[Animation] The Story of Cap and Trade

Another excellent movie from Annie Leonard and the people at The Story of Stuff:

[Clip] Tar Sands Blow

A great clip! Check it out:

[Link] Reconsidering Gramsci

An essay by Aaron Henry contemplating a closer analysis of Gramscian "good sense". The attached paper also explores the interconnections between some of the tougher theoretical concepts found in Gramsci and Lukacs, including power, hegemony, and reification.

CLICK HERE TO OPEN "Power as Recognition"

[Purging] Forget Sustainability: How a tough concept is getting ditched!

From environmental organizations to government bodies to the corporate sector, the idea of “sustainable development” is slowly being dropped from the lexicon of possibility. It is being replaced by other concepts that are perhaps more realistic, meaningful, or just plain easier to attain! For governments and the corporate sector, the new word of choice seems to be “responsibility”. Hence the Minister of Saskatchewan’s Energy and Resources Department on the possibility of expanding oil sands development into that province: “Our responsibility here in Saskatchewan is to ensure that we have a development that is responsible – responsible to the environment, socially responsible, and obviously would have to be economic before any development would go forward”. On the other side of the spectrum, the environmentalists have also been on the search for a new term. Alternatives, a leading ecology journal, recently asked the following in a call for submissions: “Could resilience replace sustainability as the organizing principle of the environmental/ecological movement?” Take a look at the PR statements of corporations, NGOs, and government ministries, and it becomes evident that the term “sustainability” is in the process of slowly being phased out.
Needless to say, some questions come to mind: Why the recent society-wide effort to ditch sustainability? What is the history of the concept of sustainability? Does it really matter what word we use? In the following paragraphs I suggest that we’ve gotten sick and tired of the idea of sustainability, mostly because it reminds us of our colossal failure to live in harmony with the ecological systems of this planet. Collectively, we know that sustainable development is almost impossible without undergoing radical transformations to our entire political and economic structures. So rather than remaining on the path of dreaming big, we’ve effectively given-up on sustainability and begun searching for replacements that cause us less anxiety and guilt.
But words do matter! With “sustainability” out of the picture, we can feel good about various accomplishments that have diminished the intensity of our environmental footprints but which have negatively impacted our environment overall. Here’s an example: Environment Canada loves to boast that this country’s “economic GHG intensity—the amount of GHGs emitted per unit of economic activity” – has been decreasing since 2003. And the term “environmental responsibility” exudes exactly that: We’re using energy more efficiently. We can all feel good that we have been treating our environment responsibly, right? But when we consider the GHG trends from the vantage point of sustainability, it becomes clear that we are still firmly on the path towards killing our planet (and the same Environment Canada emissions report notes that nation-wide we still produce 22% more GHGs than in 1990, which happens to be 29% more than our Kyoto target). Colossal failure indeed!
The idea of sustainability is one that emerged in the 1970s and 80s. In 1972, the UN Conference on the Environment in Stockholm was perhaps the first major international meeting at which observers agreed that environmental degradation was having a negative impact on human populations. By 1987 the famed Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future spelled out an idealistic (perhaps unrealistic?) vision of sustainable development, as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
It seemed easy enough at the time, but the emergence of multiple global environmental catastrophes since then suggests that the way we have been going about development has been anything but sustainable. Hence our current GHG emissions which are contributing to a climate that will be much less hospitable for future generations; or our contamination of the atmosphere and watersheds with pollutants that will clearly have an adverse long term effect; or our overuse and depletion of precious resources, some of which may no longer be around to be used by our grandchildren!
Thus over the years “sustainability” became a fluffy and unrealistic term. Every societal group started to use it, and slowly the term lost its meaning. We knew we were being “environmentally responsible” when we chose not to have our hotel towels washed every day, and when we bought green detergents and hybrid cars. But at the same time we also knew that, in the long run, the entire social structure that had us staying at comfy hotels and buying chemicals made on the other side of world and using cars instead of public transport was a structure that was entirely unsustainable. It is a structure that is entirely unsustainable!
In a way, sustainability ditched us through elusion – we just couldn’t achieve it! Sustainability presents an idea that is just too impossible for us to attain in a society that produces, consumes and wastes far too much. A former professor of mine once clued me in to the desperation that is conjured up by the tough concept of sustainability. He wrote his dissertation on sustainability decades ago, back when it was a new and emerging concept. Yet nowadays he questions whether it is even possible, and he’s lost all confidence in our ability to maintain lives that do not negatively impact our society down the line.
Yet as much as I’ve always been suspicious of the term, and as much as I share the collective doubt in our ability to live sustainably, I think it would be a travesty to lose this concept. To ditch sustainability is to lose hope – something we cannot afford to lose. Losing hope is a one way street to nihilism, and nihilism is a dead end street altogether. Sustainability may be a pipe dream, but at least it depicts the ideal – a goal that we should be working towards. Instead of ditching this tough concept, we should keep it handy – even if it’s just to remind us that we aren’t doing enough! Only then will we have a chance (albeit a very slim chance) of actually reforming our way of living to one that does not ruin it for the generations of tomorrow.

