Austerity and the politics of the Ford scandal

Considering all his budget cuts and bigotry, it’s no surprise people are taking pleasure in the scandal surrounding Rob Ford. But while 60% think he should resign, polls also show his popularity has increased from 39% to 44%. The scandal seems to present opportunities for the left, as the Toronto Sun anxiously wrote in its article calling for Ford to resign: “Ford’s enemies on council, beyond calling for him to resign, are going to use his personal troubles and controversies to try to discredit his agenda of fiscal conservatism.” We certainly do need to discredit his agenda, and have through a series of mobilizations. But the scandal can just as easily erase these memories, and substitute right-wing moralism that fuels his support and reinforces his agenda. We should remember why he was elected, how he was challenged, and the real scandal of the Ford agenda if we want an alternative.

Why was Ford elected?

Ford was elected in a landslide victory, which confused many. Two years into the economic crisis there was visible resistance to austerity—24,000 city workers went on strike in 2009, and 40,000 people marched against the G20 in 2010. Any left candidate giving electoral expression to this sentiment could have won the election. But the left in office, supported by the left candidate, did the opposite: David Miller fought against the city workers, and then passed a unanimous motion applauding the police for the largest mass arrest in Canadian history during the G20. The silence of the left on council opened up a right-wing backlash that Ford rode to office—similar to the Tea Party’s emergence in the wake of disillusionment with Obama.

With no left alternative to the crisis, Ford articulated a right-wing populism that tapped into people’s anger against austerity (defending “the people” and “the tax payer”, demanding “respect”, and calling for an “end to the gravy”), but channeling it into a right-wing direction. As a result the millionaire mayor was elected by contradictory groups—the 1% eager to impose austerity, and much of the 99% with a confused opposition to it.

How was Ford challenged?

This contradiction, revealing the limits of right-wing populism, was important to recognize. In the opinion polls Ford had massive support, leading many to claim Toronto had surged to the right, and that people were unwilling or incapable of resisting austerity. But seeing opposition to austerity—even in a section of those who voted for Ford—was crucial to mobilizing against him. On International Women’s Day, in March of 2011, thousands marched for jobs and services, and on April 9 a labour and community mobilization brought 10,000 people into the streets, to demand “respect for communities, public services and good jobs.” As John Cartwright, president of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council and one of the speakers, said: “This is not a rally against an individual politician. This is a rally that talks about the kind of city we want to have together, the kind of city we want to invest in together, the kind of city we want to build together.”

This was also important for distinguishing between the right and the wrong reasons to be against Ford. When he announced he was running, NOW Magazine wrote about it under the title “fat chance”, and early in his term had a cover of the mayor naked—aiming to make fun of his body size. As I wrote at the time, “There's plenty of reasons to criticize Rob Ford—from his racism and homophobia to his attacks on transit workers and public services—but his weight is not one of them. NOW defended itself on freedom of speech grounds, but that's besides the point. Free speech shouldn't pander to fat phobia or any other form of oppression.”

A focus on Ford’s policies continued to mobilize people throughout the summer—at Pride, through a Toronto library petition that went viral, at marathon deputations and neighbourhood meetings. As a result of sustained mobilizations, a poll in September 2011 found Ford’s popularity fell from 60% in February to 42% in September, with a majority of Torontonians in all wards against the cuts. Left counselors reflected the anger in the streets, and right-wing counselors like Karen Stintz began trying to differentiate themselves from Ford. Ford announced a delay in cuts, but resistance continued—including a video against the cuts, a second labour/community rally on September 26, and marches by the Occupy movement in October and November—when Ford’s approval rating was at its lowest. But the tendency to personalize Ford’s policies continued—through slogans like “stop the crazy train”, which depoliticize the austerity agenda and reinforce the oppression of people with mental health issues.

In January 2012, with a third mass rally outside, city council passed an amended budget dampening the austerity agenda. Ford then went after city workers, hoping for a repeat of the right-wing backlash that catapulted him to power. But the library workers fought back in the spring of 2012, receiving strong public support. A year ago, opposition from below and splits from above made Ford vulnerable to legal challenge, which almost removed him on a conflict of interest charge; since then the right-wing have been increasingly anxious about his ability to impose austerity.  

What's the real scandal?

The Toronto Sun’s call for Ford’s resignation began with a glowing tribute to him for having slashed budgets, contracted our garbage and revoked transit workers’ right to strike, but concluded: “He is now a liability to his own agenda of fiscal conservatism, because the longer he stays in office, the more City Hall will become a circus, preoccupied with the mayor’s personal issues and credibility rather than with spending taxpayers’ money wisely…That’s why we will continue to support Ford’s fiscal agenda, even though we can no longer support the man.”

