Why You Should Never Take Kate Carraway to IKEA
Subway Suicide Statistics Released
Polling Booth: "Kick a Ginger" Controversy
Newsstand: November 27, 2009
Days of Carltons Past
For the third straight day, throngs of demonstrators from Toronto's Tamil community—the world's largest outside Sri Lanka—have congregated on University Avenue between Queen Street and Dundas, holding court outside the U.S. consulate. As of nine o'clock this morning, the percussive rhythm of drums and rallying cries continued to resound along the artery, hemmed in on either side by watchful, horse-mounted members of the Toronto Police Service.
"The Toronto Police Service is committed to working with those who wish to express their views in a peaceful and safe manner," said the TPS in a release this morning, crediting the protest's co-operation. At 7 a.m., police had confined demonstrators to the east side of University, opening the southbound flow of traffic. Despite this, the cops suggested that "the public consider alternate routes in the affected area until further notice," suggesting that this passionate assembly of Tamil expats isn't going away any time soon.
While this week's resolute vigil is impressive (Nick Kozak's photographs above document the latter half of yesterday's protest, which continued through the afternoon and into the night), its numbers have dwindled from the thousands that overwhelmed University on Sunday night, a sudden upswelling that, as The Star reports, "[forced] police to block off a section of the street and call in its crowd-control officers and mounted units as well as the city's public order unit—a body of volunteers consisting of off-duty firefighters, EMS and police officers." The latest in a series of demonstrations that have been choking intersections—not to mention Parliament Hill—for a few months, the vigil repeats a familiar, desperately simple plea: "Canada, help us."
The weekend's crowd surge was especially and none-too-surprisingly timely. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, commonly known as the Tamil Tigers, called Sunday for a unilateral ceasefire to the twenty-five-year-old civil war, which flared in 1983 over the killing of Sri Lankan soldiers in the island nation's north. In the years since, the conflict's ongoing—and, in recent months, horrifically escalating—violence has earned the Tamil Tigers a place on the federal government's terror blacklist, while over seventy thousand people have been killed. In response, the Sri Lankan government rejected the ceasefire.
Demonstrators implore the Canadian government to influence an end to the war, saying Canada has missed too many chances to save Tamil civilians from a death toll they feel has genocidal severity. "The more our fellow Canadians support us," The Star quotes Lavanya Nithiyanantharasan, 20, as saying, "the sooner this protest will end."
The Toronto Police Service, meanwhile, reports that "traffic congestion on the roadways and within the transit system is to be expected." And if the rumblings on the street are correct, the city can also expect the vigil to continue for another few days.
Photos by Nick Kozak/Torontoist.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'd suggest the protest might get more attention if it were held somewhere besides than the predictable, almost ritualized location for such things: the U.S. consulate. The Tamil protesters seek action from Canada and the UN as far as I can tell, so why are they there, exactly?
It would be way, way easier to have sympathy for this protest if those involved would put away those Tiger flags and also condemn the grotesque human rights abuses committed by the LTTE. Abuses which include funding their operations through extortion abroad, including in Canada.
I have indeed seen these protests. It is truly horrible that civilians are being abused -- but BOTH SIDES are committing the abuse: eyewitnesses and aid agencies have reported that the Tigers are recruiting children and attacking fleeing civilians, in the hope that they will stay and act as human shields.
This protest is far from a neutral "help the civilians" rally. It is an attempt to whitewash the execrable LTTE.
That was supposed to be in reply to Nick.
Andrew, according to the UN 6,500 Tamil civilians have been killed by the Sri Lankan military since January 2009 alone. This is a massacre by any standard definition. Did Canada not bomb the hell out of Serbia in 1999 when in a conflict with the KLA - no angels themselves - there were 2000 casualties on both sides, including civilian and military, during a 2 year period.
In this case, Canada has (1) criminalized the LTTE which has both an armed and political wing and is the legitimate representative of the Tamil people and (2) continues to fully support the Sri Lankan government by remaining quiet and engaging in arms transfers (like other Western governments).
This is part of a pattern under which Canada has increasingly been acting in a way that enforces double standards usually to the detriment to the weakest party in a conflict. You seem to enjoy blaming the victim, a very sad state of affairs indeed, but typical of the racist attitudes that the Conservatives like to foster these days.
