Category Archives: North America

Book Review: Towards Less Adversarial Cultures by Ray Cunnington

EDUCATION FOR PEACE .

Book description from Amazon and biography from Gail Rappolt (for Culture of Peace Hamilton)

Towards Less Adversarial Cultures shows how the cultures into which people are born can exert a lifelong grip on what they believe and how they act. Rather than feeling free to follow their mature consciousness, many are driven to implement the same ideas they were taught as children. What goes unnoticed is that what was deemed an eternal truth in the time of the Pharaohs may appear quite different in today’s world, particularly in matters relating to war, law, money and the media. For the sake of future generations it is vital that humans reflect upon their evolutionary heritage and matters like climate change, and not remain locked in narrow national animosities, battling it out for the last fish, the last tree, and the last piece of land. It is strongly suggested that ordinary people will swing the balance back to a more cooperative, less violent, society.


Ray Cunnington receives the YMCA Peace Medal
(Click on photo to enlarge)

Biography

It isn’t often that someone aged 96 writes and publishes a book. But that is just what Ray Cunnington, a resident of Dundas, has done. He is a founding member of Culture of Peace Hamilton, a member of the Hamilton Board of the United Nations Association in Canada, and a member of the Department of Peace Initiative — to name a few of his involvements in peace and social justice over the last decade and a half.

Two years ago at 94 he established the United Nations Culture of Peace Fund with the Hamilton Community Foundation. At 95 he was awarded the Hamilton Burlington YMCA Peace Medal, and this year he has written and published a book that is not only about peace, but infused with a generally optimistic view of human evolution, in spite of the wars and conflict all around us

Where did the drive to write this book come from? Such questions aren’t easily answered, but old age certainly creates perspective if a person is still willing and able to learn. For Ray the book’s genesis came from the discussions he had with members of Culture of Peace Hamilton and the Hamilton Peace Think Tank. This latter group is made up of a few remarkable academics and individuals who have lived their lives in quest of peace. Other strands that influenced Ray’s thinking came from United Nations examples, Quaker practices, and the non-violence of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. In his book he asks why so many seemingly loving people attack each other so viciously. In a world under threat of climate change and nuclear war he wonders why so many call for deliberate harm to be inflicted on other people without concern for the planet. His book, Towards Less Adversarial Cultures, is readily available at Amazon book

Ray Cunnington was born in England and educated at a British boarding school. From 1941 to 1946 he served as a medical orderly in the Royal Air Force, mostly in India. After demobilization he was a keen supporter of the movement to ‘Ban the Bomb’ initiated by Einstein and Bertrand Russell. Later he worked in the British film industry and knew many of the stars of the time such as Elizabeth Taylor and Deborah Kerr.

(Continued in right column)

Question for this article:

What are the most important books about the culture of peace?

(Continued from left column)

Ray came to Canada in 1953 with his wife and their small son and daughter. They chose Canada at least partly because it did not have conscription, unlike Britain and the U.S.. Settling first in Montreal, Ray did many jobs in films, on radio and in advertising before moving to Ontario and being hired as a Communications teacher at Loyalist College Belleville

Many years later, by that time a college administrator, he prepared himself for retirement by taking a college program at night in what for him was the new and intriguing field of human relations. After five years of becoming a student at night and taking night and weekend courses, he graduated with a diploma. Months later he helped to found a local agency designed to end violence against women by working with abusing men. Because of this experience he was invited to teach a course to men at a federal jail.

Family reasons took Ray and his wife to Winnipeg for a few years. They returned to Ontario in 1998 and Ray renewed his association with the peace community by attending Hamilton’s Gandhi Peace Festival. The millennium was coming to a close and there was much hope for world peace.

When the U.N. proclaimed its Manifesto for a Culture of Peace with its six great pathways to more peaceful societies, Ray was among the founding members who helped to establish Culture of Peace Hamilton.

It was a bitter blow when, in the very first year of the new century, the twin towers were attacked on 9/11, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, and hate crimes were committed in Hamilton. As a response, members of Culture of Peace and United Nation Association, came together with a plan to protect immigrants and the vulnerable from becoming victims of harassment.

It took another year to raise funds, but Ray was among those who, in 2002, obtained a $120,000 grant from the National Crime Prevention Centre to create ‘safe havens’ in public buildings downtown. When that proved to be impractical because it would increase the cost of public insurance, Ray was still determined to ‘Wage Peace’.

He helped to develop ‘Peace Dollars’, a democratic fundraising effort that did not rely on the capricious support of big foundations and fund raisers. Priced at only a dollar, he reminded donors that if everyone in Hamilton bought one it would raise half a million. Over ten years he wrote many op-ed pieces about peace in the Hamilton Spectator.

