The Dominion - Anna Carastathis

Gender, Race, and Religious Freedom

Stuart Neatby — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:17:16 +0000

The Bouchard-Taylor Commission's Hijacking of 'Gender Equality'

Last November, the West Coast LEAF (Legal Education and Action Fund) issued a report based on its Women's Equality and Religious Freedom Project (WERF). Some of the overarching questions that the Project explored were “What is the nature of religious discrimination experienced by women of faith? What are the ways in which women balance and navigate the experiences of discrimination and interlocking systems of oppression in their daily lives?” The report also addresses specific areas such as same-sex marriage; polygamy; use of religious arbitration in family law; and immigration law. The full report can be found here.

The Taylor-Bouchard Commission on "reasonable accommodation" in Québec has prompted a great deal of commentary on the relationship between gender equality and freedom of religion. For instance, the Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec (CSF) has recommended that the Québec Charter of Rights and Freedoms be amended so that gender equality is given relative priority over the right to religious expression.

In light of these developments, the Dominion interviewed Harsha Walia, who authored the report based on Advisory Committee discussions, to get an anti-racist and feminist perspective.

The Dominion: Why is religious freedom a feminist issue?

Harsha Walia: This is an important issue because the “religious freedom debate” actually has less to do with religion or secularism than it does with race. Particularly in the post 911 climate, religion is a highly politicized, racialized, and publicly constructed identity. For example, invoking a Muslim identity is not about defining the beliefs of a person of Muslim faith; rather, it is a euphemism for Arabs, Middle Easterners, and South Asians (who may not actually be Muslim). In the context of the “War on Terror” this racialized imagery is very important, as there is a need to have an identifiable ‘enemy’ who is supposedly threatening Western values. The use of such language and imagery is rooted in a colonial legacy; therefore fighting patriarchy is intrinsically linked to fighting colonization and racism.

This is also an issue for feminists because feminism is currently being, as it historically has been, co-opted by imperial and colonizing forces. Historian Leila Ahmed has written, “Whether in the hands of patriarchal men or feminists, the ideas of western feminism essentially functioned to morally justify the attack on native societies and to support the notion of the comprehensive superiority of Europe.” An increasing number of feminists have expressed concerns regarding various state interventions on behalf of the “disempowered foreign woman”. For example, feminists have questioned the use of “protecting women” as a rationale for the occupation of Afghanistan. Similarly, the discourse surrounding human trafficking taps into notions of victimized Third World women and justifies restrictive border controls.

Dominion: What do you think about the discourse of "reasonable accommodation" that has come to dominate public discussions in Québec?

HW: It is astounding how many people who identify themselves as pro-feminist are expressing the need to ‘save women from the hijab’ and how there needs to be ‘limits to multiculturalism.’

First, it is hypocritical to talk about Canada’s “over-tolerance” of multiculturalism when the very nature of the debate positions racialized immigrant communities as not ‘belonging’ to Canadian society; as
Outsiders” who need to be accommodated. It reveals the shallow self-congratulatory nature of Canadian multiculturalism under which rests a fundamentally white national consciousness. Second, such a debate aims to portray a sense of victimization where Canadian culture is being violated by “Outsiders.” This process of demonization, ‘othering’ and racism that targets particular communities for greater scrutiny has very real consequences in the present day context, being used to sell illegal wars and occupations across the globe, and restricting the rights and civil liberties of migrants within these borders.

It is also problematic to talk about secularism in a seemingly neutral way as it ignores the foundations of Christianity within the Canadian state and the violent role that Christianity has played in colonizing and assimilating indigenous peoples for example. It is also ironic that many of those rejecting the “authority” of religion so readily accept the authoritative ideologies of capitalism, consumerism, and liberal secularism, which are far more normalized in Western societies.

The most damaging consequence of this debate is that it removes the capacity for women’s agency by reinforcing the idea that being a ‘Muslim feminist’ for example is impossible; forcing women to accept narrower definitions of self, despite occupying multiple locations across citizenship, religion, class, sexuality, and race. Furthermore, discussions of gender inequality ‘within’ certain religions or cultures renders invisible the universal systems of patriarchy that all women contend with, while homogenizing and fossilizing religions in definitive ways.