[Photo Essay] The Bitumen Trail

At long last, a friend and I recently made a trip to the tar sands of Northern Alberta. We both had an interest in seeing first hand what this massive energy project - the largest in the world - actually looks like. We also wanted to talk to people along the way in order to get a more nuanced understanding of what is actually going on in this province in terms of resource extraction. Dan is a fantastic photographer (see his website at http://touristiko.com/), so I've selected some of his most telling photographs from our trip and provided some annotations.

The bitumen trail
The "tar sands gigaproject" includes far more than the multiple open-pit mines located North of Fort McMurray. 80% of the "oil sand" deposits are located at lower depths and thus need to be extracted using in place - or "in situ" - steam injection wells. Altogether the resource covers 140,800 square kilometers of forest and muskeg in Northeastern Alberta! The oilsand itself is not what humans are after, however: First the sand and other natural components (clays, metals, etc.) need to be removed in order to yield a heavy hydrocarbon called "bitumen". But even the bitumen, which is almost identical to the man made substance we call "tar" (hence the term "tar sands") needs to be upgraded into synthetic crude oil, after which it is sent to various refineries throughout North America to be converted into products such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other petrochemicals like butane, methane, ethane, ethylene and polyethylene. Only three oil sands companies (Suncor, Syncrude, and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd) upgrade bitumen at their respective mine sites. The rest of the companies ship bitumen from their mines and various in situ projects, by pipeline and rail, down to "upgraders" in the Edmonton region, the United States, and Ontario. Hence the whole tar sands gigaproject includes an entire network of mines, in situ projects, pipelines, railway lines, upgraders, refineries and petrochemical plants that literally span across the continent, working together in a constant whirl to satiate Canada's and America's oil addictions. Our trip from Edmonton to Fort McMurray and back followed the first leg of this bitumen trail. We went to the heart of this project - the "surface mineable area" - a place where bitumen has been known to literally ooze out of the Earth, and where First Nations peoples used to go to get bitumen to patch their canoes. And on the way back from the mines, we followed the bitumen trail Southbound to Alberta's Industrial Heartland, where Shell and BA Energy's upgraders and Dow's petrochemical plants are located, through to Petro Canada's (now Suncor's) Strathcona upgrader and refinery on the East side of Edmonton.

