By Edward Lovo

History attests to the suffering of indigenous peoples under colonial rule. India, Algeria, and South Africa are all nations that were formerly under colonial rule. There are two principal forms of colonization. One form of colonization is motivated by the desire for settlement and the other is motivated by the extraction of riches. Correspondingly, empires had two kinds of colonies—the settled and the exploited—which would be treated very differently. Although settlement colonies developed self-government, the establishment of trading ports and posts eventually transformed these colonies from settler to exploitive.

French Algeria was an instance of the settler colony.

Settlement in Algeria by the French, however, was slow in coming and only accelerated when France lost Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 to the Germans, forcing the French population to immigrate to Algeria. The indigenous population of Algeria was subjected to the régime du sabre (rule of the sword), whereas French citizenship was extended to non-French settlers that were of European descent and was also further extended to a specific group of indigenous peoples, the Jewish population.

Algeria became a world divided in two.

There was the sector of the colonists on one side of the sword and the sector of the colonized subdued by sword point. Frantz Fanon describes the colonists’ sector as, “...a sector of lights and paved roads, where the trash cans constantly overflow with strange and wonderful garbage, undreamed-of leftovers. The colonist’s feet can never be glimpsed, except perhaps in the sea, but then you can never get close enough. They are protected by solid shoes in a sector where the streets are clean and smooth, without a pothole, without a stone.

The colonist’s sector is a sated, sluggish sector, its belly is permanently full of good things. The colonist’s sector is...a sector of foreigners.”

While the colonists lived well off, the colonized subjects were famished, “hungry for bread, meat, shoes, coal, and light.” Living in these conditions under régime du sabre as second-class citizenships and with shortages of resources—essentially dehumanization—it is no surprise that “[The] muscles of the colonized are always tensed...The colonized subject is a persecuted man who is forever dreaming of becoming the persecutor.” The colonized subject is constantly faced with a beast of violence, for “...colonialism is not a machine capable of thinking, a body endowed with reason. It is naked violence...”

Modern oppression is typically characterized not by colonialism, but by neocolonialism, a perverse evolution of directly violent structures into an indirect, economic kind. Nevertheless, colonialism persists in some parts of the world.

In Palestine, millions of people live under the subjugation of the Israeli state, a regime that unlawfully occupies vast tracts of land historically inhabited by the Palestinians. These colonial subjects are literally parched by the Israeli settlement colony. Although there is enough water to meet the basic needs of all Israelis and Palestinians, the distribution of water between the two societies is highly unequal.

How is Israel’s settlement of the West Bank any different? How is Israel’s blockade on the Gaza Strip any different? Palestinians are dehumanized, oppressed, exploited, subdued by gunpoint, persecuted—“the colonized subject is always presumed guilty.” Let’s count the ways.

In 2006, following the election victory of Hamas, Israel placed restrictions on Gaza, restrictions on access to borders, the free movement of Gazans, and on importations and exportations. Three out of the four goods crossings have remained out of operation since 2006.

Israel is also in sole control of water resources, the Jordan River being the main surface water resource for the Palestinians, and control of the water supply Palestinians have is merely nominal.

In 1993, Israelis and Palestinians signed the Oslo interim agreement, which was intended to begin negotiations on water resources - negotiations that were intended to be concluded by 2000 but have yet to take place. The agreement also established a Joint Water committee with an even number of Israelis and Palestinians possessing membership to manage the West Bank’s shared water resources.

However, Oslo also assigns exclusive veto power to Israelis over decision-making in the committee, effectively reducing the Palestinians to nominal power.

An Israeli water company, Mekorot, controls the allocation of water for both Israelis and Palestinians. It reduces the quantity of water they provide for the Palestinians while water consumption by the Israelis doubles. In addition, in the West Bank district of Tubas, the average consumption of water for Palestinians is thirty litres per person, whereas for the illegal settlement of Beka’ot - only twelve kilometres south of Tubas - the average consumption of water by Israelis is 401 litres per person.

Israel has colonized the Palestinians beyond their borders.

