Political Media in a Democratic Society
Political advertising is a controversial topic, recently stimulating quite a lot of debate.
Print, radio, and most importantly television, are powerful mediums that greatly affect citizens attitudes and opinions towards a wide range of issues. The debate arises concerning whether those with the means to promote their political views through the media – the wealthy – should be able to. On one side, political advertising through media increases the number of ways citizens can express their opinions and should be guaranteed by the right of freedom of speech. On the other hand, advertising is an expensive medium of expression and therefore not inclusive to all who do not have enough wealth to promote their ideas in this way. Since advertising and paid media is the most affective way to reach citizens, this exclusive medium, if made political, is in danger of promoting only a few of the many political views of society’s members.
Section 2B of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms states that “…freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication…” is a fundamental freedom of Canadian citizens. Here, freedom and expression including “…freedom of the press and other media of communication…” is specifically outlined as necessary to the freedom of Canadians.
Dworkin believes that rights must be rights in the true sense of the word and that even if there is a cost to the rest of society, rights must be upheld: “If citizens have a moral right of free speech, then governments would do wrong to repeal [the right] that guarantees it, even if they were persuaded that the majority would be better off if speech were curtailed” (Dworkin, 293). Dworkin acknowledges that individual rights involve a sacrifice from society – the marginal benefits a society receives from overriding rights in certain cases (Dworkin, 294), yet he sticks to his belief that gains the majority would receive cannot justify stopping a man from doing what he has a right to do (Dworkin, 294) and that if the Government were able to defeat a right by appealing to the democratic majority to work its will, the entire system of rights would be jeopardized (Dworkin, 295). Dworkin makes it clear that rights should be valued over majority will. In this case of political beliefs expressed through media, Dworkin would generally be in support as the right to freedom of speech includes the right of expression and communication through the press and media. Dworkin states that if the government has the last word on issues of rights, and only grants certain rights of its choosing depending on circumstances, moral and legal rights do not exist for citizens at all as they are not free and independent from the state’s control (Dworkin, 289).
Yet Dworkin does assert that abridging a right is sometimes necessary when the social cost of protecting the right is not necessary and is not worth paying. He provides three situations in which abridging a right can take place – the government must show that the values protected by the right are not at stake, some competing right might be abridged by granting the first right and the government must discriminate between them and protect the more important one, or if the cost to society would be beyond the cost paid to grant the right (Dworkin, 289). These situations present a difficulty to those who support individual rights as controversial cases concerning rights must be evaluated based on these three conditions and judged thereby.
Sunstein believes that true liberty or autonomy does not simply mean the satisfaction of private preferences. Instead autonomy should refer to “…decisions reached with a full and vivid awareness of available opportunities, with reference to all relevant information, and without illegitimate or excessive constraints on the process of preference formation” (Sunstein, 129). And he believes decisions are unfree or nonautonomous when these conditions are not met. He presents many examples of how people can develop preferences from their various environments yet are not free because they know of no other preferences or perspectives as they have not been exposed to them. He suggests that government regulation in these matters, in the interest of liberty and autonomy, “…removes a kind of coercion” (Sunstein, 129) and that “One goal of a democracy…is to ensure autonomy not merely in the satisfaction of preferences, but also…in the processes of preference formation” (Sunstein, 129). Here Sunstein expresses his perspective of freedom, which involves not simply allowing citizens to act how they wish, but ensuring that the preferences controlling their actions have been developed in a free way, with exposure to all information and available opportunities. Sunstein would not support merely the wealthy showcasing their views through media, as this would result in constrained preference formation. Government regulation would serve to support liberty and autonomy by removing the coercion that results from this domination of the media.
Dworkin advocated for equal rights above all else, yet we can see that the right of freedom of speech might cause more harm than good for society. As political advertising and media is an expensive and therefore exclusive medium of communication, only one or a few perspectives would be presented. This presents a political problem as, as Sunstein states, a true democratic government should be concerned with how preferences are formed and not simple take them as they are. Diversity is not promoted if the wealthy were unregulated and unchecked in their spending on highly-influential political media, undermining free speech as a means to a just process of deliberation. To counter-act this, political media may not only have to be regulated but the government must specifically act for the purpose of representing minority groups. In the end there is no argument that can support the unregulated spending of the wealthy to promote their political ideas through paid media and advertising, as it undermines true liberty and equality in a democratic state.
By Sharan Pawa, Alumni
Tax Cut Folly
By Andrea Novakovic, Grade 11
It is no secret that the corporate world has been receiving giant tax breaks from the government, even though they make billions of dollars in profits annually. Whether we know it or not, a global recession is taking place, yet Stephen Harper’s Conservative government remains committed to reducing the general corporate income tax rate. This has—of course—been strongly supported by corporations, and it is now being put into action by the federal government.
(more…)
Water Fight in the Thompson-Okanagan Region
By Andrea Novakovic, Grade 11
For thousands and thousands of years, the people of Secwepemc, Okanagan, and other First Nations had protected their land and kept the natural balance of the environment. However, it only took a century and a half for foreign settlers to destroy this delicate balance and bring the area to the verge of an ecological collapse. Ever since the European settlers came to Canada, the First Nations of Canada have suffered greatly and the environment’s health has been gradually declining. The First Nations peoples were stripped of their lands and placed onto reserves, which were tiny compared to what they had before. Farming technology and techniques that were foreign to the land and to the indigenous people were brought in. They ended up harming the environment and the Aboriginal way of life.
(more…)
Fewer Homeless Shelter Beds after BC Cuts
By Sophia Yamauchi, Grade 10
A hundred and sixty beds that were made available to the homeless last year will no longer be offered this winter, according to CBC News. The provincial government has stated that the extra beds will not be needed this year because of the 300 new social housing units opened earlier in the year. When some of the city’s homeless people were questioned on what they thought about the cut, they told the reporters that they will probably end up staying out in the cold this winter. They also said that the new social housing spots will either be full or inaccessible to them. Vancouver has what is called an Extreme Weather Response Program (EWRP), Click here for more!
Meet Two of Vancouver’s City Council Candidates!
On November 19, 2011, Vancouverites will cast their votes in to choose 1 Mayor, 10 Councillors, 7 Park Commissioners, and 9 School Trustees in the municipal election. With the big event just about a month away, the Word’s editors have interviewed two great individuals, both of whom are candidates of this fall’s election. From Vision Vancouver, we have Kerry Jang, a Professor of Psychiatry at UBC and a current City Councillor, as well as a Windermere alumnus from the 1980s! On the other hand, we have Bill Yuen from the Non-Partisan Association (NPA). He is an engineer and a former school trustee whose children both graduated from Windermere. Both Jang and Yuen are residents of our neighbourhood, and it has been a pleasure meeting them. We would like to thank them for making time for us in their busy schedules to create this segment!
So, without further delay, let’s get right into our interviews!
Kerry Jang on September 21, 2011:
Q: What are your responsibilities in the community as a City Councillor?
A: There are two roles to my position as a City Councillor. First of all, all Councilors are essentially responsible for things like city budget, making sure the roads are clean, and ensuring that police and fire departments have money. But, more specifically, Gregor Robertson asked me to look into the issues of homelessness because that’s what I’ve been trained in. So a lot of my work is to do with homelessness, as well as the sex trade and how to protect women and young girls who might be lured into the trade.
Q: Why did you decide to become a City Councillor?
A: Because of my interest in mental illness. I got involved through working with homeless people. I set up the Saturday Breakfast and Shower Program at the Collingwood Neighborhood House to address homelessness in our area. It was unique for its time because we looked at what the homeless people needed instead of what we thought they needed. We asked, “What do you actually want?” and a guy answered, “I’ve got kind of a place to live but don’t like sleeping here. What I really want is a place to come and shower – because I stink – and a place to wash my clothes and have breakfast.” The whole point of the breakfast program was to create a place where they could be found. We made sure all the healthcare and mental health workers were there on Saturdays to see what they needed. So, that’s how we got them treated. It was great! Sometimes we could see people from the healthcare saying, “I finally found him. I’ve been looking for three months! He can finally take his medication today!” *High five!* Also, we made sure that a homeless count would be done in the city every year. Windermere students have helped with that, I believe. This tells us what kinds of services are needed. Why would I build a big, fancy healthcare centre if they’re not even here? We have now reduced homelessness by 83%. There had once been 1,000 people living on the street, and now there are only 145 left. It’s amazing!
