AGAINST
MATT KIM
On Sunday, Toronto’s Tamil community blocked the Gardiner Expressway in protest. The move was both understandable and to be expected. Understandable because the situation in Sri Lanka is getting desperate, with the latest from the northern conflict zone estimating 378 people killed and 1,122 wounded as shelling by the Sri Lankan army intensifies. Expected because Canada is home to the largest diasporic community of Tamils in the world, and many of those killed were their relatives.
Which is to say, in a roundabout and circuitous way, that we sympathize with the loss of loved ones. But that is, sadly, all we can do.
The collective outpouring of emotions—anger, frustration, ineffable grief—should not, cannot, and is not being subjected to scrutiny here. Instead, it is the simply the lack of available emotions that we as fellow citizens are left with.
Over the course of the war’s twenty-six years, as words such as “right” and “wrong,” or “just” and “unjust” have become inapplicable, so have the emotions associated with such terms. Protesters are, quite obviously, certain about which side is virtuous. But good, just, and right are words we can not attribute to either the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or their counterparts in this battle, the Sri Lankan government.
The leader of Sri Lanka’s government, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, exhibited a callous disregard for the loss of life this war inflicts, be it civilian or combatant, when he dismissed the calls from the international community for a cease-fire to allow the entry of aid into the conflict zone. Captured fighters are sent off to internment camps, the abhorrent conditions of which were recorded by three British journalists, who were promptly detained and then ejected from the country. Evidence of systematic shelling of a hospital—an unambiguous war crime—is now emerging as well.
His devotion to death finds a match in Velupillai Prabhakaran, the leader of the Tamil Tigers, who, along with the rest of his Black Tigers, wears a cyanide pill around his neck. Prabhakaran, who pioneered the tactic of suicide bombers, also adopted the tactic of hiding amongst civilians, making it extremely difficult to distinguish civilians from combatants. This, combined with an indiscriminate use of force by the Sri Lankan army, has undoubtedly exacerbated the death toll, which now exceeds 70,000. Human rights groups have also denounced him for forcing children to fight.
Neither side allows media access.
As such, how can we offer anything beyond our sympathies for those lost? Both sides seem fully committed to the idea of annihilating each other or dying in the process. Placing “economic or diplomatic sanctions” on Sri Lanka, as Shyanthy Thezarajh asks, is impossible; it would amount to support of a side in a war that is wholly repugnant. Approving of the protest Sunday is likewise impossible. Peaceful as it was (the traffic on the Gardiner has been worse), the protest wasn’t completely innocuous. The flags of the LTTE—a terrorist group neither peaceful or responsible, one that continues to show indifference to the value of human life—are flown in vast numbers. Supporting the protesters is tantamount to supporting a side in a war in which the only ones truly deserving of our unchecked feelings of pity, compassion, and support are those caught in the middle. In a blend part Torontonian, part Canadian, we’re sorry, but only that.
|
Edgewater Hotel Sign Comes Down
The Art of Not Knowing
If You Tweet It, He Will Come
Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
The Daily Photoist: November 20, 2009
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I like this style of post that's arguing both sides and not taking a bias point of view with a long winded statment "saying it how it is".
I think after hearing 1200 Tamils dead on one day, hundreds seriously injured, aerial bombing continues made Tamil Canadian little upset. And that they government, which is the Canadian government did not do anything about this situation seriously. If this situation were happen anywhere like Iran or Afghanistan. The government or other Canadian would make it big thing. There is some negative aspect what Tamil Canadian have done , but it made other Canadian to realize what’s really going in Sri Lanka . Example bombing the so called safe zone is a sample of genocide. I thing Canadian government should do something to save Tamil ethics.