Similar actions have occurred in other colonies such as Algeria - the indigenous population is treated as inferior, but as Fanon notes, they will never be convinced of their inferiority. Determining what constitutes justice is a difficult affair, but one thing is certain that though, as Alain Badiou says, “...injustice is clear, justice is obscure.

Those who have undergone injustice provide irrefutable testimony concerning the former.

But who can testify for justice? Injustice has its affect: suffering, revolt. Nothing, however, signals justice: it presents itself neither as spectacle nor as sentiment.”

 

By Chris Erl

There is a spectre haunting campus - the spectre of identity politics. All the powers of old McMaster have entered into an oligarchic alliance to exorcize this spectre: traditionalist, reactionary, and conservative politicians. All right, slight hyperbole - but that is one of my specialties.

As of late, conversations have picked up on campus concerning, in particular, the issue of feminism. Thanks to a growing number of venues in which these discussions can occur freely, such as the Feminist Alliance of McMaster, the Occupy movement and the MSU’s new Ad-Hoc Committee, the conversations that happened within are beginning to be heard in larger society - a massive credit to the strength and enthusiasm of the aforementioned group’s dedicated members.

Much can be said for the force of movements aligned with identity, which have helped reduce oppression in modernity. That being said, I wanted to highlight a gap in the conversation.

There is little discussion about the overarching oppression in society faced by all people, albeit in different ways. We live under an economic system that, by its very nature, exploits us. Capitalism was built and continues to operate on a system of exclusive property ownership, alienating workers from what they produce, and extracting considerably more labour from us than what would need to be done to survive.

Since our economic system prides itself on inequality (in Canada, the richest 10 per cent control just under 60 per cent of the wealth), distinctions amongst members of the lower classes become an important factor of social control in order to stave off revolution. “Well, I may be a poor man, but at least I’m not a poor woman.” “Well, I may be a poor woman, but at least I’m not a poor racialized woman.” “Well, I may be a poor racialized woman, but at least I’m not a poor, racialized trans* person,” and so on. So long as people believe themselves to be temporarily displaced millionaires or privileged in some way, revolt is thwarted for another day.

Distinctions between groups are an important marker of one’s success, but they also serve other purposes, such as keeping those of us in the bottom ninety percent fighting amongst ourselves rather than fighting those in power. Most basically, though, the system of oppression just exploits people at different levels, very notably paying women considerably less than men for the same kind of work.

A project to remedy the problems facing a particular group without any recognition of the larger system of oppression that weaves through individual distinctions is simply a well meaning, but misguided, liberal one. A female-identifying feminist who does not recognize that capitalism as an economic force benefits from their oppression and the oppression of their LGBT, racialized, disabled, indigenous, marginalized comrades, will not get very far in alleviating the problems facing those who identify as female.

Simply applauding when women, LGBT-identifying individuals or racialized people are in positions of power is not good enough. Margaret Thatcher was a woman and arguably did more to perpetuate exploitation than most modern British Prime Ministers. The Republican Party, one not known for its eagerness to challenge oppression, notably had Mia Love, a female Haitian-American, and Richard Tisei, an openly gay man, among their candidates in the recent congressional elections.

Imagine there is a fungus destroying trees in a forest. The blight is the same, but appears to impact different species of trees in different ways. To stop the harm being done to the forest, we cannot simply focus on getting rid of the fungus from only birch or only poplar trees. You could care for all the pine trees and ensure that the blight is removed from those trees you see, but if you do not address the infected leaves on the trees that are beside those you saved, they’ll become infected once more.

Do not let identity get in the way of fighting larger injustice. Recognize that solidarity means working together with marginalized groups to fight your collective oppression. Being a feminist without acknowledging that you live under an economic system weighted against you is a huge detriment to your cause.

Oppressed people of the world, unite! Don’t focus solely on your identity, work on getting rid of those chains.

