Letter to Toronto City Council, re: Giorgio Mammoliti

Dear Councillors:

In light of Councillor Mammoliti's renewed calls for city de-funding of Pride Toronto, I want to make sure you are aware of his behaviour on Saturday.

Of course, Pride is a diverse and inclusive event. But I am dismayed that an elected representative of the city attended apparently with the sole purose of looking for evidence he could use to call for the withdrawal of city support for a festival which attracts millions of dollars in business and tax money for our cash-strapped city. And unlike those of you who attended the Pride Parade on Sunday, Councillor Mammoliti did not have the courtesy to express well wishes to the city's LGBTQ communities, even though he spent considerable time at Pride, before and during the Saturday march.

I felt it important to draw your attention to some video clips I took of the events; links are provided below. You can see in these clips that the contingent Councillor Mammoliti was following was entirely peaceful. His focus on the phrase "Israeli apartheid" is disingenuous, as you are aware that the city manager's report has not found any evidence of hatred or discrimination through the use of that phrase.


Video links
-----------

Peaceful march

Mammoliti stalking the Dyke March

Mammoliti desperately searching for hatred, and finding none

From the beginning of this controvesy, Councillor Mammoliti has demonstrated intent on holding Pride Toronto and certain LGBTQ groups to a different standard than others. This is clearly discriminatory behaviour on his part, and he should be held accountable.


The above was emailed to all on city council except for Mammoliti himself and both Fords. I received personal responses (not auto-responses) - some polite, others supportive - from councillors:
Mihevc, Grimes, Kelly, Vaughan, McConnell, Layton, Matlow, and Bailao.

Councillor Vaughan added this comment:
"It was interesting to watch the Toronto Police riding alongside of the march. If a so called 'hate crime' was being committed you'd have to wonder why the police stood by and did nothing."


The only sour note was a response from Councillor Del Grande. Referring to Mammoliti in the videos, he writes:
"Thank you for your e-mail.

He is on the side not interfering with the parade. He has not violated any law."


My response:

Councillor Del Grande:

You're right, Councillor Mammoliti has not violated any law. If you want to talk about the legal aspects of this controversy, the recent city manager's report stated that the use of the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" is not hate speech and is not discriminatory. The group that Councillor Mammoliti was targeting on Saturday is a group supporting LGBTQ Palestinians; they had every right to be in the march and did nothing wrong. They also had every right to free speech - which includes the right to utter the words "Israeli Apartheid". Councillor Mammoliti's support for pro-Israel groups and victimization of pro-Palestinian groups is discriminatory - as is Toronto City Council's decision to withhold funding from Pride Toronto until after the festivities were over (no other group which receives city funding is subject to this kind of treatment).

In your decisions regarding Pride Toronto, it is my hope that you will abide by the law and the city's own anti-discrimination policy when you represent all the residents of your ward - including those who identify as LGBTQ.

Why I'm Not Wearing a Poppy This Year

I used to be a schoolteacher, and every Remembrance Day, I would teach that we remember the brave people who fought for us, but also to remember the tragedies of history so as not to repeat them. This was particularly important, to ease children's fears of death brought on by discussion of war. I taught the children how to make their own poppies out of construction paper.

Remembrance Day has always been important to me. Being of Japanese descent, my Father and uncles - all born in Canada - were imprisoned during WWII by their own government, along with the entire Japanese Canadian community, and when they were released, they pressed for the right to take part in Canada's war efforts to prove their loyalty to Canada, and when granted that right, they did just that. I've always felt obliged to wear a poppy in respect to those who fought to protect our country and our freedoms - especially because a number of those people are my own relatives.

But in recent years I've become aware of the controversies over modern wars, and Canada's involvement of them - not really wars at all, but unprovoked invasions. Canada did not send troops to Iraq, although Chretien wanted to; he was stopped by public outcry. Canada did, however, send troops to Afghanistan to free up American troops to fight in Iraq. The atrocities committed against Iraqis and Afghanis continue to be revealed by a reluctant mainstream media. Nevertheless, the majority of Canadians believe that the Iraq invasion was wrong, that American war resisters are right to refuse to take part, and that Canadian troops must be brought home from Afghanistan. These "wars" are not about conquest or defending our rights and freedoms; they are about stealing resources and keeping the war economy healthy.