Q: Is there any way students like us can become more involved in our city’s politics?
A: Absolutely! We have the Vancouver Youth and other advisory groups in the city. The Youth Justice Council and Restorative Justice are both very good examples. Also, there are a lot of community consultations where youth can come and leave their comments, which are the most important to me. I’m just a few years away from reaching fifty years old now, so I’ll be seventy when the stuff I’ve been planning comes to fruition! On the other hand, you guys will still be at the prime of your lives, so you will be the ones to take the actions and carry out the initiatives. If any students want to get involved in the city’s politics, they can contact me directly and I’ll hook you up. In January, if I get re-elected, I’ll be happy to take applications from students who want to sit on our advisory boards.
Q: What was Windermere like in 1980?
A: We were just coming out of the Disco era, so lots of guys were walking around with afros. Girls didn’t wear makeup – t-shirt and jeans were all they wore. We had a reputation as a tough school; my teeth actually got punched out one time. We were really mouthy, really street-smart. There was a real spirit in the school, though, and the teachers were fantastic! They really worked to make sure we focused on what was important. They also understood that a lot of us came from a poor background – I did. They tailored programs to help us out because we couldn’t afford tutors. In fact, we all had to work and give money to our families. Right after school – bam – a lot of us would head out to our jobs. It was a very different time economically.
Windermere was our place and we wanted to protect it. It had been a good experience here. I joke about the fights a lot, but they only happened once in a while; it wasn’t a warzone in here. When I went to my 30th high school reunion, I saw that everyone was doing really well. They owned businesses, they were professional, and one was a stand-up comedian! Despite the reputation we had when I was here, everyone turned out really well.
Q: Where did you go after graduating from Windermere?
A: I graduated from Windermere – barely – with a GPA of C-. My teachers told me to go to Langara for a year or two. There, I found something I really wanted to do, which was psychology, and from there I went to SFU, then to the University of Western Ontario, where I did my PhD, and afterwards I went to UBC. Now, I’m a full professor with tenure. It’s really all because people gave me time and understood my background, and that’s what Windermere was about. We were all tough kids. You guys are in a better place, I think, and you’re a lot smarter.
Q: Earlier this year, Vision’s creation of the bike lanes downtown was scrutinized for being rather inefficient, and a waste of space. What are your thoughts on that?
A: The bike lanes have been on the city’s transportation plan for 30 years. We finally decided to implement them because we noticed from data that car trips had decreased about 50% and more people were riding bikes than ever before. Without bike lanes, cyclists slowed down traffic. By creating dedicated bike lanes, we’ve actually increased traffic flow throughout downtown. Businesses thought that they would be impacted, but none of that happened. Instead, their profits went up because people without cars are now willing to go downtown. My favorite argument was that it destroys parking, but we did a study and there are more than ten thousand excess spaces along Hornby Street’s bike lane alone. I drive downtown and I’ve never had a problem finding parking, so I don’t buy any of those arguments. What we’re actually seeing is an increase in the number of bikers – it has skyrocketed. North American culture, though, is that we love our cars. This is why we need youth to change our perspective.
Q: Any advice for the Windermere students?
A: Do what you love! The money will come with it.
—————————–
Bill Yuen on September 24, 2011:
Q: Can you introduce yourself to readers of the Word?
A: I’ve been in Canada for almost forty years and Vancouver is very special for me. I met and married my wife of thirty-five years and raised my family here. I’m also glad that I’ve had the opportunity to help the community for the past twenty years. I had been a school board trustee; on the city of Vancouver’s Planning Commission; on the board of the Vancouver Public Library; and a council member with the Ministry of Children and Family Services. I also headed the PAC of Windermere at one point. I have done volunteer work at community centers and all sorts of fundraising for several public organizations.
Q: Your children went to Windermere, right? What do you think of the school?
A: I think it was one of the smaller schools in Vancouver, but it’s pretty close-knit and a pretty good school. Both of my children got into UBC and one of them became a lawyer.
Q: If you were to be elected as a City Councillor, what would your responsibilities be?
A: Well, certainly I would be responsible for providing services to Vancouverites and for dealing with issues that come up within the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Taking care of various orders and supplies and Translink – that is part of the City Council’s responsibilities.
Q: So, you want to direct your main focus to the engineering aspect of the city?
A: Well, no, actually. I would probably have to look into the all the different aspects. I find that Vancouver needs to be more than just a green city; it has to be competitive and affordable in order to survive. What I see with young people nowadays is that it is getting tougher and tougher for them to live in Vancouver, which makes holding down taxes one of my aims. If you look at the last three years, they raised taxes by 8% in the first year with an increase in the price of houses. Just coming into the market has become an issue for them. The second area that I can work on is streamlining cumbersome regulations to improve services. My experience over the last twenty years as an industrial engineer has shown that different processes and programs can be streamlined. This way, I can make it easier for the small businesses in our city.
Q: Gregor Robertson was elected in 2008 on the platform that he would make Vancouver the world’s greenest city by 2020. What is your take on the environmental issue?
A: I support Vancouver in becoming a green city – we all want to live in a green city – but it needs to have a balanced approach. You need to balance the needs of other constituencies. For instance, bike lanes are being built on existing sidewalks and some citizens did complain to me. Once, I saw an 84-year-old with a walker having to walk past the bike lane down a hill before he can get to the car parked beside the street. I see the current government really stuffing this down our throats, saying that “this is [their] way and this is the only way.” As a matter of fact, I talked to some nearby residents and they came up with really good alternative ideas, but there hasn’t been any meaningful consultation with citizens like them.
Q: What about the store owners along the bike lanes? Have they encountered any problems?
A: Like I said, you have to look at the overall impact. Something can’t just be implemented for a special interest group. It has to be inclusive; you need to look at the interests of all Vancouverites. Going green is a good initiative, but it can’t be carried out at the expense of others.
Q: What should be the number one issue for a City Councillor?
A: I would say it’s accountability at this point. It’s important that we are accountable to our citizens and willing to find out what they need. From what I heard from people in Vancouver, affordability is number one and they don’t want to see any tax hikes, as well as money being spent unwisely. Why expand the mayor’s office or create a new lunchroom? Why would they spend millions of dollars on secret bailouts? Why spend money to make shelters for homeless chickens?
Q: Homeless chickens?
A: The government created a shelter for homeless chickens – chickens that, say, people raised but then released. That’s something the current City Council is building. Citizens don’t want us to waste money like that. That’s why I’ll certainly go for more financial transparency if I get elected. Right now, there’s just too much money spent on things that people don’t know about.
Q: Recently, parking has become an issue in Vancouver. There have been areas on Kingsway, for instance, where they have suddenly included parking meters. Is this actually a good thing for the city or just a way for them to exploit the citizens?
A: I will say that it will definitely have some impact on local businesses and I don’t think that’s the way to go. It comes back to the bike lanes downtown. They have taken away the parking there and they have to get parking fees elsewhere, so they pick places that have good businesses and a busy traffic. The bike lanes were put in so fast that there wasn’t time for any good consultation.
Q: Do you have any advice for our readers still in high school?
A: Well, hard work! I think there’s no substitute for hard work. The real world is tougher than school, you have to be educated and be prepared. No matter what your post-secondary plans are, hard work always pays off. You have to work in the community, do volunteer work, and help others. Be a good citizen!
An Opinion Piece: The State of the Union
By: The Unnamed Writer
So, on March 25th, 2011, our government fell.
“Why does it matter?” I hear you all ask. “The government falls every 4 years anyway. So what if it falls a couple months early?”
You see, this time is special. For the first time in the history of Canadian politics, a government has been found in contempt of parliament. In other words, they no longer have the trust of the people who elected them.
Stephen Harper was the man of the hour when the Parliament voted against him in contempt.
