#1. SHOW OF TURBANS AT OLYMPICS A GREAT IDEA
I think it’s a great idea that the four Sikh field hockey players on our national team at the Beijing Olympics - Ranjeev Deol, Bindi Kullar and Sukhwinder Singh, all of Surrey, and Ravi Kahlon of Victoria – decided to sport red (the Canadian colour) turbans at the opening ceremonies – and the fact that it has the support of the team’s captain, Rob Short of Victoria, shows how multiculturalism is fast becoming a matter of the heart – not just policy.
Of course, we can’t get rid of some racists and bigots -who will howl like mad dogs at any opportunity they get – in our society; but who gives a damn about these losers anyway!
The report, that first appeared in a section of the Punjabi media, was carried in the Canwest media this week. Kahlon told the reporter that he wanted to challenge the identity issue: “You can wear a turban and still be Canadian.”
Neither he nor the other three Sikh players wear turbans as such. But they quite rightly decided to make a statement.
Of course, some idiot had to come up with ‘this is the Canadian team, not the Indian team.” But that ignoramus must have looked real stupid when Kahlon pointed out that that was exactly the point he wanted to make – that the turban is a Sikh religious symbol, not an Indian national one. The same goes for wearing a cross or a Jewish yarmulke.
Kahlon quite aptly pointed out that when Italian-Canadians in Vancouver and Toronto cheer on the Italian soccer team, nobody seems to be concerned about it and they mean no offence. The same is the case with them.
Two other Indo-Canadians on the team – Wayne Fernandes and Ken Pereira – and head coach Louis Mendonca – are Goan (Goa is an Indian state situated south of Mumbai or Bombay that was a former Portuguese colony) and won’t be wearing turbans.
The World Sikh Organization in a statement said: “Ravi Kahlon’s sentiments, 'I want to show that you can wear a turban and still be Canadian,' say it all, and make us all proud.
Canada’s enviable national policy of multiculturalism is based on the fundamental human principle of respecting – not decimating, Canadians’ culture, heritage, ethnicity, religion, geographical or racial background.”
WSO President Gurpreet Singh Bal said: “These Sikh athletes are highlighting Canada’s societal values in an impressive, colourful, meaningful and effective manner, that ALL Canadians should be proud of said.”
He said that Canadian Sikhs “are especially and justifiably proud of the four players … who have found courage and stand tall for what they are – Sikhs and Canadians. Sikhs have been proud partners in Canada’s progress, and now very proud partners of Canada’s Olympic squad. Hopefully, this brave and bold decision by Canada’s Sikh Olympians will encourage all members of global Sikh community to reflect on their own identity.”
WSO Senior Policy Advisor Gian Singh Sandhu said: “If it’s in you – don’t hide it, wear it proudly on your head.”
The WSO also praised the team’s captain, Rob Short, for supporting the turbans.
In Surrey, Gurdwara Sahib Dasmesh Darbar’s executive committee and congregation send their congratulations to the Sikh hockey players “who made the world aware of the importance of the turban by deciding to march wearing turbans at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. Sikhs around the world are proud of their decision.”
President Sudager Singh Sandhu said: “By doing this, Ravi Kahlon is trying to challenge the hurdles coming in the path of wearing turbans, especially in Europe. The cause which was supposed to be taken up by the Sikh leadership is being done by our children.”
#2. WHY INDO-CANADIANS, CHINESE-CANDIANS MUST REJECT WARD SYSTEM
So it’s going to be civic elections time again in November – and that naturally leads to people speculating about a ward system for B.C.’s largest cities – Vancouver and Surrey – where in spite of large visible minority populations, almost all the councilors are white, thanks to the at-large system.
But things are slowly changing – and though I fought fiercely for a ward system in 2004, I changed my mind in 2007. And I’ll explain why again.
Back in October, 2004, Vancouverites rejected the ward system by 35,813 votes (54 per cent) to 30,499 votes (46 per cent) with a turnout of only 22.6 per cent. As I wrote then: “It is quite obvious that many right-wing rich white folks across the city came out to vote against the wards, thanks mainly to the shameless anti-democratic propaganda carried out by the Vancouver Sun, The Fraser Institute and other right-wingers.”
As the then-Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell pointed out, at least six of the proposed 14 wards in his city would have had immigrant populations of more than 50 per cent.
Interestingly, in earlier years, when there was no “threat” that visible minorities could get elected to the city council, the Vancouver Sun actually favoured a ward system, as did former Vancouver mayor Philip Owen, who in 2004 actually joined a group, Knowards Coalition, that opposed the ward system. But with visible minorities now comprising almost 50 per cent of the city of Vancouver’s population, the racist elements in the white population suddenly changed their tune!
As readers of The VOICE known very well, I led a strident campaign back then for a ward system in Vancouver and Surrey, pointing out how all major cities in Canada had such a democratic system as opposed to the at-large system in which well-know names, mostly white guys, had the upper hand. I also exposed the hypocrisy of the Vancouver Sun and others – the highly popular Georgia Straight newspaper also did the same.
