Sunday, February 13, 2022

Convoy Movement Isn’t a Struggle Over Freedom, It’s an Attempt to Kill Democracy
Protestors and supporters set up at a blockade at the foot of the Ambassador Bridge, sealing off the flow of commercial traffic over the bridge into Canada from Detroit, on February 10, 2022, in Windsor, Canada.
COLE BURSTON / GETTY IMAGES
PUBLISHED February 12, 2022
PART OF THE SERIES
The Public Intellectual

The “Freedom Convoy” movement, consisting of hundreds of trucks, has ground to a halt the busiest border crossing between Canada and the United States and occupied Ottawa, Canada’s capital, effectively blockading the city and disrupting daily life for most residents in the core of the city. The convoy participants reject all vaccine requirements and mandates and support a decidedly anti-government discourse reminiscent of far-right ideology in the United States.

The convoy participants lack the support of the general public, which is largely vaccinated. They also lack the support of most Canadian truckers, 90 percent of whom are vaccinated, and of the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA).

The truckers are endorsed largely by leading U.S. Republicans such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, along with some Canadian conservative politicians. Support has also come from powerful anti-democratic social media figures such as Tucker Carlson, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk, and an array of white supremacist groups. Some of the more powerful right-wing groups in Canada include Action4Canada, which makes the false and conspiracy-riddled claim that the COVID-19 pandemic “was carried out, at least in part, by Bill Gates and a ‘New World (Economic) Order’ to facilitate the injection of 5G-enabled microchips into the population.” With the help of the social media, support for the Freedom Convoy protests snowballed globally with upcoming convoys being planned for the United States, France and all 27 European countries.

The Freedom Convoy protests is the brainchild of James Bauder, who heads the Canada Unity movement, which launched the protests. Bauder believes in multiple baseless conspiracy theories and “has endorsed the QAnon movement and called Covid-19 ‘the biggest political scam in history.’” Bauder is no friend of organized labor and, as Jacobin has noted, two years ago he participated in another convoy called United We Roll that “planned an anti-union protest where convoy members threatened to dismantle the picket line and run over workers.”


Other leaders in the movement include some hard right extremists such as Patrick King who, according to The Conversation, once “stated that he believes the vaccine was created to ‘depopulate’ the white race.” Another convoy leader named B.J. Dichter has a reputation for spreading Islamophobic sentiments.

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network, a nonprofit group, has reported that “The so-called ‘Freedom Convoy’ was organized by known far-right figures who have espoused Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and other hateful views.”

The Ottawa protests have made clear that extreme elements supporting fascism and white nationalism are attracted to the movement, and visible in the appearance of neo-Nazi and Confederate flags and an abundance of QAnon logos emblazoned on trucks, signs and stickers. Moreover, some sources are suggesting that a significant amount of funding, over $8 million as of February 7, may have come from right-wing sources in the United States. Some of the highest individual donations have come from American billionaires. Funding from the states has so alarmed members of the New Democratic Party that they have called it “an attack on Canada’s democracy” and have asked the U.S. ambassador “to testify before the House of Commons foreign affairs committee.

Jagmeet Singh, the leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party, has stated that this is more than a protest movement. On the contrary, he argues that “the convoy’s stated intent is to “overthrow the government.” The convoy association “with hate groups … expressing racist and anti-immigrant sentiments … could explain why the Freedom Convoy is strangely silent on labor issues facing immigrant truckers who now make up over one-third of truckers in Canada,” writes Emily Leedham in Jacobin. She further notes “that many of the concerns of the protesters have little to do with workers’ rights or labor issues within Canada’s trucking industry. In fact, Convoy organizers have previously harassed workers on the picket line and ignored calls for support from racialized truckers fighting against wage theft.”

Freedom, once again, has been hijacked in the interest of a counter-revolution whose purpose is to destroy the authority of the government to protect the common good, limit the influence of the financial and corporate elite, and protect civic structures crucial to a democracy. The Ottawa truckers are motivating right-wing convoy movements across the globe and their growing influence makes clear that they are winning the global information war.

Indeed, it is not just convoy movements that are increasingly subverting the concept of freedom in the service of right-wing extremism across the globe. From the United States and Brazil to Turkey and Hungary, anti-democratic actors are reducing freedom to the realm of unchecked self-interest, a rejection of the welfare state and a flight from social responsibility. In the process, they are waging a war on democracy.

Removed from the discourse of the common good, equality and social rights, individual freedom now aligns with the mob — positioning itself with those willing in the age of the pandemic to sacrifice other people’s lives in the name of a bogus appeal to personal rights.

While former President Donald Trump has been the most prominent figure in maligning individual freedom as a vehicle for embracing a fascist politics and the discourse of hate and violence, his endorsement of authoritarianism in the name of freedom has legitimated anti-democratic acts across the globe. Not only has this movement become a flashpoint for global far-right protests, it has also developed a massive social media presence in which, as Politico has reported, the convoy movement has promoted the idea that “efforts to keep people safe from the coronavirus are, instead, anti-democratic restrictions on individual freedoms.”

Elisabeth Anker argues that the right wing in the United States is increasingly using the language of “ugly freedoms” to promote an “anti-democratic politics [that] threatens to overtake freedom’s meaning entirely, harnessing freedom solely to projects of exclusion, privilege and harm.” She writes:

‘Ugly freedoms’ [are] used to block the teaching of certain ideas, diminish employees’ ability to have power in the workplace and undermine public health. These are not merely misunderstood freedoms, or even just a cynical use of the language of freedom to frame bigoted policies. They manifest, instead, a particular interpretation of freedom that is not expansive, but exclusionary and coercive.

This notion of “ugly freedom” is certainly applicable to the convoy movement. Lost in its neoliberal view of freedom is any notion of an “inclusive freedom” that contests authoritarian and anti-democratic modes of suppression such as the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a financial elite, the rise of the punishing state, mass poverty, the rise of war culture, ecological devastation, and the criminalization of social problems such as homelessness. Convoy protesters are silent regarding a notion of inclusive freedom — one that would argue for universal health care, expanding workers’ unions, introducing regulations that ensure worker safety and paid sick days, and the need for social and wage benefits for unemployed workers. Under this form of capitalism, freedom is hollowed out, removed from any sense of social solidarity, forcing individuals to bear full responsibility for the problems they confront even though they are not of their own making. As Zygmunt Bauman rightly observes, existential insecurity is intensified as “individuals are now eft to find and practice individual solutions to socially produced troubles … while being equipped with tools and resources that are blatantly inadequate to the task.”

The dangers of unchecked individualism cannot be separated from struggles over freedom, especially as it becomes a rationale for undermining human dependency, the common good and support for mutual solidarity. Freedom when wedded to neoliberal notions of individualism undermines human bonds and makes solidarity difficult to both recognize and practice. This danger has become clear as the appeal to freedom in the convoy movement is used as a call to resistance to COVID-19 vaccination efforts and mask mandates — a tactic which is code for an allegiance to the political right. Vaccine scientist Peter Hotez adds to this position, arguing that for the most part, the anti-vax, freedom-at-all-cost movement engages in “anti-science aggression” and “is a component of authoritarian rule [cultivated by] their own cadre of pseudo intellectuals.” Hotez makes clear that the appeal to freedom to buttress an anti-vax, anti-science movement has fueled its degeneration into a “killing force.” One can clearly apply this analysis to the convoy movement.

