded as points of departure for critical leftists. By no means is this a conclusive programme on how activists in Canada, whatever their ethnicity or personal connection to the war, should approach the conflict. That sort of conversation is much more difficult, and must be had in conjunction with all the members of Canada’s Sri Lankan diaspora, including its Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim communities.

Student Struggle/Student Rights: International Solidarity Campaigns and the Right to Education

Article by Ryan Hayes | May 13, 2009 | | No Responses Yet

From South Africa to Palestine, to name two prominent examples, Ontario students have played crucial roles in international solidarity campaigns. Beyond raising political consciousness and holding academic institutions accountable for their complicity, student involvement in these campaigns has made important contributions on their own campuses towards realizing the assertion that “education is a right”.

The right to education is more than the right to a seat in a classroom, it also includes the right to actively participate in shaping one’s education from the classroom to decisions affecting the university as a whole. The declaration that “education is a right” is a response to barriers put in place to deny access and meaningful engagement, barriers upheld by the disenfranchisement of students in decision-making structures. These barriers have only been strengthened by the chronic underfunding, increased privatization and skyrocketing tuition fees produced by neoliberal economic policies.

While students and their allies have framed the right to education in a global perspective, for instance through student unions affiliating with the Right to Education campaign run by Birzeit University students in Palestine, international solidarity campaigns have also been pivotal in local student struggles. This article draws on two cases of student activism at the University of Toronto (UofT) to consider the right to education in relation to the shifting rights of students within the university.

The first case examines the significance of going beyond accepted rules of dissent in advancing the campaign against South African apartheid in the 1980s, while the second case focuses on how changing university practices have attempted to limit dissent by reducing access to space in the current campaign against Israeli apartheid. In both examples student activism is centred on campaigns to pressure the university to recognize its complicity with oppressive regimes and take appropriate moral action. Through this activism students put forward a different vision of the university in which the institution recognizes its complicity, but also in which students have a meaningful voice in the operation of the university.

The University as a Space of Citizenship

Both cases of student activism represent shifts in student rights and redefine the “citizenship” of students within the university. I use citizenship because I find it a useful tool for considering who has rights – in theory and in practice – and how rights shift over time based on political moments and movements. Citizenship can be understood in terms of formal and substantive citizenship. Formal citizenship is membership in a nation state or political entity, while substantive citizenship is entitlement to civil, political, socioeconomic and cultural rights.

Like citizenship, “student” is both an exclusive and inclusive category. Addressing the exclusive nature of who is allowed to be a student is central to the broader right to education campaign, however this article focuses on struggles around substantive citizenship, or rights claims, made by current students.

As is the case with many social movements, including the civil rights and women’s movements, student struggles have advanced student rights such as the right to engage in political activities on campus (within set limitations) and participation (albeit minimal) in university bodies. If students and their allies had limited themselves to the rules of the day, many changes could not have materialized. This political engagement and expansion of recognized rights has in turn expanded notions of what it means to be a student within the university.

To qualify this, advances have been made in substantive rights and continue to be fought for, yet changes are by no means permanent nor are they all necessarily positive. We are constantly reminded of the need for resistance by the pervasiveness of injustices and again as regressive changes are justified with right-wing ideologies, particularly now under the cover of an economic recession.

Student Activism against South African Apartheid

In 1983 students and their allies began organizing to make UofT divest from apartheid South Africa. The Anti-Apartheid Network (AAN) drew members from the African and Caribbean Students’ Association, NDP Club, Communist Club and Student Christian Movement. [1] Despite receiving a groundswell of support, the university refused to budge on its $5.5 million in corporate holdings. UofT continued to purchase more stocks in South Africa after a toothless policy tied to the Canadian Code of Conduct was passed in 1985. [2]

UofT President George Connell argued that the university should not “be committed to a particular political cause, no matter how worthy,” while students countered that investment was a political act that supported apartheid. [3] By 1987 the Arts and Science Students’ Union, Graduate Students’ Union, Native Students’ Association, Canadian Union of Education Workers and UofT Staff Association had all joined the call to divest. An opinion poll showed that 64% of students supported divestment. [4] Over 70 faculty members signed a letter in The Varsity that called for Connell to resign if he continued to refuse to support divestment. [5]

On March 4 1987, 28 students and one professor marched from the International Student Centre to Simcoe Hall and occupied the office of the president. [6] The sit-in lasted until the meeting of the Governing Council (GC) the next day, where a motion on divestment by a student member was to be discussed. On March 5 a rally was held outside Simcoe Hall and 200 students filed-in to attend the meeting. [7]

After governors voted to refuse to consider the motion, students spontaneously unleashed their frustration, chanting “freedom yes, apartheid no”. “One guy jumped on a table, next thing you know three or four people jumped on tables,” recalled former AAN co-ordinator Akwatu Khenti. [8] After ten minutes the meeting was adjourned and police escorted the president out. The image of students on tables made front page of the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail.

The students’ actions were criticized in the corporate media (“Degrees In Shouting”), [9] with slightly more sympathetic coverage in the student media. [10] The same poll that found 64% of students in favour of divestment reported 27% of students supported the actions at the GC. [11] The AAN was unapologetic. Khenti stated that after “every institutional channel of redress … had been exhausted” students were compelled “to let the Governing Council and university administration know that the present state of affairs cannot go on.” [12] While the chair of the GC claimed that free speech had been “abused”, the student member stated that “The administration and Governing Council must share the responsibility for any disruption” due to their inaction. [13]

According to Khenti, following the actions of March 4 and 5, “The momentum for divestment began to move forward expeditiously” and “more mainstream folks began to get involved”. [14] Tom Parkin, also a former AAN coordinator, received a letter from an NDP MPP who had previously spoken at an AAN rally that said “This will not help your cause”. Parkin believes that “It did nothing but help our cause” because while it may have been impolite, no one was hurt and it “forced the discussion”. [15]

In September 1987, President Connell appointed history professor A.P. Thornton to prepare a paper on South Africa and possible alternatives to UofT’s present policy. [16] Thornton met with the AAN in October [17] and released his report in late November, urging divestment from South Africa. [18] In January 1988 the GC voted to divest its holdings in South Africa. [19]

Parkin described the appointment of Thornton by Connell for his “expert advice” as a way of “finding his reason to change his position”, or saving face for his policy reversal on ethical investment. “George Connell didn’t want to have students telling him what to do.” The divestment campaign was a “threat to his sense of control” and the university administration “didn’t want to have to be accountable” to students. [20] The strength of the divestment campaign, ranging from lobbying to powerful student demonstrations, was ultimately too much for the university to ignore.

As illustrated by the campaign to divest from South Africa, going beyond accepted rules of dissent can play a significant role in the achievement of a campaign’s goals. This example is one on many in the history of UofT where students have been left with no other resort due to their lack of input in decision-making. Examples from UofT’s official history, Martin Friedland’s The University of Toronto: A History, include students in 1967 stopping napalm manufacturer Dow Chemical’s recruiting efforts by blocking the entrance to the recruiting centre [21]; students in 1970 occupying an unused building and later Simcoe Hall to get the President to commit to funding a daycare on campus [22]; and students in 1972 holding a sit-in in Simcoe Hall, being evicted by the police, and responding with another occupation of more than 500 people to gain access for undergraduates to Robarts Library [23].