Avoiding the "Highway to Hell/Heaven"
It seems that just about anyone who has driven up to Fort McMurray will offer the following advice: "Don't take Highway 63". Two authors have written about the dangers of this highway in their respective accounts of the tar sands. William Marsden's first chapter in Stupid to the Last Drop is titled "Highway to Heaven", sarcastially referring to Alberta's "blessed" position as one of the world's largest oil reserves and the way many people have died in collisions en route to Fort McMurray while trying to pass convoys of slow-moving oversized machinery. Andrew Nikiforuk titles his fourth chapter in Tar Sands "Highway to Hell", also pointing to the high death toll (there were 1000 collisions on Highway 63 between 2001 and 2005) and the wretched aspects of living in boom town Fort McMurray. So Dan and I opt for the safer route: Highway 881. This secondary highway had much less traffic and was much more comfortable overall. Nevertheless, at one point on the return trip we did get a taste of the highway's inherent dangers when we came upon this wide load. Eventually we were given the indication to pass, while going uphill on a solid line. Driving in a small Hyundai sedan, we were clearly outsiders on this highway to heaven/hell: Although the vast majority of drivers were like us (young, white, male), the vehicle of choice in this part of Alberta is a truck with a "buggy whip", a high flying orange flag that is intended to remind the drivers of the giant oilsands dump trucks to avoid running over the one ton trucks (incidentally, last year the buggy whip on one truck at Shell's Albian mine went unnoticed by one heavy dump truck. The worker in the smaller truck was crushed to death, and the driver in the big dump truck didn't even know she had run over another vehicle!).

Fort McMoney












After 6 hours of driving we arrive at Fort McMurray. Along with a general trait of "bigness", another characteristic of the town is testosterone. The local Earls restaurant franchise in Fort McMurray is called "Fuel", a name that better suits its location and the majority of its patrons: white male oilsands workers. I get the impression that this parking job (seen above in the photograph of a truck parked across two spaces) is not necessarily an uncommon site in this town. A lot of money is showcased and spent in Fort McMurray, and high prices are merely a way of life (the cheapest hotel room I could find in town came to $160 for one night!). Many people like to flaunt their wealth with new trucks and other toys for grown ups, and the town has earned the nickname "Fort McMoney". But not everyone in town can afford to live like a high roller. The homeless rate in Fort McMurray is the highest in the province, and while walking through the streets one sees many people who are likely in need of shelter and drug addiction support. And despite the preponderance of people who are paid high hourly wages, the city is severely lacking in social services (as the local Mayor often laments). Finally, Fort McMurray is noticeably multicultural, and the service sector employees seem to encompass a large number of Arab, African and French Canadians. After grabbing a Shawarma at a local Lebanese restaurant, Dan and I head back to the hotel and get ready for our trip North to the mines the next day.

Behind the trees
It's a sunny day and we get off to good start with a full complimentary breakfast at Ace Inn. By 11am we're driving North from Fort McMurray on the famed Highway 63, heading towards the belly of the beast. Some 20 km later we spot what looks like a long hillside of dirt in the distance. It is hard to see from the highway, as a row of trees blocks the view. Determined to get a better view of the horizon, we turn onto a side road and find a hill to climb. According to a great project map made by Petr Cizek (http://oilsandstruth.org/maps-tar-sands-development) we know that this long dirt hill that stretches a number of kilometers across the horizon is part of the Suncor Millenium and Steepbank mine. The scale of the entire project becomes evident when we realize that the small yellow trucks moving in the distance are the giant heavy-haulers that are three stories high and can carry 400 tons of dirt (The photo here only captures one small segment of the panoramic view). There is only so much that one can see from the highway. The real way to view the oilsands is from the sky (but unfortunately our budget can not cover the $1300 required for a 1 hour helicopter ride!). Oilsands operations have literally reshaped the landscape of this region. Hillsides and lakes now exist where there were none before, and gigantic craters up to 70 meters deep have been unearthed in the search for black gold. This must be an archealogist's nightmare: In 1976 woolly mammoth bones were uncovered and luckily handed over to a museum, but I wonder how many ancient fossils, middens and points of archealogical interest have been disturbed in the process of digging up all of this soil.

