Homeless in tents fight City of Toronto in court to remain in parks

© Provided by The Canadian Press

TORONTO — A group of homeless people will be in a Toronto court on Thursday seeking an interim order to allow them to remain in their tents until their constitutional challenge of an eviction order by the city is heard.

The group, which includes 14 men and women living in several encampments across the city, and their supporters have launched an application that asserts the city's eviction threats violate their rights.

At issue is a local bylaw that bans camping or living in parks after midnight. Enforcement provisions require 72 hours notice before an eviction, but the city has threatened to kick them out with less than 24 hours.

The city, meanwhile, said in court filings the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not entitle the group to live in parks.

"Parks are not places to live," the city said in court documents. "They are shared community resources, intended for shared use by all members of the public."

Selwyn Pieters, a lawyer representing the coalition, said the city has effectively stopped evicting those living in tents after the group launched the legal action in mid-July.

"The numbers in encampments have risen dramatically in the last few weeks and we expect it to get much worse as time goes on," Pieters said.

Hundreds of people began living in makeshift encampments throughout Toronto as they fled shelters for fear of contracting the novel coronavirus. The city initially put a moratorium on evictions in the parks due to the pandemic, but began clearing camps in May.

That led to standoffs between those living in the encampments and city workers, who sometimes showed up with heavy machinery to clear the sites.

The city is also undertaking a massive relocation effort by depopulating shelters, buying or leasing hotels and vacant buildings to house the homeless. The city says they have moved about 2,000 people into new shelters, hotels and community spaces and another 2,000 people have been moved into permanent housing — a 50 per cent increase from the same time last year.

In court documents, the city alleges the encampments are not safe.

"There have been frequent incidents of violence and human trafficking, fires, and unsanitary conditions in the various tent encampments in the city's parks," the city said.

Staffers have collected more than 10,000 used needles over a three-month period this summer, the city said.

It also said 13 of the 14 individuals in the case have been offered housing or shelter services and eight of the applicants accepted offers of hotel spaces and five of those remain there.

Pieters said forcing encampment residents to take whatever the city offers does not mean it can evict them if the residents refuse.

"Many of these temporary spots are far from the services these people need every day, so throwing them in midtown or Scarborough doesn't really help," Pieters said.

"There is a homeless crisis right now and this is about the city's subpar response to that during the COVID-19 situation."

The city disputed that claim.

"The city's efforts have been extraordinary in helping find shelter, interim housing and permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness during this pandemic," said city spokesman Brad Ross.

"It has secured hotels, vacant apartment buildings, and opened city facilities to create physical distancing that ensures safe, indoor space."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 30, 2020.

Liam Casey, The Canadian Press

Old Strathcona homeless camp relocates to a park up the street after Monday eviction


Dustin Cook

© David Bloom Supporters of the Peace Camp in Dr. Wilbert McIntyre Park put up posters on Sept. 18 when the city was intending to remove the camp. The camp has now relocated two blocks north to Light Horse Park.


A homeless camp in Old Strathcona has relocated to a park two blocks north of its prior location, which residents were evicted from Monday.

The Peace Camp, providing overnight shelter, meals and supports to upwards of 60 people, reached an agreement with the City of Edmonton to leave Dr. Wilbert McIntyre Park on Monday after a seven-day extension was granted . The city initially intended to remove the camp on Sept. 18 after a closure date wasn’t provided.

Camp organizer Cameron Noyes said they have found a new location at the larger Light Horse Park just up the street to continue offering services as the search for housing persists. With the weather turning colder, Noyes doubled down that an organized camp is the best option because he doesn’t want people going back into the river valley or the Mill Creek Ravine where they can’t be looked after.

“We are not going to leave anybody behind in this, we absolutely can’t do that. It’s getting cold and these people are so less vulnerable in the situation we have. They have food, they have on-site medical care if needed and they have each other,” he told Postmedia Monday morning. “If we just send them back to Mill Creek Ravine and the river valley, they have none of that. They have no security and no medical care and no meals so it would be in terrible conscience for us to do something like that.”

