Every word made by a survivor is a solid stone in the foundation we are building on which our voices will grow.
Still silenced by the ones so close who should have been the strongest pillars for raising our voices but who took on shame instead.
(Inspired by comments posted when a friend posted the video When My Rapist Showed Up In “People You May Known” by Kevin Kantor.)
I'm asking Calgarians to forward this message, and perhaps post the link on sites like Twitter and Facebook, please.
For the past six years, I've been running a project called Calgary Democracy. It's an effort to compile information about all candidates in local elections and make that information easily accessible to potential voters (and anyone else who might be interested).
For this year's municipal election (voting day: Monday, October 21) the site has a list of all the candidates (Mayor, City Council and the two School Boards), their web-links, contact information, and social media links.
There's also a list (which I believe to be complete) of all the published candidate survey responses. Various organizations, from radically different perspectives, have surveyed candidates on issues such as arts, business, campaign finance, labour, sports, sustainability, taxes, transit, transportation, and more.
The site also has a calendar of events, primarily candidate forums and debates, but that's mostly done now as the election period is almost over.
Complete list of candidates, including school boards. Web-links, contacts, social media, candidate surveys. http://calgarydemocracy.ca/ #yycvote
I'm far from the only one trying to bring information to the public in this election. For example, all of the local media have special election sections on their websites, and many advocacy groups have posted candidate and issue information. I want to highlight a few non-commercial websites in particular:
This volunteer group provided live video feeds of many of the election forums, and have made the recorded videos available online.
An "aggregate" blog compiling posts from a variety of local bloggers. They have been interviewing many of the candidates, including for the School Boards.
Calgary Democracy is run, not as non-partisan but, as "omni-partisan". I have tried to include every applicable available link and source (even the ones I personally find offensive).
I actually believe that democracy is a good idea. So, I don't want to tell people who to vote for. Instead, I want people to bring their own perspectives and consideration to the issues and make their own individual choices.
For that to work, we all need access to all the information. That means not just talking about the "top job" (Mayor), and not just talking about the candidates considered "most likely to win". It means talking about all aspects of the decisions we face. This includes the "unlikely" candidates, and the positions some consider "less important" (such as the School Board Trustees).
All content on the website has been posted by me. There are a few reasons for this; the biggest being that I custom wrote the web server software and it's a hassle to write a secure multi-user system (that code is in the works, but isn't ready yet). I'm also very wary of opening up the site too much because of the high volume of political disinformation that gets posted online. It would be awful to have a candidate's info page filled with attacks on the candidate that obscure the candidate's actual message (even if I really dislike their message).
Calgary Democracy is a zero-budget project. The website is run on my personal web server (along with other websites I host). I've received no money for it this year (I did receive some personal donations in 2010 for the project to help me be able to spend less time doing job work and more time working on the project). I'm not asking for any donations this year because I just don't want to deal with that. I wouldn't say no to friends inviting me to a vegan lunch or dinner occasionally, though ;-)
I always appreciate hearing from people who may have found the site useful. Did it help you to choose amongst the candidates? Did it help you decide whether to vote or not? Are there things you would add or change?
In my understanding of democracy, it functions best when the full range of perspectives in the community can be heard as a part of the democratic dialogue. In a “representative democracy” like ours is supposed to be, this means that the representatives should probably roughly match the makeup of the population they are to represent.
Taking just one attribute of the population — gender — our elected officials don’t even come close to matching the population. Roughly half the people in Calgary are women; but only 20% of our City Council, and only 17% of candidates in the current election, are women. Further, none of the candidates or elected representatives are identified as trans.
17.24% of City Council candidates in the October 21, 2013, municipal election are women (10 out of 58).
The following factors are generalizations, not absolutes. There are certainly exceptions. Some men face some of these, but to a lesser extent than women in general. Not all women face all of these, and not necessarily to a considerable extent on an individual basis.
However, the overall effect is a considerably larger set of hurdles and barriers for women to overcome to enter, and stay in, political life than men face. Trans people face these problems and more.