In this case, I refuse to say that one side's atrocities are excusable, while the other's are not.
LTTE atrocities that you apparently consider excusable include: deliberate attacks on civilians (with total death tolls in the thousands), ethnic cleansing of Muslim minorities, use of child soldiers, and raising funds through international organized crime. It should be noted that the LTTE are the primary users of child soldiers in this conflict.
I agree that the civilians are suffering terribly, but I refuse to allow my support for the rights of non-combatants to legitimize a criminal organization. If the LTTE are the "legitimate representative" of the Tamil people, then it's important for the Tamil people to realize that they need a new representative.
And finally, so this makes me a racist and a "conservative"? What is wrong with you?
Congradulations Andrew you can read the National Post and parrot their anti-Tamil propaganda. The LTTE is banned in Canada, but yet the Sri Lankan Army (SLA), which has killed far more civilians, uses human shields as well, arbitrarily detains thousands, holds civilians in open air prisons, shells civilian areas indiscriminantly, etc. receives full support from the Canadian government. A principled stand would either allow both sides to operate freely, or ban support for either side. Tying the arms of the weakest and supporting some of the most brutal regimes has become par for the course in Conservative Canada, including on the issue of Israel/Palestine, Sri Lanka and Somalia. Pointing out and parroting the 'abuses' of small armed groups and showing self-righteous indignation while ignoring much larger state terrorism and direct Canadian support for such mass slaughter is hypocrisy at its finest. And yes, that makes you a racist.
Since you have spectacularly missed my point and continue to be personally insulting, we're done here.
"...showing self-righteous indignation..." Forgive me for finding it hilarious that you fling this epithet at your antagonists with such gusto. The hilarity of the scenario is evidently lost on you.
Dr. Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I increasingly think that accusing one's opponent of racism is the first refuge of an analytically and rhetorically deficient writer. I mean, really, is that the best you can do? "You're a racist!" "No, you're the racist!" It's a sure formula for intelligent debate.
The demonsrators chose the US Consulate as a location this time to make a point of asking the US as well as the Canadian government and the UN for help. Andrew, have you been to any of these demonstrations? I suggest you go next time and you will see the genuine passion these people have as they seek a stop to the deaths of their friends and family in Sri Lanka.
What a preposterously one-sided article. Information is repeated verbatim from partisans with no data from reliable sources. The intelligence community has been saying all along that the LTTE are seeking a ceasefire so they can re-group, re-arm and continue fighting. I come to Torontoist for interesting tidbits from around Toronto. Leave serious journalism to the heavyweights lads.
rugby lad... "the intelligence community" = "the heavyweights"? these are the same people who brought us maher arrar or who think that iran is an 'arab' country. why should we take anything they say seriously? as for serious journalism, i think reporting from the protest and conveying the positions of the people most directly affected by the current bloodletting is responsible journalism.
It may surprise you to discover that Toronto does not consist solely of third-generation European Canadians.
>which flared in 1983 over the killing of Sri Lankan soldiers in the island nation's north
To me this sums it up quite well. You started a fight, committed insane human rights ATROCITIES, spread terror (through extortion, civilian killings, child soldiers etc). Kill thousands of Sri-Lankans. Kill and kidnap Indians people (including their Prime Minister) in an attempt to force India on it's side.
So... now the tables have turned on them and they expect Canada to step in?
hmmm... i love how you fail to mention the pogrom of between 2000-3000 Tamils in July 1983 alone. nice selective history you have going there 'torontothegreat' ...
It would be to your benefit that I didn't. It's quite funny that you call someone racist, yet you support a racist group, yourself.
Origin and evolution
The root of modern conflict goes back to British colonial rule when the country was known as Ceylon. A nationalist political movement from Sinhalese communities arose in the country in the early 20th century with the aim of obtaining political independence, which was eventually granted by the British after peaceful negotiations in 1948. Disagreements between the Sinhalese and Tamil ethnic communities flared up when drawing up the country's first post-independence constitution. Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike's declaration of the "Sinhala Only Act" language policy was the spark that led to conflict. The civil war is a direct result of the escalation of the confrontational politics that followed. Communal uprisings in the 1950s, 1977, and the formation of the Tamil United Liberation Front TULF with its Vaddukkodei (Vattukottai)) resolution of 1976 were key events. These led to a hardening of attitudes on both sides.
