On September 5, over 50 activists gathered at the Lemay architecture firm offices to protest the construction of the new Laval migrant prison. In 2017, Lemay obtained a five million dollar federal contract to design the plans for the facility and activists have been protesting it since. The project was announced in August 2016 by the Liberal government; Public Security Minister Ralph Goodale explained that $138 million dollars would be invested to build two new facilities, one in British Columbia and one in Quebec. While the Trudeau government was elected for supposedly having a welcoming immigration policy, it has clearly not lived up to its campaign promises. Currently, there are three migrant “detention centres” in Canada: one in Laval, one in Toronto, and one in Vancouver, administered by the Canada Border Service Agency. Migrants are also imprisoned in regular and maximum-security prisons across the country. From April 2014 to March 2015, 6,768 immigrants were detained, 2,366 of whom were released and 3,325 deported from Canada.

The announcement was justified by a need to create a “fairer and more humane immigration detention system.” The inhumane conditions that exist within those migrant prisons were not addressed, neither were the multiple deaths and illegal solitary confinement that have repeatedly occurred in the existing prisons. The Laval project costs an astronomical $56 million, and will be able to imprison 133 migrants, with a maximum capacity of 158 when extra overflow cots are added. This is an extension of the current holding facility that exists in Laval, which can hold 144 migrants. The prison is planned to open in 2021 and is located at 600 Montée Saint-François, a kilometer away from the current provincial detention facility. The rhetoric of the Liberal government has been to present this prison as a positive improvement compared to the current one, which was built in the 1950s, rather than as the massive investment in the further policing and criminalizing of migrants and racialized people in Canada.

Detaining immigrants in prison for indefinite periods of time is an abhorrent practice that takes place all too often in Canada.

In the plans designed by Lemay, which were revealed in a report released by the Canadian Border Service Agency (CBSA) in 2017, the facility is described as having a “warm and homey feeling.” The report describes a facility which follows sustainability standards, has a LEED certification and is environmentally friendly; it further describes “children playing areas” which will “only be surrounded by a one-metre fence similar to a daycare facility.” This new migrant prison, which subjects migrants and asylum seekers to inhumane conditions, will be detaining children and separating families, all while presenting it in a palatable manner. The emphasis on sustainability is essentially greenwashing; a prison remains a prison, no matter how environmentally friendly it is. It is part of a larger movement of rebranding of migrant prisons as “reformed” and aesthetically attractive, in order to conceal their harmful nature.

The new “detention centres,” regardless of how the government attempts to masquerade them as humane, are simply a continuation of racial profiling in law enforcement, xenophobia, and the practice of detaining undocumented immigrants indefinitely; that is, a prison. The new facility would be located next to three existing prison complexes, where immigrants are already being detained without trial. In 2018, over 1,500 immigrants were detained in maximum-security provincial prisons, typically on the grounds that they were “unlikely to appear for their immigration hearing.” Detaining immigrants in prison for indefinite periods of time is an abhorrent practice that takes place all too often in Canada; many detainees are held for a few weeks, but sometimes their cases can drag on for several months or years. For example, Kashif Ali, a West African man, spent seven years in prison, sometimes in solitary confinement, without a release date, because the government could not deport him. Amy Darwish, an organizer with Solidarity Across Borders, condemns the project: “For the people on the inside, it doesn’t matter if there are leaves on the window, if you’re going to be separated from the people that you care about,” she says. “It doesn’t matter if the building is more energy efficient if you’re going to be deported back to a situation of danger. At the end of the day, this is a facility that’s aimed to facilitate deporting people.”

The emphasis on sustainability is essentially greenwashing; a prison remains a prison, no matter how environmentally friendly it is. It is part of a larger movement of rebranding of migrant prisons as “reformed” and aesthetically attractive, in order to conceal their harmful nature.

Sylvie Freeman, a prison abolitionist in Montreal, argues that the design of the new facility reflects an attempt at prison reform, which only strengthens the prison-industrial complex. “Often reformers are potentially well-intentioned, but every time reforms actually go through, they get co-opted. It just seems like prison reform always leads to an extension of the prison-industrial complex.” Carmelo Monge, an activist who was formerly detained in the Surveillance Centre for Immigration (CSI), argues, “the government claims that building ‘better’ prisons for ‘suspect’ immigrants is the answer, but the real problem is that we are treated like criminals; firstly by the very fact of being arrested. This is really what affects us. Why are they stopping us? Why are we suspicious in the eyes of the state? It is almost always our skin colour, our apparent poverty, and our accent that betray us. It is almost always on the basis of our image that we are stopped in the street. Being undocumented is not a pleasure. It’s hard. You need support, not to be arrested or imprisoned. Although the cage is golden, it remains a prison.”

Since the announcement, multiple protests and direct actions have been organized by activists, targeting mainly the complicit private contractors who have rendered the project possible. In May 2018, crickets were released in the Lemay offices to protest its designing of the plan. While the company claims that to be “socially responsible,” with “human interests” at heart in every project, their complicity in the inhumane detention of migrants and asylum seekers suggests otherwise. In March 2019, the windows of the sales office of a condo tower designed by Lemay in Montreal were smashed, and another condo development in the city was “redecorated” with spray paint by activists.