By Talia Kollek

Earlier this year, much to the excitement of fans, The Hunger Games came to the cinema. The film was based upon Suzanne Collins’ book series, which portrays a dystopian future that pits children against each other in an arena to fight to the death. Cast as the resourceful protagonist was Jennifer Lawrence - a talented young actress from Kentucky. Upon her selection a few critics complained that her body did not accurately represent the role. Among the more civil objections included the opinion of Manohla Dargis of The New York Times, who claimed that [a] few years ago Ms. Lawrence might have looked hungry enough to play Katniss, but now, at 21, her seductive, womanly figure makes a bad fit. The Hollywood Reporter exemplified the less eloquent comments on the issue by referring to Lawrence’s problem as lingering baby fat. The remarks about Lawrence’s weight prompted her to give an interview on the subject to Elle magazine.

The interview should have been a step forward for the body positivity movement. Here we have an actress with quickly ascending fame that has publicly fallen victim to criticism of her body and has now been given a microphone. This was a chance to tell women everywhere that they too can be an actress, regardless of their size. What Lawrence unfortunately ended up accomplishing was what I like to call “skinny shaming,” or the degradation of skinny women.

In a response to the urgings to become thinner, Lawrence states that she wants “to look like a woman, [not] a little boy.” My question is how do you differentiate between the two looks? Is a small woman any less of a woman than a larger one? In connecting her womanhood to her size and shape, Lawrence only reaffirms comments made by reporters like Dargis, who imply that her voluptuousness is a key aspect to being female. Why would anyone trying to promote self-esteem want to alienate women who are a size 6 and smaller?

Before proceeding, I think it is important to acknowledge the privilege that comes with being a size that is favoured by the fashion industry. Being between the dress sizes of 4 to 12 means that you can walk into a store and most likely find clothing that you like and that will suit you. Being a size above or below this range makes shopping a nightmare. Working in retail, I have seen the struggles that some people have to go through to find an outfit that suits them. Being a size 16 myself, the most interesting phenomena I have encountered is that women around or above my size assume I am their ally in some war against skinny women everywhere. I have had customers openly degrade my slender female co-worker without knowing a thing about them, telling me how much they “hate her” and “people like her”. They quickly label themselves as “real women” and express disgust towards skinny bodies and those that find them attractive. Do skinny women have privilege when it comes to clothes shopping? Yes. Does that make them deserving of this type of treatment? No.

This war pitting fat against skinny should be recognized as an unnecessary conflict between women that only perpetuates self-hatred and unhealthy body image on both sides.

Instead of trying to change ourselves or each other, the body positivity movement must stop putting constraints on what constitutes womanhood and what is deemed attractive. In expressing her desire to stay a certain size and be a woman, not a “little boy, Lawrence is defining what a real woman should look like, dismissing those with a lower BMI as less worthy of a feminine identity.

Just to be clear, having preferences towards one body type or another is no crime, but being prescriptive about other people’s figures is unacceptable. Appreciate whatever physical features you enjoy and don’t be ashamed of it, but do not tell others what constitutes sex appeal.

The message Lawrence should have delivered in her interview is that all bodies are sexy and equally worthy of praise.

By Jemma Wolfe

It has become par for the course that any large artistic event that one attends is “made possible” by corporate sponsorship and that we can expect the corporation’s logo, name and brand to have a prominent presence. Recall the Skydome being renamed to the Rogers Centre or “Virgin Mobile Presents Osheaga” Montreal music festival.

On a local level, think Theatre Aquarius’s transition to Theatre Aquarius Dofasco Centre for the Arts, the TD Festival of Friends, and the Art Gallery of Hamilton BMO Financial Group World Film Festival. What a commercial mouthful.

Most recently, the commercialization of an artistic event or space was witnessed in McMaster’s win of the TD Pump It Up contest. Last Thursday, Nov. 22, approximately 2,500 McMaster students had the opportunity to attend a free concert at Hamilton Place’s Wentworth Room.

The show opened with Young Empires, then Dragonette performed, and Steve Aoki closed the night. These popular musicians’ performances however were completely overshadowed by the corporate presence of TD.

Walking into the venue, one had to move through a green-curtained TD tunnel of sorts, plastered with the TD logo and lined with TD representatives.