• It is rare for a male candidate’s appearance to be commented on. For women, it is rare for it not to be discussed — and it is often one of the first things mentioned (especially in media).
• It is typically more expensive, in terms of personal costs, for women to run than men. Really. Social expectations for women’s appearance virtually demand the use of makeup, expensive wardrobes, and hair-styling, in order to be “taken seriously”. Men, while still expected to “dress nicely” are held to much lower standards of appearance.
• Sexist social attitudes are still prevalent in our society. Women who “dare” to stand for public office face derision just for that (where men are often lauded for having the “courage” to stand for office). Women are still seen as “less capable” than men by our social institutions (as exemplified by the fact that women in Canada receive an average of roughly 70% of the income men do for the same work).
• Gendered child-care expectations mean that women who have or intend to have children are expected to have more responsibility for taking care of those children, leaving significantly less time to pursue public life. If a parenting woman chooses to run for office, she will often face negativity for “choosing politics over her children” — something that almost never is suggested of parenting men in politics.
There are other factors not covered here, but those should be sufficient to illustrate the point of this post.
• Work to diminish, and ultimately eliminate, the factors that make it harder for women to participate.
• Recognize that gender is far from the only attribute used to diminish the participation of parts of the community. Ethnicity, disability, age, financial status, and more, are all factors that have disproportionate levels of representation.
• When you see or hear something that is a factor diminishing women’s participation: Speak out. Ask people why they are commenting on female candidates’ appearance rather than their policies. Write letters to media when they talk about how women are dressed rather than how women are campaigning.
Equal Voice is “a national, bilingual, multi-partisan organization dedicated to electing more women to all levels of political office in Canada.”
Women Suffrage and Beyond: Confronting the Democratic Deficit is a set of events happening in Calgary from October 3 to 4.
The total number of candidates for City Council for 2013 is 62.1% of what it was in 2010, but the number of women running saw an even greater decline, being 52.6% of the number who ran in 2010.
To see a list of all candidates in the election, you can visit the Calgary Democracy website (that I run).
Lest we remember that our “government” would rather spend millions advertising lies about past wars than spend a dollar to avoid having a soldier, or their family, fall into poverty.
Lest we remember the politicians who care so little about what happens to people in the military and veterans that they doze off in meetings with them.
Lest we remember that they spend our money to send our children, our siblings, our parents, our friends, our neighbours, to kill and be killed, to maim and be maimed, to destroy and be destroyed.
Lest we remember the military’s contributions to the long history of genocide and injustice against indigenous people of this land.
Lest we remember the contributions of anyone not white enough, or male enough, or “straight” enough, or Christian enough, in our reworking of history.
Lest we remember that Eisenhower’s warnings about the rise of the military-industrial complex came true.
Lest we remember that ever more and more of our resources, energy and wealth, are being siphoned away into the military and the corporations that profit from it, while poverty, disparity and injustice grow.
Lest we remember that, for all the posturing about protecting rights and freedom around the world, our military has ignored many who truly needed it, while attacking those who didn’t.
Lest we remember that war destroys not just human lives, but all other creatures and plants, and the very Earth.
There have been some concerns raised about the way the new “Municipal Complex Bylaw 38M2012” may restrict protest outside Calgary’s City Hall and Municipal Building downtown. (You can download a PDF of the bylaw. If the filename comes up as “DirectDownload.aspx” just change the name to end in “.pdf”, and hope that The City eventually fixes that problem on their website.)
Since I posted this, friendly City Councillor Brian Pincott has informed me that the old bylaw required a permit for any use of the Municipal Plaza. The new bylaw takes away that requirement, actually making it more accessible to protest.
I honestly had no idea of that particular old rule—and violated it at least dozens of times with permit-less rallies there. (Which illustrates the general leniency of bylaw enforcement in a lot of—but certainly not all—cases.)
