Sexual Assault Crisis Centre closing

I just read that the city's only Sexual Assault Crisis Centre is now closed. Just a few months ago, the Women's Centre closed, and now this. I can't believe that the government can get away with this kind of attack on women's programs.

I have never personally accessed this service, likely because I didn't identify my own experiences as rape until years had passed, but I can only imagine how important these services must be to women in our community. I have accessed one of the programs that was suggested as an alternative and it took 3 weeks after registering to get an appointment, and another 3 months to access services, so hopefully that will not be the case for women who have been assaulted.

I'm going to find out if anyone is organizing a letter writing campaign or protests, because I don't think we should sit back and just let this happen or all of these services will be gone and it will be too late to do anything about it.

Another Montessouri ad

I just saw another bench today that compares to the one I previously posted advertising for Montessouri Schools. I am going to skip details about the school, but I do have a class analysis at the previous link, which was further discussed here.


Sorry about the image quality, but it was taken from a cell phone camera in a moving vehicle. The ad reads

1 to 8 VS. 1 to 30.
You do the Math. Our students can.

This refers to class size and student teacher ratios... Of course, it doesn't mention that they can afford to have extra teachers because parents are paying for their children to attend these schools, where as the government has been cutting funds to public schools.

This suggests that public school classes are too big and public school teachers are overworked, I agree so far. But rather than actually doing anything about it or trying to get additional funding to public schools, middle to upper class families should merely put their children in a private school and leave the large class sizes for the children whose families cannot afford this "better" education...

Who needs social mobility when the status quo is so much more advantageous to the elite who write our social policy and decide how much funding to put into our schools... all while sending their children to private institutions.

And, to add insult to injury, they need to include a comment implying that public school students cannot do simple math.

Wage restraint legislation in Ontario

I want to start by apologizing to any regular readers about the lack of posts over the last few weeks. There has been so much I wanted to write about but I feel like I haven't had a moment to breathe, nevermind write.

I am the president of a student workers union in Ontario, and there has been a threat of wage restraint legislation by the Ontario Government. All non-unionized public employees' wages have been frozen for some time now, and the government is going into "consultations" with unions where they plan to get unions to accept two years of zero compensation on their next collective agreements, with the threat of legislating this freeze if we don't agree to it. This is being presented to us as the only way to protect public services.

According to some recent surveys (both the ones conducted by unions and the ones by the government), people seem to think that workers in the public sector are highly overpaid. This is definitely not the case if you look at front line workers in comparison to University Presidents, for example. My membership last got a raise in 2003. Over that period of time, housing has gone up more than 30%, tuition has increased by 4-8% per year more often than not, and the salary of the university's president has increased by approximately 124%! Yet, it is not the president that is overpaid, it is me... and I am making less than half of what some of my peers at other universities make- and nevermind living below the poverty line, my wage doesn't even cover the cost of my education at the school where I work.

I don't believe that forcing workers to take zeros is good for anyone, even those who do earn a living wage, but my point right now in this particular post is that we also need to be careful not to make sweeping generalizations about public sector employees. One of my union colleagues at a different university spoke about how his membership went from about 100 full time janitorial and maintenance staff to about 10 full-time and about 100 part-time, the majority of whom work between 3 and 12 hours per week... I'm pretty sure they don't feel overpaid. I can make many similar comparisons throughout the sector, and I am rather sure that people in different parts of the public sector have similar stories to tell.

I am getting increasingly frustrated with how quickly some people are buying in to these assumptions. I am baffled by how the government can demonize public employees so fully that even the NDP supports wage restraint legislation because doing otherwise would fail to gain votes at the upcoming election.

This government clearly represents the economic elite in the province. And yet, they try to make us feel guilty because many of us have kept our jobs during the recession; so guilty, that we should accept concessions in order to do our part. What about not cutting $4.6 billion dollars in corporate taxes? What about actually protecting our social services by providing services that help people rather than punishing them?

I have yet to figure out how legislation that goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Labour Relation's Act is supposed to protect Canadians. To me, it is just another example of the Ontario government picking and choosing which Rights Canadians are entitled to, not unlike what happened at the G20... they just spin it the right way in the media and they come off as protecting us. The only thing that we need protection from right now are these neoliberal politicians.

Toronto's G8/G20 and women's health

I just spoke at a forum tonight on the G8/G20, and I thought I would try to recreate some of what I said because I think it is important. I spoke on women's health, and more specifically, abortion. Keep in mind that this is one small piece of the summit, and there were other presenters who gave much needed information on topics like the environment, indigenous relations and global capitalism in the context of the Steelworkers strike.

I started by discussing my experiences of reading about abortions on American bloggers websites. For example, Feministe, Jezebel and Feministing have discussed the Stupak amendment at length on many occasions, which makes abortion even less accessible to poor women by restricting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. Recently, Louisianna passed laws requiring women to get ultrasounds before abortions. Nebraska has imposed confusing laws regarding women's mental health in relation to abortions, and Utah has essentially criminalized miscarriages. Reading this over the past few years, I have often found myself greatful to live in a place where abortions are free and largely unrestricted (although not always accessible).

When Harper announced that maternal and children's health would be a major issue at the summit, I was rather pleased... and surprised. Harper is not exactly known for his women friendly policies... actually, he thinks that we have already attained gender equality! Globally and historically, women and children have not had much acess to funding for their specific health care needs, as they have taken a back seat to issues that directly affect men's health.

