Monday’s events were focused on Migrant Justice and Economic Justice, but the message that came out of the day was a mixed bag. A rally at Allen Gardens featured United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and anti-poverty activists speaking on behalf of workers affected by G8/G20 policies in the global south. They also spoke about the failure of all levels of government in Canada to provide meaningful support to low-income people during the current economic crisis. 50-100 demonstrators made their way along Dundas, where an Esso station was briefly occupied to show disdain for government bailouts (Esso was one of the 70 corporations that received money from the US government). The march progressed up Yonge Street and ended at  Children’s Aid Society headquarters to emphasize that the well-being of children is being threatened by all levels of government in Canada, due to unfriendly policies and funding structures for women’s organizations and organizations that deal with maternal health.

Things got steamy on Tuesday when the crushing humidity and the political sexiness of the Gender and Queer Justice march collided at Queen and Yonge. A crowd of 100-200 people took up all lanes on Queen street and stopped at various points to engage in a kiss-in, a declaration from lesbian bankers about Pride funding, and a little bit of good old fashioned street theatre—”Harper Don’t Preach,” sung and danced to Madonna’s “Papa Don’t Preach.” Even Perez Hilton took note.

The atmosphere on Wednesday morning was tense, but resistance was fertile. The unusual 5.0 earthquake literally underscored the theme of Environmental and Climate Justice. Groups including the Council of Canadians, the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition (CYCC) led a toxic tour of the city.

Oil dragon at toxic tour in Toronto. Copyright flickr user onlyandrewn 2010.

300-400 people marched with the tour, which was filled with floats, rebel clowns, smiling banner-toters, and others who simply got swept into the crowd as it progressed throughout the city. The crowd stopped first at a Royal Bank branch, where speakers noted that RBC is the biggest funder of the poisonous and destructive Tar Sands project.

The route continued along until the tour arrived at the doorstep of the U of T mining building, which had recently been given a gift from Gold Corp, the second-largest gold producing company in the world. Gold Corp routinely engages in mining operations that create environmental destruction and human rights abuses—in fact, they were just told by Guatemala to stop operating the Marlin mine because of such issues. Speakers from communities affected by mining companies took a moment to call out the corporation and the government of Canada, which has little or no regulations in place to prevent Canadian companies from causing such damage.

The toxic tour ended in front of the courthouse at University and Armory, where progressive lawyers spoke about suits brought against the TSX and the Copper Mesa mining company by three Ecuadorean villagers.

Huge banner and hundreds of protestors block road on Thursday. Copyright Oren Ziv/Activestills 2010

Thursday saw the biggest turnout yet. Indigenous Sovereignty was the theme of the day, and groups from across the country converged in the city to bring a firm message to the leaders of the G20. Two thousand people marched in the event, which was planned by Defenders of the Land, to protest Canada’s record on the treatment of Indigenous people. One purpose of the march was to call attention to Canada’s refusal to sign on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Today, the Themed Days of Resistance  have ended, and the days of action have begun. A rally and march held by several groups including Ontario Coalition Against Poverty and No One Is Illegal started at 2:30 pm at Allen Gardens. “Justice for Our Communities” is the concept, and the march will culminate in a tent city and night-long party. More to come over the weekend!

Protestors march down Toronto's Yonge Street as part of anti-G20 All Out In Defense of Rights Rally, Monday June 21 2010. Photo by Jesse Mintz.

The Toronto Community Mobilization Network kicked off its themed days of resistance to the G20 on Monday with activists converging around a mixed bag of issues including income equity, community control over resources, migrant justice, and an end to war and occupation. It’s an ambitious start­ for the week-long campaigns. On their own, each issue is complex. So wouldn’t combining them create one massively hopeless problem? Not necessarily.

Uniting the struggles sends a clear message:  justice for one means justice for all. Organizing in solidarity weaves together the various conditions of oppression and injustice affecting populations around the world. It gives us a deeper understanding of these conditions, and how to act against them.

In effect, you can’t talk about income equity without addressing migrant justice. The fact is, so-called developed states have built their economies on the labour of underpaid and overworked “temporary” migrant labourers. A recent Stats Can report suggests that throughout the 31 countries that make up the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (compare these to the countries that have ratified or signed the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families, or to the G20 roster for that matter), the “temporary migration of foreign workers has increased by 4 percent to 5 percent per year since 2000.”

The same report states that over 94,000 non-permanent residents worked in Canada full time (30 hours per week or more) in 2006. Many came to this country as part of temporary foreign worker programs, such as the Live-in Caregiver Program or the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program. Activists, academics, journalists, filmmakers, politicians—pretty much everyone—have denounced the current state of both programs for their exploitative policies, racist legacies and harmful social effects. And it only seems to be getting worse for migrant workers as third-party recruiters become increasingly popular.