I suspect that people expressing concern about this bylaw “banning protest” may have seen the part restricting protest inside the building. That does not apply to the exterior of the building (notably, “Municipal Plaza” and the sidewalk—which are where all of the countless protests I’ve participated in there have been held).
It’s important to note that the inside of the “Municipal Building” and City Hall, like with all buildings, have been restricted from protest demonstrations for at least as long as I am aware of, so this does not change that.
One significant provision the bylaw introduces, that I don’t recall being in place before, is that, during business hours, no bullhorns or other sound equipment can be used without approval.
(As a matter of pure speculation on my part, I’m guessing that this provision is a result of the religious evangelists who relentlessly, noisily, set up right outside City Hall many times every week.)
In addition to restricting amplified sound, some other notable restrictions that can affect protests (all of which were previously in place, if I recall correctly) include:
Candles are restricted under the fire restrictions (no candlelight vigils without express prior approval in writing). Exception for religious ceremonies (so no ban on smudges).
No free-standing signage (e.g., placards we carry are okay but no sandwich boards set up on the ground).
Not permitted to engage in “event” activities on areas designated as memorials (such as the police memorial that obstructs a big chunk of the Plaza).
The municipal plaza may be booked by groups (or The City) for events. When booked, it is designated as “exclusive use” and other activities will not be permitted. We should still be able to make reasonable use of the public sidewalks in those cases, provided we don’t interfere with the booked event.
There is a generic grant of authority to the “Complex Manager” to arbitrarily declare activities as prohibited (10.2.d). I would not expect this to impact most protests — except in cases where there is apparent or actual threat of violence, significant obstruction of individual access to the municipal facilities, or people engaging in offensive/lewd activities.
There is an interesting bit I believe they got wrong. The Bylaw includes the public sidewalk as part of the “Municipal Complex” and subject to the restrictions set forth in the Bylaw. Given what seem to be relevant precedents up to the Supreme Court level, I would not expect that to hold up in court if they tried to restrict “reasonable” protest on—and general public access to—the sidewalk.
However, there is also precedent for mass events (such as concerts and festivals) to be reasonable restriction of access to public space. So, it is legal to restrict protest and other use in those public spaces that are temporarily occupied by such an event (like when the New Year’s Eve celebration blocks off Macleod Trail and adjoining sidewalks between City Hall and Olympic Plaza).
Here is something that could potentially affect us: In the maps at the end of the Bylaw, you can see that they define all of the steps and ramp areas as “Entrance/Exit zones” and prohibit gathering in those areas entirely (10.3.a).
I’m thinking, in particular, of the steps adjacent to the sidewalk that are immediately north of the main ramp to the municipal building, since we have countless times used those as a position for people to address a crowd.
In spite of that definition and restriction, my expectation (given what has gone on before both at the “Municipal Complex” and other government sites) would be that we would generally continue to be able to make general use of those areas outside business hours so long as such use did not significantly impair access to the site for non-participants. During business hours, we could probably make limited use of those areas unless things were “quite busy”.
In any case, the provision does give the City clear grounds to direct us away from those “Entrance/Exit zones” as they may choose.
All in all, given past experience, after an initial read-through, I do not expect the changes and additions in this bylaw to notably impact most protest actions around the municipal building and city hall.
There could be cases where they call for a shutdown of use of bullhorns or p.a. systems—but I would be surprised if they use that much at all against protests (since, again, I’m guessing the primary reason for that is not protests, but the noise from the noisy religious evangelists who set up right outside City Hall annoying the City Council members in their offices there). In any case, legal restrictions governing amplified sound were already in place, so I don’t see the bylaw changing that for us.
I’ve been a part of some lengthy discussions online sparked by this comic by Kate. (I first saw the comic via my friend Lee who shared a link from imgur)
Yes, some of my language below is insulting, but that is in keeping with the flavour of the cartoon (and my frustration level).
These discussions centre around feminism in particular, but have strong parallels to other anti-oppression struggles. Here’s some of what I wrote in those discussions:
Every time some male idiot chimes in with some awful statement, like the ones the off-camera dude does in this cartoon, I mourn a little for humanity.
