Thursday, June 18, 2009

Understanding the New Auto Sector

by Herman Rosenfeld -  BASICS #14 (June / July 2009)

In the past couple of months, there have been important changes to the auto sector in Canada and the US. In the midst of the ongoing economic crisis, started by the financial meltdown, auto sales dropped through the floor. 

The restructuring of GM and Chrysler was engineered by the U.S. state. Its goal was to transform them into competitors with the Japanese-owned transplants (Honda and Toyota), lean and mean profit-making machines with weak (or no) unions, in the spirit of neoliberalism. A key element of the new situation is the historic defeat of the auto unions (the American UAW and the Canadian CAW), signaling a further decline in the living and working conditions of the working class as a whole.   

The Obama administration started a process of “structured” bankruptcies in order to drive the restructuring of Chrysler and GM. This raised a bigger political issue of the legitimacy, role and purpose of state aid to the auto corporations.  

The Obama administration in the U.S. provided a process for the possible longer-term survival of these companies in a hyper-competitive market, including the selection of a group of Wall Street-based financial types to oversee the corporations’ transformation; pressure on bondholders (owners of GM and Chrysler debt) to reduce their claims; attacks on the rights of workers (by demanding massive wage and benefit concessions); and requirements that each of these corporations close plants, layoff workers and reorganize themselves so as to dramatically reduce costs. By appealing to the public in defense of “taxpayers’” money, and by calling on all “stakeholders” to engage in common sacrifice, U.S. and Canadian leaders appear as reasonable stewards of public resources.  

In limiting the claims of the bondholders, the Obama administration acted in the interests of the entire U.S. bourgeois class. The attack on the unions was the centerpiece of the strategy. Most important, Obama, Harper and McGuinty all demanded that the unions match the cost structure of the non-union transplants. This was accepted without question by both the UAW and CAW. It signaled a massive give-back of incomes, working conditions, time off and benefits. During the entire process of restructuring, there was no union-organized resistance, other than a series of CAW demonstrations demanding protection of retiree pensions.  

These attacks have crippled both unions and dramatically reduced their credibility. The UAW is now the custodian of a significant chunk of GM stock – but it can only be used to pay for the health care benefits of retirees. The CAW has little independence from its auto employers and has lost any claims to be a fighting union. 

The role of the state in both the U.S. and Canada is also a matter of some controversy. The huge loans that these governments have given - and will continue to give to the companies - have been translated into share ownership in the latter. On paper, the U.S. government owns 60% and the Canadian governments will own 12.5% of GM. 

Hard right-wing political and economic interests in Canada and the U.S.(Republicans and right-wing Tories) denounced this as “buying jobs” and contributing to future government deficits. Mainstream politicians defend the aid as necessary to protect against massive job loss. Industrial relations enthusiasts are excited about “worker ownership and participation.” 

Socialists look at the situation differently. Just because the U.S. and Canadian states own stock in GM and Chrysler, doesn’t mean that they have effectively “nationalized” them. In fact, government stock ownership in this instance is nothing more than a way of leveraging the loans and temporarily enforcing the rules of the neo-liberal marketplace, until and if (and there is no guarantee) these corporations are able to operate on their own. Obama and others have said so.

And, in another sense, it couldn’t really be otherwise, given the nature of the capitalist state and the politicians who control it today. They are committed to the operation of such a marketplace and do not have – and do not want – the capacity to run a company, let alone an entire economic sector. Owning one company could never transform the sector, anyway. What’s needed is to regulate the amount of autos being produced and social ownership of the entire sector, including all of the assemblers, parts producers, energy resources and mass transit. Perhaps the nationalization of the parts sector – a central repository of productive capacity – would be a good start.

Filipinos Rally against Charter Change

Move to amend constitution seen as another power-grab by Arroyo regime.

by JD Benjamin - BASICS #14 (June / July 2009)

People's organizations across the Philippines and around the world are outraged by the Philippines Congress passing of Resolution 1109, legislation that paves the way for the Congress to convene itself as a Constituent Assembly to change the Constitution without the participation of the Senate.