The fact that business is booming for recruiters means there’s a pool of people willing to put up whatever money they have for the promise of work abroad.  And here’s where we connect the dots from migrant justice to ending war and occupation and restoring control of resources to the people—what has compelled, and continues to compel, the estimated 214 million migrants of the world to leave their home countries in the first place? That’s what migrant justice group No One Is Illegal wants us to think about:

Government and public discourse fails to address root causes of forced migration. On the one hand, because of free trade policies—including Canadian free trade agreements—and structural adjustment programs, governments throughout the global South have been forced to adopt neoliberal policies that have restructured and privatized their land and services, resulting in the displacement of urban and rural workers and farmers. On the other hand, capital mobility has led corporations to create millions of low-wage jobs and to seek vulnerable workers to fill them, both in sweatshops in the global South and exploitable labour sectors in the global North.

Sure, not all migrant workers are explicitly forced to come to Canada as a labourer, as one analyst with the Fraser Institute griped in an interview with The Dominion, but then again lots of people are. Forced migrants are refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced and trafficked people, as well as survivors of developmental displacement, environmental and manufactured disasters.

Huge construction projects like dams, roads and airports squeeze people out of their homes. Stephen Castles, the former Director of the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, writes that many of these initiatives are funded by the World Bank and displace as many as 10 million people annually. Though World Bank offers compensation for resettlement, Castles concludes:

Millions of development displacees experience permanent impoverishment, and end up in a situation of social and political marginalization.

People displaced by environmental change, by industrial accidents, and toxins generally face similar fates.

That’s why war and conflict, immigration and refugee flows, jobs and wages, and global economics are, together, a “focus” of protest. Far from being separate and unrelated problems, they’re inextricably entangled. And the solutions will be too.

Participants at the 2009 World Social Forum in Brazil help keep the world safe. Copyright Vanderlei Almeida/Getty Images.

While the prime minister has been trying to do damage control for his G20 agenda, activists and organizers of all stripes have been busy building social justice movements. Sometimes movement-building involves bickering over listservs about who gets to the carry the banner, but sometimes it also involves holding massive, multi-day, multi-issue summits. Left Forum might be over, but there’s plenty more where that came from. Here is a rundown of summits happening this weekend and beyond.

The People’s Summit
June 18-20, Toronto
The People’s Summit is very similar in content to the US Social Forum (see below for details), but slightly different in structure. The People’s Summit is being held as an open, democratic alternative to the G8/G20 Summits taking place in Huntsville and Toronto next week, and has been put together by individuals, unions, student groups, NGOs, community groups, and others. The cost of participating in workshops and events is sliding scale, and there are events for children planned throughout the weekend as well. “Holding Canada Accountable” is going to be a hot topic, in addition to the usual suspects of Environmental Justice and Human Rights, among others. This weekend’s full schedule of musical events, rallies, marches, and panels kicks off tonight with a launch party – “Stories and Solutions from North and South”, featuring Maude Barlowe, Jessica Yee, and others. If you’re in Toronto, put on your combination party hat/thinking cap and head down to the Carlu to pay-what-you-can at 6:30.

Gender Justice Summit
June 18-20, Toronto
Oxfam is hosting the GJS alongside the People’s Summit, with the intention of putting a spotlight on the interrelatedness of women’s rights, climate change, and the economy, as well as fortifying the messages of hope and resistance with walk-the-walk proof that change is possible. Summit participants will “have the opportunity to hear Oxfam’s international program partners from Africa and Latin America discuss their work on the themes of gender based violence, humanitarian response, maternal health, climate change, and food security in plenary discussions, dialogue circles and workshops.” Topics include framing gender equality as a human rights issue and discussing the roles men can take to help achieve gender justice around the world.

Vancouver People’s Summit
June 20, Vancouver
The VPS is partnering with Vancouver’s Car Free Day and is trying to do something different, planning “live music, performance, art, food and a village of civil society groups, activists and independent media, because nothing builds community and strengthens networks better than a massive street party — without cars!” Two smaller summits focusing on women’s rights and climate justice will be held over “mini-eat-ins”, which I hope involves eating tiny vegan cookies and drinking tiny mugs of fair trade coffee. Events are free for all.

Reel Solutions Film Fest
June 21-24, Toronto
Ok so it’s not a summit. That doesn’t mean this scrappy four-day film fest being held at the Toronto Underground Cinema should be left off of this list. Scheduled to run after the People’s Summit and throughout the Themed Days of Resistance, the Reel Solutions Film Fest features documentaries about opposition to environmental disasters in Canada, Southern resistance to Canadian mining companies, and the hideous and long-ranging consequences of war. Heavy content, maybe, but your head and your heart will thank you later. 20$ will get you a series pass, and individual screenings are 8$, but no one will be turned away for lack of funds.

The U.S. Social Forum
June 22-26, Detroit

The 2nd USSF takes place in balmy downtown Detroit, three years after 12,000 people attended the first forum in Atlanta. Organizers say:

The purpose of the USSF is to effectively and affirmatively articulate the 
values and strategies of a growing and vibrant movement for justice in the
 United States. Those who build towards and participate in the USSF are no 
longer interested in simply stating what social justice movements
 “stand-against,” rather we see ourselves as part of new movements that reach
 beyond national borders, that practice democracy at all levels, and understand 
that neo-liberalism abroad and here in the US is not the solution.