On his way to the Governor General’s office to file for an election, which will take place May 2nd, he was stopped by a group of reporters. They wanted to know what had happened; everything a reporter usually wants to know.
But Stephen Harper denied comment. It looks like he has not only lost the trust of Parliament; apparently he has a thing against democracy too.
In a true democratic country, the leaders will tell you all the information you need to know to be an educated voter. Of course, there will be small lies and attacks on other parties, especially when elections roll around. But in general, leaders are supposed to answer the people’s questions. During his glorious campaign to become Prime Minister for another 4 years, he will only be answering five questions per day. He has been suppressing freedom of expression by searching up people coming to a rally on Facebook, and turned away anyone who supported other parties.
The last time I checked, we weren’t living in a third-world dictatorship. I thought we were supposed the true north, strong and free.
Peter Kent: An Editorial
By: Emily Chan, Grade 12
One of the most critical barriers that Canadians face in regard to addressing environmental issues is the lack of regulation in support
of green initiatives. However, our new Environment Minister makes environmentalists slightly more dubious about the government’s position of support for the green movement.
Mr. Kent was a Deputy Editor of Global Television News before he became the Environment Minister. He started out, in the 1960s, as a radio journalist; and then moved onto television, working for many well-known stations (CBC, CTV, Global, and NBC). His background in the media earned him the President’s Award in 2006 for his history of bringing distinction and major contributions to the media industry.
On January 4th, 2011, Peter Kent became our Environmental Minister.
In merely his first week on the job, he’s already created uproar amongst environmentalists; the Environmental Defence launched a campaign to write letters to Mr. Kent to show tell him what he needs to do to become a worthwhile minister.
His stance on the Athabasca Tar Sands has been the most unnerving (However, instead of having to read the details of the Tar Sands’ negative impacts in this article, please read past Word articles referenced at the end of this article). Peter Kent claims that the Tar Sands are ethical, stating: “The profits from this oil are not used in undemocratic or unethical ways. The proceeds are used to better society in the great Canadian democracy. The wealth generated is shared with Canadians, with investors.”
Mr. Kent’s position is one that needs to be dealt with honestly. His support for the Athabasca Tar Sands is not only unsettling, but is disappointing. As Environmental Minister, he should be trying to help our movement, instead of hindering our efforts.
It is our moral obligation to help save the environment; as the saying goes, “We’re all part of the problem – so we must all be part of the solution.” We will wait with baited breath for Mr. Kent to step up and deliver the change that’s essential for a safe future for our families.
We can make a wave of change, but unless the government removes the barrier that’s currently blocking our pathway, the change will not be visible enough. And Mr. Kent needn’t worry. We will continue to weather down the barriers until our wave is heard and received with support. Until then, I hope he’ll rethink his policies and realize that, right now, the environment relies upon his choices.
Past Word Articles about the Athabasca Tar Sands:
Neelam Khare, “A Not So Happy New Year” January 2009:
http://whsword.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/a-not-so-happy-new-year-the-tar-sands-take-over/
Mitchell Agostinho, “The Shame of Canada” March 2009:
http://whsword.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/the-shame-of-canada/
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands#Environmental_impacts
The Egyptian Revolution
By: Anson Lee, Grade 12
The Egyptian Revolution has taken the world by storm. Since 1981, Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt; the country was effectively ruled by him alone. Emergency law had been in effect ever since he came into power Under this law, police had free reign to do just about anything; constitutional rights were suspended, censorship was legalized, and the government was allowed to imprison anybody they wanted to at anytime for no reason at all. The law has been renewed three times, showing that the ruling powers were content with the way things were being run. Additionally, the country was in constant poverty. The government again and again showed an inability to reform and advance the nation. This resulted in a constant cycle of poverty and a country unable to grow economically. Moreover, many of the politicians in the government were clearly corrupt. While most people struggled to put enough money to get a meal, each member of Mubarak’s administration had a net value of a few billion Egyptian pounds. The people in the country had had enough.
Revolutions require a spark to start. On New Year’s Day, a church in the city of Alexandria was bombed. This resulted in people calling on the government for changes. Later in the month, the people of Tunisia successfully called for the removal of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. This set in motion the belief that the other nations in the Middle East could finally overthrow the dictators running their countries. In addition, the apparent abuse of power by police forces in the death of a young man had started up calls for protests.
This all cumulated into mass protests beginning on January 25th by multiple human rights and pro-democracy groups. Protests took place in the key cities of Alexandria, Cairo, and Suez. The amount of protestors numbered in the ten thousands. Throughout the week, the number of protestors continued to grow. Preparations were also made for even larger protests on the 28th.
When the fateful day came, the Egyptian Government had shut down nearly all means of communications whether it was text messaging, internet, or phones. This didn’t deter the protestors as tens of thousands took to the street. The Egyptian military was deployed to try and maintain order. Before, the military element of the country had been forever seen in a better light than the rest of the state; while the government was corrupt and the police brutal, the military was seen as protectors of the people. Opposition leaders soon called for talks to bring a new constitution and government.
On February 1st took place the “March of the Millions:” literally a march by millions of Egyptians to the Presidential Palace as a combined show of unity between citizens and the increasingly loud call for change. Mubarak, in retaliation to this, promised that he wouldn’t run for re-election when the time came in September. This didn’t do him any good as people had called on for his immediate resignation. People continued to protest after the announcement.
February 2nd can be seen as one of the decisive days in the revolution. On that day, pro-Mubarak groups began coming out of the woodworks in a show of support for the government. Instead of peacefully protesting like their counterparts, these groups started conflicts with the opposition. One of the early candidates for photo of the year has to be one of a Mubarak supporter riding his camel into a crowd of people. In addition to attacks on protestors, nearly all journalists and reporters were attacked to prevent them from showing what was going on. When protestors managed to grab hold of the pro-Mubarak members, searches showed that those people were actually police officers and government workers. This later resulted in the unity between the Muslim and Christian groups in Egypt.
On February 10th, in the final days of his rule, Mubarak announced that he would hand over power to his vice-president Omar Suleiman. This was met with shock as it was expected that Mubarak would resign. Protests had been ongoing for nearly three weeks with calls from many other countries for Mubarak to step down. Protestors reacted with anger and again called for change. Seeing all was lost, Mubarak resigned the following day.
As of now, the Revolution is still not over. In the following weeks, many things will need to become clear. Will the military follow through on their promises to protect and listen to the people? Which groups will be elected and what changes will they bring? What will remain of the previous regime? All of this can only be answered as the year progresses.
The Revolutionary United Front
By: Kaitlyn Fung, Grade 10
Revolutionary United Front, or RUF, for short; what does that name suggest to you? The first word, “revolutionary,” seems to imply that there is great change taking place, while the word “united” is synonymous with “combined.” The last word “front” seems to refer to a movement or campaign. Strung together, all these words create a definition along the lines of “a group fighting together for something completely different.”
Does that seem familiar? It should be, because it’s a thought that surrounds us every day. You can find it in the political parties of the countries around the world, all competing to promise things to their people. You can see it in all the environmental activists demanding a sustainable future, as well as in the homosexual community advocating for their legal and social acceptance. It can even be found in the groups of students fighting for their education to be properly funded. Most of those are all problems of today, though; what about before that? This idea is not new. In fact, it is an idea seen constantly throughout our world’s history. In the past, women had fought for their right to vote (and by extension, their equality), and the poor peasants in the 17th-century France eventually rose up to fiercely protest for their starvation. People had always been fighting for change; the Revolutionary United Front is just another example from the past.
The original ideal of the RUF was to bring equality to their people, as they claimed that the government was greedily managing Sierra Leone’s rich mineral resources (particularly diamonds) while the rest of the country rotted in poverty. It sounded like a good cause; “No More Slaves, No More Masters. Power and Wealth to the People.” was the slogan put out by these rebels. They planned to overthrow the corrupt government. It must be ironic, then, that the rebels quickly became interested only in gaining power and controlling the diamond industry, just like the corruption they had initially fought against. Now there were two power-hungry groups looking to dominate Sierra Leone, which only set the stage for massive conflict.