Dominion: In the report, I found your critique of the distinction between polygamy and polyamory compelling. Can you elaborate?

HW: One of the major problems with the distinction between polygamy and polyamory is that it relies on and perpetuates racist assumptions. While polyamory is used to define a relationship based on mutual negotiation between “independent people,” polygamy refers to a “cultural practice.” Such a dichotomy reinforces assumptions that women in racialized cultures are being more exploited and less independent than “autonomous women” from dominant white cultures.

This is not to suggest that polygamy cannot be critiqued; it is to highlight this double standard and how such differentiations are based on the premise that racialized cultures are inherently more hostile to women. The reality is that the practice of both polygamy and heterosexual polyamory exist within a global context of systemic discrimination against women and girls. The current-day reality is that 99% of polygamous marriages are characterized by men having multiple wives. But it is dangerous to suggest that the roots of polygamy lie in ‘religious culture’ because cultures and religions do not offer homogenous narratives. Various conservative ideologies are on the rise across the globe because that is the socio-political context within which we are operating. Religion can be used to justify polygamy, but if we recognize that the current practice of polygamy is not about a particular religion or culture (which reinforces racism) -- it is, rather, a manifestation of a universal system of patriarchy -- then we can more readily reject those “freedom of religion” arguments that are used to prevent discussion about the effects on women in an anti-racist manner.

Dominion: How should feminists be addressing the issue of religious freedom as it intersects with the marginalization of racialized, immigrant, and indigenous women?

HW: We must contend with the reality that culturally-imperialist feminisms are being forced upon women across the world and the narrative of women’s rights serves as a crucial tool in the pro-war and anti-immigrant propaganda machine. Such a theft of feminist principles is advancing everything but genuine equality for women. Instead, we must choose a path that is feminist as well as anti-racist, anti-militarist, pro-immigration, queer- and trans-positive, and class-conscious. This includes questioning and challenging the legitimacy given to state-based responses such as prisons as a solution to violence, border controls as a solution to trafficking, child apprehension as a solution to women and child poverty, and militarization as a solution to third world women’s liberation.

It is important to avoid falling into the racist traps that infantilize racialized women, while at the same time maintaining a basic commitment to gender and sexual equality that cannot be breached by religious or cultural justifications. We must avoid a culturally imperialist feminism that seeks to impose Western notions of gender equality and ‘sameness’ onto other women. This does not imply that we become culturally relativist and begin to support any unjust practice. Cultural diversity or freedom of religion should not serve as a shield to scrutinize against gender-oppressive practices.

Walking this line requires us to pay attention to specific contexts, to listen to those women whose rights we purport to stand for, and to understand that we occupy different relationships of power and privilege. All oppressed women equally deplore sexism and misogyny, but women’s liberation movements must be culturally sensitive and relevant so as to oppose patriarchal elements without attacking or destroying non-white cultures, religions, or identities. Women of colour and indigenous women have consistently pointed out that reducing their oppression to their ‘culture’ represents deeply colonial attitudes. The greater oppression that some women face is directly linked to policies of the state, histories of colonization, the nature of capitalism, and the powerful rise of global conservative ideologies. Most importantly, we must walk alongside those women who are on the front lines of their own struggles and who are agents of their own transformation. They do not need pity or charity, but solidarity and our respect for their leadership and agency.

All opinions expressed are of Harsha Walia alone and do not imply endorsement by West Coast LEAF or other participants in the Project.

Accommodate This

"We are not a 'Special Interest' Group"

hillarybain — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:58:51 +0000

Feminist organizations nationwide are protesting the latest in a series of attacks on Status of Women Canada (SWC).

On October 11, the Dominion reported that the Conservative government imposed a 40 per cent reduction of SWC's operating budget over two years, as well as new restrictions on the agency's grant program. In what might be described as an effort to de-politicize SWC, the government has forbidden the agency from funding groups that undertake advocacy or lobbying for women's rights. It has also removed the word "equality" from the agency's mandate.