I also want to applaud you for taking this approach and for being one of the few sources of updates on Twitter on Sunday. I have to agree with Matt here. Over the past few months, one disturbing sentiment that has emerged after every Tamil protest is the suggestion that if you complain about the inconveniences, it means you don't care that people are dying. I belive it is possible to be appalled at what's happening in Sri Lanka(and every other world conflict) and still expect to live in a city free of civil disobedience. I don't know if any organization has the right to wilfully obstruct traffic and I was saddened last night to see infants and toddlers among the crowd up on the highway in freezing weather.
The problem I have is that it is not the 44 Liberal and NDP MPs of Toronto that have the power to alter Canadian government policy. If the Tamil community had blockaded Jim Flaherty's constituency office or the 407 through Pickering until he agreed to hear their concerns, that would be one thing, but the fact that Ignatieff can do no more than "bring it up" in Parliament is symptomatic of the poor choices the Tamil community are making.
As for the blockade of the Gardiner, the widespread coverage this has received will not have gone unnoticed by the many other diasphoric communities in the GTA. The mayor uses words like "absolute right to protest" while telling the Tamils to get off the Gardiner - no wonder he was ignored. The Tamil supporters tell the citizens of Toronto "your inconvenience is irrelevant because it's not as bad as being shelled" - well, that covers a lot of things we don't want to see in this city.
If the Tamil protesters are intent on a peaceful resolution it will involve them accepting less than they demand, as the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland (most of them) did - maybe devolution within a federal Sri Lanka, or some similar power-sharing arrangement short of independence. They should tell us what they are prepared to demand of their leaders back home in exchange for a Canadian hand in peace negotiations.
It is unlikely that Canada can back the Tamils without reservation and without significant concessions on their part, not least because I suspect we will find out how many Sinhalese-Canadians we have here two minutes later.
They have lost a lot of sympathy from the community by staging something as stupid as a Gardiner blockage. They used women and children to keep the grown men safe, almost like using them as shields... what kind of civil protest puts children on the front line? They shouldn't be allowed to have children if putting them in danger is acceptable procedure... and on mothers day? Is this how people treat their mothers? Convincing (and I'm sure forcing) them to stand all night in the cold with their babies, just to try and talk to a Government that already does almost too much peacekeeping in a country that doesn't abide by Western rules of democracy and due process. I'm sure if Canada or the UN or the US could stop the genocide, they would have already done so.
The escalation in the protest was unlawful and uncalled for. Toronto police failed by allowing them to move up on a busy highway on a weekend, putting pedestrians and the motorists traveling above in great danger.
How many officers does it take to man a water canon?
Nice how you assume the women didn't choose to go of their volition. Right. Those women were "forced". By the scary brown men!
I don't think "human shield" means what you think it means. Being female with kids and attending a protest does not mean you're a human shield.
The hell is wrong with you.
"Nice how you assume the women didn't choose to go of their volition. Right."
Amen. This nonsense about women being placed at the front of the protest as "human shields" assumes that they are pawns of male organizers, unable to decide for themselves where they want to stand or what role they wish to take in the demonstrations.
Without evidence that men are coercing women into standing on the front line, shouldn't we assume that they're there of their own volition? To do otherwise smells strongly of latent sexism.
I agree with Jared on the point of the women. The children present is a different issue however. It is difficult to tell people who need to care for their children to "leave them at home", but it is also reasonable to wonder why they would take small children and babies in to such a situation while the protest was obviously organized and a sitter should have been arranged.
I wonder what would have happened if the protest had really gotten out of control and some babies/children got hit by tear gas. The police definitely would have an undeserved nightmare on their hands as "Babies Tear Gassed" graced the headlines.
Yes, yes. Won't somebody please think of the children?!
Finding a sitter in Toronto is not as easy or affordable as you think. And I trust that the parents exercised judgment in deciding that it would be safe for their kids - most parents, even scary brown ones, aren't like, "Hey, I'm going to totally endanger my child!" - particularly considering they had quite a bit of agency themselves in keeping the event from getting out of control. And look! They were right! It all stayed under control, they came and left peacefully, no problemmo. The kids will be alright.
