Tag: government

Categories
Opinions

Rights and respect for the Ktunaxa Nation

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin.

What the disparity between the government’s promises of reconciliation and their actions means

It seems as though every time I tune into the news, there is a story of injustice involving Indigenous peoples in Canada.

From the original injustice of colonisation and residential schools to the increasing number of missing and murdered Indigenous women whose cases have only recently been looked into, there is a large gap of inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Not to mention the housing crisis, high rate of suicide and the gap in the quality of healthcare and education, according to The Globe and Mail. Through all of that turmoil, one word shines through and gives me hope that the Canadian government wants to take positive steps to correct these wrongs. The word is reconciliation.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines this term as “the restoration of friendly relations.” The federal government seems to want to restore friendly relations with all Indigenous people, but in my opinion, the Canadian government and people still have a long way to go to achieve true reconciliation.

On Nov. 2, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a Jumbo Glacier ski resort will be built on sacred land that belongs to the Ktunaxa Nation in British Columbia, according to The Globe and Mail. When asked about the situation, Kian Basso, a member of the Montagnais Nation, suggested: “The government should negotiate with the Ktunaxa Nation and try to figure out a way to meet in the middle.”

As an Indigenous person, he said he believes “it is only right that we respect the land and the people that were here before us. So I do not agree with the government taking this land because it does not belong to them, but I am not against the idea of building things on that land either. If they should build something, then it should be done with respect to the people living there and should be discussed between the two parties.” Basso’s statement refers to the lack of respect between Canada and Indigenous peoples—an issue that demands more discussion.

The Ktunaxa Nation has occupied the land in question for more than 10,000 years and use the land to worship their sacred grizzly bear spirit, according to CBC News. However, I believe it’s important to note that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms “protects the freedom to worship, but does not protect the spiritual focal point of worship.” This statement upsets me because it sets a double standard. I believe that if a church were to be torn down in order to build a ski resort, or any other luxury establishment, there would be public outrage. For the Ktunaxa Nation, their land is sacred to their culture and spiritual beliefs. I believe spirituality is equivalent to religion, so why are their beliefs not represented in the Canadian Charter?

Jill Goldberg, a specialist in Indigenous education, said, “When I heard the story, I thought, how is this even possible when we are in a time of improving relations?” She also pointed out the lack of representation in the Supreme Court. There is not one male or female Indigenous judge among the nine appointed judges. “If we want authentic reconciliation, we need to listen to them,” she added. “Let them lead the way, and let them participate. In short, true reconciliation cannot happen if we ignore those that are affected by the decisions.”

Realistically speaking, it isn’t surprising that the government places more importance on building entertainment establishments than respecting the wishes of a minority group. But when we see these stories emerge in the media, we should ask ourselves: when will Canada truly understand and take action against any and all types of injustice toward Indigenous peoples? When will we live in a country known for respecting not only the people inhabiting it, but their beliefs too? When will the value of words be strong enough to overcome any disparity between promises and actions?

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Categories
Opinions

Another manifestation of Islamophobia in Quebec

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin.

How the construction and timing of Bill 62 is just another election campaign tactic

It’s disheartening that the same society that supports a woman’s choice to wear a short, black dress criminalizes a woman’s right to wear a long, black burka.

Since the National Assembly passed Bill 62 on Oct. 18, people have voiced mixed opinions about the “religious neutrality” law. The bill states that in order to give or receive public services—like public transit, healthcare and educational services—a person must have an uncovered face, according to the Montreal Gazette. While Bill 62 doesn’t explicitly target Muslim women who wear a face veil (the burka or niqab), it seems obvious the bill is geared towards that minority.

The fact that this religious neutrality bill was voted into law beneath a crucifix hanging in the National Assembly is as hypocritical as it gets. If Quebec really wanted religious neutrality, they would get rid of any symbol that directly refers to a religion—not just Islamic symbols like face coverings. Quebec doesn’t seem to know where it stands on religious neutrality, which just stirs up more confusion and controversy.

In Quebec, the exact number of Muslim women who wear a face veil is unknown, but according to the social research forum Environics Institute, three per cent of women in Canada wear the niqab. That number is even less in Quebec—which raises an important question. Why spend so much time and effort creating a law that marginalizes such a small group of women? The answer, I’ve realized, is a sickening election campaign trend in this province.

