Rabble

Readers may be familiar with Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow, 1908-1970, was one of the early humanist psychologists who focused on positive rather than negative aspects of personality. He founded the theory that physiological needs form the basis of a pyramid of human needs, with each level a requirement for the subsequent ones above it. The ultimate goal is self-actualization.

“Physiological needs are biological requirements for human survival, e.g., air, food, drink, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, and sleep,” an explanation on SimplePsychology.org reads.

Does climate change affect our ability to accomplish these life-sustaining requirements?

Let’s start with air. If we do nothing else each day, we must do two things: breathe in and breathe out. How does climate change affect our ability to breathe?

BBC’s Science Focus Magazine reported that breathing out actually produces CO2 emissions.

The Science Focus Magazine article reads:

“In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2… But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2.”

But the real concern is that with increased climate change, it is becoming more difficult to breathe. Why? National Academies published that with poorer air quality: “in many regions, the warming climate is making air quality worse. Poorer air quality contributes to or may cause breathing problems and respiratory illnesses.”

According to The Government of Canada ’s section on Environmental Indicators: “Temperature is a key indicator of how the climate is changing… Temperature change can influence crops, forests, infrastructure, human health (emphasis mine), the spread of disease, the availability of water and the health of ecosystems.

“In Canada, temperatures have increased more in northern Canada than in southern Canada. Annual mean temperature over northern Canada increased by roughly 3 times the global mean warming rate. The effects of widespread warming are evident in many parts of Canada and are projected to intensify in the future.”

Clearly, the first of Maslow’s basic requirements is under pressure from climate change.

Food and water

Food and water closely follow breathing among the most basic human needs. As with breathing, climate change directly affects these needs.

Many scientific journals, including Nature, support the claim that climate change is: “a serious threat to food production systems that are highly dependent on water resources and ecosystems… Various regions already suffer from water cycle disruptions due to climate change which include intensification of extreme weather events (e.g., droughts, floods) and groundwater depletion.”

In Canada, increased numbers of tornados and hurricanes all affect agriculture and thus food production. Forest fires, too, are increasing not just in numbers but in severity and duration. Each of these weather pattern alterations has direct consequences on the availability of water for growing and distributing food.

Again, the Government of Canada Environment Section comments that the impacts of climate change will not be uniform across the country. Nor will they be uniform across seasons. This is a double-edged sword. While there are likely to be opportunities, in some regions, to grow warmer-weather crops given longer growing seasons, these opportunities will be accompanied by challenges.

The Government also comments that climate change also causes “water stress (flooding or drought), heat stress, wind damage, increased pest and disease pressures, and the impact from these multiple stressors on soil health… can reduce the productivity, profitability and competitiveness of Canadian farmers.” Thus, climate change can cause food insecurity.

Sex and sleep

Interestingly, the link between climate change and sex tends to focus on environmentally-friendly or environmentally-neutral sex habits . Think of using condoms and lubricants made of non petroleum-based products. The reverse effect of climate change on sex is an issue yet to be researched.

The same cannot be said for the effect of climate change on sleep. According to an article in Sleep Med Review,  “from disaster related stress causing insomnia, to poor air quality causing sleep related breathing problems, climate change poses a potentially serious threat to human sleep.”

Higher levels of the pyramid

If breathing, eating, and sleep are affected directly by climate change, Maslow might argue that humans cannot proceed up to the next level of the pyramid, which is the need for safety: security, order and stability.

And it is even less possible for humans to achieve the remaining levels, which are love and belonging; esteem; cognition or intellectual development; aesthetics, which are harmony, order and beauty; and the topmost level, which is self-actualization.

This highest level occurs when individuals reach a state of harmony and understanding because they are engaged in achieving their full potential.

Of course, Maslow’s pyramid of needs is only one example of the development of human potential. And not everyone agrees that people cannot climb from one level to the next without having achieved the elements of each preceding level.

Still, reviewing the most basic components of health does show that our lives as they now stand are compromised by climate change.  We cannot expect to live healthy lives when even our ability to breathe clean air, to eat sufficient and sufficiently nutritious food, and to sleep long and deeply enough, are compromised. Climate change ultimately reduces the average human lifespan.

Next steps

A major Government of Canada study completed in 2008 emphasized the importance of understanding the effects of climate change and preparing to protect Canadians from its ill-effects. The key findings were:

• Climate variables and climate hazards directly and indirectly impact the health and well-being of Canadians. Climate change will increase risks to health.
• The impacts of climate change can combine with other circumstances to increase health risks or create conditions for a disaster.
• Regional assessments highlighted the vulnerability of specific population groups and confirmed the importance of developing adaptations tailored to local and regional needs.
• Research and knowledge from a broad range of disciplines is required to advance understanding of the effects of climate change on health and to support adaptive measures.

The report concluded that “Future investigation of the effects of climate change on health and the implementation of needed adaptations will benefit from the multidisciplinary collaboration that has begun among many research organizations.”

Some 16 years later, the final recommendation is more important than ever.

The post Climate change and human health appeared first on rabble.ca.

An upcoming hearing at The Supreme Court, which will decide if survivors of domestic violence are able to sue their abusers for “family violence,” could result in consequences for survivors, warns one legal advocacy non-profit. 

In February, 2025, Canada’s Supreme Court will decide if family violence is recognized as a tort – a civil wrong, for which someone could be held liable. 

If recognized, the decision would allow for family court cases over family violence, giving survivors of domestic violence the option to sue their abusers for family violence.

But the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL), which is set to appear before the Supreme Court alongside other organizations and stakeholders to present the implications of the decision, is concerned the new tort could give abusers an avenue to sue their victims. 

“Often, what we see is abusers using remedies that are meant for survivors and kind of twisting them and using them to their advantage,” said Suzanne Zaccour, director of legal affairs at NAWL, in an interview with rabble.ca. “We think abusers may try to use this tort of family violence to sue their own victims.”

How parental alienation arguments target survivors 

Zaccour’s main concern is the argument of parental alienation, a tactic that is increasingly used in custody battles in Canadian courtrooms. 

The argument is often used by abusers in family court cases when a woman alleges their partner is abusive, Zaccour explained. 

Sometimes, the abusive party will claim that the other party has been psychologically manipulating their child and turning them against them by repeatedly badmouthing them to their child or falsely accusing them of abuse.  

In some cases, if the court believes allegations of abuse were falsified to alienate a child from their parent, abusers can be awarded custody of their children.

A UN report, released this summer, called the concept “highly gendered”, “unfounded and unscientific”, highlighting that it is “predominantly used against mothers”.   

Zaccour worries that if the Supreme Court decides to recognize a tort of family violence, abusers will be able to argue that parental alienation is family violence – and that this could force victims to pay damages to their abusers.  

“We’re seeing that courts are already imposing costs on survivors, taking kids away from them,” Zaccour said. “We think it is likely that courts could also make them pay damages.” 

“They’re going to say ‘well, my ex alienated the children’ if their children don’t want to see them because they’re violent,” Zaccor explained. “They’re going to say ‘this constitutes family violence, so, she needs to pay me.’”

What safeguards are needed

NAWL is supportive of recognizing family violence as a tort that can be used in family court – but only with appropriate safeguards. Zaccour hopes that their intervention at the Supreme Court will highlight the implications of the decision and result in protections for survivors being written in. 

“We’re hoping to inform the court of these risks and, ultimately, make sure that there are some safeguards in the decision,” she said, “to encourage them if they decide to recognize this tort that they do so carefully, making sure judges are instructed appropriately.”

Still, Zaccour thinks there is a simpler solution – banning the concept of parental alienation from  family court altogether.   

“They need to legislate that you cannot use this unscientific theory in court cases,” she said. 

In January, a coalition of over 250 Canadian feminist organizations, including NAWL, sent letters to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister of Justice Arif Viranion, urging the government to remove the concept from family law cases. 

The concept has yet to be removed. 

Zaccour warned that, if not removed, the concept will continue to be used as a strategy to further target survivors of domestic violence, both in custody battles and in future family violence cases, should the tort be recognized. 

“If the government doesn’t act, abusers will continue to use this,” she said. “We have to make sure that women don’t face even more consequences.”

The post Recognizing family violence in civil courts could harm survivors of domestic violence, warns organization appeared first on rabble.ca.

A report by the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions  has shown that there has been a sharp increase in spending on for-profit nursing agencies. Billions of dollars are being spent in the sector without much regulation and transparency on how the private companies operate. An interview with the report’s author Queen’s University  professor Joan Almost.

RadioLabour is the international labour movement’s radio service. It reports on labour union events around the world with a focus on unions in the developing world. It partners with rabble to provide coverage of news of interest to Canadian workers.

The post For-profit nursing agencies are privatizing Canada’s medical system appeared first on rabble.ca.

This week on rabble radio, we feature a segment from our most recent Off the Hill political panel. This month, our theme was ‘Off the Hill: How just is Canada’s justice system?’

Our panel featured poet and activist El Jones; and rabble’s own parliamentary reporter Karl Nerenberg.

About our guests

El Jones is a poet, author, journalist, professor and activist living in Halifax. She is the author of Abolitionist Intimacies (2022) and Live from the Afrikan Resistance! (2014).

Karl Nerenberg is an award-winning journalist, broadcaster and filmmaker, working in both English and French languages. He is rabble’s senior parliamentary reporter.

If you like the show please consider subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts. And please, rate, review, share rabble radio with your friends — it takes two seconds to support independent media like rabble. Follow us on social media across channels @rabbleca. 

The post Just how just is Canada’s justice system? appeared first on rabble.ca.

Content warning: The following story contains mentions of sexual assault, including rape. Please proceed with caution and care. If you require support, there are resources available.

On Thursday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Nentayahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant.