“The government claims that building ‘better’ prisons for ‘suspect’ immigrants is the answer, but the real problem is that we are treated like criminals.” — Carmelo Monge

In February 2019, the excavation company Loiselle’s offices in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield were covered in white paint and tagged with “No to the Migrant Prison.” The company was given the contract for decontaminating the future’s facility site before the construction started. On February 17, the first rally was organized by the organization Ni Frontières, Ni Prisons (No Borders, No Prisons); over 100 people marched from Saint-Henri metro to the Lemay offices. Three days later, another protest was organized, this time at the current CSI in Laval.

On May 1, International Labour Day, the annual anti-capitalist demonstration in Montreal chose to focus on the new migrant prison. The Convergence des Luttes Anti-Capitalistes in Montreal, who were part of the march, said on their website that they were targeting the prison and Lemay to oppose “capitalist and racist forces [who] build the walls of a Canada and USA fortress, making work and life conditions more and more dangerous and precarious for migrants.” According to The Link, over 200 protesters threw rocks and launched projectiles at Lemay’s Le Phoenix head office. Adeel Hayat from Solidarity Across Borders explained at the protest that “after crossing that fucking border about 60km South of here, people seeking asylum after months or years of homelessness are put in Canadian prisons, conveniently renamed ‘detention centres,’ to give them a more humane appearance.”

In June 2019, two acts of protest were carried out by activists, targeting cars belonging to Englobe enterprise and Lemay. Englobe is one of Canada’s largest firms, specializing in environmental engineering. It carried out the sanitation assessment for the future site of the prison; in response, one of the company’s cars was smashed, its tires slashed and tagged with the “No Migrant Prison” slogan. Activists on the Montreal Counter-Information website claimed responsibility for the act as an “easy and effective way of protesting” the company’s complicity in the project. On June 11, Lemay’s Vice-President André Cardinal’s BMW was torched in the city west end.

While [Lemay]  claims that to be “socially responsible,” with “human interests” at heart in every project, their complicity in the inhumane detention of migrants and asylum seekers suggests otherwise.

The contractor, who was given the $50 million federal contract for the construction of the prison by CBSA, was revealed in July 2019, sparking further protests over the summer. The company, Tisseur Inc., a construction company based in Val David, attempts to present itself as a socially responsible company, highlighting environmentally conscious projects on their website, while being complicit in the violent displacement and imprisonment of migrants in Canada. A family-friendly, information-picket protest was organized at their offices in August, where Amy Darwish from Solidarity Across Borders stated that “by agreeing to work on this project, Tisseur is profiting from the imprisonment of migrants and refugees” and that the goal of protest was to “talk to their workers about why there is widespread opposition to this project and why it is also an anti-worker project.”

These different acts of civil disobedience have all had a similar goal of both raising awareness around the new prison and actively opposing it. Activists have taken what they see as necessary steps to oppose a violent, inhumane facility, regardless of consequences. Direct action, especially now that the construction has effectively started despite widespread opposition, should be supported. These groups, which are often painted as “anarchists” or “extremists” by the mainstream media, have taken a strong antiprison stance, and we recognize the necessity of active opposition to such state violence.

The new migrant prison will replace the existing CSI in Laval. The government has attempted to justify the project by claiming that the new “detention centre” will have better ventilation, a playground for detained children, a TV room, better beds, and the separation of immigrants from prisoners. The government also claims that this will avoid criminalizing detained immigrants and respect their rights. However, this does not refute the fact that, regardless of living conditions, the very practice of targeting, arresting, and detaining immigrants is racist, dehumanizing, and detrimental to the well-being of migrants and their families. Immigration officers in plain clothes have allegedly been randomly conducting ID checks on the street in Toronto, though the CBSA has denied conducting street checks. Given the police and immigration services’ record of racial profiling, racialized immigrants are more likely to be targeted and arrested.

These groups, which are often painted as “anarchists” or “extremists” by the mainstream media, have taken a strong antiprison stance, and we recognize the necessity of active opposition to such state violence.

Moreover, the administration of these prisons by the CBSA is inherently harmful to migrants. The CBSA, while claiming not to be a prison force, adopted a new uniform for officers working with detained immigrants that includes highly defensive and militarized gear, such as bulletproof vests, batons, pepper spray, and handcuffs, which further contributes to the dehumanization and treatment of detainees as criminals despite not having committed a crime. The CBSA is also a body that is subject to little to no independent oversight. CBC News also reported in February that around 1,200 allegations of CBSA staff misconduct were made between January 2016 and the middle of 2018, including alleged offences of sexual assault, criminal association, and harassment.

Moreover, detained migrants are not told where their family members are being held or how to contact them, and children separated from their loved ones can experience psychological distress, sometimes on top of existing trauma. Some formerly detained immigrants, especially children and women who were separated from their families, experience anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of their detainment. “Even short periods of detention are highly traumatic and detrimental to migrants’ health,” says Marlihan Lopez, Vice President of the Quebec’s Women Federation. “We denounce the government’s investment in infrastructure that upholds and reproduces violence against migrants.”

Each of these unnecessary deaths at the hands of the Canadian government have been handled with secrecy, leaving families without any information about what happened.

