F O C U S

A Century of Disenfranchisement of Indian
migrants in B.C
Gurpreet Singh from Victoria

ON March 26, 2007, New Democrat Surrey - Newton MLA Harry Bains recalled with pride the sacrifices leaders of Indian origin made to get their franchise. Speaking in the British Columbia Legislature on the 100th anniversary of the passing of a legislation, which took away the right to vote from people of Indian origin in B.C, he said, “On March 26, 1907 in this very chamber, legislation was passed to disfranchise people of India and put them in the same class as the Chinese and Japanese who were disfranchised earlier. This law denied them the right to vote for the next 40 years.”

Bains said, “ It was as harshly as any elected body could treat its people they are elected to represent. Today exactly 100 years later, we say - how embarrassing!

A question comes to mind. What were they thinking?

What followed was a period of long and painful 40 years of struggle to bring back sanity and justice in this province and this country - involving many organizations such as IWA, lead by its presidents Harold Pritchet and Darshan Singh Canadian and the CCF who worked with Khalsa Diwan Society to convince the politicians of the day to write the wrong they have committed.

As a result of their efforts in 1947, the people from India who chose Canada as their new home were granted the right to be equal and therefore gained the right to vote. There is a lesson for all legislatures to learn from this very sad and unfortunate event in our history. And that is; before we pass any legislation, we must ask ourselves these questions. Will our decision pass the test of time in future? Will our decisions embarrass our future generations?

As we sit here and reflect back and as embarrassed as we feel by certain decisions made by those who sat in these chairs before us, we must pause and pay a tribute to those great souls, such as Mr. Naginder Singh Gill, Hasan Rahim, Dr. D.P. Pandia and many others from different backgrounds for working unselfishly to build a society based on equality - where no one is left behind, where no one is jailed for exercising a basic fundamental democratic right, to fight for an inclusive society where we celebrate and learn from our diverse cultures, where we find unity in diversity.”

Dave S. Hayer, MLA for Surrey-Tynehead and Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism and Immigration also marked the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the upcoming 60th anniversary of the enfranchisement of Indo-Canadians in British Columbia. Hayer emphasized that discrimination in any form is simply not acceptable and urged all British Columbians to do their part to help eliminate racism.

"We are a province of immigrants, and everyone must learn that differences in colour, race or religion are not just to be tolerated, but celebrated and welcomed," added Hayer.

Meanwhile, Protest marked the apology service in London on mach 27. Reports said that within spitting distance of the Queen and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a lone black protester eluded tight security at Westminster Abbey to denounce the national commemorative service to mark the end of the Atlantic slave trade of Africans 200 years ago.

“This is a disgrace to our ancestors,” shouted the protester, jabbing his finger at Queen Elizabeth and Blair. “Millions of our ancestors are in the Atlantic.” The man identified as Toyin Agbetu ground the church service to a halt and stunned a crowd of 2,000 gathered in the most famous protestant cathedral in the world.

He got to within three metres of the Queen, who sat emotionless with Prince Phillip at her side. Church officials and several black worshippers surrounded the man, wrestling him to the ground but quickly unhanded him as he shouted, “Let go of me.”

“This is an insult,” the man said, urging the large throng of blacks in the crowd to walk out of the commemorative service, organized by the Church of England, which itself owned some 600 slaves on Caribbean plantations.

Johnny Hogg, a descendant of William Wilberforce, the most famous of the abolitionists who pushed the British Parliament to end the slave trade in 1807, was one seat over from the protester when he rose in the middle of a prayer.

As four white people wrestled with Toyin Agbetu, a black to the ground and millions saw the scene on their television screens, the message was clear that racial discrimination was very much alive. He was arrested outside the Abbey as other protesters shouted slogans in support.

The protester had a press pass and sat in the first row of journalists. The Queen passed within inches of him during the procession.

The national service marked a peak in events to mark the bicentenary of the constitutional ending of the slave trade between Africa and the British colonies. Slavery continued officially until 1834 and the legacy continues.