On the other side of these facts is a Canadian government which is waging a propaganda campaign with attempts to conceal and minimize stories of our soldiers who have died senselessly. It seems we are reminded to honour the brave men and women who fight for us at every turn, with "wear red" campaigns, "support our troops" ribbons on our cars, highways renamed as memorials, memorial coins in our pocket change (special designs on circulation coins: a loonie, a nickel, and at least three different quarters), and even in the cancellation stamp on my mail this morning. Of course, these campaigns - all showing government involvement - are simply well-intentioned attempts to honour our soldiers. Aren't they?

With so many of these questionable actions - while the government tries to bolster flagging support to keep troops in Afghanistan, it is no wonder the poppy is called into question. So I was delighted, a couple of years ago, to learn about the "peace poppy": a white poppy which specifically emphasizes the message of peace - which I'd felt was an integral part of our familiar red poppy all along. But was I wrong? I'd gotten the impression that the white poppy didn't go over well with veterans' groups; this year, the Royal Canadian Legion, which owns the trademark to the poppy, is threatening to sue distributors of the white poppy. A Legion spokesperson says, "The use of the poppy for anything other than remembrance is not acceptable." Come again? Since when is promoting peace in opposition to remembering our war dead?

The really fucked up thing here is that, growing up in a capitalist society, I'd accept the economic greed argument - that the Legion owns the trademark and wants to protects its poppy sales - before I'd want to accept that veterans are arguing against peace. But that appears to be what is happening. In another of many articles on this issue published over the last week, one veteran criticized those wearing white poppies, saying that they had probably never fought in a war.

Why is it that so many people today think that it is acceptable to try to shut down debate by painting those they disagree with as unpatriotic, or uncaring? Trying to take someone else's voice away - by implying that they haven't the right to engage in debate - is a form of censorship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but freedom of speech is one of the rights that was fought for and protected; we are not going to violate that right for the sake of this little argument.

The whole issue has left a bad taste in my mouth. I no longer feel any sense of obligation to put on a red poppy, and if people can't understand the very elementary message of the white one, well, I won't wear that one either. No one can take my feelings or beliefs away from me, and I won't have them misconstrued by people standing on street corners selling plastic flowers.

And so, on November 11, 2010, instead of a poppy, I am wearing this blog post.

To those who would judge me for having bare coat lapels: judge not, or be prepared for an earful.

To my Dad, who fought to protect Canada, and our freedoms: all my love, respect, and appreciation. I'm so proud of you. I always have been.

To the American war resisters - who are putting a human face on an illegal and immoral US invasion: all my love and support. You are the kind of people this world needs, and to those of you I've met: we're lucky to have you in Canada. On Remembrance Day, we should be remembering the horrors of war, present as much as past - and that means talking about your part in history. You give me hope for our future.

G20 Protests: Why the Police did Nothing to Stop Black Bloc Tactics

As I walked home alone in the dark after an event last night, I came to an odd realization. I felt completely safe on empty streets or where there were other people. The only time I felt in any danger was in the presence of police. Given the events of the G20 weekend, I was justifiably worried that I might be beaten or arrested, simply for being out in public. The horror stories of police brutality continue to spread by the hour - on Twitter, Facebook, blogs - and even in the mass media. (Lesson to Toronto police: if you want the public onside, best not to assault and arrest journalists.)

There is so much to write about the abuses of power and violations of civil liberties over the past few days, but the most important issue has to do with the black bloc protests, and how they were allowed to happen. It is becoming very clear that police had infiltrated the ultra-left and knew what was going to happen. More than a billion dollars was spent on security - much of it for a 19,000-strong security force. No doubt you've seen photos which clearly reveal the scale of this show of force; early in the week, police looked as though they outnumbered demonstrators at the smaller rallies. Police had a newly purchased water cannon at their disposal. On Saturday, hundreds of police in full riot gear (helmets and shields) were backing up masses of officers in regular uniform. So how is it that a couple of hundred vandals were able to burn a cop car and break windows all the way up Yonge Street?

The answer can only be that the police wanted it to happen. Even if you reject the mounting evidence that agents provocateurs were part of the black bloc and were active in starting the violence, there is no argument which can satisfactorily explain how such a relatively small number of people could roam so freely and visibly, doing their damage. But why would the police allow it? Obviously, the mass media visuals - the same shot of the burning police car played over and over as nauseum - were needed to convince a gullible public that the obscene overspending was necessary. But there is a much more important reason: the police and government needed justification to attack the legitimate, peaceful protests.