Once inside the concert space, the logo was projected in larger-than-life forms on multiple walls, TD representatives milled around the space, the stage was framed with TD banners and slogans, and all the columns were wrapped in posters. Even the lighting was usually green.

Throughout the night, the excessive presence of TD’s logos, colours and signage was oppressive, distracting and incredibly distasteful. Future corporations sponsoring events – by TD or otherwise – should pay more careful attention to the fine line that separates tasteful advertising presence of a corporation’s positive support of arts and culture, from the overwhelming corporate atmosphere that detracts from the artistic purpose of the event.

By Waleed Ahmed

Barack Obama, when commenting about the recent warfare in Gaza, stated that he supports Israel’s right to defend itself from Gazan rocket attacks. He declared, almost chided, “Israel has every right to expect that it does not have missiles fired into its territory”. Our Foreign Minister, John Baird, also sang the same tune and reiterated the identical position.

This has been the standard position of our government. It is no different than what it was during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in 2008, which claimed the lives of over 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. It seems like a reasonable position too – it explains our blind acceptance of it. If someone was launching rockets at Canada, would we not fight back?

What has been conveniently omitted by our politicians and our media is one crucial piece of information: the Gaza Strip has been subject to a brutal military occupation by Israel for forty-five years now. The international community, including US and Canada, recognize this occupation to be illegal. In addition, since 2006, Gaza has been under a severe economic siege which has made the dignified existence of Palestinians impossible.

Although Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip in 2005, it now maintains and controls the occupation from the outside; entering whenever it feels appropriate. On his recent visit to the area, Noam Chomsky described Gaza as the “world’s largest open-air prison”. The idea of the Gazan siege, in the words of Israeli official Dov Weisglass, “is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

Israel strictly controls air, land and sea access to Gaza. It has defined ‘buffer zones’ along Gaza’s agriculturally rich border where Palestinians are prohibited to enter - they are shot at if they try to walk on their own land. Fishermen too are fired at by mighty Israeli ships if they dare go three miles pass the shoreline. Israel strictly controls all imports into Gaza and exports are almost non-existent. Construction projects to rebuild vital infrastructure can’t be carried out, forcing the UN to declare the Strip “unlivable” by 2020. Drones and F-16s whiz through the sky so often that their constant thundering has become background noise.

Israel regularly conducts military operations inside Gaza; frequently targeting civilians. Western media started reporting about Operation Pillar of Cloud as a response to Hamas’ rocket fire on November fourteenth as if the occupation forces had been patiently standing by the border since January 2009. What is unknown to us is the recent escalation started on November fifth when a Palestinian man was killed for simply being in the ‘buffer zone’. Then again, on November eighth, a thirteen-year old boy was killed while playing soccer by machine gunfire. Each death resulted in retaliation from Palestinian fighters and loss of more Palestinians lives, finally leading up the November-fourteenth episode.

Subject to never ending humiliation, degradation and impoverishment, some Gazans end up joining Hamas’ military ranks or groups like Islamic Jihad. This small percentage of the population is driven to desperation and decides to resist the occupation violently.

Even though Hamas was elected by Gazans in 2006 to administer their internal affairs, it has been shunned as a terrorist organization. Hamas’ terrorism is akin to the terrorism of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC), which employed violence to resist the Western-backed South African apartheid regime. Mandela and the ANC were also officially declared to be notorious terrorists at the time. When Hamas directly targets Israeli citizens; it is no doubt condemnable. However, this needs to be met by equal condemnation of Israel for attacking civilians; something our governments refuse to do.

Gilad Sharon, son of former PM Sharon, bluntly describes the pretext under which the military operation and siege on Gaza is justified in Israeli circles, “The residents of Gaza are not innocent, they elected Hamas. The Gazans aren’t hostages; they chose this freely, and must live with the consequences”. Even if one were to assume Hamas’ militant activities serve no purpose but to provoke Israel, is it still justified to collectively punish 1.6 million Gazans for voting the ‘wrong way’?

