G20

Next weekend Toronto descends into controlled chaos as the G20 world leaders arrive to ... well, we're not sure what they're going to do but it will likely involve a lot of talking... something I'm sure they had to do in person.... in downtown Toronto. I'm pretty sure it was the most logical place to meet.

In fact, the build-up to the meeting only proves that downtown Toronto was the most illogical choice for the meeting. Not that Harper cares one wit. The fence around downtown Toronto is up. Cell phones are ready to be jammed. Fake lakes have been built to highlight the best things about Ontario (which is clearly our fake lakes and Muskoka chairs...) While sitting around the fake lake, reporters will be wined and dined at no cost to them. Garbage cans, bus shelters, and mail boxes and anything that might hinder cops beating down protesters have been removed. Now, trees are being removed because protesters might rip them out and rush the meetings with a tree... Speaking of protesters, sound cannons have been bought and laid beside the normal tasers, tear gas and billy clubs. In light of this, businesses are shutting down. UofT has decided to close its doors and move all the students out of the area, including dorm students. Baseball games are cancelled, CN Tower closed, shows cancelled, festivals pushed out or in danger, epic gridlock, etc... etc...

I tell you, this all seems perfectly sane.

Except, it doesn't. And all at the price tag of an estimated $2 billion dollars which, for some reason, is far more than any other summit and is being called "the most expensive three days in Canada's history".

All for what? To market Canada? To show we have money to spend? To talk about economics and climate change while taking Lear jets and consuming mass amounts of just about everything possible? As some have said, G20 has never been more than "a really expensive dinner party".

I would love to get down there and check it out but to get inside the security gates I need a good reason... How does, "Because I'm paying for it" sound?

Free Speech in Canada

Recent news out of Ontario is that American conservative speaker/writer Ann Coulter is here. For those of you who might not know her, she enjoys "stirring up the pot" through right-wing rhetoric racism. She wrote the book, If Democrats had any Brains, They'd be Republicans and has been notoriously anti-Muslim, advocating that no Muslim should be allowed to fly, instead they should take flying carpets. I am not joking, there is no way you could make this stuff up.

Of course you can guess my reaction to such a person. She uses racism as a tool to incite people, blatantly using ignorant, inflammatory comments to make the news and sell books, and ignores the power of what she says. In today's speech, when a Muslim student asked her about her "flying carpets" comment, nothing that she didn't have one, Coulter told her "to take a camel" instead. And she made the news.

Still, her vast store of idiocy is not what this post is about. What I want to do is relate this issue and Coulter's recent foray into Canada to something else I had previously written about here.

British MP George Galloway was denied access to speak in Canada at an anti-war protest due to his attacks on Israel and connections with the Palestinian Hamas (who Canada labeled a terrorist org.) which include being part of the Viva Palestina convoy bringing food to Gaza to promote peace. At the time I noted that we had allowed George Bush to cross the border to speak, why were we denying Galloway? My question remains: If we allow people such as Coulter across the border to spew her vitriolic rants why was a British elected official (Galloway) banned?

I think part of the answer stems from what Galloway represents - a critique of Israel. He highlights atrocities in Gaza, sides with Palestinians and Arabs as a whole and roundly denounces American foreign policy that supports such atrocities... policy that Canada seems to agree with. I know Israel is a touchy subject but his views are not welcome and even less welcome than the racist rants of Coulter? He's involved in initiatives to promote peace and equality for Muslim people's and Coulter advocates against Muslim people. We talk about free speech in Canada but this one exclusion (Galloway) and one inclusion (Coulter) speaks to what is allowed in Canada, what is deemed acceptable, and what is allowable to say.

Free speech in Canada... as long as you agree with our policies and don't like Muslims.

Part 3: Racism in Canada

Somehow the news just keeps revealing the deep-seeded racism that exists in leaps and bounds in our society, all coated over with a deep self-belief that we are somehow a tolerant and accepting society.

This quick blog makes for a the perfect part 3 of my trilogy on race and the construction of authenticity in Canada. Check out Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

A recent news article on CBC.ca sparked a massive wave of comments. It was in regards to a UofT student who was seen on a terrorist video from Somalia and has been rumored to have been killed in a battle with insurgents.

