Speech at Hands Off Jerusalem Rally

I was asked to speak on December 5, 2017 by the organizers of an emergency rally to protest the announcement of the intention to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Here is the text of my speech as well as the video from the event.

---

I am a human rights activist. I am a Jewish person. I am a global citizen. But most of all I am someone who wants to see peace for all peoples of the world. The world became a more dangerous place this past week, and we cannot sit idly by.

The decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is nothing less than an act of war, a provocative move that will further destabilize the region and result in unnecessary and inhumane suffering.

It is a decision that is being criticized by people from all three Abrahamic faiths. This is no surprise since Jerusalem is an international city that is sacred to Muslims, Jews, and Christians in Israel, Palestine, and around the world. Resolution 476 of the United Nations Security Council says that altering the character and state of Jerusalem is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and has no legal validity.

Such a move will only deepen the oppression of the Palestinian people by giving the Israeli government a clear signal that the US will continue to support and aid the immoral and illegal occupation of Palestine. It will do nothing to achieve a just and lasting peace in Palestine and Israel. Demonstrations have already been happening in the West Bank. Festive lights are being dimmed and seasonal celebrations are being cancelled in Bethlehem, which is the occupied West Bank town where, according to the Christian faith, Jesus was born.

Today is the United Nations' Human Rights Day. How appropriate that we gather here to protest how both Palestinians and Israelis – the majority of whom want peace for themselves and their children – are being used as political pawns. In Judaism, we have a value called Tikkun Olam, which means to heal or repair the world. We cannot support that which will further tear the world apart. In the name of a just and lasting peace, we must say no to the US embassy in Jerusalem, and an end to the occupation.

Speaking Out Against Bill C-51

May 30 was the Third National Day of Action Against Bill C-51. Since it looks like the bill is going to pass the Senate, the emphasis of the protest was to encourage people to vote the Conservatives (who introduced the bill) out in the upcoming federal election. I spoke at the rally on behalf of Independent Jewish Voices.

---

My name is Paula Kirman. Take a good look at me: I am a peace activist whose activities trying to advocate for a better world make me potentially a criminal guilty of hate crimes. You see, I am the Alberta representative on the steering committee of Independent Jewish Voices of Canada. We are a grassroots group of Jewish Canadians who believe in working towards a just resolution to the conflict in Israel/Palestine. We are, of course, in favour of legitimate criticism of the government of Israel's actions. Because of this, our spokesperson has said that he believes that he and other members of our organization are under surveillance. But that is not enough for the Harper government.

According to a May 11 CBC News report, the Harper government is planning to use hate crime laws against Canadians who advocate boycotts of Israel in support of the rights of Palestinians. In 2014, hate speech laws were amended by the government to add the category of "national origin" to those protected under the legislation. This was widely seen as laying the groundwork to criminalize criticism of Israel.

The government's need to make such an amendment to advance its efforts to criminalize support for Palestinian rights indicates that it could find no legal basis upon which to accuse Canadians of racial or religious hatred, already protected in hate-speech laws.

In January of this year, Canada's then-foreign affairs minister, John Baird, signed a "memorandum of understanding" with Israeli authorities in Jerusalem, pledging to combat BDS (Boycotts, Divestments, Sanctions), referring to it as a form of “new” anti-Semitism. Even more recently, Conservative Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney has called for "zero tolerance" of criticism of Israel and that Canadian hate laws could be applied to those campaigning for BDS.

We find this ludicrous as BDS is a legitimate, peaceful, and non-violent way to express protest towards the government of Israel. It requires not doing something, not being complicit, and encouraging others to not do something: to not purchase goods from Israel, particularly those produced on disputed or occupied land. This is not much different than when I was in high school and there were boycotts against South Africa, which was still under apartheid. Even Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has described Israel as an “apartheid state” and has said, “We learned in South Africa that the only way to end apartheid peacefully was to force the powerful to the table through economic pressure.”

IJV supports BDS in cooperation with the United Church's Unsettling Goods campaign, which also supports BDS. How many of you are members of the United Church of Canada? Now you are potentially criminals also, for the same reason.

IJV, in a press release, has asked that the government explain what “zero tolerance” for criticism of Israel actually means. Thus far, we have not gotten a clear response, nor has any other individual or group who have asked a similar question.

Bill C-51 would take the criminalization of dissent even further. Bill C-51 is an assault on our right to freedom of speech, thought, and conscience. Its definition of advocacy or promotion of “terrorism offences in general” is basically whatever Harper wants it to be. It has no defences for legitimate expression of political or religious thought.

It is designed to silence us, to instill fear about speaking out, to be afraid of indefinite detention and arrest without warrant. It creates a police state in Canada where CSIS can be “legally” authorized to conduct black ops and dirty tricks, including entrapment. It invades our privacy and allows CSIS and the RCMP to “share” information - as they did with Maher Arar.

