Book: Blue Future

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
| October 20, 2013



Album: Redeye: Vancouver Cooperative RadioLength: 34:29 minutes (31.57 MB)

Maude Barlow is the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. She was in Vancouver on October 10 to celebrate the launch of the final installment in her trilogy on water, Blue Future. This book includes inspiring stories of struggle and resistance from marginalized communities, as well as examples of government policies that work for people and the planet.

To find out more about Redeye, check out our website.

Analyzing the UN panel report on climate change

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
| October 20, 2013



Title: Analyzing the UN panel report on climate change Album: Redeye: Vancouver Cooperative RadioLength: 12:51 minutes (11.78 MB)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its 2013 at the end of September. It said there is 95 per cent certainty that human activity is causing climate change. Dr. Christian Holz is executive director of Climate Action Canada. He speaks with Redeye host Lorraine Chisholm.

To find out more about Redeye, check out our website.

We no longer trust newspapers and it's their fault

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Does the public have the faintest clue about how journalism works? Or does it understand all too well, and finds it wanting? Who is responsible for articulating journalism's value to society, and ensuring that our media are operating ethically and in the public interest?

It's a question raised by the Ontario Press Council in its recent ruling endorsing the Toronto Star's controversial story of a video that apparently shows Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine and making racist and homophobic remarks under the influence.

After receiving several complaints from the public, the press council concluded that the story was reported responsibly but "the robust and extensive journalistic standards that good newspaper reporting should meet are not well known or understood by the public." It said "this lack of knowledge is contributing to the disconnect between the parties and should be of some concern to the newspaper."

The onus, it said, should be on the press to demonstrate to readers that it reports responsibly and follows appropriate journalistic practice.

That's exactly what I wrote more than 15 years ago in Yesterday's News (Fernwood 1998), a hard-hitting and factual critique of the newspaper industry that unfortunately failed to ignite the professional debate I hoped for. The internet wasn't killing newspapers, I contended. Newspapers are killing newspapers. They're doing it to themselves because they're falling out of touch with their readers and have lost the will to be accountable.

"When the motives and agendas of newspapers are hidden from us," I wrote, "when they arrogantly refuse to explain their behaviour or listen to another side, when their sense of independence seems to isolate them from their communities, when they are owned and edited by people without local roots, then we don't have to be malicious to conclude that they are in business to make money and not to serve the public."

"Newspapers have lost our trust," I continued. "And when we think they're just in it for themselves, we stop excusing their faults. We see them as evidence of a conspiracy or sloth or worse: the general decline of a service that has become too profitable, too out of touch and too arrogant for its own good."

No one listened then, and no one's really listening now, if this reaction to the press council's criticism by the Toronto Star's public editor is any indication.

Kathy English, while praising the council for a "smart and thoughtful decision," refused to accept that her newspaper should take all responsibility for the public disconnect with journalism.

We're transparent about what we do, she said. Don't we publish our Newsroom Policy and Journalistic Standards Guide on the Star's website? Well, yes, it's there now. But it was a different story in 2009, when I asked her if she would share the paper's policy on reporters using confidential sources.

Research I had done on the coverage of terrorism turned up copious examples of newspapers, including the Star, quoting "sources" without giving readers any indication of why they were granted anonymity, whether they were in a position to know what they were talking about, or who they represented. Some of the reporters in question were unable to tell me if their papers had policies about granting confidentiality. If they did, they certainly hadn't followed them: The majority of sources used in the reporting of the Toronto-18 terror case were anonymous. Asked if the Star had such a policy, and if so what it said, English said she couldn't tell me. The Star's lawyers didn't want to give outsiders any ammunition in case they were planning lawsuits.

Talking today about the Ford story, English says the Star "went to great lengths" to explain to readers why it was in the public interest, what was done to verify the information, and how the reporting conformed to standards. Well, that's just not true. There was no editor's note published when the story ran, explaining any of that. Details about how the paper tried to get Ford to comment were not presented until weeks later, at the press council hearing.

English also said she spoke with many people who judged the paper's coverage to be unethical and unfair. Almost invariably, despite her experience and desire, she failed to create any measure of understanding -- an admission that should send alarm bells off in the offices of publishers and editors across the country.

I agree with English that newspapers shouldn't accept 100 percent of the responsibility for the lack of public trust in journalism, but they surely need to accept the majority of it. The rest might just be the job of the press council, which has fallen on hard times since it was created in 1972 with a mandate, among other goals, to "serve as a medium of understanding between the public and the press by reviewing all complaints, offering explanations of its decisions and supporting the role of the press in a democratic society."

Unfortunately, the council has taken no steps to educate the public, and a majority of daily newspapers in the province no longer are members.

And by the way, English is misleading when she asserts that "the panel that scrutinized the Star's reporting has no connection to the Star's newsroom" and that the press council operates entirely independently. The Star, as the member newspaper with the largest circulation, happens to pay most of the press council's bills.

If newspapers are going to bridge the differences they seem to have with us, they need to tell the truth about themselves a lot more than they've been willing to. Starting now.

Image: flickr/Jason Verwey

Keeping the ship afloat in Nova Scotia politics: Advice for a new premier-designate

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Dear Mr. Premier-designate,

I see that you're 48 years old. Just a young guy. I voted before you were born. I've been watching governments come and go ever since. Here's what I learned. There may be something you can use to keep the ship afloat in this storm-tossed province.

You're eager to act, to make your mark. Here's my first counsel: Don't be too eager.

Just as curiosity killed the cat, impatience, even for the most virtuous of reasons, sank many a premier. Look at Darrell Dexter. He was genuinely concerned about jobs and our aging population. But he went at it too hard, too fast, got stuck in some bad ruts and it was game over.

Contemplate this: Your most important decisions, whatever the issue, will be whether to act sooner or later, whether to shoot now or rag the puck.

In your case, I have some firm advice: Rag the puck.

When, during the election campaign, you declined to make any promises you couldn't keep, I thought, "That's a smart young fellow." But then you went on to make some -- not so much that you can't keep, but that you shouldn't have made in such sharp terms: Trashing the health boards, and giving Nova Scotia Power a few whacks.

Any too-fast moves on these before you have your ducks in a row could spin backwards so hard that, two years from now, people could be calling the Dexter government the good old days.

And take with a grain of salt calls by spin-doctors, the media and others who say you have to move quickly and decisively to establish your "brand." I have a saying to cover that. If the choice is between doing nothing and doing the wrong thing, do nothing. You can always do something tomorrow. If you do the wrong thing, you'll never shake it.

Here's more. Waste no time dumping blame on the previous government. Even if blame is due, blaming is old stuff. But in fact the story here is different. Dexter was actually righting the ship before your big wave took him down.

The fruits of Dexter's agonized labours are actually there for you to pick. There's a Yarmouth ferry coming after all, the finances (despite your campaign trail claims) are under better control than they've been for a long time, the Irving contract and the Halifax convention centre (despite both sucking too much public money) will produce jobs during your tenure, there's a promising inquiry on the rural economy at work, and one on that troubling business of open-pen salmon farming, which you would do well to speed up.

So, if you want to keep things level, you'll acknowledge that the NDP moved forward on many fronts -- including, crucially, on health care -- and carry on from there. Any instinct to chuck it all and start all over will be a move backward for both the province and yourself.

Or consider one that's in the news already: Efficiency Nova Scotia. Like many, I was skeptical about this outfit. Now it's getting kudos as a unique -- that is, independent -- organization, and is taking off. It's in high demand by the public and getting results. It's doing what I've been waiting 20 years for someone to do -- rolling out solar hot water and heating throughout the province. Taking its funding off the power bill and putting it under NSP sounds like crippling it. I'll be very cranky if that happens.

Here's something else you must do. Unlike the back-of-the-envelope nature of most of your electoral platform, this one is more firm. It's the question of poverty and associated issues. In 2009, you yourself called for a poverty-reduction strategy. The NDP made some moves, but not enough. See to it that you follow through.

And among the other inescapable ones -- education, environment -- it would be to your credit to pay attention to this one: arts and culture, which has a reach, as much economic as cultural, that can be surprising. The financial troubles of NSCAD will figure into that. Look it over.

You have good instincts, Mr. Premier-designate. But here's a kink. I don't trust your party, and maybe you shouldn't either. It took it 30 years to get rid of that dirty trust fund that did so much to destabilize Nova Scotia politics. Some say it could still crawl out to bite you. Meanwhile, your party has always had more career creepers than others. If they're around you now, be doubly wary.

A niggling question is how much the Liberal party has changed since the 1990s when Premier John Savage was almost overthrown by the internal forces of old corruption. If it has changed, you can thank the NDP for making corruption unfashionable.

Keep all that in mind. Now, go. Good luck.

This article was first published in the Chroncile Herald.

Photo: Nsliberal/Wikimedia Commons

Exploding some of the myths about gentrification

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
| October 20, 2013



Title: Exploding some of the myths about gentrification Album: Redeye: Vancouver Cooperative RadioLength: 15:46 minutes (14.44 MB)

David Madden argues that gentrification is not synonymous with urban renewal. Madden is an assistant professor in the Sociology Department and the Cities Program at the London School of Economics. He’s the author of a recent article in the Guardian, Gentrification doesn’t trickle down to help everyone. David Madden speaks with Redeye host Jane Williams.

To find out more about Redeye, check out our website.

