"Say you wanna revolution?
Well, you know,
We all wanna change the world"
- The Beatles
By Cristina Rizzuto
You’re enjoying a café au lait and mouth-watering loaf of fougasse on the patio of the popular Pain d’Epis bakery in Paris. The Eiffel Tower slices through the gloomy sky above you, a stark, black, linear cloud. Tourists snap pictures on Avenue Bosquet, walking by the elderly man selling authentic paintings, a smile on his face, sadness in his eyes. Nearby, fellow slackers are ordering baguettes and engaging in typical lazy-afternoon-patio discussions—women, fashion, politics, sport. It’s a still frame from a French film, a mis-en-scène of Parisian life. Suddenly, a woman enters the ambiance, a veil enshrouding her face, only her eyes visible. The crowd’s jovial conversation descends to an inaudible whisper, as she walks, with trepidation, past your patio. In this moment, there is a startling, disquieting cultural collision, both parties uncomfortable and alarmed.
This is the reality of today’s France. A battle for the perpetuation of French culture and the retention of individual rights begins, as Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president, enforces the "Forbidding the Dissimulation of the Face in the Public Space" ban on April 11, 2011. A revolution is stirring in France, though many wonder if it will be a resolution (specifically, supporters of Amnesty International, who urged France not to impose the ban).
The Pew Global Attitudes Project, in a survey conducted last year, found that French citizens supported the ban by a startling margin of more than four to one – clearly, it is a law with which the French are in accordance. France’s government ensures that the ban is aligned with the constitutional rights of individuals, as it is not an attack on the Islam religion: it is a referendum on the values and mores of French culture.
The ban pertains to the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil that leaves an opening only for the eyes. The hijab, which covers the hair and neck but not the face, and the chador, which covers the body but not the face, are not banned by the law. The government has cited security reasons for not wanting a person’s identity to be concealed, as well as an infringement on women’s rights, calling enforcement of the burqa, “a form of enslavement that the government cannot accept on its soil”.
The government of France is not limiting religious freedom, nor is it isolating a minority group; rather, the ban will be a milestone in France’s progression towards social unity. The burqa is not a religious requirement—the laws of Islam do not state that a woman must conceal her face, only that she must dress modestly. Michele Alliot-Marie, France’s justice minister, said, “The full face veil dissolves the identity of a person in that community. It challenges the French model of integration based on the acceptance of the values of our society.”
Alliot-Marie said the ban had “nothing to do with religion”, as it reaffirmed the French values of equality and dignity of all individuals, regardless of sex or status; it would prevent women from becoming faceless members of society.
Why is it that, for Western or Europeans traveling to a country like India, for example, where Islam is the second-most practiced religion, we must take extra precaution to assimilate, yet there is civil unrest at the prospect of living in France and having to conform to French culture? On the website of an Indian travel agency (called, appropriately, India Travel Agents), they set out some basic rules for women traveling to India:
“Even after the modern influence of western countries, India still remains a conservative country. Some western habits are perceived as inappropriate and degrading if practiced by women here. Here are some travel tips for women in India:
- Don't wear revealing clothes while in India. They do not appeal to Indian sensibilities. You will attract unwanted attraction and advances if you are wearing skimpy outfits.
- Even at beaches, the people here are fully clothed.
- Avoid talking in a friendly manner with men you meet in buses, trains, restaurants, shopping places, etc. It may be viewed as a flirtation and lead to unwanted and unexpected sexual advances.
- A way to get more respect from Indians is to wear traditional Indian clothes”
If travelers must respect the cultural guidelines of the country in which they choose to visit or live, such as India, those who choose to visit or live in France should respectfully do the same. The travel website refers to some Western habits as “inappropriate” and “degrading”, yet we do not protest their values upon entering their country. The French government also has a right to perceive the habit of covering a woman’s face as “inappropriate” and “degrading”, and implement laws to protect French culture.
France is a beacon of freedom and hope for many individuals; it is an asylum for immigrants, as it takes numerous measures to ensure acceptance and foster integration, such as offering free French language classes and employment assistance programs. France’s latest law is being attacked, but its government is not wrong. Will this be a resolution in the ways cultures receive one another, a stepping-stone towards social unity and acceptance? I hope so.
Get ready for a revolution.
By Riaz Sayani-Mulji
In order to help an impoverished and decimated state like Haiti, proper context is required. Unfortunately, mainstream media coverage of Haiti before, during, and after the earthquake last year provides none of this. When speaking of long- term development in Haiti, one would assume that Haitian history prior to the earthquake would be given consideration. Questions ought to be raised as to why Haiti was so unable to deal with the earthquake in the first place. Few know that 6 weeks later, Chile was hit with an earthquake 500-900 times more powerful than the one that devastated Haiti, yet the casualties reported are starkly different (over 800 for Chile, over 200 000 for Haiti). Did any corporate media outlet question why there exist slums in Haiti in which houses are actually built on top of houses, compounding the number of people killed? For that matter, who has inquired into the fact that 95% of the Haitian population, consisting of 10 million people, is so poor in the first place?
