A day after B.C.'s ruling New Democrats and their allies in labour groups made statements to mark the UN’s International Human Rights Day on December 10, the Indigenous peoples of the province were given a rude shock with the announcement of the provincial government’s green light for the controversial Site C dam project.

The proposed dam is going to flood Indigenous communities and destroy farmland in the Peace River valley. This won't just displace many people, but it will also destroy their sustainable livelihood and submerge the burial grounds of their elders and their cultural connection with the land.

Amnesty International has issued a statement pointing out that this decision violates the human rights of the Indigenous peoples in that region. Indigenous groups, ranchers, and environmentalists have been opposing Site C for years.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the BC Union of Indian Chiefs feels completely betrayed by the NDP’s announcement. He says Premier John Horgan, who came to power last summer ending 16 years of rule by the BC Liberals, had previously supported their demand to scrap the project. “I’m totally convinced Horgan has inflicted irreparable harm on the NDP brand in British Columbia,” Phillip told the Vancouver Courier.

Many others who opposed Site C and believed the new government would bury it also feel deceived. Many in the NDP caucus claim that they too were opposed to the project but had to make a hard choice partly because they need to generate revenue for social spending and partly because the previous government had reached a “point of no return” with Site C, meaning that scrapping the mega-project completely would cost them too much. The NDP caucus unanimously approved the decision.

This was all allowed to happen despite claims by the government that it’s starting a fresh era of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Not only did the Dec. 11 Site C announcement eclipse the reconciliation message, it brought back ugly memories of the Gustafsen Lake episode of 1995 — when the NDP government of the day sent a massive police contingent to suppress resistance by Indigenous land defenders.

The Site C decision once again brings the NDP in conflict with First Nations. The mega-project will take away the right to a traditional livelihood from the region’s Indigenous peoples who are going to lose a food basket and fishing ground.

Unfortunately, the current government's understanding of Indigenous issues now appears no different from the previous government's. Both governments have sold the idea of Site C by pointing to economic considerations. One difference is that, under the NDP, big labour unions who have the government’s ear are now pitted against the interests of Indigenous communities.

A discourse of jobs versus environment, or development versus forests, is often created and spread without recognizing the perspective of Indigenous peoples and their sustainable model of progress that is well suited to save the planet from destruction in the long run. Those blinded by urban and corporate models of development, despite now-universal concern about climate change and global warming, will never appreciate the realistic alternatives provided by the Indigenous communities.

The NDP leadership has proven it is no exception. It is time that the NDP and the entire labour movement start respecting the human rights of Indigenous peoples and think about other alternatives for job creation and a booming economy. For starters, they could prioritize investing in renewable energy and technology, and transit and social housing, instead of buckling under pressure from big business and their bottomless corporate greed.

This weekend the Sikhs will be celebrating the 351st birth anniversary of Guru Gobind Singh.

Marion Kawas

The narrative of Ahed Tamimi, who has recently become the face of Palestinian child prisoners, reached a new low on the first day of 2018; Israel insisted that they will be charging the teenager and given the record of “Israeli justice”, that means she will almost certainly serve jail time. Ahed’s fate is the same as that of all the young Palestinian detainees, born into occupation and tyranny, having lived through a “butchered childhood”.

The story of Ahed reminds me of the young girl, perhaps 12 or 13, who narrated a lot of the movie “Jenin, Jenin” and faces the camera at the end of the movie to tell us in the most chilling terms, that she plans to fight for her people and will never forget nor surrender. She also adds: “I saw dead bodies, I saw houses destroyed, I saw sights which cannot be described…and now, after they ruined all my dreams and hopes-I have no life left!” That sequence of the movie has stayed with me since I first saw it in 2003.

And this really is the most crucial point surrounding Ahed Tamimi’s case and what it represents. These kids, forced to be mature beyond their years, never had a choice in being under Israeli occupation or colonization. They have had their childhood stolen, their lives brutalized since day one by Israeli soldiers, their families decimated and harassed by the Israeli state. So, the question of how and why a young girl would stand up to her Israeli oppressors is redundant, we might only marvel that she still has hope that communicating with the world is worthwhile. That she still has hope that the world has a conscience.