The ICC found that there was a reasonable probability that both Netanyahu and Gallant engaged in war crimes against the Palestinian people between October 8, 2023 and May 20, 2024, when the indictment was filed by ICC prosecutors.

“The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024,” a statement on the ICC’s website about the arrest warrants reads.

Israel began an invasion of Palestinian territory in Gaza after the terrorist group Hamas launched an attack against Israel on October 7, 2023 that killed over 1,200 civilians and saw the group take hostages, some of whom are still held in captivity.

A report published by the UN earlier this summer found that over 40,000 Palestinians had lost their lives in the conflict up to that point, the majority of the casualties being women and children.

The ICC found that Netanyahu and Gallant had impeded access to humanitarian aid, and did not do all within their power to ensure that relief was provided to Palestinians.

“The (ICC) found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care,” the ICC statement goes on to read.

The ICC has found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant used the tactic of starvation as a method of warfare against the Palestinian people, an act for which the court believes they may be criminally liable.

The ICC did not find, however, that there were reasonable grounds to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant for the war crime of extermination, but did find reasonable grounds to arrest them for the crime of murder against Palestinian civilians.

The ICC report concludes:

“Finally, the Chamber assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza. In this regard, the Chamber found that the material provided by the Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians. Reasonable grounds to believe exist that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant, despite having measures available to them to prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities, failed to do so.”

ICC warrant also issued for Hamas chief

The ICC also issued a warrant for the arrest of Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri also known as “Dief” for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The court found that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Deif had engaged in war crimes related to the October 7 attack because Hamas targeted civilians.

The court further found that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the hostages that were being detained by Hamas and its allies were being subjected to gender-based violence, including rape.

“On the basis of the material presented, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that the crimes of torture as a crime against humanity and war crime, rape and other forms of sexual violence as crimes against humanity and war crimes, cruel treatment as a war crime, and outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime were committed against these persons during the relevant period,” the ICC statement on Deif reads.

Israel announced earlier this summer that they suspect the Deif had in fact been killed in an airstrike.

Reactions to arrest warrants

At a media event on Thursday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that the country would abide by the rulings of the ICC.

The implication of this being that should Netanyahu, Gallant, Deif, or any other individual subject to an arrest warrant by the ICC would be detained should they step on Canadian soil.

Individuals and organizations that have opposed Israel’s attack against Palestinian civilians reacted positively to the news of the arrest warrants.

“This is an important moment. Canada has chosen to do the right thing. We must continue to do the right thing. We must continue to uphold international law. We must not equivocate when it comes to upholding the international rules based order,” reads a statement from the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

Israel rejected the findings of the court as “antisemitic,” as did Israel’s strongest ally, the US.

The US is not a member of the ICC and is not bound by its rulings.

The US national security council released the following statement:

“The United States has been clear that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this matter. In coordination with partners, including Israel, we are discussing next steps.”

Editor’s Note 2024-11-22: This article has been updated to correct that Yoav Gallant is Israel’s former defence minister.

The post ICC issues arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s former defence minister appeared first on rabble.ca.

Activists at the G20 Summit, which concluded in Rio de Janeiro this week, for once had something to celebrate in the outcome of an intergovernmental meeting.  

Over half of the world’s poorest people live in G20 countries and rising inequality – both within and between nations – threatens to prevent them from living dignified lives. In recent decades the top one per cent of earners in G20 countries have seen their income share rocket, while top income tax rates on them have plummeted. And high levels of wealth inequality, gender, racial and ethnic inequality, and inequality of opportunity are blighting progress for the many.  

Brazilian President Lula da Silva used his year at the G20’s helm to push for progress on these and other critical issues. While fine words in G20 communiques do not change anything in themselves, Brazil deserves applause for using their G20 presidency to respond to people’s demands worldwide to tackle extreme inequality, hunger and climate breakdown, and particularly for rallying action on taxing the super-rich. Brazil has lit a path toward a more just and resilient world, challenging others to meet them at this critical juncture. 

In particular, G20 governments deserve praise for their ground-breaking commitment to cooperate on taxing the world’s super-rich. But this is just a start and we must not rest until the commitments become a reality that delivers real change for people and the planet. This means a global standard that sets tax rates on the super-rich high enough to dramatically reduce inequality and raise the trillions of dollars needed to tackle the climate and poverty crisis.

While the progress on international taxation is welcome, it also means that G20 governments should be championing a $5 trillion climate finance goal at the climate COP29 in Baku. How can they argue that climate justice is unaffordable with a deal to raise trillions of dollars by taxing the super-rich on the table?

Progress was also made in other areas. The Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty, launched at the G20 Summit, could be a turning point in the battle against hunger and extreme poverty. Sharing proven policy solutions like cash transfers and school meals is important, but the Alliance must go further still by prioritizing transformative agriculture, racial and gender equity, land rights, and small-scale farming. It must also urgently address the devastating impacts of climate change on food systems in the Global South and confront the weaponization of hunger. Only by embracing these deeper, structural changes can we hope to tackle the root causes of hunger and poverty effectively.

As South Africa now takes over the presidency of the G20, it is more critical than ever to  continue the fight against extreme inequality, and to make concrete progress on this year’s agreements – including to tax the world’s super-rich – a reality. That would be a truly historic legacy of South Africa’s forthcoming G20 presidency.  But will South Africa offer the progressive leadership of Brazil – and even if they do, will other G20 countries follow?

The post Brazil lights a path forward – but will others follow? appeared first on rabble.ca.

Last week, Canada’s highest court held two days of hearings in relation to an ongoing case that challenges the constitutionality of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA).

The act criminalizes purchasing of sexual services and gaining a material benefit from the sale of another’s sexual services. Appellants of the case argue that PCEPA violates a sex workers section seven Charter rights to liberty and security of the person. 

Groups who have mobilized against PCEPA include the Supporting Women’s Alternatives Network (SWAN) and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. These groups say PCEPA still criminalizes sex workers and forces them into unsafe work conditions. 

Concertation des luttes contre l’exploitation sexuelle (CLES), a Quebec organization against sexual exploitation, said they hope PCEPA survives this court challenge because it criminalizes pimps and sex buyers while immunizing sex workers. 

“Canada adopted PCEPA in recognition of the fact that prostitution is violence and an obstacle to true equality between men and women,” said Jennie-Laure Sully, a community organizer at CLES. 

Organizers with sex-worker led groups say it is harmful to view sex work as inherently exploitative. 

“Arguments that sex work is inherently exploitative not only go against evidence, they reinforce assumptions and stereotypes that construct racialized sex workers as snapshots; people without a voice, without dimension and in need of saving,” said Kelly Go, program manager at SWAN. “These stereotypes increase physical violence against sex workers and render them disposable and deportable by the state in the first place. It’s important to understand migrant sex work in the context of labour rights and international labour migration.” 

However, Sully and CLES maintain that PCEPA criminalizes pimps and sex buyers. Sully said CLES has not heard of any cases of women being charged for selling their own sex acts since the law was passed in 2014.

“We celebrate the 10-year anniversary of the law because we see that it has changed the power dynamic in the sex industry and that we are moving towards better protection for women and girls,” Sully wrote in an email to rabble.ca 

Crystal Laderas, communications manager at SWAN Vancouver, said PCEPA does not translate to better protection for sex workers because it criminalizes those who do support work within the sex industry, For example, the law criminalizing third parties in sex work can affect receptionists, drivers, security staff and other workers. 

“Anti-sex work opponents are the biggest cheerleaders of PCEPA despite a decade of these laws putting workers at greater risk of violence and exploitation,” Laderas said. “It’s disappointing to see organizations that willfully ignore evidence and have a clear moral or religious bias against sex work, being granted intervenor status in this case. Meanwhile, sex workers and organizations that support migrant sex workers, including the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, have been excluded.” 

Addressing sex workers’ needs through a labour rights lens has been a demand from many organizations. In 2019, MoveUp became the first known union in Canada to publicly declare its support for the decriminalization of sex work. The union wrote on its website that labour must support all workers. 

“Sex work is work,” the union wrote. “Sex workers want rights, not rescue.” 

In an academic article published in 2021 by Social Sciences, an international peer-reviewed journal, researchers concluded that sex work and exploitation related to it comes from the exploitative relationships that exist between many workers and employers. 

Thaddeus Blanchette, Ana Paula Da Silva, and Gustavo Camargo, authors of the article, wrote that labour relations can be exploitative because a worker has to sell a large chunk of their day to whoever can buy it. 

“It seems to us that the only way to properly reform prostitution law is via the same means which labor laws in general have been reformed in the west: through the political inclusion of self-organized sex workers at the decision-making table,” the authors wrote.

Editor’s Note 2024-11-21: SWAN’s full name has been corrected to Supporting Women’s Alternatives Network. A previous version of this article incorrectly named the organization as the Sex Worker’s Action Network. rabble regrets the error.

The post Sex work law challenge reveals differing views on the industry appeared first on rabble.ca.

Saying the U.S. election result is a blow to climate policy is a massive understatement. It could also spell trouble for the U.S. and global economies. Are there any flickers of hope?

After winning his first presidency in 2016, Donald Trump immediately committed to withdrawing from the international Paris climate agreement. His administration also rolled back more than 100 environmental rules, covering air and water pollution and emissions, drilling and extraction, wildlife protection and more. This time, the president-elect has vowed to reverse even more climate progress and “drill, baby, drill.”

From his statements, it’s clear the incoming president doesn’t understand climate or science and that he prioritizes coal, oil and gas billionaires over the people he was elected to represent.

There’s no doubt he could seriously hinder the already inadequate efforts to head off catastrophic global heating.

Climate isn’t the only thing he and his party seem determined to worsen. If he’s able to follow through on just some of his promises, life will get more difficult for women, people of colour, immigrants, working people, anyone who doesn’t identify as heterosexual, the global community and more.