The liability to his agenda of fiscal conservatism should be…his agenda of fiscal conservatism, which sparked mobilizations of thousands of people, who fought back against his policies and undermined his support. But the mainstream media’s main target has not been his scandalous policies, but his size, drug use and denial.

Fat phobia is in full swing, through cartoons and the front page of the Toronto Sun exclaiming “Dead weight”, with a photo of Ford’s abdomen. The media’s moral outrage over drug use is rekindling support for Ford, as a pollster exclaimed: “if you saw him during that media scrum yesterday, it might have generated some sympathy.”

It’s certainly hypocritical for a millionaire mayor to escape justice. But it’s the “justice system” itself that is the greater scandal: disproportionately incarcerating poor and racialized people, and criminalizing drug use and people with addictions. The police have taken advantage of the anger over the killing of Sammy Yatim to give more tasers to police, and could use the Ford scandal to reinforce the “war on drugs.” The media praise for the police chief—who presided over the G20 mass arrests and an epidemic of extra-judicial killings of people of colour and people with mental health issues—shows how a drug scandal amidst the 1% can still reinforce the 1%.

What next?

For the right-wing, this is Ford’s crime: that he sparked opposition to austerity, and drew attention to the hypocrisy of the system. That is why they want him out, so they can calmly continue to impose brutal austerity. As Karen Stintz explained in her mayoral announcement: “I believe in the fiscal agenda of Rob Ford, but I worry that another four years of Rob Ford may not move the city forward.”

For the left, this means that moral prescriptions—that Ford “must take responsibility for his actions” and “face up to the truth”—ignore the real austerity scandal, and let Ford off the hook. Ford simply announced on his radio show that he is apologizing but will weather the storm, will run in the next election and that people can judge him on his record. That has appeal for people disillusioned by mainstream politics, cynical about media scandals, and wooed by Ford’s statements about implementing the policies he promised.

The problem is that he did implement the policies he promised, and it's that record that needs to be challenged. It’s his policies (shared by the rest of the right-wing on council) of cuts to jobs and services that he should apologize for, and reverse. To weather the rest of his term, and beat him and Stintz, in the next election, the left needs to return to the issues that mobilized so many people in the first two years: not moralism about drug use or attacks on Ford as a person, but opposition and alternatives to austerity. 

9 reasons to stop Line 9

Without even an environmental assessment, oil giant Enbridge wants to use a 38-year old pipeline to pump toxic tar sands through the most populated corridor in the country, promoting the tar sands and contributing to climate change. As Toronto enters a two week calendar of events for environmental justice, culminating in a rally on October 19, here are 9 reasons to stop Line 9.

1) challenge the tar sands

Line 9 will encourage the development of the tar sands, which are devastating indigenous communities. According to the Indigenous Environmental Network, “Northern Alberta is ground zero with over 20 corporations operating in the tar sands sacrifice zone, with expanded developments being planned. The cultural heritage, land, ecosystems and human health of First Nation communities including the Mikisew Cree First Nation, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Fort McMurray First Nation, Fort McKay Cree Nation, Beaver Lake Cree First Nation, Chipewyan Prairie First Nation, and the Metis, are being sacrificed for oil money in what has been termed a “slow industrial genocide”. Infrastructure projects linked to the tar sands expansion such as the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline, threaten First Nation communities in British Columbia, Canada and American Indian communities throughout the United States.” Stopping Line 9 would support communities resisting the tar sands, and prevent its spread eastwards.

2) reduce climate change

As former NASA climatologist James Hansen has warned, “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced ... to at most 350 ppm.” This year, for the first time in human history, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reached 400ppm. In this context we’re seeing increasing climate disasters—from hurricane Sandy to epic floods in Alberta and Toronto.

According to a Canadian scientist and coordinating author of the recently released IPCC report, “evidence for a warming climate is getting stronger and stronger, and the evidence of the influence of human activities on that climate change is getting stronger and stronger…Climate change and warming in particular is amplified—that is, it’s larger—at higher latitudes. So warming over Canada is larger than the warming that has been experienced [worldwide] and it is projected to continue that way. That warming over Canada will continue to be more rapid than the global [average] warming.” 

The tar sands are Canada’s fastest growing source of carbon emissions, and both its local and global affects disproportionately affect communities impacted by poverty and racism. Stopping Line 9 and other tar sands pipelines is critical to reduce climate change.

3) prevent oil spills

Pipeline spills happen all the time--including Enbridge’s Line 6B that spilled 3 million litres into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, the spill of millions of litres in Lubicon territory in 2011, the spill last March in a residential neighbourhood in Arkansas, and the spill this June in Alberta from Enbridge’s Line 37. As an Arkansas resident said: “I didn’t even know the oil pipeline was there…she called me and said, ‘Honey, something’s wrong.’ I came out and smelled it. Then I saw it coming down the street.”