Let's face it: a young man wearing black and smashing a store window is an anomaly, and insignificant in the long term. In my six years of participation in major rallies, demonstrations, and marches in this city, I have never before witnessed this - or any other - kind of violence. The store window will be replaced, and the act has no impact on any government or politican, local or national.

But the 25-40,000 peaceful demonstrators are another story. The young man employing black bloc tactics is nowhere near as threatening to our authorities as the mother who is calling for Harper's government to change its policy on maternal health, or the young student who is decrying Canada's local and global inaction on environmental issues, or the First Nations elder who is calling for justice for continuing atrocities against the First Nations, or the labour unionist who is demanding protection for pensions and working conditions. Even more frightening is the addition of mainstream, middle-class folk who have never taken part in a protest, but who have been so incensed by the government spending of our tax dollars on this summit that they made a point of coming out - despite the rain and especially despite the fearmongering all week long about sound cannons, water cannons, tear gas, and other police toys at the ready.

Black bloc tactics are employed only at large scale G20-type events where the whole world will be watching. But the black bloc protesters don't even have demands or a message. It is the peaceful protesters who will be back with the same messages, growing in numbers, getting more of the public onside as Harper's assault on our social services, rights, and freedoms continues. And while the black bloc protesters retreat into their isolated world, the protesters with real messages continue to talk every day, to raise consciousness, and build support.

So the vandals were allowed to do their thing, and then the police swooped in and began attacking legitimate protesters (and even passersby). People were threatened, beaten, arrested, and traumatized. Reports from those who were taken into the makeshift detention facility are appalling. Human rights violations were rampant. Those who have been released tell of younger, less experienced protesters (who may be less aware of their rights) being clearly targeted for intimidation. This is how the authorities will attempt to shut down dissent: by traumatizing people so badly that they will never take part in a protest again. And indeed, judging from some of the first-hand reports, they have probably succeeded in scaring a few of these protesters away permanently.

But these tactics have strengthened the resolve of many to keep fighting - and likely awakened many more to the issues that were being protested, as well as spawning new discussions and protests over police brutality and violations of civil liberties. While no protests had been planned after the G20 ended on Sunday, more than 4,000 people showed up on Monday evening in front of Toronto Police headquarters for a rally decrying the police actions - an event called on less than 24 hour's notice. Another gathering is planned for tonight to bring together the victims of police violence, to share stories and show solidarity.

Harper, McGuinty, and police chief Bill Blair are likely congratulating themselves on a mission accomplished. But for all their collective cunning, they have not been very smart. There are already calls for a public inquiry into the debacle of Toronto's G20. Even if there is no public inquiry, social networking and YouTube are publicizing the issue, spreading images and video and starting discussions about agents provocateurs, hired troublemakers, and ulterior motives on the part of both police and government. The movement of average citizens demanding change is now poised to grow, despite - or perhaps because of - police brutality and repression.

A Turning Point for Pride Toronto

In 1981, Toronto police raided four gay bath houses. The gay community was accustomed to harrassment, but the scale of these raids pushed the community past a breaking point. As with the 1969 Stonewall riots in NYC, gays in Toronto finally stood up for their rights and fought back. Massive protests and rallies led to the annual Pride celebration which has become one of the largest of its kind in the world.

I occasionally re-read the accounts of the protests, and admire the activists who won us our rights and paved the way for the degree of acceptance that the gay community enjoys today. I wish I had been able to participate in those protests, but at that point in my life - still a teen - I was still deep in the closet, deep in denial.

Now out and proud, I've come to enjoy Toronto Pride immensely. Coming out relatively late in life, I now find it important to get out in the streets during Pride, and surround myself with my community. For one week a year, I get to experience being a part of the majority; it is an experience I savour. I've always thought the size of the celebration was a good thing. The more people, the better.