Off the bat, I am against violence, especially when done in the name of religion. Secondly, I am against the way the word "terrorist" has been used to construct the "bad guys" who are always Othered through race, language, religion, etc... Presidents and soldiers can senselessly kill people but they are never constructed as terrorists, put on watch lists or have their travel restricted.

Beyond this, I was appalled (though not really shocked) at the comments on the story. They speak powerfully to what I have already discussed in terms of creating "real Canadians" and "fake Canadians", all under the auspices of multiculturalism and tolerance.

One commenter says: I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm all for immigration but not including the following: Somalians, Tamils, Haitians and any other ethnicity that thrives on cultivating old battles on our soil. I know that not "all of them are radicalized" but enough of them are, and worse, those who aren't can and will be turned by others who freely enter our borders to do so.

He begins by stating his tolerance (he's "all for immigration") and then proceeds to spew one of the most openly racist and exclusionary statements I've heard in a while. He places violence in the hands of racial minorities, fueled by their hatred for others, disrespecting our soil. He tries to appear conciliatory by recognizing that "they" are not all "radicalized" but that so easily they'll all flip - like they're the 12 yr. old who will do anything if their friends tell them so. You want to exclude whole groups on the basis of.... violence? Exclude Americans then. Their gun violence is the highest in the world and they "cultivate old battles" in places like Iraq. Or how about any other nation that has had civil war (Canada can be included in this)? Oh, and for the record, my brother-in-law is Tamil - guess I should keep an eye on him in case he "turns"... it'll have to happen sooner or later.

In response to another comment that perhaps this man's experiences in Canada pushed him to extremism: WHAAATT!?!?!?! This is one of the most insane things I've heard. Canada has opened their doors and their hearts to allow these people into our country, many of them escaping a futureless life, poverty and persecution. How dare you make ignorant comments with a bite to the hand that feeds you.

Canada is constructed as the benevolent, gracious host who should be thanked. Not only did we "allow" certain undesirables to enter but we "opened our hearts" to all the Orphan Annies of the world, giving them a chance at a better life. They escape their "futureless life" (somewhere else) to come to Canada and a.... place where their credentials ignored, their job prospects truncated, their knowledge devalued... a futureless life? They escape poverty (somewhere else) to come to Canada and have.... poverty? They escape persecution (somewhere else) to come to Canada and.... face persecution? I'm certainly not trying to diminish the experiences of people who indeed have faced hardships in countries torn by war, famine, globalization, etc... but Canada is no walk in the park for immigrants (the article actually states that the subject of the story was born in Canada but most posters just assumed he was an immigrant - no way he was a "real Canadian"). Canada is loving and peaceful and people should thank their lucky stars to be here, subsequently showing their gratitude by never disagreeing with a thing, speaking English upon arrival, buying all their coffee at Tim Hortons and joining a local hockey or curling rink.

A final commenter stated: This man was not Canadian in any way shape or form. By calling him a "Canadian", CBC, you have degraded the word and yourself.

How do we define a Canadian? Born in Canada? Has a Canadian passport? Believes in peace, love and donuts? Speaks only English or French (preferably English)? Is White or at least acts as White as they can? Is being called "Canadian" some badge of honor that one has to win or earn? When a White soldier goes to Afghanistan and commits some crime do we question his nationality, wonder if perhaps he was never really Canadian to begin with? So many questions...

As a summary: Dionne Brand, a relatively famous Black Canadian writer, writes in one of her poems - "I don't want no fucking country". It's really not hard to see why certain individuals wouldn't want to align themselves with Canada, when in return Canada doesn't really want any part of them.

"Hey, I just said that!"

Do you ever have those moments when you're reading or watching the news or talking with friends and you hear something that sparks a sense of deja vu? I was reading an article today by Canadian and UofT scholar (he's actually in my department) Rinaldo Walcott about multiculturalism in Canada and instantly thought, "Hey, I just said that".

And, indeed I had in this blog about "Real Canadians". It actually also pertains at least remotely to last my last blog post, the letter to Mr. Ignatieff.

Here's some of the article.