Thanks for the accusation of racism, but again, you're trying to turn a non-issue in to one. I never said that they purposely brought children along to prevent police action, I'm saying it was foolish to bring a child on to a major expressway regardless. It was also very possible that the protest could have gotten out of control.
You're welcome.
Here's a handy chart to summarize all the comments on this debate.
Hope this helps!
It doesn't! :)
I pre-snarked about simplistic reduction of the debate.
Uh. I haven't taken a stance on who I support.
I just don't like bad arguments against the Tamils.
There are plenty of good arguments against the Tamils.
I feel no need to respond to those.
"They have lost a lot of sympathy from the community by staging something as stupid as a Gardiner blockage."
Right. Because god forbid they should inconvenience anyone in their efforts to bring attention to a genocide-in-the-making. If that's all it takes to lose your sympathy, you could never have been all that invested in human rights in the first place.
It's a good thing Gandhi was pre-internet. I can just imagine all of the people who would complain that he was being counter-productive and losing their sympathy when he and his supporters would lay themselves across the road.
The Gandhi comparison would be more exact had he been practicing civil disobedience in say, Belgium, or Peru, but he had the perspicacity to demonstrate in the country where the injustice was actually taking place.
But, Patrick, they are protesting the country where they see injustice taking place that needs to be righted - they're calling on Canada to end their complicity in murder of Tamils. They're not actually making any demands of the Sinhalese.
Practically speaking, they're protesting where it's convenient, not where it's useful.
Unlike Gandhi's protests which were directed at the actual power, the Canadian Tamil demonstrations target the Canadian government (or even more perversely, the American consulate) who have already wagged a finger at the Sri Lankan government and are now pretty much out of ideas.
As an aside, my response to this post doesn't imply acceptance of the idea that the Canadian government is somehow complicit in the murder of Tamils.
I find it ironic that you would bring up Gandhi in a Tamil-related category. I know you were referring to Mahatma, but Rajiv Gandhi sprung to MY mind. Yes, not the hunger-strike Gandhi, but the assassinated-by-Tamil-Tigers Gandhi.
Forgot to elaborate - Rajiv Gandhi was Indian Prime Minister from 1984 to 1989. He was assassinated in 1991.
It's only ironic if you think that the Tamil protestors are Tamil Tigers. Or that they are somehow comparable. (The word racism is getting tossed around here a lot, so I'll forego making an explicit charge.)
Seriously, the only reason to bring up the Rajiv Gandhi reference is if you're trying to draw an analogy between suicide bombers/terrorists and civil disobedience. But there's no analogy to be made.
Was it really peaceful when they threw a police bike toward the police officers trying to prevent them from endangering the lives of the drivers on the Gardiner not to mention the lives of the protesters themselves? Luckily nobody was hurt by a speeding car when they first ran onto the highway. This move was just very distasteful on the protestors part and they lost all my respect.
What's all this idiocy about using children and women like human shields? Please find me a reputable news report that says they did this. As best I can tell, someone online started using the phrase "human shield" and it soon became taken as fact by a bunch of people ready to believe the worst (read: racists). Engage your critical faculties before you believe everything randomly posted online.
They shouldn't be allowed to have children now? Break out the water cannons? Who are you, CanadianGirl? Did you time-warp here from 1950s Birmingham?
I think if there were no children within the crowd on the Gardiner that the police may have attempted to remove the protesters from the highway. Since there were children among the protesters, many people see this as a tactic to prevent the police from doing anything at all(hence shield). How can you call people racist when the fact is that there were some very small children as part of all of these protests. I do not understand why they even put these children in danger by bringing them onto the highway in the first place. Things could have gone terribly wrong and luckily they didn't. I have seen arguments on both sides and really, it's just propaganda coming from BOTH sides. You can't believe either side until actual 3rd part news reporters are allowed into the war zone to document what is really happening. I understand people are dying but I can't choose any side in this discussion and although I do sympathize with the protesters, like I said above, I have lost all respect for them.
