The Mexican Drug War: An American Problem

Hey everybody! This is a preview from our full length winter issue of Inquire Magazine our power in society issue. We're looking to solicit as many responses as possible to publish alongside our articles. Length doesn't matter, we're just focused on providing the community with a variety of perspectives. Feel free to comment on the article of interest. In the future we'll be posting a link to an online version of the publication, which will include some of your great contributions.

Isabel Barrera

The escalation of drug-related violence in Mexico has recently brought to light the severity of the problem rooted in the illegal drug trade. Violence stemming from fierce competition between drug cartels has caused significant damage to the people of Mexico; it has resulted in the deaths of over 5000 people in 2008 as reported by the U.S State Department. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon has vowed to crack down on the drug cartels, prompting the initialization of an increased military presence. But the Calderon’s efforts have had little effect on decreasing drug-related violence in Mexico’s most troubled states.  Recently, concern in the U.S over Mexico’s drug problems have become heightened as violence has begun to seep across the border, primarily in “gateway” cities such as Phenoix where illegal drugs are known to enter the U.S. The problem that has existed in Mexico for decades has finally become a concern for the American government, as they now have a vested interest in reducing drug-related violence which has begun to take its toll on American citizens.

The complex nature of the drug-trade in Latin American countries makes it highly difficult to for the Mexican government to effectively address. The global drug trade has an estimated value of over $400 billion dollars, which helps fuel the rampant corruption that hinders efforts to impede the illegal drug trade. Corruption penetrates almost every facet of the Mexican justice system, such that authorities are often unable to hold drug dealers accountable even after they are apprehended. Further complicating the issue, Mexico’s strict gun laws have done little to prevent members of drug cartels from being extremely well armed; it has been estimated that 95 percent of weapons acquired by cartels members are smuggled into Mexico from the U.S, where it is possible to purchase weapons from an unlicensed dealer with no questions asked. It is clear that the Mexican government is faced with limited resources and limited capacity to effectively address the drug problem in its country. 

Mexico is the largest foreign source of marijuana in the U.S, with the International Narcotics Strategy Control Report estimating that approximately 15 800 metric tons of marijuana were produced in Mexico in 2007, most of which was bound for U.S markets. The high demand for drugs in the U.S exemplifies the intimate relationship that exists between the drug-related problems in Mexico and U.S policy. It is difficult to image how the issue of supply in Mexico can be addressed without first addressing the demand which fuels the production and transport of these illegal substances.

As Hilary Clinton stated at a 2009 press conference in Mexico City, “our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade, and our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” 

 The striking correlation between the demand in the U.S for drugs and the push to meet this demand in Latin American countries makes it clear that any viable solution must involve active cooperation between the Mexican and U.S governments. The demand for marijuana in the U.S is an issue that has garnered a high degree of media attention; the legalization of marijuana has been heavily debated as an action that has the potential to radically influence the outcome of the drug war in Mexico. In addition to its effects on the drug trade, it has been estimated that the legalization of marijuana would save $13.7 billion dollars in government expenditures for the enforcement of marijuana laws

. With the majority of profits on the illegal sale of marijuana being garnered by Mexican drug cartels, its legalization could remove a significant portion of the revenue collected; revenue that is currently put towards fostering corruption and purchasing weapons, among other things. The power of the drug cartels is founded on the demand for the products they produce, great quantities of which can be sourced back the United States. Consequently, a large part of the burden and responsibility to deal with the root of the problem should be shifted to the U.S government; a government that is politically and structurally better equipped to target the issue than its Mexican counterpart.

Only through a combination of U.S policy changes and increased transparency within the Mexican system can the violence caused by the illegal drug trade be effectively stopped. Until carefully addressed, widespread corruption within many facets of the Mexican government will continue to hinder any efforts to stem the influence of the powerful drug cartels. The vicious circle of corruption and violence that has plagued the Mexican people with terror and economic hardship cannot be stopped without decisive and targeted U.S policy intervention. Whether it be tighter gun regulations, the legalization of marijuana, or stricter border policies, the U.S government will likely continue to see an increase in drug-related violence migrating to American cities, unless it takes an active and mutually cooperative approach to tackling the increasingly serious problem at hand.

A Forgotten Minority

Hey everybody! This is a preview from our full length winter issue of Inquire Magazine our power in society issue. We're looking to solicit as many responses as possible to publish alongside our articles. Length doesn't matter, we're just focused on providing the community with a variety of perspectives. Feel free to comment on the article of interest. In the future we'll be posting a link to an online version of the publication, which will include some of your great contributions.