Walcott states "Official [Canadian] policies of multiculturalism... exacerbate the problem of belonging (89)

Walcott quotes Ignatieff's Massey Hall Lecture where Ignatieff describes Canadian multiculturalism as seeking to protect the cultural rights of as many people as possible. Sounds good right?

But where do collective rights fit into this Liberalist schema of individualism? What about the cultural groups whose identity is firmly embedded in the collective? Group rights pose a major problem for Canada's version of multiculturalism, denying any collective rights to groups.

Walcott goes on to examine how the English and French are excluded from these ideas of multiculturalism based on their status as "Founding Nations" - their identity is beyond question, beyond the need for 'protection' by multiculturalism policies - They are "Real Canadians". He quotes Eve Mackey who says, "Canadian-Canadians are assumed to be white, disinterested in seeking special status of any sort, and certainly their cultures (if they claim a culture at all) are neither funded nor supported by the government apparatus" (92).

Not only does this echo my previous post but show how government focus on funding multiculturalism creates more separation. "Real Canadians" don't need funding or special privileges.... mostly because we are already given these things anyways through other channels. Heritage becomes a specifically non-white discourse that needs to be enacted and re-acted through parades, national costumes, cultural celebrations, etc... Non-white Canadians are positioned as outside of Canada and are "allowed" into Canada through government multiculturalism.

Despite disagreeing with many aspects of his article, it's always nice to hear someone else voicing the same things you are - makes you think you're not alone in left field!

Despite these recognitions of cleavage in Canadian society, we as voters are presented with dismal options. On one side is Liberalism which champions multiculturalism as the way - except that their version is predicated on individual right which only seek to fragment cultural groups and assimilate them into a homogeneous Canada and which creates "Real Canadians" and "hyphenated Canadians"; and on the other side are the Conservatives who can't even be bothered to put on the facade of multiculturalism or inclusiveness in completely ignoring any issue that is not white, straight, upper class, and male. Uggggghh.

Especially after such national fervor that the Olympics inspired, it is hard to see how Canada or its people could be accused of racism - Hell, we let the Natives dance! Our medals has Native motifs and so did our hockey jerseys! It's easy to say that racism is in the past.

Dionne Brand says, "Only the brazen can say, "I was not here, I did not do this and feel that." One hears that all the time in Canada; about what they feel they are and are not responsible for. People use these arguments as reasons for not doing what is right or just. It never occurs to them that they live on the cumulative hurt of others. They want to start the clock of social justice only when they arrived. But one is born into history, one isn't born into a void" [italics mine] (A Map to the Door of No Return, 82).

Beyond this, not only is Canada built on the exploitation of others it still continues today in less explicit (sometimes) ways. It's impossible to choose impartiality or neutralism as a position.

Olympic Spirit

As you likely have surmised by the over abundance of red mittens with a Canadian flag on the palm and the incessant commercials involving a Canadian flag, wilderness or beavers, the winter Olympics are currently happening. I have a strange ambivalence to such an event, something along the lines to how C.L.R. James describes Lucian, an early commentator on the Greek Olympic games, as both repulsed and unable to stay away at the same time. I love sports and yet fully recognize that sport is not something pure and detached from society at large: it reproduces inequalities, is intricately involved in cultural production and re-production, and fully participates in racist discourses.

Here are some of my early observations on the Opening ceremonies and the Olympics as a whole:

1. Why make such a big deal about the Native chiefs being late? Dignitaries are late all the time and slip in with little fanfare or notice, so why feed the narrative that First Nations people are always late, lazy, unaware of time, etc... I hope it was an act of purposeful resistance. It was either that, or they were held up by security on their way in and had their fingers tested for explosives residue....

2. The Native dancing was one of the most blatant displays of trying to 'write' Canada as a diverse, multicultural space while at the same time ignoring the historical reality of what the land means to First Nations people. The welcome also ironically echoed the many times First Nations people welcomed the first explorers only to be thanked with death, colonialism, reserves, and exploitation. I secretly hope that when they were talking in their native tongue that they were cursing out the Olympics.

3. I almost spit out my drink when after the dancing, when the nations were about to walk into the arena, all these people clad in white came out and started to encircle the dancing First Nations people. I thought perhaps they were indeed going to be historical and start shooting or rounding them up to move them to a smaller area....