While support workers try to find housing for those at the camp, the city has been advocating for residents to access the 24-7 support services being offered at both Hope Mission and The Mustard Seed.

But Noyes said he isn’t a fan of that plan after a COVID-19 outbreak in the Hope Mission Emergency Shelter, the first in Edmonton’s homeless community. Seven cases have been linked to the outbreak, six active and one recovered, as of Thursday. In response to the outbreak, camp organizers are calling for on-site testing and more sanitization amenities.

“We cannot move anybody at this moment if they’re going to be in danger of that, especially our seniors and some of the pregnant moms that are in the camp,” he said.

In a statement Monday afternoon, city spokeswoman Carol Hurst called the camp’s move down the block disappointing and said the city will be “exploring all options in response to this encampment.”

“The camp organizers’ decision to relocate the camp 200 metres away, instead of closing the camp and accessing available space at shelters, is disappointing and not in the spirit of the commitment they made to the city,” Hurst said in the statement. “The city fulfilled its obligations and trusted that the organizers would honour the commitment they made to close the camp voluntarily and access supports and spaces available at local shelters.”

Speaking at an affordable housing opening Monday, Mayor Don Iveson said there is an urgent need for housing and the city is currently looking at setting up temporary emergency shelters for the winter like it did at the Kinsmen Sports Centre during the outset of the pandemic.

“I think it’s time to look at the need for another temporary shelter as things get cooler…. We’ll be continuing to work with city administration and provincial government to set up some additional space,” he said.

Until then, Noyes said the Peace Camp isn’t going anywhere.

“We can’t be bouncing people around so we’re going to stick to our guns,” he said. “We’re just as illegal in the ravine as we are in this park as we were in the last park. So if we’re going to be illegal, we might as well be illegal where we can be seen.”

Court should intervene to remedy Canada's alleged failure on climate change: lawyer


VANCOUVER — The courts have a definite role in helping to determine if Canada has breached the constitutional rights of 15 youths who are suing the government for its alleged failures on climate change policies, a lawyer for the group says.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Joseph Arvay disagreed Wednesday with a federal government lawyer who argued for the case to be dismissed because a court should not step into the political arena when it comes to policy decisions related to greenhouse gas emissions that require international efforts to combat global climate change.

Arvay told a Federal Court hearing he wants the case to go to trial, where he will ask a judge to get a count of Canada's emissions and how they contribute to the global carbon budget, which is the maximum amount of carbon dioxide that can be put into the atmosphere before temperatures rise worldwide.

"When Canada's emissions of GHG, which we've quantified, exceed Canada's fair share of that global climate budget, it breached our clients' rights," he said, adding the country has not met it own targets on the reduction of emissions.

"Scientists will tell us the global limit of GHG emissions that the Earth can tolerate if we are going to return to and maintain a stable climate, " Arvay said. "And the scientists will tell us what a stable climate system means."

He recounted the claims of the plaintiffs between the ages of 11 and 20, some whom have been affected by wildfires, while floods, hurricanes and loss of cultural ceremonies in Indigenous communities due to extreme temperatures have disrupted the lives of Aboriginal youth.

Joseph Cheng, a lawyer representing the attorney general of Canada, said a court should not wade into policy decisions, including how to structure and quantify carbon pricing, whether and in what circumstances to permit oil and gas extraction, and how to defray and mediate the economic impacts of GHG emissions in different regions of the country that may be affected.

Those policies should be left to the government in order to meet the competing interests and obligations of ecological sustainability and job creation, Cheng said.

The plaintiffs claim the federal government is violating their rights to life, liberty and security of the person under Section 7 of the  Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as their right to equality under Section 15 because they are disproportionately affected by climate change.

However, Cheng said the claims about harms are too broad and constitutional claims cannot succeed because the plaintiffs don't say any particular government action applies to Section 7. And no benefits are being granted to others that in some way result in discrimination against them as part of a Section 15 argument, he added.

Arvay disagreed.

