LETTER: Homelessness column set an angry tone

Fletcher sought to downplay efforts of compassionate community members to justify support for the angry

• Oct. 31, 2017 1:57 p.m.
• From The Surrey Now-Leader: https://www.surreynowleader.com/opinion/letter-homelessness-column-set-an-angry-tone/

The Editor,

Re: “Getting past the homeless rhetoric,” the Now-Leader online.

Tom Fletcher’s rather mean-spirited column tries to pose angry people who oppose support for homeless people (or who resent the presence of homeless people period) as real community members simply trying to protect their neighbourhoods.

Well, this might be news for Mr. Fletcher, but homeless people are part of our communities and residents of our neighbourhoods. Fletcher’s false narrative would seek to set up a division between supposedly legitimate community members (i.e. property owners) and illegitimate ones (i.e. homeless people).

Or to suggest that, actually, homeless people are somehow not part of our communities after all. He even feels the need to distinguish between “genuine” wounds and illnesses as if it is his right to decide.

Fletcher also dishonestly tries to suggest that community support for homeless people can be reduced to a supposed “professional tent-city stage manager” like Ivan Drury and a “tent city queen” (itself an offensive designation) and “a guy.”

As tireless as Mr. Drury might be as an activist, he is only one part of a much larger movement supporting homeless people and that movement has a broader community base of support.

• B.C. VIEWS: Getting past the homeless rhetoric

Fletcher here seeks to downplay the efforts of compassionate community members to justify his support for the angry. And why, on the other hand, do anti-poverty activists get condemned when they express anger over social injustice anyway?

The angry often pose as concern for neighbourhood what is really prejudice toward homeless people. Concern for our neighbourhoods should extend to concern for our neighbours, who might well be homeless. Or is it really only about concern for property after all?

In the end, Fletcher does not get past the homeless rhetoric, he only adds to it. He offers no real solutions, only a rant —yes, an angry one— against homeless people that tries to suggest that they are all drug users or criminals, or welfare cheats.

All familiar words used to knock our homeless neighbours. Do we speak in the same way about our housed neighbours using drugs, committing crime, etc., because some do?

While these accusations might help justify expanded police budgets to regulate homeless people it is really unhelpful and inaccurate. Yet it serves to stoke the fires of the angry even further.

Dr. Jeff Shantz, Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Precarious Academic Labour, The Struggle is Real

Days after attending the panel discussions, Precarious Academic Labour? How does it affect our Teaching and Learning Communities organized by the Emily Carr Faculty Association (FPSE Local 22), I had a conversation with a close friend about her frustrations with contract teaching. After chatting about her challenging experiences as a contract faculty our talk ended with me (half-jokingly) saying, “The Struggle is Real Dude!” in my best surfer voice. We both laughed. But, only for a moment, because, sadly, the struggle of contract faculty in academia is far too real.

My friend has been a sessional and contract faculty instructor for the past 5 years. Her contract ends in April 2017. She is once again on the job market with few postings in her field. She feels isolated. She doesn’t want to talk to her “colleagues” about her current struggles and worries because these same colleagues could interview her for a job one day. Recently, a tenure-tracked male colleague commented on how she is a “good sessional” because she is not all bitter and angry like the others. She sarcastically laughed at how in a precarious work situation she, and other women, are still performing emotional labour to make sure the tenured faculty aren’t negatively impacted. She is angry, frustrated, and mostly disheartened that after 10 years of education and training she cannot land a job that will support her family.

This conversation reflected many of the themes discussed on the October 20th panel. There was a stark and unsettling irony in discussing academic working conditions in the auditorium of the shiny new (and corporate sponsored) campus of the Emily Carr University of Art and Design (ECUAD) in Vancouver. The panel was moderated by Rita Wong of the Emily Carr Faculty Association and had speakers from SFU, ECUAD, and VCC, and revolved around issues faced by “non-regular faculty” (meaning sessional and lecturer instructors). Such faculty are now the majority of instructors at ECUAD, are paid less than regular faculty, have to apply for their courses every term (have no job security), are not compensated to do any non-teaching activities such as curriculum development, not represented in school governance, and have no health plan.

During the panel discussion, Ben Anderson (SFU) discussed the repercussions of the win coming out of recent TSSU work action and raised key questions about the role of tenured faculty—how they could be allies and advocates but there is instead a disconnect. Frank Cosco, a union activist from VCC discussed the importance of getting all members involved, paying attention to university budgets and their surpluses, and how the burden for challenging precarious work currently rests on the shoulders of the people most affected, non-regular faculty. Terra Poirier, a student in 4th year photography at ECUAD, discussed precarious faculty work from a (much-needed) student perspective. She discussed how many of the problems faced by non-regular faculty aren’t immediately obvious to students because sessionals are in practice absorbing the pay disparities by working many hours for free. She shared how the current model of making sessionals apply every term means that courses are created mere days before term starts, making beginning of term stressful for students and instructors alike. She also discussed how this instability means high turnover and the inability to have long-term mentors, as well as the problems with non-regular faculty not being compensated to do service for the university, like curriculum development. Finally, she noted the gendered aspect of precarious work and argued that such exploitative labour practices should be a concern to any artist who cares about social justice, and urged students to start working on this issue.

The post-panel discussion amongst non-regular faculty at ECUAD reflected all of these themes and more frustrations including lack of adequate office space, questions about how to build community in a time of precarity, and the struggle of designing and teaching finite courses that may or may not be taught again.

As a long-time union activist and a member of the Kwantlen Faculty Association (FPSE 5), there were several take-home messages from this talk but a couple that really stuck with me. How do tenured and permanent faculty support contract faculty and challenge precarious work on our campuses? How can we change this move towards precarious labour to create future jobs for our students who want a career in academia?

We have the job security and the associated privileges to instigate change. In the post-panel discussion, I heard contract faculty say they feel isolated, not invited to participate in departmental events (or paid to do so), and wanting to collaborate with regular faculty. As a permanent faculty member, these are all relatively easy things for us to do. Talk to our colleagues like peers? Be sure that people are included? Yes, many of us don’t do these “simple” actions and by not doing so perpetuate the stratification between colleagues. And even more is needed. In my experience it is often those struggling in precarious working conditions who do the organizing, the agitating, and the challenging. In addition to building community, we permanent faculty can do more and should. It is time to get moving!

[Note: This post is written in solidarity with the striking college teachers (OPSEU members) in Ontario who have just entered Day 10 of their strike.]