Using women and children as human shields was reported numerous times on CP24 during the incident. I remembered that clearly, because I find the tactic despicable.
If you don't believe that horrendous reality, google it - don't be just throwing "racist-this, racist-that" accusations from the get-go.
Just because CP24 calls it a 'human shield' doesn't mean that those women and children were compelled to participate against their free will. Or do you simply believe that (brown) women and children are incapable of acting of their own free will?
Is it racist to think that (brown) -- I love how you passive-aggressively put that word in parentheses -- children under the age of ten, following their parents, can't freely consent to the risk of this protest? Including babes in their mothers' arms, for fuck's sake.
As a cyclist who hates cars, it was a total pleasure to cycle down University Ave then College St last night with zero cars on the streets. I hope the Tamils actions inspire other groups to close off the streets to cars so I can actually enjoy the city. More power to them. Its good to see people taking political action beyond the boundaries of "acceptable" and polite placard waving. Only thing that surprises me is that the cops here allow it to go on for so long. Where I'm from the batons would have been out long ago, and heads cracked.
How did you feel, when they threw those innocent bicycles off the edge of the on-ramp?
I'm a fellow cyclist, but I wouldn't be making that argument if I were you.
Other streets were completely packed Sunday night, because so many cars had to reroute. It was pretty damn annoying to bike through, actually. Therefore, I say screw the protesters!
(Also, screw them for all the other reasons that the non-bleeding hearts already outlined. You know, anyone with a semblance of logic.)
"Both sides seem fully committed to the idea of annihilating each other or dying in the process."
Even if we agree that this is true, it misses the point. The thing is, the Sinhalese outnumber the Tamils by more than 5-to-1 (closer to 10-to-1 if you remove the Indian Tamils who are not in the north or east) and the Sinhalese also control the government and economy. So we need to point out that, regardless of intentions, only one side is actually capable of annihilating the other.
But really, it's not the capability or intention that has gotten either side in this mess or in a mindset to annihilate one and the other, it's the determination. We have to point out that, regardless of numbers, the commitment on BOTH sides creates an impossible situation, with neither side open to remedy it.
"We have to point out that, regardless of numbers, the commitment on BOTH sides creates an impossible situation, with neither side open to remedy it."
No, the commitment to find a workable solution has to start with the side that holds the dominant position. A person or people in the subordinate position have no ability to end the conflict in a way that doesn't also lead to their self-destruction - laying down arms, whether weapons or words, would just mean submitting to assimilation or annihilation. For the dominant party, however, a commitment to ending the conflict is not the same as total submission - they would still have government, institutional, and economics control.
It's an impossible situation for the Tamils because their only choices are submission (annihilation) or resistance. The Sinhalese, though, have the privilege of holding many more options, should they care to exercise them.
It also assumes that the scary brown people should expect violent retribution from the police as, you know, the norm.
Far and away the worst part of this whole affair has been the reaction of online commenters.
I had to report a comment on the CBC coverage—that had been upvoted over 800 times in the 12 hours it had been left up—referring to "neanderthals killing each other." Someone on Torontoist expressed hope that the genocide accelerate so that the protests would end sooner. "Despicable cowards." "Your true terrorist roots are beginning to show." "[A]ll these tamils are a shining example of why the sri lankan government has had enough of their bull."
This is ugly, distressing, isolationist, hateful, all things contrary to what I thought it meant to be Canadian, and has me near tears.
As an engineering student at UofT, I took part, four times, in the downtown walkaround that's part of each year's F!rosh Week. ~1500 students stop traffic on Yonge, Dundas and elsewhere. With the kind of police action so many people are screaming for, we'd have been tear gassed before we hit College.
On the previous Torontoist story, montauk raised a point about traffic blocking having the capacity to make people go apeshit, but I'm worried that's not enough to explain the reaction anymore. It's a troublesome comment on our society.
