Surprise Attack! Revolution carried through by small conscious minorities

Surprise Attack! Revolution carried through by small conscious minorities
Kabul in the Republican Revolution of 1973

Friday, May 2, 2025

Homeless Camps Restricted in St. Catharines

 

https://www.105theriver.ca/news/local-news/homeless-camps-restricted-in-st-catharines/

Friday, 2 May 2025 17:46

By Geoff Waterfield

Council passes by-law, keeping them further from schools, parks, residential areas

Homeless camps are no longer allowed within certain distances of schools, cemeteries, and residential areas in St. Catharines.

Council recently passed a by-law by a 10-2 vote, meaning camps must be 100 metres away from schools, and 30 metres from residential areas.

Mayor Mat Siscoe argued there's too much crime such as drugs, human trafficking and more.

However, resident Saleh Waziruddin challenged homeless people need support.  "Halifax and Kelowna have done this.  They have affordable toilets and bottled water in places where they prefer encampments.  But, what you can't do is enforcement, or the iron fist, because that means punishing people for just trying to exist.  There are good reasons unhoused people go where they are going."

Mayor Siscoe added this is the #1 complaint the city hears about from residents.

After hearing advocates say that homeless people have suffered trauma, the mayor also agreed they should not be moved if nowhere to go.

However, he says there's been discussion about where camps can go.  "The city should not operate encampments.  We've seen what happens when that occurs, Hamilton has gone through that.  It's created a very difficult position and now cities like Hamilton that have authorized encampments are walking those policies back because they have not worked."

Councillor Bill Phillips added this is also about protecting the homeless from problems if living near residential areas.

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

Speech Against Anti-Encampment By-Law at St. Catharines City Council




Hi Mayor and Councillors, I am Saleh Waziruddin.

When people are complaining about encampments or unhoused people near them, the only positive, or “helping hand,” thing you can do is to give supports in places where you prefer unhoused people to be. Halifax and Kelowna have done this: they have portable toilets and bottled water in places where they prefer encampments.

But what you can’t do is enforcement or the “iron fist” because that means punishing people for just trying to exist. There are good reasons unhoused people go where they are going. The right to exist outweighs any disturbance or disorder or costs people are complaining about.

The proposed bylaw says shelter will be found first before enforcement. But shelter doesn’t make sense for everyone and is just a cover for cruelty. Years ago I was told by a social worker I need to move in to a shelter for a temporary gain, which would have made my situation actually so much worse, and I asked her if she knows how senseless that suggestion was because like many people she had no practical sense of what it really means.

Many women especially refuse to go into shelters because of safety.

Unhoused people are where they are because that is the best option they have. You can improve the options with supports for encampments where you prefer them. Obviously the best option is supportive affordable and social housing. But until then you should use incentives, not punishment, to get what you want.

Fines are not going to be a deterrent, especially for every day or every PART of a day counting as a new offense, because many unhoused people can’t pay these fines anyway. They’re forced out of desperation to take risks like devastating punishments from the law for just trying to live. It makes even less sense to make unhoused people pay for removing their tents, “cost recovery” as the by-law calls it.

Punishing organizations for “concurring” with violations of the proposed by-law is dystopian. It’s punishing people and groups for trying to protecting unhoused people from discrimination.

Please don’t weigh disturbance for the housed more than right to exist for the unhoused. Most of us are just a short tragedy away from being forced into losing housing, even if we don’t want to see it.

Please don’t approve any steps against removing tents or temporary shelters anywhere. Please don’t use fines and other punishment to make a hard life even harder for people who can’t pay in the first place.

Thank you.

Monday, April 21, 2025

Muslim community members express frustration as politicians exploit voting blocs

https://thepointer.com/article/2025-04-21/muslim-community-members-express-frustration-as-politicians-exploit-voting-blocs 



First it was the Catholic churches where Italian-Canadians congregated after the war. Then it was the Sikh Gurdwaras. And now, the focus of more and more politicians during election season is the country’s diverse Muslim community. 

Younger generations who gather inside Mosques or socialize in other spaces, IRL or virtually, are questioning the tactics long used by political parties, particularly the Liberals and Conservatives, who see them as little more than pieces of a massive, game changing voting bloc in key parts of the country’s electoral map. 