Other notable examples include a sit-in that was part of the campaign that ended Hart House’s men-only policy in 1972 [24]; a camp-out held in 1986 to secure space for the Women’s Centre [25]; and an 11-day occupation of the President’s office in 2000 that resulted in UofT being the first Canadian university to introduce an anti-sweatshop policy for university clothing [26].

Supporters of the AAN transgressed university rules by disrupting the GC meeting. While not sanctioned in any rules, the occupation of the president’s office received no criticism, even before the events at the GC meeting had taken place. Jack Dimond, GC Secretary and spokesperson in the absence of President Connell was quoted as saying “I’m calm, I’m a child of the sixties”. [27] Perhaps this response was due to the normalization of such actions and the minimal inconvenience caused because the President was absent.

In contrast, the actions at the GC disrupted business as usual by causing the meeting to be adjourned. It was a spontaneous protest against business as usual. Business as usual was investing in apartheid South Africa and by extension supporting the racist regime. Business as usual was a structure that restricted students to token representation and allowed their issues to be swatted off the agenda. The interjection by frustrated students asserted that such dismissals were intolerable.

By transgressing the rules students soon achieved their political objective of divestment. Students also demonstrated their agency as legitimate actors, regardless of their subordination within university structures. Divestment was a blow against the apartheid South Africa regime, but it was also a blow against the arrogant policies of the university administration and their indifference towards student and international human rights.

Student Activism against Israeli Apartheid

The current generation of Palestine solidarity activism at UofT and the hostility towards it has centered around the inception and tremendous growth of Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW). IAW began in 2005 at UofT and is now an annual event that has spread to over 40 cities worldwide [28]. IAW in Toronto is organized by Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) at UofT in conjunction with SAIA at York University and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights at Ryerson University.

The purpose of IAW is to raise awareness of the apartheid nature of the state of Israel and support the call issued by over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against apartheid Israel, inspired by the call from the African National Congress to boycott the apartheid South Africa regime. [29] SAIA engages in university-specific campaigns for divestment from Israel, ending institutional partnerships with institutions that support Israel and supporting the right to education denied to Palestinian students.

The climate towards Palestine solidarity activism has resulted in attacks from pro-Israel organizations and intense scrutiny from the university administration. Organizers have long complained about bureaucratic hurdles and delays with room-booking requests. In 2007 the administration attempted to unilaterally assign undercover campus police to events deemed “security risks” and bill event organizers a prohibitive $440 fee for their services. [30] After organizers refused to pay, the issue was picked up by campus media and the administration backed down. However, shortly after IAW 2009 the administration indicated its intent to “require that Campus Police be present at all activities where we have justified concerns about safety and significant disruption” and “be fair in our allocation of the costs”. [31]

Moreover, a recent Freedom of Information request produced an email trail that proved administrators all the way up to President David Naylor colluded to deny a room-booking request on technical grounds for a cross-campus Palestine solidarity conference organized by SAIA. [32] The emails show that administrators decided to deny the request before it had been made, after being alerted of the planned event by a staff person for a pro-Israel campus organization.

This harassment of Palestine solidarity activists is taking place in a context of increasing repression of dissent at UofT, other universities in Ontario and within broader society. At UofT posters critical of major donor Peter Munk of Barrick Gold were torn down on the orders of the administration for being “potentially defamatory”. [33] Students alleged to have participated in a sit-in against fee increases received criminal charges and code of student conduct investigation notices, [34] and students were threatened with code of student conduct investigations for disrupting a meeting of the GC on fee increases. [35]

At other universities Palestine solidarity work has also been targeted, with IAW posters banned at Carleton and Ottawa Universities, [36] the term “Israeli apartheid” banned at McMaster University [37] and the student code of conduct used at York to apply suspensions and hefty fines to SAIA. [38] This chilling climate affects not just students but faculty and staff as well. Further, the federal Conservative government took an interest in denouncing IAW, [39] as did the leader of the opposition party. [40] In March 2009 funding for immigrant services was cut from the Canadian Arab Federation for its advocacy on Palestine, [41] and British MP George Galloway was banned from entering Canada for delivering humanitarian aid to the elected government of Palestine. [42]

The situation on campus shows how access to space is tied to expression of dissent. Dissent requires a space to be expressed in. Bureaucratic hurdles, security fees and outright denial of space all attempt to prevent the expression of dissent. These tactics of curtailing access to space also attempt to impose a new “normal”. If in the 1980s an occupation of the president’s office was normalized as a result of the student activism in the 1960s, recent experiences suggest this is no longer the case.

In fact, it is quite the opposite. The code of student conduct was passed in the early 1990s, prohibiting disruption with the threat of expulsion and other punitive measures, [43] while “conflict management” has made managing dissent a professional field. Jim Delaney, director of the office of the Vice-Provost, Students, is the principal communicator or buffer between the administration and student groups, including in the cases of the imposed security fees and room-booking denial, and has made it known that he is pursuing a degree in Conflict Analysis and Management at Royal Roads University by contacting student activists with interview requests. [44]

Increased management of dissent has coincided with increased alignment between the university and private interests. This is partly due to a growing reliance on private funding and donations as neoliberal governments continue to underfund education, and partly a result of administrators holding the same neoliberal ideologies and choosing to run universities according to profit-driven business models.

In the midst of campus activism to divest from South Africa, a struggle against putting the bottom-line of investment returns above ethical considerations, President Connell delivered a speech to the Empire Club of Canada entitled “From the Ivory Tower to the Corporate Tower” advocating increased orientation to corporate needs. [45] Connell authored a Renewal 1987 document that was criticized for reducing a degree to a “commodity”, privileging applied science and graduate studies, and emphasizing “upgrading UofT’s relations with the commercial sector”. [46]

Since then this orientation towards private interests has solidified and developed significantly. In 2007 President Naylor spoke on “Ten Myths about Commercialization” at a one-day symposium on commercializing university research (with a $200 registration fee, $50 for students) at the MaRS Discovery District, a hub for commercialization closely affiliated with UofT. [47] Naylor pushed the Towards 2030 plan that advocated for further commercialization of research, deregulation of tuition fees and reduction of undergraduate enrolment. [48]

These two trends of increased management of dissent and increased privatization are not accidents. They are both products of similar right-wing ideologies in which the role of students and responsibility of the university to the public good are marginal at best. As reflected in its behaviour toward student activists, the university is far from neutral on the issue of Israeli apartheid.

Beyond investments, UofT supports Israel through relationships with Israeli academic institutions. Nine university presidents including Naylor toured Israel in 2008. Naylor joined other university presidents in condemning a proposal from Britain’s University and College Union to discuss an academic boycott of Israel on the grounds that it violated the sacred principle of academic freedom, yet has never shown concern for the academic freedom of Palestinian students and academics or the bombing of Palestinian academic institutions by Israel.

