With one week left to go, federal leaders continue to compete for the public’s attention in the press and through their policies.
Justin Trudeau is trying hard to put the blackface controversy behind him. Obviously deflecting with new and more “a-pleasing” promises than ever, the Liberal leader is neck and neck with Andrew Scheer. However, there is something to be said about his efforts to meet the more progressive party platforms, in an attempt to keep the left-wing vote away from the NDP and the Green Party.
What do I mean when I say party platform? Well, I’m talking about the promises our leaders are making to us. Trudeau – trying to escape his long rap-sheet – is promising net-zero emissions by 2050, and a tax cut that will allow everyone’s first $15,000 in income to be tax-free. Jagmeet Singh, the second leading progressive leader is also promising major climate and economic action. Don’t get me wrong, these leaders are not interchangeable. In matters dealing with the Indigenous communities, Singh has been more favorable due to his strong stance on the clean-water issue in northern Indigenous territories, while Trudeau has been accused of doing little for Indigenous communities.
During the french speaking debate hosted by TVA, we saw four of the six candidates debate questions of foreign policy, Bill 21, and climate action. Conservative leader Scheer scrambled to connect with the Quebec audience, and through his support for the TransMountain pipeline, it’s likely he didn’t win many votes outside of Alberta that night.
As a follow up, the English speaking debate this past Monday included all six federal leader candidates. I’m not sure whether this debate was meant to replicate the dynamics of a high school classroom, but that’s besides the point. Yves-François Blanchet once again proved that he is fighting for the rights of Quebec – more specifically, their right to equalization payments.
Singh made quite an impression as the media declared him the winner of Monday night’s debate. His ability to connect with people is uncanny, and translates to a loss of votes for the Green Party; too bad it won’t be enough to become the default progressive leaders.
So in this coming week, my fellow Concordians – stay alert, listen, and most importantly: vote.
Only weeks away from the federal elections and having made history with the largest national climate march, it is time for a recap of just what each party promises to do on behalf of mother Earth, naturally beginning with the Green Party.
The group presents ambitious goals. Should they achieve a majority, their first action would be pushing a Climate Change Act compelling companies to cut their emissions a whopping 60 per cent by 2030, and then up to 100 per cent by 2050. This objective will be met through the elimination of fossil fuels alongside major investments in renewable energy. Other actions include transitioning energy workers into green industries, retrofitting infrastructure to becoming environmentally friendlier, and transforming communities to zero-waste producers. All beautiful on paper; putting aside the consideration of massive costs, limited resources, and the assumption that the Greens will hold office for 30 years.
The Liberals and New Democrats, in an almost completely similar fashion, also seek to cut emissions by 2030 and eliminate them by 2050. Moreover, their platforms even include increased funding towards renewable energies, country-wide modifications of buildings to becoming sustainable, turning communities into zero-waste zones… and so on. But hey, the Liberals have a different idea regarding the transition of workers into green industries, with a proposed Just Transition Act. No, wait… it’s the exact same thing that the Greens and NDP promise..
At least the Conservative Party gains points for making environmental protection more… corporate? Dubbed “A Real Plan to Protect Our Environment,” as opposed to a “fake one,” the CPC has prepared a 33-page pamphlet highlighting their plans for a better environment. Most of the proposals revolve around cutting tax rates for companies reducing emissions, businesses producing green technologies and households decreasing energy consumption. More of an incentive plan than solid action. At least the Conservatives are promoting the conservation of migratory bird species… funded through the sale of licenses to hunters who want to shoot them.
Which is more than we can say for the People’s Party of Canada, whose plan is basically that they have no plan. The PPC’s page claims that “alarmist” trends regarding global warming have led to “billions of dollars spent at home and abroad”. Their solution? Withdrawing from the Paris Accord, abandoning emission targets, abolishing carbon tax systems and eliminating green energy subsidies. However, their platform does include investment in “adaptation strategies,” just in case this whole climate change thing turns out to not be a myth, so there’s that.
But what about Bloc Québécois? What plans do they have for the improvement of the country? Not much, according to their French-only website. They support remaining in the Kyoto accord, cutting waste and switching to more ecologically friendly sources of energy. All that stands out, in typical BQ fashion, are proposals setting emission limits on other provinces and having the final say on any project involving Quebec. In other words, nothing new.
It’s been a whole new world of pain for the Liberal Party, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau deals with accusations of racism over his use of “brown face.”
