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.

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.

Speech to Niagara Regional Council Against Anti-democratic Rule Changes to Block Palestine

 

I am Saleh Waziruddin.

The ban on “signs, props, placards and flags OF l ANY KIND” in rule change #4 is something even you all didn't want. It started as a very narrow request for banning signs that target specific staff or harass. Most of you were against a total sign ban. How do I know this? Not because I'm a psychic or mind reader, because I was there when you said it! I was at the April Procedural By-Law Review Committee meeting, one of the many committee meetings that are not streamed.

One of you said that all signs should be banned and to his credit one of you, Councillor Rob Foster, said he could not support that and the rest agreed. The direction to staff was not to look at banning all signs. So what changed where almost none of you wanted this but that's what a very narrow, specific request turned into where it covers ANY KIND of signs, props, placards, and flags?

To be clear about the danger, this is exactly the rule used at Queen's Park to ban keffiyas as a political sign, but closer to home right here in Niagara this kind of rule has been used to block supporters of Johnny Cronkwright from wearing their Justice for Johnny clothing just to watch court proceedings. Intention doesn't matter it's how these rules are actually used.

It's said these will distract from Councillor's focus, but even you are not that fragile. And what about all the props and symbols you Councillors wear? From a championship belt to sports clothing, to a t-shirt about defending trans kids which I support, how are these any less distracting? They are not.

The rule change also says we are allowed to have signs outside the Chambers – but that's a right we have anyway. This line is l in there to make it look like you are being reasonable and willing to compromise when you are expansively taking away our rights on the flimsiest basis.

Rule change 3 bans you from interacting with us during Council sessions, calling it “fraternization.” Anti-fraternization is from paramilitary organizations like police and fire where, because of life and death decisions, discipline is kept between officers and other ranks. But this is not a paramilitary organization, you are not our commanding officers.

The rule changes says this is to keep things neutral, we don't want you to be neutral! We want you to take sides, ours!

As for January 25th neutrality went out the window not because one Councillor was meeting with residents during a recess instead of with the backroom boys club. Neutrality went out the window even before the meeting when three Councillors publicly said Palestine support has no place on the agenda, though Ukraine did.

The Code of Conduct doesn't cover everything bad a Councillor might do. This Council makes political decisions including who here chairs what committees. Rule change 5 takes away the right of residents by saying we can only complain about Code of Conduct violations, we can't correspond with what's supposed to be our own elected Council about any other problem with Councillors. This makes Council unaccountable and less responsible for its political decisions when for example a Councillor chairing an Equity-seeking committee does something residents see as anti equity.

The Region has often gone outside the Municipal Act, not just for Ukraine, which I delegated at this Council against doing because it had no actual impact, but also for example calling the Canadian government to support local journalism. Should the Region not do that because it's not just streets and recycling?

No, Regional Council has always spoke up about things outside the Municipal Act and will continue to, and should. This is implied even in the new changes.

What the change does do though is make a two tier pretense of democracy, a two-tier system of motions. Because it requires having a seconder for motions outside the Municipal Act, but not for other motions. The problem on January 25th wasn't about a seconder but that the motion was removed from the agenda as not belonging, and then even any discussion on removing it from the agenda was killed with the “call to question.” The blatant hypocrisy of this is what caused the problem, not that the Palestine motion is outside jurisdiction when the new rules imply that's going to keep happening.

Councillors should be able to make whatever motion they want that doesn't violate the Municipal Act and then let that residents see where our elected officials stand. This change is expanding the hypocrisy of what happened on January 25, not reducing it.

In 2018 the Toronto Star asked if Niagara was Ontario's rotten borough. That's a historical term from England. Members of this Council might be familiar with it because I am told this Council is graced with Indigenous Englishmen, but residents might not know where it comes from. Rotten boroughs were election districts where it looked like there was democracy from the outside but things were setup so there wasn't any democracy. These rules are setting that rot in deeper. The rights of residents and even Councillors are being severely restricted so that participation is only for show.

Niagara Region Transit recently dropped the word “Region” from its name because the number one recommendation was that the word had a negative connotation because of Regional government. These changes tonight certainly aren't going to help with the bad name this Council has given the Region.

You are in such a rush to push through these changes that you've bypassed your own Procedural By-Law Review Committee, chaired by Councillor Haley Bateman, that was specifically setup to review changes like these.

Thank you.

Speech to St. Catharines City Council Against Having Religious Displays (Nativity Scene) on City Property

 

Dear Mayor and councillors, I am Saleh Waziruddin speaking today as an individual resident in support of staff's recommendation not to allow religious displays on City property.