Yet complaints about Toronto Pride have become commonplace, and it seems they increase each year. "It's too big." "It's too corporate." "It's too crowded." Many of my gay friends have lost interest, and no longer attend the parade itself. A couple of friends used to invite me to a big Pride brunch with all their friends, and then we would all make our way over to watch the parade from start to finish. A few years ago, they stopped the tradition. They no longer attend Pride at all - even going out of town on the big weekend. This slow trend has been alarming for me, as I feel increasingly abandoned - alone at a dance with a crowd of strangers. I've wondered what to do to reverse that trend, but the corporatization of Pride has seemed inevitable and unstoppable.

Until now.

Pride Toronto, the committee which organizes Pride, has bowed to pressure to try to ban the group QuAIA (Queers Against Israeli Apartheid) - which has marched peacefully for the past two years. The first move was to try to set up a system of "approval" for each and every placard or banner to be used in the parade. When public outcry forced them to rescind that decision, they reverted to banning the words "Israeli Apartheid", which would effectively silence QuAIA's message. Or so they thought.

The response has been swift and powerful. 23 current and past recipients of Pride awards and honours have made public statements and attended a news conference to return their awards until Pride Toronto's censorship decision is reversed. Numerous other prominent members of Toronto's LGBT community have condemned Pride Toronto's action; many have pulled out of Pride events.

Pride Toronto has done its best to counter the criticisms, claiming that they have no choice - that without this act of censorship, funding and possibly permits will be withdrawn by Toronto city council. The instigators of this whole debacle, zionist activists, including Martin Gladstone, lobbied city council with a misleading videotape which paints QuAIA as a scary and violent organization. This propaganda has also scared some of the general public and even some of the LGBT community itself - especially those unfamiliar with details of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

There are also ominous claims of great financial losses as regular Pride participants have supposedly pulled out for 2010 or threatened to pull out. None of these participants have been named by Pride Toronto. Pride Toronto has also made no mention of the participants who have pulled out in protest of the committee's own censorship action.

Even many of those who may not agree with QuAIA's specific message have come out in their support, on the basis that Pride has always been - and must continue to be - about free speech and political messages. It should be noted that while the list of statements against Pride Toronto's action grows daily, there have been no notable statements in support of their censorship.

A town hall meeting on Monday at the 519 Community Centre was packed - standing room only. The point was not to reach consensus - an impossible task given the many different viewpoints on this controversy - but to establish the need for change, both from within and without, and to get people together and get them started on networking and connecting to share and implement alternatives. Some will conduct a split - alternate marches and events not sanctioned by Pride Toronto; others will be taking part in official Pride events, especially the parade, but with messages of solidarity with QuAIA - and perhaps defiance.


There is so much more to say about this issue, and it would be a full-time job to report it all, as there are new developments each day.

To my non-political friends, I am trying to provide a quick summary here. Even if you are not inspired to take action on this, you'll do well to be informed.

For myself - my energy and desire to remain involved in activism are renewed. As many are saying, this is a turning point. Pride must not be allowed to continue on this track - where critics and sponsors are allowed to dictate what we can say and do; if we had given into that in past years, we wouldn't be here now. Pride Toronto is not defending - nor speaking for - our community. If we let this go, where will it end?

Below are some links on the developments so far, thanks to Rick Telfer and his Facebook group, "Don't sanitize Pride: Free expression must prevail", which I would recommend joining. I doubt anyone will read all these links, but I would at least urge you read through this first one - the speeches and statements from those who returned their awards to Pride Toronto, and their reasons why:
http://queersagainstapartheid.org/2010/06/07/honourees

Video of the speeches
http://vimeo.com/12423891

Video of Town Hall meeting:
http://www.xtra.ca/blog/national/post/2010/06/07/Live-at-715pm-Town-hall-on-free-speech-at-Pride-Toronto.aspx


Pride Toronto's arguments are also effectively refuted in many of these links:

NEWS: "Rachel Epstein, Sky Gilbert and El-Farouk Khaki are just three of the more than 20 past honoured dykes, grand marshals and award recipients who will return their honours to Pride Toronto."
► STORY: http://j.mp/dbjOJM
► EVENT: http://j.mp/b6F16q (on Facebook)

STATEMENT: "Open Letter to Pride Toronto, from Superdyke.com/Michelle Walker, declining 2010 Community Service Award"
► http://j.mp/dC50CB

NEWS: "Toronto mayoral candidate and gay community bon vivant Keith Cole is the latest in a growing number of artists and activists to withdraw from Pride Toronto’s Pride celebrations."
► http://j.mp/9d86JW