This is what’s in store for communities along the Line 9 route. According to the city of Toronto’s submission to the National Energy Board, “Neither the TTC, Toronto Fire Services nor Enbridge appear to have any specific contingency plan to manage a leak of petroleum should this occur near the TTC entrances…The top stair of the Bishop Avenue stairwell is at grade and provides no barrier to the flow of the product should there be a release. If any petroleum product was discharged either down the stairs or the escalators, or by other routes into the TTC concourse, platform or track level, there would be an enormous risk to thousands of daily passengers and TTC workers.”

These bitumen spills can’t just be “cleaned up”: some components evaporate and poison the air, while others sink and poison the earth and water. Three years and a billion dollars in clean-up fees later, and the Kalamazoo River is still contaminated. We need to stop Line 9 before it spills.

4) protect water

Massive amounts of water are wasted in tar sands production, which then contaminates the local water while pipelines threatens distant water. In the words of Toronto city counselor Anthony Perruzza: “The City of Toronto sits at one of the biggest freshwater supplies in the world. These pipelines cross the city, traverse it completely. Any leakage, any rupture, any break, any undetected leaks over time will have disastrous consequences for us and for our water.” With the pipeline running down Finch avenue--and not Bay Street or wealthy neighbourhoods in Toronto--oil spills would add to the poverty and racism already imposed on these communities. The best way to prevent these disastrous consequences is to stop the pipeline.

5) promote health

Tar sands and the oil industry is harmful to our health. Fort Chipewyan, downstream of the tar sands, is experiencing higher cancer rates. The working conditions in Fort McMurray contribute to an array of social costs, including the exploitation of migrant workers, and increased rates of suicide, addiction and abuse; a few years ago the director of Fort McMurray’s only woman’s shelter went on hunger strike to demand more resources. Pollution from oil and other petrochemical companies in Chemical Valley undermine health in Aamjiwnaang First Nation and Sarnia. According to the World Health Organization, “Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually… The risks are concentrated in the poorest populations, who have contributed the least to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.” Stopping Line 9 would be a small but concrete step towards reversing the health impacts of the oil economy.

6) rebuild democracy

There has been no free, prior and informed consent from First Nations for Line 9, or the tar sands. Harper has undermined environmental regulation, there has been no environmental assessment for Line 9, and Enbridge has given “donations” to municipalities along the route (including the Hamilton police, who arrested line 9 protesters for occupying a pumping station). The National Energy Board (an “ally” of the Harper government) has monopolized decision-making power, excluded people from contributing to hearings, and tried to divide the movement between those they allow to intervene and those they do not allow. Challenging Line 9 exposes these attacks on democracy, as part of a movement to rebuild democracy.

7) support indigenous sovereignty

As IEN states, “Just a few years ago, people in Canada, U.S. and Europe heard little to nothing about the Canadian tar sands. Today, the tar sands have become a topic of national and international discussion as stories of cancer epidemics in the community of Fort Chipewyan, massive wildlife losses related to toxic contamination, environmental degradation and increased vocal resistance from impacted communities have shattered the ‘everything is fine’ myth propagated by the Canadian and Alberta governments.”

From declaration of unity against pipelines to Healing Walks, from freedom train to speaking tour, indigenous communities are leading the movement against tar sands, and providing an environmental justice framework to understand the threat of tar sands and the importance of indigenous sovereignty and solidarity.

8) demand green jobs

The billion dollars in subsidies to the tar sands each year could provide thousands of green jobs, and the climate justice movement includes labour activists pushing for a just transition from the oil economy to one based on sustainability. Last year unions endorsed a sit-in against tar sands pipelines and tankers, and this year the Steelworkers Toronto Area Council has endorsed the rally against Line 9 and provided funding for First Nations activists to bus into Toronto to join the rally. As a CAW organizer said last year, “tens of thousands of unionized and other jobs depend on healthy river and ocean ecosystems. We will be standing in solidarity with thousands of working people in BC and our First Nations sisters and brothers.” Line 9 will only produce a few temporary jobs in an industry that exposes workers to chemicals while undermining the environment on which future jobs depend. Stopping Line 9 is part of a movement demanding good green jobs for all.

9) build the environmental justice movement

Last October 22 there was a mass sit-in in Victoria, led by Coastal First Nations with participation from environmental groups and unions. On February 17 there was a huge protest outside White House against the Keystone XL pipeline. These movements are creating major barriers to pipelines going west and south, and there is a similar movement emerging against Line 9, from Aamjiwnaang to Montreal. During the next two weeks in Toronto there is a series of events leading up to the National Energy Board hearings, where people will be intervening against Line 9 in the hearings and in the streets. Join the movement!