Following these cuts and restrictions, on November 28, Bev Oda, the minister responsible for SWC, announced the closure of 12 of 16 SWC regional offices, to take effect on March 31, 2007. Almost half of SWC's employees -- 61 of 131 -- will lose their jobs. The four remaining regional offices (in Edmonton, Montréal, Moncton and Ottawa) will be required to provide services to expanded -- critics say unmanageable -- jurisdictions. In the most extreme case, the Edmonton office will serve women and women's groups across British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, in addition to those based in Alberta. This is an area of over 4.7 million square kilometres, constituting almost half -- 47 per cent -- of the total territory occupied by Canada. Despite the foreseeable increased workload, there are no plans at present to hire additional personnel to staff the Edmonton office, according to a SWC official. The Moncton office will serve Atlantic Canada; the Montréal office will serve Québec and Nunavut; and the Ottawa office will serve Ontario and national feminist and women's organizations. Justifying this decision, Oda maintained that the regional office closures will help the SWC remain within its severely restricted operating budget, saving approximately $700,000 in rent and utility bills.

Implying that the SWC is a "special interest" agency, Oda told the CBC that "[we] don't need to separate the men from the women in this country." However, on January 18, 2006, during his campaign, Stephen Harper vowed, if elected, to "take concrete and immediate measures [...] to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women in Canada." Now, the Conservative government is claiming that downsizing SWC will actually better serve the goal of achieving women's equality. As quoted in the Ottawa Citizen, Oda suggested that running a separate agency devoted to researching and mobilizing to improve conditions facing women's issues actually "weakens the ability of the equality of women to be instilled throughout the government departments, agencies, and offices."

According to Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, Oda's claim that the SWC "ghettoizes" the task of achieving women's equality "reveals a fundamental misunderstanding" of the agency's mandate. Arthur, who is working on the B.C. Campaign for Women's Equality and Human Rights in Canada, explains that the SWC was set up to "help women mount campaigns and do research on particular issues affecting women, so that they can then take this work and lobby the relevant government ministry or department to make changes that will benefit women. The point of SWC funding is to help ensure that [the] government examines [its] policies and legislation through a gender lens. The SWC [is] a conduit that allows women access to government in general and to lobby for women's equality at all levels."

Opposition MPs have joined feminist groups and labour unions in calling for Oda's resignation, who is responsible for what Liberal MP Maria Minna (Beaches--East York) calls "the single largest attack on women's services in the history of this country." At the same time, Shauna Paull cautions against "personalizing these cuts to SWC to [Oda]." Paull, a feminist organizer active in the B.C. Campaign, argues that the cuts, restrictions and office closures are part of a systematic, "ideological demolition of [women's] equality." Arthur agrees: "[The] government has effectively removed women's Charter right to equality, by removing the mechanisms for achieving it."

Arthur sees restricting the role of SWC to "service provision" (barring it from funding "political" groups, research or campaigns) as an effort to de-politicize gendered oppression. "It simply doesn't make sense to restrict SWC funding to provide services directly to women, since that does nothing to address the systemic inequality that causes the need for those services to begin with," she says. "For example, women's groups fighting against domestic abuse combine their efforts at both helping individual abused women at transition houses and lobbying the government on ways to address and reduce domestic abuse in general. The two activities cannot be separated." Barb Byers, executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress, quoted by CTV.ca, echoes this view: "It's not good enough for this government to say we'll give you more money for shelters but we won't let you question why women are there in the first place."

Feminist and women's organizations have not stood by silently as Harper's Conservatives "turn their backs on [...] women in Canada," as Arthur puts it. No sooner had the cuts been first an-nounced in mid-October, Pam Kapoor and Audra Williams, together with a network of feminist contributors, launched StatusReport.ca, a website serving as a centralized source of information and calls for action, which has reportedly received over 40,000 "hits" since its inception.

On November 13, an ad-hoc coalition of women's and feminist organizations, led by the Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), began the "One-Month Campaign for Women's Equality and Human Rights." In addition to the cuts and restrictions to SWC, the campaign opposed the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program; the government's refusal to adopt improved pay equity legislation; and the cancellation of a pan-Canadian childcare program, effecting cuts of $1.2 billion annually to provinces and territories for childcare services.

Demonstrations against the cuts, restrictions and office closures have been held across Canada. On December 10, over 1,000 demonstrators rallied in support of the SWC and women's equality in Ottawa, marking the 25th anniversary of Canada's ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). (See a video-reportage of the demonstration, which received little mainstream press coverage, here).