I don't know what these people are like in real life, but on the Internet there's a tendency towards intense retribution. You know, a guy mugs someone and everyone says "THIS MAN SHOULD BE SHOT. IF HE CAME INTO MY HOUSE I'D PUMP MY AK-47 INTO HIS CHEST NO PROBLEM". Somalian pirates get popular and it's all "THEY SHOULD BE HUNG BY THEIR TESTICLES. WHY ARE WE GIVING THEM AID, LET THE FUCKERS STARVE". It's sort of like everyone's commenting with the song "The Roof Is On Fire" running through their heads shortly after attending an exhilarating White Power rally. I once read a post on Critical Mass in San Francisco that ended in:
I think there's a formula for it. Something like 3([sex][rac][colonial][class]ism) x effects of Internet medium x road rage - community moderation = commenters. That's something about Torontoist, at least - I disagree with other commenters often, but I know they're not prone to whackjobbery. I can have a basic respect for their opinions*. That said, Internet medium aside, I do think most people are generally dripping with racist and sexist ideas.
*excluding PETA sockpuppets
"That said, Internet medium aside, I do think most people are generally dripping with racist and sexist ideas. "
Oh. And here we were just thinking you threw around those words to stigmatize those who disagreed with you.
I don't understand how saying that most people have racist/sexist ideas = saying that anyone who disagrees with me must be racist or sexist. I mean, I include myself in "most people" - I thought the whole "everyone is a little bit prejudiced" platitude was old news by now.
What would be more accurate to my opinion is that most of the people who disagree with me have some racist/sexist opinions -- and that most of the people who agree with me also have some racist/sexist opinions. Hence most.
What I don't understand is why the Tamil community protests alone; is this their choice to exclude others? Does nobody else care to protest with them, in a show of solidarity? Has nobody thought to ask? Usually, you get a slew of sympathetic folks - the Tibetans come to mind. Or Palestinians. What do they know the rest of us don't?
Before marching onto the Gardiner, the Tamil march yesterday included allies, e.g., the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War and the Canadian Federation of Students. It's still on the TCSW website.
oh word? good to know. i passed by the protest on saturday and hadn't seen any signs of others involved.
I am just happy to see an intelligent article that was researched and balanced providing analysis that has been sorely lacking in the MSM, who are more focused on what the Police Chief has to say about blocking the highway.
One thing that bothers me is the use of the word Genocide. That is a very strong word that does not accurately describe what is happening in Sri Lanka. The Holocaust and Rwanda were attempts at genocide. This is a civil war with heavy losses.
The Tamil Tigers have used human shields. If this was a "genocide" then why would that matter? Wouldn't that make it easier for the Sri Lankan forces to wipe out the Tamil race?
This is a terrible, violent conflict with heavy losses on both sides. But the word genocide should not be used to describe sectarian violence (or however you want to describe the conflict). Or else any situation where there are major civilian losses would be considered "genocide"(ie, The 147 civilians killed in Afghanistan a few days ago).
This doesn't mean that this isn't a tragedy, just not a genocide.
I saw on the news just minutes ago, our Tamil Tigers are protesting at the Sri Lanka Consulate today. Right now they're making their way back to QP for more protest.
Don't our Tamil Tigers have jobs? How can you go protest everyday and not get fired?
"Our"? Are you and your partner storing Tamil Tigers under your bed or something?
Personally, I hate annoying protesters, I hate obnoxious sympathizers, I hate racist assholes, I hate ignorant drivers, and I hate crybaby cyclists.
This is great!
hahahahahahaha
I hate you but you're awesome
As a Tamil Canadian, what happened yesterday was quite sad. While fellow Tamils are dyeing back home, these protesters have done nothing more then alienate our dispora and have turned off many people.