Charter change, referred to in the Philippines as Cha-cha, is widely unpopular as it is seen as a power-grab by current President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Her leadership so far has been marked by widespread human rights abuses and corruption scandals, including the murder of almost 1,000 legal mass activists. Once she is out of office, she will lose her immunity from prosecution, so she is desperate to erase the term limits set by the current constitution.

Opposition congressmen attempted to block the motion, but the legislation was rammed through by President Arroyo's allies in a late-night session. “Tonight is a night of ignominy," said Gabriela Women's Partylist Rep. Luz Ilagan. "We witnessed the tyranny of numbers.”

Another troubling element of Cha-cha is the proposal to add the word "responsible" into the clause granting freedom of speech and expression. This would grant the state wide latitude in deciding what kind of speech was "irresponsible" and to stifle opponents of the government.

Cha-cha would also further undermine Philippine sovereignty and sell out the country to foreigners as it would delete the 60 percent domestic ownership clause in the current constitution. Filipinos would lose control over their public utilities, natural resources and domestic industries. As the Cordilleras Peoples Alliance said in a recent statement, “Clearly, Cha-cha paves the way for the 100 percent foreign ownership of lands and resources in the country, further marginalizing Filipinos from utilizing these resources. In the Cordillera, ‘cha-cha’ would further displace indigenous peoples from their lands as foreign corporations intensify the plunder of the remaining lands and resources of indigenous peoples.”

A variety of peoples’ organizations have pledged to block Cha-cha by taking to the streets, with protest rallies planned to take place across the country. “The people are not stupid," said Bayan secretary general Renato M. Reyes, Jr. "They can see the real intent of the railroaded resolution. They will not stand to have Gloria stay in power indefinitely."

Toronto City Workers Resist Concessions

Support the City Workers Strike

by Farshad Azadian - BASICS #14 (June / July 2009)

Toronto City Workers, represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) locals 79 and 416, made a strong statement that they will not accept any concessions in their ongoing bargaining with the City of Toronto.

On June 22nd the Toronto City Workers walked off the job after their employer – the City – refused to give a dignified contract and instead insisted on forcing workers to take concessions. The strike action comes a month after the 18,000 city employees represented by local 79 voted 90% in favor of a strike mandate, and where 6,000 “outdoor” workers represented by local 416 voted 89% in favor of a strike mandate.

These unions represent workers in a variety of sectors, from recreation centre workers to garbage collectors. One of the major points of dispute is the fact that the city has thus far demanded that workers take concessions in sick benefits and job security; issues that city employees are justifiably refusing to budge on. The trend to reverse the many hard-earned gains and rights of working class people is being seen across Canada, and these workers are making an important stand against that trend.

At a time when billions of our tax dollar money is being squandered by the politicians of various parties to bail out the bankers and the big auto companies, it is absolutely unforgivable that working people are facing constant attacks on their ability to live with dignity.

Undoubtedly, in the weeks and perhaps days after the strike begins, we will see immense pressure and even repression against the strikers. The recent academic workers strike at York University showed us how the police and the courts were used by the employer and the government to attack workers. Four members of the York University CUPE local 3903 were brutally arrested by cops, and the 85-day strike was put down through union-busting "back-to-work" legislation. City Workers should be prepared to play hardball should these anti-worker tactics be employed once again to repress their very legitimate concerns.

Many of these city workers live and serve in our communities, and in the event of a worker strike forced by the employer, it is important that we support and even come out to the picket lines that will be seen across our communities in the spirit of working class solidarity.

Ontario’s Criminal Injustice System

How the underfunding of legal aid pushes the poor into the prison system

by Kabir Joshi-Vijayan -  BASICS #14 (June / July 2009)

The province’s criminal defense counsels are refusing to take on future homicide, guns and gangs cases.  They say it is in desperate protest to the province’s severe underfunding of legal aid, which results in pronounced disparity in the courtroom between the defense and government prosecution. Major reports have verified serious systematic problems arising from the resource-deficient legal aid program, including wrongful convictions and excessively long prison sentences.  In addition to the already insufficient pay rates, defense lawyers say that the strict pay caps per case is a setup for failure.  The more work done for clients on legal aid, the more money the representing lawyer loses.   