To address this and provide context to the plight of the Haitian people would require exposing a farce in Canadian foreign policy. Canadian policy towards Haiti has never been about helping the Haitian poor. Instead, Canada has actively colluded with the United States and France (one of Haiti’s historical colonial powers) in repressing the Haitian people, which culminated in a 2004 coup d’état, planned in Ottawa no less, in which the democratically elected president Jean Bertrand Aristide was overthrown.
Aristide was overthrown because he was actively combating the causes of Haitian poverty, i.e. neo-liberal structural adjustment programs imposed by Canada and the United States, that kept the Haitian poor in squalor while enriching a small segment of their population. Aristide was responsible for the doubling of the minimum wage, the financing of hospitals, medical schools, literacy programs, community food centres, and other vitally needed social safety nets. Aristide created a disaster relief program in which volunteers were trained to rescue and aid victims during a time of crisis (e.g. an earthquake), with goods and medical supplies stored to ensure people survived. He even created public sanitation plants for water, to prevent diseases like cholera. In fact, Aristide also demanded that France repay the $22 billion it stole from Haiti in 1825, for the Haitian people rising up against their slavemasters and emancipating themselves.
Aristide represented the interests of the Haitian people, yet at the same time posed a threat to imperial interests and the profits of international financial institutions. In order to combat the “threat” Aristide posed, funding was cut to his administration. For example, in 2003 Aristide could only spend $39 million on all government education, healthcare, transportation, and environment programs. Contrast this with the fact that McMaster University annually spends $39 million on facility services and utilities alone. CIDA and USAID then began funding NGOs to provide the basic services Aristide could not, creating a parallel system of delivery that is completely unsustainable and also served to decrease his government’s legitimacy. CIDA and USAID also began a campaign of civil society sensitization, providing funding for the political opposition, comprising sweatshop owners and other elites within Haitian society. Simultaneously, the death squads and Haitian army that Aristide had previously disbanded began receiving weapons and training in the neighbouring Dominican Republic, in order to invade Haiti in 2004 and remove Aristide’s government.
After the coup, the model of NGO (unsustainable) development that creates dependency has continued unhindered. Prior to the earthquake 80% of Haiti’s services were being provided by NGOs, with more than 10,000 operating at a time. Aristide’s social programs, including water sanitation and disaster relief, were gutted. A United Nations, Canadian-directed peacekeeping team known as MINUSTAH also began occupying Haiti after Aristide’s removal, suppressing the resistance amongst Haiti’s poor majority and widely implicated in human rights violations. Evidence also indicates that MINUSTAH brought cholera to Haiti.
Only after understanding the context, or commitment of Canada to “helping” the Haitian people can one understand the obstacles to Haitian long-term development. Haiti needs our support, not our exploitation. We as Canadians must stand against this unjust use of our tax dollars.
By Adam Parry
Julian Assange, a non-profit free speech activist, finds himself the subject of a European Arrest Warrant and under house arrest in the UK pending a decision by the London courts on extradition to Sweden to face charges of allegations of sexual assault. What adds interest and intrigue is the close timing of other events initiated by Wikileaks, a website founded by Assange. The decision by the London courts of Assange’s extradition to Sweden or not, is made complex by the media and suggests far reaching implications that have little to do with the allegations.
The following key dates help organize events to make sense of the information found in the media and chronologically show events leading to the court decision to extradite Assange to Sweden.
Key dates in the case of sexual allegations against Assange are as follows:
- August 11 – 17 – Assange arrives in Sweden on a speaking trip and reportedly has sex with the organizer of the event and also with a 2nd woman that he met at the seminar
- August 20 – The Swedish Prosecutor’s Office issues an arrest warrant for Assange on accusations of rape and molestation.
- August 21 – The arrest warrant is withdrawn by one of Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutors, Eva Finne saying they do not have sufficient reason to believe he committed rape.
- September 1 – Director of Prosecutions (for sex crimes), Marianne Ny advises she is reopening the rape investigation as she believes there is sufficient evidence to do so.
- November 20 – Swedish Police issue an International Arrest Warrant for Mr. Assange via Interpol
- December 7 – Julian Assange gives himself up to London, UK police
- February 7,8 – Extradition Hearing
- February 24 – Decision by the London courts to extradite Assange to Sweden
- March 3 – Assange lodges Extradition Appeal
Key dates in the leaking of secret and sensitive information by Wikileaks:
- November 28 – First secret US Diplomatic cables released on Wikileaks website
- November 29 – US advises cable leaks an “attack on the international community” and that a criminal investigation is ongoing
If Assange is successful in fighting extradition to Sweden through the London courts then the Swedish courts will not be able to prosecute Assange for the alleged sex crimes unless he is subsequently apprehended on Swedish soil. The European Arrest Warrant system is based on the concept that all participating countries have legal systems which meet similar standards and fully respect human rights. If Assange is to avoid extradition under this arrest warrant, his legal defense needs to show that the arrest warrant is politically motivated or technically unlawful.
In reading the judgment issued February 24th ordering extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden it is apparent that the arguments Assange’s defense team used fell far short of sufficient evidence or fact. The position most discussed by Assange’s defense team in the media was that extradition was politically motivated with the purpose of ultimately allowing the US to extradite Assange via Sweden. The US wanted Assange for leaking classified US documents over the internet. However, the timelines of events above do not support collusion between the Swedish authorities and the timing of the leaking of sensitive documents. Also the fact is that the US government will face significant legal and diplomatic hurdles in prosecuting Julian Assange for the internet dumping of classified documents. No single US law makes it a crime to disclose classified government documents and in addition, no US extradition treaty currently in force lists espionage as an extraditable offence.