Because up to this point, the international community has been worse than negligent in calling Israel to account for any of its abuses against political prisoners, but especially child prisoners. And in Ahed’s case there is ample evidence that her jailors wish her harm, from the Israeli Minister of “Education” who wants her to serve a life sentence to thinly veiled suggestions of sexual assault from an Israeli journalist. With very few exceptions, the countries that could exert influence on Israel have either been openly complicit (like Canada and the U.S.) or engage in the worst form of hypocrisy like the EU nations, with nice-sounding platitudes while carrying on business as usual.

I remember the infamous quote by former Israeli PM Golda Meir, where she stated: “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”

What a profound level of arrogance, and racism! Its almost impossible to comprehend the implied level of supremacy in this sentiment. And now of course, with the full backing of the U.S. government, this arrogance is matched with impunity.

We could more correctly ask: When will Israeli parents stop sending their children to be cannon fodder for a militaristic state gone berserk, forcing them to commit war crimes against other children even younger? And when will Israel value their children more than they fear the supposed demographic and existential threat of the Palestinian people and nation?

The words of the young girl in the movie Jenin, Jenin were said to “damn the continued occupation and its inhumanity” more than the devastating physical damage to the Jenin refugee camp. And this is the real impact of Ahed Tamimi as well. Her words, her story, her harassment by the Israeli military are an indictment of everything that is wrong with what Israel represents. The world did not listen well in 2002 to the young girl from Jenin; will they pay attention this time to the teenager from Nabi Saleh?

Marion Kawas is a pro-Palestinian writer and activist, and a member of BDS Vancouver-Coast Salish and Canada Palestine Association.

Courtesy: Palestine Chronicle

The demand for official status for the Mi'kmaq language has received support from the Punjabi community in BC. 

A campaign has been going in Nova Scotia for official status for Mi'kmaq as an important indigenous language. Those in the forefront of the campaign want it to be used on street signs. 

BC-based Punjabi Language Education Association (PLEA), which has been struggling for the recognition of Punjabi language for more than a decade, has extended support to the campaign for Mi'kmaq. 

Established in 1993, PLEA has been instrumental in getting Punjabi introduced in BC schools. It also organizes the annual Mother Language Day every year in the month of February to promote the Punjabi language. 

Balwant Sanghera, one of the cofounders of PLEA, says that it is important to acknowledge that Canada was built on the traditional lands of the indigenous peoples. "We must remember that there were attempts to kill indigenous languages and culture through Indian Residential School system during colonization," Sanghera told Radical Desi. For this reason he finds it necessary to support any demand that can help in rejuvenating a native language. 

"I understand that Mi'kmaq language has survived for 10,000 years and it is important to give it an official status." He also insisted that since Punjabis share a history of racism and colonialism with the First Nations, the South Asians must support this demand. He further pointed out that there was a need to break stereotypes about First Nations among the immigrants too. "What they (immigrants) need to be told is that aboriginals have been facing structural racism for centuries. They over represent their population in jails, which is unacceptable." 

At a time when the world is grappling with growing threats of bigotry and alt right movements, a white man stepped forward to defend a Muslim woman who was attacked by a racist on transit in Vancouver in December 2017.

Jake Taylor is being hailed as a hero for standing up for Noor Fadel, who was targeted for being Muslim and wearing hijab. The man who attacked Fadel had shouted that he would kill Muslims, and had raised his hand.

Taylor was the only passenger who mustered the courage to confront the man who was later arrested.

This happened as Statistics Canada noted a spike in hate crimes in BC. Many observers believe that the attacks on minorities, particularly Muslims, have increased in North America ever since Donald Trump became the US President. Trump had used his anti-immigrant and Islamophobic rhetoric to win the election, giving legitimacy to white supremacy both in US and Canada.