Faced with calls from supporters of Israel to ban IAW, the administration has so far refused to do so, and has instead deployed strategies to withhold and limit access to spaces for expressing dissent. Dissent would not need such intensive management if it did not pose a threat. Measures are needed to secure the university from dissent, to secure administrators from the claims and campaigns of students who threaten the operation of “business as usual” in their embodiment of principles of equity and social justice.

The response to these shifting conditions has been continued organizing. A “Freedom of Expression” campaign was launched in April to unify opposition to repression of dissent. [49] Silencing of dissent brings more attention to injustices that activists are organizing against, while the act of silencing also exposes the power structures that uphold them. Denial of access to space is one way to deny expression of dissent. Technical grounds have been used to make decisions appear neutral, however the clear pattern of targeting, particularly of Palestine solidarity activism, shatters the myth of neutrality.

Without the appearance of objectivity rules are exposed as biased towards the powerful. “The frequent use of force [or power] draws attention, far too graphically, to the existence of those ruling.” [50] These actions, which tip the balance between coercion and consent, expose the promises of equality, free expression and academic freedom as empty. This again is a struggle in which students are asserting their agency, resisting the marginal position the university wishes to confine them to, and actively seeking a real voice in how the university is run. Students are embodying their rights claims rather than waiting for rights to be granted or further stripped away.

Conclusion: Student Struggle/Student Rights

While the university emphasizes the formal membership of students, staff and faculty in a common university community, this ignores huge differences in power relations between administrators, employees of the university and students. This article has considered the shifting rights of students in the university through the cases of student activism against South African apartheid in the 1980s and the current campaign against Israeli apartheid.

In both examples student struggles are intimately tied to student rights, from transgressing university rules to advance the campaign for divestment from apartheid South Africa to continuing to speak out and organize against Israeli apartheid in the face of increased repression. Through their activism students directly challenge power relations within the university, refusing to play a tokenistic role in decision-making and rejecting the complicity of their university with apartheid regimes. The right to education resides in the collective power of students. Student rights are non-existent without demonstrable student power.

Notes

[1] Interview with Tom Parkin, March 26, 2009.
[2] Akwatu Khenti and Carolyn Lynch, “Connell’s divestment stand ignores morality”, The Varsity, March 5, 1987.
[3] ibid.
[4] Richard Ellis and Lori McDougall, “Majority of students support divestment, poll says”, The Varsity, March 16, 1987.
[5] Undersigned, “72 Professors support divestment”, The Varsity, March 5, 1987.
[6] Jennifer Gould, “Students storm President’s office”, The Varsity, March 5, 1987.
[7] Gary Feld, “Protestors break up GC meeting”, The Varsity, March 9, 1987.
[8] Interview with Akwatu Khenti, March 20, 2009.
[9] Editorial, “Degrees in Shouting”, The Globe and Mail, March 7, 1987.
[10] John Hovland, “Intensity is no excuse for Governing Council rioting”, The Varsity, March 9, 1987.
[11] Richard Ellis and Lori McDougall, “Majority of students support divestment, poll says”, The Varsity, March 16, 1987.
[12] Akwatu Khenti and Bogdan-Eduard Ghetu, “Anti-apartheid groups clarify their position”, The Varsity, March 19, 1987.
[13] Gary Feld, “Protestors break up GC meeting”, The Varsity, March 9, 1987.
[14] Interview with Akwatu Khenti, March 20, 2009.
[15] Interview with Tom Parkin, March 26, 2009.
[16] Andrea Jacobs, “UofT appoints divestment officer”, The Varsity, September 24, 1987.
[17] Danielle Adams, “Divestment activists get moving”, The Varsity, October 29, 1987.
[18] Eric Geringas, “Report urges UofT divest from S.A.” The Varsity, November 26, 1987.
[19] Unknown Author. “UofT decides to divest”. The Varsity, January 25, 1988.
[20] Interview with Tom Parkin, March 26, 2009.
[21] Martin Friedland, “Student Activism.” The University of Toronto: A History (2002) p. 527.
[22] ibid., p. 535.
[23] ibid., p. 537.
[24] Graduate Students’ Union, “Activism: Victories” (2006), http://www.gsu.utoronto.ca/activism/victories.html.
[25] ibid.
[26] Helen Lenskyj, “Funding Canadian University Sport Facilities: The University of Toronto Stadium Referendum.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 28.4 (2004), p. 381.
[27] Jennifer Gould, “Students storm President’s office”, The Varsity, March 5, 1987.
[28] Israeli Apartheid Week, “History of Israeli Apartheid Week”, (2009), http://apartheidweek.org/en/history.
[29] ibid.
[30] Liisa Schofield, “Exposed: University of Toronto suppresses pro-Palestinian activism”, Rabble, February 18, 2009, http://www.rabble.ca/news/exposed-university-toronto-suppressed-pro-palestinian-activism.
[31] Cheryl Misak, “Update on Controversial Events at the University of Toronto”, University of Toronto, March 26, 2009, http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/public/pdadc/0809/47.html.
[32] Liisa Schofield, “Exposed: University of Toronto suppresses pro-Palestinian activism”, Rabble
[33] André Bovee-Begun and Naushad Ali Husein, “UofT admins rip off protest posters”, The Varsity, February 14, 2008 (accessed April 2, 2009), http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/2015.
[34] Committee for Just Education, “UofT PRESSES CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST 14 FOR MOBILIZING AGAINST FEE HIKES” (April 2008), Committee for Just Education, http://fightfees.ca/call-to-action/.
[35] Naushad Ali Husein, “Governors shouted out of Simcoe Hall”, The Varsity, April 12, 2008, http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/3239.
[36] SPHR U of O, “University of Ottawa Bans Israeli Apartheid Week Poster”, Mostly Water, February 21, 2009, http://mostlywater.org/university_ottawa_bans_israeli_apartheid_week_poster.
[37] Karen Ho, “McMaster ban on phrase ‘Israeli Apartheid’ stirs protest”, The Varsity, February 28, 2008, http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/2141.
[38] Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid, “SAIA York Suspended / Fined: Call for Support”, CAIA website, February 27, 2009, http://www.caiaweb.org/node/1209.
[39] John Riddell, “Israeli Apartheid Week beats back attacks on free speech”, Rabble, March 16, 2009, http://www.rabble.ca/news/israeli-apartheid-week-beats-back-attacks-free-speech.
[40] ibid.
[41] Asam Ahmad, “‘Beyond the Pale’: Jason Kenney and the Criminalization of Dissent”, UofT Free Press, March 28, 2009, http://utfreepress.org/2009/03/beyond-the-pale/.
[42] ibid.
[43] University of Toronto, “Code of Student Conduct” (2002), University of Toronto, http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/policies/studentc.htm.
[44] Jim Delaney, “About Jim Delaney”, (2008), professional website, http://individual.utoronto.ca/jimdelaney/about.html.
[45] George Connell, “From the Ivory Tower to the Corporate Tower” (1985), Empire Club of Canada, http://web.archive.org/web/20071020083836/www.empireclubfoundation.com/details.asp?SpeechID=758&FT=yes.
[46] John Lorinc, “Connell wants an elitist UofT”, The Varsity, April 9, 1987.
[47] MaRS Centre, “Commercializing University Research” (2007), MaRS Centre,  http://www.research.utoronto.ca/events/CUR%20Agenda%20MAY%2024,%202007.pdf.
[48] University of Toronto. “Towards 2030: Planning for a Third Century of Excellence at the University of Toronto” (2008), University of Toronto, www.towards2030.utoronto.ca.
[49] Unknown Author, “Launch: Freedom of Expression Campaign”, Rabble event listing, http://www.rabble.ca/whatsup/launch-freedom-expression-campaign.
[50] Sharon Wall, “’To train a wild bird’: EF Wilson, hegemony, and native industrial education at the Shingwauk and Wawanosh residential schools, 1873-1893”, Left History 9:1 (Fall 2002/Winter 2003), p. 3.