The TULF supported the armed actions of young militants who were dubbed "our boys." These "boys" were the product of the post-war population explosion. Many partially educated, unemployed Sinhala and Tamil youth fell for simplistic racist and violent revolutionary solutions to their problems. The leftist parties had remained "non-communal" for a long time, but the Federal Party (as well as its off-shoot, the TULF), deeply conservative and dominated by Vellala casteism, did not attempt to form a national alliance with the leftists in their fight for language rights.
Following the sweeping electoral victory of the UNP in July 1977, the TULF became the leading opposition party, with around one sixth of the total electoral vote winning on a party platform of secession from Sri Lanka. In late 1977, in the aftermath of a serious communal clash in August that year, Junius Richard Jayawardene's UNP government granted only the educational rights demanded by the Tamils.[34] But to the Tamil leadership that was losing the control it had on the Tamil militants after not being able to follow through with the election promise of seceding from Sri Lanka to form Tamil, it was too little too late.
Outbreak of civil war
Supported by the on-going politics of conflict in Sri Lanka, politicized Tamil youth in the North and the East started to form militant groups. These groups developed independently of the Colombo Tamil leadership, and in the end rejected and annihilated them. The most prominent of these groups was the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or the LTTE. The LTTE initially carried out a campaign of violence against the state, particularly targeting policemen and also moderate Tamil politicians who attempted a dialogue with the government. Their first major operation was the assassination of the mayor of Jaffna, Alfred Duraiappah in 1975. In fact, the modus operandi of the early war was based on assassinations. The assassination in 1977 of a Tamil Member of Parliament, M. Canagaratnam, was carried out personally by Vellupillai Prabhakaran, the leader of the LTTE.[35]
In July 1983, the LTTE launched a deadly attack on the military in the North of the country, killing 13 soldiers.[36] Using the nationalistic sentiments to their advantage, the Sinhalese now organized massacres and pogroms in Colombo, the capital, and elsewhere (see Black July). Between 400 and 3,000 Tamils were estimated to have been killed,[37] and many more fled Sinhalese-majority areas. This is usually considered the beginning of the civil war.
Apart from the LTTE, there initially was a plethora of militant groups. The LTTE's position, adopted from that of the PLO, was that there should be only one. Initially the LTTE gained prominence due to devastating attacks such as the massacre of civilians at the Kent and Dollar Farms in 1984 and the Anuradhapura massacre of 146 civilians in 1985. The Anuradhapura massacre was apparently retaliated for by government forces with the Kumudini boat massacre in which over 23 Tamil civilians died. Over time the LTTE merged with or largely exterminated almost all the other militant Tamil groups. As a result, many Tamil splinter groups ended up working with the Sri Lankan government as paramilitaries or denounced violence and joined mainstream politics, and some legitimate Tamil-oriented political parties remain, all opposed to LTTE's vision of an independent state.
Peace talks between the LTTE and the government began in Thimphu in 1985, but they soon failed, and the war continued. In 1986 many civilians were massacred as part of this conflict. In 1987, government troops pushed the LTTE fighters to the northern city of Jaffna. In April 1987, the conflict exploded with ferocity, as both the government forces and the LTTE fighters engaged each other in a series of bloody operations.
The Sri Lankan military launched an offensive, called “Operation Liberation” or “Vadamarachchi Operation”, during May–June 1987, to regain the territory in Jaffna peninsula from the LTTE's control. This offensive marked the Sri Lankan military's first ever conventional warfare in Sri Lankan soil since independence. The military offensive was successful and the LTTE leader Prabhakaran and the Sea Tiger leader Soosai narrowly escaped from advancing troops at Valvettithurai. The key military personnel who involved in the operation were Lt Col. Vipul Boteju, Lt Col. Sarath Jayawardane, Col. Vijaya Wimalaratne, Brig. Denzil Kobbekaduwa and Maj Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
In July 1987, the LTTE carried out their first suicide attack: "Captain Miller" of the Black Tigers drove a small truck with explosives through the wall of a fortified Sri Lankan army camp, reportedly killing forty soldiers. Since then they have carried out over 170 suicide attacks, more than any other organization in the world, and the suicide attack has become a trademark of the LTTE, and a characteristic of the civil war.[38]
Other assassinations by the LTTE include the murder of Dr. Rajini Thiranagama on September 21, 1989, by the LTTE, after criticizing them for their atrocities.[39] She was the head of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Jaffna, a Tamil human rights activist, and feminist.