In his sermon, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England, Rowan Williams said: “We who are heirs of the slave-owning and slave-trading nations of the past have to face the fact that our historic prosperity was built in large part on this atrocity; those who are heirs of the communities ravaged by the slave trade know very well that much of their present suffering and struggling is the result of centuries of abuse.”

BACK

Anti Terror Laws in Canada
Gobind Thukral in Toronto

EVER since Canada’s three opposition parties voted to kill the two extraordinary anti-terror investigative powers, the ruling Conservative Prime Minister Stephan Harper has been threatening to bring back the legislation. “We need to strengthen the police against any future terror attacks and not weaken it” has been burden of his speeches.

The House of Commons by 159-124 vote struck the two provisions, first enacted by the Liberal government in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States. Most Liberals followed Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion to oppose the extension with the added support of the Bloc Québécois and New Democrats and voted against extension of the measures in the Anti-Terrorism Act. These were due to "sunset" and  have now "legislatively" expired.

The measures empowered authorities to detain suspected terrorists without charge, subject to release on strict bail conditions, and to permit police to force witnesses to testify in a closed court before a judge. Interestingly the Canadian police did not use these powers even while investigating bombing of Air India plane in 1985 that took the lives of 329 innocents.

What are we to make of the Commons’ decision to ditch these two elements of Canada's anti-terror laws? Prime Minister Stephen Harper would like the Canadians to believe that the move has left Canada more vulnerable to terrorism. Stéphane Dion's Liberals, who combined forces with the New Democrats and Bloc Québécois to outvote the government on this issue, insist they are standing up for human rights.

In fact, neither side is being totally straightforward. Harper notwithstanding, Canada still has robust laws that allow police to forestall terror attacks. For their part, the opposition parties are more amenable to eventually reinstituting some version of the measures they have killed than their current rhetoric suggests.

And in between the ruling minority government did indulge in some real politicking. Harper picked up a newspaper report that spoke about an Indo Canadian or more specifically a Punjabi immigrant, Darshan Singh Saini father in law of Navdeep Singh Bains, MP [ Mississauga-Brampton South of Ontario ] and claimed  that the Liberal approach would jeopardize the Air India enquiry  being conducted a supreme court judge in Ottawa. He said, "Even the Air India families say that the position [the Liberals] is now taking will jeopardize the police investigation into the Air India terrorism act." But none from the opposition supported the prime minister and the provisions were struck down.

The Vancouver Sun had reported that Bains's father-in-law told the police he had met a man who was later convicted of shooting a potential witness in the Air India trial. He also allegedly said he met with Ajaib Singh Bagri, who was later acquitted in the Air India bombing. It also reported that Saini is on the potential list the police of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.

The Commons did not kill the entire anti-terror bill enacted after the 9/11 attacks. The government can still arbitrarily proscribe, as terrorist, any organization it chooses. It is still illegal to belong to, fund or support in any way such an organization. It has still extraordinary power to demand that judicial hearings involving national security be held in camera. In some cases, it is illegal to reveal the fact that such hearings are being held. Government can still detain non-citizens indefinitely without charge if it deems them security risks.

Supporters of these two now defunct measures say they were not unusual and are being used outside Canada like India law TADA and American Patriot Act. The U.S. grand jury system compels people who have not been charged with any crime to testify in secret. Britain allows police to hold terror suspects without charge for 28 days and allows judges to impose control orders on people who have never been charged with any crime.

But for many Canadians the two measures are also reminiscent of other times in this country's history when the state, given extraordinary powers, systematically abused them. Five times member of Canadian parliament Gurbax Singh Malhi said: “This draconian measure needed to be discarded as it could be misused by the police. The powers provided to the police and other state agencies in the name of curbing terrorism or investigating cases were too arbitrary. These went against the essential Canadian spirit of fair play, justice and civil liberties. It is good these are not on the statute book. This in no way hampers the police from arresting and prosecuting the terrorists. There are enough laws and powers with the police. Unbridled powers often make law enforcing agencies brutal. They tend to ignore real systematic work and just push trumped charges particularly against the weak and minorities.”