The RUF first made their move to overthrow their country’s corrupt government in March 1991. Invading from Liberia, they violently attacked the towns bordering the two countries, with former army corporal Foday Sankoh as leader. Sankoh was following the example of Charles Taylor, who had overthrown former Liberian president Samuel Doe the same way in 1989. They killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children and displaced about half the population, sending many to refugee camps and neighbouring countries. Easily crushing any weak government troops sent out to stop them, their unstoppable conquest continued until 1995, when they were almost at Sierra Leone’s capital, Freetown. It was then that the government hired EO (Executive Outcomes was a South African military company) mercenaries to counter the rebels. Additionally, the Kamajors (local Mende hunters as militia) were also instrumental in successfully repelling the RUF. After a failed peace agreement in 1996 and a few effective interventions by ECOMOG troops (the joint armies of multiple African countries) in 1998, the civil war seemed to drag on endlessly. In January 1999, the rebels captured Freetown, leaving many civilians devastated or killed. However, on July 7 of that same year, the Lomé Peace Accord was signed by Sankoh. Foday Sankoh and other members of the RUF were given positions within the government that they didn’t hold for long once RUF forces swiftly broke the agreement. It wasn’t until January 18, 2002 (after British intervention and disarming the disbanded rebels) that the war was officially declared over by Sierra Leone’s president.
With the war (just over a decade long) finally over, you would think that it no longer affects anyone. Yet, the RUF left a lasting impression on the world in various ways, notably evident in their trademark practice of amputating limbs. As they went across the country in their horrific campaign, the rebels not only killed a great deal of people, but they maimed them, too. With elections planned for a new government during the 90’s, citizens were told that “the future was in their hands,” so the RUF chopped off hands to stop people from voting. Using machetes and axes, they frequently amputated feet, legs, arms, and hands of thousands, including children. Sometimes they didn’t, though. Instead, one might be kidnapped and turned into a child soldier. Given cocaine and other drugs, child soldiers were made to do atrocious acts of killing and maiming. Young girls were often taken as sex slaves in addition to being child soldiers. While some have escaped or been freed, all are left traumatized by what they have witnessed and done.
With all the activities it undertook during the civil war, there is still a missing piece to the puzzle, which is how the RUF was able to fund all of its efforts. The answer to that lies within the land of Sierra Leone; the rebels, or more appropriately, the people they kidnapped, mined diamonds to sell for weapons. These diamonds were infamously termed conflict diamonds, or blood diamonds. It was odd, because Sierra Leone was ranked the poorest country in the world at the time. This was most likely due to the immense amount of smuggling these diamonds underwent to countries where they could be illegally certified. These diamonds became an extremely controversial topic during the late 90’s, when their existence gradually began to be revealed through the media. When shoppers discovered that their favourite jewellery stores were supplied by companies (De Beers being the biggest one) who knowingly bought these stones, they were outraged at the unacceptable exploitation of the source countries and their people. The Kimberley Process, started in 2000, was created in hopes of preventing blood diamonds from entering the mainstream diamond market.
Indeed, the effects that the RUF had had on their country and the world still linger today. The masses of amputees and child soldiers left scarred by the conflicts are all dark reminders of that turbulent war. Foday Sankoh was never formally punished for his actions, though, but died quietly in jail in 2003. Three other prominent rebel leaders within the RUF had not been sentenced until February 2009. The failed RUF political party that formed after the peace accord eventually merged with the All People’s Congress in 2007. Despite all that, it seems as though they were able to live up to what their name represented: a group of people fighting for things to be completely different. While they may not have achieved all the things they had set out to do, the Revolutionary United Front had indubitably managed to turn thousands of lives upside down during the course of Sierra Leone’s civil war, and beyond
References
http://64.176.9.117/sl/causes.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/01/99/sierra_leone/251251.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3110629.stm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/sierra_leone.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ruf.htm
http://www.economywatch.com/economies-in-top/poorest-countries-of-world.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1065898.stm
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/smm-mms/busi-indu/kpd-pkd-eng.htm
The Senate’s Murder of Bill C-311: A truly sober thought
By: Emily Chan, Grade 12
How is a bill even passed through the House of Commons in the first place? First, an idea is brought forward and created into a bill. After the bill is debated and successfully passed by the House of Commons, the bill is sent to the Senate. This group of wealthy, appointed members is affectionately called the “sober second thought” as they have the final say on whether or not the bill will be created into law.
Bill C-311’s required regulations were to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by 2020, and to bring emissions down by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. Based on the bill’s summary, its purpose was “to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by committing to a long-term target to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions…”. It was the only legislation in the world to pass through a democratically-elected parliament that promised strong reductions of greenhouse gas emissions at Kyoto (although we have broken this promise; emissions have increased instead).
Some background information first; the Senate is a highly debated topic in Canada, as many argue that the Senate is not needed in the process. As the House of Commons has already decided to pass the bill, many believe that we don’t need an extra veto power to have the last word on these policies. As well, the 105 members are appointed by our governor general with the advice of our prime minister. Of course, seats are allocated based on the region; the four largest regions receive 24 seats each, and the remaining seats are assigned to the less-populated regions. However, supporters of the Senate will defend that it’s needed in case the House of Commons passes a bill that shouldn’t be passed. Did I mention that members in the Senate can stay in until they’re 75 years old?
On November 16th, 2010, the Senate voted against Bill C-311, AKA the Climate Change Accountability Act. AKA Canada’s only piece of federal climate change legislation.
Bill C-311 was originally brought forward in October of 2006 by the leader of the NDP; Jack Layton. By a 148-116 vote at third reading (the Liberals, Bloc Québécois, and NDP supported the bill while the Conservatives voted against it), the bill was murdered by the Senate while Parliament was dissolved for the 2008 federal election. Amazingly, it came back to life on February 10th, 2009 and after a 169-93 vote on October 21st, 2009, the act sat there past its allotted 60-day timeframe for the House of Commons to read the bill and therefore wasn’t ready in time for the 2009 Copenhagen world meeting. Before the government could respond to the Senate’s votes, the bill was defeated on November 6th, 2010, by a vote of 43-32.
Before this bill, the Senate had only defeated one bill since 1988, which was respecting abortion. The David Suzuki Foundation emanated frustration in November of 2010 as they explained, “and so, just as Canada prepares to join world leaders at the UN climate change negotiations in Mexico, a group of unelected senators have decided, without any debate, that the future of Canada’s youth is not worth the bother. It’s a shame these elderly senators may not be around to face the most severe consequences of their actions.”
As the DSF eloquently states, the bill is dead. Along with it, some would claim that the chance of strong objectives to address climate change has gone down too. For now at least; I have an inkling that the enviros of our society won’t give up that easily.
SOURCES:
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada
-
http://www.fedpubs.com/subject/law/statutes.htm
-
http://www.fact-index.com/c/ca/canadian_senate.html
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Accountability_Act_%28Bill_C-311%29
-
BC Politics Crisis
By: Puneet Riar, Alumnus
In the last couple of months, British Columbia’s politics has been acting the way a grade seven class acts when the teacher hasn’t photocopied enough handouts and steps out to print off more – chaotic. Backstabbing, resignations and expulsions have dominated newspaper headlines across the country and it seems that this whole situation will carry on in the year 2011.
On October 7, Cariboo North MLA Bob Simpson was expelled from the British Columbia New Democratic Party caucus (he now sits as an Independent) for criticizing a speech BCNDP Leader Carole James made to the Union of B.C. Municipalities Convention—and indirectly, criticized her leadership. A few days after that, on the 15th of October, the caucus (party) chair Norm Macdonald resigned from his position, the reason being that James failed to consult him on Simpson’s discipline. Following Macdonald’s resignation, on November 19th caucus whip Katrine Conroy also resigned, stating the same reason as Mr. Macdonald’s.
If this wasn’t bad enough, things really started to get worse as the days went on. Before the November 20th NDP Provincial Council (deliberative body to discuss issues within a party; includes reaffirming confidence in the party leader), the caucus revolt came to light when three MLAs (Jenny Kwan, Claire Trevena and Lana Popham) met with Carole James in Vancouver and quietly gave her a letter signed by 13 NDP MLAs—dubbed the “Baker’s Dozen”—stating that they had lost confidence in her as a leader. Ignoring this, James went into the provincial council in Victoria and managed the approval of 84% of the council, rejecting a motion for a leadership convention next year. Pro-Carole scarves were being handed out at the council, though the “Baker’s Dozen” refused to wear them to show solidarity in their dissent.