On this day, the National Association of Women and the Law presented a declaration, signed by 430 feminist and women's organizations and by thousands of individuals, calling on the Harper government to renew Canada's commitment to CEDAW, specifically "by improving the living conditions and respecting the human rights of Aboriginal women, effectively addressing violence against women and women’s poverty, improving maternity and parental benefits, funding civil legal aid, changing immigration laws to respect the rights of live-in caregivers and ensuring a more equitable participation of women in the political institutions."

Elsewhere, 300 people from throughout New Brunswick converged on Moncton for a rally, while in the Northwest Territories, an "old-fashioned bra-burning" was held in front of the federal building in Yellowknife. "Mourners" gathered at a "funeral for women's equality” in Winnipeg on December 8, and in Saskatoon, Iskwewuk E-wichiwitochik (Women Walking Together) held a discussion on the impact of the cuts on First Nations women's lives.

Protesting Cuts to Status of Women Canada

Marching in Ottawa to Protest Cuts to SWC

Chávez, le diable et l'ONU

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:53:41 +0000

Le président vénézuelien Hugo Chávez plaide pour une réforme de l'ONU.

Hugo Chávez photographe: UN

[English Article]

Lors de son allocution à la 61e session de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies, le 20 septembre dernier, Hugo Chávez, désormais membre de « l'axe du Mal », a appelé le président américain George W. Bush « le diable ». Dans le même discours, le président vénézuelien a plaidé pour une profonde réforme de l'ONU, affirmant que son assemblée générale avait dégénéré en « un simple organe de délibération » sans grand pouvoir.

La plupart des médias ont bien sûr concentré leurs réflexions sur la rhétorique incendiaire de H. Chávez et n'ont fait peu de cas de sa proposition de « refondation » des Nations Unies. Il décrit cette réforme en cinq points : donner un véritable accès au Conseil de sécurité aux pays de l'hémisphère Sud – les pays en voie de développement en particulier; créer des méthodes efficaces pour résoudre les conflits et améliorer la transparence des décisions; retirer immédiatement le droit de veto aux cinq membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité – droit que les Etats-Unis ont exercé le plus fréquemment depuis 1972 et qui a permis le récent bombardement du Liban; augmenter les pouvoirs du Secrétaire général de l'ONU; déménager l'ONU dans une ville de l'hémisphère Sud.

La proposition de H. Chávez fait écho à son appel à un « nouvel ordre mondial » de l'an passé.

Le Venezuela convoite présentement un siège non permanent au conseil de sécurité pour lequel il lui faudra obtenir les deux tiers des votes des 192 membres de l'Assemblée générale. Les Etats-Unis et le Canada supportent quant à eux le Guatemala, son rival sud-américain. Selon Cyril Mychalejko de l'organisation Upside Down World, les Etats-Unis s'opposent à la candidature du Venezuela en raison du militantisme de H. Chávez pour une réforme radicale de l'ONU.

NB : L'intégral du discours de H. Chávez est disponible en anglais sur le site de l'organisation Counterpunch.

Traduction de Alexandre Leclerc

Le président vénézuelien Hugo Chávez plaide pour une réforme de l'ONU.

"Dust in the Eyes of the World"

Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:22:42 +0000

Feminists debate logic of "humanitarian" war

Is the military deployment in Aghanistan – which some Afghan feminists are calling an occupation– improving the lives of women?

The claim that the war in Afghanistan will liberate Afghan women has been circulating since before the bombs began to drop, on October 7, 2001. By mid-October of that year--the day before World Food Day--the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported that 7.5 million Afghans had no access to food and were at risk of starvation. A few months later, on January 29, 2002, during his State of the Union address, George Bush jubilantly declared: "Today, women are free and are part of Afghanistan's new government." In July 2006, it was reported that the war had created 2.2 million refugees and at least 153,200 internally displaced people. It is estimated that between 12,541 and 25,308 Afghan people have died in the war.