"I feel like it's quite common. I do think that to a certain extent, it's exploitation," Gabriel Gebril, a spokesperson for the Niagara Palestine Coalition, told The Pointer. He says politicians are targeting vote-rich Muslim communities, courting diverse members during the election season, pandering for support without engaging them on the issues that really matter to communities.

 

Gabriel Gebril, a spokesperson for the Niagara Palestine Coalition, says politicians need to be connected with Muslim community members outside campaign season.

(Supplied)

 

"When a politician comes to the Mosque…outside of campaign season, they don't listen to their Muslim constituents. Their Muslim constituents have problems, and they're silent about them. So what I want to see from these politicians is, outside of election season, them talking to their Muslim constituents and listening to their Muslim constituents."

It’s nothing new in communities whose demographics present political opportunities for those willing to exploit the strength in numbers, and such tactics are certainly not out of bounds. But concerns have always followed the constant procession of politicians who arrive at places of worship or parade through other community spaces where ethno-religious groups can be convinced to offer their support. 

 

Patrick Brown at a Tamil Temple. He has admitted to exploiting the community for votes.

(Facebook)

 

Some even publicize their strategy to exploit these groups.

“By the time I announced my intention to run for Ontario Party leader in October [2014], I had lined up all sides of each of these communities—the four sides of the Sikh community and the three sides of the Tamil community,” Patrick Brown wrote in his 2018 tell-all memoir, which revealed some of the shameless but politically expedient tactics the former Ontario PC leader used to win that role when he was a longshot unknown who came out of nowhere to game the contest by taking advantage of a poorly designed delegate point system, admittedly exploiting ethno-religious communities.

“The Tamil community organizers told me when I announced my candidacy that they would be able to sweep the GTA for me.”

“During the campaign, we signed up around 10,000 Tamil members.”

Brown continued.

“In key ridings such as in Scarborough, where there were about 20,000 Tamil families per riding, my campaign team knew it would be a cakewalk for us. But I said to the team that the goal was to find Tamil families in other ridings.”

“In the weaker ridings, if we could get 500 Tamil members signed up to vote, we knew we’d have 80 per cent of that riding.”

The political influence of Canada’s Muslim community has grown like no other demographic in the country over the last 20 years. Nowhere has that expanding influence been more noticeable than in the region of Peel.

Between 2011 and 2021, Census figures from Statistics Canada show the Muslim population increased from 9.4 percent to 12.6 percent of Peel’s population, with 182,000 residents who identified as Muslim five years ago. Across Canada, the widely diverse Muslim population has grown rapidly, from just under 2 percent of the country in 2011 to 4.9 in 2021. According to projections there are just over 2 million Muslim-Canadians in the country currently.

And politicians like Patrick Brown now look for ways to exploit them for votes.

In 2022, when he was seeking the Conservative Party of Canada leadership to become prime minister in the current federal election, Brown tried to court the Muslim vote, telling a Montreal-based Arab language magazine that if he became PM he would not move Canada’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a position backed by most Muslims. 

But when Jewish supporters learned of his comments in the Arab language publication, Brown immediately flip-flopped, saying he would move the embassy which is what many Jewish-Canadians support.

Saleh Waziruddin, a St. Catharines resident who has advocated on a range of priorities for many Muslim Canadians, says he has also seen this shapeshifting behaviour.  

"Many non-Muslim politicians assume that if they just approach one or two people with official titles, for example a person who is part of a Mosque’s board of directors, they will get the whole Muslim community (to automatically support them)," he told The Pointer. 

"They don't consider that what they have to do for the Muslim community is much more than just public relations. They just are interested in getting votes and getting donations, and unfortunately some of the people in leadership in the community fit that expectation that they don't make demands of the politicians sometimes, and they just give donations thinking that that will endear the politician to the community.”

Waziruddin said that many Muslims in the communities he is familiar with are tired of this malpractice by politicians, while they fail to take action on real issues impacting Canadians. He expressed his concern over the appearance of candidates at several community events, including Eid prayers, just to create the impression they support the community, while they search for votes.