With less than a year until the provincial elections, this law has taken media outlets by storm and has created a tense, divisive political climate in Quebec. People are once again divided over a debate about Muslim women’s choice to wear what they want. It brings us back to 2013, when Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois attempted to remove all religious symbols under the guise of the Charter of Values.

“This ban shows that the government is trying to steer away attention from real issues,” said Razia Hamidi, the Montreal representative of the National Council of Canadian Muslims. “It’s not a priority for Quebecers. We’ve seen polls from the Angus Reid Institute that show that this issue is rated as very low priority. So why does the government continuously bring it up and give it so much attention?” In Hamidi’s opinion, the fact that this debate is happening with an election around the corner isn’t a coincidence and isn’t acceptable. “They can’t go around pushing such legislation whenever they need to get their voting rates up.”

A new Angus Reid Institute poll suggests 70 per cent of Quebec respondents favour the ban, while 23 per cent discourage it and only eight per cent say the niqab should be welcomed, according to the Montreal Gazette. Another poll from the same institute found that one in five Quebecers said Bill 62 would be an important factor when deciding which party to support, according to CBC News.

It seems to me the Liberals are playing a game of identity politics by attempting to appease future voters who dislike the niqab. And in a province where 42 per cent of the population dislike Islam, according to a 2016 Forum Research poll, it is an unfortunately effective tactic.

A conversation with Hafsa Hussain, a Muslim woman from Montreal, furthered my understanding of how strong anti-Muslim sentiments already are in Quebec. “I wear the hijab and abaya (a long loose dress). As it stands, I have received many verbal assaults out in public,” she said.

Hussain said she feels Bill 62 wasn’t intended for security reasons, but was a product of Islamophobia. “There hasn’t been a single case where a person wearing the niqab has posed any kind of threat,” she said. “I don’t see how this is a security issue. Whenever identification is required, women wearing the niqab don’t have any problems with complying and showing their faces. We have so many problems in Quebec to tackle, I find it ridiculous that they spent their time discussing dress codes instead of housing, health and education problems, to name just a few.”

At a press conference on Oct. 24, Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée attempted to reassure citizens that they would only be required to uncover their faces for identification purposes and when speaking directly with a public service employee. This would nonetheless prevent veiled women from checking out library books, speaking with hospital staff, picking up their children from daycare or attending classes, according to CBC News.

Educational institutions like Dawson College and Université de Montréal were quick to insist that women who wear face coverings should still be allowed to attend class, according to the Montreal Gazette. Similarly, a McGill spokesperson said the university must accommodate religious differences and “will continue to do so.” Here at Concordia, the history department condemned the bill and the CSU announced its intent to take action against the the legislation. Concordia president Alan Shepard himself said the status quo will remain unchanged on campus.

While it’s refreshing to see people protesting against the bill and speaking up, it’s also important to analyze the construction of Bill 62 and understand where it comes from. The harsh truth is that it is just another manifestation of Islamophobia in Quebec. It targets a small group of women and criminalizes their choice to wear a religious garment.

This bill also emboldens those with Islamophobic biases. Among other remarks, I’ve often heard the question: “If they want to cover their face so badly, why don’t they go back to their country?” The thing is, those countries don’t preach diversity and acceptance—Canada does. Our federal government seems to pride itself on accepting and promoting immigration and multiculturalism. So why shouldn’t women be allowed to freely express their religious beliefs? Legislation like Bill 62 contradicts Canada’s identity as a nation, and therefore should hold no validity.

Truthfully, a lot of people misunderstand Islam and spend more time disliking the faith than learning about it. With a little bit of effort, people could come to understand why Muslim women choose to wear the face veil. Asking their opinions instead of assuming negative stereotypes about them could solve this entire ignorant debate.

Freedom of choice dictates that one should have the right to express their individuality whether it be in the form of a little, black dress or a long, black burka. The government should have no place in telling women what to wear. After all, we live in a free society for all. Don’t we?

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Categories
Opinions

Addressing reconciliation with empathy

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth.

Recognizing and celebrating our nation’s progress, but understanding there’s still more to do

It has been 10 years since the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted on Sept. 13, 2007. As such, Montreal’s city council chose Sept. 13 to mark the addition of an Iroquois symbol to its city flag.