*Sunday October 6: Rock the Line with Environmental Defense, free concert, 2pm Mel Lastman Square

*Monday October 7: #Oct7 National day of Unity in Action, Idle No More Toronto, 5pm at Trinity Bellwoods

*Tuesday October 15: Do The Math movie screening and panel discussion, by Toronto350, 5:45pm and 8:15pm at Bloor Hot Docs Cinema

*Friday October 18: Tar Sands Reality Check Tour, 6pm at Bloor Street United Church

*Saturday October 19: NO LINE 9! NO TAR SANDS PIPE LINES, rally at noon outside the NEB hearings (Metro Convention Centre, 255 Front Street). “Indigenous communities, environmentalists and labour groups have united to oppose the tar sands pipelines going west and south, and we need a similarly impressive display of mass opposition to any such proposal to transport tar sands east. Stopping the Line 9 Pipeline Reversal and moving toward a clean energy economy with green jobs would be a multiple “win” – a win for communities, jobs, farms, the environment, public health, and for our long-term energy security. Join us October 19th outside the NEB hearings as we say No Line 9! No Tar Sands Pipelines!”

Who organized the historic March on Washington?

Today is the 50^th anniversary of one of the most famous moments in US history, the 1963 March on Washington that helped win civil rights. But while King and his “I have a dream” speech are universally known, the origins and organizer of the march have largely been written out of history.

Mainstream history presents the civil rights movement as either a spontaneous outburst or a campaign entirely directed by King, a supposedly simple dreamer whose politics were frozen in 1963. The Civil Rights movement is presented as a single issue struggle—with no connection to anti-war, labour, gay or radical activists—which culminated in the March on Washington and civil rights legislation that supposedly completed the black freedom struggle. In response, radical historians have often dismissed the March on Washington and its organizers; Howard Zinn’s masterful People History of the United States described the march as a “friendly assemblage” that was highjacked by the Democrats, and never mentions its main organizer Bayard Rustin (pictured behind King).

But remembering the origins and organizers of the March on Washington restores its connections to anti-war and labour movements, to anti-Stalinist socialists and to gay activists who struggled before Stonewall. This rich history, including its strengths and weaknesses, is important both to understand how the civil rights victory was won, and why King’s dream remains deferred.

Origins

The idea of a march on Washington started with A Philip Randolph, a socialist and trade union activist, who organized the first predominantly black union—the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. In 1941 he used the threat of a march on Washington to force Roosevelt to desegregate defense industries.

In the 1940s Randolph joined forces with Bayard Rustin, an openly gay Quaker who joined the Communist Party in Harlem in the 1930s—when the organization still had a strong record of fighting racism and inequality. When Stalinism purged Communist Parties of their politics and dropped anti-racist struggles in order to support the war, Rustin left the party to work alongside Randolph and AJ Muste. Muste was a Christian pacifist and labour activist who founded the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), taking pacifism and civil disobedience to fight racism.

After going to jail for resisting WWII—where he was persecuted for being black and gay—Rustin joined CORE, the War Resisters League and Ella Baker (another unsung hero of the civil rights movement) to organize multiracial teams to challenge bus segregation—a precursor to the Freedom Rides. As Rustin wrote later, “That period of 8 years of continuously doing this prepared for the 1960s revolution. I do not believe Montgomery would have been possible nor successful except for the long experience people had about reading about sitting in buses and getting arrested, so that people had become used to hearing this.”

In 1948 Congress debated peacetime conscription, and Randolph and Rustin began organizing another March on Washington—which pressured Truman to desegregate the armed forces.

One of the main reasons Rustin has been written out of history is because of homophobia. In the early 1950s he was arrested for “perversion”, fired from CORE and forever kept in the shadows of movements despite his central role. As his biographer wrote, “The arrest trailed Rustin for many years afterwards. It severely restricted the public roles he was allowed to assume. Though he fought his way back from the sidelines, he did so at a price. As both the peace and civil rights movements grew dramatically over the next decade, as a philosophy of nonviolence became familiar to millions of Americans, Rustin’s influence was everywhere. Yet he remained always in the background, his figure shadowy and blurred, his importance masked. At any moment, his sexual history might erupt into consciousness. Sometimes it happened through the design of enemies to the causes for which he fought, sometimes through the machinations of personal rivals, sometimes through the nervous anxieties of movement comrades. But underneath it all was the unexamined, because as yet unnamed, homophobia that permeated mid-century American society.”

As the documentary Before Stonewall reminds us, many queer activists were involved in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and early 1960s, which became a training ground for the Gay Liberation Movement that began in 1969.

Development

When Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat and King began organizing the Montgomery bus boycott, Rustin went on behalf of the War Resisters League to help. His account humanizes King, who was not born a leader but developed during the course of the struggle: “The fact of the matter is, when I got to Montgomery, Dr. King had very limited notions about how a nonviolent protest should be carried out. He had not been prepared for the job either tactically, strategically, or in his understanding of nonviolence. The glorious thing is that he came to a profoundly deep understanding of nonviolence through the struggle itself, and through reading and discussions which he had in the process of carrying on the protest.”

