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.