By Lisa Freeman

Report: Revisiting Mexico's "43" (students gunned down in Iguala)

We spent our last day here on the Reforma, Mexico City’s main street, intending to photograph the fabulous art benches that line the boulevards. Along with benches the Reforma is lined with statues commemorating Mexico’s heroes. Every statue has been spray-painted in red with the number “43.” We hadn’t gone far when we came across a tent encampment outside the Justice building surrounded by poster-sized photos of young Mexicans, all with the inscription: “43.” Approaching the camp we noticed a long procession, some of them children, wearing black T shirts and yellow bandanas over their mouths. They marched in single file along the gutter accompanied by the police. Each bandana was printed with a woman’s name: Amy, Eve, etc. A marcher handed us pamphlets and told us they were marching for the 45,000 prostitutes outside the airport.

As the procession passed, a woman approached us trying to sell us a crocheted doll with a black hood over its head. In spare English she explained she was a friend of the mother of one of the 43, that the camp had stood vigil outside the Justice building since forty-three students on a bus to Mexico City had been gunned down by the police. People holding vigil for the 43 have lived on the boulevard surrounded by three lanes of traffic on both sides, since 2014. Mexican-style the camp included a central courtyard with its own Day of the Dead papier-mache skeleton and a small library. Donations are being collected in a pickle jar. I asked the woman if she was afraid. She said “no,” and pointed to the Justice building, saying “they are all gone.” Justice has fled the city, leaving an empty building to face the families of the murdered students.

At an exhibition on “ Forensic Architecture” at UNAM: the Autonomous University of Mexico art gallery, we learned from a student docent that the forty-three students shot by the police in the small town of Iguala had been on their way to join an annual protest marking the murder of 10,000 protesters on October 2nd, 1968 in Mexico City. People in small towns are especially vulnerable to attacks by the police, he told us. The story made international news, but in Canada the media didn’t report that the police had attacked people all over the town. The investigation more or less ended with the convictions of the mayor and his wife who was later released. None of the police were ever charged.

Later on our photo walk we came across a black art bench with two upright steel crosses for its back. On one of the crosses someone had scratched: “Nochixtlan June 19, 2016. Fue el Estado” (It was the state).

Back in the hotel we learned Noxchitlan is a small town in Chiapas, the heart of indigenous Mexico, where locals had blocked roads leading to oil refineries to protest the imposition of education reforms by the government of President Enrique Pena. The "reforms" require that teachers re-certify themselves every three years, pass state exams, and don't include curricula or methodologies addressing rural conditions. Losing patience with the protesters the police had simply opened fire, killing nine.

Mexico is a country marked by numbers and dates that are codes for atrocities committed by the state: “June 19,” “October 2nd,” September 26, “43,” “10,000.” If you know the codes you know that the violence visited on the people here since Cortes razed Tenochtitlan back in the 1500's hasn’t really ended. With their crocheted dolls, bandanas, and blockades, they are still fighting the Spanish Conquest. 

In Solidarity,

Alex Phillips

Local 22, Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC

Human Rights & International Solidarity Committee, FPSE

Report: "Bringing a Political Revolution to City Hall: Jean Swanson and Kshama Sawant"

Hosted by Socialist Alternative and Left Alternative. Britannia Secondary School. October 7, 2017.

By Jeff Shantz

Some on the Left have been excited recently by the perceived successes of socialist political candidates, such as Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. In Vancouver a constellation of activists has come together to support the campaign for city councillor or respected grassroots activist Jean Swanson. Swanson’s campaign draws inspiration from the successful election and re-election of Socialist Alternative member Kshama Sawant to city council in Seattle in 2013 and 2015. On Saturday, October 7, 2017, Swanson and Sawant spoke on the prospects for a socialist municipalism at a fundraising event for the Swanson campaign. My report on the event follows.

The event began with Jane Buckshon of Left Alternative, a student socialist group at Simon Fraser University which supported food service workers at SFU in their jobs battle. One hundred and seventy food service workers were at risk of losing their jobs because the food service company and contract at SFU changed. It was a successful campaign.

Buckshon said that some youth are drawn to the Swanson campaign because it is addressing real concerns with real solutions. She noted the high costs of housing and tuition for students who have classroom demands that cut into work and well being. And leave young workers with huge debt loads. There are real impacts on mental health for students. Those problems are not inevitable, however. But to change, systems need to change. For Left Alternative the Swanson campaign is connected to broader mass movements.

The next speaker was Kshama Sawant, the clear draw for the event and the one many were there to hear. Sawant has drawn international attention as the first socialist councillor in Seattle in over 100 years. She is active in movements and has not accepted corporate money. Her council work has included being part of a successful push for $15/hour in Seattle, divestment from Wells Fargo, and money for social housing. In 2015, with Indigenous activists, they eliminated Columbus Day.

Sawant opened by saying this is not the age of Trump as some suppose and fret. Rather it is the age of social movements. Resistance is also rising globally. Sawant suggests that most in the US are moving Left. They are disgusted with corporate politicians and looking for alternatives. She suggests that the Right has been emboldened by Trump but most workers do not support what he stands for.

Sawant then turned her attention to the context in Seattle which she says is dominated by the Democratic Party establishment. The Seattle Process emphasizes politicians building back room consensus. They speak progressive but govern neoliberal. And the city is marked by massive wealth, vulnerability for most working people, many people priced out, and high rates of homelessness. Like Vancouver on all counts.

Sawant says her campaign came out of Occupy in Seattle. It openly proclaimed support for the working class and opposition to developers. It was a campaign for the oppressed and marginalized. They openly stated their socialism. Sawant says in response people were energized and many had been waiting for such a campaign. She noted that many do not vote because they see no meaningful alternative.

For Sawant, there are only two sides in politics. Those who own and control and those who do not. You have to be clear which side you are on. She is clear you have to continue to fight against developers, speculators, and corporations. Even supposedly progressive councillors have bought into the “consensus” model. That means concessions to developer candidates. It means capitaulation too often.

Sawant insists that the real need is for social movements. Politicians are not enough. After her election two mainstream councillors told her the donors ran the council and she should forget her call for $15/hr. She notes that her campaign used tactics like the threat of ballot initiatives to win $15. She says the Chamber of Commerce confirmed the part that tactic played. Corporate politicians only fear the movement, not the progressive politician who can otherwise be marginalized.