Reclaimed forests?
As we drive further North we see a haze of smog trailing across the horizon. From the trailhead of Crane Lake Reclamation Area we see the source of this air pollution: A smokestack at Syncrude's Mildred Lake mine. The Crane Lake trail leads us through a synthetically engineered forest to a man-made lake that Suncor began building in the 1970s. I have to admit that I never would have imagined that this used to be an open pit mine. But despite the presence of ducks and native plant species, there is a strange feeling to this place: Perhaps it is the smoke trailing across the sky, or the "no trespassing" signs that block our entry to (and view of) the industrial wastelands that neighbour Crane Lake, or perhaps it is the overwhelming feeling of doubt - doubt that the miles and miles of open-pit mines will someday be fully reclaimed and restored to their "natural state" - a goal that industry claims it intends to meet and government claims is a requirement. When the boreal forest is clear cut and the natural muskeg is removed, the organic layer of mineral soil is destroyed. According to a reclamation expert at the University of Alberta, this disturbs the "vital interactions between root systems and symbiotic fungi, bacteria and algae and other micro-organisms that co-exist underground." One gets the impression that industry and government are playing God in asserting that we can rebuild hundreds of square kilometers of ancient Boreal forest. Dan reads my mind as we gaze over the mines in the distance when he says "There's no way they'll be able to reclaim all of that".

"Mordor Corridor"


We continue North. Now we are driving by one of Syncrude's tailings ponds (where the infamous "duck incident" occurred last year). The white sand is one of the final derivatives after everything "of value" is removed through separation, upgrading and pond settling. The Syncrude Tailings Dam is considered by the US Department of Interior to be the largest damn in the world by volume of construction material. It spans across 14 miles and holds 19 billion cubic feet of waste. And as Dan and I both now know, it stinks! Highway 63 makes a sharp turn and cuts right, and here one enters what I would call the "Mordor Corridor" (as there is nothing but open pit mines, asphalt, and tailings ponds in all directions). Here we are directly downwind of the Syncrude smokestack, and the stench is awful (and who knows how toxic?). The sandbank to our left is blowing across the highway, making me feel like I am in the middle of the desert. The idea of full reclamation seems even more absurd.

Sound blasts and "bitu men"
The tar sands actually have a distinct sound. One can always hear the hum of large trucks whirring down Highway 63, and the background is punctuated by the propane-fired air canons that dot the tailing lakes (which supposedly scare away wildlife). And in my case I heard a little chuckle from Dan every time we saw one of the "bitu men" - the orange clad, hard-hatted scarecrows which give the impression of a big joke: "Someone must have had a lot of fun putting those guys together", Dan says. The air canons and bitu men appear to be doing their job, as there is no wildlife in sight... but then again, if I were a duck this is about the last place on Earth I'd want to hang out!

A really sad place

Finally, we come to what one might call the beginning of the bitumen trail, about 50 km North of Fort McMurray. Here Highway 63 becomes a gravel road, leading to some of the more Northerly mines like CNRL's Horizon mine. But we're hungry, and we've had enough mine spotting. We turn and begin to head back South, planning to stop in the Fort McKay First Nation for lunch. We luck out when we spot a barbeque set up across from the Band Office building. After some inquiries we learn that Alberta Environment is hosting a free BBQ lunch picnic, but for what purpose no one around seems to know. The government employees are not there to fill us in (they appeared to remain inside their government trailer while we were there). So we eat our free burgers and set back on the road after an interesting conversation with two Fort McKay elders.

Despite signs of being uncharacteristically wealthy for a reserve (new paved blacktop, fancy buildings and new parks, etc.), it is evident that this town is a symbol of a dying community - and not just figuratively! Later on in the day we have the opportunity to meet with Fort McKay elder Celina Harpe. From her, we learn about an entire way of life and culture that has been mined away over the last thirty years along with the bitumen. Celina was born on the trap line back when there were no big mines surrounding her people's land. She tells us about the great whitefish they used to catch in the Athabasca River and surrounding lakes. When she was a child, the ecosystem was clearly thriving. There was a bounty of fresh fruit and game and Celina tells us about a trick she learned from her mother when she found herself thirsty out on the trap line - she would dig a hole in the muskeg and let the water pool and settle, and then drink straight from the Earth! Now Celina and her fellow community members know to stay clear of any fish and water in the area; The berry carrying fruit trees and bushes seem to have dissipated in direct correlation with the emergence of various noxious gases floating downstream from neighbouring oilsands mines. Celina had to fight with the oilsands companies to get fresh drinking water into her community, and she foresees - with a noticeable sigh in her throat - that the day will soon come when they can no longer hunt moose in the area. Kids in the community have developed asthma (something Celina had never heard about when she was growing up); We hear about the stench of nearby oil plants that permeates in the neighbourhood, at times lingering inside people's homes, and the incidences of toxic gases like ammonia finding their way into the townsite, causing the schoolkids to pass out! We hear about the great divide between new community leaders who see opportunity in the oilsands, and those elders who pine for a traditional way of life that is now lost.