Meanwhile, as countries gather for the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties, COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan, climate scientists say this year will be the hottest on record, igniting more costly extreme weather events, droughts, floods, heat domes, wildfires, intense storms, increased human migration, animal and plant extinctions, water shortages and potential changes to ocean and air currents.

It’s insane that so many people in power not only fail to heed the indisputable scientific evidence, but also ignore the proof staring them in the face. For decades, researchers from around the world — including those working for the fossil fuel industry — have been warning that we face an existential crisis like nothing humanity has ever seen. As predicted, the costly and visible consequences are growing by the day.

What hope is there?

Governments move slowly at the best of times, relying as they do on brief electoral cycles and short-sighted economic solutions. With constant electoral changes, it often seems we’re moving two steps forward, one step back — or worse, one step forward, two steps back.

We can’t ignore the role of governments, and many are working to resolve the climate crisis and other issues — although few treat it as the emergency it is. The current U.S. government has implemented many sound climate policies that also benefit the economy (while simultaneously ramping up fossil fuel production), as has Canada’s. But those are constantly under threat from state and provincial governments and opposition parties that seem more inclined to protect massive oil and gas industry profits than the citizenry they’re supposed to represent.

There’s reason for optimism, though. In the U.S., the clean energy boom has benefited those in “red” states even more than in “blue,” creating jobs and opportunities. Repealing some recent climate and clean energy policies could push US$80 billion of investment to countries such as China and cost the U.S. as much as $50 billion in lost exports, recent analysis shows. It will be tough to roll back policies that are helping so many people. Globally, the renewable energy boom is unstoppable.

Just as some provincial and state politicians are fighting against sensible, effective climate policies, others are implementing their own. California, which has the world’s fifth largest economy, representing 15 per cent of the U.S. economy, has vowed to continue efforts to protect people and the planet.

Renewable energy is booming even in oil-rich Texas, with a “70-fold increase in the amount of electricity it gets from the sun and a nearly 95-fold increase in battery capacity since 2014,” Environment Texas reports, adding, “Last year, wind and solar energy produced 31% of the state’s electricity” and it “has also seen a 40-fold increase in the number of registered electric vehicles.”

We can’t rely entirely on governments to get us out the mess we’ve created. It will be up to all of us to demand progress, to learn and create better awareness among ourselves, our friends, colleagues and families and those who aspire to represent us in government.

I’ll never give up and neither should you. The next few years may look grim, but that means our efforts are more important than ever.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at davidsuzuki.org.

The post Climate progress is unstoppable, despite US election appeared first on rabble.ca.

The following is an excerpt from I Don’t Do Disability and Other Lies I’ve Told Myself by Adelle Purdham.

Dundurn Press, Purich Books
Publication Date: November 5, 2024
Find more here: https://www.dundurn.com/books_/t22117/a9781459754539-i-don-t-do-disability-and-other-lies-i-ve-told-myself
Excerpt: The Giving Tree

***

Before it dies, a Douglas-­ fir, half a millennium old, will send its storehouse of chemicals back down into its roots and out through its fungal partners, donating its riches to the community pool in a last will and testament. We might well call these ancient benefactors Giving Trees. — The Overstory, by Richard Powers

MY NEPHEW ROWAN’S birthday is in early June, when the spring flowers of my in-­ laws’ replete gardens bloom and appear in their full resplendence. I crack open the hard cover of the book Dan and I have gifted him — Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree — to the first page. Dan and I are in the spring of our romance — babies, really. I feel a need to perform in front of his older sister and parents, to impress upon them that I will one day be a fantastic teacher. Look how well I read! And that I will also be an amazing mother and wife. Look how generous I am with my time! Look at how I adore children and hold their attention!

When the actual time comes, there will be no doubt about my superior skills.

I open my reading with verve and zeal.

“And the boy loved the tree … very much. And the tree was happy.” Overexaggerated smile.

Undoubtedly, my young nephew was paying close attention.

At some point, the enthusiasm in my voice might have faded. You can’t help but let melancholy seep in when you read The Giving Tree. The boy takes what he wants and leaves the tree, who loves him, behind. The tree isn’t happy until she’s given everything of herself, absolutely everything, to the boy. And the boy isn’t happy until he’s taken away every part of the tree.

Where’s the joy in that?

“And so the boy cut down her trunk and made a boat and sailed away. And the tree was happy … but not really.”

Reading the book then, I felt a sense of indignation on behalf of the tree. Why did the boy have to be so greedy as to take it all? The tree gives everything to the boy — and for what?

It is only at the beginning of his life and nearing its end that the boy is able to appreciate the tree for her true worth: for what she is instead of what she can provide. I’m reminded of a line from Haruki

Murakami’s memoir, What I Talk About When I Talk About Running: “I don’t think we should judge the value of our lives by how efficient they are.” The same could be said for trees, and for humans.

I’m not sure whether my nephew hung on to my every word.

I can’t even picture where the two of us were sitting, as the Earth outside renewed itself around us. Was he snuggled into me on the couch or sitting in the armchair across from me? Was I in the armchair and he on the couch? The specifics don’t matter. What was important was that when I finished reading that book, I knew one thing: I never wanted to be the tree.

More than ten years later, the school day is nearly done. I tuck three mini boxes of Smarties into my coat pocket to dole out, one for each girl. I greet you with a kiss on the forehead and take your backpack from you. You hand it to me today, which is nice. Sometimes you leave it for me on the ground. Often you throw it on the ground.

The wind feels rough, bitter cold. Winter whispers her frosty breath.

You refuse to wear a hat or put your hood up or wear gloves. Your hands are bright pink, but you don’t seem to mind. We’re on our way home and it’s just another day. The Smarties will keep you happy for a while.

We walk in a small cluster: me, you, your older and younger sisters. Your hands slide inside the too-­ long sleeves of your jacket and I hold loosely onto your sleeve in an attempt to keep our cluster moving, to keep you happy. And you are fairly happy. Smarties! This makes you smile and so I am smiling.

You say something, something I can’t understand. I ask you to repeat, but I can’t quite catch the meaning.

We approach Charlie, your favourite crossing guard, and you find your place by his side, take his hand, and we safely cross the street.

I offer to take back the now-­ empty Smarties box.

“Yes.” You hand me the miniature cardboard container.

I think this is all you need. I hope.

But on the other side of the crosswalk, you ask again for something. Again, I do not understand you. Softly, I ask you to please repeat, but I don’t stop walking, I press on. I sense things are moving in the wrong direction and, when this happens, I just want us to be home.

You don’t try to explain again. You won’t; instead, you start to scream. “No! No! No!”

“Honey, honey, what’s wrong?” I ask, even though I know it’s because I haven’t understood you. Once we’ve reached tears, we have moved beyond solving what is wrong.

Frustration prevents words and what comes out are wails and screams.

This happens so fast, this transition from walking along the sidewalk together, smiling and eating Smarties, to you screaming and wailing, and I just want it to stop.

“Stop, Lysie!” your little sister yells at you.

Your big sister walks apart from us, way far ahead.

On the surface I remain kind, perplexed, even with the feeling of sinking dread settling in. This is an all-­ too-­ familiar scenario.

The thing you tried to say: what was it?

I stop walking now and face you. Crouch down to your level.

What else is there to do?

“Are you cold? Are your hands cold? Here.” I pull up your hood and you wail louder.

I plead with you for a while. “Please, Elyse, stop screaming. What’s wrong?”

But the words are drowned out by a flood of tears.

I change my strategy, pick up my pace. We live only five hundred metres from the school.

“Come on, Elyse, let’s go home. It’s cold outside. We can talk at home.”

I avoid the words I usually say in this scenario: “Daddy’s at home. Let’s go see Daddy.” Daddy is always the prize. Daddy gets to be the prize and I feel like the problem. He tells me she does the same thing to him, in reverse, but I think he is only trying to be nice.

***

Excerpted with permission from I Don’t Do Disability and Other Lies I’ve Told Myself (Dundurn Press, November 5, 2024) by Adelle Purdham. For more information go to https://www.dundurn.com.

The post ‘I Don’t Do Disability and Other Lies I’ve Told Myself’ out now appeared first on rabble.ca.

Hey rabble rouser!

Yes, you!

You’re invited to rabble’s AGM on December 4, 2024 at 6pm ET / 3pm PT. Sign up here to save your spot. 

It’s been an eventful couple of years. rabble.ca’s Board of Directors, Members Council and staff will be reviewing the 2023 fiscal year and all the ways it impacted our 2024 editorial and operational year at rabble.ca – and we’d like YOU to be a part of it! 

Do you have feedback for our board? Or a suggestion for rabble’s road ahead? We’d love to hear your thoughts! By signing up to save your spot, you’re ensuring a chance to have your voice heard. 

And — ahead of our meeting — be sure to review our 2023 Annual Report here.

We’re nothing without our community supporting us, so we hope to see you there!

The post Join rabble.ca at our upcoming AGM appeared first on rabble.ca.

It turns out not everything about Monday’s announcement that the United Conservative Party (UCP) is “making progress refocusing the health care system” was illogical and misleading.

One tidbit about the chaotic restructuring, the point of which has never been coherently explained by any official spokesperson, is that the government is replacing Alberta Health Services’ (AHS) five zones with seven “corridors.”

“Hold Page One!” you may shout sarcastically, but at least this unintentionally acknowledges that under the UCP “hallway medicine” has become the new normal in Alberta’s disintegrating health care system. 

Other than that, though, regardless of the cheerful words of the government’s press release about how dismantling AHS will “refocus the health care system to give Albertans the health care system they need,” literally almost everything they are doing is moving the system in the opposite direction. 

The few reporters who showed up for the government’s news conference had to dig deep for something that met the traditional definition of news – which, you know, requires their stories to be about something new.

About the best they could do was that the massive restructuring – which is costing a fortune and disrupting an already battered system with no meaningful promise of better future performance – is now months behind schedule.