Legal Aid Ontario is a government funded nonprofit corporation established 40 years ago. Its intention is to provide free legal services to the poor in order to meet the requirements of the Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms prescribing equal justice for all.  However, the eligibility rules are so restrictive that only the extremely poor ever qualify (those earning $15,000 a year or less).  That means a vast majority of people unable to afford legal representation are effectively shut out of the justice system. In addition, not all cases are covered, including certain criminal charges and employment problems.  When a case is accepted, there is a woefully low limit to the amount of money allotted – meaning a woefully low limit to the amount of justice afforded the poor.

The president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, Frank Addario, says the drastic decision to refuse taking serious criminal cases is an effort to “pull back the curtain” on a problem they have been “hiding for the government for two decades”.  But that raises the troubling question of why criminal lawyers were concealing such a serious breach of the rule of law and judicial fairness in the first place.

The reality is that inequity in the legal system goes beyond the issue of criminal law (civil legal aid is also in crisis and includes family law, immigrant and refugee law and poverty law issues).  There are attacks on poor and racialized people at almost every point in the inaccessible Ontario justice system, and it is a grievous problem in every province of Canada.  Poor and racialized people are more likely to be picked up by and brutalized by police, denied bail, appear in court (without the constitutional right of representation) and go to jail.   The underfunding of the legal aid program follows a pattern of sabotage through underfunding of all social programs for the poor and working class. It also coincides with massive funding to prosecution and court services, and for specialized police units such as the Guns and Gangs Task Force (with its legacy of racism, violence and false-arrests).  In fact, 85% of all criminal justice funding is directed at policing and corrections, showing the government prioritizes sending people into the prison system over giving them justice.

Despite the dedicated work of some excellent lawyers and some significant wins, putting more money into a systematically corrupted legal aid system will not change things significantly.  The overriding problems remain. We have excessive and discriminatory police practices and a huge proportion of defendants continue to go unrepresented in Ontario Courts (with or without an adequately funded legal aid program).  These are advocacy issues that the Criminal Lawyers Association has yet to challenge.

HST: Another Gov't Cash Grab

by Jesse Benjamin - BASICS #14 (June / July 2009)

At first glance, it sounds reasonable enough.  Take two sales taxes, the 5% GST and 8% PST, and combine them together into a single 13% Harmonized Sales Tax, or HST.  Seems fair, doesn't it?

Turns out, it's a massive cash grab by the provincial government.  After July 2010, working people will see an 8% increase in the cost of a whole host of goods and services that previously were not included in the PST, including gasoline, utilities, home phone, TV and internet services, hair cuts, used cars, vitamins, meals under $4, train, plane and taxi fares, and more.

Like all taxes on consumption, this will place the greatest tax burden on the working class.  The province is promising to issue rebate cheques - the first of which will be issued conveniently right before the next election - but the amounts are unlikely to come even close to offsetting the additional costs.  Demand of Dalton McGuinty and all Ontario provincial legislators that they stop trying to balance their budgets on the backs of the most vulnerable and hardest working people in our society!

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Progressive Nepali Forum in Americas on Border encroachment and human rights violation by Indian security authorities in Nepal

Dr. Manamohan Singh
Right Honorable Prime Minister of India
Room No. 148 B South Block
New Delhi 110001, India

June 15, 2009

RE: Border encroachment and human rights violation by Indian security authorities in Nepal

Dear Prime Minister:
As global citizens and citizens and friends of Nepal, we are deeply saddened by the recent actions of the Indian Border Security Forces (IBSF) on Nepali territory. The encroachment on Nepali lands and the atrocities committed against Nepalese citizens is a violation of international law and human rights, and constitutes an attack on Nepal’s sovereignty. With this encroachment our great hope, which is to see India’s foreign policy demonstrate mutual respect and trust, is dashed. The Indian establishment has once again failed to grasp the fact that such folly imposes huge cost to both India and Nepal.

Still, Mr. Prime Minister, you have a choice and you can make the difference.

In May of 2009, the IBSF encroached on Nepali lands and committed atrocities along the border villages of western district of Dang. Two separate delegations of the Constituent Assembly and legislature parliament investigated and reached that conclusion unanimously. These actions resulted in the displacement of more than 6000 people from their homes. Cases of rape and disappearance have also been reported. This is not the first time the IBSF has encroached on Nepali territory and committed atrocities: from Jhapa in the east all the way to Darchula in the west (where the Indian military has even set up a permanent base), the pattern of border encroachment is repeated, with forceful displacement, shifting of border markers and appropriation of territory. India has already appropriated some 59,970 hectares of Nepali territory at 54 points in 21 districts. All these cases are well documented, but India has not shown any sign of taking responsibility of its excesses in a foreign land.

