Bill C-23 must not pass! Write to your MPs!

February 16, 2017 by Tournevis in English, Français, Nouvelles

As many of you know, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale recently introduced to the House of Commons Bill-23, an Act respecting the pre-clearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States. This bill, if passed without amendment (and it is likely to pass during this Parliament session) would give "U.S. border guards new powers to question, search and even detain Canadian citizens on Canadian soil". It would also "erode the standing of Canadian permanent residents by threatening their automatic right to enter Canada". See this article for more information. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pre-clearance-border-canada-us-1.3976123 In short, agents of the American government would have the power to detain, interrogate and search Canadian citizens and permanent residents within Canada, even preventing them from leaving the US customs area after having entered it. On top of potentially being in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it would put into question the value of Canadian citizenship for those not born in the country, at the very least. In any case, the bill would directly and negatively affect those of our colleagues and students who already face «special screenings» at the hands of the TSA.

I encourage all members of the department to write (or call) your member of parliament, to Ralph Goodale and Justin Trudeau at the earliest occasion. I have included a template letter below (drafted by Canadian author Amal El-Motar) and my French language translation, to press upon them your displeasure at this bill. It is not scheduled for debate this week, so there is enough time to tackle the issue before it becomes a problem.

Let's do this!

ENGLISH

[Your MP here]

I’m writing to express my deep concerns about Bill C-23, an act respecting the pre-clearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States, introduced by Mr. Ralph Goodale (https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-23/), and discussed in some depth in this CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pre-clearance-border-canada-us-1.3976123

As your constituent and a Canadian citizen, I take particular exception to section 31 of the bill; therein, the bill proposes empowering American Customs and Border Patrol agents, acting as pre-clearance officers, to detain and question Canadian citizens on Canadian soil.

While the spirit of the law pertaining to 31(2) might exist within the realm of reasonable questioning and information gathering, the language is suitably nebulous such that a preclearance officer might interpret section 31(2b), “questioning the traveller for the purposes of indemnifying them or determining their reason for withdrawal,” as a licence to excessive interrogation and detention. It is my opinion that the limitation on section 31 outlined in 31(3), specifically the language surrounding “unreasonable delay” is vague and fails to explicitly protect Canadian citizens from an unconstitutional challenge to their liberty at the hands of foreign nationals.

While I understand that it is a privilege to enter the United States of America, the Charter rights guaranteed to Canadian citizens on Canadian soil do not end in a pre-clearance area. To that end, I would ask you to review this bill, and propose an amendment to its language that would not leave Canadian citizens in Canada beholden to foreign authority and potential abuses of power.

Sincerely yours,

[Your name]

FRANÇAIS

[Votre député ici]

Je vous écris pour exprimer mes profondes inquiétudes à propos du projet de loi C-23, la Loi relative au précontrôle de personnes et de biens au Canada et aux États-Unis, présenté par M. Ralph Goodale (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Mode=1&DocId=8380353&Language=F), et discuté en profondeur dans cet article de la CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pre-clearance- border-canada-us-1.3976123

En tant qu’électeur et citoyen canadien, je m’oppose particulièrement à l'article 31 du projet de loi. Le projet de loi propose de permettre aux agents américains de la douane et de la patrouille frontalière (TSA), agissant en qualité d'agents de pré-dédouanement, à détenir et à interroger les citoyens canadiens sur le sol canadien.

Bien que l'esprit du droit applicable au paragraphe 31 (2) pourrait être justifiable dans le cadre d'un interrogatoire raisonnable et d’une collecte d'informations, le libellé est suffisamment vague pour qu'un agent de précontrôle pourrait interpréter l'article 31 (2b), «interroger [le voyageur] aux fins d’identification ou de vérification des motifs pour lesquels il se soustrait», en tant que permission excessive d'interrogatoire et de détention. À mon avis, la limitation de l'article 31, énoncée au paragraphe 31 (3), plus précisément le libellé entourant le «délai raisonnable», est vague et ne protège pas explicitement les citoyens canadiens d'une contestation inconstitutionnelle de leur liberté aux mains de ressortissants étrangers.

Même si je comprends qu'il soit un privilège d'entrer aux États-Unis d'Amérique, les droits garantis aux citoyens canadiens en territoire canadien par la Charte des Droits et Libertés ne se terminent pas dans une zone de pré-dédouanement. À cette fin, je vous demande de réviser ce projet de loi et de proposer un amendement à sa formulation qui ne permettrait pas que les citoyens canadiens en territoire canadien soit soumis à l'autorité étrangère et à des abus de pouvoir potentiels.

Bien à vous,

[Votre nom]

De mascottes et de stéréotypes

March 31, 2014 by Tournevis in English, Français, Nouvelles

La région d'Ottawa est une des régions les plus bilingues du Canada. Elle est aussi l'un des endroits où la résistance au fait français est très intense. Depuis quelques mois, on remarque aussi que la région d'Ottawa est bien dotée en personnes (surtout, mais pas inclusivement, des hommes) qui aiment associer leurs équipes sportives préférées avec des mascottes à fortes connotations ethniques négatives. Après les Amérindiens, on s'en prend aux Canadiens-français. L'équipe d'expansion de la CFL de la ville, les Redblacks (en principe aussi Le Rouge et Noir), s'est donné "Jos Mufferaw" comme mascotte, un gros "lumberjack" à la mâchoire carrée, à la chemise carreautée et à la tuque fière.