Ray and Culture of Peace have worked with many groups in their efforts to help Hamilton become a safer and more inclusive city. Collectively they have worked closely with Environment Hamilton, the Gandhi Festival, McMaster Centre for Peace Studies and a whole cluster of other compassionate groups and individuals. They hold regular meetings, provide a Peace Luncheon twice a year and, to make the idea of peace more tangible, have planted a number of Peace Poles and donated a thousand narcissi bulbs to the city’s Peace Garden

To create what he hopes will be a sustaining source of funding at the Hamilton Community Foundation, Ray has established the United Nations Culture of Peace Hamilton Fund. It will receive the profits from Ray’s book. He can be reached at ray.c@cogeco.ca

Donald Trump Declared War On ‘Sanctuary Cities.’ They’re Already Fighting Back

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article with reports by Mollie Reilly, Cristian Farias, Elise Foley and Roque Planas in the Huffington Post (reprinted according to the principle of “fair use”)

One of President Donald Trump’s first major executive actions on immigration policy is facing massive political blowback and will almost certainly crash and burn under the Constitution once courts begin to scrutinize the fine print.


Video of press conference by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee

During a visit to the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday [January 25], Trump signed an executive order aimed at strong-arming so-called “sanctuary cities” into cooperating fully with his efforts to ramp up deportations. Threatening loss of federal funding and using shaming tactics for localities that refuse to comply, the order is styled as a call to obey existing immigration laws ― even though immigration experts and civil liberties groups are doubtful Trump even has the constitutional authority to enforce it.

Independent of the ultimate legality of the executive order, politicians from those sanctuary cities say they aren’t budging, and legal advocacy groups are gearing up for the coming legal fight.

The president is “in for one hell of a fight,” California state Sen. Scott Weiner (D), who represents San Francisco, said in a statement.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (D) said his city “will not retreat one inch” from its policy against holding undocumented immigrants it otherwise would not hold based on requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said his city “will not be intimidated by federal dollars and … will not be intimidated by the authoritative message from this administration.” San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee (D) said “nothing has changed” in his city, noting the lack of specifics in Trump’s order.

“We are going to fight this, and cities and states around the country are going to fight this,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said at a press conference Wednesday.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) already began hinting at a legal challenge, releasing a statement that Trump lacks the constitutional authority for his executive order and that he will do “everything in [his] power” to push back if the president does not rescind it.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) also warned of potential legal challenges to come, saying in a statement that the order “raises significant legal issues that my office will be investigating closely to protect the constitutional and human rights of the people of our state.”

There’s no exact definition of “sanctuary city.” Places like San Francisco and New York use the term broadly to refer to their immigrant-friendly policies, but more generally the term is applied to cities and counties that do not reflexively honor all of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s requests for cooperation. Many of these localities do work with ICE to detain and hand over immigrants suspected or convicted of serious crimes, but they often release low-priority immigrants requested by ICE if they have no other reason to hold them.

“The reason that many local law enforcement officers don’t honor detainers is because courts have said that they violate the Constitution, and if they violate the Constitution, the localities are on the hook financially,” said Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, a law professor at the University of Denver who teaches on the intersection of criminal law and immigration.

Just on Tuesday, a federal court in Rhode Island joined several others that have ruled in recent years that certain ICE detainers can violate people’s constitutional rights ― even those of U.S. citizens.

But Trump’s executive order seems to overlook this legal reality, and instead frames sanctuary cities with the alarmist rhetoric he used on the campaign trail.

”Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States,” his order declares. “These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.”

(Article continued in the right column)

Questions related to this article:

The post-election fightback for human rights, is it gathering force in the USA?

(Article continued from the left column)

Thomas Saenz, who heads the Mexican American Legal and Educational Defense Fund, said that on paper the order wouldn’t give Trump the authority to crack down on sanctuary cities, as Trump claimed.

“It’s hot air, but it’s extremely dangerous hot air,” Saenz told The Huffington Post. “It’s designed to intimidate community members.”

To force sanctuary jurisdictions to hold detained immigrants at the behest of ICE would require Congress to pass new legislation, but Congress in 2015 already rejected similar legislation, said Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and a specialist in immigrants’ rights.

“The federal government and specifically the president is trying to coerce states and localities that have made the decision to protect constitutional rights and provide services without regard to immigration status,” she said.

“I’m not sure what Trump thinks he’s doing that’s different,” Saenz said. “The law is already being enforced. If they ― in practice or in intent ― go beyond existing law, it would be subject to challenge as it’s beyond his authority as president.”

As legal twists would have it, the constitutional source for such a challenge would be the Supreme Court’s landmark 2012 decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, in which the court rebuked the federal government for threatening loss of funding for states that refused to expand their Medicaid programs under the law. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said Congress couldn’t hold “a gun to the head” of the states.

Wang echoed those words and said she’d be monitoring what consequences befall sanctuary cities. “President Trump is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to comply with his priorities,” she said.

But in California, where immigrants make up roughly one-third of the population, lawmakers said they aren’t waiting on challenges in court, vowing to take the fight into their own hands.