Global opposition to the invasion of Iraq was mobilized even before the war began; by contrast, the war in Afghanistan, spun as a humanitarian effort, is the war relatively few Canadians seem to want to--or know how to--audibly oppose. Canadians take pride in themselves for not following the United States into an illegal war in Iraq, but not many questions were raised about Canada taking over the US mandate in Afghanistan (which allowed the US to focus its military and resources in Iraq). Part of the reason for this is that the war in Afghanistan – named 'Operation Enduring Freedom' – was, from the beginning, promoted as war that would restore the women's rights by deposing the Taliban.

In a recent article published in the Winnipeg Free Press, Penni Mitchell, a prominent Canadian feminist who is managing editor of the national feminist magazine Herizons, suggests that the war in Afghanistan is doing just that. In fact, Mitchell argues that the Conservative government is failing to make the same commitment to human rights in its domestic policy that is embodied in its deployment in Afghanistan, referring to the government's decision to close the Court Challenges Program, which provided litigation support to individuals seeking to challenge a federal law on the grounds that it contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mitchell writes: "Human rights of linguistic minorities and women are worth Canadians fighting for in Afghanistan, but advancing the rights of minorities and women in Canada's courts are a luxury Ottawa says it can little afford." In an article published on October 15 in The Toronto Star, Linda McQuaig points to the same disjunction. Referring to Harper's attack on Status of Women Canada, emblematic of his socially regressive domestic policy, McQuaig quips: "for women, the good news is – burqas are out. The bad news is – so are careers [for Canadian women]."

At present, 2,300 Canadian soldiers are stationed in Afghanistan, of whom approximately 2,000 are actively engaged in combat as part of the International Security Assistance Force, currently led by a Canadian general. In an interview with The Dominion, Mitchell acknowledged that "Canada should re-focus its mission" in Afghanistan, and said, "It is clear that women in Afghanistan want greater security, they want girls to be able to attend school, they want a justice system that will protect them, not warlords who will rule by violence and intimidation."

But the question is, will the military deployment – which some Afghan feminists are calling an occupation– achieve these ends? When I pose this question to Roksana Bahramitash, she asks, by way of reply: "What is the historical evidence to show that war has ever liberated women?" Bahramitash is a feminist scholar at the Centre for Developing-Area Studies at McGill University and at the Simone de Beauvoir Institute at Concordia University, who produced a documentary on Afghan women, "Beyond the Burqa," in 2004. She says that the notion that the US and Canada are emancipating Afghan women by bombing them is a dangerous fiction produced by a "war propaganda machine" that feminists need to undermine. She worries that some feminists have forgotten the historical roots of the North American feminist movement in anti-militarist and anti-racist struggles, and are now "supporting a neoconservative agenda."

Rather than positing Canadian military intervention as the solution to Afghan women's problems, Bahramitash urges feminists to make connections between Canada's foreign policy and its domestic policy. Unlike Mitchell, who sees a contradiction between Harper's domestic and foreign policies, Bahramitash argues that both emerge from the same ideology: "The policies are not separate. Neoliberalism [at home] and neo-conservatism [abroad] are part of the same package." To see this, Bahramitash suggests that we need a feminist analysis that sees that race, class and war are inseparable factors in women's experiences. And we need to understand how, transnationally, feminist struggles are unified. Take, for example, the issue of participation in formal political institutions. "As a feminist," Mitchell says, "I do consider that having women occupy 28 per cent of seats in [the Afghan] government is… an improvement." It's not clear, however, that Canada has much to teach Afghan civil society in this regar;d only 20.8per cent of members of the Canadian Parliament are women. "To assume that the struggles for women's rights are fundamentally different is a major problem," Bahramitash says. Also dangerous is the assumption that Western women or governments know what Afghan women's actual needs are. Bahramitash warns that feminist support for the Canadian military deployment in Afghanistan "feeds into Islamophobia" because it is based on the paternalistic "Orientalist assumption that Muslim women are victims (not agents) who need their Western sisters to help them," says Bahramitash. Instead of attempting to define Afghan women's needs, Bahramitash says that Canadian feminists need to pressure their own government to "change its mandate from military deployment to peacekeeping" and to re-allocate the resources it currently expends on the war to reconstruction, human security and decommissioning of weapons. In this, she echoes the concrete demands of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), which has been mobilizing Afghan women in resistance to war and occupation since 1977.