Changing demographics and the spread of intolerance as a result led to the creation of the group The Canadian Muslim Vote, which engages community members on the issues impacting them. The organization engaged more than 15,000 people last year, and was involved in elections at all three levels of government, including the Alberta NDP leadership race and mayoral byelections in Toronto and Mississauga. It has also been active in the recent Ontario election and the federal election, helping inform community members so they are not as susceptible to politicians and so-called community leaders with their own agendas.

“We have seen political representatives across party lines dehumanize Muslims, question our loyalties, and cast baseless aspersions on our community,” the organization’s website warns. “Islamophobia continues to rise, exemplified by legislation like Bill-21 in Quebec and exacerbated by political rhetoric and inaction. Economic uncertainty has left many struggling with affordability, and policies affecting civil liberties remain unaddressed. All of this is happening at a time when the very sovereignty of our nation is coming under attack.”

To enhance the civic engagement of Muslim voters the organization’s Get Out The Vote campaign reached a milestone in 2019’s federal election by making five million points of contact with residents across Canada in partnership with more than 250 mosques. That included the efforts of staff members and volunteers who knocked on 10,000 doors and made 11,000 phone calls, while hitting 2.2 million impressions on social media platforms. With the help of the group’s efforts, after 2018’s Ontario provincial election a survey conducted by Mainstreet Research showed that 69 percent of the Muslim population eligible to vote did so, and in ridings where Candian-Muslims were engaged directly, the voter turnout reached all-time highs between 71 to 80 percent.

It’s why some in the community are not opposed to engaging with politicians at their places of worship. 

For Umair Ashraf, the executive director of The Canadian Muslim Vote, this is not considered a breach of ethics by political candidates, but rather an opportunity for residents to speak up about their discomfort around certain issues, when done with the community’s permission.

"What I would say… is ultimately each Masjid, or each Mosque, decides where they fall within their own strategies, and what they allow," he said. "But what we try to tell people is that one of the best ways of civic engagement is to engage with politicians or any representative, wherever you can. So obviously, go visit them at their offices, but also send emails and make phone calls. However, if they do take the time, or if they do come to the Masjid or the Mosque that they're canvassing and they're standing outside, that's a very good time to actually be able to talk about all the different points that you want to bring up."

He said those who feel their voices are not being heard in the political process should come forward and ask questions of their local candidates.

“It's important for them to then continuously speak up," he stressed. "Get some more people that may be feeling the same way, and start putting some more pressure on ensuring that they're able to have that dialogue, have that discussion, and then go from there. Because ultimately, as politicians, they have to answer to you because they are public servants….They're there for their constituents. They're there for the people in their communities. And it's a responsibility to be able to hold space and hold an area where they can have a dialogue and discussion."

Opportunistic politicians have long seized on the game changing potential of playing to this desire to be heard, identifying well defined voting blocs, showing up in their spaces and telling them what they want to hear.

Gebril expressed concern over appearances by politicians at prominent Mosque events, especially on Friday afternoon prayers, courting congregants for political gain.

"Let's take the Khutbah (Friday sermon), for example. On Friday, it can be deeply political. In fact, oftentimes it is a good thing when it's political: ‘Oh, this is what's going on in the community. Oh, the ummah (the wider community of Muslims) here needs X, Y, and Z.’ The Mosque can be a place where politics are welcome, but when politicians who are not part of the Muslim community, usually, and who are just cynically coming during election season… then, yeah, we're gonna get sick and tired of it, and we're gonna want to throw the baby out with the bathwater… In the Niagara region, we don't even see the politicians giving that much promise, like they'll come to the Mosque, and they'll take a photo op," he laments.

Key figures, he says, among the Muslim community are often part of the problem.

“People want the politics that are in the Mosque to represent what the Muslim people want, what the ummah want, not what big donors at the top of the Masjid hierarchy want."

 

Politicians routinely exploit the growing political influence of Muslim communities across Canada.

(Malton Islamic Centre)

 

This engagement rarely comes with any action to help the community in impactful ways, he says. Instead, candidates often use a divisive style of politics, just like Brown did when pitting Jewish-Canadians and Muslim-Canadians against each other, often triggering discord among residents in the same riding, telling each side they are with them in their opposition toward the other.