I too have lost many people back home. I spent the majority of last weekend going to relative's houses to pay respects for lost loved ones back home who had passed away this weekend alone. Mother's day was spent doing the same, and worrying about our grandmother who we haven't heard from in a few weeks who was stuck in the conflict area.
Given what other Tamils and myself are going through, I still think yesterday's protest was a horrible incident. That said, given that they had initially started with letters, petitions, and peaceful protests, I can understand that for some people, it is a typical knee jerk reaction to protest when they hear about thousands of their loved ones dieing in a 24 hour period. One has to understand that emotions are running EXTREMELY high among the community, and unfortunately not all are as level headed as we would like to be. Similarly, there will always be those who disagree with the protests no matter how the protest is carried out; peacefully, or not peacefully, flags or no flags.
I, and many other Tamils agree fully with what McGuinty clearly said. "There is a right and wrong way to protest".
There are apparently 200,000 Tamils in the GTA. There were lets say 10,000 protesters (for argument sake) on the Gardiner. Where are the other 190,000? What do those people say?
Please don't condone all Tamils for the action of a few. There are many Tamils who agree that yesterday was a pretty big disgrace.
It is also a shame that many refer to Tamils as Tamil Tigers. Not all Tamils are Tamil Tigers, or Tamil Tiger supporters. Those flags may indicate otherwise, but there are just as many people who are out there protesting for the civilians. It just so happens that they are protesting along side many hard lined Tiger supporters.
As a Tamil going into downtown today, it was quite a different experience. I offered a pregnant lady a seat (I normally do, just like any other concious person would) and the guy sitting to the side of me managed to scoff "This is to make up for yesterday?". The pregnant lady didn't giggled at that comment and took the seat.
Of course, I won't be a hypocrite here. Just as I urge that everyone not put one badge on all Tamils, I wont say that everyone is bitter at all Tamils because of the actions of those few in that short period of time.
Sorry that post should say
"The pregnant lady giggled at that comment and took the seat."
(no "didn't" in there)
I like this. Thanks for sharing :)
No problem.
I found this site to provide a somewhat well rounded approach to explaining the situation.
It is arguably slightly pro-Tamil... but regardless, It doesn't seem to contain the one sidedness we're used to seeing in this issue.
The site is fairly young, but seems to be having a good start. I particularly like how they rate news articles based on neutrality before linking them.
http://tamilprotests.ca/
"It's only ironic if you think that the Tamil protestors are Tamil Tigers"
You mean, aside from the fact that when I went down to see the protest in-person they were waving the LTTE flag and chanting (via megaphone no less): "Tamil Tigers! Freedom fighters!".
I think, from my first-hand experience, you can understand how the affinity might be construed.
To support the protesters is to support the thousands of innocent civilians who are slowly dying in the camps. I refer to mental as well as physical injury. Children are separated from their parents, mothers are crying because they don't have milk for their babies. Ban ki moon said he had visited many camps in his time, but never seen such appalling suffering. The reality is that each and every member state of the UN has a legal duty to prevent genocide, as well as a moral one. The West has already set numerous precedents for ignoring the UN where it considers this appropriate, particularly in a case like this, where Sri Lanka has been spectacularly ignoring UN requests. It would not be so onerous for the countries who have requested an investigation on Tuesday, (17 member states in all), to intervene collectively to protect the remaining civilians. In other words, Canada could do more, as could the others. Some would argue that Canada should be taking the lead, given its sizeable Tamil diasphora.
In response to an earlier comment, a legal definition of genocide is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1] There is hard evidence that this is what is happening to the Tamils in Vanni. Apart from the widely reported mass execution of Tamil civilians that took place at the end of the conflict, there is the incalculable mental harm presently in progress in the camps. The bottom line is that the army would not have targeted the "safe zones", hospitals and orphanages, had they been occupied by Sinhalese children. The GOSL encouraged its Tamil civilians to move to the safe zones and then bombarded them with heavy weapons and white phosphorus.