In 2016 the movement won a campaign against a $160 million new police headquarters in Seattle. The Bunker would have been the largest police headquarters in the US and an offensive expenditure of public resources given real social needs in the city. The campaign to Block the Bunker even won $29 million for affordable housing instead.

Sawant ended by making the point that working people need solid organizations. There needs to be a collective resource in organization.

Finally, the event wrapped with the campaign presentation from long time anti-poverty activist Jean Swanson. Swanson noted that the richest eight men own as much wealth as 3.6 billion people. And the great wealth disparities are repeated in Vancouver. She noted that Chip Wilson of Lululemon infamy (and KPU donor) contributes more than $37000 to neoliberal Vision Vancouver, which dominates Vancouver municipal politics now. She pointed out absurd situations where property owners can vote twice while tenants are often left off rolls because they move frequently (forced by evictions, demovictions, renovictions, criminalization, etc.).

Swanson proposals like a mansion tax and rent freeze have become part of the election debate through her campaign. And we actually need a rent reduction. She suggests that $174 million per year could be raised through the mansion tax and she is proposing only modest numbers like one percent for houses over five million and two percent over 10 million. I would go for more myself. Swanson would also make public land available to Indigenous communities for housing. Swanson also spoke of the need to address the opioid crisis by making drugs free and clean.

Notably, Swanson pointed out that police, libraries, and parks are excluded from Vancouver’s Sanctuary City. She would work so police cannot report people to Border Services. She suggested the need for free transit for downtown workers. And rightly said we could cut transit police to pay for it.

Swanson also emphasized the need to stop police harassment of homeless people. Most impressively, and necessary, she would work to cut police budgets. Police eat up the largest portion of municipal budgets year after year and take needed resources that should be better spent on health care, harm reduction, social supports (instead of turning these into police functions—in repressive forms).

I remain skeptical of campaigns for political office and the resources they demand from movements, But I do have to say that a movement-based member of council with someone who knows intimately the social violence and public wastefulness of police institutions and would work to reduce or cut their budgets, reign in their actions, and cut their size and scope could have some positive possibilities.

It is Right To Be Radical: A Report on "Voices of Resistance in Ages of Extremism."

An SFU History Panel Discussion with Heather Mayer (Portland Community College), Aaron Goings (St. Martin’s University), Eryk Martin (Kwantlen Polytechnic University)

October 6, 2017. The Hall at 1739 Venables. Vancouver.

By Jeff Shantz

This can be called an age of extremism, particularly as we see the rise of neo-fascist movements and nationalist violence and xenophobia. Yet extremism is often curiously applied as progressives become labelled as extreme in opposing fascists. And what does it mean to speak of extremism while excluding police killings of civilians, especially among racialized communities, and state violence generally?

These issues provide the backdrop for the event organized by the SFU Department of History, which I attended on October 6 in Vancouver. This is of course a timely discussion. Political extremism is widely misunderstood. Even more, the political center (neoliberalism typically today) claims to be reasonable while unleashing military violence globally and justifying the killings of a half-million Iraqi children, for example.

The first speaker Heather Mayer of Portland Community College, noted that radicals are often decried as extremists, yet most hold rational and thoughtful perspectives. Mayer’s research focuses on Louise Olivereau an anarchist and Wobbly (Industrial Workers of the World) active in Seattle. Olivereau was arrested for anti-war activities in 1917. She rejected the notion that the nation volunteered for war as President Wilson had suggested. Olivereau argued that the war was one for profit and power and most opposed it. She produced a flyer suggesting that the government existed only to protect property. It is for that purpose that workers are forced to go into the worst hell imaginable.

During the period Mayer discusses the government raided IWW halls and took her literature. Olivereau went to the police station and claimed them back.

Olivereau took famed anarchist Emma Goldman’s approach not to wage a legal defense but rather to turn the courtroom into a political venue for arguing against the war and to explain anarchism. For Olivereau, freedom within the law is not really freedom at all because of the nature of the state and laws. Sedition laws prohibited criticism of the flag, military, etc.

Mayer noted that there are real personal costs for people taking principled positions against authorities, even among their own circles. Olivereau felt that even her friends in the IWW did not fully support her. After release she did some work on prison reform. But she cut ties with many friends after her release. Indeed, one will find out very quickly who your allies are and that those who speak for social justice when it is safe will become silent when someone stands up and they then have to back them up.

The second speaker, Aaron Goings of St. Martin’s University, also focused on the IWW. Goins started with a personal story of organizing faculty in a context of administration attacks on unions. His school claimed that as a Christian university they did not have to recognize unions because unions went against their religious beliefs.

Goings noted that anti-unionism has a violent even extreme history in the US. It is a militant anti-unionism. He referred to cases such as the Calumet copper mining massacre in 1913, a massacre at the children’s Christmas party when anti-union thugs contributed to the deaths of 73-79 people, mostly children. The event was believed to be the doing of the Citizens Alliance, a boss friendly club of vigilantes formed during the miners’ strike. Charles Moyer, labor leader, called the deaths mass murder and two days later was shot by thugs. Even children were shot during the picket lines.

In 1914, the Colorado Militia shot and killed 14 people, 11 children at Ludlow. The militia fired into the workers’ tent city.

These cases were only two of many labor wars in the US between the Gilded Age and World War Two. Much of the violence was directed against the IWW. Local employers were often deputized and sanctioned in using violence against workers. Citizens Alliances were designed to break strikes. In 1912, in San Diego, an Alliance was used to keep the IWW from speaking publicly. Alliances often included members of the Chamber of Commerce. Employers could do anything—terrorize strikers and non-strike supporters.

Newspaper editors sided with other employers to condemn strikes. Strikers were, as today, accused of crime and violence. Those who committed anti-union violence went unpunished and were even celebrated. Streets were named after strike breakers.

The final speaker was our colleague, Eryk Martin, from the Department of History at KPU. Martin’s work is interested in the resurgence of anarchist activism between 1967 and 1984. His talk focused on the groups Direct Action and the Women’s Fire Brigade, both active in Vancouver. In 1982 they carried out three high profile acts of industrial sabotage. First was the bombing of a BC Hydro generator on Vancouver Island. Second was the bombing of Lytton Systems, involved in making the cruise missile. Third was the firebombing of three Vancouver area porn stores, Red Hot Video, alleged to sell snuff videos and videos of violence against women Martin asks what these actions say about political violence today.