Brown did the same with the Ukrainian and Palestinian communities, offering his support to those who opposed the Russian invasion of Ukraine, then turning around and telling Palestinian Canadians they were not getting the same support, in hopes of currying favour. Brown has long done the same with Canada’s Tamil community, aggressively pressuring members for votes, claiming he is one of few politicians in the country who has stood up for Tamils opposed to the Sinhalese rule in Sri Lanka. 

Waziruddin would like to see those in positions of influence behave more responsibly. "Some of the people who are in positions of influence in the Muslim community, their approach is that if they donate without asking anything, the politician will then be in favour of the Muslim community. But the track record shows that that's not the case."

Politicians attend Muslim community events to enlarge their vote bank, he says, but there are risks behind this type of blatant pandering.

"There's definitely no good results from these tactics. So there is a divide in the sense that many members of the Muslim community are demanding accountability from elected officials and action, but some in the Muslim community who are in positions of influence are not trying to robustly hold the elected officials accountable, and they're just trying to figure out how to be more accepted by the politicians, instead of the other way around."

Brown, the Brampton mayor, has been heavily criticized for his egregious exploitation of ethno-religious groups, including Muslims and Sikhs.

After heavily courting the Muslim vote in 2018, he remained silent on his close friend Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s disturbing move to strip Muslims in India of citizenship rights. He finally posted a brief statement expressing concern over the move, without mentioning Modi or his Hindu-nationalist BJP government, and that was only after sustained pressure from some of Brampton’s large Muslim groups that Brown had targeted for support to help win the mayor’s seat. 

 

Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown has openly acknowledged his political strategy of using vote-rich  ethno-religious groups for political gain.

(X)

 

The Pointer has been contacted by readers about candidates in the federal election attending Mosques in Brampton and Mississauga, raising concern about the ongoing practice.  

Gebril said that instead of falling into the trap of these political candidates, the community should be more focused on staying in contact with elected officials throughout the year rather than in election season only.

"We need to make our voices heard, not once, not twice, not just around special occasions and elections, but constantly… if we want to be politically savvy, if we want to be politically effective, we have to know where our strengths and weaknesses lie.” 

He says communities eventually learn that they hold the power.

“I think that the Muslim community here is strong, but they don't show their strength. They don't ask for what they deserve."

 

 

The Pointer's 2025 federal election coverage is partly supported by the Covering Canada: Election 2025 Fund. 

Thursday, January 30, 2025

Officials dragged feet on police body cams (Letter to editor, Niagara Dailies)

https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/niagara-letters-jan-30-lower-taxes-should-not-be-expectation-of-amalgamation/article_8f6fd667-a08b-57fc-a09d-b767ab195b4b.html 


The article on Niagara Regional Police finally moving on body cameras says in 2020 the former police chief said he “ … believed it should be a provincial discussion to ensure a unified approach across Ontario,” which can make it seem like police just wanted a broader discussion.

Actually, Chief Bryan MacCulloch said they should wait for “guidance and direction from the Ministry of the Solicitor General.” 

It’s also what elected officials said when they voted against the recommendation for body cameras from the City of St. Catharines’ anti-racism advisory committee. Black residents asked for this, but councillors chose not to listen, using the police excuse.

Police kept telling us the direction should be from the provincial government, but are now moving without that direction after all, lagging behind almost every major Ontario police force. The others did it partly because residents asked them to — but in Niagara, both police and municipal councillors ignore racialized residents.

We aren’t keeping police and elected officials accountable if we don’t hold up what they say against their record.

Saleh Waziruddin, St. Catharines, Niagara Region Anti-Racism Association executive committee member


Thursday, January 23, 2025

Speech to Niagara Region Council in Support of Motion Opposing Use of Notwithstanding Clause to Remove Encampments of the Unhoused


 

Councillors I am Saleh Waziruddin and we voted for you to give us a helping hand, not the iron fist.

Using the nothwitstanding clause would take away not just the charter and legal rights of the unhoused but also their human rights.

Fines and prison mean criminalization, don’t let anyone tell you any different. Our eyes are not deceiving us, the letter signed by a minority of the Ontario Big City Mayors calls for fines and prison for at least some of the unhoused for just trying to exist.

How can cities give a helping hand when housing and health are provincial issues?

