Alternatives International

Civil Disobedience, in Theory

Houda Chergui — 2013-03-02T04:37:01Z

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time,” said Winston Churchill. This powerful statement of course stems from the common assumption that Democracy, at its optimum, has been achieved in the West.

The fundamental function of politics, according to John Locke, is to protect the civil liberties of every citizen when faced with a Hobbesian state of nature, and Democracy at its purest state ultimately fulfills this role. However, it is also claimed that a political system is only effective insofar as its laws protect these civil liberties and is beneficial to the common good.

Christian Bay and Charles C. Walker, authors of Civil Disobedience, Theory and Practice are of the opinion that the form of government we call Democracy today in the West—particularly in the United States—is framed in such a way that laws are tailored to appease those who have the means, those who are privileged enough to ultimately have their voices heard, to the detriment of the masses. The underprivileged are rendered passive as they are led to believe that all laws are legitimate because they have been democratically enacted, thus feeling obligated to follow them. According to American Political Scientist, Murray Edelman, the many are given “symbolic gratification” through democratic rhetoric and “nice-sounding” laws, whereas it is the few who reap the benefits. As a result, Democracy today is flawed, as it does not represent the will of all. Following this logic, the argument that laws are serving the common good is false, and so is the argument that disobedience to any law will promote anarchy.

Every citizen should have the right to refuse a law if it is unjust and goes beyond the social contract. This is commonly known as civil disobedience. The term refers to the process of public refusal to comply with the laws established by government authorities.

Any act cannot be simply interpreted as one of civil disobedience. The requirements for such a title are as follows: the act needs to be premeditated, understood by the actor(s) that it is illegal, or of contested legality, by carefully chosen means and must be done for the common good.

Bay and Walker claim that it is a common misconception that all civil disobedience is non-violent. Civil disobedience and non-violent action are two separate concepts as the latter rules out violent acts while the former does not. Among pacifists, all forms of civil disobedience by nature rule out any violent means. What the authors assert is that any relevant “carefully chosen and limited means” can be employed so long as they are rationally calculated to promote tangible ends. Such a definition implies that risk is calculated so as to include the least amount of violence possible, so long as the acts of violence are not worse than the present evil, a view shared by French author, journalist and philosopher Albert Camus, who avoids the use of violence in certain cases but does not abolish it as a possibility.

The solution to such a problem is the education of individuals that will lead to intellectual and political independence. Those who can think for themselves about the proper aims of government or state can judge by their own standards to what extent the government of their nation pursues these aims. There must be a widespread political education because only this can lead to liberation from the prevailing myth of an obligation to yield to “the Majesty of the Law” solely on the ground of its democratic enactment.

Source:

Bay, Christian and Charles C. Walker. Civil Disobedience, Theory and Practice. Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1975.

Click here to read about civil disobedience practices used in Quebec against tuition hikes in 2012.

Interview on Civil Disobedience

Houda Chergui — 2013-03-02T04:36:58Z

Phillippe Duhamel is a strong proponent of civil disobedience. He was one of the instigators of Operation SalAMI that in May, 1998, was successful in its efforts to prevent the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) — a global investment treaty that was being privately discussed between member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) — from being adopted. He and a group of over a hundred trained participants blockaded the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Montreal and delayed the Conference de Montréal on Globalized Economies for a couple of hours.

The blockade proved successful in cracking the debate open on globalization in Quebec, Duhamel says, and was one of a few major actions that eventually led to the shelving of the agreement. Today, Philippe Duhamel leads a campaign against shale gas development, also know as fracking, and mentors a training group on civil disobedience and resistance in different parts of Quebec.

Was Operation SALAMI your very first instance of resistance?

I had been organizing civil disobedience actions since the mid-1980's by the time SalAMI came. So I had already been organizing campaigns using direct action for about 15 years. My first arrests were as part of actions to stop the manufacturing and deployment of early versions of drones, called cruise missiles, and to stop NATO military low-level flight trainings in Nitassinan, over First Nation lands in the Lower North Shore area of Quebec, and Labrador.

What is your view on the various forms of protests, are there any that you disagree with?

I don't believe in protests as the dominant form of action, as the go-to tactic. Protests are too often content with being mere expressions of objection, of disapproval, but still set in a framework defined by powerlessness. They're about complaining or pleading with the powers-that-be. Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating is another story, however. But if you keep doing it over and over for lack of better methods, only to vent and get more frustrated as repression increases, or boredom sets in, something is missing.

Then what is, in your opinion, a more effective course of action?

I believe there's an alternative, a third way, that shuns both ineffective protests and military warfare, murder or terrorism, and that's strategic civil resistance, which includes civil disobedience tactics. At their best, tactics like civil disobedience, direct action, blockades, sit-ins, strikes, boycotts are not just another form of protest, they constitute deliberate tactics of resistance, methods of struggle meant to exert a capacity to obstruct, to disrupt... to withdraw consent and cooperation, to create and deploy a new "rapport de force", new relations based on a redefinition of power relations.

What I believe in is organized, citizen-based resistance, and autonomous power. Some call it People Power. The Power of organized large groups. Solidarity. I believe in waging "armed struggle" of the nonviolent kind, a type of struggle with a different set of arms, its own non-lethal weapons system: hundreds of nonviolent tactics that can be cleverly sequenced in a way that generates social power, that strengthens people's capacity to compel and coerce, or dismantle and disintegrate, a violent system, any system of oppression in fact.

I wish — it's a dream — that as social movements, we would experiment with a moratorium on demonstrations, you know, your usual « hey hey ho ho » protest march and rally. Maybe that would force us to come up with more interesting action designs and ideas. Gandhi didn't do protests... Think about it. Why is that?

In a way, it's about the framing, the perspective, the longer-term strategy on which we base our actions. Do we truly believe we, as citizens, are the most powerful force in society, once we get organized and moving? Or do we believe we can only cajole, persuade and pressure those we put in power? The logic, the mindset, and the strategy are going to be very, very different depending on the answer.