While most Canadians have called on the government to take a strong stance against the detainment of children in the United States at the hands of ICE following massive coverage of the horrifying practice, few are aware that Canada also detains children in so-called immigration centres. In 2018, over 160 children were detained in one of the three migrant prisons. While the government has stated that they will stop the practice of detaining children, the incorporation of a playground in the new migrant prison in Laval suggests otherwise. In November 2017, the government issued a “National Directive for the Detention or Housing of Minors,” which stated that it will reduce and eventually stop the practice of detaining children. However, the Candian Council for Refugees states that it is not enough, and calls for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to be amended to “end the detention of children, reserve children’s right to family unity by not detaining accompanying parents.” Further, the use of child removal, especially in racialized communities, has historically been a violent colonial tool of Canadian settler nation-building. The Union of BC Chiefs released an open letter to Trump and Trudeau condemning the separation of immigrant children from their parents. They called the action a violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, and stated that the detainment of children and separation of families is reminiscent of the policies of Indian residential schools in Canada and the US.

Furthermore, beyond the inhumane conditions and abuse happening within these prisons, at least 16 people have died at the hands of the CBSA since 2000. These deaths include the death of a 50-year-old woman at a maximum security prison in 2017; the death of Bolante Idowu Alo, who died in 2018 after an “altercation” with CBSA guards escorting him on a plane to be deported to Nigeria; the death of 39-year-old Francisco Javier Romero Astorga while in custody of the CBSA, whose family was only informed weeks later; the death of a 24-year-old man died in CBSA custody in Alberta; the deaths of Jan Szamko, 31, from Czech Republic; the death of Melkioro Gahungu, 64, from Burundi; the death of Abdurahman Hassan, 39, from Somalia; the death of Lucia Vega Jimenez, 42, from Mexico; and more whose names have not been released to the public. Each of these unnecessary deaths at the hands of the Canadian government have been handled with secrecy, leaving families without any information about what happened. Each of these must be condemned as state violence enacted against migrants, in migrant prisons that the government are now trying to rebrand as environmentally friendly, daycare-like centres.

The Union of BC Chiefs released an open letter to Trump and Trudeau condemning the separation of immigrant children from their parents […] and stated that the detainment of children and separation of families is reminiscent of the policies of Indian residential schools in Canada and the US.

The migrant “detention centre” in Laval is yet another prison making up the prison-industrial complex in Canada. First, Canada supports sanctions and egregious policies that destabilize countries and displace populations, only to detain those who are forced to migrate to Canada. These actions are predicated on racist and xenophobic ideologies that permeate every level of government in Canada. It is important to recognize that Canada’s immigration policies and practices are not removed from global systems of capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism. The outsourcing of labour, as well as Canadian mining projects in Latin America, exacerbate social inequality and political instability in the Global South. Moreover, Canada is complicit in US-led sanctions and imperialist interventions in Latin America and the Middle East, such as those in Cuba and Venezuela. Canada’s imperialist projects and colonial resource extraction abroad create unstable conditions in the Global South that displace people, who then migrate to Europe, the U.S., and Canada to seek asylum. Immigrants and their children are then criminalized by the state for not having the “proper” documentation and are faced with the threat of being deported.

Canada supports sanctions and egregious policies that destabilize countries and displace populations, only to detain those who are forced to migrate to Canada.

It is essential that we work towards abolishing all prisons, which includes refusing to allow new ones to be built. We must mobilize to stop the construction of the Laval migrant prison, as it will allow for the continued criminalization of racialized people. Many organizations have already begun mobilizing to try and halt construction, including the organization Solidarity Across Borders, which has been organizing weekly protests. They are also calling for a Day of Action on October 3, against Canada’s detention of migrants. We urge you to join these protests, while also keeping in mind the companies that are complicit in the construction of this prison. It is imperative that we put pressure on these companies through boycotts and public awareness, in order to help stop the migrant prison from being built.

The post No Borders, No Prisons appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The protests, which occur every Friday, have been taking place in symbolic locations all over Algeria. Estimates in March by France24 counted 10 to 15 million protesters in a country of 40 million people. The protests have called for more civil disobedience in the midst of an ongoing political crisis that involves both the government and the army. Protesters of all backgrounds have joined, ranging from students to older activists that were involved in the war of independence against France in the 1960s, like the famous activist Jamila Bouhired. Demonstrations have also been taking place around the globe, usually at Algerian consulates and embassies. In Montreal, demonstrations have been held since February, first at the Algerian Consulate on Saint-Urbain, and now at Place du Canada every Sunday.

After facing popular backlash when he filed as a candidate in early March, Bouteflika was forced to resign on April 9. The political elite, along with the Parliament, used Article 102 of the Algerian constitution, which allows for the removal of the President in case of the total inability to perform his duties due to a serious and lasting illness, to justify his resignation. This political move was clearly an attempt to save face for the government, who chose to sacrifice a few members of government to maintain legitimacy in a future election, rather than giving in to the people’s demand for an actual democracy.

The Algerian popular revolt, denounces the rigged and unfair election systems, and opposes another election until the government had been purged of the corrupt elite.

The Algerian political landscape is dominated by coalitions between politicians, major business actors, and the army, who form an opaque and corrupt power structure which has been in place for decades. Following Bouteflika’s resignation, and in accordance with the Algerian constitution, Abdelkader Bensalah, President of the Council of the Nation (Upper House), was named Interim President by the Parliament, despite being a known ally of the ousted former President. The Algerian constitution stipulates that an interim president can stay in power for up to 90 days, after which a new election must be organized. However, the Algerian popular revolt, also known as the Hirak movement, denounces the rigged and unfair election systems, and opposes another election until the government had been purged of the corrupt elite. On July 9, Bensalah announced he would remain as acting head of state.