4. I then actually did spit out my drink when, as Greece was the first country to enter, the commentator said something to the like of: "They should give Greece a gold medal for their contributions to civilization around the world." Uh, seriously? Not only is modern Western society a bastardization of Greek democracy but if we take that line, the contributions that Western society has made to the rest of the world include colonization, the Atlantic slave trade, mass-scale exploitation, the spread of misogyny, etc... If we're awarding medals for such "contributions" perhaps we should award the silver to Germany for their "contributions" during World War 2 and America the bronze for their "war on terror".

5. The whole ceremony was an exercise in narrating against history, specifically in narrating Canada as a diverse, accepting, polite, forward-thinking country. From the hybridity of the punk-rock Scottish fiddlers, to the commentators constantly highlighting the diverse communities in Canada "Listen to the crowd go wild for the Chinese team, there's a large Chinese population in the greater Vancouver area...", to highlighting the benevolence of Canadians to 'developing countries' (The community coming together to buy the poor Indian team matching costumes).

6. And finally, the gross exoticism of non-White nations (speaking of which, is there anywhere a Whiter gathering of sports than the Winter Olympics?). From the mystique of the "Snow Leopard" to the appeal of the lone Jamaican athlete, there was the pandering to the "underdog", the racial other.

I know this all seems quite negative and like I hate the Olympics, and I haven't even touched on the economic or regional impact of such a bombastic, self-aggrandizing, consumerism driven event (okay, maybe I just did...) Yet, like I said I am oddly drawn to watching the breath-taking speed of the downhill skiers, the mechanical determination of the speed skaters, the high-flying snowboarders, and the thrill of the crowd when hockey is on (except for women's hockey; 18-0 is hardly a competitive sport...)

It's here and I'm not going to don a mask and smash windows but at the same time I'm not going to willfully blind myself from some of the realities of what is going on.

Interestingly enough, the first Olympics in Greece were not only about sport but it was also a time for intellectuals to gather and share ideas, for drama and theater, etc... Instead of protesting in the streets perhaps we should call for an international symposium to gather every Olympics in the host city to share ideas on sport, society, culture, etc... Actually, even in the modern era medals were awarded for "events" such as architecture, town planning, and various forms of literature such as lyrical, dramatic, and epic. Perhaps Vancouver should award medals for protesting... ;)

Real Canadians

There are many cultural and national groups in Canada that are 'hyphenated' Canadians, Chinese-Canadians, Somali-Canadians, Afghan-Canadians, etc... I have no problem with them self-identifying as such, in recognition of their heritage, ancestry, etc...

The issue I take is with the rest of us 'un-hyphenated' Canadians turning around and calling ourselves 'real' Canadians, implying that the 'hyphenated' Canadians are somehow less Canadian or illegitimate in some way. There are NO real Canadians, unless we're going to talk about the First Nations groups and even then, in that context 'Canadian' implies a transplanted, colonial entity that stripped the First Nations of their land and their identity, forcing them to conform to 'Canada' as a European conceived nation-state.

There's a Wyclef (Haitian-American rapper) song that carries the line, "Your grandfather was an immigrant too" and that speaks to the heart of the matter - Canadians are an amalgamation of various immigrants joining in one place. It happened over time so perhaps some people feel that time somehow legitimizes them as 'authentic' Canadians but some of the first Canadians were not the white, Euro settlers who we imagine as 'real' Canadians, from the beginning there was a multiplicity of cultures and races in Canada - despite many of these early stories being erased from our national narrative or consciousness.

While many people would not come out and explicitly say that they are 'authentic' Canadians (though some do), implying that there are 'un-authentic' Canadians, this mentality is prevalent in many aspects of Canadian life, from the living rooms across the country, to the way government acts on behalf of its citizens. Recently there have been a couple of stories that illustrate this. Recently a Toronto woman was stranded in Kenya. The Canadian government not only did not offer assistance but aided in naming her an imposter (despite her holding a Canadian passport) and aided the Kenyan officials in imprisoning her, stripping her of her rights as a Canadian abroad. Oh yeah, she was a Kenyan-Canadian with a son in Toronto waiting for her. But she was not 'authentic' enough for Canada to bother helping.