The killings of Father Mary Bastian and George Jeyarajasingham, both human rights activists, have been attributed to the government forces. These deaths are examples of thousands murdered that happened in this period.[40]
Sorry, was there any doubt that the cited "horrifically escalating" violence which "earned the Tamil Tigers a place on the federal government's terror blacklist" conveys at least some ambivalence towards the protestors' cause?
Yes, as a matter of fact, there is some "doubt." Most glaringly, the sentence that allegedly expresses this ambivalence is fabulous and awful (in the original sense) in the contortions in which it engages to conceal what actually has been going on. It twists itself into a knot to confuse the issue.
To wit: "The conflict's ongoing violence...has earned the Tamil Tigers a place on the federal government's terror blacklist." Notice the linguistic turpitude here. According to the author, it is not the unambiguous actions of the Tigers that got them on the blacklist, but the vague "violence" of the conflict—as if the conflict itself has agency. A sinister and execrable example of what Orwell denounces in "Politics and the English Language."
So rather than abuse language further, let's be clear: The secular LTTE (and not Al Qaeda) pioneered the now popular tactic of suicide bombing, and didn't hesitate to use it against civilians. The flags the protesters fly are the banners of an illegal terrorist organization. In their quest to elicit pity, they are happy to portray themselves as war's innocent victims, when in fact there's plenty of blood on the hands of both sides in the conflict. The only reason the Tamils are crying now is that they're about to be defeated, not because they've suddenly discovered human rights and long-buried irenic passions.
One further note on Aalgaard's contempt for clarity. He says the protesters are outraged about "a death toll they feel has genocidal severity." Genocide is not a matter of body counts. A conflict in which a million people die is not necessarily a genocide; but a conflict which kills 10,000 people might very well be genocide, depending on the circumstances. Genocide is a question of *intent*. It is a deliberate and premeditated effort to destroy a people. It usually--but doesn't necessarily--involve killing. To throw around the term genocide as a mere expression of outrage cheapens genocide's horror. (NB: This is not to say that the war in Sri Lanka is not genocidal. It may well be. But the number of deaths is absolutely not the way to make a determination.)
So, before inflicting another unlettered report on us, dear authors and editors (who, I'll repeat, are awesome when they stick to useful local topics and avoid jumping headlong into the murky waters of international affairs), read some Lemkin, and put reason ahead of emotion.
Was the demonstration not in Toronto? Did it not have an effect on Toronto's traffic for example? Are these not citizens of Toronto? Yes to all those making this very much a local topic.
Thank you for answering your own rhetorical questions, a move that most writers understand to be unnecessary but is nevertheless helpful for those who are slow to catch on.
Your logic is ironclad: The demonstration did indeed take place in Toronto and certainly did affect city traffic. (The claim about the protestors' citizenship is unverifiable.) Does it thus fall within Torontoist's jurisdiction? Naturally.
So let me clarify my view of Torontoist's coverage of politically-charged local events. My position is not that Torontoist should not cover these events, but rather that it should not do so badly or with such silly prose. Had this just been a bunch of photographs of the protest, that would have been one thing. But because the editors married the photos to Aalgaard's characteristically tendentious story, it's an entirely different matter.
Contrast the awfulness of this piece with the genuine glories of Torontoist's other stories--on local events, the music and arts scene, city history, even municipal politics--and my point becomes still more limpid. To sum up: Torontoist should play to its many strengths, and international politics is not one of those strengths.
The editors may protest that they can publish whatever stories they want. Indeed they can. But if they invite comments on their stories, they should expect (and indeed welcome) vigorous debate.
Why can't all internet commentary be of this caliber? Exceptional analysis and debunking of the motivations behind these protests.