Their ABC slogan (ABC stands for Assemblies, Brigades, and Caravans) brings an interesting element to the forum, stressing continued participation in the community after the forum, as well as encouraging a sprightly, bike-buoyed disbursement of ideas throughout the country in the days and weeks following.
Registration, which costs between 10$ and 100$ depending on one’s income, grants access to workshops, plenary discussions, and screenings. The forum focuses on tying local Detroit issues to those affecting the rest of the US. Detroit has been hit especially hard during the economic crisis, and many of the problems faced in other US cities are amplified there. That also means there is lots of room for positive change. Detroit isn’t too far away, so jump on your bike/car/train/bus so you’ll get there in time to learn about the ABCs of resistance.

The Children’s Social Forum
June 22-26, Detroit
Running alongside the USSF is the Children’s Social Forum, which includes teaching kids about unions, street theatre, and making connections between issues that affect them at home and issues that affect people throughout the world. Kids these days, getting their own forums! Here’s hoping that the lessons taught at the CSF lead to the creation of dozens of mini-Naomi Kleins armed with sharp pencils and crayons.

Protesters gather outside Union Station dressed as an oil spill in demonstration against Harper's environmental policy, June 17, 2010. Photo credit: Jesse Mintz

Unless you have been living under a fake rock beside a fake lake, chances are you’ve heard about this G8/G20 business in some way, shape, or form. The reasons why many people are protesting, however, may not be as clear. That’s probably because there isn’t any single issue uniting all protesters. And, despite what you may have heard, there is no one type of person who protests. Not all protesters are communists or socialists, not all are anarchists or against the government, and not all are ‘hapless hippies’, as one recent article stated.

You don’t have to be a feminist to believe that the Harper government’s paltry track record with domestic policies towards women has discredited any maternal health discussion led by our government. You don’t have to be a civil liberties advocate or an anarchist to oppose the spending of 1 billion dollars to turn Toronto into an military zone, complete with barricades, checkpoints and closed circuit security cameras monitoring our every move. And you certainly don’t have to be an environmentalist to doubt the Canadian government’s willingness to combat global warming and to turn a blind, or worse, defiant eye towards the Tar Sands issue.

While outrage over the price tag of the summits is pretty easy to understand, it’s the other issues on the table in front of us today in Canada, in our cities, and throughout the world, which are harder to untangle. It may require a lot of breath, but now is the perfect time to demand firm commitments instead of half measures and excuses on issues such as the environment, Indigenous rights, women’s and queer rights, the end of systematic economic injustice, justice for migrants and non-status people and an end to all wars and occupations. The interconnectedness of these issues shouldn’t be a problem–it should just provide more fuel for your fire.

Here are the reasons why everyone–not just the anarchists, hippies and commies–should give a damn and make yourselves seen, heard and understood in the week before the summits.

1. Gender justice: the Canadian government has pledged 1 billion dollars over 5 years for maternal health initiatives. This number stands in stark contrast with the 1 billion spent on security over the three days of the summit. The sad reality is that any initiative tabled by Harper will be a half-hearted one at best as he has refused to advocate the same rights for the women of the global south–specifically, the right to a safe abortion–as women enjoy in Canada. In addition, our government’s inability (or refusal) to understand the link between the health and status of women, children, the queer community, climate change and the failing global economy further, hinders any potential progress for these already marginalized communities.

2. Creating a just global economy: the road the current G8/G20 leaders in conjunction with the IMF and World Bank are taking us down will simply repeat the economic mistakes of the past. The economic crisis must impel leaders to implement a more sustainable development model worldwide. There are currently roughly 50 million people living below the poverty line–that is less then $1.25 U.S. a day–and this summit must be seen as an opportunity to push for fair economic trade regulations to help those in the global south.

3. Indigenous rights: The policies of the G8 have consistently marginalized indigenous populations around the world facilitating the transfer of wealth and power from the global south to the political elite. Domestically, indigenous populations have been dealing with the effects of globalization and neo-liberal economic policies that have ravaged their land and exploited their communities. Indigenous women and children are hit especially hard by ‘economic reform’ and budget cuts, and some Indigenous communities in Canada do not even have access to clean water.

4. Environmental justice: The summit presents the first opportunity since Copenhagen for world leaders to meet and reevaluate their commitments to reducing carbon emissions and aiding poorer nations in their attempts to adapt to climate change. Canada received the Fossil Award at Copenhagen as the nation that has done the most to impede global action on climate change. The summit must be used as an opportunity for us to ensure that our government knows that its environmental policy will not stand.

5.  Imperialism: The G8 nations are responsible for roughly two-thirds of the world’s military spending. G8 nations are engaged in a self-serving global war on terror that militarizes the world. Domestically, Harper has increased our defense budget in the wake of massive cuts to public services, such as feminist-minded NGOs and arts programs.