Martin noted that illegal or militant activism is typically interpreted in ways that prevent understanding. Today, for example, there is a false equivalence between fascists and antifascists (antifa) as both are said to represent forms of extremism (rendering the term meaningless). There is also an idea that allextremism is irrational. Martin noted that after the Lytton Systems bombing, Direct Action were called mindless, violent, even foreign, by the Globe and Mail. But the act was a response to broad systemic violence (war, imperialism, nuclear threats) that were not labelled irrational or violent.

Both Direct Action and the Women’s Fire Brigade were rooted in broader social movements. The Lytton bombing had a rational base to it. It was not mindless or irrational. Direct Action pursued sabotage through property destruction. They understood sabotage as legitimate, as a form of self defense. It is needed to stop or slow down technologies that have as their aim and outcome the destruction of humanity and the planet. The cruise missile was built on a global model of decentralized production. Resistance must also be decentralized. Sabotage was viewed by Direct Action as action of last resort after other measures had failed.

In the aftermath of the Lytton Systems bombing response was heated. The blast inflicted millions of dollars of damage on the company. It was massive. But it also injured seven people.

Other anti-nuke groups condemned it. Some in the 1970s and 1980s had argued that property destruction discredited the anti-war movement. Sound familiar?

A small group of activists defended it. In/Direct Action, a supporting group, argued that activist violence was nothing compared to state violence. Private property does not have rights that supercede the needs of humans. Famed anti-war activist Philip Berrigan supported Direct Action. He maintained that Lytton Systems were the real terrorists.

Police, missing no moment to step up their violence, raided anarchist groups and spaces. Cops used violence against specific activists. It seemed, Martin noted, like simple vengeance or the settling of scores.

Notably, the bombing did not slow the anti-cruise movement. In fact, Lytton Systems lost their Pentagon contract. The bombing did not hurt or lessen dissent. There were mass protests in Canada—marches of 60,000 and 100,000 in Toronto and Vancouver.

Each of the speakers made clear that wider patterns of extremism are overlooked but are essential to why activists do what they do. State extremism. Police. And the same forces remain. Mega projects like BC Hydro’s current Site C dam project. Nuclear weapons and the belligerence of Trump. Rape culture and misogyny. 

The panellists insisted that we need to take political radicalism seriously. Mining, forestry, textiles work was violence. Exploitation is a form of one way class violence suffered by workers not by the capitalist class. The IWW provides a model in its recognition that there is a need for different types of activism. And for activism that defends against systemic (state, police, fascist) violence. It was left unspoken that punching fascists is both rational and necessary.

Jagmeet Singh Victory: The “times they are a changing”, or changing back?

Jagmeet Singh wins NDP leadership race on first ballot - The Canadian Press - Chris Young, Oct 2017

By Davina Bhandar, SFU

On Sunday October 1, 2017, Jagmeet Singh won an incredible victory in the federal NDP leadership race.  The hugely successful campaign ran on the slogan #Love and Courage. Support was drawn from many sectors of the established NDP, as well as, galvanizing a new membership to the party. Being the first racialised and religious minority to lead a federal party in Canada cannot be underestimated. But in the slew of social media and news coverage of his victory, it is also necessary to keep our own assumptions about how we discuss race, racism and religious intolerance in check.

It is true that it was only one hundred years ago that people who looked very much like Jagmeet Singh were barred from entering Canada, a country which had in place a “white Canada” only policy. People who wore turbans and kirpans were understood to be the “undesirables” in Canada. These would-be immigrants were not considered “assimilable” to Canadian society.  It was not until 1947 that people who looked like Jagmeet Singh could even vote in Canada. The distinction between then and now is that we have laws in place to prevent overt discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and religion. And yet, even with these laws in place the overarching narrative of Singh’s victory is one of surprise, incredulity and self-congratulations.

The Canadian identity that celebrates multicultural diversity, is very pleased by having a vital, enthusiastic, and magnanimous figure such as Jagmeet Singh to lead a federal party. As the presence of white supremacy and anti-immigrant groups are appearing once again on the streets of Canada, the idea of Jagmeet Singh’s victory is seen as a courageous push back. But when the media hopes to shine attention on the fact that this victory is so exceptional because of Singh’s identity as a racialised and religious minority, or that his victory can only be chalked up to his “community’s “ overwhelming support, the racialised candidate is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. It is a pyrrhic victory at best.

What does it mean to have an obviously religious candidate, such as Jagmeet Singh, lead a federal political party, and potentially become the Prime Minister of Canada? Let us think about this question. His Sikh appearance should not disarm Canadians any more than a politician who is seen to enter a church of worship or wear a cross. The idea that his exceptional appearance should cause alarm, brings us back to the moment in time when the view of a man wearing a turban in Canada was deemed unassimilable. Manmohan Singh was also a Prime Minister, while wearing a turban, of one of the world’s largest secular democratic states, the Government of India. So why is this question a guiding question being raised in the Canadian media?

Does Jagmeet Singh’s victory rock the Canadian political establishment? No, absolutely not. Singh’s victory was supported by a multitude of actors from various political stripes. He is not a grass movement activist candidate. He is not a socialist, but neither does the NDP stand to represent what might be imagined as socialism. He is ultimately a liberal candidate who stand for very liberal, social democratic values of social justice, human rights and fairness. Will social rights and eradicating economic disparity be at the top of his agenda? It remains to be seen how the politics will play out.

For further commentary (by Davina Bhandar) on Jagmeet Singh and the NDP: 

https://theconversation.com/new-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-battles-racism-in-canadian-politics-with-love-83857

Walk for Reconciliation - Sept 24, 2017

Namwayut - We are All One

I went to the walk for reconciliation event today with the family. It was a beautiful day; sunny and bright, and it was nice to feel the family friendly vibe. I'm somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing though. I mean what is the purpose of an event meant to "remind" us of reconciliation? Especially in light of the issue of the Kinder Morgan pipeline --here on the west coast-- many first nations are calling for a stop to this development. Same thing with the  Site C dam development. As a nation we have strong language around the "duty to consult" first nations when we are developing these oil and gas projects, but seldom do we actually consult and heed the recommendations of first nations peoples. So what does it mean to "reconcile" in 2017? Is reconciliation another empty gesture towards our "duty to consult"? I like the signs people put on the fence where they wrote things like "I will work towards reconciliation" or "I will be strong" or "I will walk for reconciliation", but these individualizing acts also suggests reconciliation is just a personal and independent process. I'm just not sure reconciliation between nations can really happen through the heroic or individual efforts of citizens/residents. I can only imagine that we will be on this march again next year and the next. Or maybe it just slowly diminishes in importance and the current age is really the moment of "peak" reconciliation?