The aim is to silence dissenting voices. I used to consider myself lucky to live in a country like Canada where we could be free to criticize the government without repercussions. Those days are sadly ending. Bill C-51 flies in the face of Canadian values of freedom and diverse opinions. The Conservatives are anti-Canadian – not protesters.

Why are Israel's critics being slammed? I believe this is a political move by Harper in anticipation of an election to try to court the evangelical Christian and right-wing Jewish vote. What can we do? There is an election coming. I've never been one to tell people how to vote, but we need to vote the Conservatives out. The Liberals, who supported Bill C-51, are no better. Vote for a party that will repeal Bill C-51 and, while perhaps not agree with everything each and every one of us may espouse, would at least protect our freedom of speech and expression. Once human rights are taken away, they are difficult to get back.

So, once again, take a good look at me – one of the faces of Harper's enemies - and hear me when I say that we are heading down a slippery slope and we have the power to change things. We did it in Alberta and we can do it federally. We have to.

Bill C-51 and Women's (and Everyone's) Rights

On March 8, International Women's Day, I spoke on behalf of the Edmonton Coalition Against War and Racism (ECAWAR) during the IWD Forum here in Edmonton. Much of my short speech focused on Bill C-51, the "Anti-Terrorism Bill," which, if passed, would potentially limit our freedoms as activists to assemble, to criticize the government, or even comment on global issues. The text of my speech is below, as well as a video (the introduction at which I blush).

---

International Women’s Day came into being after the Second International Conference of Socialist Women in 1910 in Copenhagen, Denmark, passed a resolution to establish International Women’s Day as a day to agitate for the rights of women to take part in the political affairs of their countries and their rights as workers. It was inspired by the growing struggles of women for their political and economic rights, including the establishment in the U.S. of Women’s National Day in 1909 in honour of the women garment workers’ strikes in 1908. In 1977, the United Nations General Assembly invited member states to proclaim March 8 as the UN Day for women's rights and world peace.

At that first conference and since, the demand for peace has been a prominent theme of IWD, along with anti-discrimination, equality, anti-sexism, and anti-violence against women. In the year 2000, the official UN theme was Women United for Peace. The following year, it was Women and Peace: Women Managing Conflicts.

As Canadian women in the peace movement, we still have many things to be concerned about.

We have a federal government which is engaged in war and aggression, trying to impose puppet regimes and so-called “Canadian values” on non-Western countries, often under the guise of supporting the rights of women and girls in those countries, instead of respecting those countries’ rights to self-determination. We say: Not in our Name!

U.S.-NATO wars and intervention have led to literally millions of deaths in the Middle East and elsewhere, including hundreds and thousands of children. They have destabilized countries, led to failed states such as Libya, and contributed to the arming and proliferation of ISIS. The standard definition of insanity is to believe that doing the same thing will have different results. We call for troops out of Iraq and no attack on Syria, for the peaceful resolution of disputes, not war. Canada Needs an Anti-War Government!

Now, we face a serious threat within our own country as activists. Workers’ strike struggles, the fight of First Nations for their rights, minorities, and in particular Muslims are targeted by the impending legislation of Bill C-51 (also known as the “Anti-Terrorism Bill”), which is the Harper government’s response to Canadians’ desire for change.

Bill C-51 makes promotion of terrorism a criminal offence. What does that mean? Consider that the Harper government claims that the Palestinian resistance in the Middle East is terrorism and wants to criminalize any “promotion” of their resistance. Yet thousands upon thousands of Canadians feel duty bound to defend the Palestinians’ right to be and to express their own right to conscience.

Bill C-51 gives sweeping powers to CSIS, which many people say will permit it to operate as a police state without oversight. By claiming not to include strike struggles and political dissent while adding the word “lawful,” C-51 allows all manner of activities to be called “terrorist” - including illegal strikes, marches without a police permit, and acts of civil disobedience. Our march today without a police permit could be included.

Bill C-51 is also a direct assault on the rights of First Nations to defend their lands and it must not be allowed to pass!

We cannot permit such an assault. Let every one of us take an action - participate in a picket or rally; talk to your co-workers, families, other women; call and write your member of Parliament. Join the work to defeat Harper in 2015!

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall . . .

Last Saturday, March 7, I attended a rally called "Tell the Tories to Look in the Mirror," or, simply the "Mirror Protest." The rally was called by the Alberta Federation of Labour in conjunction with Better Way Alberta to hold Premier Jim Prentice accountable for a statement he made that Albertans should "look in the mirror" to see who is responsible for the province's current budget woes. This inspired me to write a post on Facebook which quickly started being shared around, and I was asked to read it at the rally. Here is the text of that note, as well as a video of me reading it.

---

I Looked In the Mirror This Morning

So, Conservative Premier Jim Prentice is telling Albertans that if they want to know why the province is in trouble, we should look in the mirror.

I looked in the mirror this morning. Here is what I saw.