These protests cannot be for the select few; they must be the voice of the many. There isn’t one issue that concerns and unites all people–but that’s okay. These issues fall under the same banner of demanding justice and rights from our government, for us and for others throughout the world, and that in and of itself, is quite a mandate.

We are no longer dealing with “Canada the good”; and we can no longer afford to be silent.  So please, give a damn.



Unite Here local 232 hotel workers strike in San Francisco. Photo cred: Steve Rhodes

Things just got a little more complicated for Toronto in the buildup to this month’s G20 summit.  If the 10,000 uniformed officers, 1,000 or so unlicensed private security guards, airport-tight surveillance and checkpoints, the much debated “sound cannon“ and the expected thousands of protesters didn’t promise enough drama, the largest hotel workers’ union in the city has voted to give strike authorization should contract negotiations for a renewed collective agreement break down.

Unite Here local 75, representing 5,500 hotel and hospitality workers from 32 hotels in the Toronto area, voted 94 percent in favour of striking if a new contract is not established. In a press release on their website, “declining working conditions and other draconian measures” are cited as causes for the strike: shortened and split shifts, increasing reliance on part time workers and contracted out services such as food prep have all resulted in a loss of income and benefits for the workers.  While hotels are coming out of the recession and enjoying the economic recovery, many forecasting promising years ahead including substantial profits from the G20, hotel workers have been locked in the recession.  The major issues, according to union reps, are job security and workplace conditions.

The strike comes at a particularly inopportune time for the city of Toronto, as nearly every hotel room is booked to accommodate the expected 15,000 visitors.  While this has many opposed to the G20 excited at the prospect of world leaders performing their own turn down service, concerns over Toronto’s hospitality industry grinding to a halt during a strike were quickly laid to rest by Unite Here; the only hotel that stands to be affected be a strike before the G20 is the Novotel Toronto Centre where workers will walk off the job on June 23 or 24 if a new collective agreement is not accepted.

Paul Clifford, president of the local, said that no other hotel will be in a “legal striking” position before the summit but that other hotel workers would join those picketing at Novotel; “that’ll be the focal point of our attention prior to the G20,” he said.  Cifford continued, “we want to both act responsibly for the G20 but also show that we are really determined to win a better standard for hotel workers, so that’s why we’re possibly engaging in a very limited strike action at the Novotel Toronto Centre.”

While the impact of the strike may not be as far reaching as originally thought, some French delegates and media personnel staying at the Novotel may be forced to navigate picket lines—as well as G20 security measures—during the summit.

La Journal de Montréal/ Rue Frontenac employees picket La Journal's offices in Montreal. Quebecor Media Inc. locked-out 253 employees nearly one year ago.

Reporters sans frontières has now waded into the mire that is the lock-out of employees at Le Journal de Montréal.

Unlike many public figures, who have thrown their hats in the union’s ring, RSF’s secretary-general, Jean-François Julliard, sided with press freedom, and the public’s right to know about the day-to-day business of their elected politicians. The Montreal Gazette wrote about about Julliard’s Nov. 30 letter to the President of Quebec’s National Assembly:

Julliard says he was surprised to see Vallières side with the National Assembly press gallery’s decision to delay the accreditation of two Journal de Québec reporters because the owner of the paper, Quebecor, is embroiled in a lockout of reporters at the Journal de Montréal. Both are Quebecor-owned papers.

Montrealers are all too aware of the battle raging between Quebecor, Canada’s largest newspaper publisher, and the employees of the french-language daily, but the drama has only been popping up in the English papers recently, leaving les anglophones a little out of the loop.

Nearly a year ago, Quebecor media locked out 253 employees. The reasons for the lock-out varies, depending on who you ask. Pierre Karl Peladeau, Quebecor’s chief executive, says the lock-out resulted from employee resistance to out-sourcing all but editorial and production jobs in an attempt to make the Journal more web friendly. The union cites proposed contract changes, which included staff and wage cutbacks, and the especially contentious removal of a clause promising staff 100 percent job security, as their reason.

NDP, Bloc and Liberal politicians, most notably Michael Ignatieff, said they would not grant interviews to the paper until the dispute was resolved.

Le Journal de Montréal’s journalists and other employees banded together to form the online news site Rue Frontenac. The site’s name, cannon logo and tag line, “Par la bouche de nos crayons!” are a play on Governor Frontenac’s retort, memorialized in a Historic Minute,  that he would respond from the mouth of his cannons. A healthy union strike fund is estimated to be enough to pay employees 76 per cent of their salary for two full years—at which point Rue Frontenac may have enough advertisers to  stand on its own feet.

In the months that followed, employees picketed the Journal building, and management staff alleged they had been threatened. Quebecor responded  with a court injunction dictating the maximum number of picketers allowed at one time, and banned locked-out staff from entering the building, which didn’t stop them from rushing the building on the six month anniversary of the lock-out.