Old yearbook photos have been posted by TIME Magazine, showing Trudeau with a unique take on Aladdin, complete with a turban and dark face paint. Naturally, many Canadians were less than impressed with this attempted display of multiculturalism, leading Trudeau to issue apologies to the public and… NDP leader Jaghmeet Singh?
According to CBC, Trudeau approached Singh to apologize for the incident – a confusing move, seeing that Aladdin is of an Arabian background, not Indian. Moreover, it seems that Singh has enough on his plate, given that the Steel Workers Union of Regina might vote Conservative according to the Regina Post. A traditionally New Democrat group in the NDP heartland, workers are being forced to choose between work opportunities provided by a pipeline or job protections offered by Singh. Whether this highlights a dangerous trend among unions is yet to be seen, but the NDP certainly cannot afford to lose support after previous defections to the Green Party of Elizabeth May…
… who is facing her own scandal, covered by the Toronto Sun since an image on the party website shows her holding what appears to be a photoshopped reusable mug, though the truth is much more sinister. It was proven that May was instead using a single-use paper cup to store her coffee, leading to calls of hypocrisy by voters who feel that the pro-environment leader should lead by example. How this will affect the Green Party’s chances at a federal majority is too early to say. Regardless; Liberal scandals, NDP popularity drops, and Green Party controversies could prove to be advantages for the Conservative Party of Canada’s leader, Andrew Scheer.
Well yes, but actually no, since the National Post reported that Ontario’s CPC base is in trouble due to major cuts in healthcare, environmental protection, student grants, social services, legal aid… basically everything, by Conservative premier Doug Ford. A fact not lost on Scheer, who, interestingly, has conducted most of his Ontarian campaigns without Ford by his side. Undoubtedly a risky move that could alienate “Ford Nation” voters, but one that would gain the approval of no other than Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet.
Incensed by the cuts to French-language services, under Ford no less, Blanchet has expanded his campaign to include francophone towns in Ontario; as covered by Global News. Claiming that French-speakers outside Quebec are being treated like second-class citizens, he has called for votes towards an independent Quebec, a bilingual Supreme Court, and expanded powers for the federal commissioner of official languages. In other words, nothing new; but a stark contrast to fellow Quebecer Maxime Bernier.
From claiming that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant to backing a candidate who had published racist tweets, as covered by CBC, the People’s Party of Canada leader is no stranger to controversy. However, Bernier is facing a lot of criticism for calling environmental activist Greta Thunberg “mentally unstable”, in a series of tweets back in September. Aside from the fact that picking a twitter fight with a 16-year-old is frowned upon in politics, his choice of words proved quite poor seeing that Thunberg has autism and Asperger’s Syndrome.
Ultimately, how these scandals impact the upcoming election remains to be seen. Canadians will simply have to vote for whichever party they feel is the best choice for Canada or the best option available.
If we need to push the agenda on climate change, arguably the single most important focus in this year’s election, then why should we avoid voting for the Green Party?
They have answered that question for us. Throughout their campaign, they have shown a lack of social awareness. Their direct, tunnel-vision approach to the environment is detrimental to the needs of society.
The Green Party has been criticized for defending Bill 21. According to Global News, Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party, is encouraging her candidates not to comment when they do not feel like they want to.
“If you don’t have an opinion, you’re allowed to say: I don’t have an opinion,” May said.
Although this comment may seem diplomatic, it is far from it. What May does not seem to realize is that not having an opinion is an opinion. When people with platforms shy away from selective social and political issues, they are sending a message that the issue they are ignoring is not important. Complacency and avoidance are political positions. Let’s use Danny Celovsky as another example.
Danny Celovsky is a Green Party candidate for Bay of Quinte. According to the PressProgress, this year, Celovsky jumped in on a Twitter discussion in hopes to end an argument regarding a person who raised a Nazi Swastika flag in May this year in a small village called Keilliher, Saskatchewan.
His stance was that this issue is not as important as the environment. Celovsky’s reaction speaks directly to his priorities as a candidate and a leader. When Celovsky tries to bring the conversation “back to the planet,” he is pushing the conversation away from humanitarianism.
He said the opposing comments, “focus too much on distractions made by some that are designed to distract us from the immediate crisis” — “the future of all life on our planet.”
The article also states that although Celovsky believes in equality, he doesn’t care to “focus on racism.”
He is lacking awareness of his position in society. Not “focusing” on racism is easy to do for him as a white man.
There are other cases that uncover the skewed perception of Green Party Candidates.