Recently, a much more sticky issue has arisen with the imprisonment of Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay. Many have pressed the Canadian government to repatriate him (bring him back to Canada to be tried) rather than let him sit/rot/be tortured by the Americans. Just today the top courts in Canada ruled that, despite blatant human rights violations by the Canadian government, Khadr does not have to be brought back to Canada. Public opinion has been split, with many arguing that he is a terrorist who should have to rot, that he is not Canadian enough to have rights that would be assumed if it were a 'real' Canadian. He was 'only' born here, he lived in Afghanistan where he was arrested, etc...

If we believe in Canada as a political entity, as a country where each individual is given equal rights, there are no 'half-Canadians' or 'sorta, maybe Canadians'. There are those who hold passports and are 'legal' Canadians and those who aren't.

But he doesn't watch the Maple Leafs every Saturday night on CBC, he doesn't pay his taxes, he doesn't represent 'Canadian ideals', he doesn't speak English, he's not REAL. What a bunch of crap. If Khadr was white it wouldn't matter. If a white Canadian was stranded in Kenya he wouldn't be thrown in jail at the request of the Canadian government.

Another fine example of the racial disparity here in Canada and who is defined as a 'real' Canadian: I have a friend who is British. When he crossed the US/Canada border he was routinely hassled about his visa, British passport, etc... upon re-entry into Canada. He now has a Canadian passport and is accepted, he sails through the border like I do. My thesis supervisor is an internationally respected Kenyan scholar who has been a Canadian citizen for years. She tells me that without fail she is still hassled at the border. It is much harder to believe that, despite her passport, she is a 'real' Canadian.

I am a third-generation Canadian and you know what, both my grandfather's "were immigrants too" (and my grandmothers too!). I am still in the range to be classified as Dutch-Canadian but I don't identify that way. By identifying as Canadian I recognize that I am implicated in a history of genocide, state-sponsored racisms, and colonial endeavors in the past and today. And yet I believe that Canada can be more, a place where everyone can belong and where everyone at least has equal rights under the law (would it be too much to ask for more?)

Often it's too easy to blame the Government (capital G intentional) without realizing that the government represents us, its constituents. The government can't pursue racist agendas without the support of its populace. And in Canada today, it is still okay to separate the 'real' Canadians from the others.

Of a Coalition

So Canadians are in an uproar, the Prime Minister claims a "coup" is about to happen, and Stephane Dion goes from scapegoat to possible Prime Minister in the matter of months.

I haven't really formulated any cohesive thoughts on the matter, just smatterings that I shall post here. Disagree at will.

1. The heart of the problem is Canadian's misconceptions about the Canadian political system. In a parliamentary system such as we have we vote for MPs, not for who will be the Prime Minister. This is not America. These MPs represent us and the leader who has the most MPs and the confidence of the House becomes the PM. Harper clearly did not have the support of the House or of a majority of MPs.

2. For those who say Canadians voted for the Liberals or the NDP, not a coalition... You are missing the point of a coalition. They are meant to be made after elections. In many countries around the world this is how it is done and how it has been attempted here in Canada before.

3. For those who slam Dion for joining forces with the seperatist Bloc (as our esteemed PM has done), Harper tried the exact same thing to try and oust a weak Liberal government. He courted the Bloc and they turned him down. Hmmmmm....

4. Public opinion is important and somehow, despite all the pluses of a coalition, opinion is very split. The coalition needs to make sure that they're not shooting themselves in the foot for the next elections.

5. I think I would have rather seen the Conservatives try and form a coalition but Mr. Harper felt he had the support to go ahead and govern like he had a majority; he tried to bully his way through and someone called his bluff. He has realized the error of his ways but now it may be too late for him.

6. If the Governor-general decides on another election, my bet is that the NDP and Libs make a deal not to run competing candidates where the Conservative government won by vote splitting (such as in my riding). This would likely lead to a NDP/Liberal governing coalition anyways.

7. I am willing to give the coalition a chance to govern and see what happens.

8. Guaranteed, interesting times in Canadian politics.