Adil Ali


On August 11, 1947, addressing the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan following his election as the first President, Muhammad Ali Jinnah proclaimed: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.” Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the current state of minorities in Pakistan. 

Parts of Jinnah’s speech have been downplayed, altered or omitted altogether by the Government of Pakistan to appease religious groups within the country, such acts are demonstrative of the power wielded by clerics in Pakistan. Their influence has grown exponentially in the past few decades and the brunt of this power shift has been mainly felt by the fledgling minorities of the country. 

Ahmadis, a religious minority, have been on the receiving end of systematic and particularly severe persecution from their fellow countrymen as well as the Pakistani State. Soon after the partition of India, clerics belonging to the Sunni majority began engaging in anti-Ahmadi agitation. On May 1, 1949, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, a Muslim separatist movement, made its first public demand that Ahmadis be declared a non-Muslim minority. It used outlandish conspiracy theories accusing the Ahmadis of conspiring with India against Pakistan’s Sunni population. This was after all, and still is, the oldest trick in the book to malign an individual or an entity in Pakistan. 

Even though the attacks against the Ahmadis continued for the next two decades, it wasn’t until 1974 that the Government of Pakistan decided to engage in state-sponsored religious discrimination against the community. In 1974, the Sunni clerics saw a new spate of violence against the Ahmadis as an opportunity to pressure the then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims. As a result, the Pakistani parliament introduced Articles 260(3)(a) and (b), which defined the meaning of the term “Muslim” in the Pakistani context and listed religious groups that were declared non-Muslims. Put into effect on September 6, 1974, the amendment deprived Ahmadis of their identity as Muslims and consequently curtails their religious freedoms. 

For fear of being charged, Ahmadis could no longer profess their faith, either verbally or in writing. Law enforcement agencies destroyed Ahmadi translations of the Quran and banned Ahmadi publications. Furthermore, Ordinance XX prohibited Ahmadis from declaring their faith publicly, propagating their faith, building mosques, or making the call for Muslim prayers. This amounts to a de facto criminalization of any public act of worship for Ahmadis. Over the last three decades, the clerics’ propaganda has influenced the masses and that has led to widespread hatred against the Ahmadis. The hatred has been woven so deep into the fabric of Pakistani society that the country refuses to acknowledge the only Nobel laureate it has ever produced— Dr. Abdus Salam Khan won the Nobel Prize for physics but because he belonged to the Ahmadiyya Community, there is no monument to celebrate him and no universities named after him. The hatred was such that the word "Muslim" on his gravestone was also erased. 

There has been no let-up in violence against the community in recent times. On May 28, 2010, two teams of attackers stormed Ahmadiyya mosques in Lahore during the Friday prayers and slaughtered 94 members of the community. The violence, as gruesome as it was, wasn’t the most disturbing aspect. It was the reaction of the Pakistani society that was most abhorrent. The Pakistani media, which is normally quite vociferous, remained uncharacteristically restrained. The media did not even consider the victims worthy enough to be characterized as “martyrs”, a title usually conferred upon any victims of terrorist attacks. Even the elected representatives in the parliament chose to remain mute on the issue rather than voicing their support for the Ahmadiyya community. It wasn’t until three brave female MPs crossed party lines to propose a resolution condemning the attacks that the parliament even acknowledged the violence against the persecuted community. When Pakistan's main opposition leader and former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, used the phrase "our brothers" for the murdered Ahmadis, leaders from 11 religious political parties came together to condemn him and threatened to issue a fatwa declaring him a heretic. This is a stark demonstration of how the clerics have maintained a tight grip on the politicians in Pakistan and how their influence extends into the public sphere. 

Apart from being victimized by extremist militant groups, the Ahmadis have often found themselves to be targets of blasphemy allegations and open discrimination in their daily lives. In October this year, 10 students, including seven girls, and a female teacher were expelled from Chenab Public School and Muslim Public School, in the Punjab province, for being Ahmadis. According to Saleemuddin, the spokesperson of the Ahmadiyya community, the expulsion came in the aftermath of a public meeting held in the city where religious preachers openly indulged in hate speeches against the community. Muslim Public School Principal, Yasir Abbas admitted to caving under pressure from the clerics who demanded the expulsion of Ahmadi students from his school. Khalil Ahmed, whose three daughters were expelled, told The Express Tribune: “It is extremely unfortunate that my daughters are being deprived of the most basic and fundamental human right such as education all because of religious intolerance.” “I have no alternative to ensure that their education continues,” he added.