Jonathan Richardson, a former NDP candidate, spoke openly about his opinion of Jagmeet Singh’s religion and culture. According to the National Post, Richardson said Singh was having trouble finding a candidate in New Brunswick because of his race and religion.
In an article for CBC, May explained that even though she believes every woman has the right to a safe, legal abortion, her party members are allowed to want to reopen the debate. May does not seem to realize that by defending members in this way, she is condoning their concerning behaviour.
In another article by CBC, former Green Party candidate Monika Schaefer openely denied the existence of the Holocaust. She said in a video, “This is the biggest and most pernicious and persistent lie in all of history.”
I wish that was all. Unfortunately, I just scratched the surface.
Let’s look at the facts. According to ScienceDirect, “those people who are most vulnerable to the adverse environmental and health consequences of climate change include poor people, members of minority groups, women, children, older people, people with chronic diseases and disabilities…” etc.
The Green Party is operating carelessly and dangerously, highlighting their privilege. Wake up. Climate justice and environmental issues are closely linked to social justice. Ignoring these elements is oversimplifying a multidimensional issue, and will create a harmful result.
Without this understanding – we are just watering dead grass.
Both the New Democratic Party and the Green Party have butted heads the past two weeks on what appears to be a controversial development in the eastern province.
Previously thought to be 14 defectors, eight former New Democratic candidates have switched over to the Greens, as reported by the CBC. One defector, former party executive Jonathan Richardson, even went so far as to blame the move on NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s ethnicity’s effect on regional popularity.
Naturally, such a statement has led to accusations of racism against the Greens, accusations that the party has vehemently denied. Instead, it was pointed out that Singh had not once visited the Maritimes since assuming his position in 2017. Unsurprisingly, words have been thrown back and forth since the defections, reaching levels of passive-aggressiveness best reserved for thanksgiving.
But regardless of the political bickering, the real question remains; what will be the consequential effect of these disputes on the upcoming federal and provincial elections?
The answer is… probably nothing.
It’s no secret that the Green Party has never been one to gain more than two seats at the Federal level, so far. Nor have they established any sort of major political ground on the eastern seaboard. Therefore, it’s safe to assume that no riding was ever truly in sight for a Green takeover; as New Brunswick is primarily split between Conservative and Liberal MPs, with a slight lead for the Blues.
In fact, the Greens hold a mere three provincial seats out of the province’s total of 49. Zero on the Federal level.
But what about the NDP? Have they lost any potential advantage in future polls?
Again, not necessarily.
The “defectors” mentioned consisted of members of the Oranges, who ran in the 2018 provincial elections. Ran, not won, as the NDP had not gained a single seat. Most of these individuals had figured that their prospects would be better for joining the Greens, either through the assumption that following a Sikh leader would hurt their chances or genuinely believing that Singh had not done enough to remain popular in the area.
In the end, the Greens did not gain a single seat as the New Democrats did not have anything to lose. To find out if the former had gained any clear advantage, we will need to see the results of the upcoming elections.
Until then, the Green Party will just have to settle for brownie points.
In the last weeks of August, both Liberals and Conservatives unveiled their TV ads and campaign slogans, ahead of the Oct. 21 vote.
While Trudeau’s campaign decided to go with “Choose forward,” Tories went for “It’s time for you to get ahead,” which you can only imagine fueled many waves of laughter on Twitter, as they are now just one typo away from being ridiculed. For Elizabeth May’s Green Party, “Not left. Not right. Forward together” is their campaign slogan. The NDP has yet to reveal theirs.
Do they all sound the same to you? Truthfully, as we live in a time where scrolling and swiping quickly is generally the way we consume our information, slogans will sadly end up being the only piece of the political puzzle voters acknowledge when heading to the polls.
Yet, the difference is there. What often sounds either like a call for action or an embarrassing pickup line can actually make or break an election.
“The Conservatives are talking about putting individuals ahead, while the Liberal’s forward movement revolves around government and country – ‘you’ versus ‘we,’ if you like,” wrote national columnist Susan Delacourt in The Star.
Words are charming, yet very dangerous as they hide an entire platform. And as Canadians head to the polls in October, forward or together, there will be no coming back.
The Green Party of Quebec is looking to make catcalling a ticketable offence
At 9 a.m. on a winter morning, Sarah Shaw left her apartment wearing a long coat and scarf—neither of which revealed her skin or figure. She walked down the street, and as a group of four men passed by, they began making remarks.
“Hey sexy,” one of them said. Shaw ignored him, but the tallest of the men tried to corner her against a wall. She managed to walk away, but the same man called back to her: “You stupid bitch, you think you’re so much better than me. You don’t even have an ass anyway.”