Then, Harper announced that this initiative would not cover abortions (my reaction to this announcement here). He explained

"We want to make sure our funds are used to save the lives of women and children"

I always thought that this was part of the purpose of abortions, but I guess the life of the fetus is being prioritized over the health of the mother. The fact is that women and girls often die when they do not have access to safe abortions.

As a sidenote, the USA does plan to include abortions in their contribution for maternal and children's health, even though they have some very restrictive laws domestically.

Women's groups began to speak out about abortions right away, and within 2 days 11 groups lost funding. Within a month, 24 women's groups lost federal funding. These cuts undermine women's equality and democracy within Canada.

Nancy Ruth, a "feminist" Conservative Senator spoke out on this issue (previously posted here), saying that women need to

"shut the fuck up on this issue... Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortion. Leave it there. Dont' make it into an election issue"

So, we are to allow white male politicians to decide what counts as maternal health (See this post), even in countries they may never have visited. Colonialism is rampant within Harper's maternal health initiative.

And, for the bigger picture. We have to fight for our right to choose, and for women everywhere to have this right. But we have to make sure that this isnt' being used as a distraction. Saving abortions might distract us from fighting for more accessible abortions for women in rural areas. This issue, as important as it is in its own right, cannot distract us from the cuts to women's programs and social spending, lenient corporate regulations that lead to tax loopholes and lacking health and safety regulation, Israeli's occupation of Palestine, aboriginal treaty rights, or any other systemic inequality.

The moral right and neoliberal movements have political power in Canada. They also have corporate sponsorship and financial backing. The left typically does not have this type of money or power. What we have is our voice, and that is why we are being told to shut the fuck up. Because when we do come together and speak, we threaten the status quo.

As those of you who know me are well aware, I will not shut the fuck up.

Will you?

Toronto Pride and the term Israeli Apartheid

I just found out that the directors of Toronto's Pride Parade have banned the use of the term "Israeli Apartheid" at this year's parade. This is aimed at the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA), which has been involved in the Pride Parade for several years. I think that it is interesting that Pride, a group that is all about inclusion (so much so that their theme is "you belong") is taking it upon themselves to censor a group who is making a political message that I think can be compared to the statement that Pride was making when they began 30 years ago.

Their argument is that some people believe that the name is discriminatory, anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli. I am by no means an expert on the topic of Israeli Apartheid (according to my spell check, I hardly know how to spell it), but I would like to make a few comments on this anyway.... and anyone with more knowledge who wishes to add/clarify/correct something is more than welcome to comment.

Let's start this very simply... from wiki, the crime of apartheid is "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." United Nations reports seem to consistently show that the current regime is comparable to apartheid in South Africa (see here)

This is not anti-semitic. Antisemitism defined (again using wikipedia, which may not be the most reliable source, but I believe is useful for this purpose) is prejudice against or hostility towards jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture and/or religion. I don't understand how being opposed to the oppression of a group of people based on their race/ethnicity can be confused with hostility towards a different group, some of whom happen to be part of the dominant group in one particular country.

I can only think of two explanations. First, is ignorance. Those who are confusing the term "Isreali apartheid" with antisemite do not understand the meaning of these terms or the living conditions of Palestinians in Israel. But the politicians do understand this, as do the organizers of Toronto Pride, I am sure.

The other explanation is financial. The current Israeli regime is backed by the American government. Just two months previous to this decision, the Ontario legislature passed a resolution condemning Israeli Apartheid week, which is held at several universities. Last month, the federal government withdrew $400,000 in funding for Toronto Pride, a decision that is rumored to be connected to QuAIA. Now, the Toronto mayoral candidate motioned to deny funding to the parade if QuAIA is allowed to participate, on the grounds that it would be in breach of the city's anti-discrimination policy. Directors at Pride were concerned about the risk of losing this funding.

Queer Ontario founder and spokesperson Nick Mulé states

It appears Pride Toronto has opted to appease some City officials applying pressure based on misinformation regarding QuAIA and the use of the term ‘Israeli apartheid’, rather than work directly with the community in educating the City to develop a nuanced understanding of the human rights and discrimination issues at play.

I have heard it argued that Israeli Apartheid isn't a Pride issue, as it is not directly connected to sexuality or heterosexism. This argument is used to keep leftist movements separate, which means that they are containable. When organizers at Pride are separated from those at QuAIA, which are separated from feminist organizing and from socialism, it keeps special interest groups small enough that they cannot disrupt the status quo. I would like to applaud QuAIA for becoming involved with both groups, for building that coalition, as I believe it is only through these coalitions that change can occur.

More cuts, this time to Pride funding

There has been a fair amount of coverage over the past few weeks on recent cuts to women's programs in Canada, and now the federal government announced that it is not giving any funding to Toronto's Pride Parade. In comparison, last year they received $400,000, which is estimated to have translated into $6 million in economic activity in Toronto that week.

Last year, conservative Member of Parliament, Diane Ablonczy, lost her position as tourism minister after approving funding for the Pride Parade, and other conservative MPs went as far as to apologize to "pro-life" and "pro-family" groups.

Tracey Sandilands, the festival's executive director, said “We believe this sends the message that queer events are not worthy investing in,” and noted that Pride was the only queer event to receive any support from the federal government in over two years.

It is not only access to abortion and funding to women's groups currently under attack in Canada. We need to foster solidarity between various leftist movements to protect everybody's rights. It starts with funding, but, if we don't speak out now, I fear that we will lose so much more of what activists have fought so hard for.