As a Pakistani myself, it wasn’t until I read an article about Ahmadi persecution that I realized that over the years I have personally witnessed and to a certain extent, contributed towards this blatant oppression. While applying for a passport or national ID card, I never cared to read the oath that I was signing. An oath that no Muslim anywhere in the world is asked to sign goes like this: “I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an impostor prophet. And also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group, to be non-Muslims.”

 This reference to the Ahmadiyya community is a requirement for all Muslims to sign when applying for a new passport in Pakistan, which by the way is the only country to have officially declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims.

As I delve into the path that my country has taken throughout history, it leaves me with a sense of sadness knowing that Pakistan, at the time of its independence, guaranteed more rights and freedoms to its minorities than even the United States of America. While the US transformed itself from being a segregated society to a nation that championed equality and fairness throughout the rest of the world, Pakistan has chosen to distance itself from the vision of its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and as a result, become a hotbed for discrimination and religious bigotry that has been suffocating its citizens for years. Belonging to the majority Sunni sect, I can choose to ignore the persecution of Ahmadis in my country and go on living my life espousing sheer indifference, but my conscience tells me otherwise. I believe that Martin Niemöller’s famous quote “Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me” perfectly sums up my feelings towards this issue and injects some much needed urgency to the state of minorities in Pakistan and Ahmadis in particular, which has now reached a crisis point. 

Emerging Face of a Nationless World

The blog post this week comes from Ruyi Wang (Bachelors of Arts and Science Candidate, 2014) Inquire's very own Co-VIce-President of Initiatives. We're glad she stumbled across this treasure as it deserves to be shared. The campaign encompasses not only an artist's musical skill and talent, but the cultural influences behind it. With a medium as ubiquitous as music we hope that this campaign will spread insight into the parallels between all communities.

Emerging Face of a Nationless World is a campaign begun by the New York based artist Jie-Song Zhang, under the not-for-profit company, Stone Forest New York, which promotes international cultural exchange projects. The campaign is being supported by National Geographic for its artistic and cultural value. The first promotional video speaks volumes about the change in global cultures in its short six minutes.

“The distances that once existed between continents, countries, and cultures, is disappearing.” With the increase of globalization in recent years, the freedom of the migration of people, and the lifestyles which they choose to live has increased immensely. In large “melting pot” cities with a dynamic mix of people from various cultures, the emergence of a nationless world is especially prominent. The city is a collective home to those who come from different homelands, creating its own unique blend as a result of the exchange that takes place. The Internet also plays a large role in the exchange of ideas and cultures. Though it seems that the infusion of technology into modern society has driven people farther apart, it has also brought people closer together. The idea of a nationless world is truly inspiring. Perhaps one day, we can cast aside the borders of nations, cultures, and continents, and defined ourselves under the common identity of the human race.

If you're interested in the project, more of Jie-Song Zhang and his Emerging Face of a Nationless World campaign can be found here.

Warren Buffett on Taxing the ‘Super Rich’

Welcome to the Inquire Blog! This post goes well with our most recent event, a showing of "Capitalism: A Love Story" which we hope that some of you had time to catch. We'd like to take a moment to thank Trisha Egberts (Bachelors of Commerce Candidate 2012, Queen's University), the author of this post, for contributing time and effort to put forward a great guest blog post for us!

Warren Buffett: American business man, investor, philanthropist, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, and 3^rd wealthiest person in the world. The man is an expert at making money, but now it seems he wants the American government to take its share.

Over the past few months, Buffett has made claims that the United States government is coddling the “mega-rich”, allowing them to pay taxes at far lower rates than their lower-income fellow citizens. After conducting a study in his own office at Berkshire, he found that he was paying taxes at roughly 17.4%, while the 17 employees he interviewed were paying between 33 and 41% of their annual incomes in taxes.

How is it possible that someone so rich living in a country with a progressive tax rate system – one in which higher income earners are taxed at higher rates – can achieve such a low average tax rate? The answer, in short, is capital gains. Capital gains occur when a capital asset (anything from a building to a mutual fund security) is sold for more than the price at which it was purchased. So how do capital gains provide a tax break? In both the United States and Canada, they are taxed at a preferential rate: a max of 15%, and 50% respectively. In addition to these rates, capital gains are only taxed when the gains are realized. So while an asset can increase in value over time, businesses need only pay tax on these gains at the time the asset is sold.