Instead of shelling Gaza, Israel can employ peaceful means to end the rocket fire into its own territory. Hamas’ leader, Khaled Meshal, describes it quite simply, “If occupation ends, resistance ends. If Israel stops firing, we stop firing”. While Hamas has accepted a two-state solution, the Israeli leadership under Netanyahu has demonstrated no interest in pursuing it, jeopardizing any attempt for it to be executed and pinning the blame on the opposing party. However, if Hamas really was the problem, why then was no deal reached before 2006, when they weren’t even a part of the equation?

Although a cease-fire has been brokered, it is likely to be broken again. Talk of Israel ‘defending itself’ will resume in the next round of escalation. And when that happens, I want to consider this: is it really possible for a regime guilty of occupation to be defending itself from those it oppresses? To our government which unequivocally supports Israel: don’t the Palestinians have every right to not be occupied by Israel? Do they not have the right to defend themselves against an illegal occupation and an unjust siege?

Rick Gunderman

Hamiltonians gather to protest siege on Gaza

Over a hundred protesters gathered outside of the Federal Building in downtown Hamilton on Nov. 18 to call for an end to Israel’s siege of the Gaza Strip. The conflict has claimed the lives of over 100 Palestinians with an additional 850 wounded as Israeli airstrikes hammer Gaza.

Demonstrators walked a picket line, holding signs and chanting various slogans, including “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free,” and “Gaza, Gaza, don’t you cry – Palestine will never die.”

The location was chosen to protest the Harper government’s support for Israel, both diplomatic and military. Demonstrators drove this point home with the chant “Harper, war monger, prime minster no longer.”

Events proceeded peacefully and police presence was minimal.

The demonstration lasted for about an hour.

Demonstrators were treated to speeches from various leaders in the anti-war activist community, including representatives of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, the Palestinian Association of Hamilton and Independent Jewish Voices.

“The massacre in Gaza did not start a few days ago,” said Salah Abdelrahman, a third- year engineering student at McMaster. “It started in 2006 when Israel decided to enforce an inhumane siege on Gaza … The sad part is that people have to see children lying on the ground dead before they take action.”

McMaster students also attended the demonstrations at the Israeli Consulate on Nov. 13. The Hamilton rally followed other demonstrations across the country against the renewed attacked on Gaza.

By Keely Brown

I wouldn’t claim to be a literal connoisseur of film. I’ve always been more inclined to just casually watch a torrented movie or go out to the movies whenever a group of friends invite me. I don’t know the specific details or finer points of what makes a film high quality, I just happen to know what I like when it comes to film. And more importantly, I also know what I dislike.

I’m sure by now most people have heard that the Walt Disney Company has purchased the Star Wars franchise. I’ve been an avid Star Wars fan since I was very little. I watched the new movies as they came out and I literally obsessed over them. I, like many Star Wars fans, entertained the idea of taking part in imaginary light-saber battles with invisible foes. I had (and still have) a ridiculous collection of Star Wars lego and played a lot of different Star Wars video games. Naturally, you’d expect such a big fan of Star Wars and film in general to be excited by the concept of a new Star Wars trilogy, right? Well, not quite.

See, things have changed and I’m no longer the kid who loved everything under the banner of ‘Star Wars’. I’ve grown fonder of movies with depth and characters that you can actually believe and sympathize with. Which is why I now find the original trilogy to be more enjoyable than the most recent trilogy. Sure there’s some good stuff to be found in the newer trilogy, but I can’t help but wonder, if I were to see the new trilogy for the first time today, would I still enjoy them? Probably not to the same degree in the very least.

Part of the problem in my eyes that made the so-called ‘newer trilogies’ unsatisfactory is the fact that they were made on the premise of being made as a trilogy. In the original series, George Lucas and his team didn’t have any really huge successes under their belts. They really had no guarantee that they were going to be successful enough to even consider the possibility of a sequel. So they made each and every movie count where it needed to: making the characters and story memorable and enjoyable. The visuals were amazing, but that wasn’t what it was about. A younger George Lucas put it best: “Special Effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story. People have a tendency to confuse them as an ends themselves. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing.”