The media’s far reaching implications suggest possible conspiracy between nations where a careful review of the facts does not warrant this conclusion. It appears that the arrest warrant may be exactly what it appears and extradition to Sweden is due process.
Lucy Chen
Drugs save lives and improve health when they are available, affordable, of good quality and are appropriately used. However, under the current incentive program that pharmaceutical companies operate under, millions of people all over the world are dying due to lack of access to proper medications. The problem is aggravated amongst the poor, who can barely afford basic human needs.
Right now, governments create incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs by providing patents for innovations. A patent grants a company exclusive rights to the drug, and enables them to sell it at high prices. Pharmaceutical companies can profit tremendously through this scheme if the drug is in demand, but the ethical implications of this system are debatable.
Patent holders justify high prices by claiming that the high cost of pharmaceutical research and development prohibits them from lowering prices. Nonetheless, the patent system does not encourage companies to develop drugs for diseases that mainly affect the poor. There are billions of people in the world who to not have access to the resources that would allow them to have access to expensive new, life-saving medicines.
A complementary source of incentives and rewards for the development of new drugs may address this issue by providing a way to meet both the health needs of the people and monetary needs of pharmaceutical companies. The Health Impact Fund is a new global agency that creates this avenue by offering pharmaceutical innovators the option of being paid for their drug developments based on the health impact (i.e. number of lives that their product saves). In this way, HIF pulls research towards the drugs that can do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. All patients, rich and poor, would benefit from innovation and marketing priorities geared toward health benefits rather than generating the most profit.
The HIF reward pool would be financed by national governments through taxes and other avenues. Each pharmaceutical company participating in the HIF would be given a share of the reward pool. In exchange, they would need to sell the medicine at no more than the lowest feasible cost of production and distribution, and offer free licensing for generic manufacture and sales.
For HIF to become a reality, this proposal will need to be examined in greater detail. Currently, HIF is planning the launch of a pilot project. The HIF reimbursement model is being tested using a specific drug product in a developing country in partnership with company partners in Sydney, London and Seattle. The Pilot will provide insight in the process of making the worldwide Health Impact Fund a reality.
Hosam Khalil & Hossam Refaei
“Did you hear what just happened in Tunisia?! A guy just retaliated against his government by setting himself ablaze!” That’s where all this began… A simple, yet very graphic message that rippled throughout the Arab world and sent its leaders into complete and utter disarray. As for the public, a hopeful vibe was set alight and political silence was forever quenched from that point on. Being an Egyptian born abroad but having often spent many months in Egypt gives me a small taste of what it is like to live there. The people are friendly, welcoming, loving and always willing to lend a helping hand, whether they know what to do or not. Usually loud and very outgoing, the Egyptian people were undeniably passive and quiet for many years about how the country was being run. The 30-year rule of a power-hungry naval officer, Hosni Mubarak, superseded arguably the most ambitious and greatest president to ever rule Egypt; Anwar Sadat, often referred to by Egyptians nowadays as a “Man’s man”. As Mubarak took the presidential oath, a sense of fear and discomfort was felt amongst his people.
Viewed by many as a popular tourist attraction, Egypt never had trouble inviting people to enter the country… the issue was keeping people from leaving. Along with many legal and political issues, unemployment was high, wages were low, corruption was uncontrollable, and the majority of families lived in poverty. It is not hard to understand why I, and many others, only spent a few months at a time in Egypt, usually on vacation. On January 25th 2011, it didn’t matter whether we were Egyptians living in Egypt, living abroad, or not Egyptian at all, we were glued to the news watching history unfold on the streets of Cairo. My first question upon seeing the thousands upon thousands of demonstrators gathered at Tahrir Square (Liberation Square) was “Have these people gone mad?!” Then I put myself in their shoes and thought, “If I lived all my life working so hard to provide for my family only to have the government unrightfully steal most of my assets from me, I would be out in the street protesting against them too!”
The cries in the city of Cairo, “MUBARAK AND HIS REGIME MUST FALL!” were emanating across the millions throughout the 18-day civil revolution. Relatively peaceful protests primarily involving the youth of the Egyptian society were held across Tahrir Square and along the streets of Alexandria. Despite a large military presence in the midst of the action, government-set curfews were readily defied and protests were allowed to commence and were unenforced. The people were demanding change and were not going to rest until they got it. Some even went as far as sacrificing their lives in the names of justice and freedom. On February 11th, 2011, Hosni Mubarak, the perpetrator that had been gaining the attention of media crews from around the globe finally stepped down as president of Egypt. US President Obama compared the youthful 18-day protest movement to Germans who tore down the Berlin Wall and Gandhi leading India to independence.
I have never been more proud to be an Egyptian. My father said it best, “your generation did something that our generation was too scared to do”. The peaceful and successful fight for democracy in Egypt has sparked other protests in the region and the voices of people, which have been suppressed for so long, have begun to be heard. The world has seen that in 18 days, a peaceful protest in Egypt, now referred to as the “Revolution of the Youth”, was able to conquer a corrupt 30-year authoritarian dictatorship. Like many other Egyptians, I am inspired by this chain of events and by the Egyptian youth. We are the voice of the future.
