Unless I misread their biographies, I don’t believe NDP MPPs Kristyn Wong-Tam and Joel Harden trace their lineage to the Levant. Was Mr. Harden’s activism born from his experience as a young Palestinian trying to survive in Gaza? Or was it from his position as a student activist railing against capitalism within the comfy confines of Canadian universities? I suppose I will leave it to Mr. Harden, as well as Ms. Wong-Tam, to clarify.
Surely they understand the confusion they have stirred up this week by defying a rule in Ontario’s legislature against wearing keffiyehs, which, we are told, are absolutely not political symbols, but cultural pieces of clothing deeply tied to Arabic identity. Ms. Wong-Tam was merely embracing her, erm, culture by wearing the garment in the Chamber. And it was “not a prop” for Mr. Harden when he used it to, erm, non-verbally protest the Speaker’s ban on the scarf in the legislature. Everyone got that straight?
We can choose to go along with the tenuous claim that the keffiyeh hasn’t taken on new political meaning since the war in Gaza began, or we can acknowledge the reality that symbols evolve. What was once just an article of clothing is now a clear symbol of Palestinian resistance, which is why political undergrads who are about as Arabic as tuna casserole are suddenly wearing them to pick up their morning coffee. That’s not a bad thing; it’s simply an acknowledgement that context matters when talking about how symbols or gestures are used and perceived.
It is well within the Speaker’s rights to ban the keffiyeh in the chamber (earlier this week, he scaled back his prohibition on the keffiyeh in the entire building). The rules clearly prohibit “the display of signs, banners, buttons, clothing with partisan/political messages or obscenities” and so on within the legislature, and it’s reasonable to argue that the keffiyeh is being used to send a political message, especially since Mr. Harden, Ms. Wong-Tam and independent MPP Sarah Jama didn’t wear them in the legislature before the war began.
But the Speaker has discretion, and this is a battle he would’ve been better off leaving alone, especially since the clash has become a multiweek distraction from more important matters at Queen’s Park. Indeed, this spectacle has given Ms. Jama more of an audience for her remarks on Gaza (which, in the past, have included denying the rape of Israeli women, and more recently included a call to “globalize the intifada”) than she would have had by simply wearing her keffiyeh in the legislature.
And while the keffiyeh has undoubtedly become a political symbol, its meaning is not universal. B’nai Brith Canada released a statement claiming that the keffiyeh’s “innocuous origins as a cultural symbol have been corrupted by radicals,” and that “it has become a divisive symbol that is used to incite.” But that’s no more true than claiming that the Israeli flag has morphed from an innocuous symbol of patriotism to an incendiary symbol of “genocide,” as some pro-Palestinian activists have claimed.
The keffiyeh is worn by people who want to show solidarity with Palestinians’ suffering, who reject the West’s involvement in supporting Israel, and who want to see an immediate and lasting ceasefire – and yes, also by those who deny the rape of Israeli women, and by others who openly praise Hamas. If it were a symbol whose only or primary interpretation was hateful – like a swastika, or the Hamas flag – there would be no question that it should be banned from the legislature. But the freedom to wear a cultural garment, even if it has taken on more complicated meaning in recent months, should be maintained in our legislatures.
Some will argue that whether or not the keffiyeh’s message is incendiary, it is nevertheless political, which is expressly against the rules, and that by allowing it, the Speaker risks turning the legislature into a circus where props, signs, buttons, flags and symbols for myriad causes become the norm. But the keffiyeh is an ambiguous case. It is not, say, a sign with a political slogan, and it would be defensible in this case for the Speaker to use his discretion to allow it (which he has already done by loosening the rules). What’s more, the prohibition on political symbols is arguably trying to maintain a level of decorum in the legislature that doesn’t actually exist: there is plenty of activism, posturing, and silly theatrics already. The addition of a scarf doesn’t exactly bastardize the place.
So while the keffiyeh undoubtedly has taken on political meaning, banning it serves little practical purpose, while at the same time creating an unnecessary distraction. And I think we can all agree that Mr. Harden must be allowed to celebrate his heritage.
In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, former President Donald Trump has been vocal in his criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris, labeling her as a far-left politician and questioning her competence. His derogatory remarks, including calling her “Comrade Kamala” and questioning her identity, are part of a broader strategy to undermine her credibility.