"Surely, our charter is not such an omnipotent document that it provides no remedy by our citizens against a government intent on destroying the planet. I know that sounds hyperbolic, but that's the logic of Canada's argument, that this is a matter for Parliament, purely for politicians. That can't be right."

The lawsuit filed in October 2019 asks the court to compel Canada to develop a climate recovery plan based on the best available science.

The plaintiffs claim Canada contributes to overall greenhouse gas emissions by promoting fossil fuel transport, export and import through interprovincial and international infrastructure, and by subsidizing industries for fossil fuel exploration, extraction and production.

Youth are disproportionately affected by air pollution and other consequences of greenhouse gas emissions because their vital organs, including the lungs, are not fully developed, the lawsuit claims.

Sierra Robinson, 18, is among the plaintiffs alleging they suffered individual injuries as a result of the consequences of climate change.

Robinson said in an interview that rising temperatures have increased the population and range of disease-carrying ticks on her family’s farm in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island. She contracted Lyme disease around age 13 after being bit by a tick.

She said she experiences chronic fatigue, severe headaches and muscle pain and spent much of the summer in a wheelchair three years ago because she could not walk and would faint.

“It should have been adults and the government taking responsibility for these issues because our government has known about climate change for so, so long," said Robinson, who joined plaintiffs to announce the lawsuit almost a year ago at a Vancouver rally attended by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg.

She said low water pressure on her farm due to drought in 2016 meant the family had to give drinking water to their livestock over watering crops and increased wildfire smoke near her home two years ago worsened her symptoms.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 30, 2020.

The virus is exposing how inequitable public school has been all along


Charlotte Schwartz

In a normal year, it would be about this time when our Toronto neighbourhood schools would flood local businesses with requests for auction items and ask parents to give up their seasons’ tickets. Local light posts and schoolyards would be adorned with signs that collectively and excitedly exclaim, “the fall fun fairs are coming!”

© Used with permission of / © St. Joseph Communications. Photo: iStock/Courtney Hale

A good fun fair is the mark of a privileged school. Some schools go as far as to sell wristbands for the bouncy castle and fast-passes for rides at $25 per kid. Some offer Square for payment and feature food trucks. They aim to be bigger, better (and bouncier) and they hope to generate more revenue than last year.


But this isn’t a normal year, and those schools—often the ones that are so desirable to parents that they drive property values in their catchments —will still be OK when the dust settles and the vaccines eventually roll out and things return, in one way or the other, to “normal.”

It’s the schools that won’t be OK—like my son’s school —that I worry about.

I am parenting four kids in a neighbourhood just outside of downtown Toronto, three of whom attend three different schools (a logistical dream, really, especially in the mornings). My nine-year-old son, Isaiah, has a severe intellectual disability and attends an intensive support program at a school in Toronto’s Regent Park neighbourhood, a low-income or mixed-income area of the city. They stopped hosting their fun fair because they lost money on their last one. Though they live next door to schools that boast fun fairs that garner tens of thousands of dollars of support, they are most often overlooked. Or ignored. The pandemic has simply dragged a yellow highlighter across those inequities.

The school is housed in a stately old building and it is flanked by newness—a mix of community housing and condos, all part of the recent years’ efforts to “revitalize” the neighbourhood. And while everything is certainly shinier these days, fresh coats of paint have failed to address the systems of oppression that keep Regent Park’s demographics largely unchanged.

The neighbourhood is inhabited predominantly by Black, Indigenous and people of colour (BIPOC) who live in poverty. Many of Isaiah’s classmates are the city’s most vulnerable: BIPOC, disabled children who live in poverty. Many of their homes are multi-generational, with grandparents staying home while the parents work, often multiple jobs, outside of the home. Food insecurity is significant, with more than a third of the 350+ kids using the school’s breakfast and lunch programs. For many years, the school went over-the-top with its grade 8 graduation celebrations because they knew, for many kids, this would be their last graduation before the harsh realities of cycles of poverty did their thing.