That's the different paradigm that comes with civil resistance. We, as citizens, ultimately hold the key to our own destiny. To me, it's no use protesting. We only reinforce the power that we give others over us. Instead, we can deploy tactics designed to take that power back — power that we gave in the first place. Different methods that can be used include blockades, refusal to pay fees, tax resistance, mass noncooperation, occupations, and citizen raids on government buildings.

What matters is the power we set out to generate as we come together, get organized, get moving. Let's devise a strategy that's intentional, cognizant of the fact that we can stop feeding our own power and resources into a system that's killing us and future generations. To me, that's the key.

Have you been involved in other resistance movements since SalAMI?

In April, 2001, a “Search and Seizure Operation” at the Department of International Trade and Foreign Affairs (DFAIT) in Ottawa successfully challenged the secrecy of the Canadian government and its negotiating partners around the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). This came after months of campaigning to get the document out through petitions, press events, and so on. After a day of a People's Inquiry into Free Trade — which included training for civil disobedience within the Parliament buildings themselves, right in Ottawa! — hundreds showed up in front of DFAIT and demanded access to the minister's office, Pierre Pettigrew. Then, we proceeded to cross the police barricades. It was very dramatic. And also very powerful.

Within a week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Pierre Pettigrew agreed to make the FTAA draft treaty public. Once again, the Anti-Vampire Strategy — forcing into broad daylight nefarious secret documents, which then creates outrage — succeeded in forcing the hand of the government, and the FTAA never got adopted.

Since then, I have worked with labour organizations, helping workers learn — or learn again — how to design and wage more powerful campaigns, sometimes involving direct action. I campaigned for the release of Maher Arar, the cause célèbre target of a joint RCMP-CSIS-CIA rendition. I helped various environmental groups and social justice struggles strategize and train. I volunteered with Greenpeace, helping with its oceans campaign, and to fight Big Oil and the ongoing destruction of sustainable life on the planet.

So how do you work on stopping shale gas development in Quebec?

For the last two years, I have been involved with Moratoire d'une Génération, the One-Generation Moratorium Campaign, to stop the shale gas industry, and its toxic, dangerous process called fracking. It's a success story, because these guys were simply going to take over much of Quebec's best farmland and southern wooden areas. In 2011, we walked from Rimouski, along the St. Lawrence valley, up the Richelieu river, all the way to Montreal, some 700 km in total over a month. By the end of the walk, the minister of Environment announced the first official halt to drilling and fracking in the province. Nothing has moved since, because they can't.

We have developed a quite comprehensive campaign. Control Risks, an international consultancy firm that includes major clients from the oil and gas industry, recently looked at anti-fracking campaigns around the world and said: "At the more sophisticated end of the spectrum, for example, the anti-shale Quebecois (Canada) campaign Moratoire d'une generation maintains a dedicated initiative – Schiste 911 – to alert activists by email to drilling activity in the province."

And that's right, we do offer an online and on-the-ground monitoring and alert system, complete with a 1-888-SCHISTE number. But we also help groups prepare to stop drilling and fracking operations effectively through civil disobedience trainings. Workshops have been held in Bécancour, Calixa-Lavallé, Montréal, St-Hilaire, Bonaventure, with more to come in Ste-Anne-de Bellevue, St Denis-sur-Richelieu, and elsewhere.

We offer these trainings to any group that wants to explore the use of civil disobedience as a tactic of resistance. Next, we also provide assistance and accompaniment in the development of local emergency action plans, so groups know in advance what to do if the industry comes: where people will stay and how they will be fed, who will be driving the minivans and the tractors, what access roads are going to be blockaded by knitting grandmothers in rocking chairs...

One of the strength of the campaign is that sometimes you don't even need to go all the way to civil disobedience to have an impact. Sometimes the mere fact that people are well prepared for civil disobedience is dissuasive enough for an industry whose cost of operation reaches in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a day.

Together, with other methods, with many other groups that lobby local governments, invite property owners to sign letters of refusal, and use other pressure tactics, the shale gas resistance movement in Quebec has developed into a formidable force.

The reason why the resistance to shale gas has been so successful in Quebec — and we are by no means the only player, as there are over a hundred other groups and organizations involved — lies in the synergy between more traditional forms of community organizing, popular education, lobbying, letter writing, and the proactive development of a civil disobedience component. That small, but significant contribution makes me very happy.

Break the Law, Save the Earth

Brittany McGillivray — 2013-03-02T00:29:46Z

Civil disobedience: is it a radical form of organization, or a meaningful way to resist unjust laws? Should laws be changed ‘democratically,' and is civil disobedience a part of our democratic system?

These questions have been circulating around the arrest of Sierra Club U.S's top leaders. Washington, D.C. police arrested Allison Chin and Michael Brune on February 13, along with nearly fifty other climate activists, for zip-tying themselves to the White House gates in protest of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Chin is president of the Sierra Club U.S, and Brune its executive director. The club is one of the oldest and most influential grassroots environmental organizations in the United States, and is affiliated with Sierra Club Canada. In the organization's 120-year history this is the first time that it has overtly supported civil disobedience.

Sierra Club's usual method is to compile scientific evidence and run scientific-based campaigns, ensuring that their claims are supported empirically and that their suggestions are sustainable. They present this information to the government, who, in an ideal world, would respond with appropriate legislation.

With a history of fairly docile (though still influential and important) tactics, why use civil disobedience now? In the age of flash-mobs and tabloids, is civil disobedience a fast way to garner attention? Is it the most effective way to mobilize a protest movement?

The problem is that both the U.S and Canadian governments are failing to respond to empirical data, and are powering forward with both the Keystone XL and Enbridge pipelines, regardless of public outcry or the predicted environmental costs. The data is no longer a factor – the governments know the risks and are ignoring them in favor of oil-industry interests.

Jackie Thomas, Chief of the Saik'uz First Nations, spoke out against this money-hungry ideology at a rally in Washington D.C. on February 17. Thomas says: "In Canada, the First Nations are always expected to be the sacrificial lambs for our government in terms of the economy, like the economy is a human being, like the economy is more important than our land and our water."