In a press conference Wednesday, state Senate President pro tempore Kevin De León said the legislature will fast-track bills in response to Trump’s orders, including a bill to prevent local law enforcement from using their resources for immigration enforcement.

“These are spiteful and mean-spirited directives that will only instill fear in the hearts of millions of people who pay taxes, contribute to our economy and our way of life,” he said of the orders. “We will have no part in their implementation.”

“We will not spend a single cent nor lift a finger to aid his efforts,” he added.

The legislature has already taken several pre-emptive steps to combat Trump’s policies. In December, the senate and assembly passed a resolution calling on Trump to abandon his promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. The chamber has also taken up a bill to establish a legal aid fund for those facing deportation, as well as a bill to create training centers to educate legal workers on immigration law.

“It’s sad Donald Trump thinks these executive orders make America safer, and it’s sad he thinks they make America,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon in a statement.

“Today is a shameful day for our country, but it only strengthens my resolve to stand up against the alarming bigotry and hatred emanating from the White House,” Weiner, the San Francisco state senator, said. “If President Trump believes signing a piece of paper will for one second change how San Francisco and California value and protect our immigrant neighbors, he is underestimating our strength and spirit.”

Their statements came just one day after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) dedicated a portion of his State of the State address to praising the contributions of California’s immigrants, a clear rebuke of Trump’s worldview.

“Immigrants are an integral part of who we are and what we’ve become,” he said. “Let me be clear: We will defend everybody ― every man, woman and child ― who has come here for a better life and has contributed to the well-being of our state.”

USA: Women’s marches fight back against inauguration of Trump

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

Information from various news services as indicated.

Only one day into the new administration in Washington, already the post-election fightback for human rights has gathered force in the USA. Here is a map showing the largest turnouts the Women’s Marches on Saturday, January 21.


Number of demonstrators in women’s marches by city
(click on image to enlarge)

As described by the Mercury News: “In a striking sign of solidarity Saturday, more than 2 million people joined Women’s Marches from the nation’s capital to the Bay Area and beyond, promising to fight for a new era of civil rights in the age of President Donald Trump. Aerial images of buoyant, peaceful protesters clogging plazas and streets from cities as far flung as Sydney and Tokyo to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco and Walnut Creek harkened to 1960s-era protests against the Vietnam War, bringing some nostalgic baby boomers to tears.”

According to the Washington Post , there were at least 500,000 in the Washington demonstration, 150,000 in Chicago and 125,000 in Boston.

There were huge turnouts in other American cities according to local news services:

Los Angeles 750,000

New York 400,000

Denver 200,000

Seattle 120,000

Oakland 100,000

Portland, 100,000

St Paul 90,000

Philadelphia 50,000

(Article continued in the right column)

Questions related to this article:

The post-election fightback for human rights, is it gathering force in the USA?

How effective are mass protest marches?

(Article continued from the left column)

To put this into perspective, compare the map showing the demonstrations above, with the map of election results (Trump states in red and Clinton states in blue) and the corresponding maps showing population density in the 50 states.


(click on image to enlarge)

Put quite simply, urban populations voted against Trump and demonstrated against Trump, while rural and small town populations voted for Trump.

According to at least one commentator, this huge schism betwen sections of the country seems dangerously close to the North/South divide that led to the American Civil War.

USA: Immigrants Prepped For Raids

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article by Michelle Liu from the New Haven Independent (Connecticut)

A half-dozen immigration officers enter a factory and demand identification. The workers inside look up from their sewing machines in horror. What would you do? What can you do?

This was the first scenario posed to a crowd of 50 at a “Know Your Rights” workshop hosted by Junta for Progressive Action Saturday morning, one of many workshops and rallies held across the country on a National Immigrant Day of Action.


Video of skit
(click on image to watch video)

The workshop, conducted mostly in Spanish at Fair Haven School, guided audience members through their constitutional rights in the face of immigration officials. It is the first in a series of workshops regarding immigration and deportation that the organization is holding in light of the presidential election.

With President-Elect Donald Trump set to begin his term in less than a week, New Haven’s immigrant community is gearing up for what advocates expect to be a tough four years ahead. In spite of the city’s “sanctuary” status, established protocol by local police not to assist in immigration raids and municipal identification cards, many worry about the reach of the federal government. Some who spoke reminded others of the .

So when the president-elect has talked candidly of deporting millions, preparing for ICE to come knocking on your door doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Junta’s Ana Maria Rivera-Forastieri and Mary Elizabeth Smith led a discussion through a video of various scenarios in which undocumented immigrants face police pressure: ICE officials knocking at your doorstep; getting pulled over by a cop; a raid at the aforementioned workshop.

The rights outlined are simple on paper: If cops show up at your home, don’t just open the door. Ask if they have a warrant, and make sure the warrant has 1) your name, spelled correctly and 2) the signature of a federal judge. Otherwise, don’t let them in.