I don't disagree with everything you've written - I'm absolutely with you on the need to apply "genocide" with accuracy - but I want to take on a few points you made:
And the US, Britain, Canada, and other "good guy" nations collaborated to make the atom bomb, which killed a few hundred thousand civilians and hundreds more from toxic after-effects. But we don't bring it up when discussing, say, who is in the moral right in the Afghanistan war. I know the idea that a group pioneered a violent technology and used it with impunity is a jarring one, but I don't think it's relevant to the issue at hand. Lots of kids are doing it, so to speak. I think if there's one valuable thing we've learned over the last eight years of US politics, it's that the word "terrorist" can be subjectively and strategically applied. Sort of like "evil-doer". Whole nations can and do make errors in judgment in deciding who the bad guys are, and separating the terrorists from the victims is not necessarily as black-and-white as governments would have their citizens believe. I'm not saying that the LTTE is innocent; just that I don't think saying "But Canada says they're terrorists!" is that strong a point. It's sort of tautological - how do you know the LTTE is in the wrong? They're on the blacklist. Why are they on the blacklist? Because they're in the wrong.I don't like saying "it's a very complicated situation" as a cop-out of taking a moral stand, but understanding the situation requires more than a tally of human rights abuses from each side. I can't help feeling like we're wandering around this discourse in a decontextualized way.
They've actually been there since at least Saturday morning. Only a couple dozen standing on the eastern sidewalk, but they were there from at least noon (when I walked by). In fact, if you look at the high-res photo of Toronto from the CN Tower you posted yesterday, you'll see that small crowd on the corner of University and Armoury.
Someone should let them know the US consulate doesn't house any branch of any Canadian government, federal, provincial, or local.
As I commented before in response to roolb, the Tamils are protesting in front of the US consulate this time because they are seeking the US government's support along with the support of the international community and the Canadian government!
What's with the lone white dude protesting? Really? Is he that hard up for causes? I hope he really got a kick out of it, because he looks ridiculous.
you're certainly much less ridiculous flashman. 6500 civilians have been killed and this is your comment? i guess it's hip to be callous these days...
I am nursing a theory that endapartheid and octpatp are sockpuppets of the same commenter. They certainly have the same manner.
Just came back from the ongoing rally. The spirit and energy of the crowd is really high. Youth especially are very actively involved. I've never been prouder to be a Torontonian. We're lucky to live with such a committed community as our neighbors, coworkers, etc. The haters can say what they want, but these demos are inspiring people across the country. This is how rights have always been one. The crowd was extremely well disciplined, there was even organized garbage collection to keep the streets clean (which can't be said for the police side of the lines which was covered in horse sh*t left behind by the mounted units).
The problem with people flinging the term genocide around in situations such as this is twofold: most wars can be termed "genocidal" with very little spin, and that the term is used primarily to invoke the images of the industrialized genocide committed by the Nazi regime during World War 2 (very few people have the genocides committed by Soviet Russia, Japan, etc. pop in to their heads when asked).
Any conflict is easily spun in to a "genocide" by those typically on the losing side of the battle regardless of the actual aim of the conflict. The UN definition of genocide requires intent to destroy a Religious, National, Ethnic or Religious Group (RNERG). A war for land or resources controlled primarily by a particular RNERG can be called a genocide by those under attack even if genocide is not the intent. A rebellion provoked by a RNERG can be called a genocide as the rebellion attacks the primary power (Soviet rebellion was a good, recent one), as could the attempts by the primary power to quash the rebellion. Continued cries of "genocide" are easily found when the members of the losing group want to call for a ceasefire and the opposing power declines to accept their terms (this case in particular). This situation is not a genocide, it is stopping a rebellion started by a single RNERG. The destruction of Israel is a genocide (declared and practiced intent to destroy a RNERG). The fact that the Tamils have called for a armistice means very little if the risk of continued violence is high. I'm sure we've all seen fights end only to have the guy who called peace sucker punch the other guy.
Genocide has been ingrained to most Canadians as the industrialized, systematic destruction of the Jewish populations in Europe by the Nazi regime. When the Tamils are using the word, they are trying to evoke images of these horrors in the minds of Canadians (and apparently, primarily the Americans) in order to gain favour for their cause. The misuse and terrible exaggeration of the term by the Tamil's is shameful in what seems to be an attempted power grab that has left the rebels all but thwarted. It's no shame to call out for help to your cause, all RNERGs call out for help when it is needed. It is a shame to try and use one of the most horrific events of the 20th century as a tool to persuade the masses to support you.
