Alternatives International

Gauging Politics From Fiction

Messaoud Romdhani — 2017-02-01T14:21:06Z

David Ayer's film «Suicide Squad», which broke box office records, was portrayed by critics as “two hours of soul-sickening confusion and sensory damage.” Its heroes (read: villains) have nothing in common with romantic and “noble” heroes like Zorro who defends the poor against the forces of injustices; or superman , who values his humanity and fights for justice and truth, its heroes are a team of super villains whose mission is to save the world in exchange of lighter prison sentences. And unlike critics who saw it as “a trash”, (“in two words, it's ugly trash,” says one critic), the audience enjoyed the film which made the biggest opening of the year and grossed more than $700 million outside the USA. After the success of the film, critics and everybody else have had a lesson to remember: ordinary mortals believe that, if the good guys couldn't save the world, the misfits are ready to take over.

Does this reflect a general mood in the world? That seems to be the case. Take the American recent elections, for instance. There's been the failure of the media and pollsters to gauge public opinion, as they predicted a victory of Trump's Democratic opponent. There seems to be much in common between the film and Donald Trump: They're both criticized by the elites, but both were victorious, the film could sell $ 135 million worth tickets in its opening weekend and Trump won-unexpectedly- the elections.

Not only in the USA, but also all over the world, right-wing populism seems to echo people's anger and fear: anger at the way political elites turn their back on their problems and fear of the unknown, of the future, extremism, immigrants….. Populist leaders voice those feelings, without digging further into the real causes. They don't have to. They only need to give easy “answers” to complicated social issues. Most middle and lower classes are severely hit by class disparity, increasing poverty and overt discrimination, and according to polls 72 % of the Americans think that “the American economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful” Then how would could then elect “a billionaire of dubious character who has not paid his taxes for 20 years; who lies through his teeth” to be their Savior?

The answer is probably that political elites who blame Trump, the Brexit and the ascending right-wing political parties refuse to learn the lesson: citizens are not going to elect (re-elect) leaders whom they are sure are going to do nothing about their suffering. People “purposely defy traditional politicians and impose punishment in retaliation.” That was achieved through two instruments: the Brexit and Trump. Anger has won the day, says le Monde. Michael Moore, an artist with a vision, predicted the victory of Trump: He would win Moore had said, not because voters necessarily agree with him, because they like "to send a signal to elites in the country about the state of government"

But there is probably another reason: simple ways of communication. Populists of all the political spectrum have new means of communication: easy and direct language, mundane briefings instead of elaborate speeches, an appeal to emotions and feelings instead of deep thinking. We are in an era of “believe your guts,” says the economist.

In fact, with the victory of Trump, the Brexit in Britain, the popularity of Marie Le Pen, the ascent of the Five-Star Movement in Italy, the rise of Austria's Freedom Party, Europeans, who still remember the 1930s, fear the recurrence of Fascism as, many analysts believe, fascism and populism have common features: an appeal to lower and middle classes, a rejection of cultural values, a demonization of the elites and the use of a simple and shallow rhetoric. And a disdain for democratic tradition.

Though there is no agreed consensus about similarities between populism and fascism as now in west democracies, some believe there are quite strong safeguards (civil society, institutions, political parties..), it is not going to be long before people see how easy to slip from the first to the latter; if social and economic problems are not efficiently addressed and if social justice is not promoted. In the absence of alternatives, it is easy to turn frustration, anger and frustration into revenge from the system.

Before the Tunisian revolution, the populist rhetoric, based on social slogans rather than programs was in vogue. That's in the absence of a real political life, and the criminalization of political dissent. At that time, weakened political opposition was based on contesting the regime, not on giving alternatives. The change of the regime seemed so far away.

Now, both on the left and on the right, politicians are searching for the path. Left-wing parties' discourse tries unsuccessfully to combine the ideology with an anti-elitist rhetoric. Criticism of globalization, the liberal economy and the heavy burden of national debt has never been accompanied by a realistic –and credible- vision of how social justice might be shaped.