When something bad happens in Regent Park, we hear about it on the news. Wherever there’s an opportunity to call out something negative, we do. We label the neighbourhood “high risk” when we talk about crime and policing. When all is quiet and still in Regent (which is the majority of the time), the silence is deafening, and telling, of a place most of us only know because we drive through it. When “nothing” happens in Regent Park, nobody cares.

I mean, I care, but I was born and raised in an identical neighbourhood in Toronto’s West end. I attended the same community school from JK through to grade 6, and was aware, from a very young age, that even when my family had very little, we had so much more than other families I knew. Plus, we had the invaluable currency of our whiteness.

Still, I used the breakfast and lunch programs alongside many of my classmates in the midst of an immigration boom that consisted primarily of Somali refugees, and was a latch-key kid from age seven onward. I looked over my shoulder on the way home and locked our two-lock door and deadbolt behind me before settling in to wait for my parents. Neighbourhoods like mine and Regent Park make a kid grow up quickly.

Today, my son’s school is faced with challenges that go far beyond the ones they face every day: the struggle to keep class sizes low in order to heed the advice of public health officials. At the beginning of the year, it was slated to have a grade 7/8 split class of 34 kids. Thirty-four kids going home at the end of the day to thirty-four homes where many parents can’t work from home, during a pandemic with a rapidly spreading virus that disproportionately impacts their very demographics. The risks can barely be quantified and the outcome is, frankly, terrifying.

The few parents that are comfortable enough to approach the issue have had no luck while neighbouring schools’ parent councils with more privilege have. The notion that one school is more important than another is absurd, but is consistently reinforced when actions are taken in some schools and not in others.

As a society, we don’t know as much about COVID-19 as we would like. But what we do know is that it disproportionately impacts BIPOC, specifically women working the front lines. And we know what we need to do as measures of safety and community care to help slow the spread of the virus. Many neighbouring communities, steeped in privilege, can choose to heed that advice with relative ease. Others, like Regent Park, can’t. And it’s not for lack of wanting to—it’s a sheer lack of resources and a history of neglect. While some schools are running around calling arborists about tree stumps for outdoor learning chairs, Regent is running drives to provide its students with masks and PPE, again being forced to accept the fate that we know what the right thing to do is, we just won’t be doing it for them. We have the resources, we just won’t be spending them here.

This is happening in our literal backyard—not a world away—and as parents and caregivers, we should be appalled. The last six months, and the world we are entering into, gives us ample opportunity to create our own curriculum. What better lesson to teach our children than to speak up for those who cannot? What greater reality than to acknowledge that by failing to speak up, we are actually telling these children and their families, in the middle of the largest social movement and health crisis ever to have occurred, simultaneously, that they actually don’t matter?

This year, let the absence of fun fairs pave the way for true advocacy. If the measure of a society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members, we are failing miserably. But the year has only begun, and there is time yet to pull those grades up.

Canada's Lundin seeks mediation to stave off strike at Candelaria mine in Chile

By Fabian Cambero

SANTIAGO (Reuters) - Canada's Lundin Mining, owner of the Candelaria mine in Chile, has requested government mediation in a last-ditch effort to stave off a strike by one of its unions after failing to reach a contract deal, the company said on Wednesday.

The mine's union of 350 members rejected the company's latest most recent offer on Sept. 28, leaving negotiations at a stand-still.

"If a collective contract is not signed within this period, workers can exercise their right to strike," the company said in a statement, reiterating its willingness to reach an agreement.

The union could not be immediately reached for comment.

Candelaria produced 111,400 tons of copper in 2019.

(Reporting by Fabian Cambero, writing by Dave Sherwood; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

U.S. lawmakers hammer Pentagon over lack of detail on Germany troop cuts

By Idrees Ali

© Reuters/POOL New House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the Department of Defense in Civilian Law Enforcement

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, expressed frustration with the Pentagon at a hearing on Wednesday over the lack of details surrounding President Donald Trump's plans to withdraw thousands of troops from Germany.

In July, the Pentagon announced that it would withdraw about 12,000 of 36,000 troops from Germany, in fallout from Trump’s long-simmering feud with Berlin over military spending, but said it will keep nearly half of those forces in Europe to address tension with Russia.