This is not the only example of India’s interference in Nepal’s sovereignty. Recently the Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Mr. Sood, interfered in the choice of Nepal’s Commander-in-Chief. By doing so, he has made it clear that Nepalese right to choose their government remains a right as long as their choice does not contradict with India’s vested interest in Nepal. Mr. Prime Minister, we believe that you understand that the love for motherland and quest for justice does not depend on the size of a country. No matter how small Nepal is compared to India, our love for Nepal and its independence is equal to the love any Indian feels for his motherland.

People from Nepal and India have very cordial relations; they respect and admire each other. They share many common attributes. Our former prime ministers Manmohan Adhikari and B P Koirala were active participants of your national liberation movement. Nepali people in the Indian Army have helped safeguard Indian territory in both the Sino-Indian war and the Indian-Pakistan war. Reciprocally, Indian people have always supported democratic movements in Nepal. The irony is that Indian foreign policy towards Nepal has shown itself over time to be unfair, unjust and vicious.

Nepalese and Friends of Nepal have been hopeful that you, Mr. Prime Minister, would be able to change the “Big Brother” nature of India’s policy in Nepal into one that stands on a firm foundation of mutual respect and trust. These hopes are fading fast. You have the opportunity to make India a great nation by basing India’s foreign policy as it was conceived by former prime minister I. K. Gujral as the Gujral Doctrine. This is time for Indian foreign policymaking be taken out of the hands of bureaucrats still living in the shadow of colonialism.

Change is long overdue. As a first step, we Nepalese, Friends of Nepal and peace loving people around the globe urge you to correct the present aggression immediately, bring the IBSE home to their barracks in India, apologize to those Nepalese who have been the victims of a barbaric act, and compensate those whose property has been destroyed.

Respectfully yours,

Abi Sharma
President
Progressive Nepali Forum in Americas
Tel: (604) 506 9259, Email: pnefacc@gmail.com

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Ruby Dhalla’s Just the Tip of the Iceberg: A Short History of the Live-In Caregiver Program in Canada, and Why it Must Change

By Philip Brown

A shorter version of this article will appear in the upcoming issue of BASICS #14, June / July 2009.

Ruby Dhalla — beautiful, charismatic, articulate, media hound, successful professional, a star candidate handpicked by former Prime Minister Paul Martin — seemed destined for the Liberal Party political stratosphere when suddenly she found her political career at risk because of the allegations by Filipino women, Magdalene Gordo, 31, and Richelyn Tongson, 37, that they had been abused while working as live-in caregivers for Dhalla and her family. At once the Liberals’ critic for Youth and Multiculturalism found herself in an odd position. Absent the rallying Liberal Party troops, Dhalla was left to fend for herself.

For most of its history, Canada has had a fairly restrictive immigration system. From the beginning unwanted regions or races, then unwanted “low skilled,” were excluded entry from the country. At the same time, Canada has also had a long history of using and abusing migrant workers from said unwanted categories. Special exceptions were regularly made to such restrictions to allow special sectors of workers into Canada to perform work that while necessary for the economy was unattractive to local labourers – building the railway, picking fruits and vegetables, and, of course, live-in caregivers.

The import of domestic workers was essentially first a system that recruited European women, first Western then Eastern, as maids and future wives. But with postwar reconstruction in the West and the rise of socialism in the East drying up traditional sources of caregivers and other new workers, the expanding Canadian economy turned to the colonial and neo-colonial world for sustenance and opened its borders to these unwanted races. From 1955 to the next decade, the Caribbean Domestic Scheme brought in thousands of black Caribbean women to take care of Canadian children. These women were allowed to come in as landed immigrants as long as they worked first as domestic workers. By the 1970s, increasingly the women being allowed into the country to perform caregiving entered as temporary workers. By 1980 almost all workers coming in as caregivers were temporary workers. In 1981, the Foreign Domestic Program (FDM) was established. The FDM brought caregivers in as temporary workers with the chance of receiving landed status after two years. Increasing numbers of women entered Canada through the FDM and increasing numbers of these were from the Philippines as that country spun downward into a severe chronic economic crisis. By 1990, two-thirds of those entering through the FDM were from the Philippines. In 1991, Employment and Immigration Canada (EIC) dropped the FDM and replaced it with the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP). The LCP had stricter conditions for entry behind which was an EIC worry at the large number of Filipinas entering Canada.