Despite Bensalah’s nomination, the real leader of the corrupt Algerian system is General Gaid Salah. He is Algeria’s Vice Minister of Defense, and essentially acts as the head of the army. Over recent months, he has been conducting what has been called a “corruption purge” by the Western imperialist media. In practice, this means the incarceration of some of Algeria’s top officials, who also often happen to be his political rivals. This move is also motivated by the need to maintain some legitimacy in regards to the protesters, despite his involvement in the corrupt regime. Protesters have called for his deposition, and “Gaid Salah is with the traitors” has become a popular slogan during the Friday protests.

The Hirak movement has been largely organized through social media, specifically Facebook and YouTube. Rising stars amongst Algerian youth include Anes Tina and Raja Mezane, two YouTubers who produce content denouncing the corruption of the crony Algerian government. The military and the government are well aware of the influence the internet has had over protesters, and have already cut access to the internet twice since the beginning of the movement. The most recent occurrence happened on August 8, as a former member of the army called for the resignation of Salah, only for YouTube to be shut down by the state-run internet provider Algeria Telecom.

The military and the government are well aware of the influence the internet has had over protesters, and have already cut access to the internet twice since the beginning of the movement.

The demands of the people have evolved over months of protests. They have been laid out in an international statement of solidarity issued by Algerian Revolt, a group that reports on the Hirak movement on social media; protesters call “for an immediate end to military rule and the establishment of a civilian state; for the release of all political prisoners; to oppose and condemn repression and all forms of state violence.” Many political prisoners have been arrested, most of them for carrying flags of ethnic minorities within Algeria, including that of the Berber people. The Hirak movement has called for their immediate release as a condition for negotiation. The choice to use nonviolent protest and civil disobedience has largely been influenced by the recent memory of the civil war, which took place in Algeria between 1991 and 2002. While the protesters have stuck to this peaceful approach, the military’s response has included the use of tear gas and water cannons to disperse people.

The people also call “to oppose and condemn the provision of military, financial, diplomatic, and any other forms of assistance and intervention from imperialist governments and to oppose all concessions and contracts with foreign governments and multinational corporations until a legitimate and representative government is in place.” While Algeria officially gained independence in 1962, France’s imperialist influence in the country is still rampant today. The business and political elite in Algeria have maintained power by cooperating with the neocolonial French elite; most of the corrupt members of the Algerian army and government also own countless assets in France.

The people also call “to oppose and condemn the provision of military, financial, diplomatic, and any other forms of assistance and intervention from imperialist governments…”

France’s presence in the country is primarily motivated by unfair and exploitative oil deals which reproduce patterns of colonialism. Protesters have called for a removal of the hizb frança, or Party of France, which includes all the actors they see as key in the imperialist influence of France. The Hirak movement has also denounced the army’s, specifically General Salah’s, subservience to the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which they see as an extension of US imperialism. The protests have also regularly featured Palestinian flags, despite the edict passed by Salah’s that bans flags that are not the national one. The Hirak movement has expressed solidarity with Palestinian and Sudanese uprisings as a collective movement of liberation that is not limited to Algeria.

We must stand in solidarity with the people of Algeria in their struggle for liberation and their call for a return to democracy. Elections have been expected to happen before the end of the year; however, protesters will not tolerate a rigged voting system and corrupt political elite for another 20 years. Western media’s portrayal of these protests as a renewed Arab Spring, or as a disorganized, leaderless movement, is actively harmful. We must remain alert and informed beyond a colonized, archaic way of reporting. You can show your support by going to weekly demonstrations, which happen at Place du Canada every Sunday at 11am. You can also sign and share the international statement of solidarity with the Algerian Popular Revolt.

The post Algerian Popular Revolt appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post Hands Off Venezuela appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Diet culture creates a link between your eating habits and your moral character. It’s not just about weight loss – it also takes the form of the categorization of food into “good” and “bad.” For instance, vegan diets, the cutting back of red meat, and juice cleanses are branded as “healthy,” whereas sugar, carbs, and fast food are considered “bad.” Diet culture doesn’t just falsely establish these categories as objective truths, it also links them to one’s value as a person. Therefore, if you eat “well,” and restrict your intake of “bad food,” you’re seen as having self-control and a higher moral character. This rhetoric is normalized even on campus – just think about how many times you hear people, especially women, glorify how little they’ve eaten during the day. Not eating for hours during finals is seen not only as normal, but as a sign of inner moral strength. This leads to the normalization of “cheat days,” “no sugar November” challenges, and the framing of carbs and sugar as indulgences that should be punished. Assigning morality to food choices creates the basis for disordered eating.

Something we often miss is that diet culture is perpetuated regardless of the actual “weight loss” outcome. If someone loses weight thanks to “clean eating” or detox products, they serve as a success story for the industry, and will advertise diet culture in good faith to their friends because of their personal experience. It doesn’t matter that the same program that worked for them could trigger an eating disorder for someone else, because it worked, didn’t it? When people inevitably gain back the weight they lost during those diets, they are once again characterized as lacking self-control. The fact that someone’s metabolism was altered, that their view on food was distorted, or that they physically cannot completely change the way they eat in the span of a “crash diet” is never brought up. Rather, overweight and fat people get categorized as “lazy,” and pushed into more extreme weight loss tactics. Diet programs sell images of what a successful, “post-diet body” should look like; more broadly, clean eating is often equated with thin bodies. These perceptions ignore the fact that some body types can never achieve the levels of thinness that are defined as acceptable, regardless of how much “effort” they put in.

