Canada’s bulky new citizenship guide has come under some controversy for its fairly explicit declaration of Canadian values (and condemnation of “barbaric cultural practices”). Still, perhaps the document didn’t go quite far enough in detailing the sort of behavior that will not be looked kindly on by our fellow citizens — not least, our border services personnel.
One of our newest applicants for citizenship appears to have some unrealistic views about just how tolerant we ought to be:
Saudi Arabian-born Syrian national Khaled Nawaya “was taken into custody Oct. 6 after Canada Border Services agents found a ring emblazoned with the Hezbollah logo, several 9-11 conspiracy DVDs and a Palestinian scarf in his car and flagged them as potential ‘terrorism resources.’ The Lebanon-based group has been listed by the government as a terrorist organization since 2002.” (CP).
He also had nearly $1 million in gold coins on him, though he had declared only $10,000, to avoid paying tax on the funds. That’s according to his lawyer. So, assuming he has no ties to militant extremists, our newest potential citizen is only a confessed tax evader. How nice for us.
The news on Canada’s economy is not looking good. But what do the experts really know? Time for a poll.
Sad to say, I know a lot of people affected by this recession who have lost their job or their business and are going through some very tough times. I’m grateful for my good fortune in avoiding the worst effects of this economic tsunami in my own life and work and send my best wishes to those friends and family members who have been affected directly or indirectly.
A visual demonstration below, courtesy of Purple and Brown (in this case, Purple represents the Liberals and the little blue ball, the Tories, with Brown as the NDP, blabbering witlessly to the side).
I am firmly in solidarity with Iranians and others around the world protesting the regime’s failure to provide democracy and basic human rights. Heck, if you live in a democracy, there is no other moral position to take. Human rights and the longing for genuine freedom are universal. I am pleased to see that the protests in Vancouver and other cities around the world are still very much alive.
But for some months now, reports of protests inside and outside Iran have consistently shown two types of messages amongst demonstrators. The first type is familiar and inspiring, but the second gives me the chills. I see Iranian protesters potentially falling into the trap that Canadian Tamil protesters recently found themselves in, of believing that the worthiness of their cause permits the use of bloody rhetoric.
From a CTV News story today, here’s what I’m talking about in terms of the two types of messages with very distinct implications:
* “We are here to show our solidarity with the people of Iran and to urge the Iranian government to respect human rights” – Tom van den Brand, a spokesman for Amnesty International in Amsterdam.
* “Death to the Islamic regime!” – group of anonymous protesters.
Some of my friends will probably say I’m just being squishy, or that unity of the protest movement is too important to quibble about semantics. But I feel the words you choose to protest with are not a minor, inconsequential thing. When a state still holds a monopoly on violence and all you have is your voice, your message defines you. How the democratic revolution finally comes to Iran will depend in part on the words the movement chooses to engage its supporters.
For decades, we’ve heard “Death to America”, “Death to Israel”, “Death to…” whatever, from mass gatherings of furious Iranians. (I can’t recall a mob chanting “Death to Canada”. When that happens, I suppose that means we’ve hit the big leagues). It’s not just in Iran, but the Islamic Republic is practically synonymous with massive rallies incorporating these frightening modern versions of the Two Minutes Hate.
I’ve attended and observed plenty of protests in Canada. Typical slogans at protests include “This is what democracy sounds like!”, “Justice for the (INSERT-NAME-OF-PERSECUTED-GROUP)”, “Freedom for the (INSERT-NAME-OF-PERSECUTED-GROUP)!”, or “Hell no, we won’t go!”. Chanting “death” to anything is pretty much beyond the pale, because we recognize the obvious danger that such words are incitement to violence. That’s not only illegal, but it’s also a practice, if it were to become mainstream, that could lead to violent acts. The proof of this ranges from violent hate crimes by racist thugs to acts of genocide, like in Rwanda. And let’s face it: there are no problems in Canada that would require demonstrators to commit acts of violence against fellow citizens or the state to get what they want. We’re lucky that way.
So here’s a problem. I’m not convinced that the Iranian regime will fall to a democratic movement without bloodshed, as has happened most recently in parts of Eastern Europe. The ruling thugs have shown a clear willingness to deploy axe-and-gun-wielding militias against their own people. And they have to be mindful that during and after the last big Iranian revolution, tens of thousands of the ruling classes were tortured or killed. With that kind of precedent, even if the regime’s leaders and apparatchiks were of a mind to allow a transition to democracy, simple survival instinct will have them maintain the status quo at any cost.
So if there is going to be a democratic revolution in Iran, people may have to die. When the protesters’ chant, “Death to the Islamic regime”, they know that a “regime” doesn’t really die – the people who run the regime do. Such chants may be very pragmatic preparation to steel Iranians’ minds for coming violence.
I understand that decades of chanting “death” to anything is ingrained in the culture of political protest in Iran or other countries in a way that we just don’t get here. But these words don’t just offend “decadent” Western sensibilities: I suspect that they have already sapped a significant amount of goodwill towards the Iranian protesters.
It’s not enough for the protesters to want democracy. The words they use to motivate their own democratic revolutionaries will help determine the kind of society that comes after the regime is swept away. There needs to be a culture of basic respect for human life, to the obvious minimum standard that you don’t shout “death” to anything. Let the Iranian regime issue the death threats. This movement needs to be better than that.
From Terry Glavin in his Tyee column, “Iran: Whose Side Are We Really On?”:
The uprising changes everything, and not just inside Iran. No matter what happens next, the uprising will cause convulsions in contested fields of struggle from Afghanistan to Palestine.
Already, the spectacle of angry masses thronging the streets of Iranians cities is holding out the promise of a great awakening in “progressive” politics from Berlin to Seattle. In Canada, what was once unspeakable is now unavoidably central to any serious discussion of the Iranian cause and what it demands of us.