If you’re pulled over, the only piece of information you have to give is your name. You don’t have to answer any other questions. And don’t carry fake papers —  or your passport —  on your body.

(Article continued in the right column)

Questions related to this article:

The post-election fightback for human rights, is it gathering force in the USA?

(Article continued from the left column)

While some attendees asked questions, others in the seats shared their own memories of close run-ins with immigration officials.

Fatima Rojas, the event’s translator, offered her own take culled from experience (though not the advice a lawyer would give you, she acknowledged): Don’t open the door, period. Even if the warrant is right.

Of course, in the moment, you might get nervous. You might forget your rights.

Smith flashed a small red, laminated card to the audience. On one side, the card reminds the holder of her rights; on the other are a set of statements to be presented to a police officer which exercises the holder’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (see above). Everyone received a card.

Some of the workshop’s youngest teachers were in fact students themselves: seven Fair Haven 6th graders taught by David Weinreb, whose bilingual class consists of kids who’ve moved to the U.S. in the last three years.

The budding thespians played out three confrontational scenarios they themselves had written and staged, set in a car, a workplace and a courtroom. (Watch one above.)

In what Rivera-Forastieri referred to as the Theatre of the Oppressed, the students were acting out situations that could feasibly happen to them and their families. That is to say, they were working through the reality they live in. They’ve built up the skits through a nonfiction unit in class, learning about immigration law and visiting city hall.

Stacy Salazar, who played a lawyer in the courtroom skit, said through a translator that although she felt a little nervous, she was excited to be up on stage. Through her class, she’s learned that in the face of immigration officials, it’s important to remain calm and learn your rights — and she’s inspired to become a lawyer in real life, too.

These are lessons students bring home and share with their parents. “Parents listen to their kids,” Rivera-Forastieri said.

“This is one piece of the puzzle,” Weinreb said of the skits. “My students are working on all fronts … to be able to include them in adult conversations [and] have them be voices of expertise is extremely powerful.”

A second workshop, to be held on Feb. 4, will delve deeper into the logistical concerns of those who might be facing deportation — such as finding a lawyer and figuring out what to do with property or family in which the children are U.S. citizens.

Canada: teachers are victorious as bargaining rights acknowledged by Supreme Court

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article from Education International

After a hard-fought and divisive judicial battle, British Columbia’s educators are celebrating a Supreme Court decision that reaffirms collective bargaining rights and opens the door to the hiring of hundreds of teachers.All governments across Canada will now have to respect bargaining rights and collective agreements.


Photo © Kristian Secher/www.thetyee.ca
Click on photo to enlarge

The British Columbia (B.C.) government will likely have to hire hundreds of teachers and spend between $250 and $300 million CDN (roughly 170 to 205 million euros) more each year on education, after the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the B.C. Court of Appeal’s 2015 ruling in favour of the provincial government on 10 November. The decision restores the original decision in the union’s favour by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Susan Griffin. The financial estimate comes from Glen Hansman, President of the B.C. Teachers’ Federation (BCTF), affiliated to Education International’s member organisation the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), at the end of a union legal battle that began in 2002.

“Today’s win is a massive victory for our rights and vindication of all the years we have spent fighting the B.C. government’s unconstitutional legislation [that] allowed the B.C. government to underfund education” Hansman said. “Now, there is hope that those students coming up through the system will start to see classroom conditions and support levels improve,” and “for teachers that their teaching conditions will return to workable and fair levels.” 

(Article continued in the right column)

Click here for this article in French or here for this article in Spanish)

Question(s) related to this article:

The right to form and join trade unions, Is it being respected?

(Article continued from the left column)

This is the final step in a very long legal process, in which the BCTF has consistently argued that the governments’ actions in stripping teachers’ collective agreements and right to bargain in 2002, and their further refusal to address the situation, was unconstitutional. Canada’s highest court affirmed teachers’ bargaining rights and agreed with the arguments that the BCTF has been making since then Education Minister Christy Clark first stripped teachers’ collective agreements. 

“Kudos to the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) for its staunch commitment and determination to see justice prevail,” says CTF President Heather Smith. “This decision sends a message to any provincial/territorial government wishing to strip away teachers’ rights through legislation.”

BCTF pushes for immediate application of changes

The decision immediately restored clauses deleted from the teachers’ contract by the Liberal government in 2002 dealing with class size, the number of special needs students who can be in a class and the number of specialist teachers required in schools.

Hansman said it could take some time to restore class sizes to pre-2002 levels because the union has lost the equivalent of 3,500 full-time positions over the past 15 years, but highlighted that “the government should take immediate action to get those provisions back in effect so we can get back to a place where our teachers, schools, and students are properly funded and supported”.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article)

Open Letter to President-elect Donald Trump on Nuclear Weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A letter prepared by and published by The Nuclear Age Foundation

As president of the United States, you will have the grave responsibility of assuring that nuclear weapons are not overtly threatened or used during your term of office.