Diet culture creates a link between your eating habits and your moral character

Diet culture also dictates what types of bodies are acceptable in society. Unhealthy levels of thinness are glorified and rewarded as proof of hard work, regardless of how they are achieved, while fatness is punished and equated to laziness and lack of self-control. The social capital that accompanies thinness is directly linked to the economic gain of the diet industry. The same companies that benefit from the hegemony of thinness also define the standards for “acceptable bodies.” This disdain for fat bodies becomes systemic under diet culture, as anyone who isn’t thin is automatically seen as not healthy and is shamed into silence.

Diet culture advertises “good,” “bad,” and “safe” foods without making these products accessible. For those who have the economic means, they contribute to the industry by shopping at overpriced, high-end “wellness” stores such as Whole Foods because it’s perceived as a responsible consumer choice. For the rest, they are shamed for consuming “bad” food and then sold diet products intended to “fix their bodies.” Evidently, diet culture is not an isolated phenomenon, and exists within a systemically oppressive society. By focusing on the shaming of women’s bodies, by making the “good” foods economically inaccessible to most, and by refusing to recognize that thinness is not a norm that all body types can achieve, it directly perpetuates sexism and classism.

Further, diet culture exploits oppressive gender norms to enforce certain eating habits on us; femininity is equated with food restriction while masculinity is supposed to be performed by overeating certain types of food. These broad standards then apply differently in relation to sexuality as well, wherein restriction and extreme thinness is encouraged and glorified amongst certain gay men’s circles, for example.

The same companies that benefit from the hegemony of thinness also define the standards for “acceptable bodies.”

Diet culture is usually denounced by shaming celebrities who use their influence to promote it. Jameela Jamil, who has made herself a spokesperson against diet culture, criticizes it by calling out the economic gain and hypocrisy of celebrities who advertise these products, but don’t even use them. Last year, she denounced the harmful effects of the detox tea promoted by public figures like Cardi B and the Kardashians, and urged people to not take advice “from women who know nothing about nutrition/basic advertising ethics.” While the exploitation of their young audiences, who often are not well-informed on the subject, is ethically wrong, this criticism doesn’t acknowledge the systemic ways in which these women also are exploited. Diet culture shames women, especially famous ones, into abiding by certain beauty standards to gain social recognition.

Focusing on criticizing the women who advertise diet tactics shifts the blame away from the people who created and capitalize on this “clean eating” and “detox” culture: white men. As argued by journalist Virginia Sole-Smith, it is “mostly white, mostly male, mostly thin food writers and chefs who have been setting the agenda of what they call the ‘good food movement’ for the past couple of decades.” The creators of the “famous diets” that started the clean eating movement were overwhelmingly rich, misogynistic white men, just like those who still directly benefit from women losing weight within the clothing and diet industries. For instance, the cookbooks and diet programs that regularly appear in bestseller rankings are written by men and then branded as healthy choices for women’s bodies.

Eating disorders do not emerge in a vacuum; they are rooted in the way we talk about eating as a morally charged topic, rather than a basic need, and in the way we glorify restriction and sell weight loss tactics to each other. The dismantling of diet culture will not be achieved by shaming women for internalizing these standards, but by refusing to let a misogynistic, exploitative industry dictate our eating habits.

The post Dismantling Diet Culture appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The first two weeks of November were marked by widespread outrage, as people denounced the exploitative use of inmates’ labour to defeat wildfires in northern California. Reportedly, over 1,700 inmates, including 58 minors, were involved in fighting active wildfires. Inmate firefighters are paid an average of $1.45 per day for their work, while regular firefighters earn an average of $35.51 per hour. The dangerous nature of firefighting, combined with the sensationalized images of the fires, have brought attention to, and compassion for, the inmates who are essentially coerced into these jobs for extremely low wages without any benefits. However, this superficial outcry ignores the underlying causes that allow the historic and ongoing systemic exploitation of inmates for capitalist gain within the prison system.

In 2016, US prisons yielded the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 2.29 million people incarcerated. Racist policies enforced by the police such as racial profiling, the war on drugs, or the three-strikes law, have led to the overrepresentation of Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people within prisons. Any discussion of exploitative prison labour must be contextualized within the larger capitalist exploitation of people of colour in the US.

In a capitalist carceral system, examining what is criminalized and what is not exposes its illegitimacy. Marginalized communities, such as racialized people, are systematically targeted by Criminal Codes and they disproportionately populate prisons. Yet businesspeople, murderous cops, racist lawmakers, and those who exploit and abuse workers continue to walk free, because the system is not configured to criminalize them. The intersection of racialization and capitalism results in corporations exploiting the prison population for their own profit. They capitalize on the fact that these communities are hidden from the public eye and have very limited options to organize and resist abuse.