“I remember it so clearly, because it was so horrifying,” said Shaw, a fine arts student at Concordia. “Men think you owe them attention.”
Like many people who identify women, Shaw is accustomed to this type of commentary known as “catcalling.” It usually involves yelling sexual or derogatory comments at women in a public setting. Based on her experiences, Shaw said this behaviour is prevalent both in Montreal and her small suburban hometown in the United States.
“I just listen to music,” she said. “Part of it is for me, so I don’t have to hear [the catcalling]—but also so I don’t have to deal with it.”
Shaw said catcalling is not only disrespectful, gross and irritating; it’s scary, too. “You don’t know if these people are going to grab you.”
***
Catcalling is currently legal in Quebec. However, the province’s Green Party wants to change that. Last month, the party announced on social media their desire to make catcalling a ticketable offence. Such legislation would allow a police officer to issue a ticket to someone who is caught or reported to have been yelling derogatory, sexual and other verbal harassments on the street.
The Green Party of Quebec’s post on social media was a way of gaging public opinion and hearing different perspectives, since the proposal is in its early stages. According to the party’s leader, Alex Tyrrell, making catcalling illegal would not require modifying the Criminal Code. Instead, it would be a non-criminal infraction with a fine that would increase for repeat offenders, similar to jaywalking.
“Although the Criminal Code can address intense situations of criminal harassment, it’s not very well equipped to deal with the everyday situations,” Tyrrell said, adding that it is a challenge to reprimand a catcalling perpetrator in criminal court. “We’re trying to address it at a lower level.”
According to Tyrrell, a law against catcalling would be easier to enforce as its own infraction, rather than falling under the scope of criminal harassment. “More people would be sanctioned for their inappropriate behaviour, but it wouldn’t be tying up the court system […] with a whole bunch of criminal trials,” he said. Additionally, people would be less likely to contest fines if they were not considered criminal offences, Tyrrell added.
While the law would not ensure every catcaller is caught, Tyrrell said he is confident that giving police officers the ability to ticket the incidents they witness would help. “There’s an increased chance that people who are frequently engaging in this kind of behaviour will be sanctioned,” he said.
On Tyrrell’s personal Facebook page, where the idea for the legislation was first publicized, some users posted comments questioning the likelihood that the law could pass. Others said the focus should be on educating the public about why catcalling is wrong and encouraged women to stand up to catcallers.
“It’s not reasonable to expect people to confront their aggressors. Why does the burden fall on the victim?” Tyrrell said in response to such comments. “It’s really up to the police to enforce the laws, to sanction this kind of inappropriate behaviour. It’s really kind of strange how people put the responsibility back on the victim so quickly in certain cases.”
There are also concerns this legislation could infringe on Canadian free speech laws, and tickets for catcalling might be contested on these grounds. “They have the right to argue these points in front of a judge,” Tyrrell said. However, he added that if catcalling were considered hate speech, it would not be tolerated in Canada. “If someone was systematically yelling racial slurs at minority groups and encouraging others to do the same, it could be counted as hate speech. The same should apply to people who systematically catcall women because of their gender,” he argued.
In addition to objectifying women based on their gender, catcalling can be racialized as well—something Dina El Sabbagh is quite familiar with. “I feel, often, a catcall will linger when they recognize features in my face, hair and skin,” said the Concordia studio arts student. “Objectifying minorities sheds a different light on the issue of catcalling.”
According to El Sabbagh, men who catcall her often ask where she is from and attempt to speak the language they associate with her appearance. She said this behaviour fetishizes her race and reduces her identity to the desires of the perpetrator. “Object and use of object, ultimately, is what is at the root of catcalling.” France is the most recent nation to discuss making catcalling illegal, in a proposal put forward to the government in October 2017. Before it can be sent to Parliament to be voted on, however, the proposal needs to be approved by France’s minister of justice, the secretary of state for equality and the minister of the interior. The law would impose a fine on anyone caught making loud, crude comments about a woman’s appearance or body.
According to Marie Balaguy, the political organizer for the Green Party of Quebec, if catcalling were considered an offence, it would make this type of behaviour officially inappropriate. Even if the law is difficult to enforce, she said, it would make people think twice about catcalling.
“I don’t think people realize how much they’re affected by what is declared legal and what is declared illegal,” Balaguy said. Not only does she think a law would change how people view catcalling, but Balaguy said making it a ticketable offence would be a tool of empowerment for women.