The city also committed to renaming Amherst Street—named after British general Jeffrey Amherst, who advocated for the use of biological warfare against Indigenous peoples in 1763. These were important and complex decisions, however, they are only part of a larger, ongoing conversation about Indigenous rights and reconciliation.

The debate surrounding the honouring of controversial historical figures in the public and governmental spheres has been an ongoing conversation in Canada for some time. However, it seems to have peaked in the wake of the Confederate monument discourse happening in the United States. While I certainly agree with the renaming of Amherst Street, the issue of consistency comes into question.

For instance, the Langevin block, which houses the prime minister’s office, was named after Hector-Louis Langevin, a father of Confederation and proponent of residential schools. Back in June, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the building would be renamed because “keeping that name on the prime minister’s office is inconsistent with the values of our government.”

However, when confronted by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario’s initiative to remove the name of John A. MacDonald—Canada’s first prime minister and a supporter of residential schools—from the province’s schools in August, Trudeau sang a different tune. According to CBC News, he said he believes this discourse is important, but “reconciliation is not just about the relationship between government and Indigenous people.” He said there are no plans for the federal government to remove MacDonald’s name from schools, and therein lies a sort of contradiction.

Some of the public’s reaction has been to label Trudeau’s Langevin block announcement and the Montreal city council decision as acts of virtue signalling. I don’t necessarily agree with that, yet when Mayor Denis Coderre proudly claimed: “If we want reconciliation, I don’t think we should celebrate someone who wanted to exterminate Indigenous peoples,” it was hard not to see his point. You can’t have it both ways.

It is important to recognize the work that led to Confederation. However, it is equally important to recognize that our nation was built at the expense of Indigenous people’s territory, culture and lives. Assembly of First Nations national chief Perry Bellegarde told the CBC that the actions of Trudeau and Ontario’s teachers signal an awakening in the minds of Canadians. “What’s hopeful for me is that Canadians are starting to get it,” Bellegarde told the CBC.

To be clear, I am not a member of the Indigenous community, nor do I mean to speak on their behalf. I believe in inclusion, empathy and reconciliation. I think Bellegarde’s words are quite poignant. This is indeed part of a slow awakening. Canada has come a long way. Two years ago, our leadership was hard pressed to even acknowledge a divide between Canada and Indigenous peoples. Now, as a nation, we are at least recognizing that our historical legacy is not perfect, and we are having a discourse to reconcile that past with the present.

I think the way forward is to recognize and celebrate the progress we have made, but not to believe—even for a second—that the past is in the past. The actions of our past have tangible, contemporary consequences. Progress is the sum total of acts of empathy, large and small. We cannot poison acts of goodwill just because they don’t address all violations at once. A single act cannot be comprehensive. But we can certainly be critical and hold our leaders accountable.

It is important to realize that total reconciliation of the past may never be fully realized, but we can work towards a more empathetic and active engagement with our nation’s past. The act of striving for a better relationship with your neighbour is certainly a noble pursuit.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
News

Resistance forms against Trudeau’s approval of two pipelines

More than a hundred people gathered in Phillips Square to protest the Liberal government's recent approval of Trans Mountain and Line 9 pipelines. Photo by Adrian Knowler.

Mobilization erupts against Liberal government’s approval of Kinder Morgan and Enbridge pipeline projects

A crowd gathered at Phillips Square in Downtown Montreal Saturday afternoon to oppose Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s approval of two out of three pipeline projects: the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3.

Roughly just more than 100 people cheered in solidarity as various speakers took to the stage to call for unity and mobilization against the decision made by the Liberal government to expand and construct two pipelines. The event was initiated by Montreal community member Shane Thompson, who organized the protest by creating an event page on Facebook.

“We see what’s happening, we see the injustice and we get angry,” event speaker Jamie Nicholls said to the crowd. He said while the approval of the two pipeline projects has made people upset and aggressive, we must look to our neighbours to the south of us as a good example of strength.

Event speaker Jamie Nicholls discusses mobilization against pipelines. Photo by Savanna Craig.

“We look at our brothers and sisters in Dakota––every time the police come they’re not taking up arms, they’re not fighting,” said Nicholls. “They’re standing there strong like a mountain, like a rock in front of this power,” Nicholls shouted as the crowd cheered.