Flash forward to November, when things  got really dirty: Lyne Robitaille, a Quebecor Editor, called for two Rue Frontenac journalists to be stripped of their access to the National Assembly. The charge was that they were writing under Le Journal de Montréal accreditation—but not writing for the paper—because they were locked-out by Le Journal de Montréal management, which includes Lyne Robitaille.

Around the same time, the National Assembly denied Quebecor’s request for immediate accreditation for two Le Journal de Québec journalists, the idea being that accrediting them would allow Quebecor, and by proxy, Le Journal de Montréal, to work around the lockout and Quebec’s rules against replacement workers.

Where and when the lockout will end is anyone’s guess, but it’s not likely to be anytime soon. The National Post reported last week that the two sides have only sat down once since the begining of the lock-out.

Le Journal de Montréal is still publishing under the steam of management, freelancers and copy from Quebecor’s other holdings like free daily 24 heures and TVA television. And Rue Frontentac is building its own readership with no signs of giving up the fight. Given that Le Journal de Montréal was originally born out of the 1964 typographer’s union strike at another French daily, La Presse, the writing may already be on the wall.

[Photo credit: Rue Frontenac's Facebook group]

Kevin McHale takes centre stage and heat for playing wheelchair using Artie Abrams. Image from The Fox Network

Sometimes it seems that no minority sits on a higher horse than people with disabilities—give an inch and they want a mile.

I bet that’s what creator Ryan Murphy,  executive producer Brad Falchuck and the rest of the creative muscle behind Glee thought, in their most private moments, once they started hearing the complaints from disabled viewers and those actors with disabilities still fighting to break through television’s representational barriers.

At issue is one character in particular, Artie Abrams. He is probably the most complex and nuanced wheelchair-using teen on television. I would hazard to say we’re finally seeing ourselves accurately and respectfully, not just represented, but legitimized on a hit television show.  Artie is fully realized, you might even mumble “reality” under your breath when no one was looking, if it weren’t for one major detail that has the activist and soapbox crowd among us up in arms. Artie is played by able-bodied actor, and former boy-band member, Kevin McHale. He is not a paraplegic and for those advocating for disabled talent in Hollywood, along with those who truly want to see themselves on television, this is yet another sign of Hollywood’s glass ceiling where disabled people are concerned.

It’s not like their concerns are unfounded. The stats, so often cited, come from the Screen Actors Guild [SAG] UCLA Study on Employment of People with Disabilities in the Entertainment Industry, commissioned in 2005. It tells us that 20% of the American population between the ages of 5-64 is living with a disability and yet, they are represented by less than 2% of the characters on television. Worse than that, only one-half of 1% of the words spoken on television are spoken by someone with a disability.

When I asked Adam Moore, SAG’s associate U.S. national director of affirmative action and diversity, last winter for my “Coming Attractions” article in Abilities Magazine, why this was the case, it essentially came down to an inability to prove discrimination was taking place beyond anecdotal statistics. Disabled performers don’t want to self-identify, for fear of being passed over in auditions, and producers are uncomfortable with keeping track of the number of disabled people on set (the way they’re required to for other minorities in the union) because they feel unable to tell what counts as a disability.  Their questions surround whether they should count invisible disabilities or temporary injuries. All in all, not having the proper information prevents SAG from doing anything on their own because they can’t prove it.  Even when they joined forces with American Federation of Television and Radio Artists [AFTRA]  and Actors Equity Association [AEA] at the beginning of the year for the I AM PWD tri-union campaign, the initiative has gone largely unnoticed by mainstream audiences and there’s no real visible employment spike to be found.

Right now, articles like this one from Associated Press have Glee in the employment inequity crosshairs. The barbs have already started flying, especially in light of the show’s recent disability-focused episode called “Wheels”.  Robert David Hall the chairman of the I AM PWD campaign, who is best known for playing C.S.I: Las Vegas coroner Al Robbins, had this to say to Associated Press.

“I think there’s a fear of litigation, that a person with disabilities might slow a production down, fear that viewers might be uncomfortable. All of that is nonsense, I’ve made my living as an actor for 30 years and I walk on two artificial legs.”

What Hall says is true; it also costs productions more to implement adaptations for disabled talent in some cases, but none of those reasons or excuses should be laid at the feet of Glee. If anything, Glee’s creative team did a better job striving to achieve employment equity and represent minorities on television than their critics in the disabled community did in assessing the validity of their criticism against the show.

Glee is a hit series working in the tradition of  High School Musical and Fame. It follows a fictional high school glee club through the ups and downs of teen life. It is known for mixing hit songs past and present into musical mash-ups and then giving them the full Broadway treatment. It also goes a step beyond: conscious of the fact that television has the ability to shape attitudes and perceptions, their creative team intentionally built a cast representing every culture and visible minority. There are white characters, black characters, Asian characters, gay characters, Latino  characters, Jewish characters, Christian characters, male characters and female characters. The principal of the school is not white, but South Asian, and, of course, there’s McHale’s character Artie as the person with a disability.