'Disappearing Palestine' ads uncontroversial in exposing Israel's nature despite desperate efforts of Israel lobby

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

In October, 2013, 10 ads went up in Vancouver transit stations showing loss of “Jewish land” in the Middle East since 1000 BCE. It turns out that in the past three thousand years, “Jewish land” has shrunk by a factor of five or so. The images are truly pathetic: from covering the whole area, blue-washed “Jewish land” is now reduced to the State of Israel -- and not even all of that.

These ads seem to be an answer to ads put up in transit stations and on sides of buses, in September, 2013, by the Palestine Awareness Coalition, called “Disappearing Palestine.”  PAC -- of which Independent Jewish Voices-Vancouver is a proud member -- had the more modest aim of showing Palestinian loss of land only since 1946. In three stages, the bright green territory of Palestine has been carved away until by 2012 it’s only a small patch called Gaza and freckles of discontinuous territory in the West Bank.

You just can’t disagree more than that.

The response ads were put up by a group called StandWithUs, which says it is “supporting Israel around the world.” SWU has countered pro-Palestinian advertising in several U.S. cities, including Denver, Houston and Helena and Missoula, Montana. Talking about “Disappearing Palestine,” SWU’s CEO Roz Rothstein said, “A combination of anti-Israel groups pretend to be pro-Palestinian [but] the bottom line is they don’t want an Israel. They want Israel to be gone.”

The original Vancouver ads were designed and paid for by IJV and six actual pro-Palestinian groups: Boycott Israeli Apartheid Campaign, Building Bridges, Canada Palestine Association, Canada Palestine Support Network, Seriously Free Speech and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, later joined by Canadian Friends of Sabeel / Near East Cultural & Educational Foundation.

We are members of IJV-Vancouver, and we and our friends believe our maps are as accurate as they can be, given the streamlining of advertising graphics. A professor of political science at the University of British Columbia said our ads simply showed “statements of fact,” but his Arabic name, Hani Faris, disqualified him as an unprejudiced expert by a writer in the Jewish Independent. (Could we make the same criticism of Alan Dershowitz -- or Roz Rothstein? ). Our design is simply a graphic illustration of statements like this:

In over 60 years, around 700 Jewish communities have been established in Israel's pre-1967 borders -- but just seven for Arab citizens (and those were built in the Negev for “concentrating” the Bedouin population). The average Palestinian community inside Israel has lost up to 75% of its land since 1948, while a quarter of all Palestinian citizens are internally displaced, their property confiscated for use by the state and Jewish towns” (Ben White, The New Statesman, February, 2005).

Much of the lands in question were actually not taken over in the name of the state, since this could be construed as illegal confiscation, but they were handed over in trust to the Jewish National Fund, for state and individual Jewish use.  We thought the fact of Disappearing Palestine might be a new and alarming piece of information for many in our intended Canadian audience, and we never thought our maps were controversial. Similar graphics exist by the hundreds on the internet and have been the basis of billboard and transit advertising at many US sites, and this same graphic is used by Wikipedia to illustrate its article on Palestine.

But we were wrong. As with other aspects of Israeli policy, our presentation of sober fact touched a nerve, and the “Loss of Jewish Land” response ads were quite unhinged. The first panel shows a sprawling mass of territory identified as an “Ancient Jewish Kingdom” of 1000 BCE, while the second shows a territory easily three times as large as the present state, identified as the “Jewish Homeland” of 1920, i.e., all of British-controlled Mandate Palestine (regardless of the actual minuscule Jewish population). The third panel shows the present State of Israel with Gaza and the West Bank identified as “disputed territories” -- a breathtaking act of geopolitical chutzpah.

We in IJV naively thought we were educating the Canadian public: the land had disappeared, and we didn’t even blame any entity for its disappearance. But the SWU response told us we had done something terrible. The backlash was vicious -- as it so often is -- and quite out of proportion. It came not from a Jewish community, but from a vengeful, bullying fringe that can be relied on to respond fiercely to any criticism of Israeli policy.

In a curious way, the ferocity of the pro-Israel response guaranteed the success of our campaign better than anything we could have done ourselves. Without it, our campaign would have attracted little notice: The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) even warned, “Countering these ads in the public domain (on buses, for example) would only raise the profile and lend credibility to these marginal groups.”

They called our coalition “marginal.” We couldn’t be called self-hating Jews, since only one of the groups was Jewish, but we were nonetheless called anti-Semites who want to destroy the state of Israel. Besides, we were accused of timing our ads so they would appear over the Jewish High Holy Days, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. (In fact we had no control over the timing. But the interval between the two holy days is traditionally a time for reflection and repentance.)

Mitchell Gropper, chair of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, called the ads a provocative attack on Jewish people that would incite hatred. “This is of grave concern to our community at large, because the ads make the use of the buses unwelcome and unsafe,” Gropper continued, linking it with terrorist attacks in Israel that often target buses. The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center in Toronto agreed that TransLink was running ads “that are provocative and incite hatred and contempt.” Stephen Schachter, the co-chair for CIJA, told us that there were "members of the Jewish community who say they are not going to use transit and are very concerned about safety issues as a result of this kind of advertising."

We found some amusement in our antagonists’ metaphorical frothing at the mouth:

They accused us of wanting to wipe out the state of Israel when we were claiming that that was almost precisely what Israel had already done to Palestinian territory -- a trenchant instance of the old Hebrew adage, “The accuser accuses himself..”

B’nai Brith Canada hinted at indecent exposure in the title of their article:  “Exposé: Whose Behind Anti-Israel Ads in Vancouver.”

Liana Shlien of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies told us that Palestinian land could not be disappearing because, “In truth, an official state of Palestine had never existed, while Jewish contiguous presence on the land is a record of fact.”

Others lathered on the same stock distortions and misstatements that are regularly used to silence criticism of Israel. To all of these we responded that Palestine is universally understood as the name of a geographical region in southwest Asia, on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, inhabited for centuries and without interruption by a people known as Palestinians, who are of different faiths: Muslim, Christian and Jewish; and who assumed a predominantly Palestinian Arab culture in the seventh century. All of these elements, Palestinian land ownership, the indigenous people of the land and the indigenous culture, are disappearing, as our four maps show. To say or imply that these things cannot be disappearing because the boundaries of a Palestinian state have not yet been set by an occupying power and a subject population is the sheerest casuistry.

IJV and our coalition partners raised more money, allowing us to keep the wall mural up for an extra month. Our opponents changed tactics and became vandals, tearing down the ads three times after we had them put up again. At least we assume it was our opponents (or some small subset of them); we couldn’t imagine ordinary thugs taking such offense at our images.

While the SWU ads are up, we’re thinking about what to do next. Unlike the borders of Palestine or Israel, one thing is sure: our efforts will continue.

Marty and Martha Roth

IJV-Vancouver

rothx002[at]umn.edu

Chinese strike leader detained more than 100 days

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
| October 19, 2013


apc_2013_10_19_may_wong_rabble.mp3
Length: 31:19 minutes (14.34 MB)

Labour news from the Asia Pacific region. Interview about the detention of labour activist Wu Guijun in China, with May Wong, executive director of Globalisation Monitor (Hong Kong). APC is produced at 3CR in Melbourne, by Australia Asia Worker Links.

What would a Green speech from the throne look like?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

In an exercise to help Canadians envision a Greener Canada, Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Canada, drafted her very own version of the Speech from the Throne. In this exercise, the Governor General's speech has been prepared by the cabinet of a Green government, and outlines the direction and priorities this Parliament would work towards in this upcoming session.

A Speech from the Throne -- in our Westminster parliamentary democracy -- should bear fidelity to all our traditions. Canada is a Constitutional monarchy. Canada is a Westminster Parliamentary democracy and that is why I, as Governor General, read a speech filling the role of stand-in monarch. The Speech from the Throne, prepared by those in majority in the House of Commons, despite its quaint rituals, represents the underscoring of the fundamental principles of legitimate governance, going back to 1215 and Magna Carta. Government is only legitimate by consent of the governed.

We meet in the Senate chambers, the Canadian version of the House of Lords and purview of monarchy, following the ritual lone walk by the Senate’s Usher of the Black Rod to visit the House of Commons. The slamming of the Commons door in the face of the visiting royal representative is more than a peculiar anachronism. It is the on-going recognition of the fundamental principle of the supremacy of Parliament -- and, in particular, of the Commoners as supreme over the monarch. Our traditions, observed more often as bizarre rituals of dwindling consequence, are actually important.

They express the reality that our living, breathing democracy shares the air of those fields at Runnymede in 1215 when the king had to accept that even a king cannot ignore the people. Magna Carta came from that commitment -- a king must consult the commoners. And that is why, lined up behind that small barrier at the doors of this chamber, stand the commoners -- the legitimate representatives of the people of Canada -- the House of Commons. I am mindful, as the prime minister has asked me to mention, that she is not seated here to my right, as previous prime ministers have been, but standing with the other Members of Parliament. This tradition is practiced in the UK. It is somewhat odd that it had slipped away in Canada. Members of Parliament, commoners all -- equal in theory -- represent the people of Canada.

It is important that the roles be respected. Democracy in the 21st Century hangs in a vulnerable place -- between corporate rule, totalitarianism and hyper-partisan manipulation. If a prime minister sits with royalty in ceremony, it won’t be long before conventions are violated. The early decisions by a previous prime minister to shut down the House, prorogation of parliament, in 2008 and 2009, were essentially unconstitutional. If we are to preserve a real democracy, we need to remember that our somewhat colourful customs are symbolic reminders of fundamental principles:

To be legitimate, government must exist by consent of the governed; Parliament is supreme;

The prime minister reports to parliament and not the other way around.