I saw a woman in her early 40s who was not able to secure a career in her chosen field: as a junior high Language Arts teacher. You see, I really wanted to be a writer or a rock star, but I picked teaching because it was "stable." Most of the people in my university class never got teaching jobs either.

My lack of employment was due to Conservative cutbacks to education in this province.

I saw my mother shuffle by in the background on her walker. She just spent a couple of months in and out of hospitals that are poorly maintained and understaffed. Many of the nurses were very obviously overworked through no fault of their own. Patient care suffered as a result.

Alberta's health care system is in shambles because of Conservative cutbacks to health.

I saw my phone go off with a message from my partner. He works in the tar sands. Yeah, one of those people who have supposedly benefitted the most from the "Alberta Advantage." And yes, he makes decent money, when he has work. As soon as construction on a job is complete, he is laid off again with no guarantee of another job. When work is not steady it makes things like planning for the future (buying a house, etc.) difficult. Perhaps this is why there is such a high rate of suicide, depression, and divorce amongst tar sands workers.

The province's finances and oil industry have suffered because of the Conservative government not collecting royalties and because of the flat tax system which allows the most wealthy not to have to pay more taxes.

But hey - look on the bright side: working self-employed hours I have plenty of time for activism against the Conservative government. And my parents don't mind me crashing with them. After all, we're Mom's primary caregivers.

Omar Khadr Repatriated

After ten years, Canada has finally repatriated child soldier Omar Khadr.

Ten years.

A decade.

Canada, known as a haven for compassion and human rights was the only country not to take its own citizen back from Guantanamo.

This isn't about whether or not Khadr is guilty of anything. Courts here are capable of deciding that and deciding what to do about it.

It's about allowing a citizen to remain in a prison that in and of itself is illegal. The use of torture against prisoners is illegal under the Geneva Convention. By allowing Khadr to remain there, Canada was complicit.

For shame.

Those who say that although he was only 15 at the time of his alleged crime (a child under the law) he was old enough to know right from wrong. That he already had a "terrorist" frame of mind because of his upbringing. What do you think ten years in a torture chamber likely did to his way of thinking?

The racist, mean-spirited comments that have been directed towards Khadr. For shame.

Ten years is a long time. The repercussions of this entire fiasco will last much longer.

Of Umbrellas and Safety Nets: Health Care in Acute and Chronic Crisis

This past Friday and Saturday, a conference called Beyond Acute Care had speakers and panels discussing health care issues concerning the elderly, disabled, and other vulnerable citizens. The illustration of what is currently happening our health care system is something like this: there is an umbrella over top of this population, which takes care of most acute needs. However, when the need for care becomes chronic, the umbrella gets smaller and smaller, with more and more services needing to be paid for out of the pockets of the patients or their families.

These issues are of importance to everyone, regardless of age or health status. Many of us, if we are fortunate, will become senior citizens some day. With the health care system being so precarious now, worrying about what it will be like decades from now is justified. As well, life can change in an instant. There are those for whom an accident, a brain injury, or a serious mental illness suddenly took them off of their current paths and into the chronic health care system. As well, if you are like me, you may become a caregiver to an ill parent, taking precious time from your work time and social life to attend to her needs while being faced with decisions concerning what to do when the situation becomes too medically complicated to deal with, without some outside form of help - help which will likely come with a price tag.

The "umbrella" of which the organizers of the conference speak has another name: the safety net. One with a lot of holes through which the vulnerable fall. For example, an elderly person falls, breaks her hip, and has to be hospitalized. Her acute needs are taken care of: she gets a hip replacement, some initial physical therapy, and during her hospital stay gets medication she needs for the pain. However, due to her injury, she can no longer live at home, unassisted. She either has to get live-in help or move to a long-term care facility - neither of which are inexpensive options. Plus, she has prescription medications that, while subsidized because of her age, still cost a significant amount out of pocket for someone on a fixed income.

So really, when a medical situation goes beyond the need for acute care, things get quite precarious. Even within acute care, a person's finances can be stretched. Prescription medication is perhaps the best example of this. I had an ear infection requiring antibiotic drops a few years ago. The tiny bottle of medicine cost around $35. That is a lot of money for someone on a budget. People who have chronic conditions like MS have medication they have to be on for the long haul. Unless they have good private insurance from their employer (which is getting rarer and rarer these days) or have purchased insurance on their own, they are financially hooped.

Related to this are the ridiculous fees one has to pay to see a dentist, which is also not covered unless you have private coverage. Last year, I had to have two fillings, a check up, and a cleaning. The bill came out close to $1000. I don't have insurance, so the bill caused me quite a bit more pain than my cavities. It was also a reminder as to why I had not been to a dentist for five years. However, infections and abscesses originating in the mouth can lead to death. I can't understand why dental work is not covered by our health care system. Since we're talking about older people, they often need extra dental care and procedures like having dentures made for them.