The rally, organized by the Sierra Club and 350.org, drew an estimated 40,000-50,000 people, many of whom donned signs begging Obama to address the imminent dangers of climate change. Protest groups included the Tar Sands Blockade, a group dedicated to the use of non-violent civil disobedience to prevent the further construction of pipelines.

While Sierra Club Canada has been hesitant to follow suite with acts of civil disobedience, John Bennett, its executive director, recently stated in The Province that Sierra Club Canada “is discussing [civil disobedience] for good reasons,” citing an estimated 4,000 environmental assessments that have been ignored by cabinet members in parliament.

Bennett states, “There are now rules preventing members of the public from participating in environmental assessments […] There no longer is an arm's length process to determine the acceptability environmentally or otherwise of industrial projects. Thirty years of developing environmental policies to protect our air, forests and wildlife have been swept away.”

The obstruction of public participation is itself a non-democratic act—one that the Government of Canada seems willing to ignore.

Sierra Club Canada is now faced with the question of whether they should utilize civil disobedience as a meaningful way to resist the government's undemocratic methods—or if, in doing so, they will lose conservative members of their support base. While civil disobedience has a history of success, it can also be considered a ‘radical' form of campaigning—technically speaking, it operates outside of the law. The organization must employ Gandhian non-violence in a way that will not negatively afflict its image and isolate supporters.

The issue of citizen organization is crucial and imminent. As the government ignores scientific campaigns and reviews, and profit is prioritized above the sustainability of our planet, new forms of resistance must come into play, and perhaps the most effective solution to take a stance against the pipelines is civil disobedience. At the very least, it should remain an option for citizens and organizations as they explore ways to voice their opinions against institutions that threaten the vitality of our environment, the quality of our futures, and living standards for generations to come.

To read more, click here and here.

Sierra Club, Calling the Shots

Anne Guay — 2013-03-02T00:29:44Z

Sierra Club has declared civil disobedience in protest of the Keystone XL pipeline. A protest outside of the Whitehouse February 13 saw Michael Brune, Sierra Club's Executive Director, get arrested. The February 17th protest in Washington DC won an impressive estimated turnout of 35,000 environmental activists saying no to the pipeline, conceived to funnel Alberta's heavy crude into US Gulf coast refineries. Opposition is rising not only in great numbers as the largest climate rally to make US history, but in the unprecedented authority that is Sierra Club's nonviolent resistance.

Sierra Club is a non-political, charitable organization whose missionto protect the environment includes "us[ing] all lawful means to carry out [its] objectives," and has successfully upheld this policy for its 120 years of existence. So, for this highly reputed institution to shelve one of its long-standing guiding principles, to risk the potential loss of support from key stakeholders means a lot. In Allison Chin's words, president of Sierra Club USA, it means that "the wrong must be so profound that it demands the strongest defensible protest." And that is how Sierra Club passes the test on its complete dedication to the fulfillment of its mandate. If anything, this is the indicator that something is deeply wrong with the expansion of the Alberta tar sands exploit.
Sierra Club Canada, the fifty year-old cousin of its American counter-part, is in the process of deliberating on whether it will follow suit in choosing civil disobedience. Regardless of what the Canadian entity will decide, it has already said a lot in its very debate to "reassess its rules." A survey published on their website indicates that their supporters are largely in favor of the use of non-violent civil disobedience as a legitimate method of opposing the Canadian government's tar sand endeavours. In addition, the Club's President Howie Chong is touring across Canada to assess opinions on the issue. With the survey already in favor, it looks like Canadians are all for civil disobedience. At the very least, the signs are strongly navigating our best guess about their final verdict in the same direction as the one Sierra Club US has taken.

Another reason it will come as no surprise should Sierra Club Canada suspend its policy is that it just makes plain sense. Natural Resources Canada invested a hefty $ 795 million in Clean Energy Funds for 2009-2014. These monies contribute to research for the understanding of the tar sand mining's environmental impact. So it seems as though the Harper government understands its damage to the environment, implying a conscious choice to act against reason. Given its mandate, Sierra Canada should do everything it can to inject some rationale into government policy.

There are a lot of easy arguments out there supporting the claim that Sierra Club Canada shouldn't commit to civil disobedience, or that anyone should for that matter. These are usually the claims of climate denialists who would prefer to ignore that global warming is a problem or occurring at all. The Jamestown Sun published an editorial arguing that Keystone or no Keystone, Canadian crude will be sold and "will move by other means that are more fossil fuel intensive, and thus dirtier than an underground pipeline." What is put forth is a mentality of defeat and excuses to do nothing to thwart climate change. Such attacks on the validity of anti-Keystone XL protests clearly do not understand what the movement is about and are simply hand-out disputes. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white person, was it about the seat? No. It was about civil rights. By the same token, this isn't about the pipeline per se, but about an entire movement that has been culminating and increasingly manifesting itself, as evidenced by the Idle No More protests.

The idea of moving towards clean energy is proliferating along with a sense of urgency; we must step away from dirty oil right now. As Executive Director of Sierra Club Michael Brune put it, "this is a decision between what's right, and what's easy," countering the popular job creation argument for the pipelines. The argument goes, exploiting our oil will create jobs and this is good for the economy, therefore we should expand the oil sands. Jobs are good for the economy, except it seems to ignore that clean energy also requires a workforce, which would therefore create jobs. (Not to mention that jobs created from oil mining are not sustainable, but that is a whole other can of worms.)

Through their actions and debate, the Sierra Clubs have set the ethical standard on political action and licensed mass peaceful protest. And that is exactly what we need; scientifically grounded and morally reputed organization to give so-called tree huggers legitimacy. We need them to call the shots in the political back and forth that is democracy.

As individuals, Canadian citizens must also question their policies on civil disobedience just as Sierra Club is doing. Are we willing to spend the required efforts and take the necessary risks in order to uphold what is right and just at this critical point in time? Do we really need to wait for a reality check of epic proportions?

To read more, click here and here.