What Hotez and other critics of the anti-vax movement, including the convoy protests, miss is how neoliberalism remakes the social into the biographical, further convincing individuals that they have no obligation to contribute to the health, safety and democratic institutions that shape the wider community. Those who support the convoy movement have lost sight of the relationship between liberty and the greater good. The convoy movement is not a struggle over freedom, it is an attempt to destroy democracy in the name of freedom.


Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include: American Nightmare: Facing the Challenge of Fascism (City Lights, 2018); The Terror of the Unforeseen (Los Angeles Review of books, 2019), On Critical Pedagogy, 2nd edition (Bloomsbury, 2020); Race, Politics, and Pandemic Pedagogy: Education in a Time of Crisis (Bloomsbury 2021); and Pedagogy of Resistance: Against Manufactured Ignorance (Bloomsbury 2022). Giroux is also a member of Truthout’s Board of Directors.
Canada convoy protest a truckload of anti-vax and white supremacist BS

February 8, 2022  BY C.J. ATKINS

COVID Convoy. Left: A supporter of the 'Freedom Convoy' carries a racist Confederate flag outside the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa. Center: A truck blockading the road outside the Office of the Prime Minister in Ottawa bears a message for Justin Trudeau. Right: Canadians in Edmonton, Alberta, show off their politics at a rally in support of the convoy on Feb. 5. 
| Photos: via CPC; Justin Tang / The Canadian Press via AP; and Jason Franson / The Canadian Press via AP


TORONTO—The so-called “Freedom Convoy” of Canadian truckers that has snarled traffic in the streets of major cities in the country from coast to coast the last several days is increasingly being exposed as a truckload of conspiratorial, white supremacist, and fascist-leaning BS.

Billed as a protest against the Canadian government’s enforcement of a vaccine requirement for truck drivers hauling cargo back and forth across the border, the slogans and signs used by participants have shown there are a lot more nefarious causes than vaccine resistance at work.

A message of support from former White House occupant Donald Trump. | TMTG via Twitter

The Canadian Trucking Alliance, a nationwide association of truckers, says the protest is not representative of the vast majority of drivers in their industry and that a “great number of protesters” with no connection to the trucking industry “have a separate agenda beyond a disagreement over cross-border vaccine requirements.”

Though conservative politicians and propagandists have given the protest the thumbs-up and tried to portray it as a spontaneous working-class demonstration against an elitist government, the clear links between convoy organizers and international far-right networks indicate it is nothing of the sort.

Instead, it is a Canadian expression of the same global phenomenon that has seen extremist big money interests parading in the guise of fake populism in one country after another.

Far-right backers from U.S. and Europe


The convoy—which set off from British Columbia in late January—brought in over $10 million in donations through a GoFundMe page in just a matter of days, with a significant chunk of that money reportedly coming from U.S. and European sources.

The social network Telegram has been a mustering point online for supporters, such as U.S. influencers like Ben Shapiro, to bundle money for the convoy protesters. Conservative outlets like Fox News in the U.S. and Rebel News and the Toronto Sun in Canada, meanwhile, act as the protest’s media arms.

“Right-wing political figures and content creators…really gave it a boost that made it global,” according to Ciaran O’Connor of the hate-group-tracking Institute for Strategic Dialogue. “Donations from abroad are quite a common part of any large crowdfunding campaign, but the scale of this one is unprecedented,” he said.

O’Connor’s organization has tracked down multiple U.S.-based groups, including several connected to the Tea Party Movement and anti-vax groups, that donated heavily to the GoFundMe page. Similar groups in Europe and Australia have also joined in.

GoFundMe suspended the campaign on Feb. 4, saying the convoy no longer met the definition of a peaceful demonstration. Republicans in the U.S. Congress alleging censorship vow to investigate, but in the meantime a new fundraising page has launched on the “Christian” crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo with a goal of collecting $16 million.

GiveSendGo is the same site previously used to funnel money to defend Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who in 2020 murdered two men during protests against racist police killings in Kenosha, Wisc. It’s also one of the preferred fundraising tools of the white supremacist Proud Boys, who played a role in the Jan. 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The organizers behind the ‘Freedom Convoy’ operate in the shadowy world of far-right politics. Copying the models used by the right wing elsewhere, they combine a simplistic version of patriotism with anti-science conspiracy theories and barely-concealed racism. Here, a supporter of the protest in Ottawa hides his identity while wearing a ‘Canada First’ hat modeled on Trump campaign paraphernalia. | via Twitter

Right-wing figures in the U.S. ranging from podcaster Joe Rogan of Spotify and vaccine disinformation infamy to former White House occupant Donald Trump have elevated and praised the pro-coronavirus convoy. Others, like Evangelical leader Franklin Graham and the chief COVID conspiracy theorist in Congress, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, have blasted out support for the truckers to their followers.

Some of the leading lights of the capitalist class also chimed in with their wholehearted backing, Tesla boss Elon Musk among them.

If the convoy protesters’ true politics weren’t clear enough based on who’s supporting them, their ideological inclinations have been all too apparent at their road-blocking rallies in Ottawa, Toronto, and other locales.

Confederate flags and banners with neo-Nazi symbols flutter in skies turned black by the smoke-billowing exhaust stacks of the big rigs, while Trump-imitating chants, such as the oh-so-creative “Make Canada Great Again,” alternate with the cacophonous sound of air horns.

“This is far from a ‘freedom’ convoy,” the Communist Party of Canada said in a statement this past weekend. “This is a convoy of hate which has threatened and attacked the civilian populations in Ottawa and everywhere it has passed through.”

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network says that if you look at the convoy’s organizers and promoters, “you’ll find Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, and incitements to violence.” The group has completed an exhaustive run-down of all the key movers behind the convoy and found that it’s the same group of far-right extremists who’ve been pushing conspiracies and anti-labor causes since long before the pandemic.


Many of the organizers are not even part of the trucking industry, and a number of them have harassed workers on picket lines in the past and rebuffed calls for help from immigrant truck drivers fighting abusive companies.

Real problems missing from their complaints

Missing from the convoy’s list of complaints? The actual problems that plague drivers in this industry. And hint—with nearly 90% of truckers already vaccinated, a COVID border mandate isn’t one of them.

Toronto-area truckers told CBC this past weekend that the convoy is totally ignoring the real issues they face—like employer abuse, wage theft, dangerously long hours, and racism. Attar Sodhi, a 37-year-old driver from the city of Brampton noted that the convoy truckers are almost totally white, even though more than half of the truckers in this region are South Asian.

“Something else is happening behind the scenes,” Sodhi said, “because the real issues are completely different.” He works with the Naujawan Support Network, which provides legal defense for truckers and other workers who fight back against employer intimidation and wage theft. Organizers of the truck demonstration have never reached out to his group or others like it to see what concerns face their members and clients.

The convoy protest has the international media spotlight, but it hasn’t used the attention it’s receiving to talk about companies that misclassify drivers as contractors to avoid things like overtime pay and benefits. That has a lot of truckers upset.

Stephen Laskowski, head of the Ontario Trucking Association, says that carriers “use the underground economy with labor misclassification and labor abuse as a way to grow very fast and profitably.” The convoy has been silent on the matter.

Arshdeep Singh, 30, another trucker, asked why the protest isn’t mentioning the threats of deportation that many truckers receive from employers who send them out on the road in hazardous weather or with no sleep. “These are the issues that have been here since the last 10, 15 years,” he said, but the protest has no time for any of that.