This whole issue started as about having a nativity scene at City Hall. It's not an accident that applications for displays will start in November. There is no way to make this inclusive, no matter how you spin it, because there is only one religion with a tradition of having a nativity scene.

There is no way to make it inclusive of atheists, agnostics, those who don't follow any religion. 

I understand there was even an application for a Satanist display that was denied.

(*Mayor Siscoe says the request was not denied but they did not respond to the requirements, only one request met the requirements)

But there is also no way to make it inclusive of other religions, except maybe as a proverbial fig leaf.

This is because other religions don't have the tradition of a nativity scene, so will just be adapting themselves to make some kind of display just to fit in. It's still favoring one religion, with a select few other religions on hand just for appearances sake.

But followers of some of the other religions don't have the resources to do even that token participation.

So what you will end up with is a show of being inclusive without actually being inclusive, fooling ourselves only. This is public relations, not actual diversity, not inclusion. and not least importantly, not equity. This seems to be the trend here in Niagara, on-brand

If you want nativity scenes, have them in thousands of places all over the City, but not on City property which is supposed to be our common property. Unfortunately while this policy slowly winds it's way through the cogs and wheels of the process, nativity scenes have been allowed in the interim, so please put an end to it today.

Let's not forget why the one religion with the tradition of having a nativity scene is the majority religion here: it is because of colonialism, it is because of genocide. There weren't nativity scenes on this land 500 years ago. I think we acknowledge that in the land acknowledgment. Re-enshrining this only perpetuates the on-going legacy of colonialism, there is no way to dress it up as being inclusive. It has to go.

And across Canada it is going, city after city, even out in Terrace, BC, they are finding having a nativity scene on City property is not inclusive and are removing it. But in Niagara and St. Catharines, while we claim the progressive legacy of Harriet Tubman as our own, we are going in the opposite direction: backwards in time, away from progress, finding new ways to keep doing the old ways.

Thank you.

Speech to Niagara Regional Council Against Amendments to Sign-Lighting Rules Blocking Palestine

Speech to Niagara Regional Council against their amendments to the rules for lighting the "Niagara Everyone Welcome" sign, blocking Palestinian colours

I'm Saleh Waziruddin.

Where have we heard before that only Canadian symbols should be used? It's by people who are trying to stop Pride symbols from being used. The guise of being fair to all is used as cover for discrimination and unequal treatment.

The amendments start out by adding the word “equity,” but there is nothing equitable about these amendments. It might LOOK equitable because it says no countries' colours other than Canada will be allowed for lighting the “Niagara, EVERYONE Welcome” sign. But it's not equitable at all.

Because the sign was already lit in the colours of Ukraine and Israel. You already did that. So it's not equitable to say now Palestine won't be allowed because no country's colours will be allowed and therefore this is fair.

And these amendments show the Palestine colours ARE allowed under the current rules, when over 100 people from 9 of the 12 municipalities on this Council asked for it but were denied saying it's against policy when it's clearly and admittedly not.

Saying something is equal because it's not going to be allowed for anyone when in practice it has been allowed for some but not others is the textbook definition of discrimination. Don't take my word for it, the 2017 Ontario Anti-Racism Act says, I'm quoting:

“Systemic racism is often caused by policies, practices and procedures that appear neutral but have the effect of disadvantaging racialized groups. It can be perpetuated by a failure to identify and monitor racial disparities and inequities and to take remedial action.”

This is not opinion but the law of the land, and Niagara Region is a creature of the province, which is what many of you have claimed as a reason when you have denied people like me when we have asked for your support.

Just above “equity” there's an amendment to add “collective” to mourning or commemoration. Lighting requests in national colours are not just about international issues but are about our communities right here, who you are elected to represent, having a chance to mourn collectively.

But we've seen this movie before. In the 1990s Hamilton denied a proclamation request for Pride Day when they had done hundreds of proclamations for other days. They were found guilty of violating the Ontario Human Rights code! So what did they do? They said no more proclamations for anyone, no more special days at all. Sound familiar?

We are taking a page from Hamilton but not the Hamilton of today, the Hamilton of 30 years ago.

And it wasn't just Hamilton. London, Ontario did the same thing in 1995 and the Ontario Human Rights Commission went a step further, they ORDERED London to have a Pride weekend in 1998. In 2018 the Mayor of London gave a long overdue apology. Let's not have to do the same thing 20 years from tonight, let's do what's right tonight, let's take remedial action as the Anti-Racism Act says we should.