Canada Needs Civil Disobedience

Bradley Castelli — 2013-03-02T00:29:42Z

On February 17, 2013 an estimated 35,000 protestors assembled in front of the American White House to urge President Obama not to approve the proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension to the Gulf Coast in Texas. The protest – dubbed the biggest climate rally in US history – was co-hosted by the Sierra Club, who had released a statement a month earlier condoning the use of civil disobedience in the interest of climate protection for the first time in its 120-year history. Sierra Club's president, Allison Chin and the organization's executive director, Michael Brune, were among the 50 protestors arrested for tying themselves to the White House gate during the rally. The call for non-violent civil disobedience and the subsequent arrests have forced the Canadian chapter of Sierra Club to wonder whether it should follow suit. Beyond the dialogue that persists within Sierra Club Canada, citizens should be asking themselves the same question: is it time for civil disobedience?

Given the nature of the threats posed by Canada's energy superpower aspirations, and the overt recklessness practiced by the Harper Conservatives in governing the country, the answer is an urgent yes. The argument supporting civil disobedience in Canada can be informed by the statement put forth by Sierra Club, which pointed out the imminent threats of the global climate crisis that is unfolding before our eyes. The Harper government has proven that it cannot be reasoned with and that it will not let Canadian legislation interfere with its development strategies, leaving Canadians with a choice between resisting through civil disobedience or collaborating with a power that disregards environmental concerns and sustainable energy alternatives. Future generations within as well as beyond our borders are dependent on present Canadian resolve.

Civil disobedience can serve as an agenda-setting tool to raise awareness among Canadians and the international community alike. The Conservative government has presented the Alberta Tar Sands as a major economic opportunity while largely neglecting the project's environmental and health hazards, let alone the ways in which the project violates and compromises indigenous land rights. It's time for Canadians to be exposed to the other side of the discourse. After all, public opinion polls consistently assert that Canadians value their natural landscape and environment, and want it protected and preserved. Surveys also reflect Canadians' trust in the science behind climate change, as well as their belief that the federal government should assume responsibility in addressing the issue. If civil disobedience raises awareness about the discrepancy between what Canadians want and what the government that is supposedly serving their interests is giving them, pressure for corrective measures will undoubtedly mount. The need for awareness is urgent, and realistically speaking, there is very little room for compromise at this point in time.

Since assuming office in 2006, Harper and his Conservatives have amassed a track record not unlike those of traditional colonial powers. Firstly, the Conservatives have turned Canada into a playground for big business, whose interests have managed to become the government's main priority. Corporate interest has manifested itself in the realm of natural resource exploitation through the gutting of legislation that once served to protect the environment and First Nations' rights. Canada also abandoned its international commitments to the Kyoto Protocol and lied to the United Nations about tar sands emissions in its climate reports. The white lies directed at the international community have been matched on a domestic level, with accusations of the Harper government's failure to protect Canadians' health and environment from the pollution risks associated with the resource industry boom across the country. These practices are reflected in the 2013 Climate Change Performance Index, which ranks Canada 58 out of 61 countries assessed. The index mentions that “Canada still shows no intention to move forward on climate policy and thereby leave it placed as the worst performer of all Western countries”. While there are many groups and movements throughout Canada that have dedicated themselves to holding the Harper Conservatives accountable for their actions, non-violent civil disobedience seems like the next logical step.

Elected governments have the responsibility to protect their citizens. If states cannot or are not willing to protect their own citizens, existing mechanisms can be employed by the international community as a means to pressure the given state, or as a last resort, intervene on behalf of the neglected or oppressed population. This doesn't seem like a likely possibility for Canadians, which is why civil society must intervene on its own behalf. There is a drastic need for unity in Canada; to assume responsibility for the environment and future generations. Civil disobedience can encourage unity, and perhaps salvage Canada's reputation on the international stage. Canadians are no longer protected in a manner consistent with the traditional understanding of democracy and good governance, and it's time to make a choice: resist or collaborate.

To read more, click here and here.

Making Their Presence Known: The Visually Charged Civil Disobedience of Ukrainian Activist Organization, FEMEN

Marianne Hill — 2013-03-02T00:29:40Z

Throughout February 2013, FEMEN activists have staged protests in over ten countries spanning two continents, making their presence known to a multitude of news outlets as a result of their savvy and well-orchestrated use of the media. Most recently, on February 24 2013, three FEMEN activists, including the leader of the French FEMEN chapter Inna Shevchenko, have been detained by the Italian police following their protest at a polling station in Milan where the ex-premier and current prime minister candidate Silvio Berlusconi was going to cast his ballot.

FEMEN is a self-described “global women's movement” whose aim is to “defend with their breast, sexual and social equality in the world” by acting as “democracy watchdogs attacking patriarchy, in all its forms: the dictatorship, the church, the sex industry.” The organization was created in 2008 by Anna Hutsol, a 24-year-old marketing student. She created it to urge women to “develop a social consciousness” in reaction to the ever-growing sex industry in Ukraine. Hutsol's marketing background plays a key role in FEMEN's framework and protest strategies. Their website is constantly being updated with blog posts detailing the organization's latest movements and with telling video footage documenting their actions, which Hustol describes as belonging “somewhere between performance and the market.”

The organization has been criticized by various groups of people belonging to different parts of the political and social spectrum within and outside Ukraine. Feminists from both the left and the right of the academy are having difficulty placing FEMEN within Ukrainian feminist discourses on gender because of their controversial use of the female body, which some academics regard as exploitative.

Ukraine's Social Context in Regards to Gender

It is impossible to fully comprehend and appreciate FEMEN's mission and strategies when it is taken out of the Ukrainian, and arguably the Eastern European, context as a whole. The evolution of gender relations in the post-Soviet era in countries such as Ukraine has created an environment in which distinctions between men and women are marked and inflexible. As stated in the World Bank Gender Review for Ukraine in 2002, “Lenin promised equality to women; Stalin mobilized a massive workforce of women while reversing many of Lenin's reforms directed at benefiting women; and Gorbachev, through perestroika and glasnost, unintentionally lowered the standard of living and intentionally promoted the return of women to the hearth in order to “save” the Union from perceived social ills...”