The intersection of racialization and capitalism results in corporations exploiting the prison population for their own profit

Prison labour is legally protected by the US Constitution, as the 13th Amendment does not ban forced labour when it is used as “punishment for crime.” In that context, inmates are used to produce goods ranging from clothing, food, electronics, furniture for federal offices, and military material, in supposed “rehabilitation” programs. These incarcerated workers also provide labour for the maintenance of the prisons, such as cooking, cleaning and administrative paperwork for wages as low as $0.12 per hour. Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage in the US is $7.25 per hour. When not operated by federal or state agencies, the labour programs are carried out in private prisons operated by companies such as CoreCivic and GEO Group, with whom the government has had contracts since 1997. Private prisons function as for-profit businesses and maximize their profits by reducing the costs of prisoner accommodation, essentially continuously worsening the living conditions of inmates.

The exploitation of these workers is a billion dollar industry. The Federal Bureau of Prisons operates the Federal Prison Industries program, also known as UNICOR, which pays inmates an average of $0.90 per hour, while earning over $500 million in sales per year. Public prisons in the US have been providing labour for private corporations since 1979, when the government implemented the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP). This created a new source of extremely cheap labour for companies such as Walmart, Whole Foods, Verizon, and Victoria’s Secret. Corporations are allowed to lease factories in prisons and to exploit inmates to produce goods at rates they would likely never be able to get otherwise.

Prison labour is legally protected by the US Constitution, as [it] does not ban forced labour when it is used as “punishment for crime.”

Prisoners who wish to challenge the exploitation of their labour have virtually no legal options. Prisoners in the US are not allowed to unionize or engage in collective bargaining, according to the Supreme Court’s unjust decision in 1977. While US laws allow non-incarcerated workers to resist labour exploitation to some extent, the few rights they are granted are stripped once they enter the carceral system. Private prisons are not required to pay incarcerated workers living wages, which is in violation of international labour standards.

Prisoners in some US states are legally required to work and are punished when they refuse. Those who attempt to speak out against the gross mistreatment of prisoners under capitalism almost always end up facing solitary confinement or other disciplinary action. For example, Shoaib Ahmed, an inmate in one of the largest private prisons in the US, refused to work after his paycheque was delayed. To express his frustration, he encouraged other inmates to stop working alongside him. His refusal to work was met with ten days of solitary confinement, essentially coercing him into performing labour. This is in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the US, which prohibits slavery in all forms, including forced and compulsory labour.

This lack of legal protection for prison workers, alongside the punishment they face for speaking out against injustices, shows the systemic repression of dissenting voices. Prison workers are often not included in national labour movements, receiving little public support or aid. One of the only groups fighting for the rights of incarcerated workers is part of the International Workers of the World labour union. They supported the nationwide prison strikes organized by workers from August 21 to September 9, which called for improved conditions, an end to “life without parole” sentences, and the right to vote for Americans with felony charges, among other demands for basic human decency. The organizing of workers is constantly repressed by prison officials through disciplinary action such as solitary confinement, revoking communication privileges, and long-distance transfers. Amani Sawari, a representative for Jailhouse Lawyers Speak, stated that “it’s much harder for prisoners to attempt to defend their rights as workers because […] basic privileges like showers, edible food, clean clothes and […] toilet paper can be taken away in retaliation.” While some inmates have spoken in support of work programs in prison, they often support them because of the slightly better living conditions in out-of-prison work facilities and the reduced sentencing that comes with prison work. However, this system perpetuates coercive bargaining of basic human rights for cheap labour.

The mass incarceration of people in the US is directly linked to capitalism. The exploitation of prison labour generates billions of dollars of profit every year, and has become an incentive for both private prisons operators and the US government to increase the prison population. From 1925 to 1980, the incarceration rate in the US was 100 per 100,000. Following the implementation of the PIECP in 1979, the rate started growing rapidly, reaching 500 per 100,000 by 2010. This increase in prisoners, after the PIECP made it legal for prisons to provide labour for private corporations, shows the financial incentive that the government and private operators receive to keep people in prison. At a press conference, a Louisiana sheriff opposed a prisoner release program, claiming it would cost him “free labour” from some “good inmates.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) responded, stating that keeping inmates in prisons to exploit their free labour is “essentially slavery.”

The exploitation of prison labour generates billions of dollars of profit every year, and has become an incentive for both private prisons operators and the US government to increase the prison population.

The driving force behind these prison labour programs is the idea that it contributes to the rehabilitation of inmates. Many argue that prison labour will provide transferable skills useful for when inmates leave prison. They claim that giving prisoners a “purpose” prevents them from being idle and reduces violence within prisons by making them “responsible.” This argument shifts the focus away from the inherently exploitative nature of prison labour and is rooted in paternalism, infantilizing inmates, and robbing them of their agency. Once people enter the carceral system, they are dehumanized by being provided insufficient living conditions and being forced into labour. Even after leaving the carceral system, they face systemic barriers in the workplace. Inmate firefighters like the ones in California are trained and often coerced into this dangerous work, yet their prospects of continuing this work once they get released is nonexistent. Fire departments often prohibit people with criminal records from joining; for instance, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Fire Department stated that “someone who has been incarcerated and part of an inmate hand crew has no chance of employment with [their] agency.” Thus, the idea that prison labour is rehabilitory rather than exploitative is just pro-prison propaganda.