Right-wing parties when in power, in the wake of the revolution, had no other program but to challenge "the moral bankruptcy" of the old regime while keeping with the same liberal economy, and failing to cut the red tape and end corruption, to handle severe social problems, economic difficulties and deep regional disparities .Such populism has shown limits and the country, with the rise of discontent, terrorism and political assassinations, was on the brink of chaos had not been the national dialogue.

Both types of populism, left and right, have been governed by the culture of protest, a culture that tries to reflect the anger feelings held by the population rather than analyzing the problems faced by the country and giving possible solutions.

And the same as in the west, populists in Tunisia, sometimes, win public opinion through giving false promises: In the 2011 elections, Hashmi Hamdi, a London-based businessman and TV owner won 19 seats in the Constituent Assembly through his unknown Popular Petition, when he based his campaign on the promise that he would create 500 thousand jobs and give free medical care to everybody!!

True, populism is not fascism. But both are perceived as symptoms of structural dysfunction within the democratic system, its failure to provide social development, to solve acute economic problems and to narrow widening gaps between the rich and the poor. In Western countries, fascism is impeded by deeply-rooted institutions. What about a country where democracy is still fragile, transition is limping and institutions are slow to appear?

Messaoud Romdhani is on the Board of Directors of Forum Tunsien pour les Droits Economiques et Sociaux (FTDES), Tunisia. FTDES is a member of Alternatives International.

Other member organizations of Alternatives International:

• Alternative Citizens' Space, Niger
• Alternative Information Center (AIC), Israel/Palestine
• Teacher Creativity Center (TCC), Palestine
• Alternatives Forum (FMAS), Morocco
• Terrazul, Brazil
• Initiative Pour Un Autre Monde (IPAM), France
• Un Ponte Per (UPP), Italy
• Alternatives, Canada

“The Only Problem is the People…”

Saba Naqvi — 2017-02-01T14:18:52Z

If the Tamils were ever to threaten secession, they would have nowhere to go but the Ocean, and even if they were to swim across, the Sri Lankans won't have them!

What's a little bull between man and sport, especially if it's presented as a marker of identity and film stars say so? People of Kashmir please note what the people of Tamil Nadu have done. They have protested on a beach in balmy weather, got the attention of Centre and state, got a Supreme Court order effectively nullified and the media is calling it a spontaneous movement. Even their police force has committed arson in the spirit of things but no one is calling them traitors who deserve to be shot with pellet guns and put under house arrest.

It helps that if the Tamils were ever to threaten secession (as they once did in their history) they would have nowhere to go but the Ocean and even if they were to swim across the seas, now even the Sri Lankans won't have them!

Besides, they were smart in not agitating about livelihood, land or complicated issues such as the dislocation of people for the Kudankulam nuclear plant that's hardly generating electricity worth the human cost. They knew better, so went with bulls.

As for the people of Kashmir who may wonder about double standards, please note that anti-nationals are anti nationals, traitors are traitors and Pakistanis are Pakistanis. So we have our pellet guns and tanks ready. Thankfully, the Valley is frozen now so the people are relatively quiet (although our soldiers must be suffering more in the cold and some of them have unfortunately taken to complaining publicly these days).

Briefly, the people of Kashmir must understand this simple maxim: Cows are holy, bulls are sport, buffaloes give milk and human beings don't count. They may count if they were patriots but if they protest too much, they stop being patriots unless the protest has something to do with quotas, culture and identity involving animals. As reasonable people, we are okay with bullfights, but not fights against the nation-state.

There are some patriotic communities who have misbehaved in recent years, but they have a licence to commit arson. This includes the Patels of Gujarat, some of whom may be misguided but can never be traitors because that state only produces true nationalists. Hence if the supporters of Hardik Patel went around burning vehicles and disrupting life, it was only after authorities had given them permission to have protests. So what if things went a little out of hand. Ditto for the Jats of Haryana who may have blocked roads and water supply to the national capital but we are indulgent towards such people, who just have to let off steam every now and then. Now those stone-throwing children of Kashmir are an altogether different matter. They have no business fighting us with such lethal weapons. And we have no space in our hearts to ask what we could have done wrong to make children so fierce that they are ready to die or kill. Never mind that they were peaceful before, but now that they are not peaceful, it's because they are like that only while we are a great nation that can do no wrong. It's impossible we made mistakes such as rigged elections, manipulated regimes and overuse of armed forces in Kashmir. Why, people forget that we also shot such lovely Hindi film songs in the Valley. We love the Valley. It belongs to us. The only problem is the people…