The World’s Greatest Poet

Article by Ciiku Thuo | May 6, 2009 | | No Responses Yet

You say the World’s greatest poet is William Blake
I say the World’s greatest poet is a sistah with no name

In this country not of my own

Article by Ciiku Thuo | May 6, 2009 | | No Responses Yet

In this strange country

Searching for the Guerilla/Toronto Free Press

May 6, 2009 | | One Response

Last week I was going through old issues of student newspapers in the Robarts media commons for an essay on 1980s anti-apartheid activism. While doing this research, I overheard another library patron mention that he was reading the back issues of a publication called the Guerilla/Toronto Free Press.

After some googling and internet research today, I learned some really interesting things about this precursor to Now Magazine and Eye Weekly. According to libraries with the back issues, Guerilla began publishing as a weekly on “radical alternate culture” in 1970 and changed its name to the Toronto Free Press in 1973, which continued until 1974.

Oddly enough, one of the most accessible sources on the Guerilla/Toronto Free Press is an article published on the far right-wing Canada Free Press (no relation) website, a self-described “conservative free press” that is currently running a story that asks whether universal healthcare killed actress Natasha Richardson (“The short answer is yes”).

In the article on the Guerilla/Toronto Free Press, Canada Free Press editor Judi McLeod reminisces about the paper’s activist focus, such as a restaurant review that criticized the low wages of the server and cook, and its system of providing free copies for people to sell:

As a young , 18-year-old, broke and short-haired, no-drug “hippie” of the day that lived (existed) in Yorkville, I could go up an alley beside Crazy David’s and a basket came down and you could get 10 copies free to sell, and then go back and buy more to sell. The paper suggested that you could use the monthly to buy dope. I used it to survive.

Digging deeper, you can find traces of people who were directly involved, and read about connections and tension between Guerilla collective members and queer organizing in Toronto:

The idea for The Body Politic partly emerged out of tension in the ranks of Guerilla. While the weekly covered gay and lesbian issues, some straight people involved were wary of too much gay content.

“They thought gay stuff was cool because it was different,” says Dobie. “But the more gay content they ran, the more gay people got involved, and the more some of the straight guys felt threatened.”

With a public library card, you can gain access to the Toronto Star Pages of the Past archives, which reveals some of the more specific stories that were reported at the time, including a fundraiser attended by nearly 1,000 young people – “most of them long-haired” (Nov. 30, 1970), a raid of the Guerilla’s and other leftist groups’ offices by the police (Dec. 2, 1970) and a controversy over the Guerilla being the recipient of a $15,000 federal Opportunities for Youth (OFY) grant (Aug. 15, 1971).

For those interested in what the Guerilla/Toronto Free Press actually looked like and contained, there is very little (if any) original material available online – this entry on the Internet Archive on The Raid of the Guerilla initially looked promising but was from a different time period entirely – so it appears that there is no avoiding the physical library system, especially when Google Books still limits you to basic descriptions or snippets for useful books.

White Privilege in Classrooms

Article by Ciiku Thuo | May 6, 2009 | | No Responses Yet

White privilege is something that permeates every single vein of the society that we live in. Unearned race advantage and conferred dominance of white skin is something that people of colour come across and have to deal with on a daily basis. It is in classrooms, in board meetings, in coffee shops, at the store, on the subway, at the library, in the gym, at the bookstore, literally everywhere.

In the classroom, white privilege is a destructive force that is oppressive and violent to students of colour. Students of colour experience this violence differently. For some, it penetrates, angers and silences. Still, in that silence, students of colour are fighting. Fighting to breathe, fighting to reclaim our words, fighting to reclaim ourselves, fighting against an institution that creates and maintains white privilege, and fighting to rise up and be heard.

Unacknowledged white privilege in classroom settings does violence to students’ of colour psyches by recreating and perpetrating systems of oppression. This privilege manifests itself when a white student talks over or interrupts a student of colour, when a white student feels they can speak on behalf of marginalized peoples, when a white student uses demeaning language against an oppressed group, when white students gloss over issues of race or when a white students’ comments seek to erase and disregard the histories of people of colour. White privilege also manifests itself when white students in critical or marginalized studies feel the need to take up a significant amount of space in classroom settings.

Recently, I became very disturbed upon walking into a Caribbean Studies class and finding that most of the white students who were already the majority had taken up and filled the first couple of rows while students of colour were relegated to the back of the classroom. As the class continued, I was even more perturbed to hear white students speak boldly about issues concerning people from the Caribbean. I wondered where this certainty and self-assurance that commanded their language came from. Then it dawned on me. It was white privilege manifesting itself even in a Caribbean Studies class! Consciously or unconsciously, it is white privilege and this is the white privilege that needs to be named and challenged.

For some reason, I find that white students are willing to talk about racism as a detestable and shameful thing that happened in the past, but are less willing to accept that racism is still alive and well. More so, they are unwilling to accept that they themselves are perpetrators by way of racist attitudes and mindsets. Too many times have I heard on campus, “I am not racist. I have a black friend.” Or better yet, “I am not racist. I am just into exotic chics.”

These kinds of attitudes are racist in that they confine marginalized peoples to these narrow categories by playing on stereotypes. What I find most peculiar is that whenever there are issues of race to be discussed, the first thing that white students will do is distance themselves from the dominant group and claim alliance with marginalized groups. I find this truly alarming and it is crucial that white students who are genuinely dedicated to doing anti-oppression and anti-racist work, question this need for declaring their ‘ally’ status. Is it a way to claim marginalized status since they are now “no longer part” of the dominant group? Is it another cause or fad that is cool and looks good? Or are they really and truly distressed about their white privilege?

The consequences of unearned race advantage and conferred dominance in classrooms are serious and far reaching; yet many white students remain completely oblivious to the racist power dynamics they recreate in the classroom. These are the same students whom I often hear claiming they are allies and arguing that there are more pressing issues to be addressed instead of race and white privilege.