Teague O’Meara, a Concordia student in women’s studies, said she vividly remembers the first time she was catcalled. She was about 11 or 12, and ran home in fear of being physically harmed. At the time, O’Meara didn’t know what catcalling was, how to handle the situation or what to expect from the perpetrator.
“I started to get used to it,” she said. “When you get used to it, you’re less likely to comment.” O’Meara added that, when she does speak up against a catcall, she is often harassed even more and called a bitch.
***
Graphic by Zeze Le Lin
There hasn’t been a single night when Danielle Gasher, a Concordia journalism student, wasn’t catcalled as she walked home from her bartending job in the Plateau at 4 a.m. Whether it’s small remarks or more derogatory, sexual comments, she describes catcalling as “a microaggression and a violation of space.”
When she first had to deal with catcalling, Gasher said she felt timid, scared and would try to ignore the comments. Now, she describes herself as more confident and assertive towards catcallers. This behaviour also angers her much more now, which has lead to potentially dangerous situations.
Gasher’s most recent encounter took place last weekend, while she was walking home from work with a female co-worker along St-Laurent Boulevard around 4:30 a.m. “A car with four men stopped, and one of them rolled down his window to try to pick us up,” Gasher said. “I lost it. I started yelling at him, screaming, ‘Don’t talk to me’ and insulting him.”
“I wanted to humiliate him in front of his friends the same way I have felt violated and humiliated over and over again for years,” she said. The car came to a halt further up the street, Gasher recounted, and the men continued to insult the women and threatened to beat them up. “Luckily, it didn’t happen,” Gasher said. “The streets were empty so, when I think back on it, it probably wasn’t a good idea.”
Gasher said her male co-workers don’t understand what catcalling is like when they tell her to just ignore the behaviour. “They have never been in that position of objectification—the constant male gaze,” she said. “It’s socially accepted harassment, [and] if we keep normalizing it, it’s never going to go away.”
Gasher said that, while she is unsure “throwing a ticket at the problem” will reduce catcalling entirely, she supports the legislation’s attempt to legitimize the behaviour as a inappropriate.
According to Tyrrell, this legislation would be just one component of the Green Party of Quebec’s effort to tackle the province’s rape culture.
“If the Green Party was running the province, there would be a number of initiatives that would be in place,” he said. Among these initiatives would be the implementation of public awareness campaigns about sexual assault, harassment, rape culture and catcalling, as well as improved sexual education in elementary schools.
Balaguy added that a law prohibiting catcalling is a short-term solution. “In an ideal world, that law would become obsolete because catcalling would just not be a thing anymore,” she said. In order to achieve this reality, Balaguy said, a long-term public education plan is necessary to reshape society’s perception of catcalling.
Despite the activist party’s attempt to make the condemnation of catcalling commonplace, Tyrrell said they are “operating in very difficult circumstances,” in reference to a male-dominated provincial government. Out of 125 members in Quebec’s National Assembly, only 37 are women, or just under 30 per cent, according to the National Assembly of Quebec’s official website. In comparison, more than 50 per cent of the Quebec population in female.
However, Tyrrell noted that, since the 2017 municipal elections, there are now many more women holding mayoral positions in Montreal (seven of the 18).
“Maybe they would be interested in adopting [this legislation] at the municipal level,” he said.
The Green Party currently does not hold any seats in the National Assembly. “If we don’t win the election, then we’ll try to pressure other parties to follow,” Tyrrell said, referring the upcoming Oct. 1 provincial election. “Hopefully it will be picked up by progressive parties,” Balaguy added.
According to Tyrrell, the party will be running a series of six consultations in the coming weeks with current party members to determine and finalize the party’s official platform. Catcalling will be among the social justice topics discussed, and the party will release a finalized platform in May, Tyrrell said. “So far, the response to this proposition has been overwhelmingly positive.”
Panelists from the Green Party, CJPME and Concordia students deliver panel on BDS
On Thursday, Concordia hosted the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) Town Hall, which featured four panelists discussing the goals and achievements of the movement, as well as the misconceptions surrounding it.
The speakers included Grace Batchoun, the co-founder of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME); Dimitri Lascaris, a former member of the Green Party of Canada’s shadow cabinet; Alex Tyrrell, the leader of the Green Party of Quebec; and Rami Yahia, the Concordia Student Union (CSU) internal affairs coordinator.