Health Minister Adrianna LaGrange’s explanation for the delay in setting up a new acute care agency was that “refocusing the health care system is a complex process that needs to be done right.”

Well, I suppose for the reporters it was either that or lead with the fact the new Alberta acute care agency will be called Acute Care Alberta and has a cute new logo, which Health Minister Adriana LaGrange spent a lot of time explaining, reading, by the sound of it, straight from the ad agency’s jargon-filled spiel.

Hey, it’ll “increase awareness so we can all better understand when to use acute care services”! As University of Calgary health law professor Lorian Hardcastle observed in a tweet thread, the best way to do that is actually to make sure everyone has a family doctor. 

What Acute Care Alberta is supposed to achieve has never been adequately explained – and wasn’t again by LaGrange. What’s clear between the lines is that it will add another layer of bureaucracy over Alberta Health Services, which will continue to require a significant number of managers to run. 

Perhaps Chris Eagle, the former AHS president brought back from the political crypt to act as “special external advisor” to Acute Care Alberta, can explain it one of these days – although he stood solemnly on LaGrange’s left throughout yesterday’s performance without uttering a word that anyone noticed. Maybe he was worried someone would ask him why he quit halfway through his five-year contract back in 2013

According to the press release, Acute Care Alberta will become a legal entity early next year and begin operating, whatever that means in this context, next spring.

Also at the newser, standing similarly silently to LaGrange’s right although looking more cheerful about it, was Primary Care Alberta CEO Kim Simmonds.

Unlike Acute Care Alberta, Primary Care Alberta – which also got a cute new heart-shaped logo – has a real CEO and actually exists as a legal entity. According to the press release, Primary Care Alberta is now “operational.” 

Whether that means it actually exists in any more tangible form is not quite so clear. To date, while it has a CEO, it seems to have no offices and very few people know where Dr. Simmonds works. Perhaps she’s still using her old digs at Alberta Health (as the Alberta Heath Department is confusingly branded), where she used to be an assistant deputy minister. 

Dr. Simmonds is a PhD epidemiologist, which presumably explains why she’s not the CEO of Acute Care Alberta – since it’s pretty clear Premier Smith wouldn’t tolerate anyone in that job who believes in epidemics. Indeed, part of the reason for this entire gong show is widely understood to be Smith’s revenge on AHS for its public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Does Primary Care Alberta have any employees? Not many now, by all accounts. And who is paying those that it has? AHS, presumably. 

As for the new continuing care agency – what do you want to bet it’s called Continuing Care Alberta and has its own cute logo? – it will be run out of the Ministry of Seniors, Community and Social Services, making what it’s up to even more opaque and confusing. Indeed, from there it’ll hardly even be part of the health care system. 

LaGrange told reporters yesterday that about 500 management positions have been eliminated at AHS – which, remember, is still an organization with close to 100,000 employees, so just to operate it would require many more managers than that. But how many managers will the other four “pillars” of health care UCP style eventually have? More than 500, I would bet.

Well, we’ll have to wait to see. In the meantime, the government continues to insist what it is creating is “four fully integrated provincial health agencies.”

This begs the obvious question: If they were fully integrated in AHS before, why did they have to be created. Or, to put this another way, who benefits from this restructuring? It’s certainly not Albertans.

As Hardcastle noted in her tweet thread, the UCP has presented no evidence that its new model will improve access. The opposite is more likely. 

The whole health care refocusing project has the feel of a bureaucratic Potemkin Village created to fool voters into thinking one thing is happening while in reality something quite different is going on. To wit, a chaotic restructuring intended to make it easier to privatize huge hunks of public health care – as is already happening with the so-called Recovery Alberta agency, which now does have about 10,000 employees, all still paid by their former employer, AHS. 

As for the Opposition NDP, it had little to say. “People keep telling me they want a doctor and shorter wait times for specialists,” Health Critic Sarah Hoffman said on a couple of social media platforms, “but the UCP just announced a new logo and CEO.”

This is clever, but a more serious critique is essential. 

UCP has plan to lower auto insurance cost by raising it

The CBC has revealed the UCP’s plan to lower Albertans’ auto insurance premiums, which are the highest in the land. 

Turns out they’ll lift the cap on insurance rates and take away the right of Albertans who are injured to sue for damages. 

Notwithstanding the many words devoted to the subject, that’s all you actually need to know. 

We’ll see the press release later this week.

The post Alberta’s five healthcare zones becomes seven ‘corridors’ appeared first on rabble.ca.

One can feel a little sympathy with Danielle Smith for wanting to be at Donald Trump’s second inauguration on Jan. 20, especially since the trip is likely to be on her fellow Albertans’ dime.

While it’s unlikely Alberta’s premier will be part of the largest presidential inauguration crowd ever – that would be the 1.8 million people who gathered on the National Mall in Washington to see Barack Obama take the oath of office in 2009 – it will be a historic occasion just the same.

After all, it may be the last presidential inauguration in American history and, even if it isn’t, the next one might not be until the establishment of the Second American Republic, whenever that is.

Meanwhile, Smith’s unquenchable penchant for sucking up to prominent figures of the MAGA right is well known, and widely understood.

But what the heck, it’ll probably be a lot less expensive to indulge her than some of the things she might get up to if she has to stay at home and watch it on TV.

Alert readers will recall where Alberta’s political leader was on January 24 this year, the day after a frightening shooting at Edmonton City Hall. That’s right, she was just a short untaken flight away in Calgary, where she was doing something far more important than offering sympathy to frightened citizens or showing her government was in control during a crisis.

To wit, she was excitedly awaiting lunch with Tucker Carlson, the odious U.S. broadcaster best known as the leading voice of white grievance politics.

Then she was off to Edmonton for more of the same, an evening at Rogers Place with Carlson, National Post founder, professional bloviator and ex House of Lords member Tubby Black, and Doctor Jordan Peterson, meat eater and inspiration to a generation of Canadian incels.

There’s never been any suggestion Smith ever called Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi to say she was sorry that someone shot up City Hall. Well, fortunately there were no casualties, notwithstanding the fact a group of school kids were on a field trip to the building when the bullets started flying.

But, you know … we’ve all got priorities.

Nowadays, of course, the likes of Carlson, Conrad Black, and Jordan Peterson don’t hold a candle to the biggliest right-wing celebrity of them all, the Very Stable Genius himself, Donald J. Trump.

The trip to Washington, of course, will be an utter waste of time. Smith isn’t going to get anywhere near The Man, obviously.

Still, Alberta media can be counted on to do their best to make the junket look important.

“Smith heading to Trump’s inauguration, but ‘not worried’ about U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy,” The Calgary Herald whooped in a headline yesterday.

Turns out that was nothing more than clickbait, though, since the story essentially contained no information about the trip, devoting only 60 words to the topic, generously calculated.

Still, that was good enough for the UCP’s communications brain trust to cobble together a social media meme saying the same thing and implying by omission that their boss was going to meet the fellow.

So, is she going to mingle with the crowd on the National Mall? That’s probably her best chance of getting close to a Republican official that day. Will she visit the Canadian Embassy nearby? Who the hell knows? Probably not the ambassador, or even the premier, at this point.

Will she and her entourage even be able to find a hotel room? Well, maybe they can bed down at the Embassy or spend the night in the subway.

The only tidbit of information in the Herald about the trip was this quote, attributed to the premier: “We’re prepared to spend a few days there, just building those relationships with the new administration.”

Cool! Take your time!

The Herald’s big scoop seems to have been shoehorned into a story that Smith has signed on with a group of like-minded Republican state governors who are looking forward to Trump’s expected command to Drill! Baby! Drill! Ms. Smith will presumably now be the Canadian auxiliary to the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security.

That story, in turn, was based on a couple of press releases, one from the Alberta Government and the other from Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, which was linked to the Alberta.ca page.

Smith will also be attending a meeting of Western state governors in Las Vegas – always a sure sign that serious and important business is about to be done.

No date was given for that meeting, but the Herald’s reporter appears to have somehow managed to get ahold of a quote by Smith about how she doesn’t think Alberta oil will be included in Trump’s planned tariff on everything made by the United States’ trading partners.

As for the well-established tendency of an ample supply to cause a drop in the price of a commodity – often covered in economics textbooks under the heading, The Law of Supply and Demand – this appears to be a foreign concept to Alberta Conservatives.

But you can rest easy, fellow Albertans! Whatever the environmental or economic impact of all that new drilling south of the Medicine Line turns out to be, Smith isn’t worried about it.

The post Danielle Smith’s trip to Trump inauguration likely won’t be a success appeared first on rabble.ca.

Is Stephen Harper, the man who holds Pierre Poilievre’s puppet strings, actually going to help Danielle Smith try to wreck the Canada Pension Plan (CPP)?

Even considering how much trouble the Trudeau Liberals appear to be in nowadays, that seems like a weird flex for the former Conservative prime minister who surely would like to see Poilievre safely ensconced in the Prime Minister’s Office with as massive a majority in the House of Commons as possible.

Still, how else are we to interpret the certainty with which Postmedia is now reporting that Harper will indeed soon be named chair of the board of the Alberta Investment Management Corp. to help Smith implement his 23-year-old fever dream of owning the Libs by pulling Alberta out of the Canada Pension Plan and establishing its own provincial pension?

After all, Postmedia may not break many Alberta stories nowadays, but it acts as part of the United Conservative Party (UCP)’s propaganda ecosystem, so we can assume the statements about Harper’s future in Calgary Herald political commentator Don Braid’s column yesterday come with the imprimatur of the Premier’s Office. 

Braid’s column seems to confirm BNN Bloomberg’s scoop Tuesday, in the wake of Alberta Finance Minister Nat Horner’s unexpected Nov. 7 announcement he was sacking the Crown corporation’s CEO and its entire board for reasons that didn’t make much sense, and adds some spin helpful to the UCP. 

