Draw Muhammed Day

20 May was the second annual "International Draw Muhammed Day". On this day people across the world hide behind the cloak of free speech to attack Islam. I have included the link here, but I would caution against following this unless you are certain not to be offended by images of Muhammed.

Just to set the scene, I think a lot of people misunderstand what exactly the rub is for Muslims about drawing Muhammed. It's not so much about respecting the guy in some odd way as it is potentially undermining a central tenet, or mystery if you will, of their religion. As much as Christians might say "Jesus lives in all of us", the point of the faceless Muhammed is to lead Muslims to the understanding that all of us are Muhammed. You don't draw Muhammed because Muhammed is everyone - his identity as a historical figure transformed into a spiritual concept, in a similar fashion as Jesus (though with obviously different methodology and dogma). So while they may certainly be irked that people are disrespecting their beliefs and tradition, the main issue for them is the concern for their religion itself being undermined should the practice become widespread. At the same time coming out and saying that would be undermining one of the mysteries of their faith, so they're rather stuck seeming even more irrational than usual about the matter. You can find out more about Islam at the following link - just keep an open mind: http://learnaboutislam.org/


Broadly, the images attack a variety of conservative and radical elements of Islam, notably the oppression of women and the rise of fundamentalist terrorism. While it would be legitimate to point out the existence of these phenomena, to paint all of Islam in a negative light is really unfair and unjust. To take the two aforementioned examples (sexism and fundamentalism), it is clear that the Muslim world isn't the only place where these are happening. However, our Western ethnocentrism makes it incredibly easy to "other" Muslims as attribute these terrible things as part of Islam.

What needs to stop, in my opinion, is the polarisation between the West as tolerant and rational and the Islamic world as suspect, backward, and prone to fundamentalism. I think it is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to rebuke their own religion, but for non-Muslims to do it is another story - it is judgmental and dismissive. In the event that a non-Muslim is going to make critical commentary on the religion, I would expect it to be respectful and productive, not inciting hatred and provoking a violent or aggravated response.

My Explore

In 2008 I participated in a nationwide exchange called My Explore. For six weeks I lived in Saguenay, Québec with a host family attending an immersion programme at the local university. Looking back on this adventure, I've always characterised it as out of the ordinary. However, lately I've come to rethink my ideas of exploration and adventure because its literally right in front of us on a daily basis.

Since relocating last summer, I've been incredibly lucky to call a city like Ottawa home - with hundreds of kilometres of dedicated bike paths, a phenomenal system of public transportation, and a plethora of waterways, forests, and parks. In the nine months I've lived here, I feel like I have a solid understanding of my surroundings, but I haven't stopped learning and exploring - nor will I because there is so much to see and experience.

It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that there is such alienation in our society. Notions of community have been on decline for the past century in North America, eroding our vital social networks. Although we, as a society, have been forced into these conditions, it is important to fight back where we can. Get to know where you live and the people that share your environment. You will be surprised at how little you probably know about the world around you. There is a spinoff benefit to this - strong connections to community make you happier and healthier and also give you a support network so that you can make where you live a better place.

And that brings me to a point I've been pondering the past few days. I know that many people my age feel compelled to go abroad in order to find themselves or in order to gain a wealth of new experience. I am sceptical. Never in history has so much technology allowed us such limitless opportunity to understand our world. Simultaneously, however, we have never been so disconnected physically from our natural and social surroundings. Although I totally approve of going abroad for the right reasons - to volunteer or to have a truly culturally unique experience, I have to say that there are many needy causes here and all the "new" that you want to see is around us. We have such rich diversity - whether of culture or religion, or of experience or perception. It's a real shame that we throw up walls instead of forming meaningful relationships with others.

In getting back to the point, I would like to issue a small challenge to those of you who may stumble across this. Take an adventure this week - alone and without a book or an iPod.

Step one: Use a bike or public transit (which are both less expensive and more fun as getting there is an activity in itself) and go somewhere nearby - it could be a place you know well or someplace undiscovered.

Step two: Try to engage someone in a conversation - perhaps someone you wouldn't ordinarily talk to, but only if you feel comfortable (safety is key).

If you find this rewarding and enriching, just keep doing it again and with your friends. There really are exciting, affordable, and sustainable means for leisure out there. You just have to try. Hope you enjoy Your Explore. For more information, check out Jane’s Walk - for walkable neighbourhoods, urban literacy, cities planned for and by people.

Young Capitalists

I remember that when I was young it was always a special day when I got to stay home from school. Whatever the reason, one thing was always for certain. I would get to watch the Price is Right.