So, where did the concept of a new trilogy begin to fall apart? In my eyes at least, it was when they decided to commit to creating an entire trilogy before gauging how well made the first episode was. They’re already jumping to the conclusion that even if the first movie is completely terrible, they’re going to go ahead with the next two movies. And that’s precisely what bothers me about Disney already committing to a trilogy rather than just one episode. Sure, it might end up being as amazing and good as the original trilogy or perhaps even better, but what happens if it ends up being terrible? They’re literally going to plop out another two as long as it’s financially feasible.

So why commit to making three of the movies before even knowing whether it’s going to be good? Well, it seems to be a common problem in Hollywood lately. Even if movies are critically torn apart and their audiences are disappointed, their franchise will continue as long as they make money at the box office. And that’s precisely where my frustration lies with modern filmmakers, especially when they just take old ideas and rehash them. How many sequels to original movies are going to be as amazing as the original? How many sequels are going to blow the minds of movie watchers the way that the original film did? A well made stand-alone movie will, for me, almost always be more satisfying than a series of sequels that just rehash old ideas.

By Udoka Okafor

There is this joyous celebration of queer pride in Canada - pride that in my country was a cause for banishment and shame. Before I came to Canada, I was surrounded and immersed in homophobia. Homophobia was the norm, an unspoken ideal, and one that never needed an explanation.

I watched people get suspended and expelled from my very strict catholic high school simply for being gay. People shriek and become nauseated at the very idea of the possibility that being gay was okay. Though not legalized, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, is the regime that we are expected to live by.

The hate surrounding gay people in Nigeria is ridiculous. It can warrant bullying, extreme hate and abuse, expulsions from school, correctional rape arranged by family members, and death.

Being gay in Nigeria is difficult. And death, I promise, is not the worst of fates.

I was surrounded by so much infectious hate and I never understood why I was expected to hate them.

Some people that got expelled for being gay were my friends, but they didn’t seem different from me in any respect, and so I wondered why someone’s sexuality had so much power.

People gave moral, religious, ethical, social, and so many other forms of justification for their homophobia. What developed within me was an inherent tendency to look at all homosexuals differently. But the worst part of it all is that I never looked at them with hate, no, I looked at them with pity.

Coming to Canada was very radical because I was suddenly immersed in this culture of equality with actual reasons for equality, not baseless justifications taken completely out of context. It was different and different was good. I began researching on all things homosexual, their history, the plights they have been through, their fights for equality and the progress they have made and how much farther they needed to go. The moment I discovered equality trumps homophobia was the moment I began to resent my country for teaching me ideals of hate.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. I had to say that to my self repeatedly in order to flush out the garbage that I was taught. It was a whole new experience for me and it was liberating.

All of this is why the importance of pride events cannot be overstated. No matter how pro equality we are, sometimes we have to remind ourselves that there is no vice in being homosexual. I have met a lot of homosexuals and their sexuality did not make them evil. In fact, their sexuality had no defining basis on their character.

But sometimes, when we throw ourselves into pride week, we forget about homosexuals everywhere. As you are reading this article, in this moment, a gay person is being raped to correct their sexuality, or beaten to the point of stupor. And even when they are killed, the depravity and immorality of the circumstances that they are killed in are torturous. Some are burnt, others are stoned, and much worse.

So no, in a sense the concept of pride events is still somewhat overwhelming to me. I understand why Canadian homosexuals would want to celebrate their pride because the progress that they have achieved is amazing.

But I have seen the best and worst of both worlds and homosexuals are still treated terribly in my country.

At one point, I was actually thinking about becoming an activist and speaking out for homosexuals in my country, but that is simply a death wish for me.

So yes, it is good to be thankful that Canada has come so far in terms of acceptance and equality but what about Nigeria? Or is their progress towards the acceptance of homosexuals irrelevant?

By Abdullahi Sheikh

With the United States’ election day come and gone, it’s no small wonder that we pay so much attention to their politics.

We may have players as interesting as Justin Trudeau and as vile as Stephen Harper, but we’re almost a high school play compared to the Broadway musical that is American politics.