Mr. Braid even dropped a hint about what the Smith Government’s strategy might be for getting older Alberta voters, who fear and hate the idea of an Alberta pension plan, to come around: “Before a referendum, the big incentive would be a promise of lifetime monthly payments higher than the CPP.”

Since the point of the plan appears to be to pump Alberta pensioners’ retirement savings into the sunsetting fossil fuel industry, that promise might be harder to keep than it is to file a political column on deadline, but with a scheme like this you only have to fool the voters once.

Over time, the change would almost certainly be exposed as bad news for folks from this province who don’t have a nice Parliamentary pension as generous as Harper’s. 

Everyone one of us over 30 who lives here in Wild Rose Country knows someone who says they’re seriously considering fleeing the province if that’s what it takes to remain in the CPP, which has a history of being better managed than AIMCo’s holdings. Harper’s presence on the AIMCo board won’t change that. 

An Alberta pull-out from the CPP Investment Fund would also be ugly news for all those other Canadians who will have to pay more for less – even if Premier Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP) doesn’t manage to get its paws on 53 per cent of the national fund, as Alberta preposterously claims it would be owed. 

Any day now we should have the chief actuary of Canada’s estimate of what could really be expected by Alberta. 

The chances of Alberta getting 53 per cent of the fund, of course, are zero, with or without Harper pitching in to this fundamentally unpatriotic effort. But even with a smaller payout, any Conservative politician who went along with this could expect to be reviled in the rest of Canada outside Quebec, which has had its own pension plan from the get-go. All the more so if Alberta pensioners managed to collect a little more for a spell. 

Be that as it may, such an effort wouldn’t be completely off brand for Harper. He was one of the authors – perhaps the principal author – of the notorious Firewall Letter, the 2001 Alberta sovereignty-association screed that called for the province to quit the CPP, create a provincial pension plan, and adopt other measures that would amount to a half-step out of Confederation.

The Conservative premier of the day, Ralph Klein, sensibly tossed it into the recycler. Alas, now it’s being recycled anyway, and not as a clean sheet of typing paper. 

Moreover, when he was prime minister, readers will recall that Harper was no friend of pensioners, trying in 2012 to raise the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement to 67 from 65.

As a CUPE researcher pointed out in the leadup to the 2015 federal election, this would have been “the biggest cut ever made to Canada’s modest public pension system,” potentially pushing hundreds of thousands of Canadian seniors into poverty.

Remember as well that the 2011 Harper Conservatives promised in their election platform not to cut pensions, but reversed course less than a year later with a ready-made plan. This certainly suggests a hidden agenda item that was there all along.

Soon after coming to power, thankfully, the Trudeau Liberals reversed the Harper pension cuts before they took effect, but it’s something for Albertans to think about if they’re wondering how confident they can be about Alberta-managed pension funds, with or without Stephen Harper setting AIMCo’s strategic direction. 

But – who knows? – maybe Harper will throw his Ottawa protégé over the side if that’s what it takes to realize his Firewall fantasy and further undermine the principle of keeping Canadian seniors out of poverty.

AIMCo board member compensation

If you’re wondering what AIMCo’s board members are paid, there are some interesting figures on pages 83 and 84 of the Crown corporation’s 2022 annual report. Annual base retainers of $20,000 ($50,000 for the chair) and per-meeting payments of $1,000 may not sound like much in this era of multi-million-dollar C-Suite salaries, but one imagines that if Harper joins the board the UCP will find a way to ensure he is paid considerably more. Meanwhile, the multi-million-dollar executive salaries are listed on page 78.

Don’t expect them to shrink under the UCP’s more congenial replacement regime, coming soon after a new CEO is named, notwithstanding Horner’s complaints about costs at AIMCo. 

Former Alberta NDP chief of staff lands in Saskatchewan

Readers will be interested to note that Jeremy Nolais, the Alberta NDP’s chief of staff from 2019 until the party leadership changed and on leave as former justice minister Kathleen Ganley’s leadership campaign manager last spring, has landed on his feet in Saskatchewan. 

Nolais has taken up duties as chief of staff to Opposition Leader Carla Beck and the Saskatchewan NDP Caucus.

The post Will Stephen Harper help Danielle Smith’s pension plan scheme appeared first on rabble.ca.

Ontario’s supervised consumption site ban goes against expert evidence, suggests an internal review from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. 

The review, which rabble.ca has received, concludes that supervised consumption sites have “protective effects on overdose-related morbidity and mortality,” are “not associated with an increase in drug-related crime or drug dealing” and “result in savings to the overall health care system.” 

Only three of the 10 experts consulted in the 2018 review of the province’s supervised consumption site program disagreed with consumption sites as an acceptable model to treat substance abuse. 

But as of March 31, 2025, 10 of Ontario’s 19 supervised consumption sites will be forced to close as a result of the province’s ban of sites operating within a 200 metre radius of schools or child care centres. 

The internal review was first discovered through an access to information request by the Centre on Drug Policy Evaluation (CDPE), who released part of the document in their new report on supervised consumption sites in Ontario. 

Daniel Werb, director of the CDPE and chair in Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders at St. Michael’s Hospital and The University of Toronto, said their report aims to relay the current evidence on supervised consumption sites.

Supervised consumption sites are not a risk to public safety

“If we can communicate to the public not only what these sites have accomplished in Ontario, but also what they haven’t contributed to – namely, more dangerous neighbourhoods – I’m hopeful that we can make a difference,” Werb said in an interview with rabble.ca. 

In an email statement to rabble.ca, a spokesperson for the Ontario Minister of Health said the government’s decision to close consumption sites was in response to backlash. 

“Communities, parents, and families across Ontario have made it clear that the presence of drug consumption sites near schools and daycares is leading to serious safety problems,” the statement said. “Ontarians deserve more than a health care system focused on providing people struggling with addiction with tools to use illegal drugs.” 

According to the CDPE’s report, however, there is no link between supervised consumption sites and an increased risk to public safety – but there is a strong link to decreased mortality. 

The CDPE report, which used data from the Toronto Police Service and the provincial government, found that neighbourhoods in Toronto with supervised consumption services experienced a 67 per cent reduction in overdose-related deaths. 

It also found that neighbourhoods with supervised consumption services experienced a decrease in assault and robbery rates, whereas other downtown neighbourhoods did not.

What this means for those struggling with addiction

Jessica Lyons is a frontline worker at Moss Park’s Consumption and Treatment Service in Toronto, one of the consumption sites that will be forced to close by March. She’s worried about what the ban will mean for her patients. 

“People feel like they’re being abandoned to die,” she said in an interview with rabble.ca. “People feel like they’re being told they’re worthless by the government.”

“It is my absolute honour to work with all the people I work alongside,” Lyons continued. “To provide healthcare, to provide support, to learn from them, to hear about their lives.”

Some supervised consumption sites, such as The Somerset West Community Health Centre in Ottawa, have applied to become Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment (HART) hubs. 

HART hubs are part of a new $378 million investment project by the Ontario government, “built to respond to local community needs and priorities”. The hubs will offer users connections to services like treatment programs and mental health support, but they will not offer consumption services or needle exchange programs. 

Suzanne Obiorah, executive director of Somerset West Community Health Centre, said that though her centre is applying to become a HART hub, there needs to be multiple strategies to address the drug crisis. 

“HART hubs are one strategy to address the toxic drug and homelessness crisis,” said Obiorah, “but we need multiple interventions to support members in our community.”

Werb says the HART hub model is confusing – and that instead of trying to replace the existing system, the government should be supporting it.

“The system of supervised consumption sites that we know is already so effective,” he said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.” 

But he’s hopeful their report will help inform the government’s decisions going forward. 

“I’m always hopeful that evidence can help inform decision making,” he said. “If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be doing the work that I do.”

As for Moss Park, Lyons isn’t sure what’s next. When asked, she said: “There’s no plan. The plan is we’re getting closed down. We’re trying to fight it.”

The post Ontario’s supervised drug consumption site strategy doesn’t match their own data appeared first on rabble.ca.

There’s a name I want you to commit to memory: Bianca Lovado.

A transgender woman, she spent the latter half of the 2010’s moving in and out of British Columbia’s jail and prison systems. For much of that time, she was housed in facilities designated for men. 

Seeking a legal remedy, Bianca filed a human rights complaint against B.C. Corrections in 2018 after the province denied her application to transfer from the Surrey Pretrial Centre to a women’s prison. But then, in November 2019, before her complaint could be adjudicated by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Bianca died. 

She would not know justice in this life. And she deserved better.

Bianca Lovado. Remember her name. 

“Legal interpretation takes place in a field of pain and death”

That’s how the late great Robert Cover, at the time of his death the Chancellor Kent Professor of Legal History at Yale Law School, characterized things in his now-famous essay, “Violence and the Word.”

He meant a few things.

When a judge decides a case, the losing party might lose their home, their liberty, even their life. And when legal interpreters do their work, it is often in such a way that they thereby condone either past or future violence. How often, after all, is the hyper-securitization and over-incarceration of Black and Indigenous peoples in this country framed as something that can be reformed out of being, instead of as the feature of the settler-colonial state it in fact is?

Canadian law deals in pain and death precisely because it deals in judgment. Encoded into the adversarial system at the heart of Canada’s courts is an abiding commitment to the “justice” of confrontation and violence, be it a confrontation between one member of the public and another or between the state and an individual. Someone has to win, which means someone else has to lose. And very often, the defeated party loses everything.

Legal violence is everywhere

Canada’s conservative governments are trying to legislate the country’s trans communities out of existence. That’s the motivating vision, as I’ve written before, behind moves like Alberta’s recently unveiled triptych of anti-trans bills. The legislation targets trans children because they are future trans adults: if the government can regulate them into a perpetual closet, trans communities have no future in this country.