The most certain way to fulfill this responsibility is to negotiate with the other possessors of nuclear weapons for their total elimination. The U.S. is obligated under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to engage in such negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

A nuclear war, any nuclear war, would be an act of insanity. Between nuclear weapons states, it would lead to the destruction of the attacking nation as well as the attacked. Between the U.S. and Russia, it would threaten the survival of humanity.

There are still more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, of which the United States possesses more than 7,000. Some 1,000 of these remain on hair-trigger alert. A similar number remain on hair-trigger alert in Russia. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Even if nuclear weapons are not used intentionally, they could be used inadvertently by accident or miscalculation. Nuclear weapons and human fallibility are a dangerous mix.

Nuclear deterrence presupposes a certain view of human behavior. It depends on the willingness of political leaders to act rationally under all circumstances, even those of extreme stress. It provides no guarantees or physical protection. It could fail spectacularly and tragically.

You have suggested that more nations – such as Japan, South Korea and even Saudi Arabia – may need to develop their own nuclear arsenals because the U.S. spends too much money protecting other countries. This nuclear proliferation would make for a far more dangerous world. It is also worrisome that you have spoken of dismantling or reinterpreting the international agreement that places appropriate limitations on Iran’s nuclear program and has the support of all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany.

As other presidents have had, you will have at your disposal the power to end civilization as we know it. You will also have the opportunity, should you choose, to lead in ending the nuclear weapons era and achieving nuclear zero through negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

We, the undersigned, urge you to choose the course of negotiations for a nuclear weapons-free world. It would be a great gift to all humanity and all future generations.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

Partial list of initial signatories. For full list and link to add your signature, click here.

David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Richard Falk, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Daniel Ellsberg, Distinguished Fellow, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Oliver Stone, Film director

Setsuko Thurlow, Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Survivor

Anders Wijkman, Co-President, Club of Rome

Helen Caldicott, Founding President, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Ben Ferencz, Former Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor

Robert Jay Lifton, Columbia University

Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C., Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament

Martin Hellman, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University

Robert Laney, Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Rick Wayman, Director of Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Ruben Arvizu, Latin America Representative, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute

Medea Benjamin, Co-Founder, Code Pink

Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute, American University

Barry Ladendorf, President, Veterans for Peace

Dr. Hafsat Abiola-Costello, Founder and President, Kudirat Initiative for Democracy

Marie Dennis, Co-President, Pax Christi International

In historic decision, CRTC rules that all Canadians must have access to reliable, world-class mobile and residential Internet

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from Open Media

December 21, 2016 – The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has just ruled that all Canadians must have access to reliable, world-class mobile and residential Internet services. The decision underpins a call for a new national strategy from the CRTC and citizens alike, resulting from the Commission’s Review of Basic Telecommunications Services consultation.

OpenMedia, which led a nearly 50,000-strong citizen movement for Internet as a basic service (and facilitated more than 95% of the comments to the CRTC proceeding), describes today’s decision as truly historic. The ruling will be a game-changer for rural and underserved communities across Canada where Internet access is either unavailable or unaffordable, due to a digital divide keeping almost one in five Canadians offline.

“Canadians asked for universal Internet access, support for rural communities, world-class speeds, unlimited data options, and minimum guarantees for the quality of their Internet. And today, we won it all!” said Josh Tabish, campaigns director for OpenMedia. “With this ruling, the CRTC has finally listened to Canadians and agreed that residential and mobile Internet is a basic service required for modern life, as important as the telephone.”

Tabish continued: “For too long, rural and underserved communities all across Canada have faced an uphill battle to participate meaningfully in our digital economy. Today’s decision will go a long way toward closing this digital divide. Now that the CRTC has spoken, we need to hold the Trudeau government accountable for ensuring this exciting vision becomes a reality.”

(Article continued in right column)

Latest Discussion

Is Internet freedom a basic human right?

(Article continued from left column)

Key points from today’s CRTC decision, and the accompanying national broadband strategy:

100% of Canadians must have access to reliable, world-class mobile and fixed Internet services.

The decision includes: Internet access defined as a basic service, access to world-class speeds, options for unlimited data packages, and a level playing field for rural and remote Canadians.

New network speed targets of 50 Mbps download speed and 10 Mbps upload speed, and the ability to subscribe to fixed Internet package with an unlimited data option.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast must have access to high-speed mobile and residential Internet connections. To fund this, the CRTC will redistribute hundreds of millions of dollars from telecommunications company revenues over the coming years.

Going forward, rural, remote, and urban communities must be able to access Internet speeds five times as fast as the U.S. minimum (10/1) and the government will encourage the widest availability of the fastest 4G/LTE mobile networks.

Finally, the CRTC issued a new report outlining the imperative for a national broadband strategy and what the federal government should consider when building it.