Another issue affecting our health care system is the pay and treatment of Alberta Health Services Support Workers. The wildcat strike held by members of the AUPE at the Royal Alex and University of Alberta hospitals on February 16 was a wakeup call to many to these workers' conditions. Perhaps it is my OCD tendencies speaking, but I want the person responsible for sterilizing equipment for a procedure to be well-treated and well-paid. The very fact that over 60 elective surgeries had to be cancelled demonstrated the importance of these people to the proper functioning of the health care system. Respect them.

It is a government's job to make sure its citizens are healthy and protected. There is a provincial election around the corner. Pay close attention to what the candidates are saying about public health care. If anyone even breathes the word "privatization" - be afraid. Be very afraid. Because no matter how much they promise that the system will be arranged in such a way that everyone will have access, regardless of their financial situation, invariably it will turn into a situation where those who can pay will get treated first, and better. Instead, choose those who will make our public services a priority and put money where it is needed. After all, like closing speaker Maude Barlow (National Chairperson of the

Cool Stuff in a Winter City

Cool Stuff, a photo by raise my voice on Flickr.

Winter is a part of life in Edmonton. In fact, as a born and bred Edmontonian, I can't really imagine life without it. We've had it easy this year (for the most part - as I write this, centimetre upon centimetre is falling from the sky at a very fast rate), but the winter of 2011 reminded me of the ones when I was a child: long, snowy, and COLD!

An exhibit in Enterprise Square until the end of March examines the area through the lens of winter. Cool Stuff features more than 350 items from the University of Alberta's 29 museums. Artwork, clothing, animal specimens, and other artefacts exemplify life in the northern winter, both now and throughout history. Some items that really stood out for me were items of Inuit dress, as well as the colourful artwork by Ted Harrison.

Winter is something that has been on the City's mind for a while now. The WinterCity Strategy is part of an effort to encourage peopel to embrace the winter and present Edmonton as a world leader in celebrating our climate.

Winter has been celebrated in Edmonton through several festivals, such as Silver Skate (the longest-running winter festival in Edmonton), Ice on Whyte, the various efforts of the Edmonton Winter Light Society, and most recently, Metropolis.

Since staying inside is not going to make the snow and cold going away, activities that encourage people to get outside and take part in activities is quite important, even if it is just admiring sculptures of snow and ice. Offering some coverage to allow people to warm up is also important, but putting everything inside, even if it just within temporary structures (like with Metropolis) is counter-productive. If I want to go to an indoor activity, I would rather go see a band perform in a concert venue, a movie in a theatre, or a conference at a hotel.

That being said, having one-off events like the recent Parka Patio presented by Latitude 53 had a little bit of everything: food, music, and art in a setting modified to accommodate the weather and make sure everyone was comfortable.

I am a big fan of hyper-local, neighbourhood celebrations; ones that not only offer things to enjoy for local residents, but are actually a reason for people from other parts of the city to head over and experience life outside their immediate environment. I am thinking about Common Ground in McCauley, which was part of the Winter Light series of events. Music, storytelling, food, and outdoor installations were just part of this incredible event. Performances took part inside teepees heated by fire, while there was plenty outside to see and do. And those in attendance were not just from the inner city.

Keep it relevant, keep it multifaceted, and keep it focussed on local culture, food, and entertainment, and combine it with planning that takes into account the unpredictable fluctuations in weather that our winters are famous for, and that is a winning combination. No event or strategy will be all things to all people, so it is important to have a variety of options instead of pushing one major "winter festival."

Then, there are the practical details that should always be a priority for Edmonton's City Council, if we want the city to be truly safe and sustainable year round. More cycling lanes will ensure that those brave (or crazy!) enough to ride on two wheels in the winter will not have as much traffic with which to contend. Road maintenance and effective snow clearing and sanding are definitely important.

Finally, the activist in me has to get this in: the City needs effective, continuing strategies on dealing with homelessness and affordable housing. These are issues that increase in urgency when the weather gets colder. Since we have such a long winter season combined with a significant homeless population (as well as those at risk) and shelters that become overextended to the maximum, this needs to be a top priority. After all, to me at least, exactly how "world class" a city is directly relates to how well it takes care of those citizens who are most vulnerable.

We can embrace the climate in Edmonton as well as everyone who lives here. We have the minds, the talent, and the ability.

Diapers and Band-Aids

I have written several blog posts before about some charitable actions being noble, but are ultimately short-term in their vision and scope. A band-aid, if you will. See Charity, Poverty, and Band-Aids, for example.

As someone actively working for social change, I am often torn between staying focused on the reasons for a certain need - be it food, afforible shelter, or access to medial attention. If we don't work on the underlying causes, then organizations like food banks and soup kitchens and shelters are just band-aid solutions to a greater societal problem.

However, at the same time, there are those in immediate need for something tangible. A person who is hungry needs food. This is why I have volunteered in the past with a mainstream charitable organization, Edmonton's Food Bank.

My latest dilemma involves a diaper drive for the single teen moms at Terra. A friend of mine on Twitter, @Sirthinks has organized a team of politicos to challenge a group of Edmonton realtors as to which group can raise the largest number of diapers. I have put his call below for reference.