Recently, I began to watch this show again. My interest in it now is quite different. Where I used to marvel at the prizes, now I am enthralled by the very idea of this game. The issue that I take with the Price is Right is that it builds young capitalists - and in a unique way that is not really matched elsewhere.

So let's start off with the basics. The Price is Right is about winning prizes. Right? Well, although that is true, it is centred (as the title suggests) on knowing the price for a wide variety of goods and services. Accordingly, this show helps to shape, even from a young age, notions of value. Rather than teaching people that value is a social construct, the Price is Right reinforces the "absolute" nature of value. This differentiation is quite important - it promotes the supremacy of the capitalist system by affixing concrete monetary value to all things.

Obviously, the Price is Right isn't the only place that reinforces notions of value, status symbols, or a wide array of other facets of our advanced individualist and capitalist system. Young people are indoctrinated into our system with allowances from parents, with various programmes in school, with television advertisements, and through conversations with peers. However, none of these other media have the same impact as the Price is Right. Although contestants and the audience are always trying to estimate the price (which is the goal is every single challenge), there are millions of people who are playing alone at home, yelling at their televisions. And again, youth make up a good component of this group.

The most unfortunate part of this socialisation is that it is so subtle. Since the Price is Right is a game show, the focus is on "entertainment", and serious questions surrounding indoctrination of young people will be invariably met with dismissal. The show and the network have been making a mint on the idea for decades, and the companies who showcase their products have a vested interest in disguising their marketing as "entertainment".

With all of this said, I still find the show interesting. And often I find myself enraptured by the game - all the while forgetting that I am being told how to fit into our economic system. And that is how powerful the Price is Right is when it comes to socialising us about value and the American dream.

Debriefing the Election

I've been struggling the past few days with the results of the election. I felt overwhelmed on election night, but this feeling has subsided to a certain degree.

In talking to friends, I've discovered that everyone seems to be dissatisfied with the result. But this is most likely because people in my demographic - young Canadians - denounce the Conservatives. Unfortunately, many youth are apathetic or mislead into thinking that their voices aren't important. Even though all of my friends voted (in two ridings that were extremely close last year), we failed to achieve positive change. After an involved discussion last night over beer, it became obvious why this is occurring. Although none of my friends in Kitchener-Waterloo voted Conservative, our votes were split quite evenly amongst the Liberals, the NDP, and the Green Party, and this is roughly what happened in the ridings of Kitchener Centre and Kitchener Waterloo.

Not surprisingly, with less than 40 per cent of the popular vote, Harper managed to gain his coveted majority, winning almost 60 per cent of the seats in Parliament. In my opinion, this isn't democracy. This is a system that distorts the will of the electorate in order to produce a "stable" majority.

Perhaps this is a good place to start if we want to talk about electoral reform. The whole notion of stability in our government is predicated on the "reality" of minority governments as volatile. Canadians have been socialised to believe that minority governments interfere with the nation's ability to grow and move forward. This is simply untrue - minority governments are the best environments for cooperation. While it is certainly true that our system is adversarial and partisan, consecutive minority governments could go a long way to showing the merits of cooperation in Ottawa.

And, as a matter of fact, this has happened elsewhere. Countries such as India, Peru, Sweden, Russia, and Germany have proportional representation. In systems such as these, parties that win 10 per cent of the vote are given 10 per cent of seats. If this system were adopted in Canada, the Green Party would have won not one, but twelve seats. Beyond being more fair, a system such as this would also encourage higher participation, which means more democracy. But perhaps the greatest benefit would be the acknowledgment that majority governments are a thing of the past - and that cooperation amongst parties in the legislature is the only way to make change happen.

Although proportional representation is a great idea, it's important to consider that they are many other great ideas. Tomorrow, 5 May, the United Kingdom is going to hold a referendum on their electoral system, hopefully transitioning from first-past-the-post to something called alternative voting. In this system, you will rank your choices, so that voting strategically and voting for who you want can still happen. For more information, click here.

Thankfully, there are many Canadian organisations that are working hard toward making these changes a reality. A great example is Fair Vote Canada, whom I'd recommend you check out. Ultimately, we need more people to be engaged if we want a great political system and a great country. So spread the word! Don't let the Conservatives tell you that you don't have alternatives, whether in terms of parties or in terms of systems. Let's get out there and make ourselves heard. Even though another federal election is four years away, there are still plenty of ways to get involved.