Taylor virtually risked his life by standing up for Fadel. The man who attacked her could have been armed and might have harmed him. In 2017, two men died under similar circumstances in Portland. They were stabbed to death by a white supremacist as they tried to save two Muslim women on transit from a hate attack.

We need to amplify the story of Taylor to encourage others to stand up in such difficult circumstances for the weak, and break stereotypes about both the majority and minority communities. It is our humanity that matters, and those who show compassion and courage in the face of hatred must be appreciated by all of us.

November 8 marked the first anniversary of the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president. Thanks to his anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, and misogynist rhetoric, white supremacy has gained a stronger foothold across North America since the time of his campaign.

To understand and challenge the emergence of bigotry across the border—and its impact on Canada where alt right movement has grown over the past year—it is important to read Hillary Clinton’s memoir on the presidential election.

What Happened makes one understand what contributed to Trump's victory over a much more seasoned political figure like Clinton—a former secretary of state and the wife of former U.S. president Bill Clinton.

Of course, Clinton tries to explain the reality from her standpoint and her own biases and prejudices.

This cannot be ignored but those concerned with the changing political landscape of North America under Trump and increased hatred against Muslims and other minority groups must still try to hear her out.

Despite all the limitations of Clinton’s own politics, she raises very valid questions about what prompted people to vote for a right-wing Republican candidate, ignoring his racially charged statements against minorities and immigrants, as well as his sexist remarks about women. In so doing, she also admits to some of the mistakes made by her campaign.

Even though Clinton made history by becoming the first female presidential candidate of a major U.S. political party, she failed to defeat Trump for a number of reasons mentioned in her book. Back in 2008 she was also defeated in the race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination by Barack Obama, who became the first black oresident of the U.S.

While she acknowledges that she still won more popular votes than Trump, she could not win enough Electoral College electors to become president.

This was partly because Obama, the Democrat, had already served two terms and it was unlikely that the American people would give Clinton, another Democratic presidential candidate, a chance.

However, Clinton came under sharp criticism for routing her personal email through a private server while serving as the secretary of state. Even as she was cleared by investigative agencies of any serious wrongdoing or compromising national security, a section of the media did not let the issue die.

Clinton writes that this issue was blown out of proportion in comparison to Trump’s divisive politics.

In her book, she also accuses Russia of interfering in U.S. elections by using hackers and social media to spread fake news stories about her as Trump remained indifferent to this.

She argues that the Russian government under Vladimir Putin patronized alt-right forces in the U.S. and other western democracies, which only helped Trump.

Clinton also writes that Trump polarized the white middle class against racialized communities, taking advantage of their anger over the opioid crisis and growing unemployment.

In addition, she points out how businesses played a large role in socioeconomic inequalities, yet they became a refuge for Trump and voters who could not understand this.

Instead, Trump and many voters vented their anger over inequality on people of colour and women, blaming them for taking away their jobs.

Clinton also takes a stand on behalf of people of colour in the U.S. She notes that they continue to endure racial violence both at the hands of police and vigilantes, and she insists on moving forward through “radical empathy”.

She blames the negative media coverage of her candidacy for the lack of interest among voters of colour in her campaign. And that helped Trump win the election by keeping her supporters away from polling stations.

Moreover, she points out how in certain states, voters from minority communities who were inclined to support her were disfranchised on flimsy grounds.  

Nevertheless she is also critical of the left, in particular those supporters of Bernie Sanders, whom she defeated for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton makes a case that they did not do enough to make her win.

The book acknowledges that the gun lobby remains powerful in the U.S. because political parties find it difficult to challenge them. The same lobby group, she claims, worked hard to defeat her due to her advocacy for strong background checks against criminals wanting to purchase guns.

In What Happened, Clinton also offers insights into prejudices against women in politics. Her own experiences with sexism during her school days and early years of her legal profession and political life find a mention, too.  

Canada is not immune to racism and in this country white supremacists have become active.

This is why those who have been working hard to keep the political right out of power need to give up some of their cynicism about Clinton and go through some of the important issues she has raised.

This will help them learn to decode the narratives of people like Trump, which can ultimately help defeat their designs. 