Ultimately, Bahramitash suggests, Canadian feminists need to relate to Afghan women as "agents of transformation" of their own conditions. After all, as RAWA puts it, "Real emancipation of women can be realized only by themselves." To claim otherwise, they say, is just "throwing dust into the eyes of the world."

Prominent feminists debate the logic of a "humanitarian" war in Aghanistan. Anna Carastathis investigates.

New cuts and conditions for Status of Women Canada

Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:21:06 +0000

The program devoted to improving the condition of women in this country is dropping the word "equality" from its mandate. Status of Women Canada (SWC) has changed its statement of purpose to reflect, in the view of one critic, the "conservative ideology, […] that systemic discrimination [against women] doesn't exist."

What's more, Bev Oda, the minister for the Status of Women announced on October 3 that organizations would no longer be eligible for funding for advocacy, government lobbying, or research projects, as part of new terms and conditions for SWC grants. SWC has a grant fund of $11 million. This follows an announcement, made the previous week, that the government was reducing SWC's $13-million operational budget by $5 million over two years. "Canadian women know the value of a dollar. They know what good use of hard-earned money means," Oda said to justify the cuts to the program.

In fact, the government's own statistics suggest that Canadian women still aren't getting to know the full value of a dollar. In 2003, women who worked full-time were paid an average 70.5 cents for every dollar paid to men; immigrant women made 58 cents to the dollar of a Canadian-born man. Separate earnings statistics are not available for Aboriginal women, though it is documented that 38 per cent live under the poverty line.

A website launched yesterday to rally support for SWC urges visitors to the site to lobby the federal government to revisit the changes it recently made to the SWC's funding and objectives.

Toronto Star

CBC

DAWN/FAFIA Press Release

CNEWS

"Women in Canada Fifth Edition A Gender-based Statistical Report", 2005.

"Equality for Women: Beyond the Illusion", December 2005

Coverage of Chávez's 'devil' speech ignores call for UN reform

Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:43:05 +0000

In his address to the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly last week, on Wednesday, September 20, a member of the "axis of evil" called US President George Bush "the devil." In the same speech, Hugo Chávez, President of Venezuela, argued for UN reform, claiming that the General Assembly has degenerated into "a merely deliberative organ" lacking any real power.

Media coverage of the speech latched onto Chávez's incendiary rhetoric, largely ignoring the substance of his speech. In particular, little mention was made of Chávez's five proposals for a "re-established" United Nations:

(1) giving nations from the global south (especially "LDCs", or "Least Developed Countries") expanded access to security council seats;
(2) generating effective methods to address and resolve conflicts and increasing the transparency of such decisions;
(3) immediately divesting the five permanent seats on the security council of veto power (which, since 1972, the US has exercised most frequently, most recently to allow the Israeli bombing of Lebanon);
(4) increasing the powers of the UN secretary general;
(5) moving the UN to a city in the global south.

These proposals echo Chávez's call last year for a "new international order" .

Venezuela is currently seeking a seat in the UN Security Council. The United States and Canada are backing the rival South American candidate, Guatemala, for the rotating seat. Venezuela will need a two-thirds majority to win the non-permanent seat, which it has previously occupied four times. According to Cyril Mychalenjko (upsidedownworld.org), the US opposes Venezuela's candidacy because Chávez has now twice argued for radical UN reform.

Note: though the text of Chávez's address has yet to be posted on the
UN website, it can be read at counterpunch.org.

BC firefighters protest gendered harrassment, union inaction

Fri, 05 May 2006 15:43:21 +0000

In Richmond, B.C. four women firefighters walked off the job in March, protesting pervasive harassment and discrimination. Firefighter Jeanette Moznik has brought the case to the B.C. supreme court, suing nine co-workers including Fire Chief Jim Hancock, the city of Richmond, and her own union, local 1286 of the IAFF, for harassment and systemic gender discrimination. Moznik alleges that between 1997 and 2001, she was repeatedly subjected to severe, and in some cases life-threatening, gendered harassment on the job by her male colleagues at Richmond's Firehall Number One, and that the Fire Chief and the union failed to intervene. In one instance, Moznik charges that male colleagues named in the suit refused to turn on the water supply to Moznik's hose as she and another female colleague were entering a burning building. Firefighter Sandra Jansen has also filed a complaint against the City of Richmond with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