The result is that tax breaks, initially intended to encourage capital investment, have allowed business owners to increase after-tax gains in unusual ways. The problem is that the difference between ordinary business income and a capital gain is often unclear, and also very costly for the government to investigate. While jurisprudence plays an extensive role in this matter, the reality is that many forms of income that should be taxed at an ordinary progressive rate are in fact being taxed at far lower rates as a capital gain.

Another source of tax savings for Buffett and his “mega-rich” friends is carried interest, a form of compensation for general partners of hedge and private equity funds, which is taxed upon receipt. Partners are paid a portion of a corporation’s profit annually in order to align their goals with that of the business, and thus are only taxed when they receive the money.

In light of all this, Buffett has

challenged the American government to take action. He proposes raising taxes – including those on dividends and capital gains – for those earning $1,000,000 or more, and establishing additional tax hikes for those earning more than $10,000,000 per year. This leaves 99.7% of the taxpayers unchanged, and will allow for better redistribution of wealth, greater tax equity, and increased government revenue during economic crisis.

While this all seems fine and dandy, Buffett has been somewhat misleading in his claims. For one, Buffett has ignored the effect of corporate income tax – the tax paid on dividends at the corporate level – which would increase his supposed 17.4% tax rate. Furthermore, Buffett’s income structure is extraordinarily unusual, even among his wealth category. Buffett takes only $100,000 in salary, and earns about $40,000,000 of annual income in dividends and capital gains – taxed at lower rates. If Buffett was serious about the government collecting its fair share of income, he could merely readjust his income structure: take a drastically larger salary (as most CEOs would), and pay income taxes on those rather than at the preferential rates he receives otherwise. But let’s face it: being rich must be difficult. Let’s give the poor guy a break.

Photo credits:

1. http://warren-buffett.org/

2. http://pol.moveon.org/budget10/chart/?id=15734-7176625-v_IiG8x&t=1

3. http://celebrityhub.blogspot.com/2008/11/business-man-warren-buffett-biography.html

Money, Inequality and Power: Palestine and the Universality of Human Rights

A lecture given by Edward Said at the Berkeley University

-We realize that at an hour and 38 minutes there are few of us who have time to listen to the speech in its entirety, but this lecture is particularly moving, a call to arms for the resurgence of compassion and humanism. We hope that at some point when you are contemplating all your free time, that you take a moment to watch this passionate articulation of Israel's impact on Palestine. The following commentary on this lecture was written by Jorge Caicedo, VP of finance for Inquire Publication.

“I have retained this unsettled sense of many identities – mostly in conflict with each other – all my life, together with an acute memory of the despairing feeling that I wish we could have been all-Arab, or all-European and American, or all-Orthodox Christian, or all-Muslim, or all-Egyptian, and so on.” – Edward Said, Out of Place (5)

A writer, literary critic, cultural critic and musician, Edward Said who was most recognized for his book Orientalism, fought for open discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although a contentious topic, Edward Said’s perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a very unique one. Born and raised in the Middle East, but educated in an American private school and later at Princeton and Harvard, he was able to “see” the conflict from both perspectives. Yet what is most apparent in this lecture at the University of California at Berkeley, given eight months before his death, is his desire for honesty, transparency, and most importantly a degree of self-criticism and awareness not only on the part of government, but also on the part of individuals that comes from studying and experiencing other peoples, traditions, and ideas (Akeel Bilgrami).

“With so many dissonances in my life I have learned to actually prefer being not quite right and out of place.”

– Edward Said, Out of Place (295)

Recommended reading: Humanism and Democratic Criticism by Edward W. Said.

Inquire Publication is having its first event of the year!

When: 11:00 pm on Thursday, October 27^th

Where: Zappas Lounge, 178 Ontario St.

Theme: STOPLIGHT! (Red means taken, Yellow means it's complicated, Green means available)

Cost: $5

Come out and support Inquire and learn more about our upcoming plans and events.

We will be working with Soul Foods, a student run club that delivers food to shelters around Kingston, and will be donating a portion of the proceeds towards their cause.

For more details come check us out on Facebook at Inquire Publication or send us an email at copresidents@gmail.com.

We look forward to planning more exciting events in the future for Inquire Publication!

Cheers,

Ruyi and John

VPs of Initiatives

The F Word

Why “Feminism” has become the more taboo of the F words

By Genevieve Rochon-Terry

My brother just watched me write that title, and then shook his head. “You’re such a feminist”.

I turned to him. “Do you think women should have the same chance as men to succeed?”

“Yeah”.

“Do you think that a woman should not have to choose between personal success and having kids? Do you think that women should be able to live their lives without fearing sexual assault, and not be blamed or ridiculed if they are sexually assaulted?”