This Christmas, world leaders need to wake up and recognize growing violence against the Christian minority in the world’s so-called largest secular democracy.

Ever since a Hindu right-wing Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2014, the country's social environment has become toxic for all religious minorities, especially Muslims and Christians.

Modi himself belongs to the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu supremacist group of which the BJP is a political wing. It wants to transform India into Hindu theocracy.

The RSS believes that India, which in its terminology is Hindustan, truly belongs to Hindus, while Islam and Christianity are viewed as alien religions. RSS leaders consider Sikhism and Buddhism as part of the Hindu fold, an idea that is vehemently denounced by Sikhs and Buddhists.

Then there are other oppressed communities, like Dalits (considered untouchables by the orthodox Hindus) and Adivasis, or tribal people, who have their distinct identities. Yet the RSS tries to project them as part of the Hindu mainstream.

Much like Sikhs and Buddhists, these groups have also been trying to resist attempts of assimilation either through religious conversions or mere false propaganda, by claiming that anyone whose ancestors were born in India is Hindu.

Tensions between all these groups and the BJP government have grown rapidly.

Meanwhile, the World Watch List 2017 ranks India 15th worst among nations where Christians are persecuted. Four years ago, India ranked 31st on the list.

In addition to the lynching of Muslims following accusations of eating beef—Hindus consider the cow a sacred animal—Christians are being frequently targeted by BJP supporters. More than 700 cases of attacks on Christians were reported on the United Christians Forum helpline since 2014.

Only recently, those out singing Christmas carols in the state of Madhya Pradesh (MP) were attacked by the Hindu fundamentalists. Not only were their cars burned but a criminal case was filed against them, accusing them of forced religious conversions, an allegation often made by BJP supporters against Christian missionaries.

As if this was not enough, threatening letters were sent to various schools in another state, Uttar Pradesh (UP), asking them not to allow Christmas celebrations.

Both MP and UP are governed by the BJP and it is not surprising that the surveillance of churches has increased under the Modi government in the name of checking religious conversions, a practice also done freely by Hindu groups to bring Muslims and Christians into Hindu faith.

The situation is no different in other BJP-ruled states where anticonversion laws targeting Christians have been enforced even as the Indian constitution guarantees religious freedom.  

The RSS has a track record of being involved in anti-Christian violence. In 2008, an anti-Christian pogrom was organized by the RSS in the state of Odisha following the assassination of a Hindu preacher by Maoist insurgents.

Even though Maoists claimed responsibility for the murder as they considered the slain preacher a class enemy creating fear among tribal Christians, the RSS goons went after innocent Christians to settle a score for the killing.

It is the same state where in 1999 an Australian Christian missionary, Graham Staines, and his two sons, aged 10 and six, were burned to death by Hindu extremists.

Staines’s murder followed well organized anti-Christian violence in the state of Gujarat in 1998. Gujarat has been under BJP rule since then.

In 2002 when Modi was chief minister of Gujarat, an anti-Muslim massacre was organized after a train carrying Hindu pilgrims caught fire, leaving more than 50 Hindu passengers dead.

The BJP government at the time blamed Muslim fundamentalists for torching the train, after which innocent Muslims were targeted across Gujarat. Human rights activists continue to allege Modi’s complicity in the bloodshed though he was never charged.

Global leaders celebrating Christmas and sending out greetings to everyone on such an auspicious occasion must take a moment to find more about what is happening in India, which is becoming a favoured destination of many countries, like Canada and the U.S., for future investments and business transactions.

If world leaders are really concerned about the growing threat of terrorism, they must also keep on Hindu extremists in India on their radar. They are trying to create a Taliban like regime in a land that has always been known for its pluralism and diversity.

This week marks 312th anniversary of the martyrdom of the two young sons of Guru Gobind Singh and his mother.

 
The tenth master of the Sikhs had laid the foundation of the Khalsa, a sect that was dedicated to fight against state oppression of the Mughal rule and determined to challenge the caste-based divisions practiced by orthodox Hindus.
 