Of course, we are a secular nation that gives equal rights to all religions, but we know what some people are like (we suspect in our hearts that it's because Kashmiris are Muslims and we know what Muslims are like). So if five of them protest, they are more dangerous than thousands gathered on a beach. We are quite clear about who deserve to be hit by pellets. It's not as if we have no fresh ideas for Kashmir. Now that US President Donald Trump has begun to build a wall with Mexico, the real inside scoop is that when he spoke to our Dear Leader on the phone, he advised him to build a wall with Pakistan too on the border with J&K. That's the secret plan the Indian government is working on, so people in Kashmir should not believe that Delhi doesn't care and is clueless. We just have different strokes for different folks.

Maybe, the protestors in Kashmir too need a fresh approach to protests. They can't make it about Azadi as that won't happen and we will have no choice but to repeat 2016. So I'm just throwing some ideas into the hat: something about a ritual involving mountain goats or the snow leopard and the fact that it may be extinct and a protest on why it is so. Or, how about the musk deer, also in the endangered list? Better to stay off cows, bulls and buffaloes as that generates a lot of crap and there's loads of that in the way we handle Kashmir anyway.

Source: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/sunday-special/columns/bull-from-kashmir-to-kanyakumari/356326.html

Climate Change in Trump Times

Pritam Singh — 2017-02-01T14:16:56Z

It may be a pure coincidence that the inauguration of Donald Trump is taking place at the same time as the world's most respected climate monitoring scientific organisations are reporting that 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded.

While our planet earth is increasingly facing the danger of global warming, a person who enters the most powerful political office in the world says that global warming is a ‘hoax' and a conspiracy hatched by China to hurt US industry's competitiveness. Donald Trump had gone even further than this when during his election campaign he had vowed that he would take the USA out of the Paris Climate Pact and end US funding for UN initiatives to control climate change. Apart from all the other risks associated with the Trump agenda to push the US towards isolationism in economic and political policies, sabotaging global climate negotiations would be the most dangerous policy shift because the biggest threat humanity faces today is from global warming.

Not only is 2016 the hottest year ever recorded, it is the third year in a row to record the highest temperature. Both 2015 and 2014 were earlier reported to be the hottest. According to NASA, 2006 is the warmest year since the records available with them from 1880 onwards. Scientists from both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US have reported that global surface temperatures were nearly 1C warmer in 2016 than the mid-20th century average. There are small differences in the other estimates. The UK Met Office's national weather service, has reported that 2016 was 0.77 above the long term rate and one of the two warmest years on record. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), which integrates temperature data from a range of different sources, agrees that 2016 broke the previous annual temperature rise record. Additionally, when 2016 is included, 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have been since 2001. According to the NOAA, the only year from the last century to be included in the top 16th warmest years is 1998 which was the seventh warmest ever.

The 1C or near 1C rise in global temperature is an important number to understand the risks associated with it. There is a worldwide scientific consensus that if the average global temperature rises by 2C in comparison with the pre-industrial period, we would enter a period of irreversible environmental changes. Therefore, all previous global climate negotiations have emphasised the need to aim at controlling the global temperature below 2C. In fact, the Paris Climate Pact went even further and put below 1.5C as the more desirable target to achieve because some of the coastal regions in the world face threat even with 1.5C degree increase. While the global consensus moves towards more strict targets in controlling climate change, Trump's climate change denials threaten to undo the limited progress made so far. The statement by Nikky Hailey, who is Donald Trump's choice as US Ambassador to the UN, that the UN does more harm than good is a reflection of the anti-internationalist and isolationist ideological stance that is encouraged by Trump's declaration of taking the US out of internationally agreed pacts. Reducing greenhouse gases emissions, which is central to controlling global warming, is not possible without internationally agreed and enforced targets, and the strengthening of the UN role in reaching international agreements is of critical importance even if the UN has not lived up to its expectations in many arenas of global conflict.