Those currently entering Canada through the LCP must meet the following onerous conditions:

First, the caregiver must work for 24 months out of a 36-month period. This time frame is inflexible. If the caregiver gets sick or injured and thereby looses her job, she is out of luck. That time is not counted. If her employer takes her out of the country to work elsewhere, that too is not counted. The caregiver is just out of luck. If she fails to meet this condition, the caregiver can then leave Canada, be deported and banned from further entry, or reapply for the program and if accepted start all over again. Particularly galling is the method of counting workdays. Unlike other jobs, the caregiver’s job is counted by the day not by the actual number of hours expended.

Second, those in the LCP have employer-specific visas. That means, they can only work for the employer listed in the visa and only for the purposes of caregiving. If they decide to quit this employer because, for example, this employer is mistreating them, not only do they have to expend the time required to find a new employer, a new visa must be issued by Immigration Canada. All in all up to six months can be wasted in this process. As the 36-month limit, therefore, approaches, the caregiver will be forced to bear with an employer no matter how bad they may be.

How bad situations can get is driven home by the third onerous condition: the LCP’s mandatory live-in requirement. This condition exposes the caregiver to greater dangers of sexual or physical abuse. They also increase potential for excessively long work hours and the lowering of real wages, violations of privacy, and the arbitrary addition of non-caregiving work or multiple caregiving jobs. Caregivers are often made to clean house and business, do minor repairs, or take care of the pets and relatives not only of their employer but of their employer’s friends and neighbors. So bearing with a bad employer at crunch time is not just a Monday to Friday, nine to five matter, it can often be a six to seven day a week matter 24 hours a day!

Of course, when the caregiver does choose to quit their employer, all means of support disappears. Even though caregivers pay into all of Canada’s social programs, programs we all take for granted, like EI or welfare, are practically inaccessible to caregivers without affecting future immigration status. Immigration Canada looks poorly upon any evidence you might not be completely self-supporting.

Once, you have completed these conditions, one more hurdle is placed before you: the second medical requirement! All temporary workers, in fact all migrants, have to pass a medical test before they can come to Canada. Those going through the LCP have to pass a second test, after they have worked years in Canada. It is the only temporary worker program that makes this requirement. Caregivers, therefore, if they become ill while working in Canada, face the prospects of being denied status.

These are not all the conditions that have to be fulfilled. We won’t cover them in this article. Suffice it to say that the LCP as it has been constructed places thousands of women in conditions of at least three to five years of lonely family separation, under the continuous gaze of their employer, at the promise of an often-elusive status.

Nevertheless, 85 percent of Filipinos in Canada think that a special work program allowing caregivers to come into Canada and gain status should exist despite the calls by some fringe Filipino organizations calling for the scrap of the LCP. What Filipinos in Canada overwhelmingly wish for is that changes be made to the LCP to remove such oppressive and exploitative conditions as the employer specific visa, the delays in receiving landed status, the mandatory live-in requirement, etc.

Migrante Ontario has been exposing problems with the LCP and has campaigned for these changes. Support for Migrante’s calls has increased not only within the wider Filipino community, among migrant and other workers, but also among Filipino middle forces. More and more Filipino organizations have come to support the campaign for changes in the LCP. Support has also increased among Canadian advocacy groups, unions, churches, and sections of the mass media.