Falchuck told the AP that they did this to not just reflect the so-called “mainstream,” but to reflect America as it really is. Of course, critics can turn around and say that they aren’t really reflecting America because there isn’t a real disabled person in the cast. In the same article though, Falchuck does say that they did look at people in wheelchairs for the role of Artie.

“We brought in anyone: white, black, Asian, in a wheelchair,” Falchuck said.

Really, that’s all you can expect from casting directors. The disabled community is absolutely right in cases where disabled actors aren’t even allowed to audition.  Joanne Smith, former host of CBC’s Moving On, revealed in a recent Abilities article that some casting directors point blank told her they don’t want to hire people with disabilities because of a lack of talent or too much politics involved in the decision.  However, even Robert David Hall admits that you have to earn the role you audition for, disability or not.

“Society has had a telethon mentality for a lot of years. If we’re doing a story on Aaron, then we will play soft piano music and talk about the brave little writer with a cane—that sucks. The best way to avoid that is to always do good work. We’re competitive with the entire world and our job is to do the best work we can,” he told me when I interviewed him for Abilities last winter.

Even the most staunch disability activists don’t want to be hired to fill a visible minority quota. In the case of Artie, casting directors needed a triple threat performer. He needed to sing, act and follow choreography. In Kevin McHale, they found someone who could do all that and play an instrument as well.  ”It was very hard to find people who could really sing, really act, and have that charisma you need on TV. It’s hard to say no to someone that talented,” Falchuck told AP and so far, he seems to be right. There are disabled people who can sing, act and dance (either in pairs or individually), but I have yet to find any disabled person who can do all three.

So while the casting directors need to give us a shot at auditioning, performing arts schools need to be willing to train us and agents need to be willing to represent us. That way, when when casting directors try to cast a disabled triple threat they might actually be able to find one.  When I say represent and train us, I mean not in a Special Olympics, everyone’s a winner, it’s enough just to participate, pat you on the head and give you a lollipop kind of way.  Not even in a segregated-under-one-roof, institutional, Famous People Players kind of way. There are a few organizations, like Lights, Camera, Access and Witt Entertainment Management Inc. willing to train and represent disabled actors, but both of these are small potatoes compared to the amount of professional talent with disabilities that needs to be out there to penetrate the market in big numbers.

Remember, just because a disabled actor with talent makes it through, even when they get a supporting and speaking role, doesn’t mean the creative team knows what to do with them. Vince Gilligan cast RJ Mitte in Breaking Bad in tribute to his friend with cerebral palsy, but after that stand-up move, the show has been on for two seasons and Mitte’s character hasn’t been given a significant storyline while everyone else in the principal cast has. Mitte has had his moments and he has had his scenes, but often he simply walks on set, says a line and walks off again—a clear indication that Gilligan doesn’t know how to write for him.

I’d rather have a non-disabled actor (who obviously takes the responsibility of playing a disabled character seriously) shown as a full  participant of the show, whether it be through a solo, playing a guitar, prominent roles in the choreography, or having a whole episode devoted to him, than have a truly talented disabled actor on set used as a token.  All of those articles that feature criticism from the disabled community over Glee’s casting, neglect to mention that they added a supporting role that is a person with a disability. Lauren Potter is an actress with Down’s syndrome who takes Quinn Fabray’s spot on the cheerleding team, but who isn’t given a free pass just because of her disability. Coach Sue Sylvester is realistically tough on her.

That’s another thing about Glee. In the “Wheels” episode, they dealt with disability issues in a tongue-in-cheek, but not mocking or stereotypical manner. They dealt with things like sex and disability realistically. (I have actually had to confirm the functionality of my penis in real life and I’m not the only one) It seems Kevin McHale appreciated how the show handled disability as well, as he told the New York Post:

“Going in, none of us knew anything about our characters so we kind of made up back stories for them, so when I read what happened to him, I thought it was very cool. And I love how they did it too, how his story fit into the context of the episode. It just kind of sums up ‘Glee’—you have this sweet story and then I say, ‘but I still have full use of my penis.’ That’s like a metaphor for our show.”

People seem to forget that it’s okay to have a sense of humour about disability.  Recently, deaf organizations have been squawking about how offensive the Family Guy Presents live special was for making fun of deaf actor Marlee Matlin. They seem to forget that the cast was laughing with her because she was in on the joke the whole time.

I often think that if disability organizations put as much effort towards creating and fostering disabled talent as they seem to in their whining and issuing press releases regarding injustices towards them, then casting directors may actually see a lot more talent with disabilities. People with disabilities need to start opening up about their circumstances. More people with disabilities need to pursue jobs in Hollywood, rather than avoid them out of fear. If you really have problems with the way the able-bodied world represents us on television or in any other media, maybe you should write a script, make a film or study acting. Who better to write dialogue for a disabled character than someone with a disability?

Watch the entire “Wheels” episode of Glee and tell us what you think.