Now, it would be wrong to call such legislative actions unprecedented. Settler governments in what is now Canada have been honing their ability to suppress and destroy undesirable populations since colonization began here. And they’ve been targeting children and youth—as both supremely vulnerable persons as well as supremely powerful ones, the latter insofar as they represent the promise, or threat, of becoming tomorrow’s adults—for much of that time. The residential schools program is the most infamous example, of course, but we could cite the ongoing violence of the child welfare system, as well. 

And while we should be careful not to compare one horror to another as if they exist in a competitive relationship, it is worth noting the historic and contemporary parallels between acts of violence to make a simple point: violence is everywhere in the legal system—it was everywhere yesterday, it is everywhere today, and it will no doubt also be everywhere tomorrow.

The limits of law

In the wake of the anti-trans laws and policies enacted or proposed in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick, a laundry list of legal advocacy groups have come forward to fight for trans rights in court. And I myself have been quite supportive of those efforts.

But as the anti-trans political agenda in this country takes concrete shape in our provinces’ legislatures, I find myself with some lingering doubts about the degree to which the law can or should be our saviour.

Indeed, can Canadian law aspire to being anything other than a mere tool by which the powerful oppress and marginalize the vulnerable? 

After all, even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that great statement of our country’s aspirations for civil society, contains within it a legislative override, popularly known as “the notwithstanding clause,” that allows electoral majorities to void the rights and liberties of minorities. And there is little, if anything, that courts can do to hold that veto power in check.

In a country with a constitutional notwithstanding clause, is there any future for trans rights at law?

I’m not giving up on law yet

I don’t know how the ongoing legal fights over trans rights in Alberta and Saskatchewan will turn out. I don’t know if the Canadian public will elect a Conservative federal government in the next election that will rollback trans rights nationally. I know how I hope things unfold, but that’s just a hope.

What I do know is this: Canadian law is but one tool for those seeking to counter cis-heteronormative violence, and it is arguably a weak one. 

Now, if all you know how to use is the hammer of the law, as is the case for most lawyers, then the law will seem like the solution to every social ill. But not every problem is a nail. 

After all, Canadian law is incredibly adept at assimilating critiques and translating those critiques into reformist proposals that perpetuate, indeed that solidify, law’s hegemonic rule. That’s why, for example, we’re never going to solve the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples through more refinements to Canada’s criminal sentencing regime.

But this doesn’t mean we should give up on the law entirely.

There are some things that Canadian law is very good at doing. It can be leveraged to achieve individual victories for specific people in particular circumstances. 

A good lawyer might be able to keep her trans woman client out of a prison designated for men; doing so does nothing to counter the systemic violence at the heart of the carceral system, but it is still an important win for that individual.

And maybe that’s the key takeaway for the ongoing struggle for trans justice. Systemic justice for Canada’s trans communities requires a more just Canada than the one Canadian law is equipped to provide us. The fight for trans justice will not be won in Canada’s courtrooms; it will be won on Canada’s streets and—I can only hope, the committed democrat that I am—at Canada’s ballot boxes.

It makes me sad beyond words that Bianca Lovado didn’t get to experience the particular justice that Canadian law can deliver. I can only hope that those of us involved with the law can ensure that that justice is available to others in similar positions, even as we lift our eyes towards the horizon and dream of a better world.

Remember Bianca’s name. And fight for those still with us.

The post The law won’t save us (and other hard truths about the fight for trans justice) appeared first on rabble.ca.

NATO is the single most damaging international accord that Canada is part of. Despite near unanimous support in the media and Parliament, the alliance will soon be confronted in Montreal.

NATO increases pressure on Canada to devote public resources to war rather than pressing security and social needs. In July the Liberals committed to reaching NATO’s target of spending two per cent of GDP on the military by 2032. Recently the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated Canada would need to spend $41 billion more per year on warfare to reach NATO’s target. Already, Canadian military spending has doubled from $20 billion to $41 billion over the past decade partly in a bid to reach the NATO target. And now Ottawa plans to double it again to $82 billion. This starves society of resources to overcome far more pressing social needs like building hundreds of thousands of units of public housing.

Through NATO Canada has nearly 2,000 troops stationed in Latvia. The seven-year-old deployment to a country bordering Russia appears to have no end. Canadians have also been stationed in Iraq over the past decade and on the high seas as part of NATO operations.

Canadian troops occupied Afghanistan for a decade as part of a NATO mission there. This country also led the alliance’s 2011 bombing of Libya and Canadian fighter jets participated in the 78-day NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 1999.

From the early 1950s to 1990s tens of thousands of Canadian troops were stationed in Western Europe as part of NATO deployments. Immediately after the alliance’s 1949 creation Canada gave billions of dollars in NATO Mutual Assistance Program weaponry to the European colonial powers suppressing independence movements in Africa and Asia.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ottawa pushed to expand NATO despite promises to Moscow that the alliance would “not move one inch eastward”. Alongside the 2014 Canadian-backed ouster of anti-NATO Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich, this stoked tensions and contributed to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Alongside military training, intelligence support and former soldiers fighting, Canada has given nearly $5 billion in arms and $15 billion in other assistance to Ukraine over the past two and a half years. While Russia’s violence should be condemned, the conflict is best described as a NATO proxy war.

Between November 22 and 25 NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly is meeting in Montreal. It consists of representatives from the parliaments of the alliance’s 32 member countries. NATO’s new Secretary General, Mark Rutte and Canadian ministers will likely attend.

In response to the militarist alliance’s meeting, two demonstrations and a daylong counter summit are planned. La Convergence des luttes anticapitalistes (CLAC) has put up “Bloquons l’OTAN” and “Block NATO” posters throughout my neighborhood just east of downtown. CLAC is also circulating a 16-page anti-NATO newspaper and stickers advertising their November 22 demonstration. Earlier on that Friday another group is organizing a series of anti-NATO “decolonial education” workshops. On November 23 Le Mouvement québécois pour la paix is holding a march and the Canada Wide Peace and Justice Network is organizing a November 24 counter summit with German MP Sevim Dagdelen, Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin and others.

I’d be surprised if any of these events drew more than a few hundred but considering the dearth of criticism of NATO in the media and parliament that would be a success. 

Already the mobilization has put the NATO summit under the spotlight and the dominant media will likely be forced to provide at least some critical coverage.

The mobilization is a step towards rebuilding a largely dormant peace movement. Bloquons l’OTAN.

The post NATO summit could help rebuild peace movement appeared first on rabble.ca.

Trump’s re-election rocked the world. Many Americans, as well as foreign onlookers, watched the results come in with shock and dismay, wondering how millions could have voted to put a man so hostile to American institutions back in the White House. 

Here in Canada, Trump’s resurgence increased concern in left-leaning circles about the outlook for our upcoming election. Pierre Poilievre’s Trumpian politics are undeniably popular, and he seems poised for a majority government. 

How do we make sense of these troubling trends? 

Mark Twain said, “History does not repeat itself. But it rhymes.” And even an amateur poet can notice a glaringly relevant historical fact: pandemics encourage eugenics, which provides fertile soil for fascism to bloom. 

Most are unaware that the 1918 flu pandemic killed an estimated 50 million people – more than died in the First World War. The uncontrolled pandemic fueled an increasing emphasis on the pseudoscience of eugenics, the idea that humans can improve their gene pool by facilitating the breeding of “desirables” and preventing the reproduction of “undesirables.” 

The inherent logic of eugenics is that some people are worth less than others, and thus deserve to be sacrificed. The 1918 flu pandemic facilitated widespread acceptance of this calculation. Eugenic legislation increased in the years that followed, including forced sterilization laws in several American states.  

Eugenic reasoning powered the fascist movements of the 1930s and 1940s. The far-right ideology of scapegoating undesirables and, eventually, seeking to exterminate them was an extension of accepting a hierarchy of humanity. Indeed, one study has found that in Italy, each death per 1,000 from the 1918 flu in a given region correlated with a four per cent increase in the 1924 vote share of the Fascist Party. Another study noted a similar association in German voting patterns in 1932 and 1933. 

Can you hear the rhymes? 

In 2020, Biden and the Democrats rode to victory on a wave of anger at Trump’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. But mere months into his presidency, Biden abandoned COVID protections in favor of a “return to normalcy.” Notably, this decision was not based on scientific evidence, but rather a strategic memo from Impact Research, a consulting firm, aimed at winning re-election in 2024.

Troublingly, those within and outside the U.S. embraced Biden’s new narrative that Covid was only a danger to the “vulnerable,” and not something most had to worry about. Leaders replaced the community care language of 2020 – “bend the curve,” “your mask protects me, my mask protects you” – with a reaffirmation of individualism. People could choose to mask if they wanted and those at highest risk should stay home. 

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Left’s darling of the early pandemic, proudly embraced eugenics. In August 2023, he reassured the BBC that “the vulnerable will fall by the wayside. They’ll get infected, they’ll get hospitalized, and some will die,” but it would not be like 2020. 

Worse still, several “blue” cities and states – those with Democratic governments – have passed or attempted to pass mask bans. 

Amidst all of this, the rates of death and disability from COVID have remained high. Under Biden, over 800,000 Americans died from acute COVID – this does not include the increase in all-cause mortality due to COVID’s vascular damage nor the millions disabled by Long COVID. Over the last few months, the U.S. has averaged over 1,000 deaths per week. In Canada, COVID remains the third leading cause of death, behind heart disease and cancer. Our Chief Science Advisor has described the ongoing pandemic as a “mass disabling event.”  

This is the supposed price of “normalcy” – and it should give us immense concern how willing most of us have been to pay it. In just five years, we have agreed that we would rather sacrifice some people rather than adapt to protect everyone. 

Want to resist creeping fascism? Put your mask back on.