By: Vanessa Locicero
Us versus them, good versus evil, conservatives versus liberals: these dichotomies manipulate the policies of the United States of America. The American government has carried out both domestic and foreign policy directly influenced by political elites who vehemently believe in the propagation of ‘necessary illusions’ to their own citizens – lies, as we would call them. These ‘necessary illusions’ are fabricated and disseminated by the government to invoke fear from its citizens so their thoughts and values can be more easily controlled.
Are you worried yet? This is the power of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States of America that in recent years has exercised an alarming amount of power in American politics and global affairs.
History has taught us that dichotomous moral judgments fabricated in the name of ‘necessary illusions’ and ‘perpetual deception’ have led only to ignorance and violence perpetrated in the fight against “evil”. This is not an article about the Iraq war, nor critical philosophy. Instead, it is about the many examples of Neo-Conservative influence on American domestic and foreign policy.
An article such as this does not possess the space to list countless examples of the illusions and myths that American society has at this very moment in history. Social scientists know the power of history can be both phenomenally exciting and frightening. Why are the conflicting understandings of “us versus them” and “good versus evil” being perpetuated? Who is creating these dichotomies and who are they hurting?
The United States of America has experienced regimes of conservatism that make proponents of liberal democracy shudder. Over the last half-century, the Republican party of the United States has been the perfect breeding ground for individuals bent on preserving dangerous dichotomies in order to further the political goals of what is known as the Neo-Conservative movement. As much as the Neo-Cons would like us to believe these ideas didn’t come from “the Communists” or “Islamic radicals”, they came from within America.
The Neo-Conservative movement was inspired by Leo Strauss in the 1960s and 1970s. He was a political philosopher (German born but emigrated to the United States) who believed that liberal society spawned the seeds of its own destruction by accepting moral pluralism and individuals. Strauss believed that in order to stop this destruction of society, elites had a responsibility to promote ‘necessary illusions’, myths about society that would enforce a moral dichotomy of right and wrong, good and evil. According to the interpretations of Strauss, "perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them." That is a pretty dangerous idea when those in power represent the smallest minority of society as oppose to the “people”, as it should be in a democracy.
Neo-Cons, as this vein of the Republican Party has been labelled, were the reason the world was introduced to Sarah Palin. Since being selected as John McCain’s running mate for the 2008 presidential election, The New American Magazine explains, “Sarah Palin has been a project of the neoconservative movement in Washington that continues to promote what George W. Bush described as a “global democratic revolution.”” From the get go, Neo-Cons sunk their teeth into the project of manipulating and creating Sarah Palin to be the connecting force between their own hawkish movement and the grassroots Tea Party movement. The recent mid-term elections in the United States witnessed the power of grassroots political movements motivated and inspired by dichotomous thinking and an influx of Neo-Conservative influence with the Republican Party winning several seats from the Democrats.
Not to be confused with one another, the Neo-Cons and the Tea Party are two different veins of this expansive Republican Party with different policy objectives. The Tea Party is a populist, grassroots movement with no “real” central leadership, and is composed of national and local groups who determine their own policy objectives based on regional concerns, often with a domestic platform focus. As stated in an article from the BBC, the Neo-Cons are more focused on American foreign policy with a “tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms, readiness to use military force, emphasis on US unilateral action, [and] disdain for multilateral organizations” .
The Neo-Cons have always been led by a tight knit group of academic and political elites. Accordingly, the populist nature and lack of singular leadership in the Tea Party has led critics to question its amiability towards the Neo-Cons. The Neo-Cons found a way to bring the power of this populist movement under its own banner by invoking the Sarah Palin card and playing up her average, modest, every-day-American characteristics.
Myths perpetuated by Straussians seeped into American political administrations by way of his students and indirectly through media outlets and academic circles. Paul Wolfowitz, who served as George W. Bush’s Deputy Secretary of Defense, was a student of Strauss at the University of Chicago and was said by The New Yorker to have been “a major architect of President Bush’s Iraq policy”. Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Secretary of Defence under George W. Bush, is a devout Neo-Con whose influences during the Bush administration significantly affected the American invasion of Iraq and subsequent military decisions. Even the Vice President under George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, provided primary justification for entering into a war with Iraq following 9/11 and shaped the administration’s approach to the “War on Terror” through ideology steeped in Neo-Conservatism.
The relevance of this looming force stands not simply in examples of recent election results or political puppeteering, but in the historical dangers of the Neo-Conservative influence on American foreign policy.
As much as I’ve questioned the Neo-Conservative motivations in this piece, I would hope that as a result you will question the political movements you see happening around you, at a local, national and global level. What is going on under the surface of media coverage that we see on CNN, Fox News, or the BBC, for example. Who is telling me my news?
As students, young adults and Canadians we are asked by society to be engaged and involved in our globalized world. That involves asking the question: What is my government doing for me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6224-palins-neocon-path http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7825039.stm
Lindsay Kline
War is not what it used to be. Sending troops abroad to fight a righteous war and come home as heroes is no longer a reality in todays interconnected and complex global community. Furthermore, countries are having a more difficult time justifying their involvement in the affairs of another country. A clear example of this ambiguity and confusion is Mexico’s drug war, an intra-state conflict that is getting attention from the international community; however, action has yet to be taken.