Guru Gobind Singh was born 350 years ago to father Guru Teg Bahadar and mother Mata Gujri. Teg Bahadar was the ninth Guru of the Sikh faith that was founded by Nanak. Sikhism is based on the principles of egalitarianism and social justice. Guru Gobind Singh was very young when he lost his father, who laid down his life for human rights and religious freedom by coming to the defence of Kashmiri Hindus who were being forcibly converted to Islam by the Mughal Empire.
 
Mata Gujri brought up young Gobind Singh with courage following the execution of her husband. Guru Gobind Singh who led the community as the tenth Guru had resolved to fight against state violence by raising a force of committed men who ended caste barriers to give a united challenge to the enemy. For this Guru Gobind Singh had to face the dual threat from the Mughal government and Hindu kings who could not tolerate people from the so called low castes being empowered with the formation of Khalsa army. So great was this perceived threat that they even tried to incite the Mughals against Guru Gobind Singh.
 
During the year 1705 he had to fight a very tough battle in which he lost his two elder sons, Ajit Singh and Jujhar Singh, while Mata Gujri and his two younger sons Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh were separated from the entire family. The three of them were handed over to a Muslim governor of Sirhind state by a treacherous Hindu servant who deceived them after being bought over by the enemies. Mata Gujri was thrown into jail alongside her grandsons.
 
Both Zorawar Singh aged nine and Fateh Singh aged seven were pressurised by the Mughals to embrace Islam to save their lives. Undeterred by these warnings, they accepted death with dignity and were bricked alive. Upon receiving the news of the merciless killings of her grandsons, Mata Gujri also died in the prison.
 
Today when state repression spreads everywhere and we see no end to bigotry, the episode of the great sacrifices made by Guru Gobind Singh, his parents and sons has become even more relevant.
 
All we need to understand is the real message behind this powerful story rather than letting communal forces misinterpret this history for their ulterior motives. It’s a shame that right wing political parties such as the Hindu supremacist BJP that governs India continues to appropriate the Sikh history in an attempt to polarise Hindus and Sikhs against Muslims, whereas the Sikh gurus and their families fought against repression and not any particular religion. Rather they had some good Muslims on their side as several hostile Hindus joined hands with the Mughal Empire.
 
The growing incidents of violence against Muslims and Christians under the BJP government(s) would instead have forced the gurus to revolt against the current regime if they were still among us. They would never have compromised with a government whose supporters frequently  terrorise minorities with impunity and force Muslims and Christians to embrace Hinduism in the name of Ghar Waapsi – which is nothing but a well-organised religious conversion (through force and intimidation).
 
Apart from this, the current regime is no different from the then tyrannical Mughal government that killed two small children and let their aging grandmother die in the jail. Activists like Prof. GN Saibaba who are being incarcerated despite being ninety percent disabled below waist for standing up for the oppressed people is a classic case of the brutality of the Indian state. The under- age Kashmiris continue to be arrested and attacked by the Indian forces in the name of war against terror in the valley where uprising for right to self-determination has been going on for years. Even in Punjab during the Sikh insurgency in 1980s the under age children on the militants and their parents were subjected to killings and torturers. Only recently, Jagtar Johal, a young Sikh activist from UK was detained and tortured in Punjab on the allegations of murdering of right wing leaders.  
 
The story is relevant internationally too as this week we saw the arrest of 16-year-old Ahed Tamini – a Palestinian activist who slapped an Israeli soldier for continued repression of her people and the occupation of her homeland by the state of Israel. The indigenous activists in North America also face highhandedness of the state for opposing extraction of natural resources from their traditional lands without informed consent.
 
Those who believe in the philosophy of Mata Gujri and her young grandsons must come together to raise voice for those who are being persecuted for showing resistance against repression anywhere in the world and defeat the forces of bigotry.
 