Moznik and Jansen were two of six women firefighters who joined the Richmond fire department in 1995 when it amalgamated with the force at the Vancouver airport. Prior to 1995, there were no women employed by the Richmond fire department. Another woman was hired in 1998 and was, technically, the first
and only woman, hired by Richmond. There are no women currently on the job: in addition to the four who have walked out, two had quit, and one, Captain Jocelyn Roberts, committed suicide last year. Moznik alleges that Roberts' suicide is related to the working conditions facing women firefighters in the Richmond Force, which, in an affidavit filed in court on April 10, former Fire Chief Rick Papp characterized as having a "systemic problem of harassment" (quoted in the Vancouver Sun). Papp, Acting Fire Chief from 1998 to 2000, is one of the defendants named in Moznik's suit. A former captain, Karl Bessler, described the Richmond fire department to the Globe and Mail as an "old boys club" which resented the presence of women on the force.

Despite this evidence, some detractors, including former colleague Melanie Sora, quoted by the Vancouver Sun, continue to claim that this is a case of "just a handful of individuals behaving badly." But according to Moznik, not only did the employer and union not respond adequately to workers' complaints, the union "actively discouraged and attempted to thwart investigations by the RCMP in the past into allegations involving misconduct by its members" (quoted by CTV.ca). Lawyers for the union and for the City of Richmond want the case before the Supreme Court to be dismissed and the parties to consent to internal arbitration. But Moznik argues that the union, which she says failed to protect her rights in the workplace in the past, has a conflict of interest.

The City of Richmond is currently investigating the problem to determine whether the harassment faced by women firefighters is structural, or merely the result of the behaviour of a few "bad apples." In late March, after firefighters walked off the job, Fire Chief Jim Hancock promised "a new set of rules, rules that probably should have been in place earlier" to protect workers from harassment. According to CBC.ca, changes in policy include "sensitivity training," a new code of conduct, and separate women's washrooms in Richmond's firehalls.

Canada helps weaken 'Terminator' seed policy

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:59:17 +0000

On January 27, at a meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Granada, Spain, the international community agreed to allow experimentation with Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT), also known as "Terminator" technology. "GURT" is an umbrella term referring to genetic enhancement technology that produces plant varieties with sterile seeds at harvest. There are two classes of GURT:

1. V-GURT, which are sterile seeds. This technology would oblige farmers to buy seeds from their manufacturer on an annual basis.
2. T-GURT, which are crops modified in such a way that they must be treated with a chemical that is sold by the biotechnology company, in order for them to grow. Farmers can save seeds for use each year, but must buy and use the activator compound annually.

Canada, together with Australia and New Zealand, successfully pushed for the change in international GURT policy. Canada previously attempted to convince the CBD to permit the use of GURTs in February 2005, but failed, partly as the result of a leaked document which mobilized international opposition from civil society.

While the move doesn't lift the current ban on commercial use of Terminator seeds, opponents of Terminator technology see allowing experimentation as a step in that direction. According to a press release jointly written by the Ban Terminator Campaign and the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC group), "Not only did the meeting fail to condemn Terminator as immoral and anti-farmer, Australia and the United States falsely claimed that Terminator, which creates sterility, would 'increase productivity.'"

Even under experimental conditions, GURT plant varieties could pass on sterility -- the "Terminator" or "suicide" trait -- to wild plants, or to non-GURT cultivated plants. Tests will take place in large-scale, outdoor agro-laboratories, meaning that surrounding ecosystems will be at risk of contamination.

Used commercially, critics argue that GURTs will imperil the global seed supply, contribute to the homogenization of the food supply, and threaten biodiversity in natural ecosystems. Indigenous peoples' rights to food sovereignty and self-determination are also threatened by GURTs, since socio-economic and cultural welfare is inextricably linked to environmental security. More specifically, as stated in a 2003 study performed by an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) assembled by the UN, negative impacts of Terminator technology include: the decimation of local, small-scale, and indigenous farming practices, systems and knowledge, together with their socio-cultural dimensions; seed dependency, crop failure, loss of agro-biodiversity; unpredictable, uncontrollable, irreversible changes in the environment and the devastation of ecosystems.

According to close observers like the ETC group, the Canadian government is bowing to pressure from the powerful biotechnology and agribusiness lobby, which sees GURTs as a way to extract unprecedented profits by completely privatizing plant varieties on which the majority of the world's population depends for survival.

According to ecofeminist biologist Dr. Vandana Shiva, "Termination of germination is a means for capital accumulation and market expansion…abundance in nature and for farmers shrinks as markets grow for Monsanto [a biotechnology corporation notorious for patenting seeds used in the majority world, and the innovator of Terminator technology]…There can be no partnership between a logic of death on which Monsanto bases its expanding empire and the logic of life on which women farmers in the Third World base their partnership with the earth to provide food security to their families and communities."

Evo Morales, president-elect of Bolivia, inaugurated.

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:09:16 +0000

On January 22, Evo Morales, leader of MAS (Movimiento al Socialismo, or, "Movement Toward Socialism"), and Bolivia's president-elect was inaugurated, and his cabinet sworn in. Morales won 53.7% of the vote in the December 18 2005 election, in which an unprecedented 84% of the electorate participated. Morales' unambiguous victory represents the largest show of popular support for a presidential candidate in the last 30 years, and came despite the strong opposition of Bolivia's mainstream press and despite allegations of electoral fraud in areas where MAS' platform has currency. One such area is the city of El Alto, where the vast majority of residents are indigenous people, and which has been an epicenter of popular resistance to 15 years of neoliberal privatization (1985-2000). Morales is riding the country's latest wave of broad-based struggle against what they call imperialist exploitation. Bolivia's Indigenous previously made headlines with the Cochacamba "Water War" in 2000, in which a popular uprising ousted the Bechtel corporation and decisively halted the IMF-sponsored plan to privatize water in Bolivia. The plan included a ban on collecting rainwater without a permit and drastic price increases.

Morales, a militant cocalero (coca-leaf farmer) of the Aymara nation, campaigned on a platform emphasizing nationalization of Bolivia's natural resources. In particular, gas reserves and reform – or, as Morales calls it, "decolonization" – of the constitution. These strategies are aspects of a broader program of indigenous self-determination: "[t]he moment has come for the original nations to take power in our own hands," Morales declares on his website. In Bolivia the Aymara and Quechua nations constitute the majority of the population, but only now, for the first time since the Spanish colonial invasion in 1532, are they being politically represented by an indigenous President. Despite the Bolivia's abundance of valuable natural resources like copper, tin, and silver, 64% of Bolivians live under the poverty line. Morales has promised to transform this state of affairs, but some observers have reservations about his intent to make good on these promises.

Morales has been criticized for having no clear plan to completely nationalize Bolivia's natural resources. Writer Jorge Martin quoted Morales as saying that "We will nationalize the natural resources, gas and hydrocarbons…We are not going to nationalize the assets of the multinationals. Any state has the right to use its natural resources. We must establish new contracts with the oil companies based on equilibrium. We are going to guarantee the returns on their investment and their profits, but not looting and stealing." According to some critics, this distinction – and the economic policy it implies – is a tenuous one.

Under intense pressure from private interests, the U.S. government and the IMF, many say Morales will be hard-pressed to follow through even with moderate nationalization plans. Arguing that Bolivia will not ready to transition into socialism for at least another half-century, vice-president Álvaro García Linera has characterized MAS' economic policy as promoting what he calls "Andean capitalism," the backbone of which is a combination of "community-based," "family-based," and "'modern industrial'" modes of production.

It remains to be seen whether, now that it has won the mandate, MAS will forget its left-indigenous origins and its popular foundations in social movements. Morales' administration faces a difficult choice: it can submit to pressure from the U.S., private interests, and the IMF, and lose popular support and the mandate; or it can nationalize hydrocarbons and risk losing IMF loans and promised debt relief, or being deposed through U.S. military intervention.

Reading:

» Monthly Review: Left-Indigenous Struggles in Bolivia: Searching for Revolutionary Democracy

» UpsideDownWorld.org: Bolivia's Trial by Fire

» Green Left Weekly: Bolivia: Bush's new nightmare?

» International Viewpoint The MAS is of the Centre-Left

» In Defense of Marxism: Bolivia after the election victory of the MAS - Morales cannot serve two masters

» Official site: Evo Morales