I’m a male survivor of sexual violence, a male survivor of non-sexual assaults, and a male survivor of extensive bullying, but I don’t feel in any way threatened by recognizing and shouting the fact that patriarchy is an extreme evil, that violence in our society is heavily gendered with females being the predominant targets, that females are systemically targeted for sexual violence and abuse, that the longest running war in human history is the war against women.
The idiot males trot out numbers of female-on-male partner violence, but conveniently ignore the context that the vast majority of those incidents are self-defence or responses to extended periods of abuse (I also consider those responses to abuse a form of self-defence).
The idiot males trot out numbers of male victims of violence, conveniently ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those are male-on-male violence. Males make up the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of violence.
By trotting out their complaints of “reverse sexism” these idiots act to reinforce patriarchy by belittling or dismissing the very real sexism, the very real systemic gender oppression, in our society.
Acknowledging and addressing the pervasive sexism in society does not mean putting men down. It does not mean “emasculating” males. It does not mean putting women, women’s issues, and women’s needs, above men. It means acknowledging the truth of our reality and working to end oppression for the real benefit of all.
As a male survivor, advancing feminism (and all other anti-oppression struggles) makes the world a better place for me and everyone I care about. It's not a “zero-sum game” where advancing women’s rights means taking away from men’s rights. The reality of anti-oppression work is that it’s more like an “exponential game” where every advance against oppression makes things better for everyone (even those who society has raised in the role of oppressors).
Yes, women who fight for their rights, who challenge oppression, are “HOT AS HELL” — because it speaks to an intense strength of character to rise above the massive forces of oppression arrayed against them in virtually every aspect of life under patriarchy.
The enforcement of gender roles harms both those placed into the role of oppressor and those oppressed. No one gets out of systems of oppression unharmed. But it remains critical to acknowledge which way the oppression flows.
I've long held that the greater responsibility for the work of feminism rests with men, being the ones that patriarchy has handed the position of "Privilege". We have greater opportunity to contribute to the work because of our privileged position.
To be clear, when I speak of men’s “greater responsibility for the work of feminism” I don’t mean to suggest that men should be leading or guiding feminist movements. In all anti-oppression struggles, those coming from positions of privilege need to spend more time listening to, learning from, and supporting the oppressed than anything else. The work of feminism needs to be rooted in meaningful, supportive and learning, partnerships.
Over the past couple weeks, I’ve been doing a pile of reading (and screencast watching) on approaches to object-oriented design when using Ruby on Rails. I always take it as a good sign when I learn a new approach that makes me think “I want to go back and rewrite all my code this way.” (Although, of course, that would not be the best choice. It’s usually better to integrate new approaches with ongoing/new development rather than start over from scratch.) There’ve been a few of those moments during this recent reading, so I’ve decided to compile a list of what I’ve been looking at — both as a reference for myself, and to reinforce what I’ve been studying.
There is a pile of good stuff in these articles (and vids), but the single biggest for me is the point about segregating “business logic” (the methods that actually do the domain work) from persistence (database calls). There are a few different ways suggested for doing that here — I’m not sure yet which I favour.
Objects on Rails is probably the most comprehensive piece on this subject. It’s an ebook (viewable free on the website, or for $5 in non-DRM PDF, ePub and Kindle formats). There is little hand-holding in this book. Unless you are already well-versed in things like ruby meta-programming, it can be a challenging read (but well worth it even if you don’t get everything right away — some of the other materials that follow should help round out your understanding). I’ll go ahead and call this the essential piece out of this collection. It’s not to be skipped.
Something that came up a few times is how to apply the SOLID principles to Ruby development (since SOLID was conceptualized around typed languages like C++ as opposed to dynamic languages like Ruby).
An Open Letter to English-Canadians, who might be feeling that Quebeckers have taken leave of their senses.