Reducing fossil fuel use (i.e. oil, gas and coal) is central to decarbonising economies and, thus, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Trump has not only vowed to increase the use of coal but has chosen Scott Pruitt to head the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knowing very well that the past career of Scott Pruitt has been one of bitter clash with the EPA's efforts to introduce regulatory measures to control pollution and reduce gas emissions. In particular, Scott Pruitt had waged a war against Gina McCarthy who headed the EPA during the Obama regime and was the chief architect of President Obama's climate change policies. She played a key role in bringing the Clean Air Act, one of the key environmental initiatives of the Obama regime. Scott Pruitt was a critic of the Clean Air Act as it clashed with the economic interests of the fossil fuel industry and Mr Pruitt was an attorney general of oil-rich Oklahoma, and was so widely known as the defender of the fossil fuel industry that one green group 350.org had mockingly described him as a “fossil fuel industry puppet”.

Trump's anti-environmental stances have encouraged the climate change denial tendencies that have always existed in the Republican Party. The main saving grace is that the scientific community is united on the position that human actions mainly in the form of fossil fuel use are primarily responsible for greenhouse emissions and global warming. It will not be easy to completely oppose science even for Trump. More importantly, the economic and technological changes that are taking place are making renewable energy resources such as solar and wind energy cheaper than fossil fuel-based energy. These economic changes are likely to put a section of the American business class also in opposition to Trump's pro-fossil fuel initiatives. More than anything else, it will be the scale of political opposition mobilised by persons like Bernie Sanders supported by environmental campaigners and action groups, and hopefully by a substantial if not whole of the Democratic Party that would be the most decisive factor in checking Trump's flawed thinking and policies. Given his isolationist thinking, he is unlikely to be influenced by other countries or international organisations such as the UN and the Paris climate pact. It will be mainly the domestic opposition — scientific, environmental, business and political— that can stop Trump from undermining climate change negotiations and agreements that are so vital to protect the planet earth.

The writer is Professor of Economics at Oxford Brookes University, UK

Source : http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/climate-change-in-trump-times/353138.html

Peace is a Process

Vijay Prashad — 2017-02-01T14:15:06Z

Two days of talks over the war in Syria ended this week in Astana, Kazakhstan. Iran, Russia and Turkey were the main powers at the table. Kazakhstan was a perfect location for the talks, since it has close ties with both Turkey and Russia. The Syrian government and the armed opposition sat together for the first time in six years. The Syrians came to the table, but they were not party to the final agreement. In the end, the three powers came to an understanding, which is itself a matter of great significance since these powers were major rivals on the Syrian battlefield.

Lack of external support

Wars end either with a decisive victory or in exhaustion. In Syria, neither condition has been reached. What drives the ceasefire talks is the recognition that the major proxies of the armed opposition — Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the U.S. — have withdrawn. Turkey has decided that this war has spilled over into its territory, which could break the country apart. Saudi Arabia, stuck in the Yemeni quagmire, finds that its proxies can no longer compete with Russian air power. The U.S., which failed to create a moderate army, now understands that the most capable fighters on the ground against the Syrian government are not to be trusted. This lack of external support brought most of the armed opposition to Astana, where they took their seats uncomfortably.

The principal dispute at the table was how to define the ceasefire. The armed opposition, led by Mohammed Alloush of Saudi Arabia's proxy, Jaysh al-Islam, wanted a national ceasefire. Syria's government and the Iranians are keen to remain effectively at the local level. This would allow them latitude to strike rebel targets where they are seen to be weak and then sue for peace when they have attained their objective — what is on display in the suburbs of Damascus. The three powers agreed upon a mechanism to monitor the ceasefire, although this does not cover those who did not come to Astana.