During World War II, preventative detention powers were used to incarcerate innocent Canadians simply because they were of Japanese descent. In 1970, after Quebec terrorists kidnapped diplomat James Cross and provincial cabinet minister Pierre Laporte, Canada used the same wartime law to censor publications and jail citizens without charge.

Police have laid terrorism charges against Canadians since 9/11, most notably last June when 17 men and boys mostly Muslims were arrested on suspicion of, among other things, plotting to cut off the Prime Minister's head. But in none of these cases have police used the two extraordinary powers.

Bob Rae, the failed Liberal leadership contender, argues that investigative hearings, by compelling reluctant witnesses to testify, might help to solve the 1985 Air India terror bombing. He doesn't explain why, if this is the case, police investigators didn't take advantage of the measures before these expired.

The measures -- preventive arrest and investigative hearings -- were introduced by the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien in December 2001 shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but have never been used. Having these tools available in the anti-terrorism arsenal gives Canada's security services some backup in their battle against those plotting mass-casualty attacks and does so without threatening Canadians' human rights.

The Conservatives are likely to reintroduce legislation before long that will keep Canada's preparedness against terrorism on the front burner and Dion on the hot seat. A liberal strategist presently is to stick the position that such laws do not help check terrorism and rethink its position before an election call comes. It has the support of both NDP and Bloc Quebecois.

BACK

Iraq: The war that will not end and may yet expand

“O, pity, God, this miserable age/ What stratagems, how fell, how butcherly,

Erroneous, mutinous, and unnatural, / This deadly quarrel daily doth beget!”

[Shakespeare in Henry VI Part III]

ON March 30 alone suicide bombers killed 108 innocent people in the city of Baghdad and elsewhere. That was day when new U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker took office. Earlier, there was a huge blast close to where U N Secretary General was addressing a meeting in Baghdad and he ducked to save himself.  Estimates about deaths vary and only exact figure available is about the death of coalition soldiers. Every day the number is pushed forward. The number of people killed during the last four years of American occupation is horrible, some 100,000. That is the price of freedom and democracy that the people are paying in that hapless country called Iraq.

Air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim. A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion. Some 66,005 have died by military action alone.

Iraq is ripped by a civil war that is reaching catastrophic levels with as many as 3000 citizens are murdered per month. The population is in despair. Life in many of the urban areas is now desperate. A handful of foreign fighters (500+) — and a couple of thousand Al Qaeda operatives incite open factional struggle through suicide bombings which target Shia holy places and innocent civilians. Thousands of attacks target US Military Forces (2900 IED's) a month—primarily stand off attacks with IED's, rockets, mortars, snipers, and mines from both Shia (EFP attacks are a primary casualty producer) —and Sunni (85% of all attacks—80% of US deaths—16% of Iraqi population.) over 2,30,000 soldiers from America only add to the misery.

According to American Progress, “ Three months into the President Bush's Iraq escalation strategy, the American people continue to lose "faith in [his] conduct of the war." Just last week, the House passed legislation calling for a major withdrawal of troops, and the Senate passed similar legislation. But Bush continues his defiant support of the escalation plan, ignoring the calls for change from both the American and international communities. In a speech on the Iraq war , Bush extolled his own policies. "American forces are now deployed 24 hours in these neighborhoods, and guess what's happening. The Iraqi people are beginning to gain confidence," he said. But a BBC/ABC News poll this month revealed that only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in the U.S.-led coalition troops and almost 90 percent "say they live in fear that the violence ravaging their country will strike themselves and the people with whom they live." On the domestic front, support for the escalation has dropped to new lows. A new Gallup poll shows that only 29 percent of Americans believe the escalation is working. "In addition, fully 80 percent of Americans 'endorse a requirement that U.S. troops meet strict readiness criteria before being deployed to Iraq,' while 60 percent 'favor a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. troops from' Iraq by fall 2008.'" Even the hallmark of Bush's Iraq strategy -- the transfer of power from U.S. forces to Iraqi security forces -- is collapsing. In hearings before the House Armed Services Committee this week on the training of Iraqi security forces, one witness said, "I have seen us rush under-trained, under-equipped, and inexperienced [Iraqi] units into combat and missions for which they were not ready. I have seen us basically create a force that can sometimes win, but is not ready to hold, and is certainly not ready to build." On the ground, the escalation has caused a displacement in violence to new areas of the country. With a failing strategy that costs the United States more and more each day, the case for strategic redeployment has never been stronger.”