“Well yeah, of course”.

“Then you’re a feminist too”.

Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. That definition comes from bell hooks, an American author, feminist and social

activist. The definition she gives is simple and precise. It’s about sexism. It isn’t about hating men – or women, for that matter, who can also be perpetrators of sexism.

So why are many of the people who believe in these very goals so scared of feminism? I’ve often heard from other people, “I’m not a feminist but I support equal pay”. “I’m not a feminist but I believe in equal opportunity.” The thing is, the second halves of both these statements are in line with feminist beliefs. Why are people so afraid to call themselves feminists when clearly the goals of feminism can lead to a better life for themselves and their loved ones? Are they afraid of the stereotypes that come with the description? That they will no longer be attractive to the gender of their desire? That identifying as a feminist will affect their masculinity or femininity?

Those who are brave enough – because at this point, it does take courage– to declare themselves feminists are mostly met with awkward silence, aggression, or general discomfort. It’s not anyone’s fault. For most people, knowledge of feminism comes third-hand. The problem is that we’ve been raised to equate feminism with being anti-men, anti-nature, and in search of superiority over males. “They” are seen as cold-hearted, bitchy, humorless, bra-burning, loud, and un-feminine. A quick peruse through some forums responding to the question "why do people hate feminism” proves this. The view of feminism that prevails today is often one that has been handed down through the generations. It’s true that feminism began out of anger towards males – how could it not, when the males in power back then perpetrated blatant injustice involving whether women were even people. However, as time has gone on, the movement has realized that women can also be perpetrators of sexism, and feminism has reshaped itself towards creating gender justice.

After all these negative stereotypes, it’s not surprising that the media and many of the general public are pleased to proclaim that feminism is on the decline. Time magazine even ran a cover story in 1998 asking “Is feminism dead?” (the articles inside answered yes). Even though that story is over ten years old, the sentiments remain today. But to say that feminism is declining is to say that there is no longer a need to fight for inequality between men and women. This is incorrect – even the fact that we’re so afraid of feminism shows that there is work to be done in terms of gender equality.

If you believe that women and men have equal rights, think about this…

• Imagine if men in politics were vastly outnumbered by women, rather than the other way around. Weird, huh?
• Canada’s child-care programs fall short of commitments and need, meaning that more parents – mostly moms - are forced to stay at home rather than work. For many mothers, having kids means forgetting about career dreams.
• Like all of my female friends, I usually can’t walk home at night without being made to feel unsafe and uncomfortable by leering groups of guys – no matter what I’m wearing.
• Sexual assault remains a huge problem, with victim blaming rampant and perpetrators often getting away with it.
• According to Statistics Canada, women are more likely than men to be the victims of the most severe forms of spousal assault, as well as spousal homicide, sexual assault and criminal harassment (stalking).
• The Human Resources and Skills Development Canada website contains information about ensuring pay equity – equal pay for women and men doing work of equal value in the same establishment. If there were already pay equity, these kinds of websites wouldn’t be necessary. This inequity begins early – a recent survey discovered that newly graduated women MBAs make an average of $4,600 less at their first jobs than their male counterparts. And the split only widens as careers advance.”

…and those are just a few Canadian examples.

Feminism isn’t perfect – there are issues involving race and class that have fractured the movement. But fear of feminism isn’t going to help deal with these issues. By increasing awareness of what feminism can be, we can help to reclaim the word as something positive for everyone.

There are many different kinds of feminism, and there really is something for every person – whether you are the hands-on kind who wants to get out and be heard, the kind who chooses to support politicians who have a strong women’s rights platform, or the kind who just wants to learn more about feminism by reading some blogs. As bell hooks says in her excellent book, Feminism is for Everybody, “Come closer. See how feminism can touch and change your life and all our lives. Come closer and know firsthand what feminist movement is all about. Come closer and you will see: feminism is for everybody”.

*Note: I have focused above on feminism in Canada in particular. I haven’t even ventured into the extremely important, multi-faceted dimensions of feminism that involve race, religion, class, politics, and I don’t claim to speak for anyone.

References:

http://sophieatherton.wordpress.com/

Harvard Business Review. http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/04/the-pay-gap-and-delusions-of-p.html

http://paradigmsubverter.wordpress.com/category/feminism/

Welcome to Inquire!