Perhaps it is beneficial to start at the beginning in order to understand the full magnitude of this conflict, as well as to grasp the revolutionary meaning the drug wars have for the face of 21st century conflicts, a task political theorists have been grappling with for some time.
On December 11, 2006, Mexican president Filipe Calderon declared a “war against drugs” and sent an initial 6, 500 troops to the Michoacán region where the heart of the problem exists. This region is considered one of the main producers of marijuana in the world, and also, remains one of the main contributors to the trading and facilitating of methamphetamine and heroin from other South American countries like Colombia. This region has remained the heart of the drug trade and is arguably a prime location to begin taking action against the production of drugs in Mexico. Since 2006, not only has violence enormously increased but also have the amount of drugs and drug-related deaths. Meanwhile, the number of troops present in the fight against narco-trafficking has increased to 45,000.
Presently, there have been a reported 15,000 drug-related casualties in Mexico, mainly murders occurring along the United States and Mexico border in towns such as Tijuana and Cuidad Juarez. These cities harbour high degrees of violence as drugs must pass through American borders to reach consumer demands within the US and Canada. Thus, a recent CBC documentary, described Cuidad Juarez as “Hell on Earth” due to its status as “the most murderous city on Earth.”
Intrinsic to Mexico’s fight against drugs are drug lords who maintain more money and control than many political leaders worldwide. For example, Forbes magazine has recently named Joaquin Chapo Guzman the 41st most powerful and rich person in the world. Nicknamed “El Chapo”, he is the primary drug lord in Mexico, controlling the largest Sinaloa Cartel that directs the flow of drugs through Cuidad Juarez. El Chapo has been characterized as a “professional criminal” whose finesse within the drug industry and sophistication in remaining a criminal has made him capable of “convincing God to sit down with the Devil” . Consequently, the United States has implemented a 5 million dollar bounty for finding Guzman as well as placing him among America’s most wanted criminals due to his involvement with the drug trade as well as his responsibility for ordering the thousands of deaths that have occurred since 2006.
In all, the drug wars have reached a threshold in recent months. The problem has received more international attention yet; such attention is not focused on aiding the situation. Mexican people are losing hope and resorting to drastic measures such as claiming refugee status or worse, standing up to their enemy, only to be found dead the next day. At this point, I beg the question, where is the United States or Canada in alleviating the issue? Furthermore, where is the United Nations?
Questions surrounding international involvement in Mexico’s drug wars have been considered but by no means acted upon. Perhaps this inaction is the result of other distractions in the world, from protests in the Middle East to UN aid relief in Somalia and the Congo. Even so, it is important to realize that, in the words of Romeo Dallaire, “inaction has become a means of taking action”, meaning the international community has entered the vicious circle of going only so far as to talk about the issue rather than take action. While Mexico’s drug wars will continue to rage on, nearby countries like the United States and Canada will only feel sorry for the situation.
Is this a bad thing? Perhaps it is only reasonable and for countries dealing with internal conflicts to deal with it themselves. Issues of national security are essentially only issues that concern the affected country, right? I find it difficult to grasp, however, this concept while thousands of people are being left dead in the streets of Mexico’s border towns and the United States is still scratching it’s head of how to prevent the influx of refugees and drugs. Canada has taken action in a self-interested manner by issuing a travel advisory that states, “Canadians travelling to Mexico should exercise a high degree of caution due to a deteriorating security situation in many parts of the country,” and that non-essential travel to the Mexico and USA border be avoided at all costs . Lastly, the United Nations has not taken action with this issue or provided information of whether or not it will.
The drug wars in Mexico represent a tough question for their national security, as well as for international security. The Mexican government has taken proper provisions in addressing the problem, but has in turn been retaliated against. Shedding light on the intra-state identity of this problem, the international community will continue to find reasons not to get involved until the situation presents itself at their backdoor. For this reason, a continued monitoring of the situation will be necessary, and as we hope that these past and coming months remain the only threshold of the war. Also, that the government and people of Mexico will continue to be strong and brave in their fight against the ever-powerful drug cartels.
As for the rest of us, I suggest the next time you decide to take a toke of that joint, visualize the violence and loss of life, the suffering and grieving families, as well as the immoral psychology of people like El Chapo. Hopefully this image will make you reconsider.
References:
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/mexicodrugwar http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/mexicodrugwar http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=184000
By Lauren Sampson
“The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bonds and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicions can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own.”
--- Rod Serling, “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street”, The Twilight Zone (1960)
Amidst the paranoia of the Cold War, Rod Serling recognized the dangers of a frightened population and their search for a common enemy, a “scapegoat” for all social and economic ills. That fear, so vehemently directed at Communists of all stripes during the First and Second Red Scares, has found new targets in Europe: immigrants and Muslims.
The trend towards European election or increased support of far-right, anti-immigration parties originated in 2004, when most of Eastern Europe joined the European Union. This catalyzed a fear of the excesses of post-modern culture and a retreat to traditional, nationalist values. In his 2007 campaign for re-election, Polish prime minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski called for a bureaucratic purge, blaming Communists and leftist intellectuals for corruption within the Polish government and criticizing the EU for failing to protect “traditional family values” (New York Times, 2007). To combat what Kaczynski views as “invading secularism”, his government supported an increased role for the Catholic Church, believing it could act as a safeguard against the “globalization of consumerism, social mobility and new values” (New York Times, 2007).