Students, faculty, workers and community members will march today, November 5th, as part of the Campaign for a Poverty-Free Ontario. Organized by the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and allied groups, this Day of Action calls on the McGuinty government to take concrete steps to eliminate poverty in Ontario by adequately funding social services and equity measures.

A CFS press release states that:

In the wake of high job-loss and other effects caused by the recession, Ontarians are calling on the McGuinty government to recognise the important role that social services play in mitigating hardship and equalising opportunity. Record-high student unemployment coupled with record-high tuition fees have placed students in a particularly precarious position….In response, students are adding their voices to broad-based demands for Employment Insurance and social assistance reform, a liveable minimum wage, affordable childcare and housing, good jobs for all and reduced tuition fees.

Furthermore, according to the University of Toronto Graduate Students’ Union:

This year is a critical year to lobby as the province is currently revising all of its funding policies to institute a new multi-year agreement for funding schemes to post-secondary education.

The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), an allied community organization participating in the march, is demanding:

Affordable and accessible housing: increased social housing and access to proper shelter supports

Decent income: increase social assistance by 40%, increased (Un) Employment Insurance and minimum wage

Status for all immigrants and refugees: access to services without fear

Justice for First Nations: stop economic warfare and recognize sovereignty

Currently 1.3 million people in Ontario live in poverty and the province is facing a $24.7 billion deficit. Since deficits usually mean greater cuts for education and social services, it’s crucial that people gather today to express their concern.

Marches are taking place in thirteen communities across Ontario. To learn more visit dropfees.ca.

(For those in Toronto, action is taking place at U of T at 1 p.m. at Sidney Smith Hall, at 2 p.m. for a city-wide march starting at U of T’s Convocation Hall, and at 4 p.m. at the Queen’s Park Legislature.)

Don Draper (Jon Hamm) and Joan Holloway (Christina Hendricks) speculate on the future of their newly disabled colleague in "Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency"--copyright AMC 2009

While most of Mad Men’s devoted fan base was surely whipped into a frenzy thanks to “The Big Reveal” this past Sunday, [Sorry folks, I'm going to be good and keep the spoilers behind the link] with only three episodes left this season, I’ve been noticing something other than the plot.

Technically, disability was introduced as part of the ultra-realistic, ultra-accurate Mad Men landscape in the very first season, when the neighbour kid is invited to Sally’s birthday party at the Draper house and this kid happens to be a polio survivor, walking around on old school forearm crutches.

Back then, viewers got a little taste of 1960s ableism when the mother hens started clucking around the kitchen counter: “Oh, how sad, a child with polio.”… “The father’s a real stand-up guy for sicking it out and staying with them.”…”I don’t know how they do it.” But, It wasn’t until episode 3.6 “Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency,” when a British ad exec gets his foot run over by a John Deere during an office joyride, (don’t ask) that I really got the message that creator Matt Wiener was intentionally raising the issue as yet another cultural sticking point of the era.

Below is the scene in the hospital waiting room, once the bosses realize their rising star will have to have his foot amputated:

Joan: I’ll bet he felt great when he woke up this morning. But that’s life. One minute you’re on top of the world, and the next, some secretary is running over you with a lawnmower.

Don laughs.

The three British executives enter the hospital waiting room.

Saint-John: I’m heart broken.

Don: It’s a terrible tragedy.

Harold Ford: One that surely could have been avoided. Mrs. Harris, thank you for your quick thinking.

Lane Pryce: You may have saved his life.

Saint-John: Such as it is. He was a great account man. A prodigy. Could talk a Scotsman out of a penny. Now that’s over.

Don: I don’t know if that’s true.

Harold Ford: The man is missing a foot. How’s he going to work? He can’t walk.

Saint-John: The doctor said he will never golf again.

Harold Ford: I’m afraid we’ll have to reevaluate our entire strategy (referring to the reorganization of Sterling Cooper.)

Saint-John: Lane will remain here permanently.

Unlike many of the “isms” that Mad Men explores, ableism isn’t one where we can look back and see many inroads. I would guess there were just as many people who watched this episode, looked at their partner on the couch and said, “Isn’t that awful,” as there were those that said, “They have a point.  In the above fictional conversation, it’s suggested that the disabled man’s life is over because he can’t play golf and golf is everything in business. Well, once again, the truth is stranger.  Casey Martin is a pro-golfer who, in 2001, needed to sue the PGA for the right to use a golf cart on the PGA Tour because of his disability — that was in 2001, not 1963.

Normally, I wouldn’t spotlight a one-off episode tackling disability issues, (countless other shows have done that in the past) but the issue was revisited this week with the introduction of Don’s mistress’s brother, Danny Farrell, who feels socially shunned because of his epilepsy. His admission to Don that he’s not going to their destination to mop floors at yet another job, says it all: “People are nice enough at first, but when you come to [consciousness], having pissed your pants, people step much more gingerly.”