Throughout our participation in this proceeding, OpenMedia argued that only a properly-funded national strategy can tackle Canada’s digital divide. We asked the CRTC to create new rules to ensure all Canadians have access to guaranteed minimum service levels on fixed and mobile networks — rules that will enable all Canadians to enjoy equal opportunity to participate in the social and economic activities afforded by Internet access at a fair price.

Our community-driven submission argues that these new rules should not hinder industry, but should instead promote investment, competition, and openness.

Canadians can call on the government to build on the CRTC’s vision to create a national broadband strategy at https://act.openmedia.org/broadband-plan

San Francisco’s Official Response to the Election of Trump

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article from the San Francisco Bay Times

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently passed a resolution, introduced by Board President London Breed, in response to the election of Donald Trump. The resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, On November 8, 2016, Donald Trump was elected to become the 45th President of the United States; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That no matter the threats made by President-elect Trump, San Francisco will remain a Sanctuary City. We will not turn our back on the men and women from other countries who help make this city great, and who represent over one third of our population. This is the Golden Gate—we build bridges, not walls; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we will never back down on women’s rights, whether in healthcare, the workplace, or any other area threatened by a man who treats women as obstacles to be demeaned or objects to be assaulted. And just as important, we will ensure our young girls grow up with role models who show them they can be or do anything; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That there will be no conversion therapy, no withdrawal of rights in San Francisco. We began hosting gay weddings twelve years ago, and we are not stopping now. And to all the LGBTQ people all over the country who feel scared, bullied, or alone: You matter. You are seen; you are loved; and San Francisco will never stop fighting for you; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we still believe in this nation’s founding principle of religious freedom. We do not ban people for their faith. And the only lists we keep are on invitations to come pray together; and, be it

(Article continued in the right column)

(Click here for a translation of this article into French)

Questions related to this article:

Is the post-election fightback for human rights gathering force in the USA?

(Article continued from the left column)

FURTHER RESOLVED, That Black Lives Matter in San Francisco, even if they may not in the White House. And guided by President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, we will continue reforming our police department and rebuilding trust between police and communities of color so all citizens feel safe in their neighborhoods; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That climate change is not a hoax, or a plot by the Chinese. In this city, surrounded by water on three sides, science matters. And we will continue our work on CleanPower, Zero Waste, and everything else we are doing to protect future generations; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we have been providing universal health care in this city for nearly a decade, and if the new administration follows through on its callous promise to revoke health insurance from 20 million people, San Franciscans will be protected; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we are the birthplace of the United Nations, a city made stronger by the thousands of international visitors we welcome every day. We will remain committed to internationalism and to our friends and allies around the world—whether the administration in Washington is or not; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That San Francisco will remain a Transit First city and will continue building Muni and BART systems we can all rely upon, whether this administration follows through on its platform to eliminate federal transit funding or not; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That California is the sixth largest economy in the world. The Bay Area is the innovation capital of the country. We will not be bullied by threats to revoke our federal funding, nor will we sacrifice our values or members of our community for your dollar; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we condemn all hate crimes and hate speech perpetrated in this election’s wake. That although the United States will soon have a President who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the values we hold in the highest regard in San Francisco, it cannot change who we are, and it will never change our values. We argue, we campaign, we debate vigorously within San Francisco, but on these points we are 100 percent united. We will fight discrimination and recklessness in all its forms. We are one City. And we will move forward together.

USA: 13 Minnesota churches eye ‘underground railroad’ for those facing deportation

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

An article by Frederick Melo from the Twin Cities Pioneer Press

The rhetoric on immigration during the presidential campaign season has struck fear into the hearts of many foreign-born families, and a new network of Minnesota churches is mobilizing to respond.

The Lutheran Church of the Redeemer on St. Paul’s Dale Street already maintains 22 shelter beds for the homeless in its basement, where families with no other place to go often spend the night on a temporary basis. The Rev. James Erlandson said those beds may soon serve a different purpose: offering sanctuary to those facing deportation.

“That’s a moral stand that we’ve taken,” Erlandson said. “We want to say: ‘Don’t increase deportations.’ Let’s fix our immigration system, and offer a path to citizenship so our neighbors don’t live in fear.”

On Tuesday, clergy and religious leaders from 30 congregations gathered at the Church of the Redeemer to announce that 13 churches across Minnesota have agreed to open their doors to immigrants, whatever their circumstances, even those sought by law enforcement.

For the 13 “sanctuary churches” like the Church of the Redeemer, that means being prepared to house those who might face deportation, and shuttling them from church to church as the need arises.

In practical terms, how long any given church would be able to house a family remains unclear, but church officials on Tuesday referenced the Underground Railroad that helped hide and guide southern slaves to freedom.

“That’s unknown,” said the Rev. Mark Vinge of the House of Hope Lutheran Church in New Hope, “but we know that the Lord will guide us.”