Fast forward to December 1st: leader of the “Baker’s Dozen” Jenny Kwan (Vancouver-Mount Pleasant MLA and one of the longest serving BCNDP MLAs) released a statement, saying that James was “dividing the party by staying on as leader” and that “under James’ leadership, debate has been stifled, decision making centralized and individual MLAs marginalized”. The statement also called for an immediate leadership convention. In response to the scathing statement, James scheduled an emergency caucus meeting for December 5th but was indefinitely postponed so private discussions could be held with the “Baker’s Dozen”. Coming out of these discussions was a statement of solidarity: if James tried to eject even one member of the dozen out of the NDP Party, she would have to remove all 13 of the members—that’s 40% of the party. Under law, these 13 could actually form their own party!
To add scandal to the situation, Kwan also condemned a “backroom deal” of former cabinet minister and party president, Moe Sihota, being paid a $76,000 salary by unions. Kwan alleged that James knew about this deal for a long time but had just revealed it to the party around the beginning of December. “There should be no place in today’s politics for such backroom deals,” said Kwan; irony in my opinion.
Taking the infighting no more, 7-year Leader Carole James surprisingly resigned on December 6th, stating that her decision had been made “in the best interests of British Columbians, who expect and deserve a functioning Opposition”. James will stay on as leader until a new leader is chosen. No date has been set yet for this.
While the NDP seems to be in the spotlight, within the British Columbia Liberals, Premier Campbell also made the headlines when he resigned on November 3rd amidst a 9% approval rating and the implementation of the HST. He will also stay on as premier until a new leader is chosen on February 26, 2011.
Barely two months ago, the NDP was revelling in a massive lead in the polls against the Liberals. In a mid-October Angus Reid poll, 49% of British Columbians would have voted NDP compared to the 24% for the Liberals. The Mustel poll out on December 17, however, gives the Liberals a five point lead over the NDP, 41 to 36. So far, candidates to replace Campbell are: former Education Minister George Abbot; former Health Minister Kevin Falcon; former Attorney General Mike de Jong; former Minister of Regional Economic and Skills Development Moira Stilwell; and the favourite Christy Clark, a former BC Liberal cabinet minister. On the flip side, no public statements have been made, but Fraser-Nicola MLA Harry Lali, Port Coquitlam MLA Mike Farnworth, and our own Vancouver-Kingsway MLA Adrian Dix are all suspected contenders of the NDP leadership.
Things like this don’t usually happen in BC. With party discipline so rigid, members of a party rarely vote on their own opinions, let alone try to boot their leader out of her position; it is really crazy for all this to happen. With both leaders soon to be gone, both parties will be able to start fresh and redefine themselves by the next election. Even so, the Liberals seem to have a slight advantage: with the BCNDP crisis, they could point out to the electorate that the party is not fit to run government if it can’t even run its own party. What the NDP party needs now is a leader that can bridge the gap between the James dissenters and supporters, whereas the Liberals simply need a leader, because at this point any one is better than “Gordo”. NDP strategist David Schreck accused the “Baker’s Dozen” and Jenny Kwan of “blowing up the party” and “destroying their chances of beating a reinvigorated Liberal party in 2013.” Within the NDP, some say that the firing of Bob Simpson was right, but I have to disagree. I believe that the opposing party to James should not be silenced. Within a democracy, questioning and disagreement with authority is allowed. It is not just the majority who matters, but the minority as well. As Edward R. Murrow’s once said, “we must not confuse dissent with disloyalty”.
Sources:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbird_hollow/2893862600/
Carole picture
The Revolutionary United Front
By: Kaitlyn Fung, Grade 10
Revolutionary United Front, or RUF, for short; what does that name suggest to you? The first word, “revolutionary,” 
seems to imply that there is great change taking place, while the word “united” is synonymous with “combined.” The last word “front” seems to refer to a movement or campaign. Strung together, all these words create a definition along the lines of “a group fighting together for something completely different.”
Does that seem familiar? It should be, because it’s a thought that surrounds us every day. You can find it in the political parties of the countries around the world, all competing to promise things to their people. You can see it in all the environmental activists demanding a sustainable future, as well as in the homosexual community advocating for their legal and social acceptance. It can even be found in the groups of students fighting for their education to be properly funded. Most of those are all problems of today, though; what about before that? This idea is not new. In fact, it is an idea seen constantly throughout our world’s history. In the past, women had fought for their right to vote (and by extension, their equality), and the poor peasants in the 17th-century France eventually rose up to fiercely protest for their starvation. People had always been fighting for change; the Revolutionary United Front is just another example from the past.
The original ideal of the RUF was to bring equality to their people, as they claimed that the government was greedily managing Sierra Leone’s rich mineral resources (particularly diamonds) while the rest of the country rotted in poverty. It sounded like a good cause; “No More Slaves, No More Masters. Power and Wealth to the People.” was the slogan put out by these rebels. They planned to overthrow the corrupt government. It must be ironic, then, that the rebels quickly became interested only in gaining power and controlling the diamond industry, just like the corruption they had initially fought against. Now there were two power-hungry groups looking to dominate Sierra Leone, which only set the stage for massive conflict.
The RUF first made their move to overthrow their country’s corrupt government in March 1991. Invading from Liberia, they violently attacked the towns bordering the two countries, with former army corporal Foday Sankoh as leader. Sankoh was following the example of Charles Taylor, who had overthrown former Liberian president Samuel Doe the same way in 1989. They killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children and displaced about half the population, sending many to refugee camps and neighbouring countries. Easily crushing any weak government troops sent out to stop them, their unstoppable conquest continued until 1995, when they were almost at Sierra Leone’s capital, Freetown. It was then that the government hired EO (Executive Outcomes was a South African military company) mercenaries to counter the rebels. Additionally, the Kamajors (local Mende hunters as militia) were also instrumental in successfully repelling the RUF. After a failed peace agreement in 1996 and a few effective interventions by ECOMOG troops (the joint armies of multiple African countries) in 1998, the civil war seemed to drag on endlessly. In January 1999, the rebels captured Freetown, leaving many civilians devastated or killed. However, on July 7 of that same year, the Lomé Peace Accord was signed by Sankoh. Foday Sankoh and other members of the RUF were given positions within the government that they didn’t hold for long once RUF forces swiftly broke the agreement. It wasn’t until January 18, 2002 (after British intervention and disarming the disbanded rebels) that the war was officially declared over by Sierra Leone’s president.
With the war (just over a decade long) finally over, you would think that it no longer affects anyone. Yet, the RUF left a lasting impression on the world in various ways, notably evident in their trademark practice of amputating limbs. As they went across the country in their horrific campaign, the rebels not only killed a great deal of people, but they maimed them, too. With elections planned for a new government during the 90’s, citizens were told that “the future was in their hands,” so the RUF chopped off hands to stop people from voting. Using machetes and axes, they frequently amputated feet, legs, arms, and hands of thousands, including children. Sometimes they didn’t, though. Instead, one might be kidnapped and turned into a child soldier. Given cocaine and other drugs, child soldiers were made to do atrocious acts of killing and maiming. Young girls were often taken as sex slaves in addition to being child soldiers. While some have escaped or been freed, all are left traumatized by what they have witnessed and done.
With all the activities it undertook during the civil war, there is still a missing piece to the puzzle, which is how the RUF was able to fund all of its efforts. The answer to that lies within the land of Sierra Leone; the rebels, or more appropriately, the people they kidnapped, mined diamonds to sell for weapons. These diamonds were infamously termed conflict diamonds, or blood diamonds. It was odd, because Sierra Leone was ranked the poorest country in the world at the time. This was most likely due to the immense amount of smuggling these diamonds underwent to countries where they could be illegally certified. These diamonds became an extremely controversial topic during the late 90’s, when their existence gradually began to be revealed through the media. When shoppers discovered that their favourite jewellery stores were supplied by companies (De Beers being the biggest one) who knowingly bought these stones, they were outraged at the unacceptable exploitation of the source countries and their people. The Kimberley Process, started in 2000, was created in hopes of preventing blood diamonds from entering the mainstream diamond market.