Now, although this is supposedly a non-partisan endeavour, the only politicos involved thus far are from the PCs or Wildrose Alliance. As the organizer himself is very conservative by his own admission, it comes as no surprise that this group would be compased of his immediate contacts.

How did I get involved? I received a challenge to try to get the Left involved, particularly people from the NDP. So, I have been trying to garner support for this action, while at the same time failing to bite my tongue concerning the irony of this. People from the PC part are involved in an effort to help teenage moms. Wonderful, applause. However, it would be even better if their part would stop cutting social programs that help women and single mothers.

One of my Facebook friends, who is an outspoken activist for mothers and children, took this idea one step beyond, pointing out that if mothers - all mothers, regardless of age or marital status - actually had the necessary resources (financial and community/social) "to live beyond survival mode without constant scrambling, they might be able to buy their own diapers, or better yet, they may even have the community resources and support to use cloth or EC."

She continues that, "Diaper drives mostly mean we put money into the giant paper/chemical companies, with the spin off benefit of helping a few moms in a small way for a short time. It's yet another way to get good PR while funneling money into corporate hands. It's sticking a band aid on a gushing head wound."

I definitely think the single moms in Terra need diapers desperately. Giving some to them does not bother me in the least. But giving them what they need in the long term is so much more important - a social structure that will allow them and their children to live comfortably. This is why I would love to see political parties who are better able to provide that involved in this initiative. Otherwise, this whole campaign is just a conservative PR opportunity. It's a farce. If this is really a non-partisan effort, then some of us Lefties (or even, dare I say it, progressives and centrists) have to get involved.

Provide the band-aids while working on healing the wounds underneath.

---

Terra Association, in Edmonton, assists teen parents and young families overcome the hardships faced when unexpected pregnancies occur. Terra assists an average 600 clients and their children annually. These clients are teen moms, young dads and young families striving to make a better life for themselves and their children. Terra offers a broad range of services to assist these young people in reaching their goals. Like any other charitable organization, Terra requires the help of the community as a whole to provide these services.

For the past two years, Terra Association has held a diaper drive in Edmonton with the goal of raising 5,000 boxes of diapers. If you consider a baby can use up to 200 diapers per month, the number of diapers utilized by Terra clients can be in the area of 1.4 million per year. Terra’s goal of 5,000 cases of 24 diapers is 120,000 units, or just under 10 per cent of the needs of their clients. Money saved by these teens and young families can be put towards educational pursuits, rent, food and other incidentals babies require.

In 2009, Edmonton-Calder MLA Doug Elniski decided to challenge people, using social media tools, to fill his Smart Car with diapers for Terra. In six days we raised approximately 12,000 diapers for Terra. We did this utilizing social media, two phone calls, and one short meeting to plan the event.

Teaming up with the Realtors Association of Edmonton as we did in 2009, we offer the following challenge. Can a group of politicians from various parties and levels of government raise more diapers than a group of real estate agents? We believe, by putting partisan politics aside, utilizing our fundraising skills, and having some non-partisan FUN, we can raise in excess of 65,000 diapers and, at the same time, exceed the 52,000 units raised by realtors last year. Our volunteer public relations coordinator will plan small social events between where we would invite friends and the public to attend fun evenings and show their support for Terra by donating diapers as an entry fee. Once again, our internal challenge would be to do as much of the diaper and fundraising utilizing the various social media tools available to us, rather than conventional methods.

So far we have received commitments from Edmonton-Castledowns MLA The Honourable Thomas Lukaszuk, Minister of Employment and Immigration, Edmonton-Calder MLA Doug Elniski, Edmonton-Riverview Wildrose Party candidate John Corie, Edmonton-Rutherford Wildrose Party candidate Kyle McLeod, Edmonton-Manning Wildrose Party candidate Daryl Bonar, and Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood Wildrose Party candidate Wayde Lever. This team is being supported by public relations professionals, graduates of NAIT’s computer technologies program and other well respected Edmontonians.

To join our team, please contact me at jwinslow@shaw.ca or Doug Elniski, at edmonton.calder@assembly.ab.ca.

Remember, were it not for people like us, organizations like Terra Association could not do the work they do.

Alberta Needs A Living Wage

This week, Employment Minister Thomas Lukaszuk announced he would not raise the Province's minimum wage a mere 12 cents (to $8.92 from $8.80). Even if he did approve such a generous raise (can you hear my sarcasm?) this is hardly anywhere near a living wage. This article I wrote for the April 2008 issue of Our Voice, a street newspaper in Edmonton, is as true today as it was back then.

---

Everyone who is willing and able to work deserves to make a living. How to achieve that in our supposedly booming economy is another matter.

The gap between the rich and poor is growing wider, with the extremes growing on both ends of the equation. A possible solution to the growing class of the “working poor” – those who have jobs but still find themselves coming up short each month for the basic necessities of life – is the institution of a living wage.