Instead, the mis-named “Freedom Convoy” carries on fear-mongering around COVID vaccines and masks, sucking up hundreds of thousands of dollars daily in public money spent on security and making life hell for the people who live near their blockades.

But if the fascist-leaning organizers behind the convoy or the far-right politicians and big-name capitalists backing them hope to use the protest to gin up support for the right wing generally in Canada, they may come up short.

Despite having plenty to be upset about—government pandemic aid propping up rich corporations instead of people, a public health system hamstrung by decades of funding cuts, coronavirus employment support programs being ended prematurely, and more—the Canadian working class isn’t signing on to the convoy’s conspiratorial cause.

Polls show public support for the truck convoy is limited. On Twitter, the hashtag #FluTruxKlan, a take-off on Ku Klux Klan, has been trending in Canada. More people are seeing the convoy’s message for what it is: pro-coronavirus and racist.
Real truckers with real problems: Members of the Naujawan Support Network march outside the home of a wage thief employer in January. The so-called ‘Freedom Convoy’ has been silent on the actual troubles that most truck drivers face. | NSN via Twitter

Even some of the establishment politicians of the Conservative Party aren’t all that confident they can capitalize on the protest. Having just thrown out their own uninspiring leader and facing a voting public that is almost completely vaccinated and tired of anti-vax nonsense, they don’t see the political gains to be made. That won’t stop the fringe of their party or the openly racist People’s Party of Canada from presenting themselves as platforms for the protesters, however.

Police in Ottawa, meanwhile, say they are beginning to make moves to undercut the ability of the truck blockade to continue. Fuel supply restrictions, anti-honking court injunctions, and arrests are all in the works.

If authorities in the Canadian capital manage to clear their streets, however, the COVID convoy madness probably won’t end anytime soon. Online, the right wing is organizing more truck protests—this time in the U.S. and Europe. So watch out, the racist and coronavirus conspiracy crowd could be rolling into your city soon.



CONTRIBUTOR

C.J. Atkins is the managing editor at People's World. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from York University in Toronto and has a research and teaching background in political economy and the politics and ideas of the American left. In addition to his work at People's World, C.J. currently serves as the Deputy Executive Director of ProudPolitics.

 Small group of pedestrians, cyclists bring convoy to a standstill in Edmonton's river valley


CBC/Radio-Canada - 
A vehicle convoy making its way into Edmonton's downtown Saturday afternoon ran up against an unexpected roadblock — a couple of dozen people on foot and bikes who brought the convoy to a grinding halt.

Photos posted on Twitter at about 1:30 p.m. showed a long line of eastbound trucks stretching down River Valley Road. In their path were counter-protesters standing in the pedestrian crosswalk at Fortway Drive.

The protesters were wearing masks and carrying signs with slogans like "Honk if you love vaccines" and "Let the babies nap."

"Well, we decided to block one artery of the convoys today," Jason Rockwell said in a post on Twitter. "We all have the right of assembly."

Rockwell said he and a group of concerned citizens got together to block the road.

He said the counter-protest ended after about an hour, after Edmonton police got involved. Rockwell said he was troubled by police actions at the counter-protest.

Around 30 officers slowly began to arrive, according to Rockwell. He said someone at the counter-protest was told that if they did not get off the road, they could be arrested and charged with mischief.


© Alicia Asquith/CBC NewsThe vehicle convoy was clogging 109th Street on Saturday, Feb. 12.

The Edmonton Police Service had gone to social media to ask demonstrators to stay off the roadway to allow traffic to flow.

"I do not know how it is that the Edmonton Police Service can justify making those statements to us and letting those convoys free wheel through the city on routes that are obviously not dedicated truck routes," he said in an interview.

CBC requested a response to Rockwell's claims that the police response varied greatly between protests.

"Citizens were intentionally blocking and impeding traffic on River Valley Road and were asked to move onto the sidewalk to ensure their safety and allow traffic to flow. The citizens were cooperative with this request," a police spokesperson said in a statement.

Rockwell said that they were approached by a few people in the convoy to ask what they were doing. Some other convoy participants said some nasty things, but their physical safety was not threatened, he said.
 
Third week of protests


Meanwhile up the hill in Edmonton's downtown, hundreds of protesters, on foot or inside a convoy of trucks and other vehicles, gathered for the third straight weekend of demonstrations protesting mandatory vaccinations and COVID-19 health measures.

Walkers waving signs and flags crowded the sidewalks as they marched from the Federal Plaza near the Alberta Legislature to city hall.

The vehicular convoys, meanwhile, pulled in from staging areas east, west and south of the city, disrupting traffic on major roads like Anthony Henday Drive, St. Albert Trail and Gateway Boulevard.

Many vehicles were honking their horns, ignoring a court injunction sought by the city in a bid to tamp down noise from convoy protesters that has disrupted city residents over the past two weeks.


© Alicia Asquith/CBC News
A small crowd had gathered in the plaza near the Alberta Legislature at about noon on Feb. 12.

Edmonton Police said in a news release that they issued 10 tickets to drivers actively involved in the protest Saturday. Sixty more tickets are being mailed to registered owners of other vehicles that were identified as committing an offence, nine of which are related to noise.

"Given the impacts to traffic, officers worked to keep roadways as orderly as possible and to ensure participants dispersed appropriately throughout the day," the news release read, in part.

"While [Edmonton city council] and I fully support the right to peaceful protests, we must set boundaries when it comes to demonstrations that compromise the well-being of local [businesses] and community members," Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi said on Twitter Friday.

The injunction, granted Friday by Court of Queen's Bench Justice Paul Belzil, prohibits "the frequent or sustained sounding of motor vehicle horns, truck air horns, equipment horns, megaphones and other similar noise-making devices within the boundaries of the city."

It is in effect now and lasts until March 4.


"Please PLEASE enforce this," one Twitter user replied to Sohi's post. "I cannot take another eight hours of honking."


Police say the convoys are expected to tie up traffic on Anthony Henday Drive, Yellowhead Trail, Stony Plain Road, Whitemud Drive, Gateway Blvd, Walterdale Hill, Queen Elizabeth Park Road and the downtown core.

The Freedom Convoy was organized in late January to protest the federal vaccine policy that came into effect on Jan. 15 for truckers crossing the Canada-U.S. border — a group of travellers previously exempt from pandemic entry requirements. One week later, a similar policy took effect in the U.S.

At Coutts, Alta., a blockade of trucks and other large vehicles has stymied traffic to and from the United States since Jan. 29.

Ontario declared a state of emergency on Friday in response to convoy protests that have shut down parts of Ottawa's city core and portions of Windsor's Ambassador Bridge.

OTTAWA
Convoy protesters tear down fence protecting National War Memorial
Rachel Gilmore - 

Protesters from the so-called "freedom convoy" in Ottawa have torn down a fence that had been put around the National War Memorial to protect it from further desecration.

Trucker protests: Protesters vow to protect National War Memorial in Ottawa after removal of fencing

The fence was first erected after multiple incidents were reported in the early days of the demonstration, including protesters urinating on the site and dancing on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

READ MORE: Ottawa police have been ‘amazing,’ convoy protestors say, as calls for crackdown grow

The people removing the fence appeared to be veterans. As they removed it, a police officer reportedly told the demonstrators that they're responsible for taking care of the memorial now, according to Global News' Abigail Bimman, who was on the ground at the time.

Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence MacAulay said in a tweet that the removal of the fence is "completely unacceptable"

"Fences were put up to prevent the flagrant desecration and disrespect of our sacred monuments. This behaviour is disappointing and I’m calling on protesters to respect our monuments," said MacAulay.