It is those who were absent who hold the cards for the next phase. Turkey's main proxy, Ahrar al-Sham, did not come to Astana, but uncharacteristically it sent its blessings for the deliberations. It might, in time, join the process. The two parties that are outside the ceasefire are the Islamic State (IS) and the al-Qaeda proxy, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS). These groups have attempted to peel away fighters from those who went to Astana, saying that the negotiators shame the ‘revolution'. The JFS has intensified its retaliatory war against the rebels, such as against Jaish al-Mujahideen and other Free Syrian Army (FSA) outfits in the region around Aleppo. U.S. air strikes against the JFS have not stopped it, since the U.S., like the IS, sees itself in a fight to the end. Whether the withdrawal of its external supporters or its political isolation will demoralise its fighters is to be seen. Sources in these groups tell me that they hope JFS fighters will strengthen their will in the fight against the FSA. Turkey has made it clear that isolation of the JFS will allow other rebel groups to appeal to its members on patriotic grounds for an end to the bloodbath. Whether this is a realistic assumption is to be seen.

A serious conundrum

The Syrian government, buoyed by the battlefield victories, notably in Aleppo, is nonetheless faced with a serious conundrum. Its military is weakened, a fact demonstrated by the rapid advance of the IS into Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor, towns at the two ends of the Great Syrian Desert. The IS seizure of Deir ez-Zor has left 93,500 people without regular access to food and medicines. Overstretch of its forces, reliance upon Iranian and Lebanese fighters, and Russian tactical support means that it cannot continue this fight indefinitely. Apart from the IS and the JFS, the Syrian government will have to deal with two problems: the disgruntled Syrian Kurds (whose political aspirations have been suppressed as a cost for Turkish involvement), and the Islamist armed opposition who came to Astana but refused to describe Syria as a secular state. The contradictions are stark and Damascus's ability to bring these factions together is not visible.

Peace is a process, not a state. It will take time for the various parties to acknowledge that this is a pyrrhic battle with no victor able to fully dominate the country. From Astana the negotiations move back to Geneva, where the UN hopes that more progress will be made. So do the broken Syrian people.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/Peace-is-a-process/article17098190.ece?homepage=true

Trump Is Carpet-Bombing U.S. Foreign Policy

Phyllis Bennis — 2017-02-01T14:12:59Z

Already Trump is super-charging U.S. militarism, gutting diplomacy, and punishing the victims of wars Washington started.

Very soon, Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order regarding refugees and entry to the U.S. for a whole swathe of people. In effect, the edict would be aimed at banning Muslims from the United States, demonizing people from Muslim-majority countries across the Middle East and North Africa.

It's no accident that of the seven countries identified, the U.S. is bombing five (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia), has troops deployed and military bases in another (Sudan), and imposes harsh sanctions and frequent threats against the last (Iran).

These military actions all reflect policies that fuel refugee flows in the first place. In a grim irony, the order bans refugees from wars that in many cases the U.S. itself started.

The order violates international law requiring countries to provide refuge to those in desperate need, and completely reverses the long history of the U.S. claim — however often that claim is actually denied — to be a country that welcomes refugees and immigrants.

We should also note that the list of Muslim-majority countries targeted in the new regulations all happen to be countries where the Trump business empire has no holdings. Exceptions just happen to be countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Muslim-majority states where Trump has major investments and business partnerships.

One might think that Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the two countries that nearly all the 9/11 hijackers came from — and which are currently known to be backing ISIS and other terrorists, in Saudi Arabia's case, and facing serious terror attacks on their own soil largely in response to government repression, in Egypt's — would be included in Trump's twisted analysis as potential sources of terrorism.

But no, those countries were ignored. Conflicts of interest? Nah, just a coincidence.

The order goes on to call for the Pentagon to create a “safe zone in Syria and in the region” to absorb local refugees, to prevent them from heading to Europe and beyond to the U.S. Yet almost inevitably, that means launching more airstrikes on the country — a recipe for more war and more refugees.

This is the opposite of what we should be doing. If we're serious about taking care of refugees and ending the conditions that give rise to their plight, we must welcome far more of the 65 million people currently displaced in the world. And crucially, we must provide real support — not with more war, but by working to end the wars that create refugees in the first place.

That means demanding that our government privilege diplomacy over war. The Obama administration's successes in foreign policy — the Paris climate agreement, the moves towards normalization with Cuba, and most especially the nuclear deal with Iran — all emerged from hard-fought campaigns to choose diplomatic over military means.