Capitalism, Environmentalism, and Agriculture

You've probably heard the adage that there's more than enough food in the world for everyone, but that the real problem is distribution. This statement, beyond actually being true, is very revealing about Western culture. For modern, industrialised countries, great profits from agriculture - not providing for communal survival - are the goal.

Thus, the explosion of agriculture is an integral part of the world economy. In fact, in Karl Marx's Capital, he explains the notion of value with grain as an example. Since the late 19th century agricultural products have been traded internationally and have been major parts of national revenues. Grain was a staple of the Russian Emipre (and later the Soviet Union). The massive investment in grain allowed the state to trade with Germany and England for steel, which was then used for infrastructural "modernisation".

In the 1920s and 1930s, the emphasis moved away from the state, and toward the corporation, as the engine of the economy. Moreover, since the postwar period, there has been a gradual deregulation and liberalisation of trade. The result has been "globalisation", which is a nebulous term to say the least. Although most disagree about what this word actually means, broadly speaking, it implies two important realities. Firstly, the freedom of capital to move more freely, which creates economic imperialism. Secondly, the proverbial closeness, which has resulted the imposition of Western culture on the rest of the world.

Agribusiness is an excellent example of this. Although there are many outstanding sources that go into great detail on economic imperialism, I am going to focus briefly on the outcome - the proliferation of Western culture. Western cultures have not historically eaten much meat, but the technological advancements made over the twentieth century, combined with huge government subsidies, have created an environment where meat has become inexpensive and plentiful. Various heavyweight companies from North America have set up throughout the world, introducing diets rich in meat to millions of people annually. As a result, more and more livestock are being raised on less and less quality farmland. In fact, much of the deforestation in the Amazon is caused by cattle ranching. It should be quite clear that our current agricultural production, which is centred on meat, is simply unsustainable.


If it is clear that there is a problem, then there needs to be action taken. And here's where there are some significant divergences of opinion. Many advocate for removing products that come from animals from our diets. While this is a noble cause, I disagree that this will create the positive change that we need. Many other agricultural products, particularly soy, cause atrocious environmental destruction - even those who are deemed to be "organic". Beyond pesticide use, industrial farming of vegetables and fruit also creates monocultures, resulting in the loss of biodiversity. Irrigation schemes, such as those of the Southwestern United States have caused natural watersheds to virtually disappear. And to top it off, the average food item purchased at the supermarket has been trucked approximately 3000 km.

This is all to say that a more sensible response to agribusiness is localism. Already, the local movement has been coopted by supermarkets who sell "local" produce. Instead of buying local food from a large conglomerate grocery chain or distributor, we would ideally be purchasing it from a local market. But there are many roadblocks. The first that comes to mind is climate - because nobody in Canada wants to eat rutabaga, carrots, and beets all winter. Just as daunting, there isn't an apparatus available to provide local food in many of the largest or most remote communities. Thankfully, there is technology available such as greenhouses, and there are many initiatives such as community gardens. I would also argue that potentially the best feature of local agriculture is that the livestock are part of smaller herds and are far better cared for. It is important to keep in mind though that meat consumption has to decrease. I recently became a flexitarian - someone with a predominantly vegetarian diet who drastically limits meat consumption. It would certainly be good news if everyone made this positive step.

There are clearly many challenges going forward, but with cooperation and awareness, sustainable agriculture may be closer than we think.

On Bike Tax

Recently, I started reading articles on a new site called GOOD. I was surprised to find this ridiculous proposition here. The logic is essentially that since bicycles are vehicles, riders should pay taxes for upkeep. While it is true that in North America car owners pay certain registration fees and taxes that fund public roads, there are several reasons why this is simply unacceptable to impose on cyclists.

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, a tax on bikes would disincentivise commuters to ride to work as well as people to ride for pleasure. This is very damaging to a positive trajectory in sustainability. Even in a crucial era where making environmentally-conscious choices is absolutely imperative, it is not surprising that there are debates around "foreign" ideas like investing in infrastructure outside of suburbs and SUVs.

For many environmentalists, the answer to the ecological crisis is more technology and more capitalism – a theory known as ecological modernisation. And since there are no great profits for corporations to make, no massive repair and certification industry, and no jobs that are dependent on the manufacture of on bicycles, this sustainable effort is viewed as backward - and dangerous. Considering that the automotive industry, its lobbyists, and its supporters and consumers make up such a substantial number of North Americans, it is not surprising that government is leery of change. James Gustave Speth, an environmental writer and former politician, wrote on the supremacy of the economy (read: jobs), he characterises as “the shared cause of all people on Earth” (read: Americans).