Police only moved in once the fence was already down, and cries of "freedom" could be heard from the protesters who quickly gathered around the site.

The development comes as the protest enters its 16th day, with trucks and demonstrators clogging the downtown core.

 

 


Amnesty International’s Apartheid Report: Parsing the Jewish communal outrage

February 8, 2022
 BY RABBI BRANT ROSEN


Rally to boycott apartheid Israel, Columbus, Ohio, July 20, 2021 
Becker1999 (licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license).

When Amnesty International announced the release of a 278 page report entitled “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians,” you could already sense the storm clouds gathering. Even before it was actually released, the Israeli government publicly asked Amnesty to withdraw it, calling it “false, biased and antisemitic.” A group of six American Jewish organizations launched their own preemptive strike, claiming that the report was “unbalanced, inaccurate, and incomplete,” seeking only “to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish and democratic State of Israel.”

When the storm finally broke on February 2, it didn’t take long for the outrage to come raining down. U.S. politicians from both sides of the aisle issued fierce condemnations (DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, called it “baseless,” “biased” and “steeped in antisemitism”). The Jewish institutional establishment likewise let loose: the Anti-Defamation League pronounced it “hateful,” “inaccurate” and “irresponsible”; the American Jewish Committee called the report “a canard” and a “libel”; and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations claimed the report sought “to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish and democratic State of Israel.”

The three major American Jewish religious denominations piled on as well: the Union for Reform Judaism expressed its “profound disappointment and explicit condemnation” of the report; the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism labeled it “outrageously dishonest” and “deceitful”; and the Orthodox Union condemned the report as an “ideologically driven polemic.” (As of this writing, the Reconstructionist movement has yet to release a statement.)

It’s doubtful that the authors of these terse and hastily released statements actually read the report, which is nearly 300 pages and took four years to research and publish. And not surprisingly, none of the statements directly addressed the specific findings of the report beyond the use of the “A” word. Rather, they rolled out their tired and increasingly desperate-sounding pro-Israel talking points: that such claims “demonized” the state of Israel, that Israel is a thriving democracy that gives equal rights to its Palestinian citizens, and that criticism of Israel only serves to inflame antisemitism against Jews.

By contrast, statements from Liberal Zionist organizations were less harsh, admitting the reality of Israel’s human rights abuses even as they disagreed with the report’s use of the term “apartheid.” J Street threaded the needle very carefully, affirming that “Israel as a democratic national homeland for the Jewish people is historically just and necessary” while calling out Israel’s “deepening de facto annexation of the territory it has occupied since 1967.” When it came to the report itself, J Street declined to “endorse its findings or the recommendations.”

The response released by Tru’ah: The Rabbinical Call for Human Rights condemned “the very real human rights abuses that Palestinians face every day,” but objected to “many of the report’s assertions, language choices, assumptions, and conclusions.” (They remained notably silent on the specifics of their objections.) In the end, Tru’ah’s true agenda was revealed by their call for a negotiated settlement for a two-state solution: an argument for essentially maintaining the status quo even as Israel’s human rights abuses continue unabated on the ground.

It’s worth noting that while both Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights groups B’Tselem released similar reports on Israeli apartheid, neither inspired the same level of collective vehemence as the Amnesty report. This is likely because as one of the most prominent and well-known human rights organizations in the world, Amnesty’s report makes it that much more acceptable to isolate Israel as an apartheid state. Israel and its supporters know full well that a term such as this has the power to turn the state into an international pariah.

This report also differs from previous reports in terms of its conclusions, particularly its explicit support of Palestinian refugees’ right of return. And while Amnesty does not openly support BDS [Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions], it does call on governments and regional actors to “immediately suspend the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer, including transit and trans-shipment to Israel of all weapons, munitions and other military and security equipment, including the provision of training and other military and security assistance.” It likewise encourages them to “institute and enforce a ban on products from Israeli settlements in (their) markets” and “regulate companies domiciled in (their) jurisdiction in a manner to prohibit companies’ operation in settlements or trade in settlements goods.”

In the end, human rights reports alone cannot themselves hold Israel accountable. They can, however, create space to make it more acceptable to publicly acknowledge the systemic roots of Israel’s crimes against Palestinians. As journalist Maureen Murphy wrote in her excellent piece What Makes Amnesty’s Apartheid Report Different?: “Amnesty’s report is a strong indicator that an analysis beyond the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is becoming mainstream.”

In the meantime, I hope that anyone concerned with justice in Israel/Palestine will do what the organizations above cynically failed to do: read, consider, discuss and share the content of this important and groundbreaking report.

The author has granted permission for reposting in People’s World. The original post can be viewed here.

CONTRIBUTOR

Rabbi Brant Rosen
Brant Rosen is Midwest Regional Director for the American Friends Service Committee and the rabbi of Tzedek Chicago.
“Yes I said yes”: James Joyce’s Ulysses at 100

February 9, 2022 BY JENNY FARRELL

The first edition of Ulysses / Geoffrey Barker (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0).

On James Joyce’s 40th birthday, Sylvia Beach in Paris published his now most famous work, Ulysses, written in Trieste, Zurich, and Paris, 1914-1921. That was on February 2, 1922. Excerpts had appeared in the U.S. magazine The Little Review between 1918 and 1920. But deemed obscene, it was banned in the English-speaking world. The modernist novel immortalizes in its nearly one thousand pages a single day in Joyce’s home town of Dublin—June 16, 1904, the day he met Nora Barnacle, then a chambermaid from Galway, working in Dublin. Bloomsday, named after the main hero Leopold Bloom, has been celebrated in Dublin and the world over ever since Ulysses was published.

Joyce was born in 1882, the eldest of ten children, into a lower middle-class family in Dublin, which rapidly became impoverished due to his alcoholic and financially inept father. A turbulent youth was followed by language studies and first literary attempts, as well as efforts to gain a foothold in Paris. After the death of his mother in 1903, the family fell apart, and Joyce persuaded Nora to leave Ireland with him a few months after they met. Following their own odyssey, Joyce found employment teaching English mainly to naval officers in Pola, an Austro-Hungarian naval base, now Croatia. He gave up this post soon afterwards in favor of employment at the Berlitz language school in Trieste, in 1905. From Trieste (then Austro-Hungary), where by 1915 he was considered an enemy alien, as a British citizen, he moved to neutral Zurich. In 1920, the family moved to Paris, where they lived until 1940. After the invasion by the Wehrmacht, the Joyce family hoped to return to Zurich, but this was only possible in December 1940 after months of great effort. Joyce died just weeks later, on January 11, 1941.

At its most succinct, Ulysses is about how three characters, the advertising seller Leopold Bloom, the teacher Stephen Dedalus, and the singer Molly Bloom, spend the day. Stephen Dedalus teaches in the morning and gets paid for it; in the afternoon he attends a discussion at the National Library; in the evening he gets drunk and goes to a brothel. Leopold Bloom prepares breakfast for his wife, goes to a funeral, worries about selling an advertisement, wanders around town, and also ends up in a brothel. At night, Stephen and Leopold go to Bloom’s house together and have a drink. Then Stephen leaves and Bloom goes to bed. Molly, who had received her lover during the day, lies in bed thinking.