Two senior Pentagon officials appeared before a House Armed Services Committee hearing, where lawmakers pressed them about the cost of the troop withdrawal, how long it would take and how much the administration had coordinated with European allies before making the decision.

They got few answers during the sometimes contentious 2-1/2 hour hearing.

"What the hell is going on, so we can exercise our oversight?," said Democratic Representative Adam Smith, the committee chair.

James Anderson, the acting undersecretary of defense for policy at the Pentagon, said the military did not yet have details and would share plans as they are developed.

Anderson, when asked whether U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper had provided Trump the plan to draw down troops or if the president had made a decision and then directed the Pentagon to do it, said he was not privy to those conversations.

"Then why are you here?" Democratic Representative Bill Keating said.

The top Republican on the committee, Representative Mac Thornberry, said it appeared that the troop reduction was a result of White House officials - not the Pentagon - trying to get the president to agree on a troop cap in Germany.

Trump has faulted Germany, a close U.S. ally, for failing to meet NATO’s defense spending target and accused it of taking advantage of the United States on trade.

(Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Mary Milliken and Cynthia Osterman)

France planning to ban wild animals from traveling circuses


Christopher Brito

France has announced that it will "gradually" ban wild animals in traveling circuses. The country's ecological transition minister Barbara Pompili made the announcement Tuesday as part of an array of measures focused on animal welfare.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto tiger in the circus arena

"It is time to open a new era in our relationship with these [wild] animals," Pompili said at a press conference, BBC News reported. "It is time that our ancestral fascination with these wild beings no longer means they end up in captivity."

Wild species such as bears, lions, tigers would no longer be allowed in traveling circuses under the ban, she said. The ban would not apply to zoos or other permanent attractions or shows. While no timetable was set for the ban to take effect, Pompili said it would happen in the "years to come."

"Some species are not made for a life of roaming," Pompili later tweeted in French. "We will therefore progress gradually towards the end of animals from wild species in traveling circuses."

Citing recent studies that show how aware orcas and dolphins are of their captivity, Pompili announced France's dolphinariums will be banned from keeping orcas used in shows within two years. Under the same ban, the marine parks have seven years to stop the use of dolphins.

The ban also immediately stops the building of new marine parks and breeding or bringing in new dolphins or orcas.

Pompili also announced a commitment to end mink farming.

"We can no longer keep wild animals for the sole purpose of slaughtering them to be worn in clothing," she tweeted.

According to the BBC, Pompili said the government is offering a $9.3 million package to help circuses and marine parks adapt to the new measures and will consider creating a sanctuary for animals in captivity now.

"Much more than a threat or a prey, the wild animal is now, above all — and this is my deep conviction — a being to be preserved, and to be respected in its integrity, she said.

Animal rights groups such as PETA supported the measures.

"Champagne corks are blowing up at PETA — thank you to everyone who made this win!" PETA France tweeted.

CANADA

New benefits for workers hurt by pandemic hits speed bump in Senate

#ABOLISHTHESENATE

OTTAWA — After being rushed through the House of Commons in a single day, a bill authorizing new benefits for workers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic has hit a speed bump in the Senate

.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Sen. Marc Gold, the government's representative in the Senate, was denied leave Wednesday to have the upper house deal with Bill C-4 on Thursday, after having an opportunity to question Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough about it.

Senators may yet hear from the two ministers on Thursday but they will not begin debating the legislation until Friday, barring further holdups.

Sen. Scott Tannas, leader of the 13-member Canadian Senators Group, said he was among a number of senators who denied the unanimous consent Gold needed to proceed with the bill Thursday.

And he said they did so to protest the fact that Gold has still not proposed a way for the Senate to resume its full functions during the pandemic, with all senators able to participate in debates and votes, either in person or virtually, as is being done in the House of Commons.

Since mid-March, the upper house has met only periodically for single-day sittings to pass pandemic-related emergency aid bills. For those sittings, only a small number of senators have attended, leaving the rest with no role to play.