The problems of the LCP first reached mass public attention in October 2007 with the murder of live-in caregiver Jocelyn Dulnuan in her employer’s house. It was repeated at a higher level with the case of Juana Tejada who despite fulfilling her work requirements was first denied landed status due to having become ill with cancer while working in Canada. Migrante Ontario, with Juana Tejada in the forefront, and the help of the Steelworkers union, spearheaded a campaign for Tejada’s status. Tejada was victorious for her status but sadly Juana Tejada succumbed to cancer before seeing the full goal of the campaign realized: A Juana Tejada law removing the second medical requirement for those in the LCP. This law is now being recommended by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

The issue of live-in caregivers finally reached critical mass in Canadian consciousness starting with series of articles in the Toronto Star in March of this year exposing the role of unscrupulous recruiters in exploiting caregivers. Liberal MPP Mike Colle stepped in with a bill calling for the provincial regulation of caregiver recruitment agencies. By April, due to mounting pressure from the Filipino community and the broader Canadian public, the previously ambivalent Ontario Labour Minister, Peter Fonseca, promised to deliver to provincial parliament a bill regulating caregiver recruitment agencies.

At a public meeting on April 25, Minister Fonseca and Ontario Education Minister Kathleen Wynne egged on caregivers present to talk about their problems with the promise they would do something about them. There, Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson came out with their accusations. Two weeks later, an article in the Star appeared covering the case of Gordo and Tongson. So started Dhalla’s problems.

Not long before, Ignatieff had just been crowned leader by the Liberals. Harper’s Conservatives are hell bent on tainting Ignatieff’s leadership like they had done successfully with Dion. Dhalla was, therefore, left on her own. She quickly resigned from her job as Youth and Multiculturalism critic ostensibly to defend herself, an exercise she has performed rather poorly with initial claims they were all one big happy family, followed up by attempts to malign the caregivers and paranoid accusations of a political conspiracy behind the accusation.

This much is true, there has been a political conspiracy and it is by the Tories to unseat Dhalla from her closely won riding. The allegations and their exposure to the public however predate this conspiracy. The Tories just opportunistically jumped on the bandwagon to further their own sectarian interests and to divert the issue from real changes to the LCP.

The crux of the matter is that the allegations against Dhalla involve two levels of government and three types of statute. It is true that they involve violations of the provincial employment Standards Act and Fonseca has also been put on the defensive for apparently having done little since having heard the case. They also involve violations of tax law, and more significantly of immigration law, of which Kenny is the Federal Minister responsible. What fewer people know is that Kenny had also known of the allegations almost as early as Fonseca and he too has given little evidence of doing anything other than trying to focus all the media attention on Fonseca and Dhalla.

The campaign to make changes to the LCP continues. It is larger than any Tory instigated “Dump Dhalla Movement.” As it stands, here is where we now are: On June 10, a Commons committee that heard from Dhalla and the former caregivers involved released a report “… recommend[ing] that the authorized bodies in the provincial and federal governments investigate the allegations of the former live-in caregivers in the Dhalla residence and take measures as appropriate.” The very same day, a Commons committee tabled a report recommending that caregivers be granted permanent resident status upon their arrival in Canada but subject to conditions that would be lifted after completing 24 months of work within a 36-month period, the immigration committee. At the same time, caregivers would also be entitled to interim health benefits and would be allowed to go to school. As the report says, “Having permanent resident status upon arrival in Canada would enable caregivers the same rights as other permanent residents: mobility, the right to live where they wish, to bring their family members or to change employers. Further it would be easier than under the present system for caregivers to escape abusive situations.”

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

LIGHT UP OUR ALLEY STREET FESTIVAL COMES TO ANNEX NEIGHBOURHOOD JUNE 27, 2009


Toronto, June 27 2009 - For one day only, Light Up Our Alley street festival will take over the corner of Dupont and Spadina to celebrate the reclamation of public space with music, art, a community rummage sale, and a night time lantern walk.

Events begin at noon in the alley on the Southwest corner of Dupont and Spadina, across the street from the Dupont subway station. Activities will include a community rummage sale, BBQ and potluck, a Really Really Free Market, face painting, local vendors, bike repairs, juggling, gardening, mural painting, art installations, do-it-yourself tables, and a re-decoration of recycling and garbage bins. Everyone is urged to participate. Bring food to grill or share, old treasures to sell or give, and recycling and garbage bins to decorate.

A diverse line up of bands will play both acoustic and electric sets from 4-9 as events continue in the alley. As night falls, there will be a lantern walk where the community is urged to construct their own lanterns and bring them along. Music will continue indoors at the community house after 9.

