[IPSM] Report back from protest at "Canada in the World" conference

[Mandeep Dhillon]

Hi all,

The following is a report back from a rally/protest
that IPSM organized in response to the "Canada in the
World" conference put together by the McGill Institute
for the Study of Canada last week (February 6-9).

Please feel free to circulate it at your discretion. 

In solidarity,
Mandeep 

The State of “Democratic Discourse” in Canada 

	On February 18, 2005 - in response to a rally called
by the Indigenous Peoples’ Solidarity Movement (IPSM)
- a group of about ten individuals convened in front
of the OMNI hotel,  the location of a conference
organized by the McGill Institute for the Study of
Canada, entitled “Canada in the World”.( The
conference had begun on February 16). In preparation
for the rally, IPSM produced leaflets which contained
information about the policies supported by some of
the more odious invited speakers (Paul Cellucci,
Pierre Pettigrew, Aileen Carroll, Benoit Pelletier,
William Graham and Raymond Chretien) and our reasons
for protesting them. The aim of the rally was to not
only engage conference goers in discussion and debate
about these policies, but also to make it evident to
the politicians and apologists present at the
conference that people are watching their actions and
will hold them accountable for the crimes being
committed in our names. Initially, the group was able
to get up to the second floor of the hotel and leaflet
registrants just as they prepared to enter the
conference room. Soon after, as conference organizers
realized that our presence was aimed at expressing
dissent, we were kicked out of the hotel by security
personnel. The following is a more detailed account of
the day’s events. 

If the views presented at the “Canada in the world”
conference are to be taken seriously as a
representation of the pillars of Canada’s foreign
policy and relationship with peoples everywhere then -
in stark contrast to the spirit of self-congratulation
that emanated from the conference room – there is
little to be proud of. If the conference itself is to
be taken seriously as what Canadian intellectuals and
policymakers construe as a model of public forum and
democratic debate then all that can be concluded is
that in Canada, voices of dissent are unwelcome and
those to whom those voices belong are regarded as
illegitimate. 

Structural elements – structural violence

	Despite the conference having been advertised as a
public forum, an opportunity to raise concerns and
tackle “provocative questions”, fees of 175$ (for the
general public) and even 55$ for students and seniors
ensured that only the elite could attend. This “public
forum” was conveniently held on private property – the
Omni Hotel – a feature which was called upon in
forcing out individuals whose opinions were not
welcome. 

	Admittedly, I was not present for all the talks and
plenary sessions but from those that I was able to
attend, it was quite obvious that those invited to
speak represented very select class interests. The
plenary sessions were described as “debates” yet none
of the speakers brought alternative views. There were
no voices of dissent to be heard.  A few questions
were allowed from the audience after the plenary
sessions and keynote speeches; however, those asking
questions were constantly harassed to limit any
contextual information they wanted to give prior to
posing their question. Although audience members were
limited in how much time was allowed to ask questions,
the speakers themselves had no such limitations. There
was no room for debate or constructive dialogue. In a
warped sense, the conference was perfect. It was the
perfect tool to legitimize the policies previously
established by those present. Choose speakers who
represent the privileged and elite strata of the
population, choose speakers who agree, limit
participation by setting exclusionary fees, don’t
allow for any debate, congratulate each other on the
wonderful work you’ve done and force out anyone who
tries to question the status quo. 

	When the conference organizers realized that we were
handing out pamphlets to attendees we were told to
leave the building. Soon after, security personnel
arrived to force us out. They began pushing some of us
and continued to do so despite the fact that we were
not being aggressive with anyone and the only
activities we were engaged in were handing out
pamphlets and engaging conference goers in discussion.
We repeatedly told security personnel that they had no
right to touch us but they ignored this. One of them
even told one of the leafleters, “Listen, if you don’t
move from here, I will put you into a wall”. 