Anyone with a disability who has ever gone to a job interview, where perma-grins seem fused to the interviewer’s face and everything seems just a little too fine, will tell you they often wonder what those people say about them when they leave.  While there are laws now, meant to protect people like Danny from taking to the streets, unofficially, Danny’s reality of being bounced around by a society that doesn’t know what to do with him, is still very much alive today.

Ironically, 1963 was also a banner year in firming up the rights for people with disabilities. Prior to the year this season of Mad Men inhabits, things were still a lot worse.

Institutionalization was the “catch-all” answer for the severely disabled in the 60s, but at least in 1963, lead by the Kennedy Administration, legislative improvements were beginning in America. Some highlights from The Museum of Disability History Timeline can be found below:

1963

• Mental Hygiene Facilities Improvement Fund (MHFIF) bill submitted by Rockefeller and passed by the legislature to fund the construction of facilities through the sale of government “moral obligation” bonds. Re-payment of these bonds was relegated to the families of institutional residents. The ARC of Massachusetts rejected this plan, but failed in their attempts to change the legislation.
• De-institutionalization and community services for people with mental disabilities moves another step forward when President Kennedy calls on Congress for legislation to reduce the number of individuals under custodial care in institutions.
• The “Mills-Ribicoff” Bill amends the Social Security Act to assist states and communities in preventing and combating mental retardation by providing pre-natal care and services for infants born with disabilities.
• The Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Health Centers Construction Act was signed by President Kennedy, providing federal grants for building public and private non-profit community mental health centers.

If several high-profile individuals have their way, one of Canada’s major political parties could be on the way to a rebranding even before the summer is out. The New Democratic Party could enter the fall session of parliament with a new name, simply called the “Democratic Party.” The move has been promoted by a mounting number of MPs and other party members at the grassroots.

Two NDP riding associations have passed resolutions calling for a rebranding—simply dropping the “New” from the party name—that will be debated at the party’s national convention in August.

Victoria MP Denise Savoie recently made headlines for expressing support for the idea in Public Eye Online, but she is not the first sitting MP to call for such a rebranding.

Windsor MP Brian Masse says he has favoured a change since his first by-election win in 2002. His reasons are the same as his colleague from Victoria: the party is no longer new.

“Those that are coming into politics or getting interested in Canadian politics need to know that we’re a mainstream political party that has established itself in the Canadian system,” he says.

“This is not an attempt to rewrite our history. It’s an attempt to bring our history forward and to show confidence and pride in a party that has shaped Canadian politics and actually shaped the lives of Canadians—often punching above its weight.”

Masse says he expects other members of parliament and party operatives to come forward with support for the idea in the weeks leading to the convention.

Ian Capstick was for several years a member of Jack Layton’s inner circle. He has since moved into the private sector but remains an NDP member—and he aggressively supports the idea of a name change.

“To be blunt, we’re not new anymore,” he says, adding that he’s aware of support for the resolutions from one end of the country to the other.

MP Peter Stoffer, who has represented a riding on Nova Scotia’s eastern shore for 12 years, says he has advocated a name change for many of those years. He says he has also heard calls for the party to be renamed the Social Democratic Party of Canada.

“I don’t think it’s much of a major discussion that you have to worry about, but I think the grassroots would probably accept it once they’ve heard the arguments,” he says.

Stoffer believes that a name change would be almost purely cosmetic, but Capstick thinks a rebranding would—and should—get the party thinking about more than its name.

“That has to involve policy,” he says.

Capstick suggested that the NDP ought to re-examine its relationship with organized labour. He says that the party isn’t winning the labour vote and that there is no “labour” party in Canada.

“Does it make sense to have so many of the party’s decisions—particularly the leadership—weighted towards the organized labour movement in Canada?” he asks. “I don’t know. I think there is a healthy discussion to be had around that.”

He added that he didn’t want to advocate shutting labour out.

Masse emphasizes that he wants the name-change debate to be a positive one.

“There are a lot of people who like the current acronym, so there will be those who are tied to that,” he says. “But at the same time, once [members] start to think things through, I’m hopeful that we can see some unity on this.”

Recently, long-time party activist Gerald Caplan wrote in the Globe and Mail that, at the party’s August convention, “the only faux-excitement will be an elite-led attempt to change the name.” Capstick disagrees with the assessment that this move is elite-driven.

“Quite frankly, I think the leadership of the party is not entirely impressed with this,” he says, because the change will be costly. It will also spark discussions among provincial parties, some of which have had considerable success with the current name.

Masse says that his riding association’s resolution doesn’t directly impact any provincial NDP.

“We don’t want to force this upon any of the provincial parties, because they are different organizations affiliated together,” he says.

Stoffer expects a name change—if it happens—to coincide with the NDP’s fiftieth anniversary in 2011, but he added that any decision about that is up the party’s members.

Nick Taylor-Vaisey is an Ottawa-based freelancer who writes about federal politics and higher education. His work has appeared in print and online publications across the country, including University Affairs, Capital Xtra and Maclean’s OnCampus. He writes about the effects of the recession on arts groups in the July-August 2009 issue of This Magazine.