Here's an article reminding us of other contradictions: http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2017/09/24/we-need-a-foundational-shift.html

I also went by the WISH booth where Mebret, Eva, and Sandra were hanging out and handing out literature and posters. Sandra reminded me that they always need volunteers, and that if any KPU student is interested, then send her Sandra email at: wishvolunteers@shaw.ca. They love volunteers!

By Mike Ma

A Subtle Revolution: What Lies Ahead for Indigenous Rights?

Event Report by Mike Larsen

September 13, 2017 marked the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a landmark statement that continues to serve as a reference point for campaigns and social movements. Canada, along with fellow settler-colonial states Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, initially voted against the Declaration. This stance shifted in 2016, when Canada formally removed its objector status. Since the adoption of UNDRIP in 2007, many governments have expressed vocal and enthusiastic support for its principles, but this rhetoric has rarely been reflected in practice.

To coincide with the 10th anniversary of UNDRIP, SFU’s Vanity Office of Community Engagement and the UBC First Nations and Indigenous Studies Program organized a panel discussion, A Subtle Revolution: What Lies Ahead for Indigenous Rights?, that took place at the Goldcorp Centre for the Arts on September 13 [http://www.sfu.ca/sfuwoodwards/events/events1/2017-2018-fall/ASubtleRevolution.html]. I had the opportunity to attend this event, and the rest of this post is based on the notes that I took during the conversation.

The event opened with a presentation by Anishinaabe scholar Sheryl Lightfoot, Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights and Politics at UBC, and the panel was loosely organized around responses to her 2016 book, Global Indigenous Politics: A Subtle Revolution [https://www.routledge.com/Global-Indigenous-Politics-A-Subtle-Revolution/Lightfoot/p/book/9781138946682] . The central questions for the panel were:

what does implementation mean and what is required of federal, provincial and local government, political and social institutions, and civil society to make the UN Declaration a reality in Canada?

Lightfoot began her talk with a reading from the first chapter of her book, which provides a narrative account of the proceedings of the UN General Assembly on the morning of September 13, 2007, when UNDRIP was adopted. The state members of the UN occupied the centre of the room, with reserved desks and engraved name plates, while the delegations of Indigenous peoples from around the world - by whom and for whom the Decleration was created - were relegated to the side galleries. Some chose to create hand-written name plates to identify their nations, tribes, and communities. The member states voted on the final draft of the UNDRIP, and while the adoption of the declaration was heralded as a victory by the Indigenous delegates, they - unlike sovereign states recognized by the UN - had no right to vote on it. This account of the spatial organization and power dynamics that characterized the adoption of UNDRIP serves as an excellent starting point for reflection on the current state of Indigenous rights and the relationship between Indigenous peoples and municipal, provincial, and federal governments. Lightfoot went on to address three main themes: (1) The UNDRIP belongs to and was created through the efforts of Indigenous Peoples. It is an imperfect document, and its implementation has certainly been lacking, but it should be recognized as an important product of grassroots organizing; (2) States have always actively and creatively resisted the declaration, even (perhaps especially) while claiming to support it; and (3) The UNDRIP must be regarded as a legal and political tool to be used.

Following the opening presentation by Sheryl Lightfoot, a distinguished panel of speakers responded to and built upon the points that she raised.

Priscilla Settee (Cumberland House Swampy Cree First Nations), Professor of Indigenous Studies and Women and Gender Studies at the University of Saskatchewan, spoke about post-WWII Indigenous rights movements around the globe. Drawing on her own research and lived experience, she situated contemporary Indigenous rights issues and anti-colonial organizing in relation to environmental movements and intersectional feminist theory. She spoke about the inseparability of the rights of Indigenous peoples and the protection of the earth, and she illustrated this point with a range of examples. I found her commentary on the juxtaposition of resource wealth (from a capitalist perspective) and undrinkable water in many northern Canadian communities and her discussion of Indigenous food security in a time of climate change and monoculture to be particularly compelling.

Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark (Turtle Mountain Ojibwe), Professor of Political Science at the University of Victoria, spoke next, and she offered a nuanced analysis of the significance and implications of UNDRIP. She noted that while the Declaration is viewed by many Indigenous peoples and movements as being based on teachings and meanings that are constantly evolving, it is viewed by states and governments as a legalistic statement that functions to ‘freeze rights in time’. Rachel Yacaaʔał George (Nuu-chah-nulth from Ahousaht First Nation) and PhD Candidate at the University of Victoria, continued the discussion by offering an excellent analysis of UNDRIP and Indigenous Rights movements in a context of neoliberalism. She offered a withering critique of recent statements by Canadian government officials that expressed symbolic and rhetorical support for UNDRIP and Indigenous Rights without providing meaningful commitments to action.

The final speaker for the event was Grand Chief Stewart Phillip (Okanagan Nation), President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. Before he spoke, Grand Chief Phillip asked a representative of the UBCIC to read from a prepared statement: “10th Anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Canada needs a legislative framework to fulfill the promise of this vital human rights instrument” [http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/10yr_undeclaration].

From the statement:

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides a crucial framework to achieve reconciliation. Such a human rights-­‐based approach is essential to address the racism and discrimination that has caused such profound harm to Indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world.  Violations include uprooting Indigenous peoples from their territories and resources, failure to honour Treaties, tearing Indigenous children from their families, and making Indigenous women, girls and two-­‐ spirited people the targets of unimaginable violence.

[…]

By approaching implementation of the Declaration through a legislative framework, there is greater assurance that crucial progress made will not be undone by a future government. Our organizations and Nations call on the federal government to embrace and build on the key elements of implementation already set out in Bill C-­‐262.

We appreciate that full implementation of the Declaration requires long-­‐term commitment and collaboration. As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission repeatedly reminded us, “reconciliation is going to take hard work.”

This is the time to act. Public responses to the TRC’s Calls to Action demonstrate a profound desire among Canadians to build a just relationship between Indigenous peoples and non-­‐Indigenous Canadians. As the TRC itself stated, the Declaration provides the framework for doing so. However, putting this framework into place requires more than fine words. It requires concrete, effective action. 