Joyce’s acquaintance with the Odyssey came via English translations based on the Latin version (Ulysses), hence this title. A thorough knowledge of Homer’s text is unnecessary to understand Joyce’s book. He alludes to the Homeric epic in the light of an archetype, a symbolic expression of human experience, and uses the contrast between a heroic past and an unheroic present ironically. The setting is dilapidated Dublin, Ulysses is not a king but an advertisement seller for a newspaper, and he returns home not to a loyal queen but to a woman he knows has cheated on him that day. Bloom is no Greek hero. He passively accepts Molly’s/Penelope’s infidelity. This puts both past and present into perspective. In addition to the Ulysses epic, other myths are invoked, that of the Wandering Jew (Bloom is a Hungarian Jew), the Eternal Feminine (Bloom is a man with many feminine qualities), as well as Jesus’s love of humanity (Joyce himself was an atheist).

Joyce’s image of Dublin paints a society in hopeless decay, exploited and ruined by the Catholic Church and the British Empire. There is a lack not only of heroism, but of productivity in general. There is hardly a worker in the book. Despite its setting in the colonial backyard of Britain, however, Joyce, writing in the years of World War I, creates the peaceful life 10 years before the outbreak of that war, in which three characters of the petty bourgeoisie simply go about their day. The plot remains set in the (partially impoverished) petty bourgeoisie.

One of the novel’s leitmotifs, Stephen’s refusal to pray at his mother’s deathbed, is related to his rejection of “The imperial British state…and the holy Roman catholic and apostolic church.” He rejects both England and colonial Ireland. Casualties of the Boer War are seen in the streets, as is the representative of the English Crown, Viceroy Dudley.

Taking Chapter 10 as an illustration, the opening and closing scenes with Father Conmee and the Viceroy not only add to the richness of the Dublin milieu, but also have symbolic significance: they represent the Church and the State, both of which Stephen refuses to obey. The chapter provides a cross-section of Dublin life between 3 and 4 p.m. Most of the episodes concern minor characters who appear in other episodes in the book. Father Conmee notices the stately smile on Mrs. McGuiness, who has in her pawnshop a large part of the Dedalus household; Dilly Dedalus meets her brother at a bookstall; a one-legged sailor is blessed by Father Conmee and receives money from a corpulent lady in the street as well as from Molly Bloom, who tosses a penny out of the window as she prepares for her lover Blazes Boylan’s visit. In the final section, the Viceroy makes his only appearance.

Random, unnamed characters such as the sandwich-board men who turn up throughout the book also make an appearance. There are references to the past and the future: the flushed young man Father Conmee sees emerging from a gap in the hedge with his girl will reappear as the medical student Vincent in the hospital scene; Stephen notices a “sailorman, rustbearded,” who will resurface late at night in the cabman’s shelter.

Seemingly unrelated phrases link this episode to others, at once evoking and reminding us that characters continue to exist in the background, even if they are not present at that moment. Thus, in the middle of Mulligan and Haines chatting over a snack and tea, there is a sentence about the one-legged sailor and the words “England expects….” There is more here than a mere reminder of the seemingly unrelated existence of the sailor hobbling down Nelson Street. It also points to the Viceroy. Thus, on the surface, a feeling of crowded Dublin life emerges in this chapter, and at the same time a sense that a reality exists independently of individual consciousness.

Joyce’s style is at pains to recreate the thought processes of the characters. Here Bloom leaves his house in the morning:

“On the doorstep he felt in his hip pocket for the latchkey. Not there. In the trousers I left off. Must get it. Potato I have. Creaky wardrobe. No use disturbing her. She turned over sleepily that time. He pulled the halldoor to after him very quietly, more, till the footleaf dropped gently over the threshold, a limp lid. Looked shut. All right till I come back anyhow.” There is an unusual multi-layered interweaving of first and third person

 narration.
Etching of James Joyce by Josepha van den Anker, 2000. | Courtesy of Eric Gordon

The famous Molly soliloquy in the last chapter is different. By dispensing with punctuation altogether, Joyce attempts to reproduce actual stream of consciousness. The thoughts are now no longer interrupted by a third person narrator, but move into each other. The long soliloquy ends:

“O and the sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets and the figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streets and pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around Him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.”

As well as ironizing the epic, the novel also contains humor, such as Bloom’s thoughts at the funeral:

“Lots of them lying around here: lungs, hearts, livers. Old rusty pumps: damn the thing else. The resurrection and the life. Once you are dead you are dead. That last day idea. Knocking them all up out of their graves. Come forth, Lazarus! And he came fifth and lost the job. Get up! Last day! Then every fellow mousing around for his liver and his lights and the rest of his traps.”

Anyone planning to tackle this work—which is, after all, Jeremy Corbyn’s favorite book—should read uninhibitedly and simply skip the passages that seem difficult on first reading.

Onward to Ulysses’ second century!

CONTRIBUTOR

Jenny Farrell
Dr. Jenny Farrell was born in Berlin. She has lived in Ireland since 1985, working as a lecturer in Galway Mayo Institute of Technology. Her main fields of interest are Irish and English poetry and the work of William Shakespeare. She writes for Culture Matters and for Socialist Voice, the newspaper of the Communist party of Ireland.

A NOVEL FOR READING ALOUD IN THE CLASSIC CELTIC TRADITION OF  POETRY AND BARDIC VOICE, IN THE 1980'S RADIO IRELAND DID A SPECIAL 72 HOUR LONG READING OF ULYSSES, WHICH I LISTENED TO ON CBC FM. THE REALIZATION  THAT THIS WAS A TEXT TO READ OUT LOUD WAS CLEAR WHEN A CHOIR OF VOICES BECAME A BABBLING GURGGLING BROOK.




Century-old building that was 1st Catholic school on Edmonton's south side for sale at $6.6M

Madeleine Cummings - Thursday

A 116-year-old building that was the first Catholic school on Edmonton's south side is on the market for $6.6 million.

The St. Anthony building on the corner of 84th Ave. and 104th St. in Old Strathcona was first built in 1906. In recent decades, Edmonton Catholic Schools has used it as a meeting centre, storage facility and archives.

ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM OLD SCONA PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILT IN 1905
WHERE I WAS HEAD CUSTODIAN FOR 14 YEARS

The district is now selling the property as it consolidates six administrative buildings and plans to move staff to the new Lumen Christi Catholic Education Centre on 50th St. this summer.

"We admit, it was not an easy decision to list St. Anthony for sale, but given our fiscal reality, the costs associated with operating and maintaining a building that is over 100 years old, it does not justify keeping it," spokesperson Christine Meadows said.

A first for the south side

In the 1890s, Catholic students who lived south of the North Saskatchewan River attended a one-room school within St. Anthony Roman Catholic Church.

According to the school district's records, Father Albert Lacombe named the parish, quoting an old church tradition that "a parish named after St. Anthony will never want for money."

As the population grew, more space was needed and a school was built, with the first floor and basement completed in 1906. When it opened, it became the first Catholic school in what was then Strathcona.

Helen Scarlett, Edmonton Catholic Schools' archives co-ordinator, said the building received a series of additions over the years before closing to students due to low enrolment in 1973.

Scarlett, who has worked there since 2003, knows the building's every nook and cranny, from the original air vents and separate entrances for boy and girls to the markings students etched on bricks outside.

A plaque from the city acknowledges its history but the building does not have historical designation.

Additions partially obscure the original school, so people walking by might not notice its age.

"Because of that, they don't really realize the rich history of the school, how long it's actually been here and how core of an element it was to Strathcona," Scarlett said.