Tyrrell said these discussions are leading up to the Green Party of Canada convention in December, intended to overturn the party’s current BDS position. The Green Party of Quebec is in support of the BDS movement, however, Tyrrell later said at the federal level, Elizabeth May refuses to support the policy. “We really hope that as many Green Party members as possible show up to support BDS,” said Tyrrell.
BDS Town Hall panelists include Alex Tyrrell, Dimitri Lascaris, Grace Batchoun and Rami Yahia. (From left to right) Photo courtesy of Dimitri Lascaris.
According to the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), the goal of the BDS movement is to promote Palestinian rights. The movement calls for the boycott of Israeli and international companies that infringe on Palestinian human rights and occupy Palestinian land. According to BNC, the movement also pressures other governments to end military and free-trade agreements with Israel, and remove the country from international associations such as the United Nations and International Federation of Association Football (FIFA).
Lascaris discussed how a trip to Palestine gave him a first-hand look at the injustices the Palestinians face. One man he met, a 77-year-old citrus farmer, cried as he said, “They are breaking my connection to the land.” The Israeli state had extended the wall that separates the two nations—right down the middle of his lemon tree grove, Lascaris said.
“The companies that profit off of Palestinian suffering are profiting off of suffering all over the world,” said Yahia. He listed G4S, Caterpillar and Elbit Systems as examples of companies the BDS movement is boycotting. Yahia said that more and more companies are dropping their Israeli subsidiaries in response to BDS tactics.
Two years ago, Yahia was part of a campaign that succeeded in having the CSU officially endorse BDS. “That motion was to condemn the disproportionate use of force by the Israeli government after the massacre of 2014,” said Yahia.
Yahia said 2,500 students participated in the referendum, making it the “highest turnout in by-election history on campus.” This summer, Concordia’s Simone de Beauvoir (SdBI) institute also gave their official endorsement. The panelists encouraged students to lobby their own faculties to do the same.
Yahia discussed the opposition he’s faced for his pro-BDS stance. Before the referendum, opposers of the BDS movement on campus labelled the campaign as antisemitic. Yahia even faced criticism from the CSU which he had believed to be progressive and supportive of this movement. “I was told I was too pro-Palestine to join an executive team at one point within the [CSU],” said Yahia.
Similarly, Lascaris lost his position within Parliament when he and other Green Party shadow cabinet members criticized the B.C. Green Party leader’s condemnation of the BDS movement.
Batchoun suggested that community members send letters to their MP requesting meetings to discuss the BDS movement. She also suggested signing up with CJPME as a media responder, which entails thanking publications who have covered the issue fairly and criticizing ones who, for example, say it is disputed territory when it is occupied territory.
Starting Oct. 3, Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights is hosting “Decolonize Palestine,” a week filled with events in correlation to BDS and Palestinian culture. Additional information can be found on the SPHR Facebook page.
Park(ing) day in an international event that 35 countries are part of
Parking spaces around the globe were decorated last Friday, as part of the annual international Park(ing) Day. The way the event works is simple: find yourself a parking space and use this otherwise bland piece of asphalt as a blank canvas to create a temporary park or creative public space.
According to Park(ing) Day’s website, the event is designed to bring attention to the need for more urban open spaces and to facilitate a discussion regarding how public spaces are allocated and used.
The Concordia University Young Greens participated and designed their own green space during the event. They had a few plants set up in their space. William Gagnon, the President of the Concordia ambassadors group for the Green Party of Canada, explained the event is great for showing people alternative ways to use parking spaces and the effect that those have on a larger scale.
“It has a lot of effect, because everything that is little disruptive gives some food for thought, ” said Gagnon. “It just brings awareness and education.”
Photo by Mishkat Hafiz.
The annual event started back in 2005, with only one parking space in San Francisco occupied by art and design studio Rebar. Now, people and organizations are taking over parking spaces in 35 countries around the world on every third Friday of September. This was the fifth year the event was held in Montreal.
Elizabeth May on the approaching juncture between democratic change and ruin
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May stopped by McGill University on Saturday, Nov. 8 to speak about her latest book Who We Are: Reflections on My Life and reflect on Canadian democracy, world climate and the next election.
The Concordian had the opportunity to speak one-on-one with the social activist, and environmentalist. Below is a part of our interview. It has been condensed and reordered for readability.
The Concordian: Canada is rapidly becoming an economy dependant on the export of raw resources. What has this meant for Canada?