But Kaczynski is only part of a larger trend. Indeed, in September 2008, two far right Austrian parties, the Alliance for the Future and the Freedom Party (founded by a former SS lieutenant and Holocaust denier) gained 29% of the vote, the same share as Austria’s governing party, the Social Democrats (Daily Mail, 2009). Hundreds of people gathered to honour an Austrian-born Nazi fighter pilot in November 2008, whose date of death eerily coincides with Kristallnacht and the German massacre of 92 Jewish citizens (Daily Mail, 2009).
Meanwhile, in October 2010, “Red Vienna”, a socialist and subsequently social democratic stronghold since the 1920s, saw a staggering 27% of the mayoral vote go to Heinz-Christian Strache, a vocal extreme right leader in the Freedom Party (Guardian, 2010). Strache’s views have taken on a populist flavour. He ran strongly on banning minarets (as in Switzerland) and Islamic headgear (as in the Netherlands). More specifically, he pledged to “keep the city’s blood Viennese” while his party gave away computer games where players shoot at “mosques, minarets and muezzin” as part of their campaigning strategy (Guardian 2010). Appeals to Islamophobia and anti-immigration have proved unilaterally successful for far-right parties across Europe. Indeed, in Bulgaria, the National Union Attack Party, a xenophobic anti-diversity group won 13% of European Parliament elections vote in its first year of existence and two seats (Macleans, 2009).
Within Britain, these values are most clearly embodied in the British National Party (BNP), a party formed as a splinter group from the explicitly fascist National Front. The BNP seek to restore the white ethnicity of pre-war Britain through opposing “the immigration invasion of [their] country, the threat to [their] security posed by Islamism and the danger of the European Union to [their] sovereignty” (British National Party, 2011). The BNP has taken advantage of English dissatisfaction with Labour and Conservative reactions to the ongoing economic crisis, finishing fifth in the 2008 London mayoral election with 5.2% of the vote and one of the London Assembly’s 25 seats (Tetteh, 2009).
But the most shocking victory was claimed in 2009, when the BNP won two seats in the European Parliament, one of which is held by party leader Nick Griffin (Tetteh 2009). In an interview with the BBC, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg stated that while politicians should be “uncompromising” in their approach to the a “party of fascists”, he warned: “We should not dismiss the reasons why people have voted for the BNP – the anger, the frustration, the sense of alienation, the sense of powerlessness. We must listen to that and must react to that” (BBC, 2009).
Clegg’s point is invaluable. Though comparisons to Nazi Germany are stale and arguably constitute fear-mongering of a different kind, David Kynaston, a research fellow at Kingston University, notes the parallels between the 1929 Wall Street Crash (four years before Hitler became the German chancellor), the financial uncertainties of the 1980s (which precipitated the birth of the radical, populist right) and the mass unemployment catalyzed by the current economic crisis (Guardian, 2009). Additionally, the recession has come hand in hand with a rise in populism and a growing cynicism with as well as hostility towards intellectualism, liberal politics and the democratic process. Such attitudes are mirrored in the expanded support for the Tea Party movement within the United States.
Arguably, the encroachment of extreme conservatism necessitates a reassessment of the tools available to populaces mired in dissatisfaction and stasis. It is the task of citizens and politicians alike to learn from history and determine whether the answer lies in the election of groups like the BNP, the Freedom Party or the Attack Party – indicating a willingness on the party of the domestic population to be represented by openly racist groups in the international sphere – or even revolutionary explosions of anger at the status quo in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
Today, we pass judgment on the fascist parties of the past for their violent, racist and authoritarian responses to socio-economic crisis. Tomorrow, when future generations reflect on us, on Silvio Berlusconi passing laws that make prosecuting his media empire illegal and the desecration of Muslim graves by Freedom Party supporters, how will we be judged?
References
http://www.bnp.org.uk/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1160972/The-far-right-march-rise-Fascism-Austria.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8088381.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/world/europe/04iht-letter.1.7748106.html
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/18/why-the-fascists-are-winning-in-europe/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/09/bnp-fascism-meps-far-right
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/oct/11/vienna-far-right-gains
Electoral performance of the British National Party in the UK". Edmund Tetteh (House of Commons Library). 15 May 2009.http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNSG-05064.pdf.
Gros, Daniel. “A More Conservative Europe and EU”. Centre for European Policy Studies. http://www.ceps.eu/book/more-conservative-europe-and-eu
By Matt Turnbull and Lindsay Kline
The referendum in Sudan could prove to be a time of hope and conciliation for Sudanese people as well as a finger-biting initiative carefully being observed by the international community. Sudan is listed as one of three nations of interest by the Canadian Department of Foreign Policy, next to Haiti and Afghanistan. The recent referendum to separate the north and south into separate nations could either be a tremendous leap forward or lead to further violence and extend conflict within the country for another 40 years. How did Sudan reach this point? How will the separation of the South change the political environment? Is this the crucial step needed to halt years of atrocities? And what can each of us do to ensure a peaceful transition and brighter future for Sudan?