According to the 2001 Human Development Report, 7.8 percent of the seats in Parliament were held by women, and 38 percent legislators, senior officials and managers were female. The second number, however, is seen as largely symbolic because the major decisions on the country's most important laws and national policies are reached in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's Parliament. One of the reasons put forward by the Gender Review for the lack of female involvement in these matters is “the belief that in Ukrainian society, politics are the province of men.”

The way this is reflected in Ukrainian society is complex and extremely different from the way gender relations operate in Western societies. One of its outcomes that pertain to FEMEN in particular is the lack, or complete absence, of dialogue about gender roles. There is a commonly held belief that, “Men and women play on different teams and follow different rules.” Interactions between men and women are pre-determined by the roles conceived by traditional gender norms.

There is no such thing as the belief in every individual's freedom to live the way they want. Regardless of their gender, “different norms guide their behavior.” This is a viewpoint taken by many Ukrainian and Eastern European women who look down on efforts such as FEMEN. Although a lot of women agree that their culture is patriarchal, there is a noticeable deference towards women in many situations. Gestures of respect and admiration, such as men opening the door for women, or paying the bills, are very common. These gestures serve to validate and reinforce gender stereotypes; men fulfill their masculine role, and by accepting this treatment, women “fulfill the appropriate feminine role.”

FEMEN's Disruption of Gender Roles Through Civil Disobedience

"Our society isn't used to protests and strikes, and doesn't understand these acts are a way to pressure the authorities. Yet we must protest. No one in power will give us anything otherwise." In this quote by FEMEN's creator and leader Anna Hutsol, she refers to her society, namely its culture of shaming any disruption to the status quo, and the resulting lack of discourse on relevant social issues. Dialogue is the necessary initial step towards any kind of social evolution.

As for the tactics FEMEN employs to begin this dialogue: it can be debated that the group is too radical or offensive, but the main point is that the discourse has begun, and is receiving worldwide coverage. The FEMEN activists are being seen, and sometimes heard, whether people like it or not; whether it is at the 2013 Davos forum where three activists donned “S.O.S Davos” slogans across their chests and called for the world leaders involved to stop “pretending” like “they care about the women question” or at the Vatican in protest of the Pope's statements on Gay Adoption, where they sported slogans such as “In Gay We Trust.”

Each of these protests consists usually of no more than three or four activists, and yet cause a disruption that receives worldwide attention. These women claim to be the shock troops of a new feminism. When you have been brought up in a society where raising your voice about an issue that concerns you is looked down upon, but showcasing your body and its feminine attributes is viewed as a requirement, it is only logical that that latter loses its meaning if the former does not exist.

Open North: New Civic Engagement Tool Opens Up City Hall to Residents

Tamkinat Mirza — 2013-03-02T00:29:36Z

Open North, a Montreal-based nonprofit that works to promote government transparency and citizen engagement at government level, is working to provide Canadian citizens with online tools to interact directly with municipal leaders.

“Open North's mission is to increase opportunities for citizens to engage in the decision making processes of government, so what this means is that we're interested in creating more access to information and also to make participation more fun and meaningful,” said Ellie Marshall, Open North's Communications Manager.

Since its conception in May 2011, Open North has worked on open standards nationally, but is now looking to reel in the focus toward municipal politics, working on the idea that the latter can be more crucial in terms of impact on individuals' daily lives.

“We've particularly become interested in the municipal level, because municipalities are responsible for the majority of the services that citizens use on a daily basis, like roads, schools, parks, waste management; but citizens don't have access to tools that provide direct input to the decision making processes around those services. So, even more so than federal or regional politics, it's the decisions at the city level that are going to change how you live in that city, how you interact with your neighbors. We believe that when citizens participate in decisions at City Hall, leaders make better decisions to make cities safer, healthier, and smarter,” said Marshall.

Another reason Open North is promoting reeling in the focus is the greater degree of room for interaction with municipal leaders rather than federal politicians; at times, getting issues notices at the municipal level may prove more effective than lobbying solely at the federal level.

“Municipal politics is smaller scale in terms of media coverage; there's also an opportunity to have a bigger impact. Each citizen has a bigger opportunity of interacting with a leader, than say, interacting with Steven Harper. So we really want mycityhall.ca or mamairiequebec to be a free online solution for accessing decisions and that process,” said Marshall.

The project is still in its infancy, with versions of the site in progress for Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa, but the group hopes to expand rapidly, extending its focus to other cities and also the tools the site offers.

The website draws on a similar concept in operation in Germany, which provides citizens with a platform to interact with their politicians. “We're adding the ability to ask a question to your councilors. And this is a system that's based off of Parliament Watch, which is a program in Germany [that] has been really successful… Over a hundred thousand questions to the German parliament have been answered by elected representatives. This will allow you to see what your councilor has said to your neighbors, and come election season you'll be able to see which ones have interacted. We think this is creating a shared memory for voters. On that same theme, it'll allow you to track and share motions before council and engage with your existing social networks when important issues arise. When you know what happens in city hall, you know when to speak up,” said Marshall.

Perhaps most important of all, the website functions as a tool to hold councilors accountable for their extended activity—not just their visible augmented activity during election seasons.

“MyCityHall.ca (or in Quebec, MaMairie.ca) will allow you to monitor your councilors' activity. When you enter your postal code, it will show you who your councillor is, what their attendance at City Hall is, their voting records and how to contact them,” said Marshall.

Open North also aims for the website to function as an educational tool, to promote a greater understanding of democratic functions and to encourage citizen involvement in ensuring government transparency.

“We want it to be used in high schools, in civic classes. The cool thing about this tool is that it'll give a teacher in Toronto the opportunity to create a lesson plan… That lesson plan can be shared with a teacher in Montreal or Ottawa. It's the idea that it'll be a tool many different school boards can use and really help students understand that democracy doesn't stop on voting day,” said Marshall.