The post History shows that pandemics lead to fascism appeared first on rabble.ca.

The United Nations definition of genocide is simple and includes four basic elements:

• Killing members of the group.
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. It does not include political groups or so called “cultural genocide.”

And, that is why Prime Minister Stephen Harper demanded that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission use the term “cultural genocide” rather than outright genocide, because Canada was four-for-four as far as the UN definition of genocide goes.

Yet, on closer examination, the destruction of a people’s culture is the destruction of those people as a whole because their language, traditions, customs, art and artifacts are what make them unique. Eradicating those sacred parts of their lives leaves future generations without guidance or a means of navigating life and that in effect is genocide.

The inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and Two-Spirit people (MMIWG2S) was not tethered by such colonial demands and was able to call out the intentional femicide that is happening to Indigenous women and girls – and really, all Indigenous folks – for what it really is, systemic institutionalized genocide.

So called “Canada” was established and built on the genocide of Indigenous peoples across Turtle Island, but that is changing.

Reviving Indigenous knowledge

Lisa Jackson and The National Film Board (NFB) of Canada have created a documentary that redefines Indigenous knowledge and teachings using the life and times of Elder, cosmology and astronomy expert, Wilfred Buck.

“We are in the process of remaking an age-old song . . . signing, dreaming, praying, talking into existence once again the knowledge of our people,” said Wilfred Buck.

Moving between the earth and stars, past and present, this hybrid feature documentary follows the extraordinary life of Wilfred Buck, a charismatic and impertinent Cree Elder who overcame a harrowing – yet all too familiar — history of displacement, racism and addiction by reclaiming ancestral star knowledge and ceremony.

Buck is humble, profound, funny, always real and a master storyteller. Narration taken from his autobiography, I Have Lived Four Lives,  condenses the loss and desperate pain of his youth into powerful, Beat-like poetry.

After his community in The Pas, Northern Central Manitoba,was forcibly relocated to make way for a hydroelectric dam, Buck’s family lost everything.

Indigenous sacred sites desecrated; matriarchal lineage is lost as ceremony becomes outlawed; women, heads of families and children are murdered, displaced or scooped.

Buck’s father turns to drink, his grandfather and uncle hang themselves, his siblings become part of the legacy of the 60s Scoop which drives his mother to take to the streets of Winnipeg where she eventually dies in despair. It’s a community and way of life destroyed by white supremacy, racism and capitalism.

As a teen on his own, Buck descends into the darkness of the city streets, surviving any way he can, until he reconnects with Elders who start him on a path that transforms his world.  

Driven by insatiable curiosity and instructed by dreams, Buck becomes a science educator and internationally respected star lore expert. His mission is sharing these life-changing teachings—as relevant and urgent today as ever—always guided by ceremony and anchored in the land.

Knowing William Buck

Director Lisa Jackson deftly interweaves verité footage of Buck’s present with archival footage and cinematic, dramatized scenes from his past, painting a portrait of a beloved leader who now stands at the forefront of the resurgence of Indigenous ways of knowing.

Buck, an Ininiw (Cree) astronomer, author, educator, addictions consultant, Knowledge Keeper and lecturer originally from Opaskwayak Cree Nation (OCN), graduated from the University of Manitoba with two degrees in education and has 25 years of experience as an educator, working with students from kindergarten to university.

Buck also worked as a science facilitator for 15 years at the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre, where he did extensive research on Ininiw Acakosuk also known as Cree stars/constellations that were part of Turtle Island long before it was colonized and European constellation and interpretations were forced upon Buck’s people.

Currently, Buck gives presentations using his mobile planetarium, in addition to lectures and keynote presentations on Indigenous astronomy and Indigenous worldviews. He is considered the foremost authority on Indigenous astronomy in the world.

For Jackson, this documentary started with a sturgeon. In the summer of 2017 Jackson was reading an article when she saw the word “sturgeon” and experienced what she calls a zap — a bolt of fascination and urgency.

“I’ve learned to listen to them, as my most successful projects have started this way. I’d heard of this ancient fish before, but it had never had this effect on me. A seed was planted,” said Jackson.

Later that year, a friend asked Jackson to attend a panel on Indigenous star knowledge at the University of Toronto, and she went. When a man from the Canada Science and Technology Museum mentioned the name “Wilfred Buck,” she again felt that zap.

Weeks later when Wilfred and Jackson spoke by phone, Buck told Jackson that he had just finished writing his life story and that no one knew he’d written it except his wife and daughter.

Later that day, Jackson read the first page of his memoir, I Have Lived Four Lives which stated: “I am Pawami niki titi cikiw, ‘He has Dreamed a Dream and Keeps it,’ shortened to ‘Dream Keeper.’”

It continued, “I am of the fresh-out-out-of-the-bush, partly civilized, colonized, displaced people. Trained and shamed by teachers, preachers, doctors, nurses, law enforcement, movie, radio and television to be a pill-popping, hard drinking, self-loathing, easily impressed, angry, non-conformist, maladjusted, disaffected youth of the “dirty-indian,” baby boomer generation. By all rights, I am told, I should be dead six times over.”

This is the story of colonialism of Indigenous people and their territory, but also of their mind and spirit told from an Indigenous perspective.

“Reading Wilfred’s words, I saw someone who’d been through the fire of what has broken countless Indigenous people, and survived. And who was now, with the help of his family and community, forging a path for others to heal and reconnect to the profound teachings of their ancestors through ceremony and star knowledge,” Jackson stated.

”I was riveted. Seamlessly moving from past to present, heartbreaking to hilarious, it was searingly honest, playful and wise. Here was a beat poet, born on the land, torn from it and thrown into a society that said his people were backwards, knew nothing, and that his ancestors were in Hell. Like many others, he fell into a deep hole of addictions, street life and pain, hurting others as he had been hurt,” she added

The story of Namew

On the last page of Wilfred’s memoir was the story of Namew, the sturgeon. This Cree star constellation reminds Indigenous folks of their responsibilities to seven generations and beyond and that they are part of the continuity of knowledge through time, ensuring that the next generations have what they need to live a good life.

The sturgeon is a long-lived fish that swam with the dinosaurs. A fish that has endured extinction events. It swims low in the rivers and lakes and carries lessons. Some say it can move between the worlds, above and below.

As a constellation, the sturgeon’s tale is the past, its nose is the future and where it swims is the present. Seven generations are held within that constellation.

“Colonization has taken a hatchet to the chain of knowledge our ancestors carried forward, but it didn’t sever it. And through the work of Wilfred and countless other Elders, knowledge keepers, teachers and oskapiwis (helpers), the knowledge is being transmitted again—no longer outlawed, ridiculed and diminished,” Jackson maintains.

Born to an Anishinaabe mother and a father of mixed European heritage, Jackson’s film conveys Ininew (Cree) teachings and Indigenous teachings about how to heal and how to come to new knowledge.

Jackson, and Buck, believe Indigenous knowledge is based on millennia-long observations of the Earth and skies that provided guidance on how to navigate and live in balance.

In a world drowning in data and information, folks are starved for wisdom and perspective. The film Wilfred Buck asks viewers to ponder the question: What is missing when there is no ceremony?

Jackson acknowledges that,” Western knowledge and Indigenous knowledge have only just introduced themselves. And though there is a growing recognition of Traditional Ecological Knowledge, the mainstream categorization of rational thought and quantifiable data as completely separate from other ways of knowing is a barrier. There may be a willingness to listen, but there remains a gulf in language and worldviews. I hope this film can be an invitation for that dialogue to begin.”

Wilfred has written three books: Tipiskawi Kisik: Night Sky Star Stories (2018), the semi-autobiographical I Have Lived Four Lives (2021), on which Jackson’s documentary Wilfred Buck is based, and Kitcikisik (Great Sky): Tellings That Fill the Night Sky (2021). Wilfred Buck (2024) Is 96 minutes, will be available on Crave in December. Find out more on the NFB site.

The post Wilfred Buck and the revival of Indigenous knowledge appeared first on rabble.ca.

Mark Hanna, an unscrupulous Republican backroom operator in the late 19th century, once succinctly summed up all he’d learned about politics: “There are two things that matter in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember the second.”

An astute observation, although there is a second thing that matters in politics — or at least there was in last week’s US presidential election — and its name is Elon Musk.

In fact, Musk himself embodies the two things that were most important in that election calamity — the first is money and the second is all the disinformation that money can buy.

Musk is the world’s richest man, currently worth $320 billion (up $70 billion since Donald Trump’s victory). Two years ago, Musk bought Twitter — the closest thing we had to a town square — and he’s used it to create information chaos, churning out a gutter full of false information, distortions and outright lies to help re-elect convicted felon Trump.

Sending out thousands of tweets to his 202 million followers, Musk hugely amplified and gave credence to Trump’s outrageous lies — about Haitians eating pets, about Democrats pushing illegal immigrants to vote, about the vast conspiracy that deprived him of his alleged 2020 election victory, etc.

Musk also paid $100 to each registered voter in Pennsylvania who signed a pro-gun petition and then had their names entered into a daily draw for $1 million, paid by Musk, in what might be confused for a vote-buying scheme.

Musk’s efforts to re-throne Trump got an unexpected boost this summer in an important ruling by the US Federal Election Commission (FEC), which removed one of the few remaining restrictions put in place to prevent big money from dominating politics. That FEC ruling further opened the floodgates to billionaire election spending, even beyond the torrent released by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010.

Citizens United permitted the creation of super PACs — funds that enable unlimited amounts of private money to be spent promoting political campaigns. But there were rules restricting a Super PAC from co-ordinating directly with the political candidate it was promoting — on the (far-fetched) theory that keeping the two apart would prevent billionaires from using their super PACs to curry favour with politicians.