However, Harris used her Democratic National Convention (DNC) speech to counter these attacks effectively. In a 40-minute address, she dismantled Trump’s caricature by showcasing her experience, values, and policy priorities. Harris presented herself as a pragmatic leader with a strong background in law enforcement, emphasizing her work as a prosecutor and attorney general. She focused on unifying issues like protecting abortion rights, Social Security, and Medicare, while also stressing her commitment to national security and middle-class tax relief.
Harris also addressed potential vulnerabilities, such as her background and identity, by sharing personal stories that highlighted her American values and deep patriotism. This approach was aimed at making her relatable to a broader audience, countering Trump’s portrayal of her as disconnected from ordinary Americans.
The speech not only fortified her position within the Democratic Party but also presented a formidable challenge to Trump. By blending offensive and defensive strategies in her speech, Harris demonstrated her capability to handle the intense scrutiny and attacks that come with a high-profile campaign. As the election approaches, both Trump and his campaign team are likely recalibrating their strategies in response to Harris’ effective performance.
Washington, D.C. — Recent developments in the Ukraine-Russia conflict have sparked a notable shift in public sentiment within Russia, with negative feelings towards President Vladimir Putin appearing to increase, particularly in regions far from Moscow. This shift comes in the wake of Ukrainian troops making incursions into Russian territory, a move that has been met with dissatisfaction and concern among Russian citizens.
A new analysis by FilterLabs AI, a firm that monitors public opinion in Russia through social media and internet postings, indicates that the Russian public’s attitude towards Putin has soured, especially after Ukrainian forces advanced into the Kursk region of western Russia. Despite the Russian government’s efforts to put a positive spin on the war’s developments, dissatisfaction is growing, with many Russians blaming the government and President Putin personally for the setbacks.
In a country where expressing dissent can lead to serious repercussions, traditional polling methods often fail to capture true public sentiment, as respondents may provide answers they believe are expected by the government. To overcome this limitation, FilterLabs AI employs a computer model to analyze sentiments expressed by Russians on social media, internet postings, and comments on news media sites. This method provides a more nuanced understanding of how ordinary Russians feel about their leadership and the ongoing war.
According to the analysis, Putin’s popularity has been on a downward trajectory since a brief armed rebellion in 2023 led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary force. However, the recent Ukrainian advances have intensified this decline, particularly outside Moscow. While the Russian capital remains somewhat insulated from the growing discontent due to tighter government control over the media, even there, the public’s view of Putin is beginning to sour.
“Putin’s response to the incursion was seen as inadequate at best and insulting at worst,” said Jonathan Teubner, CEO of FilterLabs AI. The perception that Putin’s leadership has faltered in the face of Ukrainian advances is particularly pronounced in Russia’s outlying regions, where frustration with the Kremlin is growing.
The regions showing the sharpest decline in sentiment towards Putin are also those where the Kremlin focuses its military recruiting efforts. This presents a significant challenge for the Russian government, as its recruitment strategy relies heavily on managing public perception of the war. If dissatisfaction continues to grow, it could undermine the Kremlin’s ability to sustain its military efforts.
“It is right now difficult to determine the effect of the Ukrainian counteroffensive,” Teubner noted. “But it is clear that it is shocking and, for Putin, embarrassing. Kremlin propaganda, spin, and distraction can only do so much in the face of bad news that is widely discussed across Russia.”
As the conflict with Ukraine drags on, the Russian government’s ability to control the narrative is being tested. The growing dissatisfaction with President Putin, particularly in regions far from the center of power, suggests that the Kremlin’s grip on public opinion is weakening. How this will impact the ongoing conflict and Putin’s political future remains to be seen, but the signs of unrest are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
OTTAWA – Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri has deleted a post on X that claimed the affordability crisis has driven parents to traffic their kids.
This comes after The Canadian Press sent Ferreri questions regarding the post, which followed a visit to the Kawartha Sexual Assault Centre in Peterborough, Ont.
In a statement today, Ferreri says her post was “inartfully worded.’
The Conservative MP says that while cost-of-living can increase social problems, it is ‘in no way’ an excuse for human trafficking.
In a statement, the KSAC’s executive director says many clients have shared over the past several decades that they were trafficked by a parent or guardian and that this issue is not new.
Brittany McMillan says the centre does not hold any specific government or party responsible for sexual violence but urges all forms of government to invest in prevention and support for survivors.
Ferreri serves as the Conservatives’ critic on families, children and social development.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 21. 2024.