The situation has been particularly hard on senators from Atlantic provinces, which have imposed travel restrictions on their residents during the pandemic.

"We've got to be the last chamber in all of the Westminster system that is still operating with no hybrid (format) or not even a glimmer of it," Tannas said in interview.

He said senators are also frustrated that the government is pressuring them to approve billions worth of aid legislation in a matter of hours and then go home and do nothing until the next emergency bill comes along. In the case of Bill C-4, he questioned the urgency, noting that applications for one of the proposed new benefits aren't scheduled to open until Monday, and not until Oct. 11 for the other two.

"We just thought today was a good day to provoke some conversation and see if we could get to the bottom of it and get a resolution, having satisfied ourselves that this would not put anybody in jeopardy in terms of the extension of benefits," Tannas said, adding it's still possible to pass the bill on Friday or to hold a special weekend sitting to get it done.

Tannas said Gold has a motion for hybrid Senate sittings "ready to go" but has not introduced it because he wants to arrive at a consensus with all groups in the 105-seat upper house. That's been stymied by the 21 Conservative senators, whom Tannas said continue to want "everybody to be in the chamber and, if you can't be in the chamber, then you should take a sick day."

A motion for hybrid sittings can be passed without the Conservatives and Tannas said no one can figure out why Gold hasn't tried to proceed without them.

"I don't know why. He knows full well that 80 per cent of us are ready to vote on it today."

Sen. Yuen Pau Woo, leader of the largest caucus group in the chamber, the Independent Senators Group, said his members are equally frustrated and mystified about why Gold has not introduced a motion on hybrid sittings.

"This issue of hybrid sittings has been discussed for many months," Woo said in interview, adding that he supports Tannas' efforts to force the issue.

"Many of us were expecting that there would be a motion this week ... It surprises many of us that we haven't seen such a motion being tabled."

Nevertheless, Woo stressed that ISG senators are committed to passing Bill C-4 this week.

In a written statement, Gold said that he "fully supports the implementation of a hybrid approach as soon as the Senate’s internal administration reaches a state of operational readiness."

He said "much progress" has been made to make hybrid sittings possible this fall but declined further comment since discussions among Senate leaders are "ongoing."

Opposition MPs have expressed similar frustration about the short time they've been given to deal with emergency aid legislation.

Conservatives and Bloc Québécois MPs voted Tuesday against the government's bid to fast-track Bill C-4 through the Commons. With the support of the NDP, the government was nevertheless able to speed up passage of the bill, which was eventually approved unanimously in the wee hours of Wednesday morning.

Conservative and Bloc MPs took shots Wednesday at the NDP as they explained why they supported the bill after vigorously opposing the manner in which it was sped through the Commons.

"This is a minority government, not a coalition government," Conservative House leader Gérard Deltell said. "We have to keep that in mind and I hope that the NDP will continue to do their job. They are there as an opposition party and they have to do opposition work in the House of Commons."

Deltell said Conservatives ultimately supported the bill because, "in the big picture, we are talking about Canadian workers."

"They need some support. Canadian business, they need some support. So this is why we approved the bill at the end of the process."

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet echoed that position, saying the principles of the legislation "are pretty good."

Yet both he and Deltell continued to complain about the fast-tracking, with Blanchet saying the Liberals' decision to rush the aid package was a blow to democracy, robbing MPs of a chance to analyze and possibly improve the bill.

"We were not given time to proceed with the analysis and the improvements that this law might have received because the government decided for some particular reasons or purpose that … it was important enough for the government to impose the 'shut-up' procedure,'" Blanchet said.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh shot back that New Democrats supported the bill only after forcing the government to make changes that will help millions more Canadians. And he mocked the other two opposition parties for complaining that the NDP "fought to get help to people too quickly."

"We fought and we won for Canadians," Singh said.

"The Conservatives and the Bloc have done nothing. Throughout this pandemic, there's not a single win they can point to that they've helped out Canadians. I think that's a pretty bad record."