[special_issue slug=”police2018″ element=”footer”]

The post Prisons, Profit, Power Abuse appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post ASN: Apathetic, Stale, Neoliberal appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post Who Does the ASN Represent? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Representation in the media has advantages: it serves to raise awareness and break down stigmas about marginalized groups of people, and starts conversations about oppression in accessible ways.

However, advocating solely for representation supposes that representation in mainstream Western media will improve the lives of marginalized people. The rhetoric behind these calls for representation is that the inclusion of marginalized people in mainstream media, through the telling of meaningful stories, is meant to be empowering. Yet this assumption is made without any real empirical proof. Yes, representation is essential to a diverse society and, yes, representation today is infinitely better than two decades ago. However, while it is true that seeing Muslim women on TV can help reduce Islamophobic stigma, there is a difference between the positive impact that this representation has and the actual socio-economic benefits that it fails to create. The increasing presence of Muslim people in the media we consume did not reduce the rates of Islamophobic incidents in the United States or the level of employment discrimination they face. Similarly, while the recent representation of trans people in mainstream media through celebrities like Laverne Cox, or characters like Nomi on Sense8, does contribute to a deconstruction of the stereotypes about trans people, it did not prevent the number of deaths of transgender people in the United States from reaching an all-time high in 2017.

When activists rally around the idea that representation matters, they essentially advocate for large-scale, mainstream, Western-centric representation that will do little but make marginalized people relatable to dominant culture. Therefore, media like A Wrinkle in Time and Sense8, which are acclaimed for their portrayals of people of colour, are also produced with the enjoyment of white people in mind. Systemic oppression comes from the belief that white, Western culture is superior to others, and should have supremacy over other cultures. Our representation in mainstream media can therefore feel like a liberating experience, not just because we recognize ourselves, but because we receive the recognition we crave from the very people who alienate us. The creation of diverse stories in a media industry that is inherently oppressive isn’t liberating; it only attempts to fix a superficial aspect of systemic oppression by promoting diversity in the most visible spheres of society. Movies like Crazy Rich Asians or Love, Simon, which are hailed as “good representation” by mainstream coverage, do not bring anything revolutionary to the table. When these movies feature people of colour and LGBTQ+ people, but only present a representation based on white, Western, heterosexist storylines, they do not affect any change on society. If the representation we so often call for can only come through an oppressive mainstream platform, it is unclear how it can ever be liberating in itself.

However, while it is true that seeing Muslim women on TV can help reduce Islamophobic stigma, there is a difference between the positive impact that this representation has and the actual socio-economic benefits that it fails to create.

Additionally, representation in movies and shows is by definition temporary, and therefore only relevant for a limited amount of time. This impermanence prevents representation from creating long-lasting change. The momentum that surrounds certain TV shows and movies is nice while it lasts, but ultimately also enables people to consider themselves “allies” for having watched shows like Black-ish and Orange is the New Black. While it is exciting to see marginalized people excel on screen, the temporary nature of representation in mainstream media hinders anti-oppressive actions. In a capitalist system, representation also results in the commodification of resistance, rather than the creation of systemic change. When activists raise questions of diversity and oppression in society, capitalism manages to absorb these criticism and turn them into profitable media that will satisfy our desire for representation, without changing anything meaningfully. The movie industry makes billions of dollars every year, and the inclusion of representation stems from the knowledge that it will sell, not from an explicit desire to end the oppression of marginalized people. Oppressive media that exist within Western society creates, and funds, oppressive types of representation. This co-optation of the criticism of a sexist, homophobic, white supremacist, capitalist society through the creation of “quick-fix,” temporary representations does not achieve anything significant.

In a capitalist system, representation also results in the commodification of resistance rather than the creation of systemic change.

This is not to say representation shouldn’t be something we advocate for, but this supremacy of representation as an end goal rather than a tool in our activism is misleading and inefficient. The idea that representation can be an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, is not only deeply flawed, but also helps maintain the systemic alienation that marginalized people face in Western countries. Representation in an oppressive media system for the consumption of privileged people can’t be our sole aim. Effective resistance requires empowerment and real change, not just media representation. We also cannot co-opt radical criticism by advocating for representation in movies and shows without examining the systemic problems that create this oppression in the first place. The social, political and economic alienation of marginalized people, of people of colour, of LGBTQ+ people, of people with mental illnesses is not solely due to a lack of visibility; it comes from historical institutionalization of racism, sexism, homophobia, and ableism in Western society. When we, as activists, ignore this reality, we essentially enable oppressors to ignore it as well. Anti-oppressive initiatives should aim further than “representation in the media,” and if this advocacy for representation prevents us from creating meaningful change, then we need to stop giving it so much importance.

The post The Problem with Blockbusters appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Saudi government’s narrative has been shifting and unclear over the past month. It first denied that the death occurred in its consulate, then claimed that a fist-fight resulted in the journalist’s death, and finally announced on October 25 that the murder was in fact premeditated. Throughout this process, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman has continuously denied any involvement of the Crown and claimed there was no killing order issued by the government. Canada publicly denounced Khashoggi’s murder, calling for explanations and announcing there would be consequences while not committing to any actual sanctions. These meaningless, inconsequential words have become part of Canada’s standard response to human rights abuses.

These meaningless, inconsequential words have become part of Canada’s standard response to human rights abuses.