Following this, Grand Chief Phillip spoke about his involvement in decades of Indigenous Rights movements, from the Red Power movement in the 1970s through to Idle No More. He described the contemporary context as being characterized by “the illusion of compliance”, masking “business as usual”. On this point, he noted that in many ways he preferred dealing with the overt racism and intransigence of the Harper government, rather than the current lip service and media-savvy equivocation of the Trudeau government (sweeping and eloquent speeches in support of Indigenous peoples coupled with formal approval for pipelines and extractive projects). He spoke passionately about the ongoing reality of genocide in Indigenous communities and the importance of understanding the global nature of current struggles. He emphasized the connections between Indigenous rights and the land - a thread that ran through all of the panel presentations. The residential school system sought to sever the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the land, and contemporary struggles - in Burnaby, Standing Rock, and around the world - are intimately connected to the defence of land, water, and the natural world in the face of privatization, extraction, and the forces of capitalist violence. Finally, he expressed his belief that meaningful implementation of the promising parts of UNDRIP will not come from the top down, and that it is pointless to wait for governments and leaders to take action. Meaningful change, he argued, can and will come - as it always has - from diverse grassroots movements. To this end, he concluded the panel by encouraging everyone attendance to get involved and to show solidarity by marching and standing together.

Following the panel, the speakers and audience members repaired to the SFU Woodwards foyer to continue the discussion. I was impressed by the interdisciplinary nature of the academic portion of the audience: theatre and film studies, Indigenous studies, gender studies, sociology, political science, international relations, journalism, etc. (I was the lone criminologist …). A number of posters announced planned future events at the Woodward’s venue, and I encourage SJC members and readers to check them out: http://www.sfu.ca/sfuwoodwards/events.html .

- Mike Larsen

Kinder Morgan, We Say No! - March and Rally

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 9,  1 pm

Vancouver Art Gallery to Sunset Beach

Inclement weather didn’t dampen spirits of the many who attended the Kinder Morgan, We Say No! March & Rally on Saturday, September 9, 2017. Organized by Climate Convergence Metro Vancouver, the event followed on from the No Consent, No Pipelines protest (of November, 2016) and marked the official approval by the National Energy Board (NEB) of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion. With the  strong support of the Trudeau government, the pipeline project – which would increase tanker-traffic in Burrard inlet seven-fold and put the coastline of Vancouver and the Salish Sea at risk of a catastrophic oil spill – was given the green light by the NEB over widespread criticism that the assessment process was deeply flawed and biased in favour of approval.

The event, held on unceded Coast Salish territory, was endorsed by a wide and diverse range of groups (including the Social Justice Centre at KPU). Kick off began at the Vancouver Art Gallery with a rally, which was followed by a march through the streets of downtown Vancouver and the West End, culminating with a further rally at Sunset Beach. Indigenous drummers headed the march, followed by organizers carrying beautifully-made representations of the various creatures that inhabit the Salish Sea. The Carnival Band brought up the rear with rousing musical accompaniment. An abundance of banners and signs proclaimed their opposition to the pipeline (including such poignant reminders as “There is no Planet B”) and raised the call to “Defend the coast!” as well as for divestment from fossil fuels. Chants included “From Standing Rock to BC, make the land pipeline free!” The rally concluded with indigenous drummers and singers ringed by attendees linked in a wide circle.

Numerous First Nations leaders addressed the crowd, including Shane Point (Ti' te-in, səl̓ilwətaɁɬ ‎Tsleil-Waututh, Elder‎ with the Musqueam Indian Band), who opened the rally with a traditional prayer and stressed the need for a class action law suit against Texas-based, Kinder Morgan, a theme also taken up by other speakers. Linda Williams (Skwxwú7mesh ‎Squamish Elder Squamish Nation; Ta-ah (Amy George), ‎səl̓ilwətaɁɬ ‎Tsleil-Waututh Elder Tsleil-Waututh Nation Sacred Trust; Chief Robert Chamberlin, Owadi, Vice-president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC); Kanahus Manuel, grassroots community organizer from the Secwepemc Nation, founder of the Tiny House Warriors – also spoke with passion about the spiritual connection between indigenous people and the land, the potentially devastating impact to their territory in the event of a spill, and the need to protect the environment for the generations to come. Other themes espoused included the link between defending the environment and reconciliation between indigenous people and Canada, as well as the requirement for the free, prior and informed consent of all first Nations along the pipeline route. Across speakers, the threat of climate change, the need to transition from fossil fuels, the importance of respecting the rights of indigenous people and the lack of social license for the project were taken up, including by anti-poverty activist and Vancouver city council candidate, Jean Swanson, and Kennedy Stewart, MP for Burnaby-South.

While not of the size of the earlier march in opposition to the pipeline expansion, the event was still a clear indication that people have not acquiesced and will continue to act to prevent this threat to the local environment and global climate from being realized.

-  Greg Simmons 

Against Compulsory Miseducation in the Edu-Factory

A Report on “Let’s Pull Brazil Out of the Red: Belligerent Obscurantism and the Political Relevance of Critical Studies,” a Public Talk by Newton Duarte,  full Professor in Psychology of Education and Pedagogical Theories at University of Sao Paulo State, Araraquara, Brazil.

SFU Harbour Centre. Co-sponsored by SFU's Institute for the Humanities, Global Communication MA. Double Degree Program, and School for International Studies.

By Jeff Shantz

The rising tides of reactionary politics, authoritarianism, Rightwing violence, and corporatist governance have been facilitated and managed through attacks on knowledge, understanding, and critical thinking. Indeed, even basic social facts (poverty, racism, climate change) have been deniedin a barrage of fake news and alternative facts by spokespeople of the Right (Trump and his surrogates on mainstream news) and neoliberal bureaucrats. Part of this attack has been and is being carried out too by higher education administrators and faculty in the service of converting education into prep for the labor market and the university into an edu-factory (organized according to the demands of state and capital).

Newton Duarte refer to these attacks on critical studies as belligerent obscurantism, an apt term that highlights the contempt for critical thinking and scholarship and the aggressiveness of the assault and arrogance of those promoting it. On Friday, September 8, 2017, I attended an insightful presentation on the current context of neoliberal education, recent policy shifts, resistance, and the role of critical thought given by Duarte through Simon Fraser University’s Institute of Humanities.

Neoliberalism and Austerity in Temer’s Brazil

Duarte begins his analysis with reference to something of a double entendre by current Rightwing Brazilian President Michel Temer. In October 2016 Temer used the slogan “Let’s Pull Brazil Out of the Red.” This had a double meaning. On one hand was an economic meaning around social spending cuts and debt. On the other hand it was an attack on the Left (the “Reds”) and specifically the Workers Party. At the same time the government introduced a new wave of austerity legislation.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights called the legislation a violation of Brazil’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The Rapporteur called it a radical measure putting Brazil in a socially retrograde category. Temer’s Rightwing government is returning Brazil to a position as one of the most unequal countries on the planet according to Duarte.