So while visible minorities in Vancouver and Surrey were getting elected as MLAs and MPs from Vancouver and Surrey, they just didn’t seem to make much headway in Vancouver, where there were a couple of Chinese-Canadians in council, and no headway at all in Surrey, where until 2005, when Indo-Canadian Tom Gill was elected, there were only white people in council.
However, in August, 2007, I changed my mind about wards and I explained that in an article in this newspaper.
Here is part of that article:
The shameful reality is that in a multicultural city like Surrey – where the 2001 census showed that 37 per cent of the population consisted of visible minorities and where that population is now supposed to be over 50 per cent - there is only ONE visible minority councillor; the other seven are all white.
The school trustees in Surrey are ALL WHITE!
Great democracy, eh!
Vancouver is slightly better – where the 2001 census showed that 49 per cent of the population consisted of visible minorities – with three visibile minority councillors; the other seven being white.
Three of the nine school trustees in Vancouver were visible minorities.
Keep in mind that this is now 2007 and the visible minority populations in Surrey (especially Indo-Canadians) and in Vancouver (especially Chinese Canadians) are much larger.
So why do I now advocate the at-large system?
A couple of weeks ago, I came across a very interesting article in the highly respected Economist magazine of London (August 4-10 issue) on race relations in the United States, entitled, “Where black and brown collide.” It was a powerful analysis about the clash for power between blacks and Latinos – though the same models can be used in the white versus visible minorities power struggle scenario in Vancouver metro area.
For example, the article noted: “In Compton, an independent city in south Los Angeles, Latinos are now 58 per cent of the population – and rising quickly. Yet the mayor and all the members of the council are black.”
So what is the problem here?
The article quotes a local pastor: “They got here first, took over from the whites, and now it’s difficult for them to let go.”
That is precisely the problem here, too. The whites, so comfortably ensconced in power for well over a century, just do not want to hand over power to the non-whites. Why, even the Vancouver Sun that once advocated the ward system for Vancouver when the whites were in a solid majority, suddenly changed its tune in 2004 just because the visible minorities were now seen as a threat to white power!
Back to the Economist, the article noted: “Sensing the tsunami of Latino political power, Compton’s mayor has begun to cultivate Hispanics. IT MAY BE TOO LATE. In the next-door city of Lynwood, Hispanics were largely kept out of power UNTIL THEY BECAME A MAJORITY. After seizing control of the city council in 1997 they DEMOLISHED the black political machine.” (Capitalization mine.)
So do you get the point, readers?
Now the whites may suddenly start offering a ward system to protect their own interests – and WE MUST SAY ‘NO’ TO IT!
Just be patient and in the meantime, get better organized. There are, for example, still too many visible minorities who have not applied for their citizenship although they have spent the requisite number of years here.
It’s as the Economist article noted about the Latinos in the U.S.: “Thanks partly to their youth and partly to the fact that MANY ARE NOT CITIZENS, Latinos are not nearly as powerful as their numbers might suggest.” (Capitalization mine.)
(You can read another point of view by Jas Singh of Surrey in the YOUR TURN section. He told me he had read all my articles on this controversy.)
#3. IS THE SURREY CIVIC COALITION ANTI-INDO-CANADIAN?
Someone called me up last weekend to point out that one of the candidates that Surrey Civic Coalition has nominated for November’s civic election is a guy who’s not exactly liked by many Indo-Canadians because of his opposition to larger houses in the St. Helen’s Park.
The SCC press release last week said: “Grant Rice is also new to the SCC slate, a community activist who successfully led a four-year neighborhood struggle to down-zone the St. Helen’s Park area.”
The whole move was seen as a racist one aimed primarily at Indo-Canadians – and, of course, it got the support of the racist elements in the mainstream media.
Back in December, 2006, in my article about this controversy, I wrote: “Following a wave of resentment in the Indo-Canadian community in Surrey, Mayor Dianne Watts told Red FM radio station … that she was now willing to support 3,550 sq ft homes in North Surrey's St. Helen's neighbourhood of ranch-style houses.
“(Earlier in the week), Surrey Council voted to limit the size of new homes to 3,200 sq ft. Only councillor Tom Gill voted against the motion because he felt that the 350 additional square feet was a reasonable proposal in view of today's architecture.
“Harjinder Thind, well-known talk show host and news director at Red FM (CKYE 93.1FM) in Surrey, told The VOICE that when he asked the mayor if she would vote in favour of the larger 3,550 sq ft homes, she said 'yes.' He said that councillor Judy Higginbotham, who also came on the show, said she was willing to bring up the issue before council again.”
I then went on to analyze the situation:
“Yes, there is no doubt that Indo-Canadians and other non-whites have faced a lot of white racism especially in Surrey. But the situation all over the Lower Mainland has changed a lot over just the past decade for a raft of reasons - ranging from the sheer fact that non-whites now account for half the population here and will soon be the majority to improved understanding of cultures and more tolerance.