Working over a range of levels, Open North's website will function to increase the ease and convenience of citizen engagement in municipal politics, but it will also allow councilors to engage constituents, activists and nonprofits to track issues and mobilize supporters, teacher to help students understand how democracy functions, and average citizens to make sure their elected officials are representing them.

While the project is a result of its partnership with the Participatory Politics Foundation (PPF) in the United States, it requires external funds at this time. Open North needs to raise $10,000 per city, and will be starting with Toronto on Feb 19th on indiegogo.

Tamkinat Mirza currently works as a Communications and Outreach Volunteer at Open North.

Perpetual Acquiescence: A Reading of Thoreau's “Civil Disobedience”

Michael Sabelli — 2013-03-02T00:29:33Z

When reading spirited texts written over 150 years ago about the goodness of individuals and the impeding role of government in their lives, the effect of romanticizing these words has an exceptional influence on the reader. Any reader with even a touch of activist will read Henry David Thoreau's famous essay post-humorously titled “Civil Disobedience” and rhythmically nod their head concurring throughout.

It's a similar phenomenon when media puppets, and truth-dodging politicians weave up rhetoric with quotes from the forefathers; except in this case the masses swallow up the emotion without contextualizing the content.

However, the difference between reading an essay quietly over a period of time and having a television shout snippets of information at alarming rates is significant. Reading is an intellectual exercise, an open dialogue with the writer with room for disagreement, whereas talking heads on television programs will try to influence and manipulate emotion leaving you none the wiser to the issue.

An even worse developing phenomenon is that of fan support through hate: tuning into a political pundit's views only to passionately disparage them. A value system becomes entrenched in a frenzied emotional response to the opinions of some sensationalist commentator. And by actively hating on a person like Rush Limbaugh for example, he gains their support through ratings and continues to broadcast his message to an even larger audience.

In Thoreau's time mass media hadn't been conceived and illiteracy was common. But it's not a stretch in his discourse to claim that reading and watching TV are at opposite spectrums like how a responsible, conscious individual is at one end and the unquestioning, patriotic citizen the other.

Thoreau is classified as a transcendentalist. He believed in the strength of the individual and the higher law of nature. Any organized spirituality or political institution weakens and corrupts the individual to the point of becoming a reliant mooch, an apathetic neighbour without a proper sense of responsibility for their community.

Society can have a numbing affect on the individual's conscience, creating a government whose true power lies in keeping their citizens in a state of perpetual acquiescence. This, Thoreau argues, transforms the individual into an agent of the state, doing their bidding blindly, supporting their injustice by obediently paying their taxes in silence.

Massachusetts of 1849, the year Thoreau first published “Civil Disobedience,” was a northern state that blamed the southern states for slavery and the Mexican war. It looked to be cleansed of any blame for the problems of the union, but at the same time consented to be proper law abiding citizens.

And like how nowadays we speak of voting with our dollars, it's been well known since Thoreau's days that paying taxes legitimatized and then supported government policy, transforming the individual into a collaborating citizen of injustice.

“Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless.”

Economy will make collaborators of us all. Issues are presented in a cost-benefit analysis that detaches the individual from their conscience and chains them to their tax-breaks.

No longer are the problems of slavery and expansionist wars so transparent – they have evolved into human trafficking and the war on terrorism. The human rights Thoreau fought for was something to be attained. Today, Western governments disguise wars as a defence of freedom and democracy, to safeguard our human rights against those who will terrorize society to inhibit their actualization.

But even unpopular wars are supported by the people financing them: the consent of law abiding tax-paying citizens. Thoreau was infamously jailed for refusing to pay his poll taxes which went to the government, though he supported initiatives such as the building of roads so he paid his highway taxes that went to the public works he deemed worthy.

It is in jail where his essay on civil disobedience would be inspired. A line that stands out: “The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war.”

He calls on citizens to reverse their identity back into the right order. That we are individuals first, man and woman, and then we are citizens. He questions, “What comes first, rights in law or rights in themselves?” Rights aren't dependent on a government granting them, but on individuals acting on them.

Therefore, resistance is necessary for a conscientious individual to become a counter force to the government's machine of injustice. Disobedience against civil society was Thoreau's method.

Some men interpreted civil disobedience in a pacifist frame, defining civil as form of politeness. Ghandi read it in this way, but who's going to fault him for that?

Thoreau then questions rhetorically, “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavour to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?'

Civil disobedience hovers around the periphery of society. In Canada, we see it in environmental movements where individuals block loggers by staying in trees, or tar sand protesters rallying at parliament's doorstep.

Writers have dubbed that the protests in Montreal on May 22, 2012 against bill 78 was the largest act of civil disobedience in the history of Canada: 500000 marchers strong. The Occupy movement continues to be a global resistance movement that uses civil disobedience to deprecate government injustices and growing social and economic disparity.

But civil disobedience was also used by the pro-gun lobby back when Chretien was trying to impose a gun registration. It is a tool that individuals on both sides of the political spectrum will employ, and these sides will find mutual understanding in the motto Thoreau was so partial to, “That government is best which governs least.”

Obedience should be earned, not forfeited. As individuals we have to stand for what's right, and not support injustice in a guise of apathy. Even if that means having injustice perpetrated onto you.

But Thoreau also believed that it was at our own prerogative when he writes, “I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.”

The choice is yours, should you choose to acknowledge it.

For Sale: The Canadian Identity

Michael Reford — 2013-03-02T00:29:30Z

A young, adolescent country, Canada often struggles with what it is. The rich, exciting, history of other Western nations is absent because of the few historically defining moments. As such, the Canadian identity is passive but still proud, multicultural and still protectionist, humble, sometimes nationalist, but constantly trying to find itself. The current chapter has added some new qualities to the mix usually reserved for ruthless, industrial, ultra capitalist countries, like our southern neighbour. Our identity is changing, but this time, for the worse.

Resource-rich Canada has relied on the exploitation of its valuable natural landscape since long before the country was founded. Domestic responsibility is essential to a government's success. The lack of voters abroad creates a disregard for responsibility, which has manifested itself at the expense of ordinary Canadians.