In that context, I am reading the planned direction of my government. I represent here Her Majesty the Queen, and I represent a government comprised of the members of the party with a majority in Parliament, as well as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. It is understood that this "loyalty" is not to the prime minister, but to Canada. All MPs are equal, for all stand as representatives of the people of the communities found in their electoral districts. Even the prime minister is, in theory, "first among equals" -- a commoner and never the King.

For too long, we have operated as though the "government" could be labeled the purview of any one party; or worse, any one prime minister. It is Her Majesty’s government, meaning it is Canada’s government, the peoples' government.

Restoring a Healthy Democracy

In 2017, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation, and it is our goal that we restore the health of Canadian democracy to mark that celebration. We will entertain ideas for reforms from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The evidence suggests that voter turn-out will rise once we have a healthy voting system, but my government particularly wants to find ways to engage Canadian youth in the life of our nation and in decisions about their future.

This parliament will make its top priority a number of steps to protect the essence of democracy. It is a Citizens First Agenda.

The Parliament will be asked to address the dysfunction of our electoral system. We will hold hearings across Canada to assess how Canadians feel about the "winner take all" or "First Past the Post" system. There are a range of options to reform the voting system. Most modern democracies use some form of proportional representation, and we need to explore which one of those systems best work for Canada.

It is our intention to see one of them put into effect prior to the next election. However, we want to ensure Canadians are engaged and supportive of the change. Certainly, few will argue that a system of voting that allows total control to a party whose candidates receive a minority of the vote is not healthy. While one political party may enjoy its access to total majority power with a minority of the vote, its supporters will not be happy when the tide turns and another party gains the same "false majority."

Our government will also propose some over-due changes to the Elections Act. We will repeal changes brought in by the previous government that have been shown to disadvantage voters without a driver’s license and a stable address. Populations disadvantaged include First Nations, students, the homeless, and seniors who have given up driving. We need better prior enumeration of eligible voters, and we need to reduce to zero the risk of citizens entitled to vote being turned away from their polling place due to a technicality.

The Elections Act also need to be amended to place advertising limits on political parties outside of writ periods. As well, our government will propose changes to prohibit use of the airwaves for paid political advertising, as is the case in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Brazil and a number of other modern democracies. Instead, television and radio networks will be required to broadcast public interest messages focusing on advancing understanding of the various parties’ positions on issues, not on ad hominem attacks on other party leaders, contrived by professional advertisers.

The requirement for the leader’s signature on the nomination papers of candidates will be replaced with the signatures of local executives, where an Electoral District Association exists, and where one does not, the signatures of other local members will suffice. We also will introduce provisions to the Elections Act to allow members of an elected caucus of any parliamentary party to initiate a leadership review. These changes are intended to rebalance the powers of leaders of political parties in Canada with the systems in use in all other Commonwealth nations. Over time, leaders of Canadian political parties have gained powers, more akin to those of a presidential nominee in the United States -- but without any of the checks and balances that exist in the very different system found south of the border.

We will also cut the budget for the operation of the Prime Minister’s Office in half and ensure that it be controlled over time as a fixed proportion of GDP.

It is long overdue, but to restore Canadians’ confidence in full, free and fair elections, we will hold a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the election irregularities of the 2011 election (the so-called "robocalls" scandal) and we will ask the Royal Commission to investigate the actions of the RCMP Commissioner in 2005-2006 election to see if anything inappropriate or illegal occurred in that instance.

Senate reform is also a critical issue for many Canadians, but requires opening the Constitution in order to make significant changes. None of the changes proposed in this agenda require Constitutional changes. We propose that all former prime ministers be convened as a small working group to provide advice as to how the Senate can be reformed. This will, by definition, be a pan-partisan group. All have appointed senators and all are familiar with the reasons Canadians have lost faith in the institution.

Justice for First Nations, Inuit and Metis

One key priority is to revisit the recommendations of the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and work together, on a nation to nation basis, to enact its recommendations. First Nations education, housing and provision of clean water remain unfinished priorities. The rights and responsibilities to respect indigenous peoples’ decision-making on their traditional territories requires a serious review. True and meaningful consultation is required.

Tackling the Climate Crisis

Well before we celebrate our 150th birthday we need to tackle the single biggest threat to our collective future -- the climate crisis. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report confirms what we have known for decades -- human activity is changing the world’s climate in ways that will be increasingly dangerous.

We know we have time to act, but we have very little time. A window of opportunity for a sensible transition to reduce dependence on fossil fuels is barely open. We will enter into a process of federal, provincial and territorial discussions to ensure a comprehensive plan that covers all economic sectors. We will end the sloppy and perverse practice of subsidizing fossil fuels and we will place a price on carbon. The climate agenda of this government will ensure coordinated and aggressive action to diversify the Canadian economy, through more value chains and more value added in relation to all natural resource exports. We will set shared goals for energy security, maximizing jobs, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. We will accelerate action in relation to coal-fired power plants with a goal of phasing them out entirely by 2020.

An adaptation plan will also be a priority, dovetailing it to the massive agenda to upgrade critical infrastructure. We pledge to work creatively with partners at the municipal level of government to ease the unfair burden they face. The changing climate will require significant improvements in transportation, waterworks, and other key infrastructure. Preventative action now will save lives later.

Restoring Environmental Laws

Recognizing that the strongest economies are those with the strongest environmental laws, we will restore the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to its pre-2012 status, as well as repairing the damage done by the 2012 omnibus bills to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Water Protection Act. The National Round Table on Environment and Economy Act will be tabled for First Reading with a change that places the Minister of Finance as chair of the effort to integrate sound environmental policy in all levels of government decision-making.

Rights to Information

Effective citizens require sound information. This means that citizens have a right to know what is in their foods. Full information includes where the food has been produced and how it was produced. Labelling to identify genetically modified foods will allow those who wish to eat GMO foods to locate them on their supermarket shelves and those who want to avoid them to do so.

Citizens have the right to review any scientific research conducted by independent government scientists. All such research should be in the public domain.

Members of Parliament require better information as well. We need to restore evidence-based decision-making. This includes fiscal decisions for which MPs in recent years have received a paucity of information. We will propose legislation to make the Parliamentary Budget Office a stand-alone and properly funded operation, separate from the Library of Parliament. The Parliamentary Budget Officer will be an Officer of Parliament. All government operations should be made transparent. This includes all spending by MPs and Senators.

Better information also requires returning to the tradition of an independent, professional, non-partisan public service -- free of partisan interference. No public servant should fear being pressed to assemble "facts" in support of a previously set course. In recent years we have seen a rise in "decision-based evidence making." This must end before it corrupts the very essence of responsible governance.

Growing a Healthy Economy

Critical in the next few years is to ensure the Canadian economy is healthy. We have been missing critical opportunities in the cleantech sector, as well as in enhanced demand side management to reduce waste of energy. We have the opportunity to grow sectors of our economy in many different regions of Canada, while maintaining resource-based activity in Alberta.

Canada is not a zero-sum game. All parts of the country benefit from policies that encourage entrepreneurial spirit and assist the commercialization of new technologies. Support for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and small business, the major employers in our economy, is central to our government’s economic strategy. We will introduce legislation to ensure all government bills are assessed for their impact on small business and SMEs.

We need to make a major effort to reduce the persistent unemployment rate among Canadian youth. We will also reverse the punitive Employment Insurance changes that make life more difficult for those in seasonal industries.

Trade and investment

This government will clarify the muddy waters around foreign direct investment. We will include a definition of "national security" in the Investment Canada Act. And we will hold a full review, with exacting cost-benefit analysis of the class of agreements called Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreements (FIPAs). We will not ratify or negotiate any investment agreements until we have assessed their impacts. Our government will respectfully engage with the Peoples’ Republic of China as the FIPA with China was signed in September 2012, has not yet been ratified, and must not be ratified in the absence of a clear review of its impacts. We will work to ensure a clear communication of Canada’s interests without slamming the door on investment that meets Canada’s needs. Just as other nations have done, we will pursue trade, without sacrificing sovereignty through flawed FIPAs.

A Fairer Society

In recognition of the failure of mandatory minimums as a criminal justice strategy, we will review all legislation and particularly the Criminal Code to remove mandatory minimums. We will enhance law enforcement resources, freeing up limited time and money by legalizing, regulating and taxing cannabis. We will restore the Law Reform Commission and ask for a review of the recent changes in criminal law as well as immigration and refugee law to ensure they are charter compliant.

We will work with the national Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to improve supports for victims of violent crime and we will improve the rigour of laws to protect investors from white-collar crime. It will be a priority of this government to bring to justice those who set out to cheat seniors of their savings.

We will launch a national inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women of Canada. Without waiting for the results of that investigation we will create better tools for law enforcement, such as a national DNA data bank for victims of crime, to be cross-referenced with data banks of the missing.

Protecting Canadian Health Care

The health care agenda also needs attention. We will initiate talks with the provincial and territorial governments on the next phase of the Health Accord. It is our goal that we find ways to reduce rising costs, particularly through controlling the price of pharmaceutical drugs. A national pharmacare programme, and the creation of a federal unit to provide advice modelled on the British Columbia Therapeutics Initiative will be a top priority for the Minister of Health.