I usually wonder to myself when these students will get it. When they will acknowledge the privilege they carry around because of their skin colour and when they will begin to name and challenge it. This is the only way to build genuine alliance; especially in classroom settings, which usually call for group work.

Students of colour are not interested in being marginalized and ostracized in classrooms. Particularly in classes where we can finally reclaim our histories rather than being subjected to Plato and Aristotle or The European Renaissance. It is time that white students recognize the amount of space they take in classrooms and the different manifestations of their unearned race advantage. It is time they recognize and challenge their white privilege so that we can all create a better learning environment.

‘Beyond the Pale’: Jason Kenney and the Criminalization of Dissent

Article by Asam Ahmad | May 6, 2009 | | No Responses Yet

‘Minister of Censorship and Deportation’ Jason Kenney, source: mostlyconservative on Flickr

There is no room for non-violent extremism in Canada that is “beyond the pale,” [Jason Kenney] said. “When I say beyond the pale I don’t mean illegal. But these are the kinds of organizations that should receive no formal support from the organs of the Canadian state.”
-    From the March 19, 2009 issue of The Toronto Star[1]

When Canada’s recently appointed Minister for Immigration and Multiculturalism says these words, what exactly does he mean? When a federal minister uses them to justify the cutting off of government grants to community organizations and the banning of foreign members of parliament from entering Canada, what does it say about the political climate in which we now find ourselves? Does Jason Kenney have a comprehensive checklist to determine how he comes to the conclusion that an organization or an individual is ‘beyond the pale’? Are there any objective standards that can be verified by someone other than Mr. Kenney? At a time when dissent has already been deemed questionable at best and a form of domestic terrorism at worst, what does it mean to say that an organization isn’t technically illegal but is actually ‘beyond the pale’? ‘Beyond the pale’ for whom? According to whose definition? And for whose purposes? These are all questions of critical importance in light of Mr. Kenney’s recent attacks on dissenting organizations and individuals.

I. ‘Non-Violent Extremism’

In its 2000/2001 Report on Terrorism, the FBI referred to the Jewish Defense League (JDL) as a ‘violent extremist Jewish organization,’ and claimed that the FBI was responsible for thwarting at least one of its terrorist acts.[2]  The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), one of the most vocal organizations against Anti-Semitism and nearly all forms of criticism of Israeli policy in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, describes the JDL’s extreme views as a ‘gross distortion of the position of Jews’ in North America.’ It notes that its founder, Rabbi Meir Kahane believed that ‘the major Jewish organizations in the United States had failed to protect America’s Jews from anti-Semitism, which he saw as “exploding” all over the country,’ and that ‘Kahane consistently preached a radical form of Jewish nationalism which reflected racism, violence and political extremism.’[3]

And yet, the Director of JDL Canada, Meir Weinsten, is given prominent media coverage to expound his fanatical views on everything from Israel’s incursions into Gaza to the war in Afghanistan to the current banning of British parliamentarian George Galloway. The JDL sent an open letter to Mr. Kenney urging him not to let Mr. Galloway into the country for his nationwide speaking tour that was supposed to begin next week. While ‘debating’ with Mr. Galloway on Channel 4 news (from the headquarters of the CBC, no less), Mr. Weinsten stated that ‘we are extremely determined’ to ‘look into these organizations in Canada that have invited’ Mr Galloway into Canada and ‘their links to terrorism as well.’ When Mr. Galloway stated that he is not at the mercy of the JDL and will find other ways to make his views heard, Mr. Weinsten retorted with the chilling statement that ‘we will see to it that the Canadian government will be monitoring every individual and organization that will have anything to do with it.’[4]  Many people, including many Jewish people, consider Mr. Weinsten’s views to be ‘beyond the pale.’ Mr. Kenney, of course, is not one of these people.

The point here is not that the JDL should be banned because of their extremist views (although certainly one can make that argument) – but that the determination of what constitutes ‘extremism’ and views that are ‘beyond the pale’ is an extremely subjective mode of inquiry that should perhaps not be left to newly-minted Ministers of the federal government.

II. Punishing Dissent

Not surprisingly, Mr. Kenney has a stellar track record of making statements that fail to stand up to even the most minimal of critical analysis. During an interview in 2005, Mr. Kenney claimed that the traditional Canadian law defining marriage between a man and a woman doesn’t ‘technically’ discriminate against gays and lesbians, because, after all, they could always marry someone from the opposite sex.[5]  In 2006, as parliamentary secretary to PM Stephen Harper, he compared the Lebanese guerilla organization, Hezbollah, with the Nazi Party in 1930’s Germany, and felt fit to scold the Lebanese Prime Minister for not expressing appropriate gratitude to the Canadian government for taking the “responsible” position that Israel’s bombing campaign of South Lebanon in 2006 was a ‘reasonable’ undertaking.[6]  He has also claimed that American soldiers resisting the obligatory service to maintain the Iraqi occupation are ‘bogus refugee claimants’ and should not be allowed to seek sanctuary in Canada – as he is the Minister for Immigration, these remarks are a clear violation of the asylum process.[7]

This year Mr. Kenney, who is an arch conservative from Calgary, has been making astonishing strides in defending our “national security” from terrorist-supporting Arabs and their evil allies. One of the most vocal supporters of Israel, and someone who seems to think Israel can do no wrong (as evidenced by his unflinching support for Israel during the Lebanon and Gaza offensives), he has been quick to judge as anti-semitic nearly any and all groups and organizations that dare to stand in solidarity with the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Last week Mr. Kenney unilaterally cut funding for the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) for its immigrant settlement program, citing the ‘objectionable nature of public statements made by CAF members’.[8]  What was CAF’s crime? Its president, Khaled Mouammar, attended a rally in Toronto during the Gaza offensive in January 2009 that saw tens of thousands of people, from all walks of life (all inevitably anti-semitic, of course), come out and support the rights of the Palestinian people to live in peace and free from occupation. At this rally, Mr. Mouammar said that ‘there are two types of politicians: ‘professional whores who support war,’ and others who see the violence but stay silent nonetheless.[9]  He specifically named Mr. Kenney as one of those politicians in the former category. Was this a stupid statement to make? Probably. But at a time when anywhere from 10 to 100 children were being slaughtered in the Gaza strip on a daily basis, can one at least understand the context and the anger behind such a statement? Certainly. Unfortunately, for Mr. Kenney, attending such a rally, and more importantly, making a speech at such a rally, is enough to get your organization considered ‘non-violently extremist’ and thus your $2 million grant from ‘organs of the Canadian government’ reneged.