Awesome to see the "you invented the atom bomb and are evil too" argument. Besides the fact that the Allies used the bomb in a war 50 years ago that in completely disconnected from the wars the west is waging now (well except that they both have roots in WWI), the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't the deadliest/most destructive attacks of the War, nor were they the deadliest/most destructive attacks on the civilians of Japan. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were more destructive and deadlier than either nuclear attack (there are quibbles on Dresden's death toll with the lowest estimate being 18k and the highest 400k against Hiroshima's 70k immediate and 140k total deaths). They were nearly as powerful, with 4k tons of bombs dropped on Dresden and 1.7k on Tokyo (for the Operation Meetinghouse firebombing, Tokyo was bombed far more over the entire course of the war). The Tokyo Meetinghouse raid destroyed 15 square miles (41 square km) that housed 1.5M people with government estimated deaths of 100k, a number that is rather absurdly low but beneficial to both US and Japanese governments at the time and since. If you're going to throw accusations, at least do some homework, I mean even Chomsky and Klein know enough to use the firebombings as the best evidence against the Allies (never mind that their hero Josef was allied to us at the time and the things that he did to ze Germans weren't exactly friendly).
We treat actions by the LTTE as anathema not because we do not or will not do worse, but because we know the risks behind unleashing total war. Guerilla movements only want to win and don't care about the dangers, while states know the dangers that come from never ending civil wars, banditry, and the break down of order. Today's Afghanistan and Pakistan's NWFP and tribal areas are merely echoes of the chaos of Revolutionary & Napoleonic France, England's Civil War & Commonwealth, England's Anarchy (war between Stephen & Maude in 1135-1154). The insurgents attitude of "the worse, the better" and attempts to provoke a reaction they can make use of leads them to tactics of ever greater atrocity. We who live in civilized states and WANT to continue to live in peaceful civilized states will always treat the actions of guerillas as anathema to protect the peace of our societies and the monopoly on force of our governments.
The LTTE is lucky that they are merely facing the Sri Lankan government and not colonial-era British forces nor the Allies circa '44. Al Quaeda and their various supporters are lucky they're not facing the '44 Allies too - taking their claims of representing the entire Muslim world at face value, a '44 attitude combined with '09 capability would make Meetinghouse look gentle, nevermind all of our actions since 9-11.
These protests and their mass attendance should lead the Canadian government rethink our welcoming of such a large Tamil population and a thorough investigation of their initial immigration records. Just as we have deported false light immigrants due to their culpability for Nazi war crimes (along with Somali war-crimes, Rwandan genocide, and war crimes in the Balkans), we should vigourously investigate and pursue those who came to Canada and then prosecuted their insurgency and war crimes here.
I didn't say "we're evil too". My point is that saying "they invented the suicide bomber vest" is no wiser a criterion for judgment of the LTTE than "they invented the atom bomb" would be of the US government. I'm fine with people who are against the LTTE, but not based on their invention history. That's all. I'm saying the argument is bad, not that the LTTE are awesome.
I won't respond to the rest of your comment because I think the general understanding at Torontoist is that you are either a trollbot or once-brilliant satirist gone off the deep end. No offense.
Reading accounts of the firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear bombings makes me hope if we are ever on the receiving end of one that it's nuclear, especially if white phosphorus is in vogue. Tokyo's firebombing was particularly effective due to the heavy reliance on wood for construction.
I would say the LTTE is lucky they aren't at the hands of the Japanese Imperial Forces circa '42. Good times were not had by all.
Great photographs!
I also came across some interesting blog posts by Tamil Canadian youths on their thoughts, expectations & anxieties on the site below
http://voicesinexile.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/opinion-canada-is-our-home-too-%E2%80%94-photos-reactions-from-the-recent-protests-part-ii/
http://voicesinexile.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/opinion-canada-is-our-home-too-photos-reactions-from-the-recent-protests-part-i/
It is the right of every people to self-govern. The history of the homeland of the Tamil people indicates that they have been subject to colonization by an outside group. The idea of majority rule is archaic. As a resident of the most diverse urban area on the planet, I abhor the attempts of one group to totally dominate another. I commend the Tamil people residing in Canada. They have demonstrated peacefully, and if they have resorted to civil disobedience - there is a precedence for that in North America. It is called the Civil Rights Movement. (Please note that I am not a Tamil, however I support their right to expect to self-govern in their own land.)