Indeed, the effects that the RUF had had on their country and the world still linger today. The masses of amputees and child soldiers left scarred by the conflicts are all dark reminders of that turbulent war. Foday Sankoh was never formally punished for his actions, though, but died quietly in jail in 2003. Three other prominent rebel leaders within the RUF had not been sentenced until February 2009. The failed RUF political party that formed after the peace accord eventually merged with the All People’s Congress in 2007. Despite all that, it seems as though they were able to live up to what their name represented: a group of people fighting for things to be completely different. While they may not have achieved all the things they had set out to do, the Revolutionary United Front had indubitably managed to turn thousands of lives upside down during the course of Sierra Leone’s civil war, and beyond.
References:
http://64.176.9.117/sl/causes.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/01/99/sierra_leone/251251.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3110629.stm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/sierra_leone.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ruf.htm
http://www.economywatch.com/economies-in-top/poorest-countries-of-world.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1065898.stm
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/smm-mms/busi-indu/kpd-pkd-eng.htm
Tea Party 101
By: By Emily Chan, Grade 12
The purpose of this article is to educate you. Feel free to make your own choices and views on this issue, but keep your eyes and ears open; you’re about to hear a lot about the Tea Party.
Looking for some easy-to-understand information on the Tea Party? You’ve come to the right place. The Tea Party is a political movement in the US, whose members have been in the news lately because of their controversial views and protests. They’ve been labelled as racist and homophobic, but who are we to judge? Throughout this article, you should be able to conclude your own opinions on this movement; these are merely the opinions of some. The name has come from the Boston Tea Party (long story short. British colonists destroyed tea instead of paying a tax that they believed violated their rights in 1773).
This party isn’t a national political party, nor has it appeared on any ballots to date. However, they have held various “protests” to express their points of views. And what are they? Here are a few statistics for you, from a University of Washington poll of 1,695 voters: 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama’s policy of engaging Muslim countries, 82% don’t believe gay/lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and 52% believe that gays/lesbians have too much political power. A very small percentage of supporters believe global warming to be a serious problem, a smaller percentage than the general public. Hmmmm.
By the way, guess who’s on the band wagon? That’s right, Sarah Palin. According to writers Rasmussen and Schoen, Palin is “the symbolic leader of the movement, and more than anyone else has helped to shape it.” A large portion of their funding has come from an anonymous donor in September 2010; $1,000,000 to be precise. Sarah Palin was also a large contributor for four of their bus tours (a way to fundraise for candidates). But who really runs it? Dick Morris, a political analyst, says that the movement is made up of smaller local groups. The teapartypatriots.org group has 2,800 members, with only 7 paid employees.
They wanted the Democrats and Republicans to sign on to their contract, “The Contact of America,” which was made through an online voting process. The contract, according to one of the leaders, is based on individual liberty, limited government and economic freedom; but no Democrats have signed on and the contract has also met large resistance from the Republicans. Here are 5 out of the total of 10 agenda items on their contract.
1.) Identify constitutionality of every new law: In other words, the Congress will need to identify which specific part in the Constitution allows them to pass every new law.
2.) Reject emissions trading: Stop “cap and trade” to control carbon dioxide, and instead give money for reducing CO2 emissions.
3.) Demand a balanced federal budget: Institute a balanced budget, with two-thirds majority needed for tax modifications.
4.) Simplify the tax system: Get rid of the Internal Revenue Code and replace it with a simple, single-rate tax system that’s the same length of the original Constitution (4,543 words)
5.) Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Get rid of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Since then, this contact is still as stands. It has gotten very harsh attacks from the Democrats, paraphrasing the contract to support the following (copied directly from the Democrats’ website):
1.) Put the big banks back in charge of student loans and put an end to federal assistance for public schools.
2.) Gut the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act — which together protect our kids from air pollution and keep drinking water safe — and disband the watchdog that holds polluters accountable.
3.) Take away your right to pick your U.S. Senator.
4.) Put insurance companies back in charge and repeal tax credits for small businesses.
5.) Phase out and end Medicare as it presently exists for future generations of seniors — ending Medicare’s guaranteed healthcare benefits for more than 40 million American seniors — and replace it with a voucher system which will result in higher premiums and fewer services for seniors.
To be honest, I wasn’t even able to match up these two completely different interpretations of this contract; the first from the Tea Party, and the second from the Democrats. I’ll leave that up for your judgement.
This movement is more Republican-friendly than Democrats. The New York Times reports that 138 candidates running for Congress have significant Tea Party support – and all 138 of them are Republicans. Think about that: it’s a pretty large majority. As well, a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll reported 35% of voters were Tea-party supporters, in which 94% supported Republicans and 10% supported the Democrats.
Mark Mardell of BBC News has an interesting view on this party, claiming, “fury tends to dissolve into concern, worry about the economic direction of the country, worry about the size of the government and the level of taxation.” His interpretation of this movement goes so far as to foresee economic and governmental destruction. This is no small grassroots movement. It may have started that way, but it’s growing. And fast.
The Revolutionary United Front
By: Kaitlyn Fung, Grade 10
Revolutionary United Front, or RUF, for short; what does that name suggest to you? The first word, “revolutionary,” seems to imply that there is great change taking place, while the word “united” is synonymous with “combined.” The last word “front” seems to refer to a movement or campaign. Strung together, all these words create a definition along the lines of “a group fighting together for something completely different.”
Does that seem familiar? It should be, because it’s a thought that surrounds us every day. You can find it in the political parties of the countries around the world, all competing to promise things to their people. You can see it in all the environmental activists demanding a sustainable future, as well as in the homosexual community advocating for their legal and social acceptance. It can even be found in the groups of students fighting for their education to be properly funded. Most of those are all problems of today, though; what about before that? This idea is not new. In fact, it is an idea seen constantly throughout our world’s history. In the past, women had fought for their right to vote (and by extension, their equality), and the poor peasants in the 17th-century France eventually rose up to fiercely protest for their starvation. People had always been fighting for change; the Revolutionary United Front is just another example from the past.
The original ideal of the RUF was to bring equality to their people, as they claimed that the government was greedily managing Sierra Leone’s rich mineral resources (particularly diamonds) while the rest of the country rotted in poverty. It sounded like a good cause; “No More Slaves, No More Masters. Power and Wealth to the People.” was the slogan put out by these rebels. They planned to overthrow the corrupt government. It must be ironic, then, that the rebels quickly became interested only in gaining power and controlling the diamond industry, just like the corruption they had initially fought against. Now there were two power-hungry groups looking to dominate Sierra Leone, which only set the stage for massive conflict.
The RUF first made their move to overthrow their country’s corrupt government in March 1991. Invading from Liberia, they violently attacked the towns bordering the two countries, with former army corporal Foday Sankoh as leader. Sankoh was following the example of Charles Taylor, who had overthrown former Liberian president Samuel Doe the same way in 1989. They killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children and displaced about half the population, sending many to refugee camps and neighbouring countries. Easily crushing any weak government troops sent out to stop them, their unstoppable conquest continued until 1995, when they were almost at Sierra Leone’s capital, Freetown. It was then that the government hired EO (Executive Outcomes was a South African military company) mercenaries to counter the rebels. Additionally, the Kamajors (local Mende hunters as militia) were also instrumental in successfully repelling the RUF. After a failed peace agreement in 1996 and a few effective interventions by ECOMOG troops (the joint armies of multiple African countries) in 1998, the civil war seemed to drag on endlessly. In January 1999, the rebels captured Freetown, leaving many civilians devastated or killed. However, on July 7 of that same year, the Lomé Peace Accord was signed by Sankoh. Foday Sankoh and other members of the RUF were given positions within the government that they didn’t hold for long once RUF forces swiftly broke the agreement. It wasn’t until January 18, 2002 (after British intervention and disarming the disbanded rebels) that the war was officially declared over by Sierra Leone’s president.