Hi everyone,

My name is Lauren Sampson and I am the president of Inquire for the 2011-2012 school year. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for visiting our blog and encourage you to follow us, as we will be profiling a number of student and community-based writers throughout the year who will be blogging on a variety of social issues. Our first guest blogger will be Geneviève Rochon-Terry, Equity Officer for the Arts and Science Undergraduate Society, so be sure to check out her post in the next couple of days.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Frosh Week Preview: The Anatomy of Cultural Recursion

Check us out again in August for new content from our upcoming Frosh week special issue.

The Second French Revolution: 2011

"Say you wanna revolution?
Well, you know,
We all wanna change the world"
- The Beatles


By Cristina Rizzuto


You’re enjoying a café au lait and mouth-watering loaf of fougasse on the patio of the popular Pain d’Epis bakery in Paris.  The Eiffel Tower slices through the gloomy sky above you, a stark, black, linear cloud.  Tourists snap pictures on Avenue Bosquet, walking by the elderly man selling authentic paintings, a smile on his face, sadness in his eyes.  Nearby, fellow slackers are ordering baguettes and engaging in typical lazy-afternoon-patio discussions—women, fashion, politics, sport.  It’s a still frame from a French film, a mis-en-scène of Parisian life.  Suddenly, a woman enters the ambiance, a veil enshrouding her face, only her eyes visible.  The crowd’s jovial conversation descends to an inaudible whisper, as she walks, with trepidation, past your patio.  In this moment, there is a startling, disquieting cultural collision, both parties uncomfortable and alarmed. 

 This is the reality of today’s France.  A battle for the perpetuation of French culture and the retention of individual rights begins, as Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president, enforces the "Forbidding the Dissimulation of the Face in the Public Space" ban on April 11, 2011.  A revolution is stirring in France, though many wonder if it will be a resolution (specifically, supporters of Amnesty International, who urged France not to impose the ban). 

The Pew Global Attitudes Project, in a survey conducted last year, found that French citizens supported the ban by a startling margin of more than four to one – clearly, it is a law with which the French are in accordance.  France’s government ensures that the ban is aligned with the constitutional rights of individuals, as it is not an attack on the Islam religion: it is a referendum on the values and mores of French culture. 

The ban pertains to the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil that leaves an opening only for the eyes.  The hijab, which covers the hair and neck but not the face, and the chador, which covers the body but not the face, are not banned by the law.  The government has cited security reasons for not wanting a person’s identity to be concealed, as well as an infringement on women’s rights, calling enforcement of the burqa, “a form of enslavement that the government cannot accept on its soil”.

The government of France is not limiting religious freedom, nor is it isolating a minority group; rather, the ban will be a milestone in France’s progression towards social unity.  The burqa is not a religious requirement—the laws of Islam do not state that a woman must conceal her face, only that she must dress modestly.  Michele Alliot-Marie, France’s justice minister, said, “The full face veil dissolves the identity of a person in that community.  It challenges the French model of integration based on the acceptance of the values of our society.”

 Alliot-Marie said the ban had “nothing to do with religion”, as it reaffirmed the French values of equality and dignity of all individuals, regardless of sex or status; it would prevent women from becoming faceless members of society. 

Why is it that, for Western or Europeans traveling to a country like India, for example, where Islam is the second-most practiced religion, we must take extra precaution to assimilate, yet there is civil unrest at the prospect of living in France and having to conform to French culture?  On the website of an Indian travel agency (called, appropriately, India Travel Agents), they set out some basic rules for women traveling to India:

“Even after the modern influence of western countries, India still remains a conservative country. Some western habits are perceived as inappropriate and degrading if practiced by women here. Here are some travel tips for women in India:

• Don't wear revealing clothes while in India. They do not appeal to Indian sensibilities. You will attract unwanted attraction and advances if you are wearing skimpy outfits.
• Even at beaches, the people here are fully clothed.
• Avoid talking in a friendly manner with men you meet in buses, trains, restaurants, shopping places, etc. It may be viewed as a flirtation and lead to unwanted and unexpected sexual advances.
• A way to get more respect from Indians is to wear traditional Indian clothes”

           If travelers must respect the cultural guidelines of the country in which they choose to visit or live, such as India, those who choose to visit or live in France should respectfully do the same.  The travel website refers to some Western habits as “inappropriate” and “degrading”, yet we do not protest their values upon entering their country.  The French government also has a right to perceive the habit of covering a woman’s face as “inappropriate” and “degrading”, and implement laws to protect French culture.