Rather than house those living in the U.S. illegally outright, some “sanctuary support” congregations have agreed to assist the faith-based network with donations of food, money, clothing and toiletries, or prayer vigils, news conferences and legal assistance. Meanwhile, 20 churches are still discussing details with their congregations or church councils and contemplating whether to join the new Sanctuary or Sanctuary Support networks, and in what capacity.

(Article continued in the right column)

Questions related to this article:

The post-election fightback for human rights, is it gathering force in the USA?

(Article continued from the left column)

The churches are all affiliated with ISAIAH, a faith-based coalition of racial and social justice advocates based on University Avenue in St. Paul.

“We’re also seeking legal counsel to understand (our rights),” said the Rev. Grant Stevenson, an ISAIAH staff member. “What we know for sure is that standing on our faith we cannot allow families to be torn apart because someone ran for president on a platform of hate.”

The pastors acknowledged that the details of President-elect Donald Trump’s immigration plans remain unknown, but they said his tough rhetoric has created an atmosphere of unease, though one that has been building for years.

Returns (including voluntary departures and sending border-crossers back across the U.S.-Mexican border on buses) exceeded 8 million under President George W. Bush, and removals (formal, documented deportations) hit a historic high of more than 2 million under President Barack Obama.

“If there is an event of mass deportation, we’ll be ready,” said ISAIAH spokeswoman Janae Bates.

An ISAIAH guide sheet notes that “guidelines are at the discretion of individual churches and their congregants,” but the goal is have individuals or families “reside in your place of worship for an undetermined amount of time while the community of Sanctuary works on the ‘Stay of Removal’ orders for each person.”

Vinge said his 13-member church council met a week ago to discuss whether to name House of Hope a sanctuary church. His house of worship is active in helping the homeless and worked with Southeast Asian refugees in the 1970s, following the Vietnam War. Still, he said the prospect of housing a family “24 hours a day, 7 days a week” gave some members pause.

“Others wondered if maybe we should just be a ‘supporting congregation,’ helping others do this,” Vinge said. “But in the end we want to be part of this.”

During a joint presentation to reporters Tuesday, Vinge took the microphone to quote from the Bible, Leviticus 19:33-34: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

USA: Inside the Churches That Are Leading New York’s Sanctuary Movement

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

An Article from The Nation Magazine

On the Tuesday after the election, two dozen pastors gathered in the back room of a Lower Manhattan church to begin plotting the resistance. Most of the faith leaders were immigrants, and all of them members of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, an interfaith network of congregations, organizations, and activists. Since its founding in 2007, the coalition has worked on the front lines in the fight to protect undocumented New Yorkers from detention and deportation.


Members of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City protest in front of the Federal Plaza’s immigration services building. (New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City / Facebook)

The meeting began with a prayer—“We pray you will give us all the right to remain in justice, in solidarity and in truth”—delivered by a soft-spoken Mexican priest, first in Spanish, then in English. Updates from the past week followed—reports of congregations in crisis, sleepless nights spent consoling worried parents, tearful children afraid to go to school. The mood was tense but focused, and before long they’d arrived at the main item on the agenda.

“We are here today to discuss the future of physical sanctuary,” said coalition director Ravi Ragbir, a towering Trinidadian immigrant who once spent two years in immigration detention over a wire fraud conviction. Since his release, he’s managed to avoid deportation through prosecutorial discretion, though he fully expects to be among the first targets of the upcoming raids. “It’s time for us to start thinking more radically.”

Since it emerged nine years ago, the coalition has acted in two distinct capacities. Publicly, they advocate for the city’s undocumented residents, lobbying for reforms while hosting legal clinics and solidarity events. Many of the group’s best known actions, like their monthly prayer walk around Federal Plaza to protest deportations, fall into this category. The second capacity, called physical sanctuary, is more discreet. Premised on the quasi-legal expectation that federal agents will not raid houses of worship, physical sanctuary is the act of secretly housing immigrants facing deportation. Sometimes the tactic is used to provide a temporary safe haven during an overnight raid, while other times it involves housing an immigrant for months as they await a court ruling. At least eleven Christian congregations in the city currently offer physical sanctuary.

The purpose of the meeting, Ragbir explained, was to begin thinking about how to expand the number of congregations dramatically before Donald Trump takes office. “We need to reach out to every group in this city, to every representative,” he said. “We need faith leaders to step up and show their support for physical sanctuary, because the present situation is only going to get worse.”

The present situation, Ragbir noted, is that the United States is currently expelling immigrants at a rate unprecedented in history. Under Obama, at least 2.4 million immigrants have been deported—a 21 percent jump from the previous record, held by George W. Bush. And these raids aren’t just happening in border states, like Arizona and Texas. Just a few weeks before the election, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents rounded up 25 undocumented workers during a raid on four restaurants in Buffalo. Such workplace sweeps were especially common during the Bush years, and as the legal director of the New York Immigration Coalition recently told The New York Times, the model may serve as a blueprint for the coming administration.