NEWS & EVENT: "Sasha Van Bon Bon organizes event to directly compete with official Dyke March"
► http://j.mp/9wimrC

STATEMENT: "Wise Daughters Craft Market withdrawing participation: Funders must not be permitted to dictate Pride"
► http://j.mp/bT97Sd

STATEMENT: ILGA (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) expresses support for the right of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) to participate fully in Pride Toronto events
► http://j.mp/9CktHg

COMMENTARY: "Pride Toronto: Disingenuous or Inept?" by Sara Malabar (former Pride Toronto staff member)
► http://j.mp/afT0RB

STATEMENT: "Aswat, Palestinian queer women group, condemns the Israeli military attacks on the Freedom Gaza flotilla and call people all over the world to exercise their right to protest the apartheid regime in Israel and elsewhere."
► http://j.mp/cAAsiX

COMMENTARY: "The myth of Israeli morality"
► http://j.mp/b0TMZX

NEWS: Protesters demand Pride Toronto reverse censorship decision
► http://bit.ly/cdRQOd

NEWS: Decision to ban use of 'Israeli Apartheid' angers gay rights activists
► http://bit.ly/cZ7RI0

VIDEO: Protest at Pride Toronto press conference
► http://bit.ly/cj2QTD

EMAIL CAMPAIGN: Say No to Censorship at Pride Toronto
► http://bit.ly/dxZFx1

NEWS: Dr. Alan Li rejects appointment as Pride Toronto grand marshal
► http://bit.ly/bcKdMU

NEWS: Jane Farrow rejects Pride Toronto honoured dyke title
► http://bit.ly/cam6jQ

STATEMENT: Open Letter to Pride Toronto from founders of Pride in 1981
► http://bit.ly/dd0ydP

STATEMENT: Queer Ontario Opposes Censorship by Pride Toronto at 2010 Pride
► http://bit.ly/baDblu

NEWS: Pink Triangle Press tells Pride Toronto to reverse "Israeli Apartheid" ban
► http://bit.ly/aWJHKq

EVENT: "Take back the Dyke" (march)
► http://bit.ly/b7lJGd

STATEMENT: Glen Murray, MPP for Toronto Centre on "hate" and censorship
► http://bit.ly/9A0Gz4

VIDEO: QuAIA's Tim McCaskell on Pride Toronto's censorship
► http://bit.ly/batE3X

VIDEO: Pride Toronto's censorship
► http://bit.ly/bIIiu5

PROPOSAL: Pride Community Contract
► http://bit.ly/cOTJOv

COMMENTARY: Who is Martin Gladstone and why has he been trying to de-fund Pride Toronto?
► http://bit.ly/daIGnQ

ESSAY: The radical roots of Pride
► http://bit.ly/aVVM3F

Canadian Labour International Film Festival a Success

Toronto has become a city of film festivals. We have festivals focusing solely on documentaries, on the GLBT community, and many on specific ethnic communities. And now we have the Canadian Labour International Film Festival (CLiFF).

When I first heard about this festival, I couldn’t understand why a film festival would focus solely on labour issues; attending the grand opening of the fest, hearing the speeches of those in the labour movement and seeing a couple of the short films, I came to understand very quickly. The struggles of workers — which involve working conditions, workers’ rights, health and safety, sexism, and racism, just for starters — can be found in all corners of the world. While the details may differ, workers can learn from the triumphs and defeats of others, whether on the other side of the world or in a neighbouring town. And aside from travelling and seeing the evidence with one's own eyes, nothing is more effective than film — to educate, to raise awareness, and to be a rallying cry to support one another.

The inaugural fest kicked off with Six Weeks of Solidarity, about the 1919 Winnipeg general strike. This short film documented an important part of Canada’s history (and in doing so brought to mind some current struggles) and, sadly, what governments and big business will do to try to stifle dissent, protests, and strikes. This film was appropriately followed by Hold the Line, about the 2009 CUPE strike in Windsor and the current attack on pensions.

Expanding to issues of minimum wage, maternity leave, sick days, and the proof that a better world is possible, Poor No More compared the situation in Canada with that of Ireland and Sweden. While Sweden has problems of its own in dealing with immigration and diversity, it appears to have devised a happy medium in which the best labour conditions are achieved to the satisfaction of workers, management, corporate heads, and government. In this instance, the achievement of CLiFF has been to highlight how important a film such as Poor No More is; as production of the film is still being completed, many who were fortunate to see the film here are hoping to see it soon in wide international release.