Restoring our global reputation

My government is also committed to restoring Canada’s once strong international reputation. We need to return to multilateralism, engaging, rather than shunning the world. Our new focus on addressing climate change will help, but so too must we re-invest in diplomacy, peace-keeping and human rights around the world. The elimination of poverty is critical. We will work to meet the goal set by Lester Pearson of 0.7 per cent GDP to Official Development Assistance by 2020.

Putting Citizens First

A Citizens First agenda means that we take seriously our obligations as government to the on-going relationship with those who elect their representatives. The reality is that Members of Parliament work for their constituents and not for their political parties. Reducing partisanship and competition in political discourse and finding ways to work together for the betterment of all is central.

This is an ambitious agenda. There is much more that needs to be done, but if we all pull together, nothing is impossible.

Tarek and John say Hi!

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota Tarek and John say Hi! | rabble.ca  AboutSupportAdvertiseContactLog-inRegister Browse by Topic Afghanistan Anti-Racism Arts & Culture Civil Liberties Coalition Common Causes Economy Education Elections Environment Feminism G8/G20 Gaza Haiti Healthcare USA Indigenous Labour LGBTI Maker Culture Media Matters NDP Occupy Olympics Politics in Canada Technology Who Are U? Search this site: rabblebabblepodcastsrabbletvblogsActivist Toolkit AlertsNewsfeeds / RSS Program Guide Features Indie Inside Best-of-the-net Home Tarek and John say Hi! By rabble staff | October 9, 2013 Print Write to editor Support rabble Corrections

Tarek and John share their first statement after being released from detention in Egypt on Saturday. The pair were released after 50 days in Egyptian prison, but are still currently stuck in Cairo due to a technicality. Tarek and John recorded this video hello and express their deepest thanks to all who supported them through the last 54 days.

embedded_video This video can be found at YouTube Print Write to editor Support rabble Corrections Tags: good news Egypt coup FreeTarekAndJohn #freetarekandjohn   Top Picks On rabble Congratulations love: Alice Munro wins the Nobel Prize in Literature | Kaitlin McNabb Islamophobia or anti-Muslim sentiment? Uncovering the roots of anti-Muslim discourse | Monia Mazigh Budapest Water Summit: Fighting the corporate agenda in Budapest | Meera Karunananthan Death to democracy: Mohamed Harkat and the secret trial | rabble staff     Syndicate 

 

Defer, Deflect, Deny, Destroy: Harper's First Nation Education Act

Since the federal government first assumed control over First Nation education, First Nations have suffered poor educational outcomes. During the residential school era, federal control over First Nation education meant a very real chance of starvation, torture, abuse, medical experimentation, beatings and death for the students. Upwards of 40 per cent of the children who entered residential schools never made it out alive and others were permanently scarred.

Prime Minister Harper apologized for the residential school apology, but has not taken a single step to address the disastrous results which stemmed from it like lost culture, language, identity, traditional Indigenous knowledges, belief systems, values, customs and practices. No sooner was the weak apology offered when Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre condemned it as a waste of money. The Harper government soon followed the apology by cutting funding to Indigenous languages which confirmed the lack of sincerity in the apology.

 

Even a child knows that an apology is more than words; it requires an acknowledgement of the harm done, acceptance of responsibility for that harm, a promise not to do it again and actions to try to make amends for the harm done. Harper has not offered a true apology nor taken real actions to address the significant harms done. A litigation settlement for personal injuries, rapes and molestations that happened in those schools does not address the assimilatory harms. 

If Harper was sincere about the wrongfulness of Canada's long-standing assimilation policy, it would not continue to have assimilation as its number one policy objective with regards to First Nations. If there was a true interest in righting wrongs in First Nation education, Harper need only read the many reports, publications, studies and statistics in relation to First Nation education which have clearly outlined the problems and the solutions. Yet, Harper has implemented his standard modus operandi in relation to First Nations issues: deny, deflect, defer and destroy.

Evidence Contradicts Official Position

Even when faced with contrary evidence, Harper's government has consistently denied that there is a problem with funding or federal control over First Nation education. Instead they issue press releases and make public statements about how much they fund First Nation education and focus on isolated First Nations which have recently built schools. The Office of the Correctional Investigator, The Auditor General, Special Ministerial Representatives, United Nations investigators and numerous experts have raised the alarm on the serious nature of federal control over First Nation education. Some of the conclusions include the following:

- Indian Affairs has failed to implement recommendations "most important to lives and well-being of First Nations" (Auditor General 2011);

- 73 per cent of all water, 65 per cent waste water systems in FNs are high risk - INAC so behind in infrastructure funding, will take $4.7 billion just to fix current systems (Neegan 2011);

- The "inequitable and differential outcomes for Aboriginal offenders" are the direct result of "federal correctional policies and practices" (Correctional Investigator 2010);

- Current funding practices "do not lead to equitable funding among Aboriginal and First Nation communities" (OAG 2008);

- Funding inequities results in inability for First Nations to provide adequate child welfare services (Auditor General 2008);

- Unequal access to services for First Nations represent "contributing factors to the over-representation of Aboriginal children in child welfare system" (INAC 2004);

- Funding formula created by INAC does not ensure equitable access to education & gap widening (Auditor General 2004);

- INAC failed to give Parliament real picture on FN housing -- said increased housing stock overall, but found an actual decline of 30 per cent (Auditor General 2003).

When the evidence is too overwhelming and the media will not let the issue drop, then the Harper Conservatives deflect responsibility and try to either change the subject or shift the blame to First Nations themselves by making allegations against First Nation leaders as corrupt or mismanaging funds. This pattern has been too consistent and one need only look at the housing crisis in Attawapiskat, the corresponding allegation of mismanagement and the court case which cleared Chief Spence's name to see this m.o. in action.

Deferral is Not a River in Egypt

Sometimes, like in the case of First Nation education, the public criticism is so intense that deflection will not work and then Harper usually defers the issue to be studied. In the case of First Nation education, many successive federal governments have followed the same pattern of deferring the issue to study and the result is numerous studies. The problem for Harper is that all these studies continue to say the exact same thing: the problem is federal control and chronic underfunding of First Nation education. It should be no surprise that the studies were nearly unanimous in their solutions for poor First Nation education outcomes: First Nation control and appropriate funding. It's not rocket science Harper.

When faced with an issue that simply won't go away, and the usual deny, deflect and defer tactics won't work; Harper usually reverts back to federal policy objective of assimilating Indians: destroying the "problem" all together. In an aggressive full blitz attack, Harper has introduced a complex legislative agenda which will have essentially the same effect as the White Paper 1969 would have: destroy Indians, reserves, treaties and any programs and services associated with them. With regards to education, Harper will introduce the First Nation Education Act, national legislation designed to trick First Nations into voluntarily giving up their treaty right to education in exchange for a federally-controlled legislative program.

What are the implications of this legislation? The draft legislation has not yet been shared with the public, so I can't comment on the specifics, but based on INAC's Blueprint for Legislation document shared with First Nations, one can clearly see that First Nation concerns were valid:

(1) Indian agent-type federal controls, inspections and approvals will be tight;

(2) The potential option of local First Nation control is limited and conditional;

(3) There will be no guaranteed funding as funding will still be policy-based; and

(4) Although promoted as optional legislation, the legislation proposes to set out a process for legal recognition and authorization to run schools.

One need only look at the current suite of legislation to see where this legislation is headed.

Failure to Consult First Nations

Other serious concerns related to this legislation include the fact that there were no consultations which respect Canada's legal obligation to obtain the free, informed and prior consent of First Nations required under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Instead, engagement sessions were held in urban areas across the country and largely skipped the 615+ First Nation communities. This legislation is paternalistic, unilaterally drafted and meant to be a one-size fits all approach to deflecting the real issue: federal control and chronic under-funding. The majority of First Nations did NOT ask for legislation and in fact passed numerous resolutions at the national, regional and provincial levels specifically opposing this legislation.

One cannot forget that for many First Nations, First Nation education is a treaty right and those treaties are protected in both domestic and international law. Treaties are forever and are now protected in section 35 and cannot be unilaterally amended. This, together with the fact that this legislation also proposes to offload (at least in part) First Nation education to the provinces makes this legislation unconstitutional. Canada is forgetting that when it supported UNDRIP, that article 14 states that First Nations have a right to establish and control their own education systems and Canada has an obligation to ensure that First Nation children have access.

The failure to address First Nation education outcomes doesn't even make economic sense. The 2 per cent cap placed on funding has only made a bad situation worse. Yet, the studies show that were Canada to eliminate the gap between Canadian and First Nation education outcomes, this would yield $179 billion on GDP back to Canada. Why then would Canada continue to pay $100,000 a year to wrongfully imprison First Nations peoples, when a 4 year university education only costs $60,000 and we know the social and economic benefits of a good education? Canadians enjoy good education systems funded in large part from the wealth obtained from Indigenous lands and resources. It's time to share the wealth as envisioned in the treaties.

Every time Canada comes up with an idea on how to "fix" the "Indian problem" our people are oppressed, assimilated or lose our lives. Canada has failed miserably in their First Nation education policies. It's long past time to step aside and allow First Nations peoples to heal from the inter-generational devastation caused by federal controls and fully support First Nation-controlled education systems. The treaties promised to fund these systems so that First Nations would prosper equally with our treaty partners. It's time the treaties were honoured and all parties to the treaties enjoyed the benefits.