All opposition parties have blamed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for creating the need for the speedy approval of the bill by proroguing Parliament for a month, during which time it could not deal with anything.

Bill C-4 replaces the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, which came to an end last weekend after helping almost nine million Canadians weather the pandemic. The CERB is being replaced with a more flexible and generous employment insurance regime and, for those who still don't qualify for EI, a new Canada Recovery Benefit.

The bill also creates a new sick-leave benefit and another new caregiver benefit for those forced to take time off work to care for a dependent due to the pandemic.

At the behest of the NDP, the government has increased the proposed new benefits to $500 per week from the originally proposed $400, aiming to see that no one receives less than they were getting under the CERB.

It has also expanded the eligibility criteria for the sick-leave benefit so that it applies not just to individuals who contract COVID-19 but also to those with underlying health conditions or other illnesses, including the flu or the common cold, that makes them more susceptible to COVID-19.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 30, 2020.

Joan Bryden and Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

New Steinem biopic shines light on a sisterhood of activists

Among the pithy quips attributed to Gloria Steinem over the years is this reply to why she wasn't interested in getting married: “I can’t mate in captivity.”

© Provided by The Canadian Press

She did eventually marry, to her own surprise, at age 66. But that scene takes up barely a minute in Julie Taymor’s 139-minute long new biopic about Steinem, “The Glorias,” not just because it came late in a long (and still actively ongoing) life, but because there are so many other important relationships to focus on, namely the key women who partnered with Steinem — in friendship, and in activism — on her long journey to becoming America’s most visible feminist.

Women like Bella Abzug, Florynce Kennedy, Dorothy Pitman Hughes and Wilma Mankiller, all of whom (and more) are portrayed in the film, giving moviegoers a quick but valuable education in the history of the women's movement.

“One of the great things about this movie,” Steinem, 86, said in a recent interview, “is that it will lead viewers into knowing more about these women.” Women who, perhaps excepting Abzug, were not nearly as familiar to the public as their very recognizable colleague.

Lorraine Toussaint, who gives a memorably vivid turn as Kennedy, the prominent Black activist and founding member of the National Women’s Political Caucus, said Steinem herself helped guide her performance.

“We realized we had a champion, and that was Gloria herself,” Toussaint said in an interview. “She was very, very helpful for me in terms of her memories with Flo Kennedy and her appreciation of Flo. She speaks so candidly and openly of figures like Flo who did not get the credit she believed they deserved."

History, added Toussaint, has not heard much about Black women in either the suffrage movement or in second-wave feminism. “But Gloria tried to give these women credit," Toussaint said. "The press wasn’t particularly interested in giving them credit, but Gloria certainly spoke out as often as she could.”

In the film, based on the memoir “My Life on the Road,” there are poignant scenes with Steinem and longtime speaking partner Pitman Hughes (Janelle Monáe), the Black activist with whom she appeared in a famous 1971 photograph, firsts raised. And with Mankiller (Kimberly Guerrero), another close Steinem friend and activist who became the first female Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.

Then there was Abzug, played by Bette Midler in the film opposite Julianne Moore's Steinem. (Moore is one of four actors playing her at different stages of her life.)

Outwardly, the two women could not have appeared more different. The New York congresswoman, nicknamed “Battling Bella,” was unapologetically brash and exuberant, recognizable immediately by the large hats she always wore. Gloria Steinem was known as a “quiet warrior,” in Taymor's words, with a natural Midwestern reserve, long streaked hair and those iconic aviator glasses.

But their friendship ran deep. “She was my teacher and my friend," Steinem said in the interview. “She was enormously funny. Absolutely New York, you know. And I used to say things like, ‘Oh, you’re the person I should have had as my mother.’ And she would say, ‘I’m not old enough to be your mother.’” (Steinem told the same anecdote, through tears, at Abzug's 1998 funeral.)

Moore says she was unfamiliar, before making the film, of Steinem’s close relationship with Abzug.

