Watching CPAC today, they were asking people in Halifax to comment on Harper's libel suit against Dion over the Cadman Affair. Someone said "They're like kids in a playground - he said, she said - I think they've got to grow up and start to govern." My thoughts exactly.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Do What I Say...and what I do
Senator Barack Obama travelled to Africa in recent months on a trip that mixed business, as well as a chance for him to return to his hometown with his wife, daughters and sisters. The Passionate Eye (a CBC program) aired a documentary about his trip. There is a brief synopsis at http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_230308b.html.
This is just a very quick entry to highlight that he is one leader who leads with words and with actions; one example being that he was tested for HIV/AIDS with his wife, publicly, in Kenya. In a country where 6.7% of the population has AIDS and there are 1 million children orphaned by AIDS, the importance of testing cannot be understated. Too many people, too many children have gotten sick, and testing is a major means of fighting back. As Obama said, “knowing my HIV status puts me in charge of my health.” It also puts people in a position to seek treatment, and to slow the spread. “If a US senator and his wife can get tested, than everyone in this crowd can.” Countless Kenyans were interviewed, all who said the value of Obama’s action was significant: one person said “if Obama got tested, I want to get tested too”. An aid worker said “Obama taking test here is such an encouragement to the population, especially the men, who don’t often come for tests.”
Visiting a microlending project, he said “What’s missing is not good or a powerful work ethic, but what’s missing is access to capital.” For a leader of a developed nation to say this is for the West to acknowledge what is needed isn’t know-how, but money to facilitate projects. As well, he paralleled this to needs in America, something else that is unprecedented.
In a Darfurian refugee camp on the Sudan/Chad border, Obama said “I’m just visiting the camp to find out how people are doing”. He listened to people at the camp, as well as the leaders, all of whom were men. After meeting with them, he said “I believe very strongly that women’s rights have to be protected. I think it’s very important than even when the UN force is put in place that women are protected from violence in the ways that have happened in the past.”
All of these show that Obama has thought about the issues that are facing Africa, and that he wants to understand them. It isn't just about what's politically salient and if its Black History Month or World Water Day or another celebrity has said we need to do something about Africa. Obama has a solid head on his shoulders, but also a heart for people. This is the kind of leader I want as a role model for society. One who listens, one with compassion, and one who leads with actions and words. And being the impressive orator he is, if his actions are even half as good as his speaking, he’s still miles ahead of all the others.
Louise Arbour: Job Well Done
Tonight on CBC, an interview Louise Arbour, the current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, a former Supreme Court judge and a highly esteemed Canadian aired. She was being interviewed as her term comes to an end in July, after a few years at the UN.
She has done exceptional work, and her work has included developed countries, such as the US, rather than solely developing countries. She worked tirelessly and refused to say she had accomplished enough, especially in the context of Darfur. Her comment on Tibet is as follows: “The bottom line is China is ready to open its door to 30,00 foreign journalist in August, why can’t it open its doors to 1 or 2 foreign journalists in Tibet now when the world is equally interested as to what is happening in Tibet as it will be on what will be happening during the Olympics. I mean that I think is the main question” and I agree wholeheartedly.
Despite this, Harper instructed the government not to comment on her work as UN High Commissioner, despite the fact that she's pushed the boundaries and pushed the UN and other countries to actually protect the human rights to which they have committed. Nearly every other country has congratulated her for her contributions. Except ours - and hers. What ever happened to Canada as upholders of human rights and democracy and peace keeping?
Conservatives, that's what.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Teaching the Holocaust...or not
Across Canada, the Holocaust is widely accepted as fact; not too many people object to the teaching of the Holocaust as a devastating event, never to be repeated. That said, there are individuals who dispute that the Holocaust was related to Nazi anti-Semitism and that the Nazi government perpetrated 12 million deaths in its concentration camps. Known as 'Holocaust deniers', they publish and promote propaganda that challenges one of the gravest atrocities of time.
A recent report in Britain, "Teaching Emotive and Controversial History", published by The Historical Association with funding from the Department of Education, documented a trend of teachers shying away from teaching the Holocaust in instances where there was opposition, or the prescribed events conflict with viewpoints of local religious institutions or other organized groups. It is being portrayed in some circles as a system-wide policy-driven decision; however, that is not the case. It is very few individual teachers. However, this does not make it less worrisome. The report offers several recommendations of 'lighthouse' practices for the education system as a whole to support the teaching of so called "emotive and controversial history". While it awareness of different experiences is key to all effective teaching, we cannot shy away from the reality of events such as the Holocaust because of opposition. In fact, it is those cases where it is most important to teach it, and to emphasize both the reality and its lessons in terms of human dynamics, tolerance, respect and the need for individuals to engage in the world around them.
The Holocaust isn't the only thing that some teachers shy away from - there are many genocides - the Armenian genocide and the Rwanda genocide - that are left out of curriculum. History isn't the only thing that is left out of curriculum because it is contentious. Social justice issues - current treatment of Aboriginals, immigrants, the queer community, welfare recipients, stereotyping, violence against women to name a few - are just some of the things Ontario curriculum overlooks. There is room for these things to be taught, but it is at the discretion of individual teachers, and only in certain courses. While not all learning occurs in schools, these issues, which are fundamentally important to today's societies, should be included in what we are teaching. We are failing history, ourselves and our students by excluding controversy from schools.