Elizabeth May: I have to say [resource dependence has] been the result of failed policies, and the focus on bitumen production has seen a weak case of Dutch disease that’s reduced employment opportunities for Ontario and Quebec. That’s not entirely due to tying the dollar to a barrel of bitumen, but it sure hasn’t helped. As our dollar rose, a lot of jobs were lost in traditional manufacturing and export-based industries, as well as our tourism industry. The resource-based industry is both evolutionary and manipulated by certain policies: [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper has favoured one industry above all others, which is basically fossil fuels, particularly bitumen.
C: The centre is shifting from Quebec and Ontario to the western part of the country. Provinces there, especially Alberta, are particularly tied and dependent on petrochemical exploitation and raw resources for growth. How does this bode for the Green Party’s fortunes?
Photo by Keith Race.
EM: The fortunes of the Green Party are, I think, national, not regional. We’ve just elected our first member of parliament in New Brunswick, and he defeated the Conservative Energy Minister [Craig Leonard] and the top issue [there] was fracking. We’ve also elected our first member to the B.C. legislature in 2009, who’s one of Canada’s leading climate scientists; the issues were climate, pipelines, and oil tankers.
The Green message is resonating in Alberta, and that’s because Albertans are also concerned about conservation. You can’t make assumptions that Alberta represents a certain type of person anymore. Those assertions were never right. The land ethic in Alberta runs very deep. Farmers and ranchers as much as young, savvy, professionals want a concrete plan on climate change.
Our message gets across anywhere to the extent [that] we are able to command political space in the field. During the last elections, the mainstream media virtually ignored the Green Party. If we can be noticed enough … it will change our electoral fortunes everywhere. I think we are going to have a breakthrough in the next elections.
C: What do you think this determined drive for oil says about our country?
EM: We’re going for the last barrel. We’re scraping, we’re going for fracking and bitumen, and this is what happens when you get desperate. It’s time to really start looking at what kind of economic opportunities Canada has that’s not specifically geared to fossil fuels, a push away from regional resource models.
C: You say in your book that there is no inherent conflict between the economy and the environment. Could you explain a bit more?
EM: Capitalism is in the way, but only because we’ve allowed corporate rule, we’ve allowed the notion that the profits of multinationals are more important than the health, sustainability, and resilience of Canadian communities.
All sorts of statistics show when you ramp up environmental protection, competitiveness improves, productivity improves, [research and development] improves. The stronger your environmental policies, the stronger your economic performance. But it has to be driven by government policy, because without guidance, industries will always have to hedge for the outlier laggard in any sector that wants to make profits cheaper.
C: You also call upon pragmatic governance, but simultaneously point out these huge companies have never enjoyed as much influence and power. How can you pragmatically expect to fetter organizations that will refuse to yield and are at the apogee of their power?
EM: This is why Canadian citizens, and citizens from [all] over the world, will have to work a lot harder at this. We’re not bystanders to this. Students at Concordia are not bystanders to corporate rule. We are enablers to corporate rule when we don’t step up and say ‘this is what’s happening.’
Voting is the least of it. Explaining, educating, reaching out so that Canadians understand these issues before the next election, putting maximum pressure … we have to make citizens aware [that] we’re in a serious struggle.
Ursula Franklin said that we live in an occupied state. We’re occupied by multinational corporations. If the occupiers were soldiers stationed on every street corner, I think we would have formed a resistance to that by now. But because it’s the friendly face of corporations whose products we buy because we’re relatively comfortable and consumer culture breeds passivity, we’re not organizing a resistance.
I think that the tools of fundamental democracy are all the resistance we need—I’m certainly not calling on anybody to break the law! The tools that we have in the law-abiding, non-violent use of our democratic rights to demand governments pay attention to things that really matter—we’re not really using that. The largest voting bloc in the last election were the people who didn’t vote. I know there are many reasons why people decided to not vote, but citizen disengagement is the key enabler of corporate rule. As long as we act like we have no power, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
C: Is this more of an election fight, or a generational struggle?
EM: Because of the climate crisis we’ve got to make significant progress the next election—we’ve got to have a globally inclusive [climate] treaty by 2015, which is the deadline for negotiating the next climate treaty that takes effect by 2020.
It is a generational struggle in the sense that [we have] to nail this now and really recover democratic governance, repair social safety networks, get rid of the notion you can’t have a single discussion on any issue in public policy before first bowing down to the idea that unlimited economic growth must be the underpinning. That’s going to be a longer struggle than one election. But let’s start naming the problem now, and engage more people.
C: What do you see as the state of Canadian political system right now?