Le problème, majeur, est que ce personnage est basé sur une chanson folk de Stompin' Tom, elle-même inspirée de la chanson "Jos Monferrand" de Gilles Vigneault, chanson basée sur l'histoire vraie de Jos Montferrand, alias Jos Favre, qui s'est battu contre la discrimination envers des Canadiens française dans l'industrie du bois en Outaouais. Sans surprise, les Franco-Ontariens et les Québécois de la région sont plutôt outrés. Pour leur part, les supporters de l'équipe choisissent de n'y rien comprendre. Je dis "choisissent" en raison des conversations (comme celle incluse au bas de cette entrée) qui pourrissent les médias anglophones depuis deux jours. En somme, les médias et autres anglophones estiment que Jos Mufferaw n'est pas un symbole canadien-français, mais une légende locale basée sur le passé bûcheron de toute la région et que toutes les ethnicités de la région ont produit des bûcherons et que donc un bûcheron ne peut pas être un stéréotype canadien-français. Cette affirmation est répétée ad nauseam, malgré l'abondance de preuves du contraire, non seulement sur Montferrand lui-même, mais sur le stéréotype du gros bûcheron mal dégrossi canadien-français, comme le "lumberjack" dans Bugs Bunny, par exemple.

Bien sûr, le problème majeur avec l'argument que Mufferaw n'est pas Montferrand et que ce premier n'est qu'une légende même si le second fut un personnage historique, est que la mascotte s'appelle "Jos Montferrand" en français. Donc, malgré l'égosillage des Anglos qui tentent d'expliquer aux Francos qu'ils ont tort de s'offusquer, le fait est que la mascotte est encore une fois un stéréotype canadien-français et une usurpation historique.

Ce serait comme si une équipe de sport américaine se choisissait une mascotte d'allure amérindienne stéréotypique inspirée de Crazy Horse, l'appeler "Curly" (parce que Crazy Horse avait les cheveux frisés) mais appeler cela un hommage. Comme si Chief Wahoo des Indiens de Cleveland est un hommage. Comme si Aunt Jemima est un hommage, ou Uncle Ben. Ce n'est pas parce que cette fois-ci, la mascotte est blanche que cela n'est pas moins insultant. Je fulmine contre les Braves d'Atlanta, les Indiens de Cleveland, je ne suis battu contre les Redskins de Nepean. Je vais me battre contre l'usage insultant de "Joe Mufferraw".

Why I fight racism and islamaphobia.

January 16, 2014 by Tournevis in English, Famille

I know there is no escaping the fact that I am irretrievably white. That's never going to change. I am privileged as a White, educated, very-well-paid woman from a prosperous nation in the Western World. I could ignore all issues of inequity, except maybe sexism, and live my life without much of a social care.

That's what my son is facing, already, at three years old.

And yet.

I can't do that. My son is Asian. He will always be Asian. Sure, he is growing up in my privileged household, but it does not change the fact that he will never be White. As he grows up, he will face racism. Everyday. He'll be expected to be good at math and science. He'll be called a "banana". He'll be called worse. Regardless of how well he does in school, he stands a greater chance of being unemployed simply because of his skin colour and the shape of his eyes. And that's the best case scenario. If he should happen to drop out of school (please don't!), society will expect him to join a gang.

It is my responsibility as a citizen and as his mother to fight all the instances of inquity that might affect him directly or indirectly. Which means fighting in solidarity with all the persons of colour everywhere. This means fighting systemic racism, overt racism, as well as insidious racism ("He's a nice boy too") or seemingly positive racism ("Oh, that's great! He'll be good at math!"). I must fight in his name, actively, with intent, and daily.

Acadians have some really interesting cultural quirks, one of which is the traditional role of mothers. Yes, they stay at home, but they are the boss at home; the men do not take part in the administration of the home, they defer.* Acadians also insist that mothers are more than simply the ones that make food and keep house. Mothers protect their children. Fathers provide, mothers protect. I was taught this on my grand-mother's knee, by the examples of my aunts and my mother. I was told the stories of Acadian mothers during the Deportation fleeing in the woods with the kids and taking the gun. Of those Acadians mothers who protected their households, with guns or pitchforks, when the English troupes tried to evict them and deport them. I saw spectacular acts of protection done by my mother and aunts as well. My cousin's husband is mistreating her? The aunts descend upon her house to move her out, and the husband better not try to intervene, because you do not want an aunt going after you.

It is my duty as a mother to protect my son. Yes, I have to keep him physically safe and well-nourished. But those physical needs are not at issue because of the economic privilege we enjoy. The true threat to my son is racism, regardless of the form it takes, even when it is not directed at him.

I will fight it. I will do so until he tells me not to. If he ever tells me to stop. Unfortunately, I doubt he ever will because this fight will probably survive me.

* My husband once said to a friend that he was of the wrong gender to change the temperature on the thermostat in my mother's house. And yes, it's my mother's house, not my parents' house.

Edited 17/01/2014 for typos and clarity.