And even if anyone near the top of the new administration were interested in diplomacy (though there's no evidence of that!), it just got a whole lot harder.

The soon-to-be-signed executive order creates a lot more work for federal workers, especially in the Department of Homeland Security and in the State Department. Yet the entire top echelon of the State Department's management just quit and walked out. There are conflicting stories about whether these leaders, who weren't political appointees, were pushed out by new political leaders or left on their own after being presented with unacceptable demands. But either way, State is now severely understaffed in key areas such as consular services.

For those of us convinced that real internationalism should be the basis of U.S. foreign policy, the State Department has never been a full-fledged ally. U.S. diplomacy is too often deployed in the interest of military goals, U.S. corporate profits, and the undermining of governments deemed insufficiently submissive to U.S. strategic interests — and too rarely in compliance with international law.

But diplomacy and multilateralism, however flawed, are still the key alternatives to military force. Getting rid of the key civil servants who kept U.S. diplomacy functioning fits far too well into the opposite goal — privileging war over diplomacy.

The new president's budget calls for the Pentagon to get a huge influx of new funds, beyond the $600 billion or so base budget it already has (a figure that doesn't include the funds that support the nuclear arsenal, care for veterans, or even the war on terror, which run several hundred billion dollars more). The military forces are about to get a lot bigger. And the nuclear arsenal is about to get an enormous influx of money for “modernization.”

Combine that with a State Department more or less incapable of doing anything because they've lost all the people who actually know how to make diplomacy happen, and you have a perfect storm of war winning out over diplomacy.

It's kind of like the way elites have carried out neoliberal policies of privatization and de-regulation: You de-fund and under-staff the public agencies, while shifting money to now deregulated private sector entities. Then you watch while the government agencies fail, thus “proving” that government can't do anything nearly as well as the private sector.

Only in this case, it's not the public that fails while the private succeeds. It's diplomacy that fails while the military wins out. Which means everyone loses.

Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Source: http://fpif.org/trump-carpet-bombing-u-s-foreign-policy/

The Dangers Of White Supremacy And Xenophobia

Ehab Lotayef — 2017-02-01T14:10:50Z

Before shutting down my computer after a long Sunday, I read the news. News I did not imagine I would ever read, although, looking back, it was months and years in the making and clear signs were there, yet we, individuals and society tend to deny dangers till we become its victim or see blood flowing in our backyard.

Despite the hate graffiti on the walls of mosques and of Muslim schools in Quebec for years. Despite the insults hurled against Muslims on the streets of Canadian cities and the pulling of hijabs of the heads of Muslim girls, all which started decades ago. Despite Hérouxville and Pauline Marois' charter. Despite all this I never seriously considered the possibility of a murderous attack against Muslims in Canada or Quebec. In the United States, maybe, but not here. Now it is here.

I did not pray at a mosque last night, but I easily could have. I am not Quebec City, but a sick minded xenophobe from Montreal could have attacked a mosque here. So close is it now and so blind I was. We were!

For years, Canadian security forces have been busy entrapping Muslim youth, following faint tracks and turning them into full-fledged criminal cases to please their political masters, over the ten dark Harper years, that they did not pay attention to protecting the real vulnerable segment of society.

That segment of society that was demonized for decades and negatively portrayed by the media and by politicians. Politicians some of whom sometimes paid lip service and talked about equality, human rights and protection of minorities, but it feels now that it was all only to save face.

And now, we see the result. It is not only he who pulled the trigger who is to blame. It is not only those around him (or her) who may have heard or read something alarming and did not react, who are to blame. More, most, of the blame falls on the media and the politicians who are followed by thousands, and sometimes millions, who used their popularity and following to fuel the flames of fear, hatred and anger to make political gains or further their career, or both.

Then came Trump and took the whole matter to new heights, or should I say lows, and it caught fire. Unfortunately the fire started in Quebec City.

It is time for them all, from Trump up (because you can hardly go lower), to look themselves in the mirror and see the consequences of their words. It is also time for other politicians and journalists who believe in liberties, rights and equality to be more vocal and take stronger positions leaving behind the urge they frequently portray to "balance" between security and rights. We are beyond this stage now. The danger is real and innocent blood was spilled on your watch.