Another newly completed film shown at the fest was the feature length You, Me & the SPP: Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule. Aside from dissecting this important issue and showing its negative impact on democracy and human rights, this film covers the use at Montebello of agents provocateurs — something that should be fresh in the memories of all Canadians, and that should provoke outrage.

The festival showed other issues and struggles across Canada. Los Mexicanos: The Struggle for Justice of Patricia Perez gave us a glimpse into the lives of Mexican farm workers in Quebec who are victimized by employers but are reluctant to speak out for fear of being deported. Its conclusion was not hopeful, but was balanced by 24 Days in Brooks, covering a successful strike at Canada’s largest meat-packing plant in Alberta, led by a largely immigrant workforce of more than two thousand people. Justice for All? showed the plight of low-income workers in BC, who are stymied by a legal aid system that is woefully inadequate to handle its number of cases. Dear John documented the announced closing of the John Deere plant in Welland, and the bleak future in store for a small city as it loses its main industry.

CLiFF’s international coverage moved across the map. Two films focused on Palestine and Israel: Seeds of Peace followed the fight of one Palestinian man who was fired for his attempts to obtain the same labour rights for Palestinians as Israelis; 6 Floors to Hell gave us a look at the living conditions of Palestinian men who seek occasional work in Israel by day, and spend their nights in the underground parking garage of a shopping mall under construction. Vinegar in the Valley gave an overview of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers’ movement in the US, from the 60s to the 80s. HERstory: Jeritan followed a group of Indonesian women who move to Macao, China, to work as domestic helpers, where they are underpaid and abused and the system offers almost no recourse. Invisible Force: Women Workers in Pakistan showed similarly poor conditions for the millions of Pakistani women and girls who work in the home for low wages, no benefits or recognition, and, sometimes, dangerous work. Perhaps most disturbingly, Who Killed Chea Vichea? documented the murder of a Cambodian man, a champion of the labour movement, whose death seemed to have been a warning and deterrent to a labour-friendly political party by the corrupt ruling party, and the framing of two innocent men to appease an international outcry over the murder.

On a happier note, CLiFF’s audience-award winner was Tanaka-san will not do Calisthenics, about a Tokyo man who was fired for refusing to take part in daily morning exercises in his office. During the film, Tanaka invites viewers to visit him. Some of the viewers of this film at the festival are planning to do just that; it is their hope that outsiders such as ourselves might be able to have some influence on his case by lodging complaints with his former employer.

Running a full week in Toronto, from November 22 to 28, each night’s films — all free — were followed by audience discussion, during which more than one person expressed a wish that such an important event draw higher attendance. Yet the festival’s founder, Frank Saptel, a dedicated board of directors, and a small body of volunteers have, in a very short time, created a significant and successful event. Aside from the week-long event in Toronto, the inaugural fest is truly pan-Canadian, taking place in more than 50 cities in every province from west to the east, in every territory, and even in one location in the US. Positive feedback from both organizers and participants ensures that the word will spread, pointing to even more participating cities and more seats filled next year.

Toronto’s biggest and most well-established film festivals are now household names. But even as CLiFF debuts, it has become the most significant event of its kind. No other film fest addresses concerns relevant to such a large portion of the population. Indeed, when we look at the larger issues – working conditions, pensions, and benefits under attack – we might argue that we are all affected. For even those of us not directly involved in these struggles need to ask ourselves what kind of country we want to live in. It is the labour movement and its unions which have shaped our society, from the 40-hour work week, minimum wage, sick days, maternity leave, safety regulations, and health care benefits. And it is these things which are currently under attack. While our tax dollars are being handed out freely to bail out large, poorly managed, privately run corporations, we are being asked, under the guise of “recession”, to surrender the benefits which have become rights. These attacks must be stopped, and in order to stop them, a sleeping public must be awakened to these threats.

Modern technology is on our side. In the year ahead, CLiFF’s larger vision will be to invite us all to pick up our cell phone cameras and become filmmakers ourselves. Rather than limiting itself to professionally produced features, CLiFF will be looking for workers, students, and individuals with stories to tell. Stay tuned to www.labourfilms.ca.