Over the years, Canada has tried to build an international reputation as a human rights defender. This positioning on the world stage has been made possible in part by the terrible human rights record of the United States. The constant comparison of Canada to the United States is not new; for years, their healthcare systems, laws, and human rights records have been judged in relation to one another. As a result, progressive initiatives by the Canadian government get extra media coverage and praise, and are publicized as an “example for Americans.”

Both the international community and Canadian residents have used this narrative to conveniently ignore human rights abuses perpetrated by Canada. Last August, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Freeland issued a statement condemning the imprisonment of women’s rights activists by the Saudi government, and urged for their immediate release. This public condemnation of Saudi Arabia was met with immediate backlash from the Saudi government. They not only expelled the Canadian ambassador but also halted any future business transactions, and forced Saudi students on government grants or scholarships in Canada to return to Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, on the international stage, Canada gained a great deal of legitimacy from this move. It released a statement reiterating that “Canada will always stand up for the protection of human rights, very much including women’s rights, and freedom of expression around the world.” However, after a month of confrontation, Canada quietly tried to fix its diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Foreign Minister Freeland announced she would meet with her Saudi counterpart at a United Nations meeting, and said: “I have been in close touch with [Saudi Foreign Minister] Adel [bin Ahmed al-Jubeir] all summer. We call each other on our cell phones.”

Canada has a 15-billion-dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia. It was signed in 2014 by the Conservative Harper government, and has been firmly upheld by the Liberals since their election in 2015. While they could have chosen to abandon the deal, they instead greenlighted it and started providing export permits in 2016. The arms deal allows a Canadian military company to sell 15 billion dollars’ worth of light armoured vehicles (LAVs) to Saudi Arabia. However, the full details relating to the vehicles being provided were sealed until this March, four years after the arms deal was signed. The CBC published a report which revealed that Canada’s arms sale to Saudi Arabia includes “heavy assault” vehicles, contrary to what the Canadian government had been implying until then. CBC reported that the deal included “928 of the most modern light armoured vehicles, known as the LAV 6,” which are essentially ready for combat in Saudi Arabia.

The implications of such a sale for countries in ongoing conflict with Saudi Arabia are extremely concerning. In Yemen, where the Saudi government has been leading an intervention since 2015, the reports of human rights abuses by Saudi forces against civilians are extensive and horrific. The United Nations has condemned the coalition, which has been accused of bombing civilians and schools and of recruiting child soldiers, along with other human rights violations.

As usual, the Canadian government has publicly condemned those abuses and provided 65 million dollars in aid to Yemen to help combat the humanitarian crisis. This only represents a hundredth of their $15-billion arms deal. In August 2017, videos were released which allegedly show Saudi soldiers using the Canadian-made vehicles against civilians. Canada is well aware that the vehicles being provided might be deployed against Yemeni civilians and announced it would “look into it and respond accordingly.” This vague statement includes no real commitment to action, proving Canada’s disinterest in upholding human rights abroad. Canada has the means to end this dangerous arms deal, which goes against the the Senate Committee on Human Rights’ recommendations concerning export controls. The committee advocates that Canada updates its Export Control List to prevent the sale of arms to countries where they would be used to commit human rights abuse.

The Liberals have claimed repeatedly that their hands were tied by a signed agreement and by the loss of 3,000 Canadian jobs that would occur if the deal was terminated. However, Global News reported that Harper’s government only approved “minor-level export permits for the vehicles,” and that it was the Liberal government who “signed off on $11-billion worth of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia.” While the number of lost jobs is significant, it seems obvious that the real concern is not about Canadian workers but about the immense profit that this deal has brought to the government.

The Canadian government has […] provided 65 million dollars in aid to Yemen. […] This only represents a hundredth of their $15-billion arms deal.

In the past weeks, despite allegations that the Saudi government murdered a journalist within their own consulate, Trudeau announced that he would not reconsider the deal. After pressure from human rights groups, he said on October 25 that Canada could suspend shipments of vehicles, while not cancelling the deal itself. Foreign Minister Freeland has also reiterated her argument that Canada’s commitment should “last longer than any government,” apparently having no regard for whether said commitment is participating in the systematic murder of Yemeni civilian by Saudi troops. Even worse, the Canadian ex-ambassador to Saudi Arabia publicly defended the deal, arguing that it was to be expected when selling arms to another country that they would use them to “defend themselves.” While Canada has “suggested [they are] looking for ways to cancel the arms contract without triggering the penalties,” those kind of vague excuses are why the deal’s cancellation is continually delayed. Ultimately, the lucrative aspect of the sale was incentive enough to ignore Saudi human rights abuse when it was approved four years ago, and apparently still is today.

Canada is not an advocate for human rights. It perpetuates human rights abuses in its own country against Indigenous populations, and has made clear that it will do the same on an international level. The Canadian Magnitsky law can, and should, be used in cases of “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” This law allows Canada to enforce punitive measures, bans, freezing of domestic assets, and other sanctions against foreign public officials or against the state as a whole. Economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia itself should be considered carefully, as the poorest and most marginalized part of the population usually end up bearing the brunt of those sanctions. However, Canada could choose to hold the Saudi government officials accountable. Canada could choose to end the arms deal, not only as a punishment to Saudi Arabia, but because its weapons are allegedly being used to murder civilians. Canada could choose to do all that and act with basic decency, if not dignity, regarding Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuse. It just won’t.

The post What is Canada Waiting For? appeared first on The McGill Daily.