You may have heard that there has been some turmoil in Quebec in recent weeks. There have been demonstrations in the streets of Montreal every night for almost a month now, and a massive demonstration will be happening tomorrow, which I will be attending, along with my wife, Elizabeth Elbourne, and my eldest daughter Emma.
Reading the Anglo-Canadian press, it strikes me that you have been getting a very fragmented and biased picture of what is going on. Given the gulf that has already emerged between Quebec and the rest of Canada in the wake of the 2011 election, it is important that the issues under discussion here at least be represented clearly. You may decide at the end of the day that we are crazy, but at least you should reach that decision on the basis of the facts, rather than of the distortions that have been served up by the G&M and other outlets.
First, the matter of the tuition hikes, which touched off this mess. The rest of the country seems to have reached the conclusion that the students are spoiled, selfish brats, who would still be paying the lowest tuition fees even if the whole of the proposed increase went through.
The first thing to say is that this is an odd conception of selfishness. Students have been sticking with the strikes even knowing that they may suffer deleterious consequences, both financial and academic. They have been marching every night despite the threat of beatings, tear-gas, rubber bullets, and arrests. It is, of course, easier for the right-wing media to dismiss them if they can be portrayed as selfish kids to whom no -one has ever said "no". But there is clearly an issue of principle here.
OK, then. But maybe the principle is the wrong one. Free tuition may just be a pie-in-the sky idea that mature people give up on when they put away childish things. And besides, why should other people pay for the students' "free" tuition? There is no such thing as "free" education. Someone, somewhere, has to pay. And the students, the criticism continues, are simply refusing to pay their "fair share".
Why is that criticism simplistic? Because the students' claim has never been that they should not pay for education. The question is whether they should do so up front, before they have income, or later, as taxpayers in a progressive taxation scheme. Another question has to do with the degree to which Universities should be funded by everyone, or primarily by those who attend them. So the issue of how to fund Universities justly is complicated. We have to figure out at what point in people's lives they should be paying for their education, and we also have to figure out how much of the bill should be footed by those who do not attend, but who benefit from a University-educated work force of doctors, lawyers, etc. The students' answer to this question may not be the best, but then it does not strike me that the government's is all that thought out either.
And at least the students have been trying to make ARGUMENTS and to engage the government and the rest of society in debate, whereas the government's attitude, other than to invoke the in-this-context-meaningless "everyone pays their faire share" argument like a mantra, has been to say "Shut up, and obey".
What strikes the balance in the students' favour in the Quebec context is that the ideal of no up-front financial hurdles to University access is enshrined in some of the most foundational documents of Quebec's Quiet Revolution, in particular the Parent Commission Report, which wrested control of schools from the Church and created the modern Quebec education system, a cornerstone of the kind of society that many Quebeckers see themselves as aspiring to. Now, it could be that that ideal is no longer viable, or that we may no longer want to subscribe to it. But moving away from it, as Charest's measures have done, at least requires a debate, analogous to the debate that would have to be had if the Feds proposed to scrap the Canada Health Act. It is clearly not just an administrative measure. It is political through and through. Indeed it strikes at fundamental questions about the kind of society we want to live in. If this isn't the sort of thing that requires democratic debate, I don't know what is.
The government has met the very reasonable request that this issue, and broader issues of University governance, be at least addressed in some suitably open and democratic manner with silence, then derision, then injunctions, and now, with the most odious "law" that I have seen voted by the Quebec National Assembly in my adult memory. It places the right of all Quebec citizens to assemble, but also to talk and discuss about these issues, under severe limitations. It includes that most odious of categories: crimes of omission, as in, you can get fined for omitting to attempt to prevent someone from taking part in an act judged illegal by the law. In principle, the simple wearing of the by-now iconic red square can be subject to a fine. The government has also made the student leaders absurdly and ruinously responsible for any action that is ostensibly carried out under the banners of their organizations. The students groups can be fined $125000 whenever someone claiming to be "part" of the movement throws a rock through a window. And so on. It is truly a thing to behold.