Letter from André Shepherd, Iraq War Resister in Germany

Being a supporter of American war resisters in Canada, I heard about André Shepherd's case a year ago, and sent him a letter of support. I got this email just today. It's a great summary of his past year and the status of his case, but more than that, it's a great summary of all that is wrong with American military strategy. It gives me hope for a positive outcome in his case - and in the cases of all the war resisters here.

(Emphasis in bold is mine.)

Dear Friends and Supporters:

Wow what a year this has been! I cannot believe that so much time has passed since I first applied for asylum. I would like to take this time to thank each and every one of you for you love and support during this difficult but exciting period.

First I want to give everyone an update as to where we stand. As of right now, the Federal Office in Germany is continuing its fact finding mission in order to reach a decision as to whether or not I should receive asylum. I realize that many of you are wondering why this decision should take so long. We must understand that a decision of this magnitude cannot be taken lightly. Remember that a yes decision would pretty much be a de facto admission that the War on Terror is illegal and immoral. The ramifications of such a decision would be huge, especially since it would come from a strong ally of the United States. A move like that could provide a safe haven for the War resisters in Europe, it would be a huge embarrassment for the Administration, and could potentially put more pressure on the American Government to pursue War Crimes against humanity instead of continuing the ongoing persecution of War Resisters for making a sound moral decision. If the German Government decides no, then we are in a rather curious situation since as of this date there continues to be evidence that this war was one of aggression, and that it violates American, German, and international law. It would be interesting to see the explanation as to how such a decision could be reached, as well as the World´s reaction to such a decision. I understand that this is a potential political time-bomb given the long history of friendship between the two nations. Nevertheless I believe in true justice and that friends should be able to tell each other when they are in error.

Over the last year I have traveled the country giving talks and making appearances in order to raise awareness on this very important issue, as well as having a strong media and internet presence thanks to the help of very dedicated people. Looking back I feel as though we have been successful; however we must continue our efforts to reach the general population. It is difficult for the average person to fully connect to the Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan mainly because they are so far away. Our job is to get the people to realize just what is happening on the ground in those countries, so that we may be able to put a stop to the madness that reigns there. I must continue to stress that the peoples of those lands do not hate us because of our beliefs and “freedoms”. They are opposed to us simply because we have invaded their lands. It would be the same situation if some invading force made their way into your hometowns. You would fight tooth and nail in order to get them out, and that is what is happening in these countries. I am not happy that our soldiers are dying for reasons that have yet to be disclosed. No one should have to die for nothing, especially not under false pretenses. My heart bleeds for every man woman and child who has to suffer on all sides of the conflict, because we are all victims of some very twisted policies. In order for us to help spread the message, I charge each and every one of you to please spread the word about this asylum case and to urge your friends and colleagues to contact the German and American Governments to withdraw from these lands NOW! Only with a united front can we even hope to achieve success. That is why we are continuing to ask for your support in this very important cause.

Since today is Thanksgiving in the United States, I wish to take the time to thank everyone for their tireless efforts in helping me fight this battle. Through donations of time, effort, and money we were able to achieve things that one year ago I did not dream were humanly possible. From the Winter Soldier Conference in March, to the Ethecon event in Berlin last weekend, we have spread our message to people from all walks of life. I am especially pleased that we were able to speak to schoolchildren about what it really means to be a soldier. This is very important since these children must make a decision that could potentially affect the rest of their lives. I want to make clear the importance of giving people the proper information so that they can make good decisions concerning their lives. For far too long we have been told what to believe and what to think about the world around us. It is time for us as human beings to wake up from our slumber and to see the world for what it really is by using our own minds. I wish to especially thank Connection e.V., Military Counseling Network, Iraq Veterans Against the War (in the U.S. and Europe), Tübingen Progressive Americans, the DFG-VK, Stop the War Brigade and Ethecon for helping spread the message of peace. There have been many other organizations and individuals that I have not listed that have also made major contributions to the case. I wish to express my deepest appreciation to all of you and ask God to bless you in the future.