“We have to go in love, we have to be strong, but not aggressive,” said Nicholls. “We are going to change this country and we are going to build a better momentum for our children––together we’re going to do it,” Nicholls said, concluding his speech.

Protesters resist Liberal government’s approval of Trans Mountain and Line 3. Photo by Adrian Knowler.

The Trans Mountain Pipeline was built in 1953. The proposed expansion involves a twinned pipeline adjacent to the original pipeline carrying crude oil between Strathcona County, Alta., and Burnaby, B.C., according to the Trans Mountain website. This expansion will allow the Trans Mountain pipeline to transport 890,000 barrels of crude oil per day, an increase from its current amount of 300,000 barrels, according to the same website.

The newly approved Line 3 project by Enbridge intends to replace line segments between Hardisty, Alta. and Superior, Wis., including construction of associated facilities, according to Enbridge’s official website.

The group of people cheered on as speakers expressed their disapproval of the pipelines, followed by a performance of traditional indigenous drumming.

Concordia Socialist Fightback Association participated in Phillips Square. Photo by Savanna Craig.

“The liberals are, in our view, a ruling class party––a party of the rich, a party of the oil barons, the party of wall street, bay street––just like the conservatives are,”  said Nick Payne, Concordia computer science student and member of Concordia’s Socialist Fightback Association. He said many people have compared Trudeau’s first term as an extension of Stephen Harper, former Conservative Prime Minister.

“There’s truth in that expression because when you serve the interest of capital, you have to carry out its economic and political program––which is to exploit and oppress working people and indigenous people and exploit the land without a plan,” said Payne.

“We’re here to talk to people who are radicalized by these events and trying to draw the connections to the system that produces environmental destruction,” said Payne.

“People are fundamentally coming to terms with the limits of capitalism as a system––it’s inability to care for the environment, it’s inability to avoid war, it’s reliance on racism and sexism––all these struggles are connected,” said Payne.

Jed Lenetsky has been very active over the past month towards Kinder Morgan protests in Montreal. Photo by Adrian Knowler.

“Even though Justin Trudeau has approved the pipeline, it doesn’t mean anything,” Jed Lenetsky, spokesperson for the event and organizer with Divest McGill told The Concordian.

Lenetsky said when the National Energy Board (NEB) approved the Northern Gateway Pipeline, many thought it was a finalized deal, however, many indigenous peoples went to court and won their cases, resulting in the rejection of the Northern Gateway Pipelines.

The Northern Gateway Pipeline, imposed by Enbridge, proposed to build a line running from Bruderheim, Alta., leading to Kitimat, B.C., according to Energy BC.

“If Canada is serious about being a climate leader and taking climate change seriously then the bottom line is that we cannot be building any tar sands infrastructure,” said Lenetsky.

Photo by Savanna Craig.

“The Kinder Morgan pipeline is going to lock us into more increased tar sands expansion for the next 30 years,” said Lenetsky. “We need to be moving off fossil fuels in that time and not burning more and sending them to other countries.”

“It’s also important to stand up against these pipelines because they are directly violating the rights of indigenous peoples who are concerned about their water and the health of their land,” said Lenetsky. “That should be an important issue for all Canadians.”

In Trudeau’s announcement approving the two pipeline projects, he said indigenous peoples were consulted, said Lenetsky. “What is the value of consulting people if you’re not going to listen to them?” said Lenetsky.

“As privileged people living in urban areas it’s our duty to show up and stand up in every way we can to support people on the front lines,” said Lenetsky. “This fight is not over, people are going to put their bodies on the line to make sure it doesn’t get built, people will go to court to make sure it doesn’t get built.”

Categories
News

Student strike stalemate sways public opinion

If the Quebec government hoped to see the student movement against tuition hikes lose momentum with the end of the academic year, student leaders say they should think again.

Despite the Liberals’ attempts to appease the student protesters with first signs of interest in negotiating and promises of bursary bonifications, the government is currently taking increasing heat from businesses, universities and citizens, being urged to quickly find a solution to the ongoing stalemate.

Two weeks ago, the head of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec warned that an extension of the winter semester would have repercussions on the number of students filling summer jobs, and would result in a serious blow to the province’s tourism and economy. Last week, the rector of the Université du Québec à Rimouski also urged Minister of Education Line Beauchamp to re-establish a dialogue with students and proposed to name a mediator.