“Let’s Pull Brazil Out of the Red.” This was a declaration that Brazil is being put in service of the global financial system and opposing workers’ policies and programs.

In February 2017, the Brazilian national Congress imposed change in the education system so students could vote on educational emphasis. Their limited choices would include: preparation for labor; language for technology; and math for technology. This legislation confines education within limits of neoliberal frameworks. It is geared to prevent (not discourage but prevent) critical and reflective worldviews inside the schools. In prime doublespeak fashion the education law is posed as freedom of choice and modernization for students.

The attack on critical thinking is also an attack on workers in favor of capital. On July 11, 2017, the government introduced a Labor Reform Bill. In it, enterprise agreements take precedence over laws. There is an end to compulsory trade union contributions. There are also restrictions on the scope of decisions of the Higher Labor Court. This legislation has been much favored by employers’ associations.

The Chamber of Deputies approved a text enabling businesses to sub-contract all of their activities, not only secondary ones. There are fewer protections for workers and worse working conditions are allowed.

The argument used by government and employers is that relationships between workers and capital are now more flexible (a longstanding neoliberal catchphrase). Well, the minimum time for lunch used to be one hour. Now workers can get only 20 minutes. That is certainly more flexible. Work contracts can sign away health and safety protections as doing so is more flexible.

Duarte notes that all of this is being imposed alongside a demonization of Leftists, communists, and “Red” ideas more broadly. Red is being associated with the devil in Brazil. People are attacked on the street for wearing red.

Mass protests were met by acts of social war by the Temer administration. Use of extreme violence was made to put down protests. In response to student occupations the government cut off water and energy to the schools. According to Duarte, police used helicopters to drop bombs on teachers in protests.  

Belligerent Obscurantism and the Edu-Factory

This is part of concerted efforts to silence critical faculty at all levels of education. There is a movement in schools to denounce teachers who seek to develop critical thinking. Any critical analysis of social problems created by capitalism is considered to be “indoctrination.” It is not, however, considered to be indoctrination to promote the uncritical acceptance of the status quo and its worst elements (poverty, authoritarianism, repression, punitive institutions, etc.). Critical analysis can be labelled communism and teachers can be banished from the schools (even as promoters of exploitation, colonialism, white supremacy, remain). Only certain facts, altfacts, may be allowed (but they are not factual because they exclude important understandings).

Concerted efforts are being deployed by governments, corporations, and school and university administrators to change curriculum so that it is more adapted to demands of the market. Education is being used primarily to prepare students for neoliberal labor and to adopt themselves to any changing situation (downsizing, unemployment, speedup, flexibilization, automation, etc.). The push is to not teach knowledge and understanding but to teach students to adapt to new and changing situations in a labor market or state regime directed by others. So classes in theory or history or analysis get taken over by classes in professional behavior or interpersonal relations within the workplace. And these take up a greater proportion of course offerings.

Obscurantist models insist: Develop skills that make student-workers ready for unpredictable situations. Do not prepare them to change reality. Prepare them to adapt to changing reality. Prepare them to fit in. Prepare them to take a place. Higher education is put in the service of the market. Students are taught to adapt to service in the market or the state. Not knowledge. Not thinking.

As Duarte suggests, the market decides. He says the market is like a god. But it is hard to know what gods want. They keep their secrets. Also, gods want regular sacrifices. Student-workers are sacrificed in the market. 

Notably, Rightwing governments are emboldening Rightwing forces, including forces of violence, on campuses. So too are administrators upholding these neoliberal, market authoritarian, models. This creates and supports conditions for going after critical faculty (by altRight vigilantes or administrators). There are real threats to critical faculty losing their jobs or being harassed out of their positions.

The altRight demonizes education in general. The altfacts altRight fears full knowledge. They wasn’t schools as sites of entrepreneurship, “skills,” etc. They know education can be a potent force for social change. And neoliberal administrators are giving them what they want.

Critical Studies Against Belligerent Obscurantism

For Duarte, we need to develop critical resources to organize the struggles against this belligerent obscurantism. There is a pressing need to defend knowledge. The Rightwing is doing the opposite. It is promoting obscurantism. We need to defend schools as spaces for developing and sharing humanity’s best knowledge.

Education is not simply about the transmission of everyday life facts. It promotes the transformation of everyday life. As Duarte suggests, it turns water into wine.

While education administrators turn to “student evaluations” to gage faculty competence (often on the basis of ease or enjoyment), Duarte reminds his audience that education and learning are not merely pleasurable. They may in fact be disturbing and upsetting. They may, and should, challenge your assumptions rather than simply reinforcing your base prejudices and assumptions about the world.

Education is not only a transference of information from one person to another, but a transformation in the way that we see the world and ourselves. This translates with the development of our worldview and our personality, as Duarte emphasizes.

If Temer says “Let’s Pull Brazil Out of the Red,” with critical education the Red can be brought back to Brazil’s situation for Duarte. To promote other perspectives. To promote the critical analysis of reality. Duarte calls for a fight against belligerent obscurantism everywhere. And in the current period of fascist rising we face belligerent obscurantism everywhere.

All of us involved in social justice education and critical pedagogy should pay serious attention to all of this. And act against it. We are in no way safe from such attacks in the Canadian or US context as Rightwing attack lists of critical faculty, administration harassment of critical faculty, and the marginalization of critical studies and privileging of oppressive “administrative” models within programs like criminology show.

Gill's dehumanizing talk of 'tough love' shows where Surrey's priorities lie

LETTERS: Gill’s dehumanizing talk of ‘tough love’ shows where Surrey’s priorities lie

Tom Gill taking heat after he said the city was going to start treating people on the Strip with ‘tough love.’

• Tue Sep 5th, 2017 1:24pm
• LETTERSOPINION

• Editor,

Re: “‘Tough love’ coming to Surrey’s Strip,” the Now-Leader, Sept. 1.

Acting Surrey Mayor Tom Gill’s conversation with the Now-Leader’s Amy Reid offers some troubling insights into the city’s outlook regarding homeless people in Surrey and whose interests the city is most committed to serving.

Hint: It’s not homeless people.