Another problem is that it is unrealistic to ask for cyclists to pay for road upkeep because, generally, roads are maintained for cars and trucks. Very few roads are made to accommodate bikes with dedicated lanes, special paths, or wider shoulders. How are municipalities to collect from cyclists and then invest that money directly or proportionately into amenities for bikes. And frankly, what's next, a tax for pedestrians? According to a variety of lists of bike-friendly cities in North America, even some of the best locales such as Ottawa, Phoenix, Chicago, or Montréal have a mixed bike/car infrastructure at best, but generally favour cars. Regardless, there is still the construction of good infrastructure, like Ottawa's 220km of trails and Montréal's bixi programme.

With respect to enforceability there are some pretty significant problems. While all cars that change hands are recorded by the state, this isn't the case for bicycles. In general, there is no equivalent to pulling a bike out of someone's roadside trash, the prevalence of theft, or getting a barely functioning handmedown from a distant relative. Obviously, we are now in the territory of insurance. Details records are kept on cars because insurance is such an enormous component of the industry - and of course there is no need to regulate the bike industry with safety or insurance measures. And keep in mind that many who ride their bikes already have drivers licences and own cars.

Although the perspective of taxing cyclists is absolutely absurd, it does mean that state and capital are taking cycling far more seriously. Hopefully in the coming years there will be many more locales in Canada and the United States that have transit systems like those in Western Europe. In the meantime, it's worthwhile trying to find ways to make our lives less dependent on cars - whether through public transit, ridesharing, or getting on a bike.

Voting

Despite how important elections are to a functioning democracy, many Canadians will abstain from the 2011 General Election. Because we are socialised to believe that one vote doesn't count, voter turnout in Canada has been on decline since the end of the Second World War. There are many who contend that there is absolutely nothing wrong with voter apathy and this unnerves me. The problem is that the majority of citizens who do not vote are people who belong to a group that is marginalised somehow in our society, whether because of language, age, gender, ethnicity, religion or many other identity markers.

This upcoming election may well be one of the most pivotal in decades, although there are many voices in national media, in business, and of course the Harper Government, who suggest otherwise. The spectre of a coalition is framed as "dangerous". Naturally, it is completely untrue that coalitions are bad. Not only are coalition governments the status quo in many countries around the world, when polled most Canadians have called for more cooperation on Parliament Hill. I can't say that I am surprised by Harper, as he has consistently shown that he doesn't expect the average Canadian voter to be informed. Can he seriously deflect answers and still expect votes?

Ultimately, there are many messages that can be sent with the upcoming election. Whether through increased participation or a vote for a political party that will roll back neoliberal reforms, numbers are important. Elections are not the start or end of phases of democracy in a society; they are simply moments in an ongoing project where issues come before the people for discussion. Harper has made it clear that he doesn't respect the democratic institutions of our nation. Take, for instance, transparency. Even though the Conservatives have only held a minority, there has never, in the history of Canadian democracy, been a federal government who has been more secretive and opaque. When charged by opposition leaders about failing to be transparent, Harper's response was that Parliament is nothing more than an inconvenience to getting things done, playing on a stereotype that many Canadians have of politicians as "bickering".

A Conservative majority, therefore, has the potential for dictatorial rule by shutting down avenues of dissent against the government - and that is extremely undemocratic. Keep in mind that Harper also wants you to vote and then forget about politics until the next election. I think that Harper says it most clearly when he mentioned at the English Language Debate that he wants no more Canadian elections in the near future, claiming that elections are expensive and not good for our economy. Moreover, elections help to shape the framework for discourse until the next election. A Conservative minority has proven an ineffective place to bring up questions, such as gender equality, and until there is a change in the makeup of Parliament many critical concerns will continue to be ignored.

An important question that voters need to ask is "how we want to construct our future?" If you don't know, or aren't satisfied with the information you've been given, then familiarising yourself with the myriad issues both debated and ignored is the most important place to start. If you feel comfortable, engage friends and family in a conversation about where they stand on issues - and challenge yourself and others to dig deeper.

In the end, if you don't feel at the end of it all that there is a party that you want to vote for, don't retreat from politics - get involved in other ways. Volunteer for causes that mean something to you, get involved in lobbying, try to change the electoral system, or focus on politics at more local levels. There are many options to make change happen - don't delude yourself into thinking that voting is the be all end all. I hope that every Canadian will take some time to uncover what they believe in and follow it, because there is a lot riding on this election.