I enjoyed reading your paper on TFWs as they relate to citizenship narratives. I was just wondering if you followed through with this for your MA? I am also working on the theme of TFWs for my Master’s in Public Administration at University of Ottawa. I can see why you were advised (probably correctly) to stay away from interviews given all of the red tape that it creates for research. Anyway it would be great to see how your research turned out.

Before I go, I guess I should say that my research is looking at expanding two step economic immigration and scrapping the Federal Skilled Worker Program. Basically I am writing a public policy proposal which suggests that citizenship should be available to all non-seasonal/contractual immigrants for ethical, labour market, and immigrant integration purposes. Although I can appreciate that we have very different ideas of the role of immigration should play within Canada, I am sure that some of my research may inform yours just as yours re-emphasized the vulnerabilities of TFWs that any policy consideration must account for.

It is always nice to get another person’s perspective on the issue.

Drop me a line…

Shawn

It backfired. The residents of the USSR said, “Cars? Only the wealthiest people in our country can afford cars? And almost every American has a car?”

And Roosevelt’s New Deal program lengthened the depression and made it worse. His plan involved bailing out banks, expanding the government, and providing millions of jobs, sucking the money out of the people who could pay taxes. Those who could pay taxes and were fairly well off (because of responsible money habits) were punished and forced to spread it around.

Are you talking about venezuela, re: ’state-capitalism’?

Yes I think the supernanny idea involved the BP oil spill case, or a similar one, the main point being that we hold government accountable but let the corporation (i.e. the true perpetrator) off free. there is more to it than this…maybe i will try to find it in the book…

thanks for the comment!

yeah I also want to re-visit that supernanny conclusion — I forget what he was saying. Does it have to do with the thought: BP shouldn’t be cleaning up their spill. The government should be (not worrying about costs – perhaps using BP’s assets) and BP should be put in jail.
This thought is in my head, maybe it came from there.

ORION: I think I generally agree but am torn about the denunciation of black bloc tactics and perhaps even diversity of tactics.
People keep saying, like the article, that the black bloc allow the state to justify police brutality. I think black bloc tactics give the state the opportunity to justify police brutality – but it is us that allow that justification to pass.

ANDY: But its not about justifying or not (i.e. the ethics of violence), it is about media/imaging strategy; black bloc tactics create a situation where, because of the police response, the image/message of the anti-capitalist movement is no longer controlled (or less easily controlled) by the movement itself.

ORION: I personally found the police brutality rather exhilarating because it was so stark. I am insecure about that feeling, because I recognize that it comes from a pretty secure place in society and other people can’t afford to be exhilarted and instead are just plain terrified, and oppressed. But i still can’t get away from the feeling that if the police DIDN’t engage in violent tactics these protests would be less radicalizing experiences.

ANDY: True for some (like us). but violence also discourages a broader participation by people like my parents who were discouraged in participating in the rallies by perceived risk of encounters with violent situations…

ORION: Perhaps, we don’t want to be radicalized in that kind of ‘fuck the police’ kind of way i’m not sure.

ANDY: Ya. ignore the police. make it a positive movement, not an anti- movement.

ORION: What worries me is that if we didn’t have anyone breaking windows and lighting fires – than the police would not see the easy opportunity to crack down violently – but the state would still be faced with the need to repress dissent etc. and so would necessarily find more subtle and so more effective ways of oppression – i’m not sure perhaps that is giving the powers that be too much credit, and perhaps i am seduced by romanticism of all the riot porn.

ANDY: The state (or the elite via the state) already does repress dissent in these subtle and effective ways [e.g. making welfare and EI recipients feel shame?; cutting social services while cutting taxes on the wealthy; mike harris cut funding for government agencies that educated people about their rights, the idea being that even though people still had rights if they didnt know about them they wouldnt complain when they were violated or ignored].

ORION: but still I am tempted by the thought – that the Black block provokes the state into being more explicitly violent because it thinks it can get away with it by scapegoating the black bloc.

ANDY: It does get away with it, no?

ORION: basically i think there is a place for provoking the state into cracking down violently – the imperative is that once they’ve been provoked into – don’t let them get away with it. So the most important task is insisting on differentiating the word violence between protester property damage and police beating and detaining people. And insisting – somehow – that there is no justification for the normalization of police intimidation (again, scarier I think than police brutality because it is subtler and more wide ranging).
This means I think trying to tell everyone loud and clear that the police wanted the black bloc to do everything the black bloc did because it justified all this repression practice and intimidation that they want to do no matter what – and how thats linked to upcoming austerity etc.
But it does not mean, making what seems like the next logical step in thinking – that because the police want it, we shouldn’t engage in it.
I definitely agree with the article that it seems like strategy is what organizers should be talking about more than tactics. Because theres a time and and a place for any tactics – so the problem is more the idea of ‘diversity of tactics’ which ends up with everyone employing all tactics all at once – than with black bloc tactics themselves.
it definitely would have been an incredible message, and feat of organization, to have had no property damage occur during the G20 weekend or better yet no protest at all – and then everyone show up a week later for a huge protest.

ANDY: Ya, that would be amazing!

ORION: But it would only have been a huge message because of the 1.1 billion spent on security, which was only provoked (or able to be spent so visibly) because of previous black bloc tactics.
and I’m not sure that the results wouldn’t have been the same – a PR battle: The police would have announced the effectivness of all their spending – that the spending was justified by their success in avoiding all damage. Protestors would have to fight for the credit for not damaging property and would not have had the exhilerating, radicalizing experience, of participating in little mini-moments of solidarity in the face of an obvious police violence.
I think what is important is solidarity with all tactics – in retrospect.
I definitely think there should be more intolerance on the part of protest organizers of tactics they have not strategized. So, like you see at Montabello, organizers should denounce anyone using tactics they think will be counter-productive at that time and place. But that should only occur in organizing a protest and maybe during a protest.
After a protest it is extremely important not to go about denouncing black bloc tactics to the general public (only perhaps in private with other organizers) Some of the labour unions are doing this because they are cowed – they think will lose the PR fight and lose their legitimacy if they get tainted with the ‘violence’ brush – they say – if we knew who these people were we’d hand them over to the police, they are undermining the messages of peaceful protestors. Thats the worse PR line – because it plays into the argument that police intimidation is justified on accunt of a few bad apples, a la war on terror, a la war on drugs etc.

ANDY: Ya, solidarity is important (afterwards, at least.)
hmm, now i’m confused again. But i do think that the black bloc tactics in toronto were stupid. breaking shit is dumb! make shit! anyone can go around being destructive; it’s sooo not inspiring.

ORION AND ANDY: uhhh yeah.

We haven’t seen the film yet but we hope to. I was pleased to see you write coherently. Don’t you think Moore is aware that not everybody has come around to his way of thinking yet and to bring those people with him he has to tread carefully? Isn’t that more useful than shouting “the truth” at them and turning most of them off entirely? Well, you can keep shouting the truth, but let Michael tread carefully. Jeanne