Unfortunately the American War on Humanity is continuing. President Obama is set to send an additional 38,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, as well as going back on his promises to withdraw from Iraq. The death toll in the conflict is steadily rising and soldiers from many countries are dealing with mental trauma from this unjust war. The peoples of these lands are still fleeing their countries in search for a safe haven, and basic services are way below acceptable levels for a functioning society. When looking at the situation it is very easy to get discouraged. However there is reason to hope. The voice of opposition is growing stronger by the day, as our ranks are continuing to be filled with people from all over the world who are fed up with the crimes that are continuously being committed. We must continue to press on. Only when we stand together as one and demand that this comes to an end, will we be able to heal the wounds of the past, and be able to start building a better world for our children. I wish you all good luck and God bless you in all of your endeavors.

Sincerely André Shepherd

District 9 looks at how we treat the aliens among us

District 9 is one of the rare summer blockbuster films with some depth. It is a fantastical account of a period in earth’s history, beginning 28 years ago, when a giant alien ship appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa. A comparison with Independence Day (1996) is tempting, but beyond the ship and its gruesome, slimy aliens, the parallels soon disappear. District 9 is much more realistic, owing to the documentary-style technique used to bring the viewer up-to-date on what has transpired over the years as earth has attempted to cope with the arrival of the aliens, leading to a present-day crisis.

Rather than bringing a race of superior intellect and technology, hell-bent on our destruction, the alien ship hovers silently and apparently dormant over Johnannesburg until humans cut their way through the hull, finding over a million inhabitants who appear sickly and impoverished. Thus begins a ground-based resettlement effort which creates a refugee camp within the city: District 9 (D-9).

It is at this point that the film shows its brilliance and originality. The writers have a heyday illustrating the human tendency toward bigotry and racism. Treatment of the aliens is both hilarious and disturbing as history repeats itself. Historical footage shows the aliens being settled into a camp - which quickly becomes a slum, surrounded by barbed wire. Interviews with Johannesburg’s human residents reveal the discomfort with – or hatred of – immigrants, and resentment that “our” tax dollars are being spent on others (a timely issue, in the midst of the current debate over universal health care in the US). Interviews with “experts” add an objective and dispassionate overview of how badly things transpired - 20:20 in hindsight.

That the film is set in South Africa is refreshing – and fitting, as the humans call for segregation of the aliens. Apartheid-style signs appear, warning that aliens are not welcome in certain areas. While the majority of the human population invents and uses a derogatory term to refer to the aliens, the documentary footage is even complete with a minority of human activists staging a rally, complete with placards, calling for fair treatment of the aliens. But as tensions escalate, the government settles on a plan to relocate the entire alien community to a new camp away from the city.

Enter the central character of the story - Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley), representing “Multi-National United” (MNU), a NATO-like organization in charge of overseeing and policing D-9. Wikus is assigned to head the team responsible for the relocation. Hand-held cameras record the difficult process – and provide a glimpse that the MNU is not as benevolent as the world might like to believe. Some of the actions by MNU paramilitary constitute war crimes – an uncomfortable reminder of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine (to name just a few). Riding the line between amusing/disturbing are the MNU’s attempts to obtain signed consent forms from each alien in order to carry out the relocation – and the revelation that the MNU intends to use lies, coercion, and blackmail to obtain the signatures.

It is during one of these home visits that Wikus is accidentally infected with an alien substance – and the action begins. His body quickly begins to transform into that of an alien… and the film transforms into a desperate chase, an action shoot-’em-up, and a sci-fi thriller in which Wikus and an alien companion attempt to escape to the ship in the sky and thwart an MNU plot to use Wikus’ body and DNA to activate superior alien weaponry.

D-9’s twists keep us guessing to the end, and the action is intense and engrossing. But the film’s ingenuity and depth get lost in the action. The immigration and prison camp parallels to our real history are completely relevant to current wars and occupations around the world, and it is when Wikus starts to become an alien and finds himself on the other side of the D-9 fence that we consider our prejudices and human rights atrocities through his eyes. But we haven’t the time to really think through the implications, as we are too busy shielding ourselves from the rapid-fire, graphic violence.

The box-office success of this film bodes well for a sequel – as does the plot. The aliens are eventually relocated to District 10, but we are led to wonder what will happen next. We leave the theatre a bit shell-shocked by the action and violence. What we are hoping for is a return to the thought-provoking analysis into ourselves: the ways in which we regard and treat immigrants, how we handle refugee camps, and what we accept in the actions of our governments and armies. Can we do better with District 10?