Sensible BC takes big strides in the campaign to decriminalize marijuana

When I launched Sensible BC back in September 2012, it seemed like a long shot to think we could succeed in a campaign for a provincial marijuana referendum. But we have had incredible success and good luck since then, and now we are within reach of getting the signatures we need to force a vote on decriminalization right here in British Columbia.

The Sensible Policing Act

The Sensible BC campaign is centred around our proposed legislation, called the Sensible Policing Act. This law does four specific things, all of which are within provincial jurisdiction.

The first thing our law does is to amend the Police Act, which is what gives authority for all policing in our province. The amendment instructs all BC police (including RCMP) to make simple possession of marijuana their lowest priority, so that no time or resources are spent on searching or arresting anyone for pot possession.

This form of effective decriminalization is fully within provincial jurisdiction, and indeed there are already many laws which are already ignored by police in a similar manner. For example, BC and seven other provinces adopted this kind of policy to effectively decriminalize possession of an unregistered long gun back in 2003.  

Vancouver has already enacted a policy in line with Sensible BC, so that virtually no charges are laid for simple possession in the city. But across BC, charges for pot possession have doubled over the past six years, and are far higher than any other province. BC police made over 16,500 arrests for marijuana possession last year, and this legislation would redirect those police resources towards substantial violent crimes.

The second aspect of the Sensible Policing Act is to amend the Liquor Control Act, so that a minor in possession of marijuana is treated the same as if it were alcohol. This allows a police officer to seize marijuana from a minor, but there would be no arrest or criminalization.

Third, the Sensible Policing Act formally calls upon the federal government to repeal marijuana prohibition, by removing it from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or by giving the province of BC an exemption from the federal prohibition so that we can experiment with a regulated system at the provincial level.

Finally, the law would set up a provincial commission, to study the issue and come up with a system to regulate the legal production and sale of marijuana products in BC. Once marijuana prohibition is repealed, regulation will fall primarily to the provinces, just like alcohol and tobacco. We can look at developments in Washington and Colorado to help guide our model here.

Whatever happens with this campaign, one thing should now be certain: BC has the power to effectively decriminalize marijuana possession. Our legislation has been studied by the legal team at Elections BC, who have determined that it is within BC jurisdiction and suitable for a referendum. 

Provincial politicians should no longer be allowed to skirt this issue by declaring marijuana policy to be solely federal jurisdiction. BC pays for the courts, the police and the prisons and we also pay for the social costs of marijuana prohibition. We have the legal power to make some positive changes on this issue, and we need some BC politicians to show leadership and make this happen.

Growing support and good fortune

Shortly after we launched Sensible BC last September, the BC Union of Municipalities voted to support decriminalization of marijuana. Then a few weeks later, Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana at the state level, while Massachusetts became the 18th state to legalize medical marijuana.

A few weeks after that, we had an incredible stroke of good fortune when marijuana enthusiast and activist Bob Erb in Terrace won millions in the lottery and pledged to put some of his newfound wealth into marijuana legalization.

Erb has since made substantial contributions to Sensible BC, and is also matching all the donations we receive! 

We've also enjoyed great support from the media, with editorial endorsements from the Vancouver Sun, the Province and Black Press, as well as a feature article in Macleans Magazine and generous TV coverage. 

Yet despite all of this, we still face substantial challenges ahead. Collecting a half million signatures in 90 days is a huge logistical challenge, requiring thousands of volunteers to get involved!

Join us on the campaign trail

On September 9, we began the 90 days of official signature-gathering. We launched the CannaBus, which serves as a mobile office, billboard and sign-up station. We also have offices in Vancouver and Victoria.

We're still taking on new canvassers, and we've seen our numbers grow steadily. We have almost 3000 registered canvassers now, with dozens more signing up every day. Some of them will just be collecting a few signatures from their friends and family, while others are out there seven days a week, collecting signatures at farmer's markets, Skytrain stations and by going door to door.

We have had some challenges. Tim Hortons told us to stop promoting that we're having meetings in their cafes, and Transit Police were unlawfully trying to kick our canvassers out of Skytrain stations. Yet overall, these are isolated incidents, and for the most part the campaign is going smoothly.

We still need your help!

If you would like to see a sensible marijuana policy in British Columbia, then join our campaign! You can still register to help collect signatures, and there's all kinds of other volunteer work that needs doing too. 

This is a unique opportunity for us to get this issue on the ballot and have a public vote to decriminalize marijuana. Whether you can collect ten signatures, or a thousand, the first step is to register as a canvasser.

We only have about eight weeks left to collect signatures, so don't delay and get your canvasser registration form in today!   

Dana Larsen is Director the Sensible BC campaign, and Director of the Vancouver Cannabis Dispensary.

Energy for Everyone: A summit beyond pipelines and shale gas

TransCanada, Premier Alward and Premier Redford may like to present the Energy East pipeline as a done deal, but this is more rhetoric then fact. Opposition is bubbling up along the route. From gas distributors in Ontario, to protests outside TransCanada Energy East open houses to Saint John. This past week, the energy east pipeline, which seeks to transport 1.1 million barrels of crude per day from Alberta to Saint John, was challenged outside the Atlantic Energy Summit.

The Council of Canadians teamed up with local groups to run a counter-summit in Saint John, New Brunswick. Energy for Everyone conveyed the message that Energy East and fracking for shale gas are extreme forms of energy, they are the past. Instead, a sustainable Atlantic energy vision is not only preferable, but possible.

A public panel last Wednesday kicked off three days of events that also included workshops, a rally, press conference, Energy East strategy session and film screenings.

The events were covered broadly in the media including an op-ed I co-authored with Catherine Abreu of the Atlantic Sustainable Energy Coalition, two print articles in the Telegraph Journal, TV and radio interviews and Roger cable coverage of the panel. This will help to reach people in what is being presented as a 'slam dunk' audience for this controversial project.

Maude Barlow, who spoke at the Wednesday evening panel, gave 5 reasons to oppose the Energy East pipeline: the environmental threat of a diluted bitumen pipeline spill; it is about exports, not meeting Atlantic energy needs; it will allow massive expansion in the tar sands, it would not provide long term jobs or lower the costs at gas pumps in Atlantic Canada; it would suck the political will away from making the transition to a sustainable energy vision needed in the region. Alma Brookes, a member of the Maliseet Grand Council from Saint Mary's First Nation, shared her insights as an indigenous grandmother fighting fracking and for a better relationship with Mother Earth.

Providing information on what the possibilities are for a different energy vision was central to the events. Saint John is in bad need of jobs. We know this. TransCanada and Irving know this. Catherine Abreu who also participated in the Wednesday panel put Energy East job promises into question. The Cornell Labour Institute proved that TransCanada's Keystone XL job promises were downright laughable. We suspect their new promises  will pan out to be more of the same.

We know that investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy far outpace those in fossil fuels for generating jobs. According to Blue Green Canada, 1 million invested in oil and gas produces 2 jobs, compared to 15 jobs invested in renewable energy.

And there is a lot that could be done to put the Atlantic region on a better energy path. Abreu also discussed the opportunities for enhancing regional energy sharing so that solar energy produced in New Brunswick could be balanced with existing hydro power in Newfoundland and wind in PEI. We also know that public and community owned energy holds particular advantages (LINK) for the future renewable projects including emphasizing local, democratic governance, prioritizing local job creation and regional energy needs.

Certainly, New Brunswick is a unique context for organizing given the extent to which the provincial government and Saint John Mayor are in support of the pipeline, the real need for jobs and the significant influence of the Irving 'empire.' Yet, I returned to Ottawa confident that opposition to the pipeline is growing in New Brunswick. The workshops and strategy session provided key insights on what direction to head in challenging TransCanada in the region.

This pipeline is about 'our risk' in the region and 'their reward.' It is New Brunswickers' clean water at risk. It is the world-famous Bay of Fundy, tourism and fishing at risk. It is commitment to their sustainable energy vision at risk. All for the reward of TransCanada's profit, few short-term jobs and crude that will be exported. We will see municipal opposition growing over the coming months and creative actions to spread this message.

I look forward to working with the creative and dedicated people I had the pleasure of connecting with at this summit.

Energy for Everyone was sponsored by the Council of Canadians, Common Causes Saint John, CCNBAction, and Atlantic Canada Sustainable Energy Coalition.

Harper brings back Parliament in one week. Will Karl Nerenberg be there?

In just one week Harper re-opens Parliament and we need Karl Nerenberg to be covering the stories. We are still pretty short of our funding goal to send Karl back to Parl -- if you can donate a few dollars to the cause please do so today. You can help out at: https://secure.rabble.ca/supportrabble/.

In case you missed it here are the 7 reasons we think Karl is the person for the job. Karl himself has made the argument that we need get beyond poll-driven political coverage and he has a record of doing it. 

Not sure? Well, we also have an extra incentive. Donate $25 or more to Karl and you will be entered into our prize draw. Everyone who donates at least $25 will be entered to win: A) one of 10 rabble tote bags B) one of 5 rabble best of rabble book bundles , C) the grand prize of the critically acclaimed Nexus 7 (16gb) tablet!

That’s pretty sweet. One week to go until the politics of Parliament! Keep Karl on Parl,  Please donate today. 

Homeless for 12 years, college student now helps others trapped on the streets

 

“I see nothing but misery,” he said. “Homelessness. Violence. Fear. Drug use.”