According to Public Interest Alberta, 21.9% of all working Albertans earn less than $12 per hour . One suggested solution is to raise the minimum wage, but even $12 is not a whole lot when it comes to keeping up with the cost of living resulting from the province’s supposed “boom.”

One of the problems concerning setting a living wage is defining an exact amount. Realistically, this can vary from person to person depending on circumstances. A single mother with three pre-teen children is going to have very different needs than a twenty-five year old bachelor who lives alone.

Another consideration is that certain kinds of jobs have limited potential for both career development and actual monetary value. The career ceiling is very limited for someone who pumps gas or checks out groceries, unless they end up an owner or a manager – certainly not in the majority of cases. Gradual pay increases over time for these sorts of jobs tend to be small because they do not require a lot of skill and training.

However, not everyone can or is supposed to be a doctor, lawyer or executive. This does not mean that other jobs are any less vital to our economy. Many so-called menial jobs ensure that society as we know it functions smoothly. It is the workers, through their labour, who provide the backbone for a quality of life that those in the upper echelons take for granted. Think about this: what would happen if all of the cashiers at Safeway simply decided not to show up for work one day? Or, if the same scenario ensued with any other job that is generally taken for granted?

A theoretical proposal is that society as a whole needs to examine and evaluate what is important in terms of its values. In practical terms, change has to start with each of us, to slowly and gradually create a paradigm shift in our society. On an individual level, this means taking stock of our own priorities, and allowing our lives to be living reflections of what we hold most dear. This may involve becoming less materialistic, or taking a different career path that allows us more time to pursue our passions or spend more time with loved ones.

As well, the average person needs to support workers’ rights. When a group of workers are on strike, don’t cross the picket line. In terms of day to day activities, don’t support corporations with lousy track records when it comes to employee treatment and pay. While low prices might be tempting to anyone on a budget or fixed income, supporting these kinds of businesses is only adding to the problem while lining the pockets of some of the biggest corporations in the world (and the obscenely rich executives who run them). At the very least, make an effort to shop at Canadian-owned companies, as well as ones that utilize the standards of Fair Trade, whereby the goods are certified not to have been produced in sweatshops and where the producers are paid a decent amount for their labour.

Perhaps it is some sort of fair trade regulations we need on a local level. Our quality of life should not have to suffer because of arbitrarily set wage limitations. The term “working poor” needs to be made obsolete.

Defining the Centre

When I was in University, I remember in one of my English classes discussing literature in relation to the mainstream. Much of what we studied veered from this place marker, towards directions that were described as post-modern or alternative. Queries sometimes came up as to what exactly this "mainstream" was.

Today, in Alberta's political scene, we tend to look at things from either right or left perspectives, the depth of which is measured by how far one veers from the "centre." Whether someone is a right-wing extremist, a left-wing liberal, or simply middle of the road, all depends on the relationship of that person with the almighty centre.

I've been involved in the discussion of defining a progressive, in terms of trying to effect change in this province. I am starting to believe that the more relevant question might be: what is the centre?

If we do not have a fixed vantage point for the middle ground, then we're all going to have different views on where someone stands on the issues. In that case, any arguments over what defines a progressive or how one can be socially liberal versus economically conservative (and vice versa) becomes simply a matter of perspective without any sort of grounding.

I have been told that my definition of the centre may be off somewhat, mainly due to my involvement in left-wing politics and the activist scene. I disagree,and not for any political reason. I simply do not know what the centre is anymore.

I used to view the centre as exactly that: halfway between the right and left wings. Middle of the road on all things social and economic. Yet to me now, this definition sounds more like that of a fence sitter than political perspective.

Today, "centre" could be something which no longer exists, like the old Progressive Conservative point of view, back when the party actually took heed of the first part of its name. Or maybe it is the Liberals, who tend to do a lot of flip flopping of their own. Maybe the centre is no longer defined by any specific political party.

One of my activist friends said that the centre is whatever the dominant group in power says it is, with everyone else being marginalized. With the Conservatives still in power, and a new party emerging that is even further to the right (Wild Rose Alliance), the centre itself might be something that can shift.

That being said, does any political perspective stay as it is, or change based upon the party in power and culture of society? I think the culture is very important in answering these questions. I know people from the southern United States where conservative people there make conservative people up here look like hippies.

Alberta has been known as being quite conservative for a number of decades. As a result, people who wave peace signs and demonstrate for change can look a bit wild. Never mind the way we are in our personal lives - we're subversive.

We need a clearly defined middle ground if there is any hope of successful dialogue leading to a better future. Otherwise, we will always be in a battle between the vague "mainstream" and the misunderstood "extremists."

An Activist By Any Other Name . . .

I am often called an activist. However, I started to wonder what this term really means.

"Activism" and "left-wing politics" tend to go hand in hand. I'm someone who is involved in the peace movement, the environment, and poverty/homelessness. I am active in these causes. Ergo, I am an activist.