Like many other African countries, the conflict in Sudan has its roots in imperialism. A 1954 agreement between Britain and Egypt to grant the country independence in 1956 combined the north and south regions (which had previously been separately administered). Due to the ignorance of outside actors, this led to a civil war between the north and south from 1955-1972, resulting in an estimated 500,000 deaths. A peace agreement only delayed the conflict until 1983, when the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and John Garang rejected the implementation of Shariah law, leading to another eleven years of warfare and causing more than two million deaths. At this point, the conflict in Sudan was continually worsening, partly due to the international community’s attempts to alleviate a problem that proved to be over their heads.
A 1994 ceasefire led to agreements between 2002 and 2004, including the Machakos Protocol, which recognized South Sudan’s independence and right to autonomy and self-governance. These agreements culminated in the 2005 Naivaisha agreement between the government and SPLA, which officially ended the war that was started in 1983, split oil revenues, and guaranteed six years of relative autonomy leading up to the 2011 referendum.
The referendum took place from January 9th-15th of this year and asked whether the country should stay unified or be divided. An overwhelming 98.83% of southern Sudan voters chose secession, as did 97% of the southern Sudan expats in Canada who voted. The clear support for separation came as positive news to most Sudanese people and many international actors. The separation will officially come into effect on July 9th, the same day the peace agreement expires. While such a clear victory indicates that the people of southern Sudan are heavily in favour of separation, it should be noted that only 58% of northern Sudan voters were in favour of secession. What could it mean for the future of relations between these states if 42% of north Sudan voters are in favour of unity? The hostility between the north and south has proven to be long standing – will the separation of these areas and populations dispel Sudan’s bloody history, or simply lead to conflict between the two new nations?
There are also extensive disparities between north and south Sudan that could greatly affect relations. For example, 48% of citizens in the north identify as Arab, while the south contains a more diverse mix of traditional beliefs. The south is also less developed according to many different indices, including water security, education completion, dependence on food aid, and employment in agriculture. What makes this tough situation even tougher is that the south contains rich oil fields and provides 80% of the country’s oil, an enormous source of revenue for Sudan. However, the north contains most of the pipelines and refineries; under the Naivaisha agreement, oil revenues are split 50/50. Many of the oil fields straddle the borderline between north and south Sudan including the disputed Abeyi region, which will have its own referendum to decide which new country it joins. Despite an even split of oil profits, tensions are still expected to increase.
Given the geographic nature of this issue, there have been some threats to the security of these burgeoning nations. There have been several recent attacks involving rebels led by George Athor, who alleged fraud in the state elections last year but agreed to a ceasefire in January. SPLA spokesman Philip Aguer accused the North of backing rebel groups with the aim of destabilizing the south in order to maintain control of oil, though the north denies these claims. This demonstrates a larger issue in Sudanese conflict: groups at this point have become so splintered and divided, many struggling for control and committing violent acts, that the idea of two “sides” facing one another has become completely invalid. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is not a simple case of north against south, but rather a complex mosaic of groups and interests colliding, resulting in volatile situations that are difficult to facilitate and could become explosively violent.
The complex situation in Sudan is reflective of the ongoing effects of imperialism, western dominance and intra-state disparity. Citizens of Sudan and the world face the reality that Sudan’s rich resources and culturally diverse population have the potential to spark further conflict. However, what should not be a reality is the continuation of genocide and violence that has practically identified the region in recent years. For this reason, the Sudanese referendum will be a positive step forward for the region and will hopefully provide further conciliation of the issue. While the potential for continued conflict is undermining the official separation, it is plausible to suggest that by dividing the north and south regions it is possible to provide a degree of distance, and hopefully this will give citizens an opportunity to move past their shared, violent history.
If you would like to know more about Sudan and the referendum, including how you can get involved, get in touch with Students Taking Action Now on Darfur (STAND). This youth-based anti-genocide organization was founded 2005 and boasts more than 850 chapters in 25 countries. STAND’s mandate is to create awareness on current conflicts, provide aid fundraising, empower youth, and urge governments to take strong steps in preventing and stopping genocide. Connecting is simple: call the 1-800-GENOCIDE hotline, e-mail queensstand@gmail.com, or visit www.standcanada.org to learn far more about the issues and how you, personally, can engage with these issues and push for change.
References:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3702242.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8501526.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/dispatches/the-view/2011/01/04/south-sudanwill-it-be-born-a-failed-state/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sudan/darfur.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/01/07/f-sudan-timeline.html
http://standcanada.org/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12465366
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/2011387303520174.html
Amanda Charbon
Recently, sodium has been given a bad rep. Registered dietitians, nutritionists, and government ad campaigns, all share the same mantra: consume less salt. The assault on salt is gaining momentum as sodium has been linked to high blood pressure, which is a major risk factor for stroke, heart disease, and kidney disease. In industrialized countries like Canada and the United States, cardiovascular problems are the primary cause of death, fueling the negative sentiments towards salt. Among people aged 19 to 70, over 85% of men and 60% of women exceed the recommended limit of sodium intake.
It is worthwhile to note here that table salt and sodium are not the same. Table salt is composed of sodium chloride, which is 40% sodium and 60% chlorine, so don’t hold back on salting water for your pasta! The main offender for sodium, not surprisingly, is processed and pre-packaged foods.