Rustin mentored King, connected his struggle with campuses and unions across the country, helped launch the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and organized its first action: the 1957 Prayer Pilgrimage that mobilized 20,000 to Washington. Meanwhile, Ella Baker helped launch the Student Non-violence Coordinating Committee (SNCC), when sit-ins started exploding across the South.

In 1963, Randolph and Rustin began organizing a Washington on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, connecting the fight for civil rights with economic justice. As Rustin explained: “Integration in the fields of education, housing, transportation and public accommodation will be of limited extent and duration as long as fundamental economic inequality along racial lines persists. When a racial disparity in unemployment has been firmly established in the course of a century, the change-over to ‘equal opportunities’ does not wipe out the cumulative handicaps of the negro worker. The dynamic that has motivated negroes to withstand with courage and dignity the intimidation and violence they have endured in their own struggle against racism may now be the catalyst which mobilizes all workers behind demands for a broad and fundamental program of economic justice.” This perspective brought together the NAACP, CORE, SCLC, SCC, the National Urban League, religious leaders and the United Auto Workers. While the AFL-CIO labour bureaucracy stayed away, labour activists across the country mobilized—including steelworkers, ladies garment workers, packinghouse workers, electrical workers, and labour councils. On August 28, 1963 a quarter of a million people marched on Washington, and forced the Democrats to provide civil rights legislation.

Poverty, racism and militarism

But as Zinn explained, the corporate Democrats moved quickly to smother the broader project. Rustin was co-opted and called for a shift “from protest to politics”, subordinating the movements in order to placate the Democrats—while his elevation of multiracial non-violence from tactic to principle led him to condemn Black Power and the Vietnamese resistance. But as his biographer noted, “the pupil surpassed the teacher”. King, rescuing Rustin's politics and continuing to learn from the struggle, condemned the Vietnam War and the "giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation", planned a Poor People’s March on Washington, and went to support striking sanitation workers—where he was killed.

Fifty years after King dreamed of a day when people would “not be judged by the colour of their skin but the content of their character,” Trayvon Martin was murdered for being black—while Chelsea Manning has been persecuted for speaking out against a war that killed a million Iraqis. With 100,000 marking the 50^th anniversary of the march, many are rediscovering its radical roots—connecting civil rights to broader struggles and committing themselves to King’s words from 1967 that remains relevant today: “Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism."

Join the June 17 day of action for refugee health

A man denied eye surgery to prevent blindness. A man with symptoms of tuberculosis denied an X-ray. A woman denied asthma medication, resulting in a costly ER visit and hospitalization.

These are some of the results of the Harper government’s cuts to refugee health care over the past year. According to Dr. Meb Rashid, medical director of the Crossroads Clinic at Women's College Hospital. “The patients we see have fled unimaginable terror to seek a safer life in Canada, and our government is telling doctors that they cannot provide necessary treatment.”

On April 25 of last year, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced drastic cuts to the Interim Federal Health Program, implemented on June 30. Kenney claimed the cuts would be fair, save money and protect public health—and all these claims were bogus. As the Canadian Council for Refugees immediately predicted, the cuts would create a two-tier system of refugee care, deny essential medical care, institutionalize gender discrimination and offload costs to the provinces. That’s exactly what has happened.

A six year old child denied tests for urinary tract infection. A pregnant woman fleeing the sex trade denied tests. A sexual violence survivor denied PTSD treatment.

But what could not have been predicted was the massive outrage from the medical community, beginning May 11, 2012 with occupations of Tory offices in Winnipeg and Toronto, a rally in Ottawa and press conference in other cities. This launched Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care (CDRC). Then on May 18 an open letter condemning the cuts was signed by national associations representing optometrists, nurses, doctors, social workers, dentists, pharmacists, and family physicians.

On June 18 last year, health providers organized a day of action with rallies in a dozen cities across the country—from Inuvik to Vancouver to St. John’s—opposing the cuts and the way they are being used to scapegoat refugees for broader cuts to healthcare. As Dr. Mark Tyndall said at the Ottawa press conference, "the government has used this issue to divide Canadians, pitting those who are dissatisfied with their own health coverage against refugees. Canadians are smarter than this. This is an attack on our entire healthcare system." Through the summer health providers continued to challenge government officials, while 17 year-old Bashir Mohamed directly challenged Jason Kenney.