Should President Donald Trump decide to ramp up deportations—as he has repeatedly promised—there’s very little the rest of the government could do to stop him. While he’ll need funding from Congress to increase the size of ICE, there are currently 14,000 ICE officers, agents, and special agents already in place. In the past, only a fraction of those officers have worked on tracking down undocumented immigrants, but a single memo from President Trump could reshape the focus of the agency overnight.

The gathered faith leaders were painfully aware of the human cost of such an amped-up deportation regime. They know firsthand what it’s like to lose members of their community to ICE sweeps—to watch a parishioner banished to Mexico, forced to leave behind her two children, Michel and Heidy, ages nine and 13; to see a Haitian father of four sent to an immigrant detention center for a twenty-year-old drug conviction. In some cases, the coalition has blocked these measures by working through the available legal channels. In others, a more creative approach has been necessary.

(Article continued in the right column)

Questions related to this article:

The post-election fightback for human rights, is it gathering force in the USA?

(Article continued from the left column)

“Our number one job right now is protect people,” Donna Schaper, minister at Judson Memorial Church and a founder of the New Sanctuary Coalition, told the group. “We’re about to enter a new, more radical phase of this movement. We need to get organized, fast.”

And so that’s what they did. For the next ninety minutes, the faith leaders deliberated on their fast-approaching future. “How do we make sure a person can find us at 5 a.m. when ICE descends on their neighborhood?” asked one pastor. “What are the minimum necessities my church needs in order to offer physical sanctuary?” asked another. And finally, the question on so many people’s lips: “What is the single most important thing we need to do next?”

* * *

Two days after the meeting, Ravi Ragbir stood in the basement of a different lower Manhattan church, addressing another circle of weary faces. About forty undocumented immigrants sat in silence before him, a mix of first-timers and long-serving members of the New Sanctuary Coalition. The goal of the meeting was to provide a different sort of sanctuary—a venue for the community to, in the words of one activist, “be part of a movement that creates spaces where people can live in dignity.”

“We are here today to talk about our rights,” Ragbir began, a translator helping him reach the mostly Spanish-speaking crowd. “And to answer your questions of what comes next.” Over chicken noodle soup, Ragbir and his fellow organizers did their best to address the concerns of the group. These questions were different than the ones they’d fielded Tuesday—less focused on the future of resistance than the pressing issues of the moment.

One woman wondered if ICE could access the data she’d turned over to IDNYC, the municipal identification card used by many undocumented New Yorkers. Another spoke of her husband, currently awaiting a court hearing at a New Jersey immigrant detention facility, and the impact that Trump’s presidency could have on him. The most common fear was about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative, an executive action issued by President Obama in 2012 to provide temporary work authorization and deportation protections to the children of undocumented immigrants. Donald Trump has promised to “immediately terminate” the action, though it remains unclear what that would mean for the roughly 800,000 young immigrants currently receiving DACA protections.

“If he does repeal it, I don’t know what will happen to my son,” said Judith, an undocumented resident of the United States for twenty years and longtime member of the coalition. Her two teenage sons have lived here their entire lives, but her oldest, 23, was born in Puebla, Mexico. After qualifying for DACA, he was able to get a work permit, a social security card, and a driver’s license. “It was such a relief for him,” she said. “But it feels like we are going back to the past.”

After the meeting ended, as the group filed slowly out of the church basement, Judith remained behind to help clean up. “I wish they could see that we’re not here to break the laws,” she told me. “We are not here because we want to steal their jobs.” Asked what she expected to change under a Trump presidency, she seemed reluctant to speculate. “Trump has said so many things,” she said, “but I don’t know what he’s going to do.”

For Judith and so many others, this is the frustrating new reality: While Trump’s most incendiary rhetoric may be aimed at immigrants, he remains defiantly ignorant of the complex web of laws and executive actions that govern our immigration system.

Eventually, Judith conceded that deportation remains a real threat. She tries to stay optimistic, she said, but the thought of her family being torn apart was never fully out of her mind. “Sometimes we, as parents, do feel guilty because we brought them,” she said softly. “But we always thought that we would do better here.” Still, it’s not Trump’s potential policies that top her list of concerns right now. “What is more scary is that millions of people think the same way he does,” she said. “How can we make millions of people change the way they think?”

That may seem like a rhetorical question, but it’s not. In Judith’s view, the ultimate goal of the sanctuary movement is to create a universal solidarity with immigrants, even among those who’d like to see her expulsion. It’s a radical idea, but one grounded in a lifetime of faith and activism.

In the meantime, Judith could can find solace in leaning on her community. “I know the people will support us in any situations,” she said, gesturing around the now empty room. “Our work is to grow this group as big as possible, so that everyone understands what we go through.”