What made this particular refugee claim newsworthy? Thousands of refugee claims are processed in Canada every year that are the result of violent racial discrimination and oppression. Why was Huntley’s case singled out as newsworthy… was it because he is caucasian? Is it SO rare that a white person from another country applies for refugee status as to make it newsworthy? Is it really that rare; are white people universally privileged and immune from racial oppression? Oh, but wait… this story gets better!

Huntley’s refugee claim is now under review after last week’s media coverage. Why, you ask? No, it’s not because his claim of being violently attacked is being investigated; and no, it’s not because the voracity of his claim is being challenged. In response to the media coverage of Huntley’s case, the South African government released a statement saying that “white South Africans live in peace”. So, the Canadian government, apparently taking this statement at face value, has put his claim in review. Why would he need refugee status if his government says that you all live in perfect harmony?

The legitimacy of Huntley’s claim aside, I find the statement made by the S.A. government to be just a tiny bit ludicrous. Is there a population in ANY country where an entire demographic of people live in total peace with one another? Moreover, why hasn’t the mainstream media picked up on the larger story? If the government is seriously saying that the white population of South Africa lives in peace, are they not indicating that white people are immune to the corruption and turmoil that has existed in South Africa for so long?

It seems to me that this is a topic that should be questioned endlessly – else we conclude that the most overt example of white-skin privilege can be found in South African, and be endorsed by our own government as it tosses out a refugee claim because Huntley is white – and therefore “lives in peace”.

Any thoughts?

Regina has had a whole host of amazing events this summer, from classical performances to AC/DC. The problem is that it often costs a great deal of money to attend. They are exclusionary when they are supposed to bring people together. While events often have larger corporate or business sponsors, for the first time Regina’s city council stepped up to the plate to the tune of $25,000.

Kudos, city council, kudos! This is exactly the type of event that the city needs to not only encourage, but also facilitate. Free presentations of the arts, no matter what the medium bring out the vibrancy of this city. It is my fervored hope that the City of Regina uses the success of this event as a reason to support such endeavors in the future. I think it’s fantastic that our municipal politicians felt it worthy to invest in a great event that was open to everyone. A tip of my hat to all those involved in putting on Symphony Under the Sky, and for making it such an enjoyable day – the rain that fell during the outdoor performance was just as classic as the Symphony itself!

There’s a new buzz word that I really dig that’s being used to describe this conundrum – eco-discrimination. The hot topics of the day, such as the unanimous (albeit grudgingly) support in the Saskatchewan Legislature of nuclear power, or the equally hot debate surrounding Regina’s new stadium, often neglect that massive amounts of discrimination go into decisions like these. Especially when it comes to location – and the consequences are grave.

There’s a reason that Regina’s landfill is located just outside the city, right by our penitentiary. No one wanted a damn landfill in his or her neighbourhood. The consequences? Environmental standards require that garbage dumps be built on top of at least 8-10 feet of clay when they’re in proximity to a water supply or aquifer. Regina’s landfill is built above only 2 feet of clay, putting an aquifer that supplies vast numbers of Regina citizens with water at risk. It was viewed as the only acceptable place… and we will pay the price.

Mosaic Stadium, home of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, was built in one of the lowest income communities in Regina. Why? Because these citizens had little means of protesting it – unlike the successful protests that prevented the stadium being built elsewhere. Moreover, let’s set aside the accompanying noise levels for a moment. Stadiums have the ability to bring communities together with sport and cultural events – if they can afford to go to them. So, how nice for little Timmy or Suzie, getting to watch all the people going to events in the stadium across the street that they don’t have the money to attend. Does anyone else see the irony here?

As a last example of eco-discrimination, take the Saskatchewan government’s newfound collective support for nuclear power. Numerous Indigenous communities are bracing themselves for the inevitable battle for environmental and human rights. The fact remains that many lucrative, beneficial, yet environmentally invasive projects are situated incredibly close to Indigenous communities whose opinions are neither valued nor wanted by industry or government. One needs only to look to natural resource industry for existing examples.

Location matters – both of those making the decisions, but also the communities that will be affected. We must think critically about why certain locations are chosen for projects like stadiums and power plants, and who comprises the communities that live in proximity. Eco-discrimination takes many forms, but the underlying commonality is that it takes advantage of communities with little recourse to defend their rights. If you are in favour of Regina’s new stadium or prospective nuclear power plant, I ask you – whose backyard should they be built in?

Additionally, I do think what Saskatchewan’s ruling party is doing presents a good opportunity to have broader conversations and debates. Such as a newly invigorated examination of how to reconcile Canada’s Freedom of Religion with our equally important right to be free from discrimination, as legally outlined in Section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Before we go and spout off about how right or wrong same-sex marriage is, let us remember that it is a legal right both to marry the person of one’s consensual choosing, but also to be free from hateful commentary about an indemonstrable part of their identity. This has been clearly stated by the highest law of Canada, and I would humbly submit that our government has bigger fish to fry.

 It’s a day of pride! No matter what you take away from this brief post, know that I love Canada passionately – for this is true. We have so much beauty, so much prosperity as a whole. Don’t think that I didn’t toast my country with a pint tonight… I did! I’m one of the luckiest people of in the world because I get to wake up in Canada; and I’m certainly very privileged.

 However, July 1^st is also a day of reflection. Canada has a repugnant, violent, and often invisible history. Canada was not founded by noble pioneers that lived off the land in the face of all odds. Nor was it a mosaic of culture or a project of multiculturalism that succeeded. Canada was founded on the violent misappropriation of Indigenous land. It was founded on the backs of those people that still experience marginalization and poverty to this day.

 Do I toast my country on the eve of its birthday? Sure. Do I remember that I only have as much privilege as I do because of colonialism, both historic and contemporary? You better believe it.

 I would argue that our legal system is designed to serve certain people and not others. Take the most basic of facts – if you are going to enter into a court case, you need time and you need money. Competent lawyers cost a lot of money; hell even incompetent lawyers cost a lot of money! Planning a court case and then going to court takes an incomprehensible amount of time – most of which is spent being apprehensive and stressed out. Most people simply can’t afford the time and money it takes to see a court case through – which can take years.

 The very succinct point that I’m trying to make is that when rights are violated, some people have more recourse than others do. The impoverished are only one of those demographics that feel the intolerable sting of injustice. It leads to less dignity and recognition of the inherent humanity in the person/people to which the infamous scales of the law do not tilt toward. It’s just a thought… ; D

Here’s where it gets more interesting… the teacher then calls Child and Family Services (CFS) to investigate the wellbeing of the girl (who also has a younger brother) at home. Lo and behold, when the CFS workers get to the girl’s home, they find all sorts of repugnant crap – anti-Semitic flags, white supremacy literature and posters hanging on the walls, all in all your basic “turn me into a total racist bain on society” environment.  The CFS workers removed the children.

Now, this is huge! This is the first case of child protective services removing children from a home based on racism. Is this a legitimate action? There is currently a custody hearing taking place to answer that very question. The girl’s stepfather has filed a constitutional challenge, claiming that his freedom of speech was violated. Is it his right as a parental figure to choose what to teach his children? What are the reasonable limits of that freedom?

Oh, I’ll be making several posts on this one!