With the war (just over a decade long) finally over, you would think that it no longer affects anyone. Yet, the RUF left a lasting impression on the world in various ways, notably evident in their trademark practice of amputating limbs. As they went across the country in their horrific campaign, the rebels not only killed a great deal of people, but they maimed them, too. With elections planned for a new government during the 90’s, citizens were told that “the future was in their hands,” so the RUF chopped off hands to stop people from voting. Using machetes and axes, they frequently amputated feet, legs, arms, and hands of thousands, including children. Sometimes they didn’t, though. Instead, one might be kidnapped and turned into a child soldier. Given cocaine and other drugs, child soldiers were made to do atrocious acts of killing and maiming. Young girls were often taken as sex slaves in addition to being child soldiers. While some have escaped or been freed, all are left traumatized by what they have witnessed and done.
With all the activities it undertook during the civil war, there is still a missing piece to the puzzle, which is how the RUF was able to fund all of its efforts. The answer to that lies within the land of Sierra Leone; the rebels, or more appropriately, the people they kidnapped, mined diamonds to sell for weapons. These diamonds were infamously termed conflict diamonds, or blood diamonds. It was odd, because Sierra Leone was ranked the poorest country in the world at the time. This was most likely due to the immense amount of smuggling these diamonds underwent to countries where they could be illegally certified. These diamonds became an extremely controversial topic during the late 90’s, when their existence gradually began to be revealed through the media. When shoppers discovered that their favourite jewellery stores were supplied by companies (De Beers being the biggest one) who knowingly bought these stones, they were outraged at the unacceptable exploitation of the source countries and their people. The Kimberley Process, started in 2000, was created in hopes of preventing blood diamonds from entering the mainstream diamond market.
Indeed, the effects that the RUF had had on their country and the world still linger today. The masses of amputees and child soldiers left scarred by the conflicts are all dark reminders of that turbulent war. Foday Sankoh was never formally punished for his actions, though, but died quietly in jail in 2003. Three other prominent rebel leaders within the RUF had not been sentenced until February 2009. The failed RUF political party that formed after the peace accord eventually merged with the All People’s Congress in 2007. Despite all that, it seems as though they were able to live up to what their name represented: a group of people fighting for things to be completely different. While they may not have achieved all the things they had set out to do, the Revolutionary United Front had indubitably managed to turn thousands of lives upside down during the course of Sierra Leone’s civil war, and beyond.
References:
http://64.176.9.117/sl/causes.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/01/99/sierra_leone/251251.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3110629.stm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/sierra_leone.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ruf.htm
http://www.economywatch.com/economies-in-top/poorest-countries-of-world.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1065898.stm
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/smm-mms/busi-indu/kpd-pkd-eng.htm
Politics for Thought: France’s Anti-Mask Law
By Jenn Lin, Alumnus
In July 2010, France ratified a bill titled, “the bill to forbid concealing one’s face in public.”[1] This law is commonly referred to as “the anti-mask law,” or more controversially, “the burqa ban”.[2]
The anti-mask law prohibits the wearing of any face covering that would conceal one’s identity in most public spaces; those who violate this law will be fined up to €150 and will be required to take a citizenship course[3]. Despite the fact that it ultimately impinges upon the freedom of Muslim women to wear what they choose, the issue stands that implementing this law is a matter of security. In a post-9/11 world that has to deal with global terrorism, identity is taken very seriously; wearing anything that hides your identity and refusing to remove it in certain circumstances (e.g. when using a passport to verify your identity at border crossings and at airports) can be considered a threat to state security. Nowadays more countries like France are going ahead and making facial coverings illegal in certain public situations.
Anti-mask laws are not an entirely new phenomenon. In the state of New York, for instance, wearing identity-concealing masks during a public demonstration (a specific setting) has been illegal since 1965. This law mainly applies to members of the Ku Klux Clan who wear white pointy-shaped hats as well as anarchists who wear bandanas. Although there was an attempt to appeal this law in 2004 based on the idea that it violated Klan members’ free speech rights, the judges ruled that it did not.[4]
It is important to note that, unlike the United States, France is a highly secular state. France has committed itself to creating laws without trying to accommodate religion (see: theory of evolution and high school textbook controversy in the US). For instance, in September 2004, the wearing of ‘conspicuous’ religious symbols in French state schools was banned.[5] This includes religious symbols such as Jewish skullcaps, the Muslim headscarf, large Christian crucifixes, and Sikh turbans. In France they call the separation between church and state “la laïcité”, and it is based on a law that dates back to the early 1900s. This commitment to separation is why you are more likely to see a country like France implement legislation such as the anti-mask law and anti-religious symbol law.
An anti-mask law or a law banning religious symbols in schools would be more difficult to pass on a federal level in Canada, given that the right to religious freedom is entrenched within our Constitution – not to mention the right to education and freedom from discrimination. That is not to say that the anti-mask law has not been met with violent opposition in France or that similar legislation is not currently in the making in some Canadian provinces.
In response to the law regarding the banning of religious symbols in public schools, Iraqi militants threatened to kill two French journalists who were being held hostage in Iraq at the time if France did not revoke the law.[6] France stood firm and the militants eventually released the journalists after 124 days.[7]
In Quebec, controversial legislation regarding identity and government services was introduced in March 2010[8]. If passed, it would mean that a person would not receive government services such as education and health care if they chose to conceal their faces. They also would not be able to work in the public sector or do business with government officials unless they removed their coverings.[9] As well, two Muslim women in Quebec have already been expelled from school this year as a consequence of refusing to remove their veils.
To conclude, the issues of identity and security, church and state are complex. The state exists to protect its citizens; however, it cannot do that if citizens themselves refuse to show their faces. But if passing anti-mask laws means that some people lose an aspect of their liberty or their freedom to express their religion – does the state still have that right? Should governments make exceptions? Or should governments adopt France’s motto of la laïcité and maintain a complete separation between church and state? Do you personally agree with the anti-religious symbol law? And finally, will the implementation of these controversial identity laws create peace and safety between people and their governments? Or paradoxically, more conflict?
*** Feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions on the Word website and please remain respectful of other students’ opinions if you do choose to do so. ***
[1] Braasch, Sarah. “Lift the Veil, See the Light.” The Humanist Magazine. September/October Volume 70: 5. Print.
[2] Referring to the law as a ‘burqa’ ban is misleading; the law applies to all face coverings, but the media tends to sensationalize matters. Apparently, there is actually no mention of the word ‘burqa’ in the law itself.
[3] Knief, Amanda. “Liberté, Egalité—de Féministes! – Revealing the Burqa as a Pro-Choice Issue.” The Humanist Magazine. September/October Volume 70: 5. Print.
[4] “Appeals Court allows N.Y. anti-mask law.” CNN. 24 Jan. 2004. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/20/rights.klan.reut/>
[5] “French scarf ban comes into force.” BBC News. 2 Sept. 2004. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3619988.stm>
[6] [6] “French scarf ban comes into force.” BBC News. 2 Sept. 2004. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3619988.stm>
[7] “French journalists freed in Iraq. BBC News. 13 Dec 2004. Web. 15 Oct. 2010 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4115975.stm>
[8] “Quebec niqab bill would make Muslim women unveil.” The Toronto Star. 25 Mar. 2010. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/785036–quebec-niqab-bill-would-make-muslim-women-unveil>
[9] “Niqab gets 2nd Quebec student expelled.” CBC News. 12 April 2010. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/04/12/montreal-niqab.html>
GUERGIS-JAFFER AFFAIR
By: Puneet Riar, Grade 12
When the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal happened, all eyes were on the scene. Clinton was impeached in result. Yet it seems that our government will let a scandal go unpunished.
Rahim Jaffer, former Conservative MP and now co-owner of Green Power Generation (a company that promote green energy) was travelling northwest of Toronto on September 11th, 2009, when his car was stopped by a police car. The officer, who pulled him over, smelled alcohol and proceeded to search Jaffer’s car, where the officer found cocaine. Jaffer was charged with drunk driving and possession of cocaine. In addition, his licence was suspended for 90 days. Rahim Jaffer pleaded guilty on March 9th, 2010 to one charge of careless driving. His cocaine and drunken driving charges were then withdrawn and he got off with a $500 fine.