Regardless of how you feel about the candidates, you’ve probably got your own opinion on who should win and why and I’d bet your neighbour’s got one too.

Now, I’m not trying to say that we should focus solely on our own politics and ignore the rest of the world (probably exactly the opposite of what any newspaper should be advocating) but instead we should take a minute to assess why we are so fond of turning on the television to watch what new debacle whichever presidential candidate has caused.

I think that, ultimately, we’re just more interested by what’s happening just past the border, and it’s not just because they’ve got an African-American president, Silicon Valley and an IHop in every city (although that last one certainly helps.)

It really is more than that. Our infatuation with our Southern cousins must have some basis in reality, right?

There’s got to be a reason that American politics gets our hearts racing while Canadian politics make us check for a pulse.

Well, as someone whose been on both sides of the fence, I think it really just arises from a discontent we, the Canadian people, have regarding our own government and its inner workings.

Whether it’s our style of government (first-past-the-post tends to leave us annoyed the most) or the actions of our officials, we’ve become a bit bored with our government as a whole.

American politics serve as an interesting diversion from the regular tedium of Canadian politics. In a way, Canadian politics can be seen as a Big Top while American Politics represent Cirque du Soliel.

Although going to a circus can be fun, can it really compare to seeing horses trot to the musical styling’s of Michael Jackson?

Now, you don’t have to agree with me on this one, but next time you turn on the television, I want you to see which news channel you’d rather watch when they start to talk shop about politic

And, more importantly, I want you to think about why.

As for Michael Jackson, no, obviously not. Now if only we could get Romney’s horse in Cavalia.

Spencer Nestico-Semianiw

McMaster’s Muslims for Peace and Justice held a teach-in on Nov. 8 about how the Canadian government has neglected the rights of its Muslim citizens.

The overall focus of the evening was on the “extraordinary rendition” policy and the use of torture on Canadian citizens accused of involvement in terrorism. Extraordinary rendition is the policy of transferring people from one country to another without the approval of any legal authority.

The event featured Abdullah Almalki and Ahmed El maati, two Canadian citizens who, in the early 2000s, were wrongly connected with terrorist activity by the RCMP after the 9/11 attacks.

During the discussion, Almalki and his legal representative Phil Tunley spoke about the various struggles that Almalki had to face during and immediately after his arrest. Tunley first discussed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other various legal documents in the context of how they related to the rights of Mr. Almalki under his circumstances.

Upon Almalki’s arrival to Syria in 2002, he was detained and arrested by Syrian officials based on information sent directly from the Canadian government. Following the incident, Almalki remained in a Syrian jail for nearly two years.

When Almalki was brought up to speak, he presented a detailed account of his mistreatment at the hands of the Syrians, perpetuated by the Canadian government.

Almalki emphasized his abuse at the hands of the Canadian government by presenting a quote from the RCMP and the Canadian Security and Intelligence service (CSIS), which stated that, “it was not the responsibility of intelligence or law enforcement officials to be concerned about the human rights of a Canadian detainee.”

Almalki explained how, at one point, he was abruptly slapped in the face by one of his interrogators. He explained, “the physical pain has by now gone away, but the humiliation I felt at that moment is still with me.”

During the question-and-answer period, students actively voiced their opinions on the issue. Many deeply sympathized with the hardships that Almalki was forced to endure and others stated how inspired they were to engage in their community through social activism.

The focus was particularly on the role that the Canadian government had to play in this issue. In need of sufficient grounds to jail Almalki in Canada, the government believed that torture in Syria would be an appropriate way to extract the necessary information. As a result, the ensuing discussion also focused on how it is the responsibility of Canadian citizens to recognize these injustices and mobilize against them.

One of the notable attendees to the teach-in was Ken Stone, the treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War and also a McMaster alumnus. “If we want to stop these abuses like torture, the killing of prisoners and rapes of women, we really need to put pressure on our Canadian government not to get involved in these wars,” said Stone.

By the end of the night, it was clear the speakers had hit a nerve in those who had attended as they displayed gratitude for the speakers.