The government is clearly aware that this "law" would not withstand a millisecond of Charter scrutiny. It actually expires in July 2013, well before challenges could actually wind their way through the Courts. The intention is thus clearly just to bring down the hammer on this particular movement by using methods that the government knows to be contrary to basic liberal-democratic rule-of-law principles. The cynicism is jaw-dropping. It is beneath contempt for the government to play fast and loose with our civil rights and liberties in order to deal with the results of its own abject failure to govern.
So that is why tomorrow I will be taking a walk in downtown Montreal with (hopefully!) hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens. Again, you are all free to disagree, but at least don't let it be because of the completely distorted picture of what is going on here that you have been getting from media outlets, including some from which we might have expected more.
A quarter of a century ago I attended protest rallies to stop the then Conservative government of Canada from bringing forward legislation to take away women’s rights to decide what to do with their own bodies.
Today, there are protests against the current Conservative government of Canada’s effort to bring forward legislation to take away women’s rights to decide what to do with their own bodies.
For those opposed to abortion, prohibition won't stop it — that will just lead to more dead or mutilated women like there were before it was legalized. If you really want to stop abortions, work to prevent the unwanted pregnancies that cause them.
So, what’s the single biggest factor in rates of unwanted pregnancy? Women who are living in poverty. If you’re opposed to abortions (or pro-choice, for that matter) — the best thing to do is to work to end women's poverty.
With the way the Alberta provincial election seems to be shaping up, I’ve heard a lot of folks talking about possibly voting strategically for the Progressive Conservative Party in their ridings out of desperation to avoid having the Wildrose Party win. People are struggling with whether to vote for the candidates most likely to block the candidates they dread, or to vote for the candidate that would best represent them.
I’ll avoid, for the moment, discussing here the broken nature of our electoral system that leads to such choices…
It’s never a mistake to vote your conscience — to vote for the candidate who best represents your values — even if you expect them to “not have a chance”. Even if they don't win, showing support for those candidates shows which positions have support and does a couple things:
When the Alberta Greens saw significant increases in percentage of vote (even though we didn’t win seats from those votes) there was a corresponding increase in some of the green policies being adopted by the provincial government — a prime example being the grizzly bear hunt ban. Subsequently, when the Alberta Greens were taken over and shut down (the takeover was led by a fellow who is now a Wildrose candidate, make of that what you will), there was a corresponding backtracking on those policies — in this example, the grizzly hunt ban was lifted.
Even parties that don’t win can affect policies because the winning party wants to get some of those votes in the subsequent election.
People who vote mostly vote for who they think can win. A party that receives increasing votes in an election stands a much better chance in the next election because more people will think they have a chance of winning. It’s not good that so many people vote that way, but it’s reality.
So, we’re not just voting for this election, but for future elections, too, where there will hopefully be better chances of people we support winning.
I once (just once) voted for a federal Progressive Conservative candidate, Joe Clark, in order to prevent the election of a Reform/Alliance candidate. Clark was definitely on the “Red Tory” side of that party (before it was taken over by Reform/Alliance), and even served as parade marshall for the Calgary Pride Parade one year — so it wasn’t an utterly heinous choice.
In the end, both the strategic and conscience votes have an impact — so neither can be dismissed out of hand as invalid choices in our current system. It’s up to you, as an individual citizen, to make the hard decision which of the possible outcomes is the better focus for your vote.
Even when it doesn’t seem like it, when the media and leading parties try to marginalize diverse opinions, all of our votes do actually make a difference.
Candidate for leader of the Green Party of Alberta. Co-ordinator of the Calgary Democracy project. Host of the Calgary Activist Network. Community activist for social justice and the environment.
Copyright ©1993-2009 Grant Neufeld. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License with the following exceptions: Photographs, materials designated as belonging to people other than Grant Neufeld, logos and trademarks. Some photographs may also be subject to a Creative Commons License (see the original link with the photo for details).