“In this context of pre-elections, it’s going to be increasingly difficult for the Charest government to maintain their position [in favour of tuition hikes],” said Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec president Martine Desjardins. “The government is expecting the movement to lose steam, but what we see is an increasing number of strike votes and an intensification of the movement.”

At Concordia, despite a one-week general strike and sporadic disruptions of classes and exams, the movement led by the Concordia Student Union will likely have no effect on the university’s academic calendar. Concordia spokesperson Chris Mota said the movement was not disruptive enough to make the university consider an extension of the winter semester.

In other universities, however, administrations are forced to adjust their schedules due to as much as eight weeks of general strikes in some cases.

UQÀR, Université du Québéc à Montréal and Université de Montréal are looking into extending the winter semester by at least a month and are hoping for a return to classes by April 16.

“Cancelling a semester would have disastrous economic consequences for universities and CÉGEPS,” said Desjardins. “It would mean having double the number of students next year, double the amount of professors and double the entire costs.”

Many departments in these universities have voted for an unlimited strike until their demands are met or until their student union puts an end to the movement. Added to that, the major student associations are informally respecting an agreement of non-denunciation and non-negotiation, where associations cannot question the legitimacy of other student groups’ actions, nor can they initiate negotiations with the government without the presence of all the major associations. The return to classes will likely depend on the government’s decision to negotiate with students.

For Desjardins, the threat formulated by Beauchamp warning students of academic consequences after the massive March 22 protest only proved the Liberal government had its back against the wall.

Beauchamp opened the window for negotiations for the first time last week saying she was ready to talk about improving the loans and bursaries program, but was adamant in her refusal to contemplate a tuition freeze.

“I cannot sit down at a table with students and discuss the topic of ‘to whom are we passing the bill to,’” Beauchamp told La Presse.

Although Desjardins praised Beauchamp’s effort to initiate negotiations, she said raising conditions for the talk was a bad start.

Desjardins also said that student mobilization against tuition hikes will continue to grow and actions will continue to be organized week after week, depending on the context and government responses.

“So far, it doesn’t look like we are stopping anytime soon,” she said.

At Concordia, there are still no signs of a petition that would initiate a third general assembly in order to vote for a continuation of the strike among undergraduate students. Concordia Student Union vice-president external Chad Walcott said that even if a GA was to be held by the CSU, “it would be very difficult [in the context of the end of the semester] to mobilize enough people in time in order to meet quorum.” However, Walcott said that the CSU would still participate in other organizations’ movements and said the union was ready to provide the necessary resources to students who “are keeping the movement alive.”

The major actions planned by student organizations so far are a protest in Premier Jean Charest’s Sherbrooke riding on April 4 and an outdoor show in downtown Montreal on April 5.

Information about future actions will be posted on the FEUQ’s, the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec’s and the Coalition large de l’Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante’s websites.

Categories
News

Student threatens education minister with legal action

A student sent a mise en demeure, or formal notice, to Education Minister Line Beauchamp on March 26, giving her 10 days to negotiate with students on tuition increases. If no negotiations take place after that time period, judicial procedures could be undertaken.

Jean-François Boisvenue, a PhD student in comparative literature at Université du Québec à Montréal, said he sent the notice as more of a symbolic act to draw attention to the fact that Beauchamp did not want to negotiate with students. The minister switched gears last week and said she would be open to talking to students, but said they had to accept that tuition is going up. It’s unclear if her change of heart is related to the mise en demeure.

“I really just wanted to start a debate about democracy in our society, because really, nothing can constrain Beauchamp to negotiate,” he said.

Boisvenue posted his mise en demeure on Facebook and got hundreds of supporters, which is a lot more than he expected.

“I am surprised that people really took it seriously and encouraged me to start judicial procedures against the minister,” said Boisvenue. “I didn’t want to undertake anything at first, but I decided now not to exclude any options.”

Education ministry spokesperson Esther Chouinard confirmed that they had received the formal notice last week, but said the ministry could not comment when legal procedures are involved.

Despite Beauchamp’s refusal to negotiate with students on tuition increases, Boisvenue said he’s hopeful that eventually she will have no choice but to sit down with student groups to hear what they have to say on the issue.

Exit mobile version