Gill’s comments make clear that the city is most concerned about the needs of businesses in Whalley. He mentions concerns of business twice in the relatively short piece. This corroborates details in city documents from the public safety committee that I have accessed and read as part of my research on homelessness in Surrey.

Notably, while the Surrey Outreach Team holds business engagement meetings with the Downtown Surrey BIA, and engagement activities with the BIA three times a week, homeless people are not present and “engaged.” The Response Plan Status Report is explicit that its approach is “to develop solutions to the issues raised by business.”Not homeless residents but business. That says plenty.

What Gill is peddling may indeed be tough, but it can in no way be called love.

Dr. Jeff Shantz, Department of Criminology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Standing Against Racism and Fascism: Vancouver City Hall, August 19, 2017

By Jeff Shantz

Two racist, white supremacist groups, the Worldwide Coalition Against Islam and the Cultural Action Party planned and called for a rally on August 19 at Vancouver City Hall. In the week following the Charlottesville antifascist resistance to white supremacists and the neo-Nazi killing of antifa activist Heather Heyer, the rally posed an important challenge to anti-racist and antifascist organizing in Vancouver.

If making sure the racist rally did not hppen can be considered a victory, then the counter mobilization achieved one. An unscientific consensus of estimates would put the crowd of counter-demonstrators around 4000 all told.

What was most striking was, first, that only a couple of overt racists showed up and/or stayed. The racists clearly were not ready for a fight. Secondly, two open racists, independently of and separated from each other, stayed for most of the event, four hours or so, surrounded by anti-racists with whom they argued the whole time. Police stood guard around the two, in each of their locations guarding them  

No open fighting broke out. At least one open racist was chased off and two others were escorted out by police. I saw one racist escorted out by police, after arguing with anti-racists for over an hour. None of the protesters openly challenged the racist Vancouver Police Department and its own particular authoritarian violence.

I witnessed three separate engagements between a crowd of anti-racists and an outspoken racist. The racists who remained seemed to resort to arguments for closing borders and tightening immigration restrictions as ways of couching their racist positions.

Five people were reported arrested for breach of peace, but no word of which side they were on. Two racists were escorted away. One was a Vancouver neo-Nazi, who gave a Hitler salute before being led off site by police. 

There were many, perhaps too many speeches. Speakers addressed the white supremacist and settler colonial history of Vancouver and Canada. There might have been a march or something that brought the show of anti-racism out into the public a bit more. Many people seemed to drift off out of boredom, heat, lack of food or water, or a sense that nothing further was developing.

The event was a celebratory gathering for anti-racists and anti-fascists and there were many conversations among strangers. There were open displays of pro-socialist, pro-communist, and pro-anarchist symbolism (all targets of fascist violence historically, of course).

While the racists and fascists, including the boisterous Soldiers of Odin, chose not to come out in the open on this day, we should have no illusions about the ongoing presence, organizing, and mobilization of white supremacists in British Columbia and Canada. Soldiers of Odin are still active and recruiting, especially in the Fraser Valley. They will still come out to confront anti-racists and antifa in contexts where they see the balance of forces in their favor (as at a previous Vancouver anti-racist rally that was attacked by Soldiers of Odin).

Prison Justice Day - August 10, 2017

Today we attended the Prison Justice Day event.

After a hot summer day we gathered at Trout Lake (John Hendry Park) near the little lake where the Prison Justice Day event was held. Speakers included prison abolitionists, activists--old and new--, Coast Salish supporters, previously incarcerated, and academics.  A phalanx of banners were set up to form an impromptu amphitheatre that provided a powerful backdrop. In particular, it was sobering to see the very long list of names of those who have died in Canadian prisons.

The present state of Canadian prisons should be abolished.

For a retrospective montage of prison justice events see:

http://journal.radicalcriminology.org/index.php/rc/article/view/68/html

By Jeff Shantz and Mike Ma

Report Back on SFU Forum: “For the Many, Not the Few: Politics After the Corbyn Breakthrough”

Friday June 23rd, 2017, 7-9pm, Room 7000, SFU Harbour Centre, Sponsored by SFU's Institute for the Humanities

June 23, 2017. Simon Fraser University

Jeff Shantz: I attended this forum on social democratic politics and the implications of Jeremy Corbyn’s unexpected success on the recent British elections. Speakers included Ingo Schmidt, Beverly Ho, and Derrick O’Keefe.

Ingo Schmidt noted the return of the electoral Left. He asked though, is it the re-emergence of a strong, viable Left that can defend gains over time? Rather than the emergence of a viable Left now these are times of a populist moment. The marked arrogance of power and wealth has discredited even neoliberalism. Populism appeals to anti-establishment sentiment. Anti-establishment is understood, however, as only political establishment, not the economic establishment.  

There are a few things to keep in mind about the Corbyn breakthrough for those seeking to replicate it in Canada . First, Corbyn did not win. Second, his success reflected anger with the Tory government as much as an affirmation of Corbynite Labour. Third, substantial movements against austerity and war have been active for decades in Britain, and in Labour. This is not the case in Canada.

What would social democracy of the Left need today according to Schmidt? First, it would need to rekindle a socialist vision. Second, it would need to develop a power bloc that brings together the working poor, the precariat, and welfare recipients. Third, it requires a proletarian internationalism.

Beverly Ho, Chinatown Concern Group, argued that people are sick of big money in politics. There is a need for a response to the rise of white supremacy and fascism. There is a need for people power from the ground up. This is built through door knocking, talking to people directly, leafletting, and one on one meetings. There is a need to remember work on the ground and behind the scenes. Neoliberalism has lowered expectations and told people their goals are not realistic.

Derrick O’Keefe asked how we might situate Corbyn in Labour? Labour is worse than the NDP. In power, Labour enforced austerity and waged war in Iraq. Labour is better than the NDP. Labour still has an active socialist caucus that defied their own leadership and organized openly within the party. The NDP erased its references to socialism in its own preamble.

In the 2015 election dozens of potential candidates for the NDP had been denied the right to seek nomination because of political views, such as support for Palestine. The NDP needs to be more democratic to attract younger people. Younger people cannot be excluded on the basis of social media posts.

The movements in Canada do not exist on a meaningful level to push electoral parties Left. For the NDP, trying to occupy the center with Trudeau would be fatal. Corbyn disproves the Blairite claim that going Left is certain destruction for an electoral party.

The forum raised many questions. In the end it needs to be remembered that populist Left parties like Syriza implement policies worse than they are asked to. When in power they concede to capital. How is that avoided?  

By Jeff Shantz