An increased consumption of processed foods not only escalates the rate of obesity and cardiac problems; these findings have led to the establishment international awareness groups such as World Action on Salt and Health (WASH). WASH was established in 2005 and aims to improve health worldwide by gradually reducing salt intake. WASH has established a ‘World Salt Awareness Week’ that serves as a platform for international experts in hypertension to raise awareness of the importance of salt reduction.
Media coverage of salt intake reduction has been prominent, with Campbell soups being the forerunner of the advertising campaigns. From 2008 to present, Campbell publicized cutting the equivalent of 30 million teaspoons of salt from their soups.Walk down the soup aisle of the grocery store and you will see can after can of ‘reduced salt’ or ‘low sodium’ soups. The trend doesn’t stop at soups – it expanses the entire grocery store from canned tuna to frozen dinners. Yet, even with the label ‘reduced salt,’ these products may still have high calories and a high fat content (including saturated fat).
The Canadian government has financed many campaigns promoting the reduction of sodium in Canadian diets. In October 2007, federal Health Minister Tony Clement announced that the Government of Canada would establish an expert Sodium Working Group on Dietary Sodium Reduction to explore options for reducing sodium intake. At the September 2010 Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Health Ministers' Meeting, a goal was set to reduce the sodium intake of Canadians to an average of 2,300 mg per day by 2016. Canadians consume an estimated average of 3,400 mg of sodium daily, but the recommended intake ranges from 1,000 to 1,500 mg per day.
Another action the government has undertaken to promote awareness of sodium levels in food is the mandatory nutrition labels for pre-packaged foods, which came fully into effect in 2007. The nutrition labels include a Nutrition Facts table that lists ‘sodium’ as one of thirteen nutrients that must appear on the labels.
With all the recent discussion surrounding the dangers of sodium, it is imperative to take a step back and ask, “Is the fear warranted? Is sodium really dangerous to your health?” The short answer is, “No.” While sodium may be a factor for the increased risk of heart disease, in moderation salt is necessary and healthy for humans. Sodium is naturally produced in the human body and when consuming sodium in moderation there is little risk. The problem is not with sodium itself, but with the increasing consumption of pre-packaged and processed foods.
The war should not be against salt, but against fast and frozen foods. For university students especially, fast and frozen foods are the bread and butter of our diet: they’re simple, fast, easy, and taste good. While companies like Campbell’s have taken steps to reduce sodium, the focus should be on healthy eating, not solely on salt. If an individual eats unhealthily, it is likely their sodium levels will heighten dramatically. Heightened sodium levels are consistently found in overweight individuals, and as a cause of the climbing obesity rates in Canada and the US, obesity has been nicknamed the ‘silent killer’.
In a study conducted by doctors on the affects of excessive sodium intake, their conclusions mirror sentiments of healthy eating as the study states the need for “individuals to make changes in buying behaviour and exercise healthy choices.” To do this, the study proposes that, “Increasing individual awareness and knowledge are critical factors in enabling healthy food choices and in building support for policy changes in the individuals’ environment. Informed consumers also have an impact by creating a demand for lower-sodium food products and restaurant meals.” An informed consumer, then, is a healthy consumer. If the average Canadian based their diet on fruits, steamed vegetables, multigrains, and home-cooked meals, there would not be a need for these campaigns against salt.
It is inevitable that if people consistently eat processed and pre-packaged foods, their salt intake will be greatly increased, leading to a heightened risk of cardiovascular diseases. The issue at heart here (no pun intended) should be on consistent healthy eating, instead of slamming the ingredient that humans have been using for centuries: salt.
REFERENCES
Sodium: Questions and Answers, 12 29, 2010, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/sodium/qa-sodium-qr-eng.php#a6 (accessed 03 05, 2011). Sodium Consumption at All Ages, April 10, 2007, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2006004/article/sodium/4148995-eng.htm (accessed March 06, 2011). Roberta Larson Duyff, American Dietetic Association: Complete Food and Nutrition Guide (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006). http://www.worldactiononsalt.com/index.htm (accessed March 06, 2011). October 2008, http://campbellsoup.ca/en/about/pdf/rediscover-campbells-oct-08.pdf (accessed March 06, 2011). Its Your Health, March 2008, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/alt_formats/pacrb-dgapcr/pdf/iyh-vsv/food-aliment/sodium_eng.pdf (accessed March 06, 2011). Sodium: Questions and Answers, 12 29, 2010, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/sodium/qa-sodium-qr-eng.php#a6 (accessed 03 05, 2011). Sodium: Questions and Answers, 12 29, 2010, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/sodium/qa-sodium-qr-eng.php#a6 (accessed 03 05, 2011). Sodium: Questions and Answers, 12 29, 2010, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/sodium/qa-sodium-qr-eng.php#a6 (accessed 03 05, 2011). Sailesh Mohan, Norm R.C. Campbell and Kevin Willis, "Effective population-wide public health interventions to promote sodium reduction," CMAJ 181, no. 9 (2009): 605-609. Sailesh Mohan, Norm R.C. Campbell and Kevin Willis, "Effective population-wide public health interventions to promote sodium reduction," CMAJ 181, no. 9 (2009): 605-609.