He knows it all too well. He struggled through addiction. Struggled through homelessness for over a decade.

“I didn’t really care about nothing or anybody,” said Lennon. “Nobody really gave a crap about me.”

But he managed to pull himself out. Learned along the way how much some people care about others. 

After 12 years on the streets of Toronto, he’s now living with his girlfriend, attending George Brown College in the Community Worker Program and completing a work placement at Sanctuary Ministries.

“I didn’t panhandle or anything,” he said, referring to the time when he was on the streets. 

“I was too proud. Don’t get me wrong. I shouldn’t have been proud. But that was just kind of my way of thought.”

Lennon grew up small town Ontario. 

“Where I’m from we were taught you don’t ask anybody for nothing,” said Lennon. “You make it yourself. So unfortunately, I struggled pretty much that whole 12 years.”

With the constant fear of being attacked. Racism in the shelters. Being dirty all the time.

“Trying to find that place to shower to take care of yourself,” he said. “Most shelters, I know they’re there to help but at the same time they don’t make it easy.”

Though the streets aren’t easy either. 

“Just a big war on the street in itself,” said Lennon. 

“You’re at war with yourself when you’re on the street. You’ve got to find your inner being of who you are, where you want to be and how you’re going to get there.”

When Lennon finally did, things began to change.

He started to heal. Returned to school. But not without the help of a College sponsor.

“I’m doing it slowly but surely,” he said. “I’ve got ADD and a few small disabilities so it’s really hard for me to speak on a professional level. There’s too much street in my bones.”

And that’s what makes him the ideal outreach worker. 

On Tuesday, the 32-year-old came to the monthly homeless memorial vigil outside of the Church of Holy Trinity, wearing a large blue backpack loaded with clean socks, underwear and other necessities homeless people need to get by on the street. 

Items the rest of us take for granted.

“I have to give Toronto credit,” he said. “We do look after our own. But the homelessness situation will never change.”

Especially when governments keep telling us the money isn’t there. Keep telling us we need to cut services in order to balance budgets.

“When that can’t be farther from the truth,” he said. 

“People need to open up their eyes and take a look around. It’s a system to keep you in. And to pull yourself out of it is damn near impossible.”

Kahsatstenhsera: Indigenous Resistance to Tar Sands Pipelines

Reclaim Turtle Island released this great new video documentary on the Indigenous resistance to the pipelines. "This short documentary details contemporary Indigenous resistance to tar sands pipeline expansion, in particular the Line 9 and Energy East pipelines, which threaten the health of our territories in the northeast of Turtle Island. It includes the voices and perspectives of Dene, Wolastiqiyik, Mi’kmaq, Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee and Wet’suwet’en land defenders."

Image: Reclaim Turtle Island

Single-payer: A sustainable alternative to for-profit health insurance in the U.S.

"We apologize for the inconvenience. The Marketplace is currently undergoing regularly scheduled maintenance and will be back up Monday 10/7/3013." You read it right, 3013. That was the message on the homepage of the New York state health insurance exchange website this past weekend.

Yes, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as Obamacare, is going through difficult birth pains, as the marketplace websites went live only to crash. The government is not giving out numbers, but informed observers speculate that very few people have succeeded in signing up for any of the plans so far.

The ACA rollout occurred as Republicans shut down the government in their attempt to defund Obamacare. But their strategy backfired. Had there been no shutdown, all of the attention would have been on the disastrous rollout. The fundamental issue, at the core of the health-care dispute, is typically ignored and goes unreported: The for-profit health-insurance industry in the United States is profoundly inefficient and costly, and a sane and sustainable alternative exists -- single-payer, otherwise known as expanded and improved Medicare for all. Just change the age of eligibility from 65 to zero.

"When Medicare was rolled out in 1966, it was rolled out in six months using index cards," Dr. Steffie Woolhandler told me Monday. "So if you have a simple system, you do not have to have all this expense and all this complexity and work." Woolhandler is professor of public health at CUNY-Hunter College and a primary-care physician. She is a visiting professor at Harvard Medical School and the co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, or PNHP. PNHP is an organization with 17,000 physicians as members, advocating for a single-payer health-care system in the U.S.

What is single-payer? Critics denounce it as "socialized medicine," while ignoring that single-payer is already immensely popular in the U.S., as Medicare. A 2011 Harris poll found that Medicare enjoyed 88 percent support from American adults, followed closely by Social Security. Woolhandler explained that with a Medicare-for-all system, "you would get a card the day you're born, and you'd keep it your entire life. It would entitle you to medical care, all needed medical care, without co-payments, without deductibles. And because it's such a simple system, like Social Security, there would be very low administrative expenses. We would save about $400 billion [per year]." Dr. Woolhandler went on, rather than "thousands of different plans, tons of different co-payments, deductibles and restrictions -- one single-payer plan, which is what we need for all Americans to give the Americans really the choice they want ... not the choice between insurance company A or insurance company B. They want the choice of any doctor or hospital, like you get with traditional Medicare."

Monthly premiums in most cases are expected to decrease with Obamacare's health-exchange systems, which will enhance the transparency and ease of comparison for people shopping for a health-insurance policy. If and when the technical problems are eliminated from the online health insurance exchanges, and people can easily shop, there will likely be a huge number of people buying policies for the first time. The ACA offers important advances, which even single-payer advocates acknowledge: subsidies for low-income applicants will make insurance affordable for the first time. Medicaid expansion also will bring many poor people into the umbrella of coverage. Young people can stay on their parents' insurance until the age of 26. People with so-called pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied insurance.

While the ACA was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, the opinion gave states the option to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, which 26 states with Republican governors have done. A New York Times analysis of census data showed that up to 8 million poor people, mostly African-Americans and single mothers, and mostly in the Deep South, will be stranded without insurance, too poor to qualify for ACA subsidies, but stuck in a state that rejected Medicaid expansion.

So, while partisan bickering (between members of Congress who have among the best health and benefits packages in the U.S.) has shut down the government, the populace of the United States is still straitjacketed into a system of expensive, for-profit health insurance. We pay twice as much per capita as other industrialized countries, and have poorer health and lower life expectancy. The economic logic of single-payer is inescapable. Whether Obamacare is a pathway to get there is uncertain. As Dr. Woolhandler summed up, "It's only a road to single-payer if we fight for single-payer."

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of Democracy Now!, a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,000 stations in North America. She is the co-author of The Silenced Majority, a New York Times best-seller.

Islamophobia or anti-Muslim sentiment? Uncovering the roots of anti-Muslim discourse

Recently, I watched an interview on French TV involving the controversial Muslim thinker Tariq Ramadan. The French journalist intentionally refused to use the word Islamophobia. She wrongly equated Islamophobia to one's right to criticize Islam, or its values, insinuating that Muslims have thin skins and can never accept freedom of speech (remember the controversies around the Danish cartoons or the Innocence of Muslims movie).

Personally, I never liked the word "Islamophobia" per se. It reminded me of a strange condition or a syndrome like claustrophobia or arachnophobia. The term is heavy, difficult to pronounce, and is totally ignored by the mainstream media for good or bad reasons.

While used by the European Union and in some UN publications and conferences, the term is contested and not really understood by the mainstream population.

But beyond the linguistic disagreement and philosophical debates over the term, a relevant question remains: do we have a problem with Muslims and Islam, and if yes, what are the roots of the problem?

In the October 3 issue of Maclean's, an Angus Reid poll indicates that 54 per cent of Canadians hold an unfavourable view of Islam, compared to 46 per cent in 2009. The article doesn't use the term Islamophobia but it clearly indicates that there is an anti-Muslim sentiment in Canada. Without pointing to any explicit reasons behind this sharp rise in statistics, the article alludes to the debate around the veil and the burqa, as well as to the raging debate with respect to the charter of values project in Quebec.

In his book The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims, the American author Nathan Lean supports the thesis that in the U.S. there exists a real Islamophobia industry with shareholders, products and consumers. This murky industry is well funded by anonymous donors who are sometimes exposed through lengthy and complex journalistic investigations.

Lean identifies two main stakeholders of this industry: some groups from the Christian right and few other groups from the pro-Israel right. It is interesting to note that there is often a "holy" alliance between these various groups.

Lean's book is not based on a conspiracy theory that attempts to make Muslims look like the innocent victims of a dark machination concocted by marginalized cults or a bunch of Islam haters. Instead, his book is a compilation of statistics supported by facts which demonstrate that an elaborate anti-Muslim discourse does indeed exist, and it has its active proponents and funders.

Take the example of Brigitte Gabriel and her organization, the American Congress for Truth (ACT). In 2009, this organization -- at the beginning of the anti-Sharia wave in the U.S. -- had an annual budget of $1.6 million. Gabriel's annual salary was $180,000. In a 2007 speech she delivered at the Christian United for Israel annual conference, she bluntly declared that, "the difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism." Later, she explained that her words were cited out of context.

Lean writes about the Clarion Fund, a pro-Israel organization that funded movies like Obsession (very similar to the movie Fitna by Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician turned filmmaker, another big player inside this industry) or Iranium (about nuclear activity in Iran). A reporter from Salon tracked the funding of these propaganda films to Barre Seid, a wealthy Chicago businessman who is part of another obscure fund named the Donors Capital Funds. From 2007 to 2009, this fund poured "nearly $21 million into anti-Muslim causes," reports Lean.