Halifax and Kelowna have encampment areas where staff provide portable toilets and water bottles. It’s not housing but the cities make it more attractive to camp there than other places instead of criminalization.

Otherwise unhoused people are being driven literally underground like in Edmonton where an unhoused man was found in a cave.

So what should you do to stop unhoused people camping where people are complaining? Nothing!

This is not just my recommendation, the United Nations says that in its report on the criminalization of homelessness and poverty. It says even if people refuse emergency shelter they should not be punished because that would be punishing them for the State’s failure to comply with international human rights law. This isn’t me it’s the UN’s special rapporteur.

In one of your municipal councils the mayor asked what do you do to stop people who refuse treatment. The answer again – nothing! From the United Nations report, there are complex reasons why people refuse treatment or emergency shelter and why treatment may not meet their needs.

It’s no surprise the UN report says vagrancy laws can be traced to the ongoing legacy of colonialism, slavery, and apartheid. The UN report says criminalization costs multiple times what housing does and just makes a revolving door between prison and the street.

Unhoused people can’t comply with laws that criminalize them because they are just trying to exist.

The Ontario Big City Mayors as a group rejected asking for invoking the notwithstanding clause but it’s telling that the minority of mayors who did, in their letter invoked the US Supreme Court decision, but that decision wasn’t unanimous. The dissenting opinion, by those who weren’t picked by Trump, written by Justice Sotomayor, said punishing people for their housing status is “cruel and unusual” for what is a biological necessity, not a crime. Those are the US Supreme Court justices we should be looking to if any, not the Trump appointees.

It’s no exaggeration to say the iron fist, or “tough love” as some are calling it, has the smell of fascism because it’s pandering to the privileged at the expense of the basic existence of the most marginalized. The Region’s latest homelessness count showed 28% of Niagara’s unhoused are Indigenous, and your own report called for “culturally sensitive” solutions, not overriding their human rights.

Thank you.


Monday, August 12, 2024

Speech to St. Catharines City Council Against Banning Public Criticism in Code of Conduct for Committees and Task Forces



 
Hi, I'm Saleh Waziruddin, speaking on behalf of your anti-racism advisory committee.
I'm the committee chair.

The problem with the proposed code of conduct for committee and task force members
is in 5.3 (b) where it says we can no longer publicly criticize staff or council.

Public criticism is in the public interest. If what we say is good enough to advise you or
be on a committee or task force, where our meetings are public, what we say should be
good enough to bring to the public's attention.

This is part of a wider trend we're seeing in Niagara where, in the name of going after
something narrow and specific, we're expanding bans to be sweeping and reducing the
rights of residents.

This section, 5.3(b), says we cannot, and I'm quoting: “Humiliate, berate, belittle or
publicly criticize Staff or Council.” To any reasonable person one of these doesn't
belong with the others. The first three are abusive, but public criticism does not mean
abuse, it's an indispensable and irreplaceable part of any decision-making process.

When this policy was being drafted I asked the same question to the Deputy Clerk:
which of these four does not belong with the others? It was a rhetorical question but to
his credit the Deputy Clerk took the time to explain each of the terms, and on the last
one, public criticism, he wrote, and I'm quoting at length here:

“I agree criticism is valuable and is part of the decision-making process.
But like many things there is a scale that must be accounted for. Saying
something like, “The policy has some shortcomings that I think should be
considered” is criticism in a respectful way and serves as a great way to
have dialogue about finding solutions. Saying something like, “The policy
is terrible and whoever wrote it is an idiot,” is criticism that could be
perceived as crossing a line into disrespectful and distracts from a positive
working relationship.”

That was the Deputy Clerk's response. So even a member of senior staff agrees
criticism is “valuable and a part of the decision-making process.” Just because
something is public criticism doesn't mean it's automatically disrespectful.

In fact the 2019 code of conduct report, for Council as well as committees and
boards, had different wording that was much more specific and precise:

“...refrain from publicly criticizing members of Staff in relation to their
intelligence, integrity, competence or otherwise;”

So this is against personal abuse of individuals on staff. That makes sense to me.
That's already well-covered by the first three terms in 5.3(b). But expanding this
to any and all public criticism is not the same thing and I think most people can
tell the difference.