While the government quietly reversed a small number of the cuts under pressure from protests, Kenney posted a shameless petition on his own website congratulating himself for the cuts, refused to document the impact of the cuts, and dismissed all evidence collected by CDRC of people who have suffered as a result of the cuts. Meanwhile the cuts are having their intended consequences. According to Dr. Philip Berger, Chief of Family and Community Medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital, “we advised the government from the beginning that these program cuts would reduce care, increase costs to other areas of the health system and needlessly threaten public safety, and regrettably, this is exactly what our colleagues are seeing in clinics and hospitals across Canada.”

A child of a refugee applicant denied immunizations. A teenager with PTSD and suicide attempts denied medication. A young girl with fever denied investigations for malaria.

Opposition to the cuts has continued to grow. On December 15 resident physicians organized vigils to protest the “Designated Country of Origin” list that deprives health care from refugee claimants from countries arbitrarily labeled “safe”. In February CDRC and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers launched a constitutional challenge. This Monday, June 17, is a second day of action, taking place in 19 cities: Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Windsor, London, Kitchener, Guelph, Hamilton, Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax and St. John’s.

June 17 will be an important mobilization for all those who oppose the cuts to refugee health, and momentum is building. UofT and McGill faculties of medicine are facilitating learner participation. Health providers from across the country and around the world are participating in a photo campaign, posted on CDRC’s facebook page. Over 50 prominent writers and artists—including Margaret Atwood, Adrienne Clarkson, Shirley Douglas, Jian Ghomeshi, Naomi Klein, Vincent Lam and Kiefer Sutherland—have signed an open letter: “We call on the federal government to reverse these health cuts and restore our country’s humanitarian tradition of providing care to refugees. On June 17th, please join us and Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care in participating in a National Day of Action. There are events taking place in cities across the country. To learn more, please visit www.doctorsforrefugeecare.ca.”

See you in the streets.

Conservative anti-choice motion defeated

Harper’s government is filled with anti-choice MPs, including his second in command Jason Kenney, who has opposed a woman’s right to choose since his college days. But while Harper’s majority inside Parliament is anti-choice, the majority outside Parliament remains pro-choice and recently defeated Motion 408.

This is the legacy of a mass movement. As Carolyn Egan wrote, the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics “stated that for all women to have real choices in our society they require safe and effective birth control services in their own languages and their own communities, decent jobs, paid parental leave, childcare, the right to live freely and openly regardless of their sexuality, employment equity, an end to forced or coerced sterilization, and, of course, full access to free abortion. All were required if women were to have reproductive freedom… In linking struggles, OCAC was able to build a wide campaign through demonstrations, marches and rallies -- in which thousands participated. Through our organizing, we were able to broaden the participation of trade unionists, students, AIDS activists, people of colour and immigrant women’s organizations in the campaign. We understood that, without the active participation and the support of thousands, no change would occur. The goal was to build a visible, mass movement that fought together for women’s reproductive freedom. ”

Anti-choice by stealth

Because of the legacy of the movement that struck down the abortion law in 1988, Harper cannot directly recriminalize abortion, and instead resorts to anti-choice by stealth. Shortly before International Women’s Day in 2008, the Conservatives’ anti-choice “fetal homicide” Bill C-484 passed second reading, with support from the Liberals. But there was widespread opposition from women’s groups, unions and the medical community. In the fall of that year there were protests across the country, forcing Harper to withdraw the motion before the election.

Harper took his anti-choice policies abroad in 2010, using the G8 meeting to impose a maternal health plan that excluded abortion (and initially excluded contraception as well). The world’s leading medical journal The Lancet denounced the plan as “hypocritical and unjust”, and called for a “maternal health plan based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.” Instead, Harper went on to deny Planned Parenthood funding except in countries where abortion is illegal. As Angela Robertson said at the 25^th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision this year, “Harper has responded by stating that the Conservative government will never endorse anti-abortion legislation while he is in power. We ask: if these rights are worth preserving for women in this country, are they not then equally worth supporting for other women around the world.” There was widespread opposition to Harper’s plan, causing a frustrated Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth to demand women’s groups “shut the fuck up about abortion.” Instead, women led the mass demonstration in Toronto, with a giant coat hanger and banner reading “Maternal health includes abortion.”

Then came Bill C-510 against “coerced abortion” and then Motion 312 to change the definition of “human being”, which was supposedly an issue of conscience. But as the NDP Status of Women critic Niki Ashton said in Parliament, “This is not an issue of conscience, it’s an issue of women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights and they are not up for debate.” While Motion 312 was defeated, it received support from 10 Tory cabinet ministers including Jason Kenney and the Minister for Status of Women Rona Ambrose. Ambrose said she voted for Motion 312 as way to “raise concern about discrimination by sex-selection abortion", helping fellow Conservative Mark Warawa launch another anti-choice motion, Motion 408

Motion 408: lip service and scapegoating

Motion 408 called on Parliament to “condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination”. Warawa later added that he “would be shocked at anybody who would oppose a motion that is condemning discrimination against women and girls.” But as Joyce Arthur pointed out “Mark Warawa is one of the most zealous anti-choice MPs in the Conservative caucus…Further, Warawa has no record at all on protecting or advancing women’s rights.” Dr. Prabhat Jha, a world expert on sex-selection abortion, has debunked the “evidence” for this occurring in Canada warned against restricting ultrasounds and safe abortions where it does exist. According to the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, “providing patients with results of diagnostic imaging procedures is part of the Canadian standard of care, and fetal sex determination and disclosure should not be exempt.”  