Is this really what a union town looks like?












When we return to Fort McMurray we pass by a billboard that reads "This is what a union town looks like. Welcome to Fort McMurray". Despite the image of unions dominating the show in the oilsands industry, the Alberta Federation of Labour has highlighted a host of attacks on Alberta's unions. The Alberta Government's Bill 26 of 2008 particularly targeted the construction sector which is very heavily involved in the oil sands industry. As the pace of development in 2007 and 2008 saw construction costs soar to unprecedented levels, the Stelmach government reacted by trying to reduce the amount of unionized construction workers in the province which - in theory - would bring construction costs down. But the effect has been to make union organizing almost impossible in some sectors, causing some labour activists to question whether the human right to unionize has been taken away from some workers.

Throughout our journey we have passed many work camps, where a large number of oilsands workers live. As the photo above attests, the camps tend to look like long rectangular boxes and they seem to exist in their own isolation. We hear a little bit about life in the camps from an acquaintance who meets us for dinner (whose name I will not share in order to protect his identity). He's worked in the oilsands and related industries for nearly three decades, and has a lot of experience and stories to share. Life at the camps wasn't all bad - there was plenty of comraderie and a workout and entertainment room, but nevertheless he doesn't plan on ever living in camp again - "I've done my time!" In animated form, our dinner guest tells us about a number of ways that oilsands could be more efficient, less wasteful. We get a sense from him just how many good ideas are out there floating inside the heads of the workers in the patch. But none of these ideas ever seem to come to fruition, and why not? The bottom line, he repeatedly reminds us signalling with the motion of his hands, is it's all about the money. If it's not profitable, it's not happening in the oilsands!

Back to Upgrader Alley
Our drive back to Edmonton is blessed by stereotypical prairie beauty - the contrast of light blue skies, fluffly white clouds, and the hues of greens, yellows and browns of the crops, fields and wooded areas that dot this province. But where this would have been the case some decades ago, four counties Northeast of Edmonton now have their prairie beauty marred by new industrial developments. It's called the "Alberta Industrial Heartland". The politicians and business associations of Fort Saskatchewan, Lamont, Strathcona, and Sturgeon county have come together to rebrand a 533 square kilometer area of prime agricultural land as an "industrial" corridor. To some, the AIH sounds like an extremely lucrative business opportunity, and in the frenzy of record oil prices in the summer of 2008 there were plans to build up to ten distinct bitumen upgrader plants within this industrial park (along the North Saskatchewan River) - which conjured up the nickname "Upgrader Alley". But to many Albertans it just sounds plain crazy - crazy to visualize the paving over and poisoning of the air, water and soil that has the reproductive capacity to feed the citizens of the Greater Edmonton Region.

Unwelcoming flares
As we approach Edmonton we see very dark smoke billowing across the horizon. Getting nearer it becomes evident that the dark smoke filling our field of view is originating at the Petro Canada (now owned by Suncor) refinery and upgrader. Living in Edmonton, I have come to know these flares, but rarely do they pour out such dark black smoke. The bright orange fires must have been at least 20 feet high each. As we would later find out, the black smoke was a result of a small "incident" at the refinery. Suncor's supply of hydrogen ran dry, and so the plant went into partial shut down mode (the entire process of upgrading is very hydrogen intensive). These types of incidents seem to occur all the time - it's part of the business of being immersed in a large project and trying to balance all of the inputs and outputs with timelines. Suncor claims that the black smoke that filled the skies above Edmonton is not harmful to humans. Again, I am filled with a sense of doubt. In "unrelated" news, a new report has found that large amounts of toxic gases being released in the oilsands are leading to the acidification of rain downwind in Saskatchewan. The tar sands rain has the acidity of black coffee.