France is a beacon of freedom and hope for many individuals; it is an asylum for immigrants, as it takes numerous measures to ensure acceptance and foster integration, such as offering free French language classes and employment assistance programs.  France’s latest law is being attacked, but its government is not wrong.  Will this be a resolution in the ways cultures receive one another, a stepping-stone towards social unity and acceptance? I hope so.
Get ready for a revolution.

What Has Canada Been Doing in Haiti?

By Riaz Sayani-Mulji


In order to help an impoverished and decimated state like Haiti, proper context is required. Unfortunately, mainstream media coverage of Haiti before, during, and after the earthquake last year provides none of this. When speaking of long- term development in Haiti, one would assume that Haitian history prior to the earthquake would be given consideration. Questions ought to be raised as to why Haiti was so unable to deal with the earthquake in the first place. Few know that 6 weeks later, Chile was hit with an earthquake 500-900 times more powerful than the one that devastated Haiti, yet the casualties reported are starkly different (over 800 for Chile, over 200 000 for Haiti). Did any corporate media outlet question why there exist slums in Haiti in which houses are actually built on top of houses, compounding the number of people killed? For that matter, who has inquired into the fact that 95% of the Haitian population, consisting of 10 million people, is so poor in the first place?
To address this and provide context to the plight of the Haitian people would require exposing a farce in Canadian foreign policy. Canadian policy towards Haiti has never been about helping the Haitian poor. Instead, Canada has actively colluded with the United States and France (one of Haiti’s historical colonial powers) in repressing the Haitian people, which culminated in a 2004 coup d’état, planned in Ottawa no less, in which the democratically elected president Jean Bertrand Aristide was overthrown.
Aristide was overthrown because he was actively combating the causes of Haitian poverty, i.e. neo-liberal structural adjustment programs imposed by Canada and the United States, that kept the Haitian poor in squalor while enriching a small segment of their population.  Aristide was responsible for the doubling of the minimum wage, the financing of hospitals, medical schools, literacy programs, community food centres, and other vitally needed social safety nets. Aristide created a disaster relief program in which volunteers were trained to rescue and aid victims during a time of crisis (e.g. an earthquake), with goods and medical supplies stored to ensure people survived. He even created public sanitation plants for water, to prevent diseases like cholera. In fact, Aristide also demanded that France repay the $22 billion it stole from Haiti in 1825, for the Haitian people rising up against their slavemasters and emancipating themselves.
Aristide represented the interests of the Haitian people, yet at the same time posed a threat to imperial interests and the profits of international financial institutions. In order to combat the “threat” Aristide posed, funding was cut to his administration. For example, in 2003 Aristide could only spend $39 million on all government education, healthcare, transportation, and environment programs. Contrast this with the fact that McMaster University annually spends $39 million on facility services and utilities alone. CIDA and USAID then began funding NGOs to provide the basic services Aristide could not, creating a parallel system of delivery that is completely unsustainable and also served to decrease his government’s legitimacy. CIDA and USAID also began a campaign of civil society sensitization, providing funding for the political opposition, comprising sweatshop owners and other elites within Haitian society. Simultaneously, the death squads and Haitian army that Aristide had previously disbanded began receiving weapons and training in the neighbouring Dominican Republic, in order to invade Haiti in 2004 and remove Aristide’s government.
After the coup, the model of NGO (unsustainable) development that creates dependency has continued unhindered. Prior to the earthquake 80% of Haiti’s services were being provided by NGOs, with more than 10,000 operating at a time. Aristide’s social programs, including water sanitation and disaster relief, were gutted. A United Nations, Canadian-directed peacekeeping team known as MINUSTAH also began occupying Haiti after Aristide’s removal, suppressing the resistance amongst Haiti’s poor majority and widely implicated in human rights violations. Evidence also indicates that MINUSTAH brought cholera to Haiti.
Only after understanding the context, or commitment of Canada to “helping” the Haitian people can one understand the obstacles to Haitian long-term development. Haiti needs our support, not our exploitation. We as Canadians must stand against this unjust use of our tax dollars.