A recent report commissioned by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada suggests that four times as many mining abuses are committed abroad by Canadian mining corporations. The long-standing rhetoric as resource companies began to explore abroad blamed a minority for bad behaviour, spoiling the party for all. This is clearly not the case.

Aside from flimsy corporate responsibility codes, there is nothing to keep mining companies in check as they ruthlessly search for profits in foreign lands. Policing these companies abroad is difficult. Unreported crimes and denial of accusations seem to be the norm when conflicts arise. Remote communities in sometimes shady, politically unstable countries are subject to violence, local militias, and frequent human rights violations. It is all too common to hear of Latin American peasants being pushed off their land, local activists gone missing or gruesomely murdered at the benefit of a proposed resource operation. A clean corporate statement denying involvement usually follows and blame is placed elsewhere. The difficulty for poor rural, sometimes uneducated and unorganized locals, is fighting such abuses in an arena where Canadian companies are not being held accountable. The cases rarely get through corrupt judicial systems in local nations and do not make it to Canadian courtrooms. In a recent case, Canadian miner Hudbay is being sued by Guatemalan peasants. These victims of rape and murder may change this, but the road ahead is long. The recent Bill C-300, to combat bad corporate behaviour, is a poor attempt to save face. The innocent, humble perception of Canada has eroded, and the prestige of a Canadian citizen diminished.

Environmental destruction—a by-product of any resource extraction operation—occurs abroad, but domestically as well; outsiders can only gasp at the destruction and mismanagement of tar sand operations. Contamination of the Athabasca River, used by aboriginal peoples, the contribution to rising CO2 levels, and the expanding network of pipelines prone to leaks is a major concern. The Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge is rightly opposed, as the company has a track record of irresponsibility and leak accidents. Shoddy scientific data presented by the company and no solid plan in case of spills are testaments to the arrogance of Enbridge as well as the Harper government.

Harper and his Keystone XL pipeline mission, proposed to run from Alberta to Texas refineries, would secure higher revenues for tar sands operatives but leave devastation in its wake. An environmental crisis and irreparable destruction in exchange for short term revenues seems unnecessary. Our Kyoto drop-out is yet another blemish on the already tarnished Canadian image. Lobbyists' pressure on a government that almost enjoyed rejecting the commitment for the sake of its beloved oil polluters has prevailed. A world leader's necessary understanding that Kyoto affects all, was clearly disregarded, and a major opportunity was missed. The small value placed on our precious environment for economic gain comes at a time when global leaders shifting their policies towards environmental consciousness.

It is necessary that Canada develops a clear energy. There is no denying that consumption of natural resources is essential. The importance lies in the method of extraction, conservation of environmentally important areas, responsible decision-making, and accountability. An energy strategy would greatly aid those in the industry at maintaining operations for the interests of all Canadians, not just their own. A national energy strategy would enable for parameters and clear goals to be set in order to foster a better future for Canadians in a post-tar sands scenario. The lag in coming to this realization and the lack of proactive measures can only prolong the damage done by maintaining the status quo.

The economic priority of Prime Minister Harper's government is evident. The numerous trade pacts and opportunities sought in Asia, South America, and Europe have only come at the expense of something of greater value. A leaked report by the Foreign Affairs ministry, if taken at face value, indicates Canada's focus abroad is strictly economic. Without the acknowledgment of anything else, the sacrifice of such Canadian values as multiculturalism, human rights and democracy, are the victims of what can be described as a very short sighted plan.

The decades following World War II are plagued by neocolonialism and the potential for its ugly consequences has surfaced. American anti-democratic behaviour and involvement in 1950s Central America is a testament to its negative repercussions. As Steven Harper travels the world negotiating Free Trade deals, the pristine innocence of our country slowly decays. Under the guise of mutual interests, Canadian companies invade foreign lands. The corporate fist is powerful as its influence has led to accusations implicating Ottawa in the 2009 Honduras coup. Colombia can serve as another case where any sense of responsibility and integrity was traded in for a few dollars. In a country where government forces, paramilitaries, and rebels have operated for a half-century, Canadian miners ply their trade. The recent agreement to open Colombian trade to Canadian manufactured automatic weapons is an affront to human rights. Arms aside, government forces with only economic interests in mind and who are guilty of countless civilian murders among other human rights violations, are intolerable. The future is alarming.

The casualties around the world at the hand of shifting Canadian policies and increased exploitation of big Canadian business are dangerous. The precedent that has been set in the last ten years differs drastically from the classic Canadian identity; one known for humility, meaningful contribution, peacekeeping, and true democracy. The Harper government has played an accelerated role but the seeds had been sown before his arrival. As Canadians, we are victim to our own pacifist and apolitical nature. But the real casualty in all of this: a change in Canadian identity, which has taken years to find but only a few to undo. Is there a chance to rebuild our pride after this hiccup, or will it last and serve to guide future generations toward the dark abyss of unethical behaviour?

Deciding Who Gets to Eat

Brinda Karat — 2013-03-02T00:29:21Z

By allowing futures trade in food and diversion of farm land for commercial purposes, the government (of India) is fuelling the price rise

International agencies are warning of high food prices on a global scale in 2013 if urgent action is not taken. But our government shows little concern. The President's address to Parliament had only a cursory mention of inflation. “Inflation is easing gradually, but is still a problem,” he said. Still a problem? Surely the suffering of people from the relentless price rise inflicted on them by the flawed policies of the United Progressive Alliance (government) deserves more recognition and redress. Perversely, the government is intensifying the very policies which cause price rise.

Even the World Bank, whose neoliberal policy impositions are responsible to a great extent for global food inflation, has warned that “high and volatile food prices are becoming the new normal.” The FAO warns that “despite decline in international food prices in the latter quarter of 2012, they remain close to all time highs. Stocksof key cereals have tightened.” Among the reasons are the diversion of land from food grains production, speculative trade, low public investment in agriculture and depleted stocks. This critique is as valid for India as it is for the more developed countries.