It is still the day after, when energy and emotions are high, so voices of reason and condemnation are loud and calls to action are easy to speak. My fear is that next month, or maybe even next week, we will hear again that the danger is true and that the fear is justified and another killer will start to plan his or her attack.

Don't let it happen. We should not let it happen. It is a responsibility upon us all but the burden on each of us is proportional to the visibility they enjoy and the power they wield.

May those who were murdered without justification rest in peace and our hearts go to their families and loved ones, especially children who lost their dads. The best way to honor those memories is to assert, sincerely: "Never Again!"

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ehab-lotayef/white-supremacy-xenophobia_b_14508738.html

Published on January 31, 2017

Fight the Muslim Ban - Trump's Not Welcome Here!

Sid Ryan — 2017-02-01T14:08:44Z

In the mid-1800's, Ireland was ravaged by a famine that killed millions over a 5 year period. More than one million Irish men, women and children boarded “coffin ships” in which they made their way across the Atlantic Ocean, fleeing famine and British oppression. They landed in the great cities of Boston and New York. Some made their way up the St. Lawrence River to Grosse Isle just outside Montreal, and some moved on to Toronto.

These new world cities were overwhelmed by the wretched, rag tag survivors who descended upon them. The Irish were the first huge wave of refugees to reach American soil. Boston with a population of 125,000 was swamped by 37,000 Irish refugees, New York with a population of 330,000 absorbed 57,000 poverty stricken and sick Irish immigrant refugees. Canada too accepted tens of thousands of these immigrants.

The descendants of those Irish refugees went on to build America into a great power. The United States opened its doors to Irish refugees at a time when they desperately needed help. They returned that generosity a hundred-fold over the next generations.

Today, America is again being asked to open its doors to refugees escaping from horrible conflicts in Syria and around the world. The USA, with a population of 350 million, and infinitely wealthier than in the 1800's, has now shut its doors to many of the world's most desperate refugees fleeing genocidal wars and raging conflicts for which Washington bears significant responsibility. President Donald Trump placed a racist travel ban on 134 million Muslims from entering the US. The ban applies to residents of seven Muslim-majority countries that Trump says are fostering terrorism and constitute a threat to America. In fact, not one American citizen has been killed in an act of terrorism by a citizen of the seven states on Trump's list. Curiously, Saudi Arabia is not on the list, even though 14 Saudis were involved in the 9/11 attack that killed 2,300 Americans. Saudi Arabia is a trusted ally of the USA and Canada. Besides, Trump has business interests in the Kingdom.

Since the 2003 U.S led Iraq invasion, a vicious cycle of wars, racism, terrorism, xenophobia and sectarianism has gripped the world. Hate crimes and far right bigotry have increased radically since Trump's entry into politics. Words and deeds have consequences.

I cannot help but think the horrible deaths by shooting of innocent Muslims at a Quebec City mosque may well have been fuelled by the reactionary policies and actions of Washington, and their military allies in the Middle East and Africa. The whole of Canada stands in solidarity with the Muslim community and offers our deepest condolences to the victims of the Quebec shootings and their families.

The New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) is demanding Parliament convene an emergency session to debate this Trump-made crisis. Clearly, the Donald is not listening to reason, nor is he following traditional humanitarian norms. He is hell bent on delivering red meat policies to his political base, regardless the horrible consequences for women and children suffering the ravages of war.

The world must stand up to this bully. Canada should be on record demanding that Trump withdraw his racist Executive Order that bans Muslims. History will be very unkind to Canada if we do not stand up to Trump's bigotry now. The NDP and the labour movement should take the lead in demanding action, in solidarity with the victims of western intervention abroad. This means a forceful denunciation and repeal of Trump's racist Muslim ban, an end to the cap on private sponsorship of refugees along with offering status following clearance, to those affected by Trump's ban. Failing that, the NDP should call upon Trudeau to bar Trump from setting foot on Canadian soil.

http://www.sidryanforndp.ca/fight-muslim-ban-trumps-not-welcome/