If joining a committee or task force means we no longer have the basic right to
publicly criticize, a lot of people who believe they have useful and important
things to say won't even apply to join. You'll only attract “yes”-people who are
just here to pad their resumes and looking for a way to make themselves more
acceptable to the rich and powerful, instead of saying things that need to be said
even if they displease the rich and powerful, because they help improve the lives
of the rest of us.

So please take out the sweeping and broad ban on public criticism from 5.3(b) of
the proposed code of conduct for us, the residents who you appointed to advise
you.

Thank you.


Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Niagara Region DEI Chair Doubles Down on Misinformation (About Misinformation) and Anti-Palestinian Racism (response)

Councillor Laura Ip, Niagara Region's DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) Advisory Committee Chair, doubled down in a blog post saying that the Region's July 25 ban on “signs, props, placards or flags of any kind” (NOTE: “of any kind”!) is not a keffiyeh ban, when in fact the exact same rule is used to ban the keffiyeh at Queen's Park and, even closer to home, to ban “Justice for Johnny” Cronkwright clothing in local courts. No matter how many times the DEI Chair says otherwise it doesn't change this existing reality.

She then points to “reporting from a reputable media outlet that it is not,” but this reporting is merely quoting from staff that is not, which is self-referential. It's like when Dick Cheney pointed to the New York Times as evidence Iraq had WMD's when the New York Times had just been printing what they had been getting from the US government. In this case the DEI Chair is pointing to the St. Catharines Standard as a source backing her when all they did was quote the Region's own staff.

The DEI Chair says the ban started as being targeted at signs harassing staff. The original motion from the DEI Chair at the March 21 Council meeting said it was about “the display of signage in Council/Committee meetings that is contrary to Council’s position on and Niagara Region’s policies addressing Workplace Harassment and Violence...” So why did this then get expanded to “signs, props, placards or flags of any kind?” You can't go from signs that are “Workplace Harassment and Violence” to signs “of any kind” and claim this is just about workplace harassment. It's not anymore, it's clearly expanded into something much much bigger and one thing can't be used to justify the other.

This is at least the third time the DEI Chair has played fast and loose with the facts in connection to Anti-Palestinian racism. Though the sign rule started as being about workplace harassment it got included with other rule changes that come from the January 25 Council meeting where 18 pro-Palestine delegates were removed from the agenda as not belonging, though a pointless Ukraine motion for “self-sanctioning” Councillors from Russia did belong according to Councillors. The sign ban (same rules used to ban keffiyehs and “Justice for Johnny” clothing) is now part of Niagara Regional Council's doubling down on anti-Palestinian racism.

After an April Zoom special meeting of the DEI Advisory Committee was disrupted I was blamed for this by the DEI Chair, without naming me, saying I had taken it upon myself to share the Zoom meeting link when in fact I had got permission from the Clerk ahead of time who wrote “you may share with others.” The DEI Chair also said without any justification that the disruption had to be coordinated and led others to believe this was by me, when anyone can get the link from various ways and can disrupt the Zoom meeting just from one account, no coordination needed.

Earlier, before the January 25 meeting where pro-Palestine delegates were removed, and the debate on removing them was killed by the DEI Chair “calling the question” and perversely justifying it as “listening to Palestinians” (to not listen to Palestinians), the DEI Chair had promoted further misinformation: she cited the Immigration Minister saying there was no “hard cap” on Palestinian refugees even though his own department had said there was (“whichever comes first” - 1,000 applicants or a January 9 deadline). This is even more perverse and gross because hardly any Palestinians have been able to come to Canada on the Temporary Resident Visa because of the ridiculous rules they have to go through which were not applied to Ukrainian refugees, because of the clear racism and double standards. The DEI Chair was again misleading her constituents, using the Immigration Minister as cover.

The DEI Chair campaigned in the last election on integrity and transparency but she has been anything but. In the election before she had campaigned to “Reset the Region,” that I think is timely because the current Councillors are being undemocratic just like the “Caslin Cabal” of 2014-2018. Niagara Region Transit recently dropped the word “Region” from their name as the “number one recommendation” because of the negative connotation from the word “Region” because of Regional government. The DEI Chair's persistence in misleading her constituents isn't helping with the Region's negative name.