“We had so much research available to us, and one of the things I drew on was just how much Gloria loved Bella,” the actor said in an interview. "You could see it in the research, the way she looked at her. And so Bette and I hadn't met before and I fell in love with her right away, and I thought it was wonderful to have our relationship and base it on Gloria’s love for Bella at the same time."

Midler, too, was struck by the relationship between the two women.

“There was so much respect there, so much respect and so much fun,” she said. "I think they had a great time together. I think they howled. And I wanted to make sure people knew that it wasn’t the kind of adversarial relationship that lots of people seem to have with Betty Friedan, although I worship Betty Friedan ... but that wasn’t the case with Gloria and Bella. That was real love.”

Taymor says her favourite moment between the two women happens in the offices of Ms. Magazine, which Steinem co-founded, and Abzug is explaining to the conflict-averse Steinem that she can't shy away from conflict with Friedan, the feminist leader and author.

“The difference between them is that moment in the Ms. office where she says 'You can’t avoid conflict, and if you try to avoid conflict, conflict will seek you out.” And they were very different personalities. Gloria ... didn’t want to have women fighting women.”

“And Bella said sometimes we argue, sometimes we fight, sometimes we don’t get along. You know, she understood that women aren’t superwomen, but we’re after the same thing."

Midler said she considered one of the achievements of Taymor's film to be that "You see them together planning, step by step and being in a room and actually making this movement from scratch. I thought it was very exciting. ... these women stayed together for over 50 years, as a clan. They really did. And they moved mountains.”

Jocelyn Noveck, The Associated Press

Biden uses 'inshallah' in response to Trump during debate, lighting up Twitter

By Tamara Qiblawi, CNN

During one of the more charged moments of the chaotic US presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden dropped a phrase from everyday Muslim and Arab vocabulary and lit up the internet. 

© Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images Democratic Presidential candidate and former US Vice President Joe Biden speaks during the first presidential debate at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, on September 29, 2020. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

Pressing President Donald Trump on when the American public would get to see his long-anticipated tax returns, Biden questioned: "When? Inshallah?"

In certain vernacular, "inshallah" serves as a non-committal response to a question.

Taken literally, the term "inshallah," consists of three Arabic words (In sha' Allah) which translate into "if God wills it." Spiritually it represents a submission to God's will. It can perhaps be seen as the Muslim counterpart to the Yiddish adage, "Man plans, and God laughs."

Children in the Muslim world will often say that when a parent responds to a question with "inshallah," it signals an unfulfilled promise, while unreliable timekeeping is lightheartedly chalked up to "inshallah timing."

"Yes, Joe Biden said 'Inshallah' during the #Debates2020 debate," tweeted political commentator Wajahat Ali. "It literally means 'God willing,' but it's often used to mean, 'Yeah, never going to happen.' Example: My wife: Will you finally pick up your socks? Me: Inshallah. No, saying inshallah doesn't make you Muslim."

So when Biden called the President out on his amorphous sense of timing around his long-promised tax returns, "inshallah" seemed to hit the nail on the head for those well-versed in Muslim and Arab culture. Trump has never released his tax returns to the public, something out of step with previous Republican and Democratic presidential candidates and incumbents.

However, earlier this week, The New York Times reported that Trump had paid no federal income taxes in 10 out of 15 years beginning in 2000 because he reported losing significantly more than he made, citing more than two decades of tax information the paper obtained.

While many saw Biden's use of the phrase as a nod to their own experiences, others saw it as derogatory and drawing on cultural stereotypes about the Muslim and Arab world.

For many in the Muslim and Arab world, the phrase retains its original spiritual purpose. Far from providing license for fickle behavior, "inshallah" represents a relinquishment of control over the uncontrollable. It is an acknowledgement that while one will try to fulfill their goal, there could be God-like circumstances that may get in the way. To many, the utterance of the phrase is an exercise in humility.

"It's so disheartening that the best thing the Biden campaign seems to be able to offer Muslim Americans in the midst of an uptick in islamophobic violence is an offhand, completely inappropriately applied 'inshallah' in the debate," tweeted political activist Meriam Masmoudi.