You Know What Grinds My Gears?
By: Jenny Ho, Grade 11
You know what grinds my gears? Budget cuts.
I’m sure everyone has heard that the Vancouver School Board (VSB) is facing a $18.12 million deficit, in the upcoming
2010-2011 school year. This is certainly not the first time that the VSB has faced drastic cuts, but certainly the costliest.
So you may wonder:, how does this affect students? For starters, you might not see your favourite English teacher next school year, or the young math teacher. In the Vancouver district alone, teaching staff will be reduced by 113.8 full-time equivalents. About eight hundred staff members have received warning letters about potential layoffs. Sixteen teachers at Windermere alone received his much dreaded letter (Teachers with less than five years of teaching experience received this letter). On May 5th, teachers will find out what will happen to their jobs.
With fewer teaching staff next year, this means there will be larger class sizes. Less variety of courses will be offered to students, as there will be fewer people to teach them. Night, adult, and summer schools will have fewer classes offered. Mini schools, art and music programs, ESL, special education, among other programs, will be greatly affected.
CONSERVATIVES’ CRUMMY CONDUCT
What happens when you shoplift? You get arrested. What happens if don’t wear your seat belt? You get fined. The common thing in both these scenarios is punishment, but it seems some of us don’t receive that if we commit a wrong.
On February 19th, 2010, Helena Guergis, Conservative Minister of State for the Status of Women, threw a tantrum when she arrived a few minutes prior to her flight to Montreal at the Charlottetown Airport in PEI. In the pre-boarding area, Guergis refused to remove her footwear even thought she was warned that her shoes would set off the alarm in the metal detector. When the alarm went off, she was asked to remove her shoes and supposedly slammed her boots in the bin that was given to her and remarked to an airport staff member, “Happy f—ing birthday to me. I guess I’m stuck on this hellhole” (she turned 41 that day). After her boots cleared the x-ray, the minister yelled to her aide, Emily Goucher, “Get those for me. I’m not walking around here in sock feet.” She then tried to force open the locked door that separated the pre-boarding screening room from the aircraft area and when she was told that all passengers are supposed to arrive 2 hours before boarding time, Guergis retaliated back, “I don’t need to be lectured about flight time by you. I’ve been down here working my a– off for you people.” Despite this fiasco, the Minister Guergis was still allowed to board her plane and apologized later in the House of Commons. She screamed, she swore and threw things. Most people would be tasered for this kind of behaviour.
PUSHING PAUSE ON PARLIAMENT
By: Puneet Riar, Grade 12
What’s the difference between the Grinch and Stephen Harper? Not much, except for the fact that at the end of How the
Grinch Stole Christmas, the Grinch decides to back out and doesn’t steal Christmas. Yet, the thieving Harper doesn’t have a problem stealing our democracy in the holiday season, and he did just that.
Though MPs were slated to return to work on the 25th of January, on December 30, 2009, for the second time in 12 months, Prime Minister Harper rang up Governor General Michaelle Jean and ordered the call to prorogue (suspend) parliament until March 3rd. This move caused the 30+ bills that were active, most of them being on the theme of crime, and committee sittings to die. Dimitri Soudas, Harper’s spokesperson, said that the suspension was sought to consult with Canadians, stakeholders and businesses as it moves into “the “next phase of its economic action plan”. Despite this, many believe that the real reasons were that this would give time for the Conservatives to appoint five new senators, and halt any criticisms from opposition parties during the Olympics. Most importantly, the suspension would kill a pesky inquiry of the issue of detained Afghans. Alarmingly, this prorogation was somewhat expected. Even within his year-end media interviews in late December 2009, Harper had proclaimed he would not rule out proroguing parliament again.
War on the People
By: Brendan Chan, Grade 11
Our society exists in a world where money is everything. Business is everything – this is a world where presidents and CEO’s provide our country with the life we all enjoy. In other words, ours is a society where Friedman’s belief of the global free trade system has been entrenched into our minds; but it wasn’t easy. Although Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize in economics, his capitalistic ideas weren’t an easy concept to pass, especially since he lived during a time of nationalization. Eventually, Friedman had his way, and his ideas evolved into our current free trade system, where almost everything is owned by a private company. This rise of capitalism is how Friedman created an economic miracle. Yet the majority of people didn’t know the terrible and shocking truth that was the result of Friedman’s ideas.
Milton was a man who believed that having restrictions on companies only slowed them down and didn’t bring out the full potential of the profits that could be made; he had to change how people thought. He did this by using what the CIA calls “cleaning the slate,” or in other words, emptying a person’s mind. As a result of ‘cleaning the slate’, Friedman could fill vulnerable minds with his ideas.
Canada’s Budget, Controversy, and Cuts on Creativity
By: Emily Chan, Grade 11
Money, money, money – must be funny – in a rich man’s world. Although this may merely be the opening line to ABBA’s hit song’s chorus, it has a much deeper meaning than that. Have you ever stopped and just thought about money? Has it ever occurred to you how foolish it is to immerse ourselves in the world of money the way we do? Every thing that we buy, and every choice that we make, is, for the most part, centered on money. How absurd is that?
On Monday, March 19th, 2009, our Finance Minster – Jim Flaherty – issued a new budget, which, amazingly, dealt with … money! This budget had everything in it, from tax-cuts to up to $2000 rebates for buying environmentally friendly cars. Not only will the budget help children with giving the benefit of a $310 tax relief, but you’ll also be able to receive pensions and saving plans for an extra 2 years!
Unfortunately, there are two sides to every story… and in this case, the other side is not a pretty one. Although the new budget seems to be promising in terms of tax-cuts, other areas are being overlooked – the main one being the Arts. What wasn’t written on the CTV article was the 45 million dollars that was taken away from the arts and culture funding. As Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party questioned, “I think it’s a fair question to ask Mr. Harper what has he got against artists. Maybe they were mean to him in high school.” (qtd. in “Harper’s art cuts slammed in Canada” by Jessica Werb, 2008). All jokes aside, rallies have been held all over the country to protest this unreasonable cutback. Even on Facebook, people are changing their profile pictures to grey boxes to point out that the cutbacks on funding is like a cutback on creativity. As they’ve said repeatedly, “the Arts aren’t a luxury – it’s a necessity.”
Sadly, these cutbacks will not help the cause for bringing awareness to the importance of fine arts. In fact, quite the opposite will happen. Arts programs and camps will start to be cut, and there will be no escaping them.
You Know What Grinds My Gears?
By: Jenny Ho, Grade 11
You know what really grinds my gears? The new HST (harmonized sales tax). In late July of this year, Premier Gordon Campbell and Finance Minister Colin Hansen announced that they would follow in Ontario’s footsteps. Effective next Canada Day (July 1, 2010), taxpayers will pay the combined GST (goods and service tax) and PST (provincial sales tax) on many basic goods and services. This includes all prepared food products, school supplies, magazines, work equipment, bicycles, non-prescription medicines, personal services, restaurants, real estate, admission fees for movies; the list goes on and on. The only things that are exempt from the HST include basic groceries, fuel, books, children’s clothing, hygiene products, and new home purchases up to $400,000.
The 12% tax grab will benefit major businesses (also known as Campbell’s best friends). For example, one of Campbell’s sponsors during the election was B.C. Rail. As you all know, friends help each other out and “scratch each other’s backs”. Since B.C. Rail has done Campbell a favour, he must now return it. They will be able to claim and receive their HST rebates in all cases. In other words, the HST will reduce sales taxes paid by business, and reduce administrative costs. Although it may be beneficial for businesses of all kinds, the HST proves to be extremely unappealing to the public. On average, consumers will pay an extra $1.9 billion with the HST a year. “Not a dime of the HST will pay for healthcare, education or social services”, quotes Bill Tileman, creator of “NO BC HST” Facebook group. “This is the single biggest thing we can do to improve B.C.’s economy”, Campbell is contrarily quoted. Maybe it’s just me, but does anyone else think that he was intoxicated while proposing this?
(more…)