The places around us are moving forward. Toronto District School Board recently recognized Anti-Palestinian Racism, but here in Niagara we can't even get an anti-racism statement out from the DEI Advisory Committee because of its super restricted mandate. The rest of Ontario and Canada are moving forward but we in Niagara are moving back 30 years.

Niagara or at least Niagara Falls promotes itself as the Las Vegas of the North, but there is nothing “North” about what Regional Council is doing. This is taking a page from the Deep South.

Niagara is the Deep Dixie of Canada.

Thank you and peace be with you.

Gaslighting by a Niagara Councillor and Our Access to Meetings

The chair of Niagara Regional Council's DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) Advisory Committee made a statement about the vile Zoom disruption of their recent special meeting on anti-Palestinian racism. The disruption was deeply disgusting to me and so many others, but that's the only thing I agree with the Councillor on.

The Councillor blamed it on the Zoom link being shared publicly instead of directing people to the Clerk. I am the only one who shared the Zoom link publicly and the Clerk specifically told me “you may share the link with others” (see screenshot) without sending people to the Clerk. 

Why did I ask if I could give others the link instead of sending people to the Clerk? Because just before the previous meeting of this committee, which had a presentation on anti-Palestinian racism, a resident asked me for the link as it wasn't on the Region's website. I could have given the link then (nothing saying otherwise!), but out of extra caution I sent this person to the Clerk. To avoid a repeat of people scrambling last minute to get the Zoom link, I specifically asked the Clerk this time if I need to send people to them or if I could give the link out myself.

There is no way to know how the disruptor(s) got the Zoom link. Before sharing the link publicly I had given it to many people who wanted to watch who could have unknowingly given it to the disruptors. But even if everyone went through the Clerk, anyone can give a fake a email to get the link. Zoom has well-known vulnerabilities. 

The disgusting disruption has nothing to do with Palestinians and those in solidarity with them. It is purely the Region's IT department that has to fix this.

Worse, the chair misrepresented why these meetings are only on Zoom and not YouTube, saying it's to protect non-Councillor advisory committee members, when it's also done for committees with only Councillors. This makes it difficult to watch meetings legally required to be public. The chair and the other Councillor on the DEI Advisory Committee know this: they are on one of these other Zoom-only committees which I had presented at just the week before, about how it's difficult for the public to participate in their meetings (ironic?).

All of Council's meetings should be easily accessible to anyone, and the Vice Chair of the DEI Advisory Committee, a non-Councillor, even said so at the end of the meeting.

Our access to Council's meetings is the bigger issue. It should be easy to watch and present at meetings affecting our lives. Many residents watched this special meeting of the DEI Advisory Committee, which even the chair recognized and appreciated, but some couldn't get in as they came late and staff are too busy during the meeting to let them in. Many residents don't even know many committee meetings are not on YouTube, the opposite of what the chair wrote.

Maybe after some reflection the chair will recognize their blame-game for this disgusting disruption falls short of “integrity,” which this Councillor campaigned on. And also that the current system falls short of “transparency,” the other part of this Councillor's campaign slogan.

      

Learning from Organizers – Saleh Waziruddin A *Talking Radical: Resources* interview by Scott Neigh

(from https://mediacoop.ca/node/119210)

Saleh Waziruddin is a South Asian anti-racism activist who has participated in grassroots struggles throughout his adult life. In his 20s, he organized in the Muslim community in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Now in his 40s, he lives in Niagara, Ontario, and is active in the Niagara Region Anti-Racism Association (NRARA). Though not one of its founders, he has been part of the group since it started in 2018. He is on its executive committee and is most active in its campaigns related to police reform, support for individuals experiencing racism, and municipal anti-racism advisory committees.

The Media Co-op: What are a couple of important things you've learned from struggles that you, yourself, are not directly involved in, and why are they important?

Saleh Waziruddin: I've been looking into revolutions in the 1970s, because they broke the conventional wisdom that you need to organize a majority first and re-confirmed the Bolshevik model of revolution to some extent, which many still say is outdated – the Afghan Republican and April Revolutions (1973, 1978), the Portuguese and Ethiopian revolutions (1974), and Grenada's revolution (1979, see below for resources). While sources for most of these are hard to get in English, Grenada is an English-speaking country and busts the myth that English-speaking countries have never had a revolution or never will.

One of the recent books by a leader of Grenada's revolution says it was very difficult for women leaders to participate because of the burdens they had to carry as women in addition to leading the revolution. Activist groups and progressive governments need to address this by making childcare and housework socialized and shared, something advocated by Alexandra Kollontai, the Bolshevik revolutionary.

TMC: How might your learning about the revolutions of the 1970s relate to or inform struggles in Canada today?