To give the anti-Muslim industry a less foreign connotation and make it seem an ordinary and legitimate business, there is always the story of a Muslim who "escapes" a horrific childhood or a tragic civil war and then becomes a fierce criticizer of the Islamic faith and its adherents. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the perfect example of this character. Hirsi Ali grew up as a Muslim but later renounced her faith and became a convinced atheist. She has been "recycled," immediately after her expulsion from the Netherlands, by a right-wing think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute. Hirsi Ali became an eloquent spokesperson for their ideas and agenda.

Another sort of character in this industry is the "good Muslim" (to use the same language of Mahmood Mamdani's "good Muslims and bad Muslims"), typically a smart and well-educated professional who would play the role of the "native informant" by approving all the information relied upon by the anti-Muslim camp. For instance, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser in the U.S. plays this role extremely well. "We've surrendered the Constitution to the jihadists," he testified at the infamous hearing, compared by many as a new Inquisition, on radical Islam initiated by the U.S. Congressman Peter King in 2010.

Some of the many deeper reasons underneath this anti-Muslim propaganda are to maintain a constant climate of fear where it becomes simpler for governments to introduce tighter security measures and legislations. Muslim issues became more and more easily used wedge politics to gain in the polls and distract people's attention from real economic and social problems. Maintaining an anti-Muslim discourse, where the Muslim is identified as the enemy, is also profitable for the arms industry and for many war supporters (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen). Moreover, for some Israeli settlers' groups, drawing parallels between Islamic terrorism as an ideology and the Palestinians' struggle to regain their rights, is certainly a way to justify their illegal occupation of the lands within public opinion.

In Canada, similar voices, organizations, characters and messages are conveyed to the general population. The debate around the veil or the burqa is not the real culprit behind the sharp rise in anti-Muslim "sentiments"; it is rather the symptom of a tense climate that is poisoned on a daily basis by an industry that is not easily identifiable. This industry has nefarious objectives with unspoken motives and interests to protect that sometimes travel far beyond our borders.

Nathan Lean will be speaking in Toronto on October 26 as part of a panel discussion titled "Fostering Fear: Examining the Roots of Anti-Muslim Discourse," with Doug Saunders, author of The Myth of the Muslim Tide. For information and tickets, go to: http://fosteringfear.eventbrite.ca/

Monia Mazigh was born and raised in Tunisia and immigrated to Canada in 1991. Mazigh was catapulted onto the public stage in 2002 when her husband, Maher Arar, was deported to Syria where he was tortured and held without charge for over a year. She campaigned tirelessly for his release. Mazigh holds a PhD in finance from McGill University. In 2008, she published a memoir, Hope and Despair, about her pursuit of justice, and in 2011, a novel in French, Miroirs et mirages.

Standing up for evidence-based decision-making in government

Title: Standing up for evidence-based decision-making in government Album: Redeye: Vancouver Cooperative RadioLength: 11:06 minutes (10.16 MB)

On September 16, thousands of scientists participated in rallies, voicing their concerns about what they see as threats to science in the public interest. Katie Gibbs has a PhD in Biology from the University of Ottawa and executive director of the new group Evidence for Democracy. She speaks with Redeye host Jane Williams.

To find out more about Redeye, check out our website.

Nightmares coming to life: Ottawa writers stage reading of 'The Trial' in conjunction with Supreme Court challenge

A few short hours after the Supreme Court of Canada hears the public portion of a precedent-setting secret hearing on Thursday, October 10, a collection of Ottawa-area writers and performers will gather at St. Paul's University at 7:30 p.m. to read a staged adaptation of Kafka's The Trial, the classic novel that begins, "Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning."
Ottawa-area writers Elizabeth Hay, Alan Cumyn, Monia Mazigh, Louisa Taylor and Matthew Behrens will be joined by performers Teri Loretto, Laurel Smith, Richard Gélinas and Zachary Council in reading a special adaptation of The Trial that contrasts the original novel's surreal story of a man trapped by anonymous allegations and the threat of indefinite detention with Canada's security certificate system, which condemns individuals to years behind bars without charge, based on secret allegations neither they nor their lawyers, the media or public are ever allowed to see and challenge.

Ottawa's Mohamed Harkat, arrested on International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2002 on a security certificate, is still fighting the government's secret case and potential deportation to torture in Algeria.

His case will be heard in public on October 10 and then, in a dangerous precedent, the Supreme Court will retire to conduct a secret hearing at an undisclosed secure Ottawa location on Friday the 11th.

"We read Kafka to understand how easily our nightmares become the life we create for ourselves, and for others," says Cumyn. "The Trial is a wake-up call, sadly never out of date, not even in Canada, not even now."

An adaptation of The Trial was first presented in Toronto in 2005 and featured readers including Ann-Marie MacDonald, Charmion King, Bernard Behrens, Linda McQuaig, Naomi Klein, Avi Lewis, Heather Mallickand Stuart McLean.

The adaptation, written by Matthew Behrens, was inspired by his attempts to send a copy of Kafka's The Trial to his friend, secret trial detainee Hassan Almrei, then marking four years in solitary confinement without charge in Toronto.

The book was not given to Almrei for undisclosed national security reasons, the ultimate Kafka-esque experience: a novel about secret hearings being kept out of the solitary confinement cell of someone subjected to secret hearings.

Behrens, the national security columnist for rabble.ca, has also coordinated the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada since August, 2001, working closely with the detainees, their families, lawyers and community supporters to raise awareness of the issue and challenge the unconstitutionality of security certificates.

A 2006 Supreme Court challenge proved successful, but the Harper government simply reintroduced a new version of the old secret trial regime with a few additions, including secret hearings conducted by "special advocates" who can see some of the secret case. The detainees, however, are no closer to learning the basis of the case against them, although declassified CSIS documents reveal much of the regime is based on information gleaned from overseas torture.

"For years, we have said these secret trials are the thin edge of the wedge, and here we are in 2013, with virtually no transparency when it comes to access to information requests, constant government claiming of secrecy and proroguing of Parliament as common as season change," says Behrens.

"If you had asked in 2005 whether we would still be fighting security certificates alongside these men eight years later, I would have thought it rather unlikely, but here we are, with all the revelations of malfeasance from CSIS and RCMP, and the courts still bow their head in deference when these scandal-plagued agencies request their secret hearings. I think most Canadians would be appalled to know the Supreme Court is holding a secret hearing on October 11."

Mohamed Harkat faces secret Supreme Court hearing October 11

Mohamed Harkat, arrested on International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2002 on a security certificate, is still fighting the Canadian government's secret case and potential deportation to torture in Algeria.

His case is being heard in public on October 10 and then, in a dangerous precedent, the Supreme Court will retire to conduct a secret hearing at an undisclosed secure Ottawa location on Friday, Oct. 11.

Harkat has faced over a decade of secret hearings held by the Federal Court of Canada. Matthew Behrens, rabble's national security columnist, reported on Harkat's upcoming hearing in a recent column, which scrutinizes the process of secret trials in Canada and the increasing trend toward secrecy:

"The secret trials regimen was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007 in the seminal Charkaoui decision, in which the court asked, plainly, how one meets a case one does not know. On October 11, Mr. Harkat will be no closer to knowing the case he has to meet. His partially public hearing will be held on October 10.

It says something about the degraded system of Canadian justice that the nine individuals who have the ultimate legal say when it comes to fundamental issues such as due process and rule of law will be sitting in secret session, adding to the growth of a parallel secret judicial system that is bound to grow and flourish along with other trends toward secrecy in Canadian government."

Behrens will join a collection of Ottawa-area writers and performers on the evening of October 10 to read a staged adaptation of Kafka's The Trial in conjunction with Harkat's Supreme Court challenge.

"We read Kafka to understand how easily our nightmares become the life we create for ourselves, and for others," said participating writer Alan Cumyn. "The Trial is a wake-up call, sadly never out of date, not even in Canada, not even now."

When your abuser calls himself a feminist

When I was 26, I had what I sometimes call a quarter-life crisis. In typical 20-something form, I thought what I needed was to escape city life. To get closer to nature and eschew technology or some crap.

I subletted my apartment and hung around on some of the little islands off the coast of British Columbia doing work trade -- living in trailers or spare rooms on people's property, feeding chickens, picking strawberries, and weeding their gardens. I quickly learned that I hated chickens and doing anything resembling physical labour/being near bugs and got a job at the local cafe.

I lived in a tent for the summer. I stopped shaving my armpits and made a bunch of ugly hemp necklaces. I learned to play Janis Joplin songs on my guitar and read a lot of Anarchist pamphlets. I didn't have much money, but I didn't need much. I felt relaxed for the first time in years.

When I first met Dan, he seemed fun and smart, but he was 20 years older than me which, to a 26-year-old who'd only ever slept with men relatively close in age, seemed gross. I brushed him off as a bit of a silly middle-aged man who was trying a little too hard to hang on to his youth. He obviously liked me, but I didn’t give it much thought. I had zero plans to actually date this guy. I wasn’t attracted to him and the idea of introducing my friends to him seemed humiliating.

He hung around the cafe, took me to local parties, and pretty much became my chauffeur. I hate to admit that I felt I was the one taking advantage of him. I felt I was the one in control.

This is, of course, the trouble with not having real power in this world. We take what we can get. Women learn they have power because men desire them, but it isn’t true.

Fall came and it began to cool down, so I moved out of my tent and into a trailer. I needed to get my belongings, strewn about various friends’ houses in the city. Dan offered to get a U-Haul and help me move my things.