Motion 408 paid lip service to women’s rights while scapegoating immigrants for supposedly importing sexism. As National Post columnist Barbara Kay claimed during a recent televised debate on Motion 408: “In our country, in Canada, girls are very much as welcome as boys. There are certain communities where girls are not as welcome as boys, and that is the problem. Do I think we can judge these people? Absolutely. We are a nation that is built on certain democratic principles, on the equality of people before the law, and certainly on the equality of the sexes. So it is not only ok to judge people that take an alternate view, but to judge them quite severely, and say, ‘look, you’re here in this country, these are our values, if you are actually translating alternate values, it’s the same as if they believed in slavery.”

Motion 408 provided a cover for the Harper government’s discrimination against women—from canceling a national childcare program on his first day in office, defunding women’s groups, ignoring the women-led Idle No More movement for indigenous sovereignty, cutting refugee healthcare including for pregnant women, opposing LGBT rights, denying pay equity, and more—while aiming to further restrict abortion rights. Recently, three Tory MPs called for the RCMP to investigate late-term abortions as homicides, showing that the ultimate goal of anti-choice motions is not simply to “raise concern” but to recriminalize abortion. 

As I co-wrote last fall, “Motion 408 ignores all this systemic discrimination, erodes women's reproductive choice, scapegoates the South Asian community, and then has the audacity of accusing opponents of the motion of ‘discrimination.’ But the incessant claims of ‘not wanting to open the abortion debate,’ while chipping away at choice through deceptive motions demonstrates the Conservatives are not confident to openly confront the pro-choice majority. Challenging Motion 408 provides the opportunity to clarify the reality of abortion in Canada, expose the consequences of restricting choice, and defend and expand abortion rights through the broader context of reproductive justice.”

Reproductive justice

While the anti-choice is emboldened by the Harper majority inside Parliament, the pro-choice majority outside Parliament is rising to resist. On October 20 there was a day of action for reproductive justice across the country, and on January 28 there were events to look back on the movement that won abortion rights and look forward to continuing the movement. On March 9, thousands marched at International Women’s Day in Toronto for indigenous sovereignty, abortion rights and an end to violence against women. On March 26, UofT Med Students for Choice organized a conference about the historical, political, legal and medical aspects of abortion. On April 13, community and labour allies held a picket in Mississauga outside the office of one of the Tory MPs calling for the criminalization of late-term abortions.

Instead of uniting Tories and dividing the opposition, Motion 408 split the Tories. Rona Ambrose backtracked and refused to support the motion, explaining that “the opposition has positioned it as an issue about abortion so it becomes a very divisive issue.” Under Harper’s rule a parliamentary committee declared the motion unvotable, causing a rift in the Tories before Warawa dropped the motion.

The attacks on abortion have not gone away, either federally or provincially—from PEI which still has no abortion provider, New Brunswick which refuses to cover clinic abortions, and Ontario where Tory leader Tim Hudak has signed a petition calling for the defunding of abortion. But there’s rising resistance to defend and expand abortion rights as part of a broader movement for reproductive justice—building on the legacy of what Judy Rebick has called “the deepest and most important victory the women's movement in Canada has ever had… After eight years of organizing, demonstrating, direct action, lobbying, fundraising and sometimes facing threats and violence, we had won.” 

Toronto IWD march

On Saturday March 9, thousands marched through Toronto for International Women's Day.

Last year's march focused on fighting the austerity agenda. This year the anti-austerity struggle across the country has been radicalized by Idle No More, began and led by indigenous women, which was a major theme of IWD this year--with indigenous women leading the march under the banner "fires are burning, we are rising."

Recently Human Rights Watch issued a damning report on police abuse of aboriginal women. Challenging violence against women was the second major theme--with people chanting "stop the silence, end the violence." There were also demands for pay equity and childcare.

.

While the Harper government has ignored violence against women, pay equity and childcare, it is claiming to address discrimination against women through Motion 408, scheduled for debate in Parliament later this month, which attacks abortion rights. The fight for reproductive justice was the third major theme of IWD, and the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics mobilized--including their banner "maternal health includes abortion" which led the G20 protests in 2010.

From the G20 protests in 2010, the Egyptian revolution beginning in 2011, and Idle No More that began at the end of 2012--women are at the heart of the fight for a better world. As the motto of IWD says, "the rising of the women is the rising of us all."