However, what about someone who is active with pro-life (anti-abortion) causes? Or who supports the "sanctity of marriage" (anti-gay rights)? Are these people activists, albeit on the other side of the spectrum? Of course they are.

Then, there are people who work for causes that are neither the property of the left or right. Parents who unite against a school closing. Neighbours who get together to form a community watch program. Are these people activists? I would say, very much so.

I find that when the term "activist" is applied to someone to the right, it is qualified with the kind of activist they are. I have heard numerous people referred to as a "pro-life activist" or "an activist for the family" (as if to imply that those of us more to the left don't advocate for our families!).

I have had qualifiers added to my activist moniker (particularly "peace activist), but in most cases, people simply refer to me as an activist. I admit, when I am told about someone else and am told that person is an activist, thoughts of marches and rallies pop into my head. (Although that is not an entirely accurate stereotype either, as there are indeed marches and rallies for right-wing causes).

However, the true definition of an activist is exactly what the word implies: someone who stands up for a cause. The question is then, the type of activist a person is. That is why the English language has adjectives.

Political Labels and Identity

I like to stir things up. That should come as no surprise to anyone who has known me for any length of time. Sometimes I make a statement about myself or my beliefs, and watch the reactions. It's not that I like to be the center of attention or spend copious amounts of time navel-gazing, or even that I enjoy agitating people I care about. It's none of those things. I find the reactions of others tell me a lot about themselves, and in the process, gives me greater insights into what I believe and why. It's a constant process of self-realization and refinement. When done properly, it can even deepen friendships.

Social media streamlines this process. On Facebook, one of the profile questions one can answer concerns political beliefs. I have put everything here from "liberal" (but not in the political party sort of way) to "left-wing, granola-crunching, tree-hugger" (my personal favourite). Yesterday, I changed it to "slightly left of centre" and posted a status update to reflect that.

And then, the comments came flying in.

"That's the understatement of the year."

"Your idea of of center may be a bit out of calibration."

"I'm with ----, except a bit may be just a tad to little. Perhaps a tad right of left extremist might be more the description I would use."

Now, my pat answers are as follows:

1) The year has just begun.

2) The centre of what?

3) I am hardly an extremist.

Facetiousness aside, I really started to wonder if a proportion of my friends honestly view me as an extremist. Moi? I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, or sleep around. I dress modestly. I practise a faith that many of my activist friends consider to be right-wing and patriarchal and have family ideas that can sometimes seem old-fashioned in today's world.

And in some ways, I think this might be the problem. People are not comfortable with what they cannot label and put in a box. I hardly fit the stereotype of a left-wing activist. At first glance, I am a professional, straight-laced, laid back woman. Talk to me for a while, and you will learn about my involvement in the local peace community, my thoughts on the failings of capitalism, the reasons why I am for democracy but why it is not working in our society, and my feelings about labour unions (both positive and negative.

I suppose that can all seem very radical to someone who espouses different views that are either in the centre or to the right of said middle. This begs the question: what is the centre, and who defines it? Our society has progressively shifted to the right over the past few decades. I've had the labels "socialist" and "commie" hurled at me simply for criticizing capitalism (as if any economic system is perfect), or or suggesting the government needs to do more to fight homelessness and poverty.

Our differences should not be cause for hostility. When conversations, whether online or in person, dissolve into ad hominum attacks, I turn off, tune out, and drop away. Rather, we should discuss our differences and in doing so, learn about each other and grow as friends. This is one of the ways in which we build a better society. I have friends of all political and religious stripes. We're friends because we like each other, not because we agree on everything. Let's quit focusing on how we are different, and concentrate on what we have in common.

Political Contradictions and Alberta

Progressive. Conservative. Centrist. These are political labels that define our perspectives on a variety of social and fiscal issues.

Fiscally conservative. Socially progressive. And vice-versa. These are combinations that are made when one or the other are not working in and of themselves.

As Albertans, can we find wholeness in what appear to be political contradictions? As someone who labels herself "progressive," I have seen those who are fiscally conservative cut a whole range of programs and services that are needed in order to be socially concerned. Yes, I suppose it is possible to be in favour of gay marriage and not care about abortion while being tight with the purse strings, but being "socially progressive" goes far beyond these issues. Issues which often cause people to vote Conservative because of so-called "family values," even though the result of that kind of government is cuts to programs deeply needed by families.

Progressives care about the Arts, education, healthcare, and the poor. In short, we care about people rather than corporations. We care about a diverse society with rights and protection for all, not just the elite few of the very rich. It's about everyone having an equal voice, whether one is a CEO or working single mother.

The term "progressive conservative" has become an oxymoron in our current political lexicon in this province because of the extreme right-wing route that party has gone down. Whether or not it is too late to get back to its "Red Tory" roots remains to be seen. As a social activist, I feel I need to stay away from the label "conservative" altogether. It carries too much baggage. We need something new, something better - something progressive.