The Cyber Terrorist

By Adam Parry


Julian Assange, a non-profit free speech activist, finds himself the subject of a European Arrest Warrant and under house arrest in the UK pending a decision by the London courts on extradition to Sweden to face charges of allegations of sexual assault.  What adds interest and intrigue is the close timing of other events initiated by Wikileaks, a website founded by Assange.  The decision by the London courts of Assange’s extradition to Sweden or not, is made complex by the media and suggests far reaching implications that have little to do with the allegations.
The following key dates help organize events to make sense of the information found in the media and chronologically show events leading to the court decision to extradite Assange to Sweden.
Key dates in the case of sexual allegations against Assange are as follows:

• August 11 – 17 – Assange arrives in Sweden on a speaking trip and reportedly has sex with the organizer of the event and also with a 2nd woman that he met at the seminar
• August 20 – The Swedish Prosecutor’s Office issues an arrest warrant for Assange on accusations of rape and molestation.
• August 21 – The arrest warrant is withdrawn by one of Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutors, Eva Finne saying they do not have sufficient reason to believe he committed rape.
• September 1 – Director of Prosecutions (for sex crimes), Marianne Ny advises she is reopening the rape investigation as she believes there is sufficient evidence to do so.
• November 20 – Swedish Police issue an International Arrest Warrant for Mr. Assange via Interpol
• December 7 – Julian Assange gives himself up to London, UK police
• February 7,8 – Extradition Hearing
• February 24 – Decision by the London courts to extradite Assange to Sweden
• March 3 – Assange lodges Extradition Appeal

Key dates in the leaking of secret and sensitive information by Wikileaks:

• November 28 – First secret US Diplomatic cables released on Wikileaks website
• November 29 – US advises cable leaks an “attack on the international community” and that a criminal investigation is ongoing

If Assange is successful in fighting extradition to Sweden through the London courts then the Swedish courts will not be able to prosecute Assange for the alleged sex crimes unless he is subsequently apprehended on Swedish soil.  The European Arrest Warrant system is based on the concept that all participating countries have legal systems which meet similar standards and fully respect human rights.  If Assange is to avoid extradition under this arrest warrant, his legal defense needs to show that the arrest warrant is politically motivated or technically unlawful.
In reading the judgment issued February 24th ordering extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden it is apparent that the arguments Assange’s defense team used fell far short of sufficient evidence or fact.  The position most discussed by Assange’s defense team in the media was that extradition was politically motivated with the purpose of ultimately allowing the US to extradite Assange via Sweden.  The US wanted Assange for leaking classified US documents over the internet.  However, the timelines of events above do not support collusion between the Swedish authorities and the timing of the leaking of sensitive documents.  Also the fact is that the US government will face significant legal and diplomatic hurdles in prosecuting Julian Assange for the internet dumping of classified documents.  No single US law makes it a crime to disclose classified government documents and in addition, no US extradition treaty currently in force lists espionage as an extraditable offence.
The media’s far reaching implications suggest possible conspiracy between nations where a careful review of the facts does not warrant this conclusion.  It appears that the arrest warrant may be exactly what it appears and extradition to Sweden is due process.

The Health Impact Fund: Creating Altruistic Motives for Pharmaceutical Companies

Lucy Chen


Drugs save lives and improve health when they are available, affordable, of good quality and are appropriately used. However, under the current incentive program that pharmaceutical companies operate under, millions of people all over the world are dying due to lack of access to proper medications. The problem is aggravated amongst the poor, who can barely afford basic human needs.
Right now, governments create incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs by providing patents for innovations. A patent grants a company exclusive rights to the drug, and enables them to sell it at high prices. Pharmaceutical companies can profit tremendously through this scheme if the drug is in demand, but the ethical implications of this system are debatable.
Patent holders justify high prices by claiming that the high cost of pharmaceutical research and development prohibits them from lowering prices. Nonetheless, the patent system does not encourage companies to develop drugs for diseases that mainly affect the poor. There are billions of people in the world who to not have access to the resources that would allow them to have access to expensive new, life-saving medicines.
A complementary source of incentives and rewards for the development of new drugs may address this issue by providing a way to meet both the health needs of the people and monetary needs of pharmaceutical companies. The Health Impact Fund is a new global agency that creates this avenue by offering pharmaceutical innovators the option of being paid for their drug developments based on the health impact (i.e. number of lives that their product saves). In this way, HIF pulls research towards the drugs that can do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  All patients, rich and poor, would benefit from innovation and marketing priorities geared toward health benefits rather than generating the most profit.
The HIF reward pool would be financed by national governments through taxes and other avenues. Each pharmaceutical company participating in the HIF would be given a share of the reward pool. In exchange, they would need to sell the medicine at no more than the lowest feasible cost of production and distribution, and offer free licensing for generic manufacture and sales.
For HIF to become a reality, this proposal will need to be examined in greater detail. Currently, HIF is planning the launch of a pilot project. The HIF reimbursement model is being tested using a specific drug product in a developing country in partnership with company partners in Sydney, London and Seattle. The Pilot will provide insight in the process of making the worldwide Health Impact Fund a reality.