Scarlett is collecting stories of the building from residents and plans to memorialize its history in some way.


© Gabriela Panza-Beltrandi/CBCEdmonton 
Catholic Schools archives co-ordinator Helen Scarlett has been working in the St. Anthony building since 2003.

Interest from developers


Jandip Deol, with the commercial real estate company Avison Young, said a wide array of developers and builders have expressed interest in the St. Anthony site and the company is in talks with a few parties.

He said a parking lot on the property could accommodate something more urban, like a mixed-use development.

Deol said developers and builders understand the building's cultural and historical significance.

"I think everyone in the neighbourhood would like to see this building stay and that's been expressed to all the parties that had interest," he said.
Looking back and ahead

Anita Jenkins, who worked at the school as a Grade 4 teacher for two years in her early twenties, said that even in the 1960s, the building seemed dated.

"It was a very creaky old place," she recalled.

She said teachers addressed each other formally, not using their colleagues' first names, and the student population was diverse, with children coming from nearby apartments and the homes of provincial politicians and academics.

Jenkins said she is interested in preserving history but does not feel attached to the St. Anthony building.

"Some things have a best-before date," she said.

Lech Leszczak, who volunteers at a recovery program in the basement of the nearby Strathcona Baptist Church, said the neighbourhood could use a homeless shelter.

"Another shelter would be a good idea to take some of the burden off the churches," he said.


Scarlett said she hopes the building is preserved in some way.

"Having a link to an important part of the community's history is important and preserving that is very worthwhile," she said.
B.C. shellfish growers experiencing a watershed moment

Quadra Island oyster farmer Steve Pocock believes B.C.’s shellfish sector is facing a watershed moment.

West Coast growers have endured a tough couple of years as the COVID-19 pandemic dried up demand from restaurants and international markets, and extreme temperatures in June cooked countless beach-grown oysters and clams alive in their shells.

And now growers have another sink or swim dilemma — the need to change farming practices and tackle marine debris created by the shellfish sector, said Pocock, who is also president of the BC Shellfish Growers Association (BCSGA).

Beach cleanups by some coastal stewardship groups and communities have documented large amounts of debris and plastic coming from areas where shellfish farming is concentrated.

Social licence for old farming practices is in steep decline, and producers need to overcome their resistance to change and improve or consider getting out of the sector, Pocock said.

“There's a little bit of frustration … with people who think they can carry on the same way they did 20 years ago,” he said.

“Shellfish growers, like anyone else, need to adapt and change to the new standards that are expected of them.”

Shellfish operators will soon have to enclose Styrofoam floats in a hard casing, inspect and dive beneath their platforms to retrieve debris annually, mark all gear with identifying data, and self-report annually to demonstrate compliance or risk fines or the loss of their licence.

It will be hard for smaller operations to be able to absorb the costs, Pocock said.

However, most active shellfish producers are on board, with 75 per cent already reporting they’re in compliance with the association’s new stewardship plan and the new regulations from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), some of which will come into effect in April, Pocock said.

“Unfortunately, the industry gets tarred as a whole when people aren’t compliant,” he said.

“If nine farms you drive past look fine, but the 10th farm is a complete mess, people are going to remember the one that is a mess.”

There’s also a misperception growers are profiting from federal or provincial funding programs that subsidize some of the costs they face in meeting improved environmental standards, Pocock said.

“The farmer has to put up a percentage of cash and also make significant labour commitments to carry out the projects,” he said.

“In our case, tens of thousands of dollars.”

Derelict farms already pose a big part of the shellfish debris problem, he added.

Previously, the province or federal government, which share jurisdiction over the industry, had to take operators to court to enforce environmental standards, a costly and time-consuming exercise.

But new regulations will allow fisheries officers to immediately ticket and fine licence- or tenure-holders who aren’t in compliance, he said.

Regardless of the challenges, Pocock is optimistic a continued push by the association, the province, and DFO will produce results on the pollution front.

“I’m hoping that with a joint effort between the industry and the regulators, we can get to a better place.”

Solving the debris issue guarantees the future and marketing potential of an industry that has the advantage of a light carbon footprint to produce a high-quality protein for consumers who are more and more environmentally conscious, he added.

Shellfish are also superheroes when it comes to tackling climate change. Bivalves such as oysters, mussels and clams filter their own food from the ocean, improving water quality and marine habitat for other wildlife, and reducing the likelihood of harmful algal blooms in warming waters. They also store significant amounts of carbon in their shells.

But growers will have to bite the bullet and pay for the sector’s necessary environmental upgrades to continue to profit from the industry, Pocock said.

“The farmers have to dig in their pockets and find a lot of money to make those improvements,” Pocock said.

“And you either improve and comply, or you need to stop because there really isn’t any other option.”

Rochelle Baker / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada's National Observer

None

Rochelle Baker, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Canada's National Observer


CANADA
Unions, employers split on 'right to disconnect' legislation: advisory committee



An advisory group tasked with recommending how Canada should handle the right to disconnect after work hours was split on whether the country should adopt a legislative requirement for workplaces.

A final report released Thursday by the Right to Disconnect Advisory Committee said unions and non-governmental organizations that were consulted want the country to use legislation to force workplaces to establish a right to disconnect.

Advocates say a voluntary approach will not work because without legislation, workers may be penalized for exercising their right to disconnect and non-unionized workers will have no effective way to push for such a policy.

However, employers consulted by the government favoured a voluntary approach because they felt the Canada Labour Code already has clear guidelines around hours of work and appropriate compensation for after-work tasks.

The right to disconnect, which involves letting workers ignore electronic communications related to their job when they're not on the clock, has been a hot topic since the federal government promised to tackle the issue in 2018.

It formed its advisory committee in 2020 and the group met 10 times before releasing its report on Thursday, which Minister of Labour Seamus O’Regan will use to guide any policy he brings forward.

The committee was in part prompted by a right to disconnect law in France, but the COVID-19 pandemic put the issue in the spotlight once more as Canadians found themselves working longer hours from home.

Ontario has chosen not to wait for a federal policy and received royal assent for new "right to disconnect" legislation on Dec. 2. It forces employers with at least 25 staff to develop policies on disconnecting from work in the next six months, but doesn't specify which scenarios businesses have to address.

Some of those consulted through the federal advisory committee want the countrywide approach to right-to-disconnect to be more specific.

Some committee members highlighted that the government will have to decide "the extent to which, due to operational realities and flexible work arrangements, certain employees cannot be subject to barriers to communication."

While the committee was split on whether a legislative approach is needed, it agreed any right to disconnect policy should ensure employers retain the ability to contact workers in emergency situations and to communicate critical health and safety information.

The committee also agreed that employees should be paid for work performed and have a positive work-life balance and flexibility.

In formulating any right to disconnect policy, they said there is a need to recognize existing arrangements, such as collective agreements, and understand that absolute limits like shutting down email servers or network access may not be realistic in some situations.

The employer members of the committee include several federally-regulated employers in the transportation and communications industry, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Railway Association of Canada and the National Airlines Council of Canada.

The consulted unions include the Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor, Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, Canadian Union of Public Employees and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Canada.

Non-Governmental Organisations involved are the Canadian Women’s Foundation, the Canadian Council for Youth Prosperity, the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business and the Atkinson Foundation.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 10, 2022.

Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press


Wolves use trails created by humans for convenient hunting and easier access to prey

Melanie Dickie, PhD candidate, Biology, University of Alberta - 
The Conversation

Zoom in and explore the northern boreal forests of western Canada on Google Earth and you’ll see long straight lines making their way through the forest. These lines are cleared trails through the forest to extract resources, creating roads for forestry and seismic lines searching for underground oil and gas deposits.

Now picture yourself faced with the task of moving across this landscape: Will you push your way through dense trees and underbrush, or will you choose to walk on the trails?

Like humans, wolves often choose the path of least resistance, moving faster and farther on human-created trails through the forest. Increased wolf movement is believed to play an important role in the decline of the threatened boreal woodland caribou — an iconic species in Canada (just look at the quarter in your pocket).

When wolves move farther, they encounter their prey more frequently, and caribou are being hunted by wolves at rates they cannot sustain.


© (Natasha Crosland/Caribou Monitoring Unit)A seismic line created by searching for underground oil and gas deposits.
Smaller territories

But now, we’ve also found that wolves living in areas that make it easier for them to get around need less space to make a living. The relationship is particularly strong when prey are scarce.

We tracked 142 wolves using GPS collars across British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan — spanning over 500,000 square kilometres. The tracked wolves spanned areas with low to high prey density (measured using a metric of habitat productivity, or how much vegetation there is for species like moose), and had varying access to human-created trails.

Wolves living in areas with high densities of human-created trails took up an area roughly 20 times smaller than wolves without trails, but only when they lived in areas with low habitat productivity. Comparatively, trails didn’t change the area needed for wolves when they lived in areas with high habitat productivity.


© (Created by FUSE for Caribou Monitoring Unit/UBC-Okanagan/Regional Industry Caribou Collaboration)The territories covered by wolves are changing.

Think about picking berries. If the berries are hard to find, you have to go looking far and wide to get enough to fill up your basket. But if something makes it easier for you to find the berries, then you don’t have to look around as much. You can just grab all the ones that you see close to you. The advantage of being able to easily find berries would be less important if there are a lot because you can skip over a few without noticing. But it becomes more important when there are few to begin with, and every last berry counts.

This is exactly what we are seeing with wolves: Instead of choosing to travel far and wide, wolves with access to lots of trails stay close to home and get by with what they have.


The space animals use to carry out their lives is called a home range, or if defended from conspecifics like in the case of wolves, a territory. If animals have smaller home ranges, that means more animals can crowd into a given space, increasing the density of that species. It is well documented that animals need less space when there is an abundance of food around — and now we know that easier access to that food can also decrease home range size. We found that increasing a wolf’s access to their prey, through things like cleared trails through the forest, can decrease their home range size, likely increasing the regional density of wolves.

Habitat restoration


But why do we care about how big wolf home ranges are? One of the biggest conservation challenges in Canada is that of woodland caribou. Caribou live across large areas, overlapping places where the energy and forestry sectors are actively extracting natural resources like oil, gas and timber.


© (Melanie Dickie/Caribou Monitoring Unit)A remote camera capture of caribou in the boreal forest. Changes in wolf-hunting patterns are threatening the already endangered caribou.

Habitat restoration and protection have been identified as key steps needed to recover declining populations. Despite existing efforts and policies, caribou habitat loss continues to accelerate across much of western Canada.


Habitat restoration is imminently needed, but is expensive and time consuming. Prioritizing habitat restoration in areas where it will be most beneficial to caribou as soon as possible is necessary for effective caribou management.

Habitat restoration has two main goals: to reduce wolf hunting efficiency by limiting their use of trails and slow their movement when on them and to return the forest to caribou habitat. But now we have reason to believe that slowing wolves down can also reduce wolf density on the landscape — forcing individual wolves to take up more space and push others out — especially in low-productivity peatlands, where the effect on home ranges is stronger.

Effective habitat restoration is going to be important for moving away from other management actions like wolf management in the long term. But, we have a lot of work ahead of us. There are hundreds of thousands of kilometres of these cleared trails that need to be restored. Our study points us towards prioritizing low-productivity areas to see the biggest effects sooner.


This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.


Read more:
How will climate change affect Arctic caribou and reindeer?

Melanie Dickie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The 'meat paradox': Why people can love animals — and eat them

Canadians prefer pepperoni on their pizza. And though one in four considered cutting it during COVID-19, beef is still a staple .

Laura Brehaut -
National Post - Thursday

© Provided by National PostMany people experience the

If you eat meat — as more than 90 per cent of Canadians do — chances are good, it comes from factory farms. Each year, 80 billion animals are slaughtered for meat globally, more than 90 per cent of which are estimated to live in intensive farming systems.

The alternative — meat bearing labels such as “free-range,” “grass-fed” and “certified humane” — is very much the minority. But those $7.99 rotisserie birds come at a cost to animal welfare and the environment.

According to Our World in Data , livestock production takes a significant environmental toll. Beef (meat and dairy), lamb and mutton emit the most greenhouse gas per kilogram than any other food. And when it comes to producing the beef that leads the pack in emissions, a study published in the journal Animal Welfare suggests that 13.6 per cent of bulls are inadequately stunned.

Many of the same people who regularly put meat on their plates are also likely to identify as animal lovers — sharing their homes with pets they adore, devouring cute animal videos on social media and supporting stricter food labelling around animal welfare.

A 2017 study published in the journal Society & Animals even suggests that people empathize more with dogs than they do other adults.

So, how do people reconcile their affection for animals with their desire to eat them in the form of meat?

The answer lies in the psychology behind the way we perceive contradictory information: a manifestation of cognitive dissonance (the discomfort of our beliefs clashing with new information) called the “meat paradox.”

In a first-of-its-kind literature review published in the Social Psychological Bulletin , U.K. researchers from the Societies Research Hub at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) and Nottingham Trent University investigated the meat paradox and identified its two main psychological processes: triggers, such as reminding people of meat’s animal origin; and restorative strategies including disengagement from the issue.

“One of the big triggers of this meat paradox and of this cognitive dissonance, as we call it — this feeling of discomfort — is just hearing information about animals,” says ARU doctoral researcher Sarah Gradidge, lead author of the literature review.

“So simply just, for example, saying to somebody that their meat comes from an animal could be a trigger of this discomfort and can make them feel very uncomfortable and potentially very threatened.”

The researchers found that people use different strategies to deal with the meat paradox and alleviate their discomfort. Different people — intersecting with age, culture, dietary preferences, gender, occupation or religion — use different strategies, adds Gradidge, though figuring out why requires future research.

Some tend to use indirect strategies, the most common of which is avoidance: mental (e.g., avoiding thinking about meat as animal flesh) or physical (e.g., steering clear of slaughterhouse footage).

“Obviously, if you’re eating meat, you might not want to think about where that meat has come from. So very simply, you might just be avoiding any thoughts that this meat has come from an animal,” says Gradidge.

This is the Healthiest Fish You Can Eat



Most fish is full of healthy fats, which make it a nutritious addition to any meal. And, since most fish is free from both saturated fats and trans fats, “it’s an overall really great lean protein source,” says Maiya Ahluwalia, registered dietitian and founder of Toronto-based nutrition counselling service Nourishing Balance.

The healthy fatty acids found in many types of fish, known as omega-3s, have a whole suite of health benefits. For instance, omega-3s are known for their anti-inflammatory properties and are essential to heart health. In fact, they've been shown to help prevent coronary heart disease.

Omega-3s are also great for brain health. Studies have shown that higher omega-3 consumption is associated with better cognitive function in adults over the age of 60.