Check it out yourself:
-TEACH Report: http://www.haevents.org.uk/PastEvents/Others/Teach%20report.pdf
A recent report in Britain, "Teaching Emotive and Controversial History", published by The Historical Association with funding from the Department of Education, documented a trend of teachers shying away from teaching the Holocaust in instances where there was opposition, or the prescribed events conflict with viewpoints of local religious institutions or other organized groups. It is being portrayed in some circles as a system-wide policy-driven decision; however, that is not the case. It is very few individual teachers. However, this does not make it less worrisome. The report offers several recommendations of 'lighthouse' practices for the education system as a whole to support the teaching of so called "emotive and controversial history". While it awareness of different experiences is key to all effective teaching, we cannot shy away from the reality of events such as the Holocaust because of opposition. In fact, it is those cases where it is most important to teach it, and to emphasize both the reality and its lessons in terms of human dynamics, tolerance, respect and the need for individuals to engage in the world around them.
The Holocaust isn't the only thing that some teachers shy away from - there are many genocides - the Armenian genocide and the Rwanda genocide - that are left out of curriculum. History isn't the only thing that is left out of curriculum because it is contentious. Social justice issues - current treatment of Aboriginals, immigrants, the queer community, welfare recipients, stereotyping, violence against women to name a few - are just some of the things Ontario curriculum overlooks. There is room for these things to be taught, but it is at the discretion of individual teachers, and only in certain courses. While not all learning occurs in schools, these issues, which are fundamentally important to today's societies, should be included in what we are teaching. We are failing history, ourselves and our students by excluding controversy from schools.
Check it out yourself:
-TEACH Report: http://www.haevents.org.uk/PastEvents/Others/Teach%20report.pdf
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Born into Brothels
Tonight I chose to watch the documentary "Born into Brothels". Its about a Londoner moving into India's infamous Red Light District to document the lives of women living there. Quickly, it turns into a story of her teaching the children photography and trying to find places for them in schools.
Essentially, because their parents are sex workers (criminals, in the eyes of the government), many schools would not take them . As well, it made it challenging to acquire necessary documents - birth certificates, passports, etc. Even worse, schools required negative HIV tests before they would accept the students. The stigma of HIV in India must be huge, as here we know (although we don't always practise) that HIV is cannot be transmitted through casual contact. The school the journalist found for the girls would not allow the girls to go home, even for things such as a new birth, or a death, or a wedding. They were allowed visitors and had scheduled 10 day breaks three times per year. Yet school is the only way for these children to have a chance to become something other than a sex worker. The girls, even at 10, understood this, as did their mothers. The boys too understood this reality.
In the end, most of the children were not allowed to go to school (by their families), or left school, some, according to their own will, and others at the insistence of their families. The documentary only portrayed the one girl who stayed in school in a positive light. The journalist was upset with the children because some were resistant to all her help, including one boy who became less engaged after losing his grandmother. She can be frustrated that she can't do more, but she cannot except that placing them in schools which give them little freedom will solve all their problems. Education can help break poverty cycles, but these children still need their families. In this case, it may be more that their families need them: these children are very aware of the challenges their families face daily, even just in having food to eat. They know that by being at school, they are not contributing to their family's income, and are in a safer, cleaner and healthier place. It seems that they carry a certain amount of guilt. And so, for the most part, they end up back in the brothels from which they came.
What does all of this say about the world? About breaking poverty cycles and development? The West doesn't have the answers and the problems go so much deeper than can be captured on film or in words. Families have to be the focus of solutions, not just children. Schools have to allow children flexibility, and more importantly, the world needs to care for their families. Women should not ever need to sell themselves to give their families the basics, nor should children have to shoulder the burden of providing for their family. That kind of poverty is unnecessary in a world were so many have so much.
Essentially, because their parents are sex workers (criminals, in the eyes of the government), many schools would not take them . As well, it made it challenging to acquire necessary documents - birth certificates, passports, etc. Even worse, schools required negative HIV tests before they would accept the students. The stigma of HIV in India must be huge, as here we know (although we don't always practise) that HIV is cannot be transmitted through casual contact. The school the journalist found for the girls would not allow the girls to go home, even for things such as a new birth, or a death, or a wedding. They were allowed visitors and had scheduled 10 day breaks three times per year. Yet school is the only way for these children to have a chance to become something other than a sex worker. The girls, even at 10, understood this, as did their mothers. The boys too understood this reality.
In the end, most of the children were not allowed to go to school (by their families), or left school, some, according to their own will, and others at the insistence of their families. The documentary only portrayed the one girl who stayed in school in a positive light. The journalist was upset with the children because some were resistant to all her help, including one boy who became less engaged after losing his grandmother. She can be frustrated that she can't do more, but she cannot except that placing them in schools which give them little freedom will solve all their problems. Education can help break poverty cycles, but these children still need their families. In this case, it may be more that their families need them: these children are very aware of the challenges their families face daily, even just in having food to eat. They know that by being at school, they are not contributing to their family's income, and are in a safer, cleaner and healthier place. It seems that they carry a certain amount of guilt. And so, for the most part, they end up back in the brothels from which they came.
What does all of this say about the world? About breaking poverty cycles and development? The West doesn't have the answers and the problems go so much deeper than can be captured on film or in words. Families have to be the focus of solutions, not just children. Schools have to allow children flexibility, and more importantly, the world needs to care for their families. Women should not ever need to sell themselves to give their families the basics, nor should children have to shoulder the burden of providing for their family. That kind of poverty is unnecessary in a world were so many have so much.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)