What is shocking about this decision is that, aside from Mr. Kenney’s hyperbolic claims, there seems to be little to no evidence supporting the notion that Mr. Mouammar actually supports Hamas and Hezbollah – financially, politically or even ideologically. He has said that Hamas and Hezbollah should be considered legitimate political entities that are part of the fabric of Middle East politics – but this does not mean he supports them or their sometimes vehemently anti-Semitic views.[10]  Further, even if Canada declares that Hamas is a ‘terrorist’ organization, it is also wise to remember that it is the legitimately elected political representative of the Palestinian people. The Irish Republican Army (IRA), amongst many other guerilla movements around the world, was also considered a terrorist organization at one point or another in the not-too-distant past. (Perhaps not incidentally, Britain is currently moving to recognize Hezbollah as a political reality of the Middle East – one that is not going to go away by burying our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn’t exist.[11]  One legitimately wonders if our Immigration Minister will declare the British Parliament an anti-Semitic hate group in the near future.) Despite the lack of evidence, and judging by the media’s tepid response, the words of a government minister seem to be enough to warrant these allegations with the almighty banner of Truth, and it seems no further investigation is needed these days either. Certainly, the majority of Canadians are not up in arms about this blatant blackmailing tactic now being employed by Mr. Kenney.[12]

One can have all sorts of quarrels with how the Canadian government defines legal and illegal organizations – indeed, these sorts of quarrels happen all the time. But to single out words spoken at an intense rally protesting the slaughter of innocent civilians abroad, and then to use these words not only to delegitimize an extremely valuable organization to newcomers to this country, but to actually cut funding to such an organization – well, now that is ‘beyond the pale,’ to say the very least.

III. Criminalizing Dissent

What is most distressing about this whole situation is the lack of a response from the majority of people residing in Canada. It seems that most of us have now acquiesced and internalized the notion that, if the Government claims you’re a terrorist, surely you must be one. Certainly there is no reason to suspect our government of wrongdoing – what could it possibly have to gain from our increasingly brutal ’security measures’ and the criminalization of nearly all forms of meaningful dissent? The increasingly Kafkaesque trials of ‘master terrorist’ suspects (who are convicted by our media long before their trial begins), the banning of posters from university campuses (for Israeli Apartheid Week – an event held at over 40 universities around the globe), the cutting off of funding to organizations critical of governmental policy in the Mideast – all of these point to a single, clearly discernible new political reality for Canadians: you are either with “us,” or you are with “them.” You either support our brand of terror, or you support theirs. There is simply no middle ground. (Evidently, many in our government are still pining for the glory days of George W. Bush.)

If any further evidence were needed of this mentality, it was clearly underlined by Mr. Kenney’s recent decision to ban British MP George Galloway and the lack of public outcry from ‘mainstream’ Canadians that followed it. The Globe & Mail opened its lead editorial on the matter by comparing Mr. Galloway with the Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders – a right-wing demagogue who has compared the Koran to Mein Kempf and has called Islam the ‘Trojan horse’ of Europe – suggesting a sort of oppositional symmetry between the two individuals, despite the fact that Mr. Wilders’ views clearly constitute a form of hate speech by any objective standard.[13]  It then characterized those protesting his ban as left-wing loonies who apparently revel and enjoy such nightmarish scenarios, and only gingerly noted that Mr. Galloway really should be allowed to speak, if only to avoid giving him needless publicity.[14]  Mr. Galloway, who has been elected to the British parliament five times despite being a fierce critic of the Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza Wars and Western policy in general in the Mideast, was invited by the umbrella group Stop The War Coalition, and is currently touring the United States without knowing if he will be allowed to speak in Canada or not. Mr. Kenney has stated that he is banned for reasons of ‘national security.’[15]

After Israel’s bombing campaign this past January, the population of Gaza – 1.4 million people trapped in what many consider an open-air prison – was left with a completely devastated landscape, little to no humanitarian supplies, and nearly 1400 individuals killed (and thousands more injured) – many of them women and children, many of them left to die because Israeli soldiers refused to let rescuers come and evacuate them – a clear violation of international law.[16]  Before this campaign, Israel had already maintained a siege on Gaza for over a year, refusing to let in ‘food, medicine, fuel, parts for water and sanitation systems, fertiliser, plastic sheeting, phones, paper, glue, shoes and even teacups’[17]  (as an occupying force, Israel is responsible for the humanitarian needs of the civilian population, nearly half of whom are children).[18]   Mr. Galloway, along with many other individuals, helped lead a convoy containing ‘100 ambulances and vehicles stuffed with medical supplies.’[19]  As Hamas is the elected body in Gaza, inevitably only Hamas officials could distribute these supplies.

This is the extent of Mr. Galloway’s crime – giving aid to a starved, bombed and needy population. And this, apparently, is enough for Mr. Kenney to claim that he is a supporter of Hamas, and is thus unable to enter this country on ‘national security’ grounds. As Barbara Jackman, Mr. Galloway’s lawyer here in Toronto has convincingly argued, this would also make many aid groups in Canada ‘material supporters’ of Hamas: “If you use that as the indicator of engagement in terrorism…then the UN organization that assists Palestinian refugees, the Red Crescent Society – they’re all terrorists. Providing humanitarian aid isn’t terrorism.”[20]

The fact that these ridiculous charges must first be proven to be inaccurate shows just how much our political climate has changed since 2001. If Mr. Galloway is really such a criminal, shouldn’t our government be warning the British parliament that a ‘proxy agent’ of Hamas lurks in its midst? Shouldn’t he be banned from going to Israel if he is really that much of a threat? And why is he speaking in the US even as I write this? These are all rhetorical questions, of course, but they should bring home the alarming nature of this ban – and make us fundamentally question the political path this country is on.[21]

IV. Conclusion

In a society we like to term ‘liberal democracy,’ there are still clearly many ways to silence dissent. The vast majority of Canadians may not actually support Mr. Kenney’s decision to ban Mr. Galloway – but they have also learnt that they need not get involved and vocalize their opposition publicly. After all, they have the recent example of the CAF’s loss of $2 million in funding because it dared to take a principled position that our Minister for Immigration and Multiculturalism did not agree with.

By punishing an organization (financially, no less) for taking a dissenting position on an issue that is arguably of great concern to its constituency, Mr. Kenney ensures that, in the future, other organizations will learn how to self-censor themselves in order to avoid losing material support from the government and/or avoid Mr. Kenney’s harmful gaze. It also means that in our current climate, if an organization was interested in supporting the CAF, or if it was simply unsure of the politics of the Middle East, it will now know not to publicly voice a supporting/questioning opinion.

The further banning of Mr. Galloway, and the increasingly alarming (and public) presence of those who are “keeping a watchful eye” on anyone who supports our right to dissent – is not just another blow for the right to free speech, but more threateningly, bears disturbing portends for the future of political discourse in this country. If this isn’t a way to silence dissent, I don’t know what is.

Taking a dissenting stance against the entrenched view that Israel can do no wrong is a difficult proposition in even the best of times. At a time when voices of dissent are being marginalized and criminalized all over the country, Mr. Kenney is helping ensure that people learn to accept that this insidious new political climate is not just here to stay – but, at least if he has his way, is only going to get worse. This is why we shouldn’t just be fighting for the right of Mr. Galloway to speak inside these borders; we should be asking for the immediate resignation of Jason Kenney, MP. Unless, of course, we are really that inclined to change his title to ‘Minister of Censorship and Deportation.’