SW: Many activists look at examples like Podemos in Spain or SYRIZA in Greece to think about how progressives can come to power and bring political change. These are "post-Gramsci" models based on the works of Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau that call for compromising clear left agendas to encompass a majority of the population first, and Antonio Gramsci advocated getting hegemony for the left first before seizing state power. Gramsci said the Bolshevik model was for a bygone time and place. However, Podemos and SYRIZA have failed spectacularly, and are discredited because of their compromises. The revolutions in the 1970s instead took the Bolshevik approach of seizing power as soon as possible and then, after seizing power, trying to get a majority through bringing results and progressive reforms instead of waiting for a majority first. 

Rosa Luxemburg summed this up excellently in her 1918 work The Russian Revolution: "Thereby the Bolsheviks solved the famous problem of 'winning a majority of the people,' which problem has ever weighed on the German Social-Democracy like a nightmare. As bred-in-the-bone disciples of parliamentary cretinism, these German Social-Democrats have sought to apply to revolutions the home-made wisdom of the parliamentary nursery: in order to carry anything, you must first have a majority. The same, they say, applies to a revolution: first let’s become a 'majority.' The true dialectic of revolutions, however, stands this wisdom of parliamentary moles on its head: not through a majority, but through revolutionary tactics to a majority – that’s the way the road runs."

TMC: What are a couple of sources related to struggles that you aren't involved in that you've found to be particularly useful or important?

SW: There has been a recent spate of books and responses written by leaders of Grenada's revolution because many have only just been released from prison. Bernard Coard has written a series of books (The Grenada Revolution: What Really Happened, Skyred: A Tale of Two Revolutions, Forward Ever: Journey to a New Granada) as has Phyllis Coard (Unchained: A Caribbean Woman's Journey Through Invasion, Incarceration & Liberation).

Bernard Coard is blamed in part for the failure of the revolution and unfortunately his book does not cover the exact details of the assassination of its leader Maurice Bishop, something that has still not been fully explained.

Incidentally, Bernard Coard's 1971 book (How the West Indian Child is Made Educationally Sub-Normal by the British School System), written when he was an anti-racism activist in the UK, is still very useful for looking at the roots of racism in Canada's education systems.

TMC: What are a couple of key things about struggles that you are involved in or about your approach to activism and organizing that you would like other people to know more about?

SW: One of the most important things is to go by people's actions (under close examination) and not their words alone. Many people talk anti-racism but have no idea about actually challenging white supremacy. When it comes time to take action they are not allies but actually work against you. Many of these people have all kinds of credentials related to "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) and have the education to use the right words, though of course not everyone with credentials or education is a fake.

It's difficult to recruit the right people but movements that are active, such as Palestine solidarity, are a great source to find people who are being radicalized and want to make a bigger contribution to change than the movement they are involved in.

TMC: What are a couple of sources related to struggles that you are involved in or to your approach to activism and organizing that you would want other people to read/watch/listen to/learn from?

SW: As a cisgender straight man, I am catching up on long-established analysis of the many ways men like me cause damage in movements. One classic paper I found useful is “Deconstructing Militant Manhood” by Lara Montesinos Coleman & Serena A. Bassi in International Feminist Journal of Politics, May 20, 2011.

I found the reference in a thesis written on a local activist group a few years ago but the author asked me to please not mention their thesis. However, people should look up theses written on activist groups doing similar things to what they are involved in or groups in their area to get a better understanding of past lessons learned (or not learned).

TMC: You say that "Many people talk anti-racism but have no idea about actually challenging white supremacy." What are a couple of key things that distinguish empty anti-racism discourse from genuine struggle against white supremacy, and what are a few sources that people can look to if they want to learn more about the latter?

SW: The way to tell the difference between public relations and anti-racism is that anti-racism means actual change and spending resources, in terms of money and staff time. If there's no actual change delivered and resources aren't being put into it, it's just public relations. That's the stumbling block: will the government body actually put money and staff time into delivering the change, or will they say "well that takes too much staff time so we can't do it." This easy test can be applied to any proposals and policies. I have specific policies I've seen get watered down but those are probably too obscure for general reading.

Talking Radical: Resources is a collaboration between The Media Co-op and the Talking Radical project. In these short monthly interviews, activists and organizers from across so-called Canada connect you with ideas and with tools for learning related to struggles for justice and collective liberation. They talk about how they have learned, and about ways that you can learn.

Scott Neigh is a writer, media producer, and activist based in Hamilton, Ontario, and the author of two books examining Canadian history through the stories of activists.

Please subscribe to The Media Co-op's newsletter!