Major themes

“Canadian values”

      No attempts were made to define this concept
that was repeatedly mentioned throughout the
conference. I was left thinking, what are “Canadian
values”? Are “Canadians” a homogenous population with
similar values and views of justice? Certainly, I
don’t share the same values as most of the individuals
who spoke at the conference. More disturbing than this
concept of “Canadian values” was that it was often
mentioned that one of “our” goals overseas should be
the representation and support of “Canadian values”.
Why should “Canadian values” have any bearing on the
affairs of other populations? This assertion that
“our” national interests - effectively the interests
of a small portion of Canadians ought to be
implemented overseas - was only one example of the
colonial mindset being legitimized by the speakers.

“Protection” and “stability”

      Another example of the support of imperialistic
ideals was the defense given to foreign occupations
and militarization. On more than one occasion such
escapades were referred to by “intellectuals” and
politicians alike as efforts to bring “stability”,
“protection” and “democracy” to foreign populations.
Such notions have become standard, easily appealing to
the racist cultural constructs that exist in our
society. 

      As an illustration of the point, Bill Graham,
our Minister of Defense responded to a question about
the current RCMP training program in Haiti by saying
that this training is being implemented to make the
Haitian police force more high tech and to get rid of
corruption. Is one to take this to mean that a Haitian
institution needs Canadian guidance to avoid
corruption? No doubt Canadians will take a sigh of
relief in knowing that the very institution that was
established to violently repress Indigenous
self-determination over a century ago is now helping
the police force in Haiti to effectively brutalize
Haitians who would dare seek the same human right.
Another example of the Canadian imperialistic attitude
was the satisfaction expressed with the “successful”
Iraqi elections. This, despite the fact that the said
elections were carried out under the occupation by
foreign troops, the low voter turnout, the violence,
the problems with the ballots and the numerous
allegations of irregularities leveled by Iraqis
themselves. Canada took a leading role in the
electoral process in Iraq – one of the major tools
used to legitimize the U.S-led invasion and
occupation. As for civilian casualties that result
from these occupations, Bill Graham had this to say:
"We need [military commanders] to help [occupied
populations] understand that civilian casualties are
for their greater good, not repressive measures of
occupying military force." He attempted to explain
that if the majority of the population supports the
“occupation” (Indeed! He actually called it an
occupation!) then they will accept the civilian
casualties as necessary for their greater good.
Meanwhile, Graham spent a lot of time explaining how
our military adventures are increasingly adopting a
new policy of “cultural sensitivity”. The implication
being that in the future, foreign populations can look
forward to being subjugated by our troops in a more
sensitive manner. 

We are not the U.S. – well…not really

	Much energy was invested by speakers and attendees in
differentiating our “Canadian values” from American
interests and policies – an oft employed mechanism by
which Canadians attempt to take the higher moral
ground when it comes to both domestic and foreign
affairs. The U.S. was painted as a military-minded,
corporate profit-minded powerhouse – as well it should
be. But where was mention of Canadian involvement in
military and corporate operations in Iraq? Where was
mention of our strong support of the farcical and
self-serving “War on Terror”? Where was open
discussion of our adoption of security certificates
and the inhuman treatment of refugees? What about our
leading role in the political and social
destabilization in Haiti? What about our continuing
repression of Indigenous peoples? No, there was no
discussion of these Canadian campaigns – only
applause, only laughter, only pity for the poor, only
pride for our “Canadian-ness” and only offense and
anger towards those who brought opposing views. 

Equal rights if you’re the right person

	As a young person who gave out pamphlets to
conference attendees in hopes of encouraging
discussion and exchange, and as someone who attempted
to critically engage Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre
Pettigrew in debate when we happened upon him sitting
alone in the lounge of the hotel (as we were being
kicked out), I was pushed and shoved out of the
building, told by paternalistic conference attendees
that I would eventually change my views and approach,
and that I was wrong to criticize our elected
representatives. When I later returned with a media
pass and no pamphlets, I was graciously escorted by
the same security guards into the conference room.
Minister Pettigrew exhibited once again that he is
continuing in his tradition of dismissing activists as
violent, disruptive young people – illegitimate
voices. Yet strangely enough, it seems that the
activists had more information than the government
officials themselves.