We stayed at the Four Seasons and ordered room service and drank expensive drinks. I'd never been around people with money, really. I'd never had money, myself. I think I believed I was being practical or something. He didn't seem to mind spending money and I clearly didn't understand the consequences of "taking advantage" of someone older and richer than I.

I slept with him one night after too many drinks, regretted it immediately and then regretted it even more when, about a month later, I learned I was pregnant. I scheduled an abortion, but suffered a rather traumatic miscarriage a week before my appointment. Dan took care of me while I recovered that week, bedridden and high on OxyContin, prescribed for the pain. Looking back, I see our relationship as one forged through a kind of trauma-bonding.

I quickly became dependent on Dan. But he was smart. He was able to engage in debates about the things I was interested in -– politics, feminism, progressive movements. He aligned himself with lefty causes and with women’s rights. He believed himself to be a progressive guy. I believed it, too.

He talked a big game about community. About how this small island community took care of its own. He told me we didn't need cops because we were self-policing. He told me that abusive men were kicked off the island by the "good men." Of course he saw himself one of the “good” ones.

He made a point of telling as many people as possible about the thousands of dollars he’d donated to the local women's anti-violence group. He would identify as a feminist and then talk over all the women in the room.

Eventually his true nature began to show through his carefully crafted persona, but he was a master manipulator and somehow I always ended up believing that either his behaviour would change or that his blow-ups were my fault. He seemed able to own his own behaviour: “I acknowledge my part in this,” he’d say, referencing nothing in particular.

He dominated every conversation and would practically foam at the mouth if anyone disagreed with him. He made excuses as to why he had a pattern of dating much younger women. Older women had already had families, he claimed. If he wanted a family (in his 50s, one presumes?) he had no choice but to date 20-somethings.

At 47, he had all but retired. Alone and without debt or obligation to anyone but a couple of cats, he now had the freedom to pursue the good life and make up for the 10 years he’d wasted sober and employed. He moved to the island, promptly returned to alcoholism, and began a rigorous routine of smoking joints outside the local café and writing letters to the local newspaper.

He had a "poor me" story, as so many abusers do. The locals, he said, had been initially skeptical of his presence on the island. Why wasn't he -- a lone, middle-aged, white man with a fancy car -- immediately deserving of their trust? The thought that anyone would question his authenticity or his good guy persona drove him crazy.

Dan was a great actor. He'd mastered the art of imitating emotion -- able to conjure up convenient crocodile tears when pity was required. He’d memorized pseudo-therapeutic language, impressing women who were accustomed to men who were emotionally disengaged.

He was also always the victim. In past relationships and in life. He was “struggling,” he always said. He described the 10 years of his life spent as vice-president of A&R at a large record label as akin to serving time in a war. Part of his backstory of victimization, he claimed he needed to “recover” and demanded everyone “be gentle with him," which meant tiptoeing around him, never knowing what might cause an outburst.

Explanations of his life were full of holes. His house was a mess and he used paper towels as dishes. He told me he had a cleaning lady who used to come once a week but she called in sick one day and never came back. He would tell me about women he’d dated or slept with, and then months later I’d learn these stories were lies. He’d laugh it off: “Oh I was just joking about that.”

Through the year and a half we were together, we broke up constantly. The nonstop lying and mind games made me feel crazy and insecure. Dan would sneak out in the middle of the night while I was asleep and come home the next morning, never saying a word about where he’d been. If I asked, he’d scream at me -- accusing me of being jealous or having “issues.” Sometimes I wouldn’t even have known he’d gone anywhere until we ran into friends the next day and they’d reference the party last night.

I’d hear all sorts of stories from others -– sometimes about him cheating with other women, even younger than me. When I’d ask him about what I’d heard, he’d track down the people who ratted him out, threatening them and spreading rumors around the island that they were crazy and out to get him. Everyone was out to get him for some inexplicable reason.

I left him temporarily after he backhanded me across the face one night. He told everyone, even me, a variety of stories in explanation: It had been an accident -– he reached for something and my face got in the way. I’d lunged at him and he’d defended himself. One woman I’d told, a friend, I’d thought, responded: “Oh but you two were fighting, weren’t you?”

Well, yes. If you call being screamed at, called a “fucking cunt,” and then smacked across the face “a fight,” then yeah. I guess we were fighting.

Still, I went back to him after that. He seemed remorseful. Remorse is a good tactic. We all want to believe people can change.

I didn’t leave for good until I found out he’d cheated on me with a 21-year-old. She told me what had happened and he quickly began a campaign to ruin her reputation. He told me and anyone else who would listen that she had pursued him relentlessly, that she was obsessed and unstable, that when he rejected her, she wanted revenge. He immediately threatened to sue us both for libel, emailing us both aggressively and incessantly.

In all this, he stuck close by the more powerful women on the island, claiming persecution. One of them said I should be ashamed to call myself a feminist. For "crying wolf."

Emotional, physical, and verbal abuse is destructive enough. When your abuser is convinced, and has others convinced, he is a supporter of women’s rights and social justice, the alienation and betrayal feels all the more disquieting.

Reprinted

Orthorexia, the new eating disorder?

Orthorexia nervosa may be a familiar term to some of you. For others, it might sound like I borrowed it from a medical dictionary. But, the reality is, we are all familiar with the eating behaviours this term describes. According to the National Eating Disorders Association, orthorexia is an “unhealthy obsession” with otherwise healthy eating. From the mass-marketing of organic produce to the popularity of “fresh” restaurants, orthorexia and its related eating behaviours are an accepted part of our daily food culture.

The first time I read the term orthorexia (admittedly, in my favourite book on healthy eating for women), was an AHA! moment. It gives the name to a disordered relationship with food that is so often perceived as a healthy one. Orthorexia is, of course, not just eating well. According to the AEDA, “Orthorexia starts out as an innocent attempt to eat more healthfully, but orthorexics become fixated on food quality and purity.  They become consumed with what and how much to eat, and […] self-punish if temptation wins (usually through stricter eating, fasts and exercise).”

For me and, I suspect, for many women, this description of a dysfunctional relationship with food sounds all too familiar. Although I recognize that orthorexia, along with other eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, is a serious illness, like these other eating disorders, orthorexic habits can be seen in many people’s diet and eating habits.

 

Orthorexia calls attention to a disordered relationship with food that is so often perceived as a healthy one. People who exhibit orthorexic behaviours are often publicly praised for eating healthily. Similarly, a person with anorexia and who eats little may be complimented on their 'restraint' and dedication to their health. In a culture that values thinness over health, women are praised for our unhealthy eating habits.

Other aspects of orthorexic behaviour include a feeling of superiority to others as your self-esteem becomes wrapped up in your eating habits. We often use moral terminology when we talk about to the food we choose. We say that we have been “good” when we follow a diet and “bad” when we don’t. Needless to say, thinking of all eating as “bad” and not eating as “good,” is inherently unhealthy.

Our dieting habits have changed hugely in the past 10 years. Women on a diet no longer content ourselves with eating a salad and skipping meals. We have also started paying microscopic attention to the food that we do eat. Understanding more about the way chemicals in mass-produced and processed foods impact our health, we, as a culture, are turning to organic and fresh choices. Outside of supermarkets, our city streets are sprouting whole foods shops, raw and fresh restaurants and even our fast food chains are selling foods marketed at a health-conscious audience.

But, how much of a difference do these foods make? Are businesses that offer “healthier” choices just cashing in on our nutty obsessions? Not only is our insistence on organic and certain trendy health foods expensive and time-consuming, but so is our relationship to food. If, as orthorexia suggests, we are unable to eat a cookie without a corresponding desire to purge, how much of our attention to food is actually about our health at all?

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe there are benefits to eating whole foods over processed, but the whole whole foods/organic/fresh trend of recent years seems, for many people, less about eating well than losing weight.

When I eat a balanced, fresh meal I feel good about nourishing my body. I enjoy the increased energy it gives me and the sense of connection with my body. But behind every healthy bite I hope, maybe, just maybe this will help me lose weight. My guess is, I'm not the only feminist or large lady with such problems. My friends have often heard me say that I don't know one woman who has a healthy relationship to food.

For me, the understanding of orthorexia as an illness sheds light on our emotional relationship with food. When I eat a carrot, I feel good about myself. I feel in control of my environment, my body and my life. When I eat several cookies, I start to feel that my body is my enemy and my life is out of control. The desire to eat healthy food is, unfortunately, less about being healthy, but more about controlling my body, my desires and my weight.

But, where does this leave orthorexia? What's so wrong, after all, with a preference for fresh, organic food over processed junk food? Although a fastidious attention to produce and freshness could be perceived as a healthy habit, as with all eating disorders and worrisome habits, the problem lies in the thought process behind, and the excessiveness of the behaviour. If we, as women, or as a culture, can't ever enjoy a burger or a donut without feeling compelled to purge or punish ourselves by excessive dieting or exercise, then there is something tragically wrong in our relationship to food. This is undeniably unhealthy.

I’d like your input to help me work this moral foodie conundrum out. Do we live in an orthorexic culture? I’m especially interested in how our gender dictates our relationship to food. Women often have a hugely complicated relationship with nutrition and our bodies. Is healthy eating, for you women readers, just a way to stay thin?

Lastly, for all you food nerds out there, there is a longer version of this piece on Diary of a Lipstick Terrorist, which also examines the relationship of class with food and “organic culture.”