Ontario teachers and students step up the fight against austerity and Bill 115

On Monday, Ontario teachers will start rolling walkouts across the province against the draconian Bill 115, the "Putting Students First Act." But the best way to put students first is to support teachers against the Liberal government's anti-democratic austerity agenda.

Austerity
The Ontario Liberals claimed Bill 115, passed in September, was necessary in order to balance a budget during the economic crisis. But this is after McGuinty wasted billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts. While the 1 per cent has been bailed out, the 99 per cent are facing cuts -- from imposing a pay freeze on teachers, denying universal childcare to parents and continually raising tuition for students.

Students have been at the heart of the fight against the Liberal's austerity agenda, including occupying the office of Glen Murray, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. As Cindy Brownlee, Director of Education and Equity for the Student Association of George Brown College said last April, "As a single mother nearing the end of my studies in early childhood education. I've joined today's occupation to demand that the Ontario government reverse their decision to increase tuition fees next fall."

In addition, students are not abstract or frozen-in-time. As one writer put it, "Today's high-school student without sports is tomorrow's college student racking up debt and next week's angry, unemployed or precarious worker."

Teachers are putting students first by resisting the austerity agenda that is undermining their futures.

Democracy
In addition to imposing a pay freeze and removing sick days, Bill 115 strips teachers of their democratic rights to collective bargaining, and gives control to the Education Minister of the austerity-driven government. As one legal expert put it:

"You do not have to be a constitutional lawyer to conclude that this proposed legislation is an unprecedented attack on the civil liberties and constitutional rights and freedoms of educational workers. We should expect our governments to defend our constitutional rights and freedoms and to respect the constitutionally protected process of good faith bargaining between school boards and educational worker and teacher unions."

Instead, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty broadened the attack on democracy from collective bargaining to social democracy. Proroguing the Ontario legislature is part of a pattern of undermining democracy to advance the austerity agenda -- from the federal Tories proroguing Parliament and imposing omnibus bills, the BC Liberals suspending the legislature amidst their campaign against teachers, and the Quebec Liberals imposing Bill 78 to attack the student movement.

Solidarity
The Ontario Liberals accuse the teacher strikes of harming students -- just like transit strikes are accused disrupting passengers and nurses strikes are accused of harming patients. This is a time-honoured, divide-and-conquer strategy to scapegoat workers for cutbacks: cut jobs and services, and then when service providers resist, blame them for the disruption and pit them against service users. But it doesn't always work.

The Tories are calling for firm action against teachers, but the vacillation of the Liberals show they have a better sense of popular opinion -- like the repeated waves of high school walkouts in support of teachers. At the end of September high school students also organized a rally at Queen's Park.

As grade 12 organizer Kayla Smith said "I have a message for Mr. McGuinty: repeal Bill 115. It bans the right to strike, it freezes the wages of teachers and cuts their benefits. There was no negotiation, there was no collective bargaining. Teachers feel disrespected and that is what we want to say today: you have to respect the teachers, negotiate and not just impose demands on them."

The same weakness that drove the Liberals to prorogue the legislature is making them ambivalent about their own legislation. McGuinty recently claimed that “teachers have a democratic right to strike in the province of Ontario,” -- after revoking that same right -- while contenders for the next leadership have criticized his attacks on teachers (though not promised to revoke it).

Education Minister Laurel Broten has narrowed the blame to union leaders -- which is ironic since the union bureaucracy has been trying to negotiate with the prorogued government, and its rank-and-file teachers whose rejection of tentative agreements set the stage for job action.

Rank-and-file
Rank-and-file activity and mutual community support are critical ingredients in resisting austerity -- as recent victories show. Rob Ford went after library workers, but because they had built a campaign around protecting library services they received widespread support and pushed back against the worst of job cuts -- protecting the services those jobs provide.

When Charest imposed Bill 78 on students, the Quebec student strike responded by broadening the movement to include all those concerned about basic civil liberties -- isolating the government in the process. Students didn’t wait for the next election, they mobilized picket lines and protests and reached out to the broader community. Through the process, teachers joined the movement -- from marching in demonstrations to strengthening picket lines -- which got rid of the government and its hated Law 78.

When Chicago's Democratic mayor Rahm Emanuel went after teachers, they didn't wait for the end of the election. In the midst of the election, they mobilized the networks with parents and students they had built over previous years, and launched a confident strike to defend public education -- and they won.

These three victories began years before the strikes, with rank-and-file organizing and outreach. Ontario teachers don’t have the same structures in place, but the high strike votes and high school walkouts have created the potential of building a broad movement to defend public education and the good jobs that provide it.

To put students first, we should join them and their teachers in walkouts, and join with everyone else at the January 26 protest outside the Liberal party convention.