Unsettling conclusions...
In the end, Dan and I are left with some unsettling questions and conclusions. The first one arises from something that we didn't see very much of along the bitumen trail - government intervention, involvement and ownership. If the people of Alberta own the resource you wouldn't know it, because the caretaker of this publicly owned treasure is camouflaged amidst the plethora of private companies profiting from Alberta bitumen. The Alberta government works far too closely with industry in the oilsands, to the extent that there is no body playing the role of protecting the public from the negative economic, social, and environmental impacts of out-of-control resource extraction. The Alberta government is deeply entrenched in the business of oil. Despite claiming to be regulating the oilsands resource with "the public interest" in mind, the Energy Resources Conservation Board appears to be an advocacy group for the oilsands developers. Much has been written about this, but two telling facts are that the government has never turned down an application from a major oil company to exploit the resource, and that the Alberta government has hired lobbyists to work on behalf of big oil in Washington D.C.
Secondly, there appears to exist a blind, messianic culture of living in the moment here in Alberta. This culture is marred by an overwhelming presence of "cognitive dissonance" - one in which people continually rationalize and justify their behaviour and involvement in the tar sands gigaproject in order to avoid changing their actions. But the long term costs of this cognitive dissonance (socially, economically, and ecologically) are likely to be enormous and perhaps even too much to handle. We are already seeing signs of the social preasures on communities - from families being split apart while the breadwinner spends weeks working long shifts, to lacking social and health services trying to keep up with the pace of Alberta's boom and bust cycle. It is impossible to put a monetary value on the social and environmental externalities of Alberta's super heavy oil industry, but whatever its value, every indication suggests it is too much.

Hope?
One of my favourite professors once explained that being a pessimist doesn't bar you from having hope. That is, you can see the glass as being half empty, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can't hope that it will be refilled. The story of the oilsands as I know it and as I have relayed it above is a sad one. But let's hope that between the actions of people like Celina, our dinner guest, and all the other critics, workers, insiders and outsiders in the oilsands we can work our way towards some solutions to this mess of a bitumen trail.

[Irony] A Failure in Canadian Foreign Policy

Yet again the Harper Conservatives have made a grave failure in their dealings with foreign matters. Soon enough the rest of the hemisphere - and the world for that matter - will look upon Canada as a backwards, market fundamentalist, war-mongering, anti-democratic and environment-destroying state in a new century that is marked by the ideals of environmentalism, peace and mass democratic representation.

In recent months the Conservatives have barred foreign politicians and even Canadian citizens from entering the country, and attempted to expel Canadian nationals. They've tried to sign free trade agreements with murderous regimes against the will of the Canadian people, and continued to pursue a war of aggression in Afghanistan under the guise of "development". They've turned a blind eye to worldwide negotiations being made in preparation for the Copenhagen conference on climate change. But this time it's what they didn't do that is setting Canada apart on the world stage: The Harper Government didn't come out expressly in favour of democracy - as every other country in the hemisphere did - when it failed to call for the current authoritarian regime in Honduras to allow the democratically elected president to return.

The recent coup in Honduras is a throwback to the last century when pro-American oligarchs and unfathomably rich landowners and capitalists in Latin America deposed left leaning governments that showed any semblance of support for the masses. But we citizens of the world can not allow this type of violent authoritarian behaviour of times past. We have to say "no"; Our leaders in government should be making clear statements regarding the current wrongdoings in Honduras.

But instead, our minister of foreign affairs, Peter Kent, has actually come out as an apologist for the dictatorial Honduran regime. As reported in the New York Times, Kent argued that there is a "context" in which President Zelaya laid the groundwork for his own downfall! The suggestion is dangerous: It implies that militarists are justified in seizing power in a coup d'etat if their democratically elected leader has a constitutional tiff with Congress.