Some of the bands scheduled to play are Barn Owl, The Flying Museum Band, Boxes and Bags, The Sure Things, The Winks,Ten Thousand Creatures, and Revolution Love.

Light Up Our Alley is a project organized by the Duspa Corner Collective (DCC). The DCC is an ecologically minded collective pushing for green cultural growth in and around Dupont and Spadina. Our goal is to convey the message that our urban public space should be a place for culture, communities, leisure, and the exchange of ideas.

In addition to the festival, other DCC projects include guerilla gardening and the creation of public art.

Monday, June 08, 2009

The Dangers of Public Surveillance


Submitted by Cara Chellew from elchaos.org - June 2009.

It was a warm evening for January. We were in the back alleyway on our way to a comfortable Annex hang out called the Green Room when I looked up. Staring back at me were two small black eyes. Well, eyes of the video recording sort. I was shocked to realize that I was being recorded for unknown reasons.

There has been much debate regarding the use of public video surveillance in Canada. These cameras installed in public and semi public spaces like street corners and public transit are said to be useful in deterring crime, identifying suspects, and can be used as evidence in court. Public video surveillance has been used in Britain since 1980s. A few decades later, we have yet to see a body of evidence linking general, continuous video surveillance with crime reduction. It seems that there is a link in crime reduction when cameras are used to target a specific problem in a narrowly defined area like monitoring ATMs.

As recent as January 2007, no court has ruled on the legality of public video surveillance in Canada. In 2003, former federal Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski attempted to contest the legality of video surveillance in court but his case was dismissed on procedural grounds. The judge presiding over the case claimed that the position of federal Privacy Commissioner did not give Radwanski the power to launch lawsuits. This is because the Privacy Commissioner is not an official representative of the crown.

In preparation for the case, former Supreme Court Justice Gerard Laforest provided an opinion that general public video surveillance for law enforcement purposes likely infringes on an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. This violates Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 8 states that, “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. A March 2006 report posted on the official website of the office of the Privacy Commissioner acknowledges, “The medium’s very nature allows law enforcement to observe and monitor the movements of a large number of persons, the vast number of whom are law-abiding citizens, where there are no reasonable grounds to be capturing a record of their activities”.

This means that a successful lawsuit against continuous public surveillance could make cameras on the TTC and on street corners illegal because it violates individual rights. Individual citizens have the legal capacity to sue the Attorney General of Canada.

Laforest goes on to say: “The police are often abetted in obtaining unnecessary, ineffective, and dangerous powers by the reflexive belief among many citizens that restrictions on liberty do not affect them, or more dangerously, that such restrictions are insubstantial and worth the sacrifice.” This means that we should be concerned about the intrusions on our liberty.

It is disturbing enough to encounter cameras in public spaces that have been properly advertised. But what are the rights of the individual under private video surveillance?

Cameras are popping up everywhere as technology improves and equipment costs go down. Private citizens and businesses are free to install private surveillance cameras at their discretion. The footage collected is protected under Canada’s Privacy Act and is subject to privacy laws. The office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada includes a ten-point guide for the private use of cameras. They are as follows:

10 things to do when considering, planning and using video surveillance

1. Determine whether a less privacy-invasive alternative to video surveillance would meet your needs.

2. Establish the business reason for conducting video surveillance and use video surveillance only for that reason.

3. Develop a policy on the use of video surveillance.

4. Limit the use and viewing range of cameras as much as possible.

5. Inform the public that video surveillance is taking place.

6. Store any recorded images in a secure location, with limited access, and destroy them when they are no longer required for business purposes.

7. Be ready to answer questions from the public. Individuals have the right to know who is watching them and why, what information is being captured, and what is being done with recorded images.

8. Give individuals access to information about themselves. This includes video images.

9. Educate camera operators on the obligation to protect the privacy of individuals.

10. Periodically evaluate the need for video surveillance.

Unfortunately, violations occur all the time. After all, this is merely a guide. There are no Canadian laws in place to address the ubiquity of private video surveillance. The only recourse is to register a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner regarding the storage and use of personal information under the Privacy Act. Private surveillance cameras like those recording the alleyway behind the Green Room in Toronto seem to be legal but against the spirit of the guidelines. The public is not aware of these cameras, and the range of viewing seems to be general surveillance rather than a limited viewing range.