EM: Stephen Harper is the first prime minister who’s written off entire regions of the country because he figures he can get enough votes here or there. It’s all an electoral calculation rather than a public policy meant to be of greatest benefit to the most people. This is a deliberate calculated manipulation of public opinion and shared values [and] common assumptions. We can still repair our laws, so we can have engaged citizens.”
C: Politics is compromise. How will the Green Party compromise?
EM: I don’t really believe in compromise on the key issues that really matter, but it’s figuring out [things] in the context of governing. It’s important to stop having politics on the basis of division, the so-called wedge issue and the politics of slicing-and-dicing issues, that’s not healthy in terms of holding a country together. What can we do collectively as a country to change the fact we waste half the energy we currently use? What employment opportunities are there for energy efficiency, conservation, demand-side management, building retrofits? There are a lot of opportunities for having a healthier, more prosperous Canada. All these things can happen, but they won’t happen when you have a system where politicians work through fear and division and not consensus. You use the word compromise, I use the word consensus that will take everybody’s interests into account.
Elizabeth May’s book, Who We Are: Reflections on My Life, is now on sale and can be purchased hardcover on Amazon.ca for about $19.
Concordia’s Green Party Campus Club co-hosted a climate change workshop on Oct. 4 with Our Horizon, a new not-for-profit organization whose first campaign involves placing climate change warning labels on gas pumps.
The Green Party of Quebec, led by Concordia student Alex Tyrrell, supports Our Horizon. Concordia’s Green Party Campus Club welcomes students to reach out to them to get involved. Photo Michelle Reeves
Rob Shirkey, a lawyer from Toronto who launched the organization in January 2013, led the discussion. Our Horizon is campaigning for Canadian municipalities to pass a by-law that requires gasoline retailers to use the aforementioned labels. The organization believes passing this by-law would create a global precedent, as Canada did with its cigarette warnings which are comparable.
Sixty-four countries now have these visual warning labels, demonstrating their effectiveness in changing consumers’ attitudes and behaviour, explained Shirkey.
Shirkey expects these labels to have a unique purpose in the context of climate change. While most people are well acquainted with the issue, the consequences still seem far away for many.
“This warning label takes that far away consequence [of climate change], be it species extinction, ocean acidification, drought and famine, and actually brings it into the here and now,”said Shirkey.
Shirkey spoke about the psychology of climate change, explaining that when responsibility for something is shared among many, individuals are less likely to take action.
For more information, visit http://ourhorizon.org. Press photo.
“The placement [of the warning label] on the gas nozzle quite literally locates responsibility,” he said. “You’re made to feel connected to this thing that otherwise has always been this abstract problem.”
While Our Horizon expects to see some individual behaviour change, they’re more interested in seeing collective change. The organization feels that placing warning labels on gas pumps will play a significant role in the fight against climate change at a low cost.
“The act of pumping gas has always been normal, it’s never been questioned,” Shirkey explained. “Ultimately, this is about creating dissatisfaction in the marketplace and stimulating demand for alternatives.”
Our Horizon wants to create space for businesses and governments to provide solutions for climate change. Politicians will be more inclined to adjust their positions, for example, if enough people show their concerns.
“If necessity is the mother of invention, this just injects a little more necessity into the system,” he added.
The workshop at Concordia was part of the organization’s cross-Canada tour, stopping at elementary schools, high schools, universities and community organizations. At workshops in Toronto, Shirkey had children draw their own warning labels, which they will present to city councillors.
Sixty-four countries now have these visual warning labels, demonstrating their effectiveness in changing consumers’ attitudes and behaviour. Press photo.
Our Horizon is asking Canadian municipalities to pass this by-law since it’s the most accessible level of government. They developed a database with the contact information of every municipal representative in the country, so Canadians can advocate this in their own community. They urge Canadians to contact their councillors or speak up at their local city hall.
“This is one of these rare instances where if you convince someone and speak from the heart and share your concerns on this, you can actually change the world,” said Shirkey.
They’re already gaining support around the world through Facebook and Twitter. Our Horizon has received endorsements by organizations including the David Suzuki Foundation and has been featured on major media outlets.
While on tour, Our Horizon brings a trophy, Canada’s Climate Change Heroes Cup with them.
“Whichever municipality passes this by-law is actually showing global leadership on this issue and we want to recognize that, so we’re going to engrave [the councillors’] names here,” said Shirkey.
The Green Party of Quebec, led by Concordia student Alex Tyrrell, supports Our Horizon. Concordia’s Green Party Campus Club welcomes students to reach out to them to get involved.