Notes
_______________________

[1]    Talaga, Tanya. Kenney has no Regrets over Cutting off Arab group. The Toronto Star.        March 19, 2009.      Accessed March 22, 2009. <http://www.thestar.com/article/604720>
[2]    United States Dept. of Justice. Terrorism 2000/2001. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington: GPO, 2002. Accessed March 21, 2009. <http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm>
[3]    NA. Backgrounder: The Jewish Defense League. Anti-Defamation League. Accessed March 23, 2009. <http://www.adl.org/extremism/jdl_chron.asp>
[4]    George Galloway 2009-03-20 – Channel 4 News [Video]. (2009). Accessed March 21, 2009. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoAG4H2sSzE>
[5]    NA. Gays can Marry – Just not other gays. CTV News. February 14, 2005. Accessed March 23, 2009. <http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1108343854403_15/?hub=TopStories>
[6]    NA. Tory MP Compares Hezbollah to Nazi Party. CBC News. August 22, 2006. Accessed March 23, 2009. <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/08/22/hezbollah-nazi.html?print>
[7]    NA. Kenney’s Comments Prejudice Hearings for War Resistors, Critics Say. CBC News. January 9, 2009. <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/09/refugee-war.html)
[8]    Talaga, Tanya. Kenney has no Regrets over Cutting off Arab group. The Toronto Star. March 19, 2009. Accessed March 22, 2009. <http://www.thestar.com/article/604720>
[9]    Ibid.
[10]    Ibid.
[11]    Richter, Paul. U.S. Disagrees with British Decision to Engage Lebanon’s Hezbollah. The Los Angeles Times. March 13, 2009. Accessed March 23, 2009. <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-hezbollah-talks13-2009mar13,0,5946564.story>
[12]    It is interesting to note that while the outcry against the banning of Mr. Galloway has not been as prominent as it could have been (certainly, most of the mainstream media has brushed him aside as a psychotic member of the radical left who should have gained entry if only to avoid ‘needless publicity’), there has been almost no such response from the left upon hearing of the removal of a multi-million dollar grant that affects the lives of a broad spectrum of the immigrant community in Canada. It is perhaps not unfair to say that symbolic injustices seem to raise more heckles amongst the radical leftist crowd than injustices that actually effect the lives of thousands of racialized individuals and the marginalized communities to which they belong.
[13]    Waterfield, Bruno. Ban Koran like Mein Kampf, says Dutch MP. August 10, 2007. Accessed March 25, 2009. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559877/Ban-Koran-like-Mein-Kampf-says-Dutch-MP.html>
[14]    NA. Needless Publicity. The Globe & Mail. March 21, 2009. Accessed March 23, 2009. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090321.EGALLOWAY21/TPStory/?query=George+Galloway>.
[15]    Ibid.
[16]    Hass, Amira. IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot at Gaza Rescuers, Note says. Haaretz. March 22, 2009. Accessed March 23, 2009. <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072830.html>
[17]    Roy, Sara. If Gaza Falls…. The London Review of Books. January 1, 2009. Accessed March 23, 2009. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n01/roy_01_.html)
[18]    As Human Rights Watch has noted, ‘under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops. Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.’ NA. Israel Disengagement Will Not End Gaza Occupation. Human Rights Watch. October 28, 2004. Accessed March 23, 2009. <http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/10/28/israel-disengagement-will-not-end-gaza-occupation)
[19]    NA. I Have Never Supported hamas, says Galloway. CTV News. March 24, 2009. Accessed March 25, 2009. <http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090324/galloway_canada_090324/20090324?hub=TopStories>
[20]    Clark, Campbell. Tories not Behind Move to Bar Anti-War British MP, Kenney says. March 24, 2009. Accessed March, 25, 2009. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090324.wgalloway24/BNStory/politics/home/>
[21]    There are signs that Canada’s ‘special relationship’ with Israel may have something to do with this ban. A security declaration signed by both countries in 2008 states that both Israel and Canada desire to set up “clear lines of communication and points of contact” in order to “identify and share public safety concerns.” Despite the fact that the two countries share no border with each other, the document lists ‘border management and security’ as one of the long list of areas of cooperation. Levy-Ajzenkopf, Andy. Canada, Israel sign Security Declaration. The Canadian Jewish News. March 26, 2008. Accessed March 25, 2009. <http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task

Access and Equity Under Attack at UofT

Blog post by ryan | May 6, 2009 | | No Responses Yet

Access & Equity in the University edited by Keren Brathwaite

TYP March 21 2009 Town Hall Audio Recording

ACCESS &  EQUITY UNDER ATTACK
COMMUNITY FORUM ON PRESERVING THE TRANSITIONAL YEAR PROGRAMME

March 21, 2009

Ahmed Ahmed, current TYP student
Keren Brathwaite, co-founder of TYP and Organization of Parents of Black Children
Zanana Akande, former provincial Minister of Education
Verne Ross, TYP alumni
Ashley Sanders, TYP alumni
Rod Michalko, Professor of Disability Studies, OISE/UT

Accessibility on Campus

Article by Helen Choi | May 6, 2009 | | No Responses Yet

At an early age, David Park learned that he had a learning disability. Today, he is a first year Woodsworth College student at the University of Toronto, studying part-time and specializing in political science. An achievement he worked hard to acquire through hard work, persistence, and determination with hopes to get into law school or seminary training later in life.

However, in order to succeed in his studies he has come to rely on services that accommodate the needs of students with disabilities at the Accessibility Services on campus. These accommodations include extra note-taking, class recordings, extended time on his assignments, and individual learning counseling. He meets with a specialist regularly to ensure he successfully completes assignments and tests.

Life has not been easy for Park. He faced stigma and the harmful effects of labeling and misjudgment that he was ‘lazy’ or incompetent. Park often found that he would be mistreated with childish ridiculing and insults when people learned of his invisible disability. Park believes that the stigmatization from society and the media is the biggest barrier for him to overcome. “Since I was a child, there was an aspect of people labeling me. Most of the times people treated me crappier because there’s huge stigmatization when you have a learning disability. So I had to fight for my rights,” he explains.

At university, Park is assigned to a learning specialist counselor. However, mirroring his experience from childhood, he found that in most cases the counselors would also label him and treat him differently. “I know other students with invisible disabilities and they definitely try to hide their struggles in their area because there is stigmatization,” Park explains, “We’re taught that it is a bad thing to have a learning disability, whether it’s from the media, at home. We’re always striving for perfection. The moment you have it, it works against you.”

The numbers of people in Canada reported to have a disability is on the rise. Statistics Canada reported an increase from 12.4% to 14.3% of Canadians with disabilities from 2001 to 2006, with invisible disabilities being among the most common types of disabilities self-reported by adults.

The statistical measures of ‘disability’, however, are controversial. The increase in numbers in the 2006 report, were attributed (by the report), to a change in how disability is perceived and defined. This is because the new report had made room for self-definitions of ‘disability’, instead of relying solely on activity and mental limitations that focus on “health conditions”. Although this arguably broadens the definition of disability, through giving weight to personal classifications, it also lumps together medical definitions, increasing the scope of pathologizing on the basis of the medical model.