How interesting... as only a few months ago we were having a bit of a constitutional crisis here in Canada. Our (minority) elected leader, Stephen Harper, went against the will of the majority of parliamentarians. He went through back door channels and prorogued parliament - shutting down open debate, just to hold onto power! Following Kent's logic, the coalition of opposition parties would have been justified in hiring masked gunmen to storm 24 Sussex, kidnapping Harper and expelling him to the United States, forbidding him from entering Canada again! But such actions would not have been tolerated - not by the people of Canada, not by the citizens of the world - not even by those of us who are in opposition to Harper politically.

Canadians have had enough irony and hipocrasy in their foreign policy. It's time to get rid of the Harper government - through peaceful democratic means - so that we have a chance at saving Canada's international reputation before it's too late.

[Appeal] Let Galloway In!

APPEAL:
As many of you will know, last week Canada’s Border Services Agency decided that it would bar British Member of Parliament George Galloway from entering Canada. CBSA claims that Galloway poses a threat to Canada’s national security!

Galloway is an outspoken critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of Israel’s foreign policy. He was scheduled to do a speaking tour in Canada at the end of this month (with a talk scheduled here at the Bronson Centre in Ottawa on April 2nd, at 7pm).

Conservative MP Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, explained that he will not use his authority to overturn CBSA’s decision. In other words, our government is preventing a British MP from delivering a few speeches in this country! Our government is yet again censoring free speech! Our government is shielding us from the truth by inciting fear and appealing to threats of national security. Yet again our government is quashing dissent!

WHAT CAN WE DO?
We need to fight back against this blatant disregard for free speech! Send an email to add your name, with your endorsement of Galloway’s right to speak to the Let Galloway Speak Committee, at Galloway.Canada@gmail.com

Send a quick email to your MP and copy Jason Kenney (KenneJ@parl.gc.ca) asking to guarantee Galloway’s civil liberties by allowing him into Canada.

MORE INFORMATION:
Check out George Galloway’s official website to see video of him speaking on the wars in Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan and Iraq: http://www.georgegalloway.com/

Check out the CBC news story about the ban on Galloway:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/03/20/galloway-ban-canada-kenney.html

Check out Section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which defines the grounds upon which someone can be denied entry to Canada for reasons of security, (to see how preposterous the government’s claim is): http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/I-2.5///en

[Comparison] The Good ol' Union Bust!

Yet again I am realizing how we have it all wrong here in Canada. The attitude towards unions has gotten so bad that a large number of employees who acquire union jobs do not realize that this is a position of privilege (and of responsibility) which has been won for them by their predecessors. Most Canadians just don't understand basic labor relations: They are almost always ready to side with authority and power (the employer) and have an antipathetic response towards worker exploitation. At a union meeting for my CUPE local of TAs at Carleton University some weeks ago, I watched as one member expressed his indifference at the thought that future TAs in his position (international students) would have a negative take home pay if we didn't stand up for a tuition indexation clause that the administration was trying to purge from our contract. He didn't care - the issue was about him, here and now. Short term, self interest is the ruling ideology of the day here in Canada. There is no such thing as solidarity in this cold-hearted country.

Thus it is no surprise (though it is disappointing) that our media is gleefully reporting two big union busting operations here in Ontario this week. After 12 weeks on the picket, the TA union at York University is being legislated back to work by the provincial parliament. Meanwhile, after 50 days on strike, the Amalgamated Transit Union in Ottawa is being threatened by the Federal Minister of Labour, Rona Ambrose, to get back to work. These types of union busts show a clear and tight nit relationship between government and capital. The city of Ottawa, the Ontario government, the federal government are very clear in demonstrating their distaste for (and blame upon) workers. Certainly, the executive management at OC transpo and York's administration can not possibly be at fault for causing a strike! That would simply be preposterous - it must be greedy workers wanting higher pay, as the media purports (and yet both unions have rejected offers of increased wages, clearly indicating that that is not what is at stake).