Three million Iraqis are internally displaced or have fled the country to Syria and Jordan. Professionals are going into self-imposed exile—a huge brain drain that imperils the ability to govern. The Maliki government has little credibility among the Shia populations from which it emerged and is despised by the Sunni as a Persian surrogate. It is believed untrustworthy and incompetent by the Kurds. There is no function of government that operates effectively across the nation— not health care, not justice, not education, not transportation, not labor and commerce, not electricity and not oil production.

There is no province in the country in which the government has control  The government cannot spend its own money effectively. ($7.1 billion sits in New York banks.) No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO, nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi—without heavily armed protection. The police force is feared as a Shia militia in uniform that is responsible for thousands of extra-judicial killings. There is no effective nation-wide court system. There are in general almost no acceptable Iraqi penal institutions. The population is terrorized by rampant criminal gangs involved in kidnapping, extortion, robbery, rape, massive stealing of public property.

American public as well the people elsewhere are invariably being persuaded to ‘support’ the Bush administration’s actions through the only outlet they have, one that exists in the 'Looking-glass' world of the media itself, whereby 'opinion polls' of various sorts, are used to reinforce an interpretation of the world that has already been created by the 'news' in the first place. But it's not only 'opinion' polls; it's the very nature of 'news' coverage itself. The way it works is so obvious it verges on the ludicrous, yet it works as the reams of analysis of state/corporate news coverage reveals. Any hope! Yes the public does not support this senseless war any more and is protesting loudly.

BACK

Punjab: Old Stratagems and New Tantrums

A common Punjabi who enthusiastically voted a new Akali-BJP combination must have been wondering as to what has happened to the rosy promises presented just a month back. Why the old favourite song of river water distribution and Chandigarh should be transferred to Punjab is being repeated with such vigour? Why Punjab is being pushed back to 1979 and why did Prakash Singh Badal forget these demands when he was chief minister between 1997-2002 when he shared power at the center. The issues were not drummed during the elections and suddenly these are being pushed the center stage?  And, above all, could we forget the consequences of such rabid approach and the resultant violence for over 15 years.

There is no denying that Punjab has suffered in its water share and the territorial transfer has taken place in an upright judicious manner. But several morchas, the political extremist movement and Akalis hobnobbing and pussyfooting are as much responsible the non fulfillment as a dishonest approach by successive central governments including the ones lead by Badal’s friend Atal Bihari Vajpai.

The Akalis were forced to retract their position in the Supreme Court on section 5 of the Act that recognised past distribution but rejected water sharing agreements. Baal had vowed to discard the clause that allowed water to the neighboring states and in order to save himself from any ignominy; he raked up the old Punjab Reorganization Act itself. He surely cut a sorry figure in the assembly when tied to evade the straight question as to why two positions, one in Punjab and the other in the court. Clearly BJP leadership has told him to avoid divisive politics on the water and other issues. But then he found another broken stick from his arsenal to beat the center.

And, pray how would these solve the ever-worsening agrarian crisis and stem the rising tide of unemployment. How would this approach help industrial growth, improve education and health services? Or is this new government already creating   alibis for its feared failures on development and good governance front.

BACK