OISE disability studies professor Tanya Titchkosky contends that the medical collecting of such data entails stigma, through asking questions such as “do you have an inability at your level of learning, walking, seeing…they are already asking you to identify what is abnormal”. She asks us to turn our attention away from the individual and to the society, a society which does not ensure full access to resources, “It’s society that limits and excludes. It’s not all in the body. It’s in society.”

Titchkosky makes a case that a Social Model of Disability perspective looks at the interaction between the individual and society, and asks questions about how society disables people, rather than focusing on the individual from a medical model perspective, where the burden is on the individual, perpetuating pathologizing and stigmatization. She notes, “It’s difficult to participate fully in education, but this is not because of disability, it is because of unequal access.” She adds, “Course material is sometimes not available till the very day of the course. This disadvantages people with learning disabilities or any sort of mental, physical or sense impairment.”

At the University of Toronto, the recent restructuring of Student Life Services is in the process of bringing Accessibility Services under the medical cluster, thus coupling medical and disability together. In 2007, the Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students (APUS) and Students for Barrier free access spoke against the restructuring of Student Life during a town hall meeting May 11, 2007. The University nonetheless is moving ahead with the changes.

Currently, many part-time students at the University of Toronto are students with disabilities. APUS Executive Director Oriel Varga, who was present at the forum on restructuring, notes that “this brings ‘disability’ even more closely under the purview of the medical model. Despite students speaking out against this, the university has proceeded with the restructuring. There is a pattern here by U of T, of not consulting with or ignoring the concerns raised by students.” This extends to the University’s Ontario Disability Act Planning Committee where there is a need for greater student, professor and community consultation. Varga notes, “We’ve brought up some important issues based on APUS’ accessibility working group; however, the University has frequently dismissed these concerns.”

Kasha Visutskie, Information Officer of the Health Unit of Accessibility Services (which is grouped into a Health and a Learning Disability Unit) spoke about the effects of the restructuring, “The lack of resources means being under-staffed. Not being able to do basic administrative things for students getting appointments, students are finding it difficult.” The restructuring of student life services has also meant the decentralization of office and space management. The location is not centralized as it was in the past at Robarts library. Students are forced to run around campus to hand in forms, write tests and exams, or to meet with a counselor.

Activists in the disability community such as Jewelles Smith, a Consultant for DisAbled Women’s Network (DAWN), also emphasizes the importance of turning our attention to the society rather than the individual. “Most grassroots movements work to use the social model of disability rather than the medical model. This is important work!” She advocates for full rights of all people with disabilities, saying, “no matter what a student with a disability is diagnosed or lives with. Whether visible or not, accommodation is their right. Whether a woman is blind, deaf, has a mental illness, chronic illness, LD, etc. they deserve to have access to a safe accessible space in a transition house or drop-in centre if this is what they need.”

For David Park, he first heard about the availability of accommodations through his professors and past UofT students. “Three million dollars are unclaimed and just sits there year after year and becomes surplus,” exclaims Park, “After I got the help I feel much better at school. It’s not only just about money. Once I got accepted a lot of services were opened and available for me. And when the help comes, your confidence level increases exponentially.”

However, Jeff Peters, President of APUS notes that the university funding is not easy to access,

“A lot of students come to us and have been excluded because they have not been able to access these resources. If the money is there, many students never find the route to access it. Also, a lot of funding including the university financial aid guarantee is based on OSAP, which is not available to all students.

The University needs to consider how to make its entire system design more universally inclusive. Peters notes that,

“Disability related accommodation should not be related to financial situation. The University should be paying for it regardless. This is part of a universal design concept. Additionally, the accessibility services office is so overworked and needs adequate resources.”

He notes that to ensure full accessibility, accommodations need to be extended to students taking part in the university outside of the classroom. “They [Accessibility Services] are mandated to serve students with disabilities, but this is only in the academic setting; it does not assist in co-curricular, nor extra-curricular activities on campus including political representation.”

A Message to the Dean and FASC about Flat Fees

Blog post by ryan | May 6, 2009 | | No Responses Yet

Here’s the message I drafted up just now. You can read more about the proposal and send your own message with the contact info for members of the Faculty of Arts and Science Council (FASC) listed on the UTSU website.

Dear Dean Gertler (meric.gertler@utoronto.ca),

Even though I should be writing papers right now, your mass-mailing inspired me to respond with this message and to include the members of the Faculty of Arts and Science Council. I served on FASC as a student representative in 2007-08 and the year before that on the Academic Appeals Board.

In my estimation, this is the single most regressive policy proposal I have seen since I began studying at UofT in 2005. One of the main themes in your message may be “not to worry, this change will not affect you”, but I cannot help but worry about the future of each and every Arts and Science student that would potentially be confronted with this severely inequitable fee structure. I believe that you have misjudged the impact that this change will have on student enrolment decisions, let alone on the “student experience” and access to UofT in general.

If you are under the impression, as indicated in your proposal, that for students with financial need “tuition fees are fully covered by government and/or University student aid”, you have been given the wrong impression and are shockingly out-of-touch with the lived reality of students. The average student leaves with a $24,000 debt sentence. Many students do not even qualify for OSAP: students from middle-income families, part-time students, students with prior debt, students without immigration status.

Further, if you believe that this change will not have a negative impact on students with financial need, you are once again mistaken. You must recognize that students take less than five courses because they lack the time and money to take a five course load. Students in this position would either be forced to pay exorbitantly more for less, be overburdened with an untenable amount of course work, or be pushed to drop down to part-time status, making themselves ineligible for OSAP. Each of these prospects serve to do irreperable harm to student engagement inside and outside of the classroom and to the accessibility of UofT.

Tuition fee increases are only stop-gap measures that take pressure off the government to fulfill its responsibility to adequately fund education, which we know has been chronically underfunded for years. Not only are tuition fee increases ineffective, but they are incredibly regressive as well – tuition fees are charged to all students regardless of their income.

I would like to end this message on a personal note. In my first year at UofT, I took five courses. I received an A- average, but the stress that I received as a result of this courseload was more than I could handle. I spent too much time shutting myself away from everyone in my life just to get assignments done. Since my first year, I have taken between 3.0 and 3.5 courses. It has meant that I will take five years, but it has also meant that I have been able to stay mentally healthy and get involved outside of classes, where most of my learning and development has taken place. For someone like me, a student on OSAP with a climbing debt load, this proposal serves only to cause undue stress or financial penalization, which in the end has the same impact.

If you can see me and my fellow students as students – as human beings with a right to access education – and not simply basic income units, I trust that you will vote down this proposal.

Sincerely,

Ryan

P.S. In case you have not heard, an incredible access program at UofT, the Transitional Year Programme is also being targeted for regressive changes. Rather than considering proposals that appear to penalize poor and marginalized students for being poor and marginalized, I submit that FASC’s time would be better utilized thinking about how to adopt principles of access and equity across the Faculty of Arts & Science. I would love for the next mass-mailing I receive from the Dean to be about the measures Arts and Science is taking towards advancing access and equity.