Now, if we have it wrong in Canada, who has it right? One look at the BBC's world news site today gives an indication: France. Today across the country, some one million public employees and sympathizers are engaging in massive nation-wide strike action, called by eight of the country's biggest unions. Much of the country is in a total standstill. Airports, buses, train systems, schools, post offices, banks, hospitals and courts are either shut down or slowed down. And the reason? Workers are angry with the federal government for their failure to deal with the economic crisis. They are tired of crappy working conditions, privatizations, and the Sarkozy's bailing out of big private banks while leaving the people out to dry. And the public reaction? Overwhelming support (69% of the populace supports the strike)! Here is a country where more than two thirds of the population can come together in solidarity to demand fair and reasonable worker-friendly action from the government.

Meanwhile back in Canada our friggin' Minister of Labour is rallying MPs to vote for her stupid union busting plan which will ultimately fail to resolve the heart of the problem. Yet another reason why I want to move to Europe... (don't even get me started on public transportation and environmental policy).

[Recollection] Oh yeah, we're still at war...

Last week the war on terror ended... didn't it? Israel ended its horrific bombing campaign in Gaza; Iraqi troops are slowly taking over control of the US operations in their country; In his second day in office; Obama closed down the illegal torture prison at Guantanamo. Indeed, with the passing of presidential power from Bush to Obama, the war on terror is now officially over. We can all take a big sigh of relief as hope and change washes over the Middle East, bringing peace to us all.

Oh wait... are we still in Afghanistan?
As it turns out, we are! There are over 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan conducting operations at a cost to the Canadian taxpayers of $1.3 million per day (Just imagine what that money could be doing for our crumbling infrastructure and cash-strapped municipalities back at home). Canada forms one of the largest contingents of the 31,000 troops from 37 countries currently there. Over 107 Canadians have died there, and of course there is no telling how many innocent civilians have died at the hands of our soldiers, our bombs, our guns (nobody seems to keep count of "collateral damage" like innocent civilians).

But it's not like we're at war there.. we're just providing security for development projects, right?
The fact is we're still hunting down militants and trying to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda... very similar to the way Israel recently tried to hunt down and destroy Hamas in the Gaza strip. Recall that during the Israeli incursion of Gaza some thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians were killed in the barrage of missiles and bombs and bullets aimed at the militants hiding amongst them. If you think the situation is any different in Afghanistan, you're wrong. As it turns out, Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission issued a report in December 2008 that accuses the Canadian and American forces of exacerbating the war because of air strikes and nighttime raids on civilian homes that often result in violence, destruction and death. The report notes "Afghan families experienced their family members killed or injured, their houses or other property destroyed, or homes invaded at night without any perceived justification or legal authorization." The UN notes that 25% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by air strikes. Of course, the Canadian commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier General Denis Thompson, denies that air strikes or home invasions - which undoubtedly terrorize the civilian population - are a problem and he claims that Canadian soldiers always follow "proper escalation of force procedures"... (just like the IDF soldiers in Gaza followed proper procedures there, right?).

But... don't we have a responsibility to NATO?
Our responsibility to NATO is to bring informed, intelligent debate to the table and explore all possible diplomatic options before making rash decisions like joining in a protracted war against an insurgent army. Like a good friend, we should be trying to convince our fellow NATO members that an invasion by a coalition like the ISAF is wrong-headed and will only strengthen the Taliban's resolve. If we were really interested in "development", we wouldn't be spending 5 times as much on our military mission as on our 'development' mission; we would have 2500 aid workers there, not 2500 soldiers. Besides, every NATO member has the reserved right to NOT declare war if another member of the alliance is attacked... but let's be clear, Afghanistan never attacked the United States (al Qaeda did), so why are we punishing innocent Afghan civilians?

If we're going to accept the hope and change rhetoric, then we're going to have to bring hope and change to Afghanistan. Let's pull our troops out and quadruple our efforts towards non-militaristic aid - genuine development aid. If we must provide such development projects with security, let's do it the right way, let's get the United Nations involved - particularly neighboring Muslim countries - to bring in and supply Peacekeepers to protect international aid organizations. The last thing we should be sending to Afghanistan is a malicious military force that invades civilian homes at night looking for suspected militants.

Amidst the economic woes and starspangled Obamamania that has taken over our full attention here in North America, we must not forget the fact that we are still at war, even though the warmongers have all been voted out of office.