Rolling Down a Slippery Slope

So what is the big deal? You may think that you have nothing to hide but there are some serious concerns about video surveillance. For one, studies in Britain show that control room operators disproportionately target minorities. Footage can also be disclosed for purposes other than crime deterrence. Camera operators in Britain have been caught selling tapes for entertainment or journalistic purposes. This is a gross violation of individual privacy rights.

A few other concerns that are even more unsettling are function creep, biometric adaptation, and suspicion by association. Function creep is when something that is originally intended for a specific function is then used for other functions. For example, British CCTV (closed circuit television) was installed with the intent to deter violent crime. These cameras are now used to pursue minor offences like littering and under age smoking.

There is also the fear that cameras can easily be updated with biometrics like facial recognition technology. Digital imaging technologies are becoming more attractive and affordable for governments who believe that this is the next step for improving state security. These technologies can link to databases like a “Terrorist Watch List”. These technologies are not fool proof and innocent people can be mistakenly targeted. This has already occurred in the US with the reported inclusion of innocent people on the national no-fly list.

Perhaps the most worrisome effects of societal surveillance are psychological and sociological impacts that threaten to dissolve community. State surveillance creates a barrier of fear and mistrust between citizens and citizens and the state. Furthermore, video surveillance can initiate suspicion-by-association. For example, a camera may catch an individual passing through a red light district. Camera monitors may suspect the person to be prostitute just by their associated presence in the area. Similarly, footage of association with a “terror’ suspect can label that person a terrorist. People will begin to think twice about lingering on a street corner for too long or be seen talking to a shabby looking character.

Knowledge of being watched erodes feelings of autonomy and freedom. Surveillance technology is not foolproof and there is a great risk that innocent people will become labeled and punished for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The pervasiveness of private surveillance raises the question of how well our personal information is being protected and whether it is destroyed or sold to the highest bidder. There are no existing rules or regulations in Canada to enforce the responsible use of this ubiquitous technology.

Next time you are out and about look around. How many cameras can you locate? Are they pointed at the door or at the room in general? Did you see a sign advertising their presence? This is not paranoia; this is the future.

In closing, the following is a passage from George Orwell’s seminal work, 1984:

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself–anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face…; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…”
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5

Monday, June 01, 2009

My Statement About The Need For Justice

A First-Person Narrative About Police Terror in Our City
by victim of police brutality, Shaq.

As we gather more information on this story, we will be posting it to the BASICS Free Community Newsletter website. Please check back for updates. More on this issue, including pictures of the terror, will appear in BASICS issue #14, due out in mid June.

Also see Radio Basics show from June 1, 2009, for a live interview with Shaq. alongside Salma Al-Nadhir, whose brother was senselessly murdered by Toronto police on October 31, 2007.


On Wednesday May 13, 2009, sometime between 9:50pm and 10:00pm, I was beat up by an officer of the law for telling other people in my neighborhood that the police were coming around.

I was with my friends in my neighborhood courtyard when I saw police driving around. I decided to warn some people by saying “6up” and the police heard me.

At that point, I started to make my way to a corner store after I had told the others that the police were around the area, and the police suddenly grabbed me off my bike, dragged me to a gate at a storage facility and brutally beat me up while ordering me that I should never alert anyone when the police are around, saying “When we come around you should never alert anyone.” They beat me and choked me, making it hard for me to speak or breathe. The whole right side of my face was made swollen, busting my lip, making it swollen, and also giving me bruises on my back, my chin and my neck, as well as a bloodshot (right) eye leaving me with not a single space in my eye that is white.

After they beat me up they asked my age and other info and let me go. I tried to ride my bike home but I fell off and fell to the ground. A friend had to carry me home. After that we called the police and two officers came to my door and left after the male officer told the female officer something in her ear. While they were leaving, a friend of mine and his mother asked the two officers if they were going to speak to my mother and then the male officer replied with a negative word (FU) to the mother and left immediately.

Ever since then I've been trying to get as much people to support me in finding these men and to support me along the way. I'm trying my best to go through this situation and keeping my confidence that I will find these men who did this to me.

My right side of my face still hurts and my eye is still red - some could even say that my eye makes me look inhuman.