      Pettigrew and his spokesperson Sebastien
Theberge responded to charges about human rights
abuses in Haiti as being matters of “[our] opinion”.
Is it possible that our Minister of Foreign Affairs
has not read the numerous reports of these abuses when
he is one of the leading figures of Canadian
involvement in Haiti? When questioned about the fact
that Haitians themselves are accusing the Canadian
government of having participated in the coup against
Aristide’s government, they again dismissed this as a
matter of opinion. With a few words then, Pettigrew
and Theberge swept away the voices of Haitians who
continue to courageously speak out despite the daily
violence being waged against them. 
Bill Graham also initially responded to a question
about the RCMP’s training program in Haiti by saying
that he is not very familiar with the situation in
Haiti because he’s not currently personally involved
with that project. Is this what Canadians have to show
to Haitians who are asking why Canada is supporting
this latest attempt to suppress their efforts to
exercise self-determination? A Defence Minister who
isn’t too familiar with the situation? An
International Cooperation Minister (Eileen Carroll)
who isn’t “aware” that there are political prisoners
in Haiti? (Yes! She actually said she isn’t aware of
this.) 
On to another issue of global importance – the
HIV/AIDS pandemic. Minister Carroll gave a separate
speech – organized by Liberal McGill – about this
“terrible” problem. She brought the students stories
of AIDS hospices, dying women, poverty and inequality.
She lauded CIDA and the Canadian government for its
efforts thus far in contributing to the Global Fund
and the WHO’s 3 by 5 program. She told the students
that the current Prime Minister is “very committed to
alleviating poverty” and that it is not enough to
“care” - we must act. For all her talk of inequality
and poverty – without a doubt, the authors of this
pandemic – she was unable to comment on how Canadian
support of the World Trade Organization, the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
policies create those very inequalities she
purportedly laments. When asked by one of the students
about the fact that structural adjustment programs
prevent “third world” governments from establishing
the infrastructure so sorely needed to effectively
provide treatment, the Minister feigned ignorance once
again. To the specific example given by the student -
of Niger’s expenditure on health care being limited to
5% of its GDP due to such policies - Minister Carroll
responded that she wasn’t aware that this was possible
and to please send the documentation to her assistant.
Even if one were to take this ignorance as real, the
fact that the director of CIDA doesn’t understand such
a vital detail about our role in propagating the very
inequalities she was alluding to is insulting. Yes
Minister, caring is not enough. Neither is pity nor
charity. It is time to become truly accountable to the
poor for the war that is being waged against them in
our name. 
	How is it, then, that the very people bringing these
facts and ideas to the table are being dismissed as
“militants” to use Pettigrew’s exact words to me; as
disturbers, as illegitimate? Because, despite this
idea that exists in Canada that our society is open to
democratic debate and that critical thought is
nurtured here – with the pervasive myth that the
state’s intentions are “pure” - dissent all too easily
becomes dismissed as being “irrational”. If even some
of these voices of dissent were recognized as valid –
the foundations of this myth would be rocked. We would
have to, at a cultural level, recognize our most
accepted constructs as being based on colonial,
imperialistic and racist values. We would have to
accept that many people are poor because only a few
are rich, that the pursuit of our “national interests”
and furthering of “our values” take away the rights of
others to determine their own lives, that the very way
we have set up our most prized institutions ensures
that certain class interests will continue to be
labeled as “Canadian values”. 
     All this being said, it is easier to push
peaceful protesters out a hotel door. Only
“intellectuals” and politicians can speak here. 
 
Written by: Mandeep Dhillon 
(Thanking Samir Hussain for invaluable help with this
piece.)


=====
"It is justice, not charity, that is wanting in the world."  (Mary Wollstonecraft) 
"Sigan ustedes sabiendo que, mucho más temprano que tarde, se abrirán las grandes alamedas por donde pase el hombre libre, para construir una sociedad mejor." (Salvador Allende, 11 de sept. 1973)
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." (Dom Helder Camara)

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca