Western’s Progressive Political News Source Since 2004 Vol. 6 Issue 4 January 2010

by Peter Ferguson

University education has always been, to some extent, about getting a job. However, to say that this was/is its sole purpose is to devalue the important multiple roles universities play in our society.

I recently read Mark Slou-ka’s essay “Dehumanized: when math and science rule the school” (Septem-ber 2009 issue of Harper’s Magazine) and felt it de-serves a response from a scientist. Slouka, an Ameri-can with a PhD in English, argues that the Humanities (and by ‘humanities’ he and I include the liberal arts and social sciences) are becom-ing increasingly devalued in North American society. It is one thing for someone like Slouka who works in the humanities to defend its value, quite another for a scientist (me) to express his support for the arts and

humanities (albeit not to the length or eloquence of Slouka’s essay). I’m also not the first scientist to express support for the intangibles that the human-ities offer. After all, it was Albert Einstein who had a the sign in his office that read “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”

The devaluation of the humanities is reflected in how these disciplines are treated by universities and governments. The hu-manities are increasingly being starved for cash; dismissed for not being as important to building the economy, increasing the GDP, creating high-paying jobs, etc. By paying too much homage to financial concerns, an essential role of higher education is be-ing dismissed for utilitarian reasons: ‘What kind of job can you get with a BA in

The Equality Issue

Inside:

Message from WND, pg 2

Vancouver 2010’s Inequality, pg 3

Human Rights Threatened in Darfur, pg 4

Volunteer with STAND, pg 5

Social Solidarity Needed for Equality Rights, pg 6

Proroguing Parliament, pg 8

Parliament Prorogued, pg 9

Peter Ferguson to Represent London West NDP, pg 10

EnviroWestern Update, pg 11

Event Listing, pg 12

philosophy?’

It might seem counterin-tuitive that I’m arguing first that a university educa-tion should be more than about how much money it can earn the recipient, or how much it returns as an investment to society, and then turn around to sug-gest we show how much we value the humanities by how much money we devote to their study. But what Slouka argues (and I agree) is that the value we place on the humanities can be judged by how much we are willing to pay, without asking how much money we get back as a return on investment.

However, because univer-sity education is so expen-sive to both governments and students, the utilitar-ian viewpoint (“Education must translate into dollars!”) allows for a slow erosion

See Hire, pg 6

Dear Santa: I wanted a “Hire” Education!

2 LEFT January 2010

by robin Wing

Greetings LEFT enthusiasts!

I hope everyone had a restful holiday and is ready to engage in another year of political activism and discourse.

Last semester saw our club participate in many successful events. In September we volunteered with ReForest London and planted trees downtown. Then in October, we hosted a screening of Monty Python and the Holy Grail where our club collected canned goods for the food bank. In December, we hosted an art show and poetry reading in the UCC on campus under the theme of Women’s Triumphs and Tragedies. Through donations, we raised $250 for the Women’s Community House in London. Finally, we celebrated the end of our semester with a social at the Grad Club. These are just a few examples of the type of events that WND likes to participate in and organize-- events that are both fun and help our commu-nity.

To start off the new year we will be hosting the NDP House Leader Libby Davies on January 30th. Libby will speak to us about the intersec-tion between poverty, drugs and prostitution, and how the safety and working conditions of sex workers needs to be improved. Please

A Message from the Western New Democrats

visit our website www.westernnewdemocrats.ca for more information as time and location becomes available.

If you are interested in joining the club, visit our website for information on our meeting times and locations. New members are always welcome!

All the best for a successful 2010 from WND.

In Solidarity,

Robin Wing

Co-Chair, Western New Democrats

Above right: “Incomplete” by Anonymous. Above left: “See No Evil” by Martin Blazejowski. See more great pieces in full-colour from the Women’s Triumphs and Tragedies art show at

www.westernnewdemocrats.ca

3 LEFT January 2010

by autumn l’ouverture

As February approaches, the world’s attention will be drawn to the cor-porate sponsored spectacle of nationalism, formerly known as the Olympic Games. The patriotism that the Olympics strategically arouses is used not to promote common inter-ests between nations, but to conceal class-based inequality. The main vic-tims of such inequality are aboriginal women. Despite the rhetoric of peace, equality, and harmony surround-ing the Olympics, the games serve primarily to further exploit the most disadvantaged in society, while simul-taneously occupying stolen native land.

How can any level of govern-ment involved in the Olympics possibly say they stand for equality given what we know about the 2010 Olympics? They can’t.

Vancouver’s east side is riddled with abject poverty and other interrelated social issues caused by government negligence. Hard drugs like heroin are prevalent on the streets, as is prostitution and homelessness. All of these issues raise exposure to HIV infection, rape, and murder. Due to the poverty affecting native communi-ties outside of Vancouver, aboriginal women are sadly the prototypical

victims of the frequent crimes com-mitted in the downtown east side. For example, serial murderer Robert Pickton, targeted aboriginal women because they are disenfranchised, and their absence would not alarm the authorities.

With the proper social services in place, such as access to safe work, medical care, and education, many native deaths could be prevented. Surely, a portion of the over $6 billion tab (1) of the 2010 Olympic games

could have been put towards rectify-ing these deeply imbedded societal injustices.

Not only does inequality plague Canadian society, but stolen native land is used to propagate the further exploitation of aboriginal peoples. The 2010 Olympic games – along with the environmental destruction that accompanies the Sea to Sky

Vancouver 2010: Inequality and Stolen Land

“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

-The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17, Section 2

“Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.”

-The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21, Section 2

highway expansion – will take place on stolen native land that has never been surrendered. The British Royal Proclamation of 1763 acknowledges aboriginal land rights that could only be resigned to the British through treaty. In British Columbia, most land has not been negotiated through treaty and remains unceded by its original inhabitants, including the Lil’wat, Musqueam, Squamish, and Tseil-Waututh Nations.

Rather than taking aboriginal issues seriously, all levels of government

involved with the Olympics have once again ignored the plight of these disadvantaged peoples. Instead, the federal Conservative government has led decisions to further strength-en the ruling class through the expansion of an inherently corrupt eco-nomic model at

the expense of the natives. Given that parliament has been prorogued once again by the Harper regime, people are starting to realize that Vancouver 2010 isn’t all that different than Berlin 1936, Mexico 1968, or Beijing 2008.

(1) http://www.vancouversun.com/Sports/Olympics+bill+tops+billion/1207886/story.html

Western New Democrats meet bi-weekly on campus to discuss issues and organize events relevant to the NDP and the ideals it stands for. Causes we support and participate include anti-war protests, gay rights,

environmental awareness and workers’ rights. Visit westernnewdemocrats.ca to learn about the next meeting time. All are welcome!

4 LEFT January 2010

Human Rights Threatened in Darfurby Jason novick (co-vP media, stand)

The Current Situation in Darfur Demands Genocide Intervention Action Now More Than EverAccording to the United Nations, the fallout from the genocide in Darfur is now the world’s worst humanitar-ian crisis. The whole crisis began in 2003. After decades of oppression, the Sudanese Liberation Army in Darfur rose up against the Sudanese government. The government and its allied militia, known as the Janja-weed, answered this rebellion with the large-scale massacre of non-Arab civilians, which has included rape on a mass scale and the destruction of thousands of villages. Since 2003, approximately 400 000 civilians have been killed and over 2.5 million people have been displaced. While international aid groups have strug-gled to provide basic humanitarian aid to displaced victims, the Suda-nese government has also restricted international humanitarian aid access to Darfur and has systematically targeted humanitarian aid workers, thereby increasing the malnutrition rate among the displaced population to an alarmingly high level.

Most recently, several important developments have taken place as advocacy groups and international groups worked tirelessly to stop the genocide in Darfur. In July 2008, Luis Moreno Ocampo (the prosecu-tor at the International Criminal Court (ICC)) filed ten charges of war crimes against Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s president. Since the start of the

genocide in Darfur, genocide interven-tion groups have worked persistently to educate the world that President al-Bashir is the mastermind of the atrocities being committed against the Sudanese population, and that he has directly funded the Janjaweed to carry out its acts of genocide. Accordingly, President al-Bashir’s contentions that he has no control over the Janjaweed and that the Janjaweed has commit-ted war crimes completely autono-mous of his authority are false, along with his severe diminution of the casualties of the Janjaweed’s massa-cres. (President al-Bashir has claimed that only 10 000 civilians have been killed since the massacres began in 2003, contrary to the proclaimed death toll of 400 000 civilians by repu-

table human rights organizations). In March 2009, the ICC formally issued an arrest warrant against President al-Bashir. Alarmingly, the ICC didn’t accuse President al-Bashir of commit-ting acts of genocide, but rather filed 10 charges of war crimes against him (including charges of mass acts of rape, deportation, and murder). While President al-Bashir remains free from prosecution within Sudan since the issuing of the ICC arrest warrant, President al-Bashir will likely be ar-rested if he travels to any country that is a member of the ICC.

In August 2009, General Martin Agwai (UN’s military commander in the

Darfur region) claimed that large-scale fighting between the Janjaweed and rebel forces is mostly over, with smaller scale hostilities being the only form of warfare currently occur-ring in Darfur. Nonetheless, there are several issues that are still prevalent with regard to the genocide in Darfur. Most importantly, the horrendous hu-manitarian crisis within Darfur is still present, and President al-Bashir is still largely preventing many humani-tarian rights groups from having ac-cess to the Darfur region. In addition, no formal peace agreement, armi-stice, or ceasefire has been signed between the Janjaweed and rebel groups, meaning that the genocide could resume in full force in the near future. Finally, President al-Bashir has refused to turn himself in to the ICC and hasn’t been prosecuted for the horrendous war crimes that he has committed since the start of the genocide in Darfur in 2003.

Despite the fact that there is currently a respite in the genocide in Darfur, attending to the humanitarian crisis within the region remains the number one priority, followed by establishing an armistice between the Janjaweed and rebel forces and prosecuting President al-Bashir for war crimes. These aforementioned issues are why genocide intervention groups such as STAND (Students Taking Action Now, Darfur) are relentlessly active now more than ever in accomplishing these goals. Intervention against the injustices occurring in Darfur during this critical time period has enormous implications between saving millions of innocent civilians or witnessing their demise due to lack of nourish-ment, disease, and massacre from a resumption of the Janjaweed’s geno-cidal actions.

“...the genocide could resume in

full force in the near future.”

The staff at LEFT want to wish everyone a happy new year and all the best for a new semester!

5 LEFT January 2010

by ashley shantz

STAND and African Students’ Association (ASA), two student activist clubs, have come together to help youth refugees through a tutoring program. The tutor-ing program aims to help students from grades one to twelve in an after school program that assists students with homework, reading, writing, math, English and French skills. The tutors also help build friendships with the youth refugees and provide a positive working environment while acting as role models. This is an es-sential program to help integrate the refugees into the community and help them face their challenges. STAND and ASA are looking for volunteers for the tutoring program. The winter/spring session will commence in the second or third week of January.

The commitment is two hours a week at one of the following three locations:

Tuesday 5-7 pm: East London Branch (Dundas Street between Clarke Road and Airport Road)

Wednesday 5-7 pm: Beacock Branch (Huron Street and Highbury Avenue)

Thursday 5-7 pm: Sherwood Branch (at the Sherwood Mall on Wonderland Road north of Sarnia Road)

Feel free to show up at the location of your choice and you will be registered as a tutor the night of. If you have any further questions please email standtutoring@gmail.com. Finally, please checkout the STAND Western website for more infor-mation: www.uwc.uwo.ca/clubs/stand

We appreciate your time and support!

Volunteer for STANDA Western neW DemocrAt

PublicAtion

westernnewdemocrats.ca/left.html

Our e-mail:left.publication@gmail.com

staff:Caroline Diezyn

editor in chief

Mark FilipowichAssistant editor

Nikita De GannesMichael Sparrow

copy editors

Graeme BrightonPublication manager

contributing Authors:Autumn L’Ouverture

Ali HassanLindsay Stevenson

Michael SparrowNikita De GannesMark Filipowich

Jason NovickCFS

Peter FergusonRobin Wing

Check our website for details on submitting articles, opinions,

creative writing, photos, and art.

February’s submissions are due February 5th. The theme is Cultural

Identities.

westernnewdemocrats.ca/left.html

Sign up for LEFT’s mailing list!

Visit westernnewdemocrats.ca/left.html

or e-mailleft.publication@gmail.com

6 LEFT January 2010

by mike mlynarczyk

Since the rise of Liberal-Democracy in the Western World, much has been achieved in terms of equal-ity rights. From the abol-ishment of slavery, to the enfranchisement of women, to establishing welfare pro-grams for the poor. Many of these victories for equality rights can be directly attrib-uted to the predominance of liberal-democratic values in Canada and the US.

However, if we look to other, more left-wing jurisdictions such as many social-dem-ocratic countries in Europe, we may notice that they have also achieved these landmark equality rights while being ahead of us in terms of other economic, social and equality rights. Whereas in most Nordic countries the participation of women in politics stands at close to 50%, still less then a quarter of MP’s in Canada are women. Early child-care, extended maternity leave and paternity leave are rights established long ago in most social-demo-cratic countries, but still not yet achieved in Canada. Whereas post-secondary education is free or accessi-ble for a nominal fee in most European countries, tuition fees in Canada continue to rise and have become a barrier for many Canadi-ans. Whereas the poverty rate in Sweden is less then half of what it is in Canada, poverty, and especially child poverty in Canada has been on the rise since the mid 1980’s.

So, maybe it is time to ask ourselves, is there some-thing about the liberal-democratic paradigm (that helped us achieve so much equality) that is somehow holding us back and im-peding our struggle for full

of society take precedence over that of the individual suits them better than the individualism of America.” So, how do most European social-democratic coun-tries differ from us? Quite simply, they see equality as necessary to fulfill social justice, not just as a neces-sity for liberty. They have gone beyond the simplistic social contract paradigm and have adopted a dimen-sion of social responsibility governed by an ethic of social solidarity.

In Canada however, modern reform liberalism still oper-ates in the social contract paradigm, which seems to be inadequate. This throws in doubt the claim that the highest purpose of govern-ment is the protection of individual freedom. In the Social Contract theory the liberal individual is purport-ed to be universal: raceless, sexless, classless, dis-embodied, and is taken to represent an abstract, gen-eralized model of humanity at large. Many philosophers have argued, however, that when we look more closely at the characteristics of the liberal individual, what we find is not a representa-tion of universal humanity, but a historically located, specific type of person. C.B. Macpherson, for example, has argued that Hobbesian man is, in particular, a bour-geois man, with the charac-teristics we would expect of a person during the nascent capitalism that character-ized early modern Europe.

Feminists have also argued that the liberal individual is a particular, historical, and embodied person. More specifically, they have ar-gued that the person at the heart of liberal theory, and the social contract, is gen-dered. Christine Di Stefano, in her book Configurations

should not be discriminated against based on their race, heritage, gender, sexual orientation or other factors beyond their control. It was also recognized that to guarantee real freedom to everyone, active state intervention was required in some areas to provide for an equality of opportunity.

This modern reform liberal paradigm has worked well for us so far; however there are many critics today who say that liberalism rests on an overly individualis-tic conception of the self. Whereas liberalism argues that our supreme interest rests in securing our power of autonomous choice, it neglects the fact that our selves tend to be defined or constituted by various com-munal attachments (e.g., ties to the family or to a religious tradition) so close to us that they can only be set aside at great cost, if at all. Many modern political philosophers believe that politics should not be con-cerned solely with securing the conditions for individuals to exercise their powers of autonomous choice: as we also need to sustain and promote the social attach-ments crucial to our sense of well-being and respect, many of which have been involuntarily picked up during the course of our upbringing.

There are other alternatives to the individualistic liberal theory. For instance a more collectivist value system tends to exist in east Asia, stemming from the Confu-cian political philosophy tra-dition which places special emphasis upon family and social harmony. As Singa-pore’s President Lee Kuan Yew once put it, Asians have “little doubt that a society with communitarian values where the interests

equality? What is it about the other jurisdictions that have allowed them to move beyond where we are in Canada in the struggle for full equality?

Let’s begin by looking at how liberal-democracy has helped us achieve many of the equality rights we enjoy in Canada today. Modern liberalism is derived from the word “liberty,” that is, the assumption that the primary purpose of government is to protect individual liberty or “freedom.” Liberals gener-ally refer to the theory of a social contract to justify their emphasis on the free realm of the individual. The Social Contract was first formu-lated by the English phi-losopher Thomas Hobbes in the 16th century. It depicts a primitive human society where every man is at war with every other man and life is “nasty, brutish and short.” The Social Contract is the theory that in such a state of nature, people come together and agree upon an order, a “Social Contract,” where a central government is established to maintain order and protect their civil liberties. However if the central gov-ernment infringes upon the civil liberties of the people, the “contract” is broken and the people have a right to establish a new government through peaceful or revolu-tionary means.

Over time liberal phi-losophers have realized that people are not really free unless they enjoy an equality of opportunity. For instance, a person born to a lower-class poor family will not have the same oppor-tunities as someone who is born to an upper-class and wealthy family. So, by the 19th century reform liberalism was born. For all people to be really free they

More Social Solidarity Needed to Advance Equality Rights

7 LEFT January 2010of Masculinity, argues that Hob-bes’s conception of the liberal indi-vidual, is particu-larly masculine in that it is conceived as atomistic and solitary and as not owing any of its qualities, or even its very existence, to any other per-son, in particular its mother. Virginia Held, in her book, Feminist Morality, argues that social contract theory im-plicitly relies on a conception of the person that can be best described as “economic man.” “Economic man” is concerned first and foremost with maxi-mizing his own, individually considered interests, and he enters into contracts as a means by which to achieve this end. “Economic man,” however, fails to represent all persons in all times and places. In particular, it fails to adequately represent children and those who pro-vide them with the care they require, who have historical-ly been women. The model of “Economic man” cannot, therefore, fairly claim to be a general representation of all persons.

Over time, liberal individu-alism and ‘economic man’ have contributed to the erosion of social respon-sibilities and valued forms of communal life and do not seem up to the task of dealing with such modern phenomena as alienation from the political process, unbridled greed, loneliness and urban crime. Far from producing beneficial com-munal consequences, the invisible hand of unregu-lated free-market capitalism undermines the family (e.g., few corporations provide enough leave to parents of newborn children), disrupts local communities (e.g., fol-

from the political process.

So, how does the ethic of social solidarity work in European social democratic countries? In the book What is Social-Democracy? produced by the Swedish Social Democratic Party, authors Ingvar Carlsson and Anne-Marie Lingren argue that what is needed is a greater sense of social soli-darity. The term solidarity is the practical expression of the insight that all people are social beings with a mutual dependence on each other, and that society works best if it aims for the common good. Today, the concept of “solidarity” is of-ten used to mean “to share with” or “to be there for,” i.e., as a one-way movement from donor to recipient. In some cases it can be seen as a consequence of the demand for solidarity, but its real meaning is about reciprocity: we are donors and recipients, one and the same.

Practically speaking we can look to at the history of organized labour. In the early days of the labour movement, solidarity was the key to changing society. No one could tackle the

lowing plant closings or the shifting of corporate head-quarters), and corrupts the political process (e.g., politi-cians are often dependent on economic interest groups for their political survival, with the consequence that they no longer represent the community at large). Moreover, the idealization of greed justified the exten-sion of bottom line driven marketplace economics into spheres previously informed by a sense of civil obliga-tion. This trend has been reinforced by increasing glo-balization, which pressures states into conforming to the mandates of the interna-tional marketplace.

If the free market of liberal individualism is such an impediment to equality rights, is state socialism any better? Not necessar-ily. The left can be chas-tised not just for supporting welfare rights economically unsustainable in an era of slow growth and aging populations, but also for shifting power away from local communities and democratic institutions and towards centralized bureau-cratic structures leading to a growing sense of pow-erlessness and alienation

injustices on his/her own; only together did people have the strength needed to do so. People would unite in the struggle and the gains would be shared fairly and equally. The struggle for a new society was about achieving common improvements, about welfare that would cover ev-eryone, and the chance for every-one to have influ-ence – not about in-dividuals trampling on others to create wealth and power for themselves.

Social-democrats credit much of their

success by attaching equal importance to the principles of freedom, equality and solidarity. They believe they are interdependent. Each is a prerequisite of the other. As opposed to this position, liberals and conservatives have placed the main em-phasis on individual liberty at the expense of justice and solidarity while many communists have claimed to achieve equality and soli-darity, but at the expense of freedom. Social-democrats believe that solidarity is ac-tually a condition of equality, as it is basically the feeling of affinity – and mutual de-pendence – that makes the strong refrain from trampling on the weak. In reverse, solidarity assumes equality, as only in an equal society is it not necessary to drive others out in order to look after oneself. In this way, it can be said that freedom assumes equality, equal-ity assumes solidarity and solidarity assumes freedom and equality.

Distributing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Photo by Marc Lastrocci.

8 LEFT January 2010

of the university’s man-date to promote scholarly research and teaching in all areas (i.e. to be universal). As Slouka points out, the humanities’ essential func-tion is to probe all aspects of what it is to be human; the questions asked by the humanities don’t always translate into money for the individual or to society - the value of the humanities lies elsewhere.

As an example, Slouka points out that when repres-sive regimes starve the humanities at the expense of science and engineering, it’s not solely for economic reasons. It’s because poets, novelists, artists and musi-cians are politically danger-ous in ways that scientists aren’t; they ask the ques-tions about liberty, equality, freedom, and truth that the government would rather not answer. Moreover, in cases where scientists have been deemed dangerous to regimes, it’s when they spoke with the voice of the humanities.

A democratic society prides itself in openness, freedom of inquiry, and ability to hold the government to account. However democracy, once achieved, is not a self-sus-taining or eternally guaran-teed system of government. It requires constant engage-ment of citizens to keep it that way. Slouka argues that the increasing focus on making education a profit-able venture endangers democracy and he blames the increasing commercial-ization of education:

Capitalism has a wonder-ful knack for marginalizing (or co-opting) systems of value that might pose an alternative to its own . . . by bringing education to heel, by forcing it to meet [capital-ism’s] criteria for “success”, the market is well on the

way to controlling a majority share of the one business that might offer a competing product, that might question its assumptions. . . . the problem, of course, is that by its success we are made vulnerable. By downsizing what is most dangerous (and most essential) about our education, namely the deep civic function of the arts and humanities, we’re well on the way to produc-ing a nation of employees, not citizens.

Slouka further adds that “The humanities are a su-perb delivery mechanism for what we might call demo-cratic values.” So, he later asks “Why is every ‘Crisis in American Education’ cast as an economic threat and never a civic one?”

One can see this conver-sion to commercialize uni-versities from two examples here in Canada:

First, it used to be that buildings and schools were named for the University, or for some distinguished scholar or historical figure. Look at many universities in Canada today, however, and you’ll see that over the past two decades things have changed for those areas where money mat-ters most – the professional schools that produce the graduates with the highest incomes. We need doctors, dentists, and lawyers, so my quibble isn’t with the pay and prestige they receive. However, the professional schools that produce them seem to be the most utilitar-ian - and profitable. It’s largely for this reason that these are primarily the university programs that have seen their names changed: The (University name) School of Law is now The (Corporate sponsor) School of Law, The Univer-sity School of Business is

now The (Wealthy sponsor) School of Business.

The changes didn’t hap-pen out of respect: large corporations and wealthy benefactors bought the right to rename these schools. The full implications of these ‘sales’ have yet to be evaluated in terms of academic freedom. This has consequences for the pursuit of truth and knowl-edge that lie at the core of the universities’ mission. Asking difficult questions now introduces the problem of possibly biting the hand that feeds. Obviously, I am not advocating that similar sales of ‘naming rights’ of the humanities occur in the name of ‘equality’ or to raise much needed cash; rather I suggest that this is not likely to occur because the humanities aren’t seen as ‘profitable’.

Second, the 2009 federal budget released last Janu-ary had several surprises for the budgets of the Ca-nadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Natural Sciences and Engi-neering Research Council (NSERC), and SSHRC (So-cial Sciences and Humani-ties Research Council). At about $1B each the budgets of NSERC and CIHR are each three times larger than SSHRC’s budget. I won’t debate the justification for these numbers here. It is quite possible that scientists and engineers outnumber humanities professors and students, and the sciences certainly are more expen-sive. (English literature scholars don’t need expen-sive equipment such as electron microscopes and mass spectrometers). Nor am I’m not going to open an argument about how much more money each granting agency should get (and I do believe they all should get more).

Hire, con’t from pg 1For me, the most troubling aspect of the budget was the announcement that SSHRC would be getting half as much money ($17.5 M) for the Canada Millen-nium Scholarship program versus the $35M awarded to each of CIHR and NSERC and that the SSHRC funds for this program were spe-cifically earmarked to sup-port 400 masters students and 100 PhD students in business-related programs - as opposed to history, or French literature. The Presi-dent and Vice-President of SSHRC responded to the budget announcement with approval in their Message of Feb 23, 2009 and went on to describe all of the impor-tant economic benefits that arise from support of the hu-manities through SSHRC. It would appear that even ‘the powers that be’ at SSHRC have bought into the return on investment valuation of the humanities.

Peter L Ferguson has a PhD in Microbiology. He is currently the President of the London West NDP Electoral District As-sociation. He is also the NDP federal candidate for London West.

See page 10 for an article on his election to the position of President of London West NDP.

9 LEFT January 2010

From his NDP blog at devinjohnston.caby devin Johnston

I will have a lot to say about the suspension of representa-tive democracy shortly. Today, I want to talk about what happens when Parliament re-sumes. As I see it, the opposi-tion parties have three options:

1. Bring down the govern-ment at the first opportunity.

2. Re-constitute the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan and stack it with opposition members.

3. Get down on all fours, jump onto Stephen Harper’s lap, and act pathetically grateful for whatever scraps of respect the Prime Minister is will-ing to throw their way.

Option number 1 is self-explanatory. This govern-ment has shown time and time again that it is not interested in sitting as part of a democratically-elected legislature. If the Con-servatives don’t feel like showing up for work, it’s worth questioning whether they should continue to have jobs. Unfortunately, all three opposition parties are needed in order to topple the Harper regime; at any given time, there is a high prob-ability that at least one out of three will get cold feet due to short-sighted concerns about electoral losses.

Option number 2 requires more explanation. One of the major reasons for the pro-rogation was to avoid public scrutiny of the government’s role in the Afghan detainee torture scandal. Harper locked the door on Parliament Hill just as the Special Commit-tee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan was probing

The Proroguing of Parliament: Opposition Plan “B”“one who seeks equity must do equity.” In light of the fact that the Prime Minsiter has suspended our democrati-cally-elected legislature in mid-session two years in a row; in light of the govern-ment’s outright defiance of a binding order of the House of Commons to release cer-tain documents pertaining to the Afghan detainee tor-ture scandal; in light of the Conservatives’ boycott of a Parliamentary committee; and in light of Mr. Harper’s contempt for the House of Commons and, by exten-sion, the Canadian citizens it represents; in light of all of

this, Mr. Harper and his government deserve no respect from the opposi-tion and are certainly disentitled to benefits of Parliamentary comity.

Option number 3 is to let the Prime Minister get away with all of this. This would set an extremely dangerous precedent, and legitimate the dramatic centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s Office which has occurred under Mr. Harper’s direction. To yield now would be to abandon the principle of responsible government.

I believe that Option number 1 is the best of the lot. I would settle for Option number 2. Option number 3 is the sort of thing that would potentially lead to me changing my party member-ship.

and hold a quorum of seats on the committee.

Although it is traditional for a government member to chair committees, it is not without precedent for the opposition to chair a com-mittee. For example, there are four standing commit-tees in which the chair is al-ways an opposition member (Public Accounts; Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics; Government Opera-tions and Estimates; and Status of Women). The opposition parties could, by way of a Standing Order of the House of Commons,

reconstitute the committee in such a way as to give a majority of seats, and the chairpersonship, to the op-position.

Under normal circumstanc-es, it would be inappropriate for the opposition parties to do this. The House of Com-mons has always rested on principles of comity and traditions of respect in order to avoid having one political party run roughshod over another. However, I believe that these are exceptional circumstances. At com-mon law, there is a famous maxim which states that

allegations that Canadian Forces transferred Afghan detainees into the custody of local authorities, even though government officials had been made aware of the likelihood that those detainees would be abused or tortured. The Committee consists of 12 members: six government members and six opposition members. The Conservatives man-aged to stonewall the com-mittee’s activities for months through a series of obstruc-tionist procedural stunts. As soon as the opposition members finally began to make some progress, the

Conservatives boycotted the committee to prevent the committee from even holding a meeting.

The only reason the Con-servatives were able to pull this stunt off is due to the composition of the com-mittee. In order to have an offical meeting, a com-mittee must have both: a) the Chair present; and b) a quorum of members. So, in order for the Committee to continue its work when Parliament resumes, its terms of reference must be amended in order to ensure that the opposition mem-bers alone control the Chair

10 LEFT January 2010

From ndPlondonarea.ca

Peter Ferguson will carry the NDP banner in the next federal election, following a party nomination meeting Saturday in London West. The 47-year-old biochemist, who previously ran in the 2008 federal election, said he is eagerly looking forward to the next campaign.

Nominated by Caroline Diezyn, co-chair of the UWO New Democrats, Ferguson told a crowd of about 70 supporters the NDP goals of fairness, equality and environmental steward-ship matter to Canadians more than ever before. The need, he said, is to get elected, and he will be devoting his time and energy to achieving that end. Ferguson said he had been in-spired by activists in the NDP and the labour movement, and he spoke of Jack Layton’s passion for the party’s

ideals and compassion for people.

London-Fanshawe MP Irene Ma-thyssen attended the meeting and congratulated Ferguson on his nomi-nation. She said the NDP is working to create an economy that serves people, where there are green jobs, intelligent jobs and investment in research & technology.

Mathyssen said issues high on the NDP agenda include greenhouse gas reduction and pension reform. Jack Layton will be going to the Copenhagen climate change confer-ence and will be taking with him the NDP-sponsored Climate Change Accountability Act, passed by parlia-ment in June 2009. Here at home, the NDP is calling for a doubling of the CPP, increases in both the OAS and the national income supplement and a national forum on pensions.

Ferguson to Run in London West for NDPMathyssen said the Conservatives’ $1.5 billion corporate tax cut, ef-fective January 2010, would cost taxpayers twice as much as the $780 million required to lift every Canadian senior out of poverty.

The meeting was chaired by Ryan Dolby, recently nominated to run for the second time in his riding of Elgin-Middlesex-London.

Peter Ferguson is completing his third term as president of London West NDP. He has been active in creating a party network for discus-sion of scientific, technological and engineering policy.

Ferguson lives in south London with his wife, Judith, and their two young sons.

Contribute to LEFT!

A great way to contribute on campus and in the London community, and build your portfolio.

LEFT’s next issue will be displayed by February 10th.

Submissions are due by February 5th.

The theme of February’s issue will be Cultural Identities.

Art, photos, creative writing, poetry, articles, editorials, reviews and opinions are accepted.

Feel free to write on any progressive issue. Send submissions to left.publication@gmail.com

11 LEFT January 2010

EnviroWestern’s Involvement GuideGet Green with EnviroWestern this semester!by holly stover

Want to get more involved this semester? Have you signed up for an EnviroWestern Project team? Visit www.envirowestern.ca and go to the Projects page and email the leader whose team you want to sign up for! Also, check out the great upcom-ing events around London.

Nature in the City. Free conservation lectures at the Wolf Performance Hall across from the Central Public Library in downtown London, see http://www.refor-estlondon.ca/sites/default/files/content/documents/Nature_City.PDF for details

New London carbon footprint calcula-tor. Calculate your carbon footprint to do your part to mitigate climate change! http://www.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Rethink_Energy/default.htm

London-Middlesex Children’s Water Festival The Upper Thames Conserva-tion authority is hosting an event for chil-dren to learn about water conservation – do you have any feedback or sugges-tions, or want to volunteer for this event? Let me know.

Volunteer opportunity Join a group of

BMOS students to lead a field trip for grade three students to visit Refor-est London (www.reforestlondon.org) email Yoonsun Oh yoh9@uwo.ca to sign up.

Project Team InformationE-mail the the co-ordinators for more information.

Project G.R.O.W. – Holly usc.environment@uwo.caCampus naturalization & nature con-servation team

G.R.O.W. Community Garden – Holly usc.environment@uwo.caE-mail in February to join the summer community vegetable garden

Compost Team – Eva elu3@uwo.ca

Increasing composting at UWO

Purple Bikes Climate Change team – Diane dyeburns@hotmail.comWorking to address climate change at UWO through awareness & action with goals of creating a community bike rental program at Western

Residence Issues team – Genevieve genevieve.neal@gmail.com Addresses environmental issues in the residences

Community Issues Task Force – Dan Hammond and Stuti Mathur dhammon9@uwo.ca, smathur6@uwo.caEnvironmental action outside the campus community

Reusability Team – Rachel & Amanda ew.mugteam@gmail.comWorking to reduce disposable prod-ucts waste with reusable items (no more coffee cups & bottled water!)

Waste Audit and Campus Cleanup - Chris & Dan ewwasteaudit@me.comAnalyzing the composition of West-ern’s waste stream and removing litter on campus

Radio Show Team – Daniella ddimitri@uwo.caHosts CHRW Radio Show third Fri. of every month 11am-12pm

E-Zine – Sarah sraffert@uwo.caWrite an environmental article & we will publish it in our E-Zine

The theme of LEFT’s March is the Environ-ment. Get started on your articles, editorials, opinion pieces, poetry, photography and/or

art and e-mail submissions to left.publication@gmail.com

by February 28th. Planning a green event? Tell us about it!

12 LEFT January 2010

JANUARY EVENTS CALENDAR

Tuesday January 19th: Women’s Issues Network Anti-Fashion Show. As part of Counter Culture Awareness

Days, the Women’s Issues Network is hosting an ANTI-FASHION SHOW on Tuesday, January 19th in the UCC atrium at 1PM. This event will showcase awesome vintage,

recycled, fair trade and alternative clothing from the London community.Through our models, music (DJ KEEP DE PACE) and wardrobe, we hope to promote

a kind of personal style that goes against the grain.

Thursday January 21st: Luminous Entrance: a Sound 0pera for Climate Change Action. 7:30pm

Brescia Auditorium, Brescia University College. Cost at the Door: $15.00 or$12.00 for Circle Members, Seniors, Students and the Under-Employed. Free Park-ing. The Circle invites you to join us in a participatory performance of the Sound Op-era, Luminous Entrance. Penn Kemp’s Ecco Poetry has been set to the folk-inspired

melodies of musician/composer Brenda McMorrow; with dancer Ruth Douthwright and percussionist Jocelyn Drainie.

http://www.brescia.uwo.ca/thecircle

Saturday January 23rd:Rally Against Proroguing Parliament. Noon-1pm, Victoria Park. Speakers include Irene

Mathyssen, MP-London Fanshawe (NDP), Patti Dalton, President, London Labour Council, Tim Carrie, President, CAW Local 27S, Dan O’Neail, Cory Morningstar, Coun-

cil of Canadians

Saturday January 23rd:Eyes in Gaza: Dr. Mads Gilbert speaks about his time in Gaza as one of two foreign doctors allowed in the Gaza strip during “Operation Cast Lead”, working days and

nights at the busy and over-crowded Al-Shiffaa Hospital. 7pm-9:30pm, Wemple Stu-dent Lounge, King’s University College.

Saturday January 30th: Delegation to Palestine: A Special Public Meeting with NDP MP Libby Davies. 6pm,

Islamic Centre of Southwestern Ontario, 951 Pond Mills Rd, London. Free, all are wel-come. Visit irenemathyssen.ndp.ca/calendar for more information.

Check westernnewdemocrats.ca for up-to-date information on upcoming WND events!