The ruling enabled Musk, through his Super PAC, to spend $175 million in direct co-ordination with the Trump campaign, organizing and carrying out the campaign’s crucial ground game. Among other tactics, Musk hired a massive crew of canvassers, who reportedly knocked on 11 million doors in the swing states since August.

The New York Times pointed to the significance of the FEC ruling in helping Musk push Trump to victory: “An ultrawealthy donor took advantage of America’s evolving campaign-finance system to put his thumb on the scale like never before.”

As for the possibility of corruption? Hard to imagine that Musk would have any interest in cashing in, now that Trump is poised to be the world’s most powerful man.

In recent days, Democrats have struggled to understand what could possibly have led Americans to vote for such a vengeful egomaniac, who is so obviously out for no-one but himself. Certainly, there’s truth in Sen. Bernie Sanders’ contention that the Democrats neglected the working class, although this was less true of the actively pro-labour Biden administration than, say, the Clinton administration.

So, sure, we should examine all the factors involved, but let’s not overlook the two most important ones in this election disaster — money and disinformation. They enabled Musk, backed up by the right-wing media ecosystem, to falsify information, deceiving people and depriving them of even basic facts, thereby ensuring millions of Americans would have little idea what they were actually voting for.

This article was originally published in the Toronto Star.

The post Musk, money and misinformation fuelled the US election appeared first on rabble.ca.

If the Democratic Party establishment cared as much about crushing the left in their own party as they did about beating the MAGA movement, Trump would not be returning to the White House. Instead, because of his landslide victory, he either has an overwhelming mandate for authoritarianism, fanatical puritanism, and nationalism, or has completely rebuked the Neoliberalism orthodoxy that has defined the Democratic Party for the past three decades. 

The sort of good news is I believe it is more the latter than the former, though the Democratic Party establishment (which includes their media surrogates) do not, as a whole, perceive it this way. They were and are likely to remain committed to not learning any lessons from the past three presidential elections.

This tragic story in some respects begins in the 90s when the Democratic Party fully transformed from the party of New Deal-liberalism to Reagan and Thatcher-era neoliberalism.

But I’d like to focus on some more recent history. In 2015 when Bernie Sanders mounted a surprisingly left populist insurgency campaign in the Democratic primary race for their 2016 presidential nominee. He just might have won if the party-machine had not pulled every dirty trick it could to ensure Hilary Clinton’s victory. 

Meanwhile, and ironically, given his authoritarianism, the Republican primary that year was more democratic than the Democratic one. They played fair and Trump won, easily—and in part, because he spoke, like Bernie, to the economic needs of those left behind by neoliberalism (though this was of course a grift on Trump’s part) and (also like Bernie) he rejected the neoconservative orthodoxy of endless wars of the Republican party that had become unpopular with the GOP base. Remember “low energy-Jeb (Bush)?” I hardly do either.

Fast-forward four years, to the 2019-2020 Democratic Primary. Democrat Party amnesia caused them to be shocked that after the first few primary races that a Bernie Sanders victory looked like an inevitably. The Democratic party establishment jumped into action again: convincing most other contenders to drop out and endorse Biden—putting all the party’s weight behind Biden despite him being a deeply flawed candidate already, clearly (for those who wished to see it) in cognitive decline. It was once again the Democratic establishment Goliath versus Bernie’s underdog, grassroots coalition. And again, he only narrowly lost.

Biden, compared at least, to Clinton, was, for a mainstream Democrat, fairly pro-labor. But he damaged what tepid support he had from progressives when his administration (that of course Kamala Harris was a part of) manufactured an end to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed him to end the official public health emergency and “wind-down” a safety-net of the likes not seen since the New Deal. 

Once the emergency phase was over, among other blows to low income folks, was that millions of them were kicked off Medicaid, finding themselves rather abruptly without health insurance. But for a brief time—though not as progressive—the crisis caused Biden to act in a Bernie Sanders-esque (or Bernie-light) way, however temporarily. As The New Yorker put it (not the most progressive of publications): “Reality has endorsed Bernie Sanders.” The manufactured reality of a post-Covid America allowed the Biden administration to return to status quo neoliberal politics. He did however also reject neo-conservativism and pulled the U.S. out of Afghanistan—finally. But, of course, he squandered the credit that that gave him with anti-war progressives by providing unconditional military support to conduct the ongoing genocide in Gaza. More importantly, Arab and Muslim Americans likely to vote Democrat threatened, understandably, to withhold their vote. 

Kamala Harris, throughout her campaign, gave every indication she would continue to fund genocide. This isn’t the main reason she lost (though it should be), but it was a factor. In fact, she not only pledged U.S. backing of Israel war criminality, but offered something worse. She embraced the support of neocons—most notably one of the most unpopular figures in recent American politics Dick Cheney. Bragging about his support, particularly in light of the election outcome, seems more like parody than electoral strategy. Harris campaigned with neocon (and daughter of Dick Cheney) Liz Cheney on several occasions. And Harris did not appear once at a rally with a Palestinian, nor was Bernie Sanders invited to speak at her rallies. 

As a relevant side-note, Bernie, in an election where Dems lost much ground in congress, won his senate seat in a blow-out as did Palestinian-American progressive Rashid Tlaib (in easily holding on to her congressional seat)—who refused to endorse Harris because of the genocide in Gaza.

Harris’s clear intention to keep funding Israel’s genocide in Gaza, as well as declaring Iran (not Russia or China) to be the biggest security threat to United States, thrilled neocons. Prominent neocon media personality Bill Kristol tweeted (riffing off Richard Nixon) just before the election “we are all neocons now.” One major problem, strategically speaking, is there was no neocon constituency—as Trump already proved in 2016. Harris was pleasing only a bunch a warmongering politicians and media elites (and Zionists are not a formidable voting block—particularly as the majority residing of Zionist Jewish people live in blue states in any case—not to mention a not insignificant number of Jews, like me, are anti-Zionist). 

This loss is definitely not entirely on Harris’s shoulder. Being selected, or rather installed, so late in the race, gave her little time to distance herself from Biden’s deeply unpopular presidency. The party that constantly tells you how concerned they are about democracy should have held an open primary and let the voters decide. But at least part of the reason they did not do this, I believe, was out of fear, should a more progressive Democrat seek the presidency, of losing their neoliberal stranglehold of the party As I said earlier, they cared more about retaining corporate-backed control of their party than beating Trump.

Thought experiment: it’s 2021. The Democratic party has not spent so much of its energy and money on ensuring Bernie Sander losses as it has before. They had a fair-ish primary instead and on January 20th Bernie is inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States. Like Biden he has sweeping powers because of the COVID-19 crisis. He also does not stand for his agenda being throated or watered down, as Biden did, by conservative Democratics Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema. Rather Sanders asserts pressure on them to vote for his agenda—he promises to put the full force of his presidency behind progressives primary challengers. They get in line. Americans soon have Medicare for all—Bernie Sander’s popular signature policy that every contending Democrat in the 2019-2020 primary race, including Harris, ran on some version of. The only one who didn’t: Joe Biden (Harris in this most recent presidential contest, also did not support Medicare for all). Thousands of COVID-19 deaths are prevented because of access to healthcare for everyone. Additionally, because Bernie, over the last couple of years, took the pandemic more seriously than probably any other elected official, he ensures the necessary spending to help the millions of Americans debilitated by Long-Covid. That seems almost certain given his “moon-shot” (for research and treatment) proposal. That would have earned him support from an overlooked constituency—Sick and disabled voters. 

Nor would Bernie be scared of being called a socialist, he “fixes” prices to fight inflation (arguably the issue that hurt the Dems the most in this election). Something Biden didn’t do and Harris did not do a good enough job in laying out how she would stop “price gouging” nor that she was all that invested in the problem. In terms of the economy, Bernie’s rhetoric would sound more like Trump’s (without the racism, sexism, trans-phobia, and xenophobia, of course). Unlike Trump, Bernie would actually deliver.

And while Bernie was admittedly not as early as he should have been on this, he called for and put forth a bill for an arms embargo against Israel. Assuming he stops arming Israel, in this imagined scenario of his 2021-2019 presidency, Bernie turns out Arab and Muslim voters in record numbers in 2024. And as a pro-choice stalwart, he codifies Roe too. His policies, of course, do not win him the scarlet letter of a Dick Cheney endorsement. Neocons, not progressives, are the ones now with nowhere to go. I could go on, but spoiler: Bernie wins by a lot or little in the 2024 presidential election. Rather than the Democrats, it is the Republicans who must reckon with why they lost and the deflated MAGA reactionaries are top of the list.

Of course, it is easy for everything, as a leftist, to go my way in the Bernie Sanders presidency in my imagination, which certainly would be better than what would, in reality, be a flawed administration—up against the enormous powers of Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etcetera—not to mention neoliberals and Republicans in congress, and a reactionary supreme court. But he would, like FDR, have the guts to fight back against the court too. 

But a Bernie candidacy wasn’t necessary for Dems to win this election. Biden and Harris could have focused much more on the legitimate economic concerns of millions of Americans. Something that, as is the case with Bernie Sander’s principles, not at all in opposition to reproductive rights, trans rights, supporting and protecting immigrants, or protecting democracy. 

Sanders brand of progressivism is also—given the Jewish senator’s views on Palestine demonstrate—not in opposition to refusing to fund genocide either. But economic populism and being truly anti-genocide are at odds with the corporative-incentivised ideology of the Democratic establishment. And ensuring this is the dominant ideology of the party is more important to them than what they largely ran on: reproductive rights and protecting democracy. In fact, they were willingly to gamble both away rather than even meet the left remotely half-way. 

If I sound a bit (or a lot) smug, it’s because I am so very, very pissed at the Democrats for blowing a winnable election and terrified of a more emboldened Trump. Things did not have to turn out this way.

The post Bernie would have won—that the leftist-refrain is tiresome, doesn’t make it any less true appeared first on rabble.ca.