“Indo-Canadians, too, have to learn to accommodate the feelings of members of other communities - and so quite a few Indo-Canadians I spoke to about this told me that they don't think it is all about racism. Some even question the obsession with so-called monster homes.
“But some Indo-Canadians pointed out to me that what they were talking about here were not monster homes but just some small difference in area and size.
“The South Westminster Rate Payer Association advocated for a maximum home of 3,200 sq ft with a maximum height of 22 feet while the other delegation requested this maximum be placed at 3,550 sq ft with a building height of 26 feet.
“Not a big deal really.
“The current zoning allows for a home of 3,550 square feet, plus full in ground basement, which in most cases would result in a home of 5,000 to 5,500 square feet with a maximum height of 30 feet.
“The first delegation made reference to secondary suites and how they negatively impact their community. The second delegation indicated that living in extended families and having several children required them to have a bigger home in most cases resulting in an in-law suite being required and it is this cultural sensitivity that has been getting considerable media attention.
Interestingly, Councillor Tom Gill told me at the time that he voted against the change because of his experience in construction.
He noted that today's architecture demanded a little more space and higher roof lines to ensure attractive form and character. The look and massing of the home is also important, to ensure that the home fits within the neighborhood.
He said: "It was unfortunate that re-developed lands do not have design guidelines that builders must abide with, which is the case in the St. Helens Park case."
He also pointed out: “The homes are definitely not of 'heritage status' and these are simple rancher homes with very little architecture and design considerations."
He said: "No one wanted 'monster homes.' It was just a matter of 350 additional sq ft and I am very disappointed the community was not able to have a consensus in terms of maximum build able area. I think this is setting a precedent, and I'm not sure if it's the right precedent to be setting.”
So, now it’s up to you to decide whether Rice and / or the SCC deserve your support.
If readers have anything to say on this, please do email me at editor@voiceonline.com.
#4. WHY INDIANS HAVE PROBLEMS GETTING VISAS
Here’s a case reported just this week in a newspaper of Punjab, India, that highlights the dilemma officials in high commissions of western countries face while deciding on granting visas. The Indian newspaper in a report from Jalandhar, Punjab, reported how two families apparently used an educational trip planned by some schools to the United States to stay on illegally in that country. In fact, I think they may even try to slip into Canada.
Students from five schools are currently in the U.S. on a 12-day educational trip to New York for a conference at NASA and a pleasure trip to Disneyland in Orlando. A student of Dayanand Model School, Paramjeet Singh, said he was going out of the hotel to make a phone call and never returned. Nobody seemed to have asked him why he couldn’t make the call from the hotel itself! Earlier, the Grade 12 boy’s request to spend a night with an uncle of his in New York had been turned down by his science teacher. New York police were informed about the disappearance.
Another student from the same school, Kunal Bhandari, also went missing after his request to attend the wedding of a relative in New York was refused by his principal, Raj Kumar Sehgal, who accused the parents of the two boys of planning the disappearances. He pointed out that the boys’ parents hadn’t bothered to inform the police about their “missing” children.
Unfortunately, because of such cases, students, professionals and others who want to visit foreign countries for legitimate reasons often find their applications for visas rejected.
#5. VIJAY SINGH IS BACK!
Phew!
Vijay Singh finally ended his 0-34 losing streak by winning the Bridgestone Invitational at Akron, Ohio.
And I hope he repeats that again and again for the rest of the season.
In January, under the heading – Will Vijay Singh stage a comeback this year? – I wrote: “What happened to Vijay Singh, 44, the Fijian golf star of Indian origin, last year? He just seemed to have faded from the limelight. Although he made a cool $4.7 million – third on the PGA Tour money list – last year, he only managed to win the Mercedes-Benz Championship in Hawaii last January and the Arnold Palmer Invitational two months after that. Now he’s back in Hawaii to defend his title at the Mercedes-Benz Championship and seems all fired up with a revamped swing and better physical fitness. And he’s determined to change all the bad luck. He told the media: “I was really very discouraged in the way I played in the mid-season and during the majors. … I felt like I let myself down there.” But now he’s ready to take on the other champions. Although Tiger Woods is not participating in Hawaii, Jim Furyk (number 3), Steve Stricker (number 5) and K.J. Choi (number 9) are. Singh once dethroned Woods in 2004. Does he still have that fire?”
Unfortunately, he lost, coming a disappointing 14th.
But last weekend, in spite of looking shaky, he closed with a two-under-par 68 for a one-shot victory over Lee Westwood and Stuart Appleby.
Vijay Singh hadn’t won on U.S. soil since the Arnold Palmer Invitational in March, 2007. He blew 54-hole leads twice this year – at Pebble Beach and Bay Hill.
But he finally broke the bad spell – and won for the 32nd time on the PGA Tour, finishing 10-under 270 and earning a cool US$1.35 million.
- Rattan Mall
|