Kimball Cariou

The Dec. 11 approval by the BC government of the Site C dam is seen by many as a monumental error, and there are already plans for grassroots resistance and ongoing legal and political efforts to block this project. There are also fears that this announcement reflects more than just a difficult decision forced by the previous government's determination to push it past "the point of no return" - it also indicates that Premier Horgan's NDP will refrain from any serious challenge to the underlying fundamentals of decision making in British Columbia, preferring to focus on incremental reforms within the framework of the taxation structure and overall economic priorities set by the defeated Liberals.

No doubt Premier Horgan and his MLAs, many of whom had been sharply critical of Site C, did find this decision heartbreaking. There is considerable truth to their argument that the Liberals had made scrapping the project incredibly difficult. Christy Clark's parting gift to our province was a ten billion dollar boondoggle. But their decision also shows a reluctance to show visionary leadership and to consider other options.

Critics of Site C have emphasized protecting the inherent rights of First Nations peoples, preserving valuable agricultural land and the natural environment, and the need to take account of both the inflated projections of future revenues and the consistently underestimated construction costs. The Dec. 11 decision fails on all these criteria.

For example, the approval of Site C is much worse than a "disappointment" for indigenous peoples, using the Premier's term. It is a blatant violation of the letter and spirit of the Truth and Reconciliation report's recommendations, and also of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Rather than signal a true commitment to these historic documents by cancelling Site C, the provincial government chose to green-light the ongoing colonization of indigenous lands and resources, which are being extracted for the profit of big corporations. This government chose to break their hard-earned trust with First Nations, rather than incur the wrath of the big resource corporations, business groups, and the corporate media.

The government argues that cancelling Site C would force a big increase in Hydro rates, violating the NDP's pledge to make life more affordable for British Columbians. This logic essentially means that the huge and still growing costs of completing Site C will be paid by future generations, sparing the current government the political pain inflicted by higher Hydro bills for the next several years. Well, such calculations are inherent to political decisions, but we are not doing our children and grandchildren any favours by passing down enormous and unnecessary debts, especially if markets for Site C power never reach the levels speculated by its backers.

Another key element in this debate has been "employment," and unfortunately, some have accused the trade union movement of being a key player on the pro-Site C side. In fact, most unions in British Columbia did not take pro-Site C positions, and many public sector labour activists argued strongly that far more jobs could be created by spending $10 billion (or whatever the final amount comes to) on social housing, improving the crumbling urban infrastructure and public transit systems, expanding social programs, and providing adequate funding for schools and hospitals. The point has been made by many progressive economists that politicians and decision-makers are often influenced by the patriarchal myth that only building trades jobs (mainly held by men) are "real," while public sector employment (largely female) is by implication less worthy. To be blunt, the Horgan government appears to have swallowed the assumption that boy jobs are better than girl jobs.

One final point has been ignored by almost everyone in this debate, reflecting the unfortunate fact that neoliberal austerity arguments are deeply embedded into the fabric of almost every public policy discussion in our society.

The truth is that tax policies are not eternal and unalterable. Tax rates are set by elected politicians, and can indeed be changed. Here in British Columbia, as groups like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have pointed out, the tax break for upper income earners and corporations, granted back in 2001 by the newly-elected Campbell Liberals, has cost the provincial treasury well over $2 billion annually for the past 16 years. Christy Clark tinkered briefly with this tax break when she wanted to appear "populist," and the Horgan government is taking a similar approach; we'll see exactly how much or how little when the next budget is announced early in 2018.

Here's my point: yes, it would cost several billion dollars to cancel Site C. That amount could be covered within a very few years simply by removing half of the annual tax break which the rich and the corporations are still getting in British Columbia. Why has this option never been raised in the arguments around Site C? The project's backers don't go in that direction, of course, since their own interests would be affected. But I find it disappointing that most critics of the dam also fail to raise this option, which would make it possible to begin a decisive shift away from economic policies based on corporate-driven resource extraction megaprojects.

It's time to think outside the box in British Columbia, time to put the needs of people and the environment ahead of the greed of millionaires and corporations. The Site C announcement leaves us firmly inside the box, and that has to change.

Kimball Cariou is the Editor of People's Voice, a social justice activist, and a member of the Radical Desi Editorial Team.