“All you need is approximately two servings a week to meet your omega-3 needs,” says Annie Tsang, a Vancouver-based registered dietitian. “Each serving is about 75 grams: think the size of a deck of cards.”

To get the most out of those weekly servings, find out the five healthiest fish to eat.

Others tend to use more direct strategies to reduce dissonance by justifying their meat consumption. Most commonly: “denying positive traits to animals,” the 4Ns — defending meat eating as “natural,” “necessary,” “nice” and “normal” — and “denial of adverse consequences.”

“Instead of not thinking about it, they might actually be actively denying certain information. They may be denying that meat consumption causes harm to animals. They may be denying that animals even feel pain ,” Gradidge explains.

“And that alleviates guilt because obviously, if animals can’t feel pain, then meat consumption isn’t going to hurt them. It essentially renders meat consumption completely harmless because it doesn’t cause any pain.”

Vegaphobia — stigma against vegans and vegetarians — can also be a strategy for dealing with the meat paradox, she adds. Sociologists Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan first identified the phenomenon in 2011 in their examination of the British media’s “derogatory” portrayal of vegans.

Most people want to act in a moral way, says Gradidge. If someone were to tell them that their meat eating is causing harm, for example, it could make them feel threatened and uncomfortable.

Instead of dealing with those emotions of discomfort, reflecting on and perhaps changing their own behaviour — such as reducing meat consumption — they may deflect the threat towards vegans and vegetarians. “I suppose, almost like shooting the messenger.”

In “It ain’t easy eating greens,” a 2015 study published in the journal Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , researchers Cara C. MacInnis and Gordon Hodson observed that only people with an addiction are viewed more negatively than vegans and vegetarians.

“Unlike other forms of bias (e.g., racism, sexism), negativity toward vegetarians and vegans is not widely considered a societal problem; rather, (it) is commonplace and largely accepted,” the Guardian reports of their conclusions.

Demonstrating this stigma — a phenomenon called do-gooder derogation — doesn’t just apply to vegans and vegetarians, Gradidge highlights, but people dealing with other moral issues as well (e.g., resentment of others’ generosity ).

How much of a role does protein play in getting Olympic athletes to the podium?

Beef is still a staple, but 1 in 4 Canadians considered cutting it during COVID: survey

The way people communicate information about the consequences of meat eating matters, highlights Gradidge.

An August 2021 study published in the journal PLOS One suggests that blaming people — intentionally or not — for their role in unethical behaviour “leads to increased defensiveness and may be counterproductive.”

Alleviating them of any wrongdoing, however, may make them more receptive to information and potential change.

“It’s really, really important that when we’re talking about these issues, we’re doing it in a way that is absolving. So, we’re doing it in a way that’s not blaming meat eaters and saying, ‘It’s all your fault, you’re a bad person,’ etc.,” says Gradidge.

“We want to try to do it in a way that’s compassionate, and in a way that’s relatable to them. We really want to avoid these ‘us versus them’ politics. We don’t want to be presenting it as us, the animal welfare advocates, against them, the meat eaters. We really want to be thinking about how we can relate and try to bridge the gap.”

Effective communication requires finding the “sweet spot of cognitive dissonance,” she adds. Behavioural change requires some discomfort — if people don’t feel any, they’ll continue doing what they’ve always done.

If people feel too threatened, however, they tend to switch off and avoid the issue. A minority of people will even do the opposite in an urge to rebel (a psychological effect called reactance ). If the message is to decrease meat consumption, they will increase it due to a perceived loss of freedom.

Raising awareness about animal welfare and environmental issues related to meat consumption is necessary, says Gradidge, but needs to be done in a way that will encourage people to reflect — not disengage.

“It raises some major issues when we’re talking about these issues, because we need to talk about them. But then we have to really navigate this cognitive dissonance and this potential discomfort as well,” she adds.

“It’s not about trying to force people to change their behaviour. It’s about trying to get people to reflect on their meat consumption themselves and to then make the decision themselves…. But obviously if we are presenting it in a way that’s threatening, then people aren’t going to reflect at all. They’re just going to ignore the information sadly.”

The meat paradox: how your brain wrestles with the ethics of eating animals
The Conversation
February 12, 2022

Photo by Daniel Quiceno M on Unsplash

Most people eat meat and dairy with little thought of the consequences. Yet those consequences are planetary in scale. Raising livestock for meat, eggs and milk accounts for roughly 14%

of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Beef production is the biggest driver of forest loss within agriculture. The meat industry has been linked to a host of other environmental harms, including water pollution.

Eating too much meat can be bad for your health too, particularly red and processed meat which is thought to increase your risk of developing colorectal cancer. Feeding the world’s appetite for meat costs the lives of billions of animals a year, and animal welfare is a concern on farms worldwide, with pigscows and chickens often subject to overcrowding, open wounds and disease.

Animal welfare laws in the UK compare poorly with standards set by organisations like the RSPCA. Chickens are forced to grow much faster than they naturally would and become ill as a result, while narrow crates and tying posts restrict the movements of pigs and cows. In extreme cases, captive pigs have been found engaging in cannibalism.

In what is no doubt a response to these concerns, veganism is on the rise. In the UK, the number of people eating a plant-based diet increased fourfold between 2014 and 2019. However, vegans still only make up about 1% of the UK population and vegetarians just 2%. On a global scale, meat consumption is actually increasing. So why do people keep eating meat, despite widespread awareness of the downsides?

Psychologists have some answers.

The meat paradox


Our recent paper reviewed 73 articles on a phenomenon called the meat paradox – the mental contradiction that helps devoted animal lovers continue eating animals.

This moral dilemma can cause people psychological discomfort, and our review revealed several triggers. For instance, you may relate to the jarring experience of realising for the first time that the meat on your plate came from an animal.

Meat-eating has consequences for how we interact with and perceive animals in later life, too. While eating beef in a 2010 study, participants were less likely to view animals as worthy of moral concern. And the more committed someone is to eating meat, the more likely they are to avoid information about the positive qualities of animals raised for food.

The discomfort people feel about eating meat presents them with a stark choice. Either remove the moral dilemma by giving up meat, or continue eating meat and morally disengage. Moral disengagement is when we choose not to act on our moral values. Our review highlighted several strategies that people use to maintain this moral disengagement.

After being reminded that the meat on your plate comes from an animal, you may try to forget its animal origins. People are more willing to eat meat when its animal origins are obscured, such as by calling meat beef instead of cow. Telling yourself that meat is necessary for health, socially normal, natural or too nice to give up can reduce the guilt people feel when eating meat. Giving up meat can seem difficult and so people often turn to these strategies to reconcile conflicting feelings.



Recalling the animal origins of meat can counter moral disengagement.
Moonborne/Shutterstock

Overcoming moral disengagement


If you would like to reduce your own meat consumption, psychological research has a few recommendations.

• Recognise and remember how reducing your meat consumption aligns with your values.

• Always keep animals in mind. Allow yourself to humanise them by considering their capacity for emotion, for example.

• Accept that changing your diet may be a gradual process.

If you want to encourage others to cut down on meat-eating, you can:

• Avoid blaming them for their meat consumption. This only makes people more resistant to vegetarianism and veganism. Instead, approach these tricky interactions with compassion.

• Avoid telling other people what to do. Let them make up their own minds.

• Humanise animals by encouraging people to view them instead as friends and not food.

Sarah Gradidge, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University

Magdalena Zawisza, Associate Professor/Reader in Gender and Advertising Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.