The Goldstone Report - A Jewish Opinion

The B’nai B’rith has denounced the Goldstone Report. Now, I’m Jewish, and I’ve read the report. I’ve also read criticism of it and support of it. My conclusion? I don’t find the Goldstone Report biased or an attack on Israel. We can’t just blindly support a nation in everything it does when it commits atrocities. Just because a UN sanctioned report is critical of Israel, doesn’t mean it is attacking Israel either. There’s a saying: the truth hurts. Perhaps instead of condemning everything that doesn’t paint Israel in a positive light, we as Jews should be looking towards ways of building peace in that nation with the Palestinians. I say this as a Jewish person and someone who fully believes Israel has a right to exist. I realize I am going to take a lot of flack for this, but I don’t believe blind nationalism is a Jewish value. In fact, the only people who are saying the Goldstone Report is biased and one-sided are the Zionist lobby and those who support them. So who is really being one-sided?

Liberal vs. Conservative

I find these two labels to be confusing at times. I am not talking about the political parties either. I am talking about lifestyle.

It appears that there is a pre-conceived notion when someone is described as "liberal" or "conservative." A person who is liberal is a bleeding heart, anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pseudo hippy. A conservative person loves guns, is pro-life, pro-war, anti-gay, and a Bible thumper.

Is there no middle ground?

Both labels present contradictions and fallacies. Someone who is socially liberal (or, progressive), may be quite conservative when it comes to their spiritual life, or just life in general. Some liberals life akin to modern-day hippies. Some don't.

With conservatives, I suppose it is possible to be fiscally conservative but at the same time, have a social conscious. This is sort of like old-style Canadian conservatism before it started to follow in the neocon way of the United States.

I also cannot fathom someone being pro-life and pro-war.

I wonder if Jesus Himself was here today, what the hardline Conservatives would think of Him. I wear a button sometimes that says, "Jesus was a liberal."

And indeed, I agree with this statement.

Elections

Yesterday was the federal election in Canada. The existing government was trying to get a majority of seats in Parliament. The Prime Minister felt a minority government would not work properly. Well, unfortunately he wasted his time and a whole lot of tax money, as another Conservative minority government was elected. Minority governments in Canada don't really last much longer than two years at a clip, so we can probably expect to head to the polls again some time in 2010.

Pretty much everything stayed the same in Edmonton, except in the Strathcona riding where NDP Linda Duncan won over incumbent Conservative Rahim Jaffer. I am very happy for her. I have had the privilege of meeting her a few times and she is very experienced and intelligent.

I spent much of yesterday evening live-blogging on Twitter, commenting on the numbers as they came in.

I got a book the other called Reaching the Left from the Right by Barbara Curtis. She is a former hippie who became a Born Again Republican when she became a Born Again Christian. This is what I just don't understand -- why does our faith have to make us socially conservative? I'll for sure talk more about this book after I read it.

Day of Atonement

Today was Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The holiest day of the Jewish year. I managed to make it to an afternoon service at my congregation, where we studied the Book of Jonah, as well as other Scriptures. Yesterday evening, after sundown when the holiday had already began, I was moved to read some Scripture before going to bed. The ones I was led to focus on were ones that we also looked at this afternoon, in particular Matthew 5 and 1 Corinthians 5 and 6. Verses that outline holiness, sin, and redemption.

On a slightly related note, I have gotten serious about my walking and am now often wearing a pedometer. I am so curious as to exactly how much walking I do - I think I vastly underrate the distance I travel. For instance, to go back and forth from the church building where we meet is just slightly short of a mile. I thought it would be a half a mile at best.

And on another note all together . . . yesterday, my parents send in their absentee ballots for the U.S. election. They voted for Obama. My parents are not exactly what you would call progressive, but they are sick of war mongers running their home country. War mongers who pick airheads to be Vice President, who could end up being President one day, in which case the world has a lot to worry about.

Rally for Change

On Saturday, I attended the Rally for Change. It was actually a rally for Jack Layton. Which in effect would be change, a change from the Conservative government from which we currently suffer. There were hundreds of NDP supporters filling the lobby of the Winspear Centre. It was the first time I have ever seen a major political figure speak live. I ended up filming from the second floor, as it just got way too crowded.

In churches, we don't talk about politics too much. At least in Canada, candidates and parties cannot be supported from the pulpit, lest the church risk losing its charitable status. We talk about issues that are hot properties in political circles, like abortion, gay marriage, poverty, and peace, but ultimately, at least in my congregation, we encourage people to vote with their conscience.

I used to think that being a Believer meant I had to vote a certain way or have certain political beliefs. I was so wrong. Religion and politics tend to be way too tied up together. When I hear people ranting about "right-wing evangelical Christians" I know they are making a generalization, but it is borne of this cookie-cutter mentality that is far too pervasive in church circles. Christian does not have to equal conservative. Jesus was a socialist. Deal with it.