Food vs. fuel

While the severe drought in the United States, Russia, the Ukraine and elsewhere is also cited as a reason for a likely fall in the production of wheat and a consequent increase in food prices, the FAO has warned that the continuing diversion of land to produce crops for the bio-fuel industry in the U.S., Europe and the growing trend of companies to buy land in developing countries like Africa for growing such crops, will lead to “increasing hunger worldwide.” By subsidising corn production for bio-fuels, the U.S. pulls out corn from food supply, raising prices. Cars and fuel it would seem are more important than people and food.

Food shortages are also ideal scenarios for rampant speculation. Speculation in futures trade in food commodities was one of the crucial causes for international prices skyrocketing in 2008. The impact was disastrous for import dependent countries. In the aftermath of the ruination of millions of families across the world, the G20 countries, including India, had resolved to take remedial measures. In 2010 in the U.S., the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” suggested a set of regulations to curb speculation. To implement the law, the Commodities Futures Trade Commission in the U.S. imposed “position limits” on the proportion of the market that could be held by any one institution so as to curb the capacity to manipulate prices. Even though the limit was as high as a quarter of the market, it was challenged in court by financial market associations.

A U.S. district federal court recently ruled that no such limitations can be imposed, holding that the CFTC has been unable to prove any link between speculation in food commodities and high prices! The CFTC has decided to appeal against this and it will be interesting to see the arguments it puts forward to establish the linkages. Perhaps home-grown loyalists to the U.S. views can take a few lessons from even the limited interventions of the CFTC. But, in any case, the regulations have been put on hold. In the European Union, the regulatory regime which was to be implemented by the end of 2012 has also been postponed.

The speculators, in the meanwhile, have been back in business. Barclays Bank has admitted that it made a profit of $548 million and Goldman Sachs made up to $400 million in 2012 from speculation in food including wheat and maize. Glencore, one of the biggest companies in the business, was pretty clear of its priorities. “The U.S. drought is good for Glencore” said its Trade Wing Chief, meaning thereby that its $2.5 billion pre-tax profit could be further augmented by speculation on the shortages created by the drought. The recent UNCTAD report linking speculative capital with the price rise in food stated that “over $400 billion is traded in food commodities, that is 20-30 times the physical production of the actual commodity.” The crux of the issue is that high speculation in futures markets pushes up spot prices of the commodity being traded. That is why there is a rising global demand for prohibition of futures trade in essential commodities.

Is it any different in India? The government often uses high global prices of food to camouflage its own failure. In fact, the reasons for price rise in India are entirely domestic and self-inflicted.

A comparison of the Consumer Price Index for BRICS countries shows that India has the dubious distinction of the highest year on year inflation at 11.17 per cent, with China at the lowest of 1.9 per cent, South Africa at 5.75 per cent, Brazil at 6.15 per cent and Russia at 6.54 per cent. Data provided by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry shows a rise in the wholesale price index of food between 2011-2012 and January 2012-2013 of 11.88 per cent. Some striking examples are the rise in the price of cereals by over 18 per cent, vegetables by 28.4 per cent, pulses by nearly 19 per cent and sugar by 13 per cent. These are the wholesale prices. The increase in retail prices would be even higher.

Sugar decontrol is imminent, which will be followed by a further rise in sugar prices. The deregulation of petrol and now diesel prices has a cascading impact on increasing inflation, including in food. Petrol prices have been raised 19 times since 2009, registering an increase of 120 per cent. The price of diesel is up by 67 per cent.

Land use

Mimicking the U.S., India too is ignoring the lessons of the global crisis. Large tracts of agricultural land are being handed over to the private corporate sector, including for real estate. This is in addition to the ongoing policy of incentivising production of export driven cash crops instead of food grains. The lastEconomic Survey itself reports this fall in gross area under food grains by roughly 5 million hectares if we compare the decade preceding the neoliberal reforms in the 1980s to the two post-reform decades of the 1990s and the 2000s.

Self -reliance and self sufficiency in food grain production — which require an alternative policy framework — are now discarded policy pursuits for this government despite their crucial role in protecting Indian consumers from the volatility of international prices.

Market manipulation

In India, futures trade in agricultural commodities includes around 25 sensitive food items like wheat, sugar, chana, desi urad, edible oil, mustard seeds, a variety of spices and even potatoes and onions. In the light of the warnings of global food shortages, it is essential for the government to delist food items from futures trade and also to resist the growing pressure to lift the current ban on rice futures. It should learn from the most recent and scandalous example of the highly speculative trade in guar (the gum of which is used as a thickening agent in some foods and also as a sealant for shale gas). In the year ending October 2012, the price had shot up 1000 times yielding profits worth Rs. 1,290 crore to identified companies indulging in speculation. But producers of guar, mainly farmers from Rajasthan, received no benefits as they had already sold their crop. Although the trade has since been suspended, prices are still volatile. Such blatant manipulation of the market invites no punishment in liberalised India.

Unlike some other developing countries, India has sufficient stocks, over 6.62 crore tonnes of food grains as on February 1, 2013, three times the norm set for this quarter which is 2 crore tonnes. Given the anticipated shortage in world markets, big companies, foreign and domestic, have started putting pressure on the government to “liquidate” the stocks by allowing liberal exports. The value of exports of food grains in 2012 was $20 billion or over 1.8 lakh crore rupees. While wheat was exported at global prices of between Rs. 1,800 to 2,000 a quintal, the support price the Indian farmer received was at least one third less at Rs.1,285. The export of rice also was at prices far higher than the MSP. Thus the government helped traders and exporters make profits while denying farmers a fair price.

The liquidation of stocks for exports which help traders not farmers is taking place at a time when India is home to a quarter of all malnourished people in the world. The stocks should and must be used to ensure an amount of food grains not less then 35 kg per family at subsidised rates through a universal public distribution system

It is equally necessary in view of the anticipated global shortage of food grains to use the stocks judiciously as a buffer against hoarding and black marketing. Reckless exports of food grains are not in India's interests.

(Brinda Karat is with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and a former Member of Parliament)

Original source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/deciding-who-gets-to-eat/article4452724.ece?homepage=true