What’s Happening in the Protests The farmers are peacefully protesting in Delhi. They have set makeshift homes in tractors, trailers and tents. It is apparent that they are not leaving without an answer, as the implications of this negotiation, or lack thereof, changes the face of the agriculture industry completely. There has been no destruction to property and instead protestors are keeping the city clean through picking up after themselves. They have also helped local homeless individuals through feeding them through the langar seva. During these protests, the worldwide community has gathered to feed these protestors at no cost and through volunteerism, a solid langar system. Volunteers have also set up schooling for the kids present in the Delhi protest, alongside handing out additional necessities such as blankets and shoes for the cold weather. International Impact Internationally, people of Indian descent are supporting people back home through rallies to show the implications of these bills. Some people are not sure what raising awareness and representation in country’s outside of India will do. The answer is quite simple. This protects and shows solidarity with our farmers back home. In no means are we even close to experiencing what the farmer’s back in Punjab and the other states are going through however, this is a way for us to tell them that we hear them and we are standing with them. By raising awareness, we are also urging country’s to cover the matter to ensure that there is a greater light shed on the issue. This is our way to ensure that we are doing what we can to protect our farmers. Evidence of this impact was also witnessed when India wanted to speak to Canada’s ambassador regarding the comments made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, where he stood up for the farmer’s right to peacefully protest. This act alone is evidence that India is being pressured by how its international reputation is being viewed. So, let’s not stay silent, if not for our sake, then for the sake of our farmers back home. How you can support the movement
Continue to educate yourself on the movement. Thanks to social media, we are able to hear the voices of the oppressed. With the Indian media shadow-banning and releasing biased reports suggesting ulterior motives for the protests, it’s up to us to ensure we set the record straight. The Punjabi music industry has also stepped up to make songs to educate individuals about the cause, by incorporating the history of these lands through their lyrics. There are also many organizations who are donating money to farmers during the protests to stay safe. An organization I personally support is Khalsa Aid and they have been accepting e-transfers and using the funds to take care and support the farmers who are sacrificing their lives by leaving their homes and marching to the protest in Delhi. Conclusion Suicide has been a sad and a more increasing reality for Punjab farmers, it has increased by 12 times over the last five years. Poor working conditions coupled with the lack of government support has devastated the livelihood of these farmers. These farmers are already struggling to take care of their lands with the lack of support and the unfair rates the government grants them for their crops. With little to no choice, the farmers take up large loans but without any way to pay them off, they get buried in debt which has been correlated to the increase in suicide rates for these farmers. Instead of the government creating laws to support them (as it currently exists in many Western nations) they have chosen to introduce bills that continue to threaten their well-being and only benefit corporate interests. With these laws, it is only a matter of time until the farmer's way of life in India worsens. Farmers feed the world and it’s time we feed them the respect and the support that they deserve. Because if there are no farmers, there’s no food. By: Karen Randhawa and Sukhdeep Kullar The headline may not catch the attention of those in developed nations. However, it is integral to the Indian economy. Nearly 60-70% of India’s economy is dedicated agriculture. The agriculture sector is composed of:
This is the largest and poorest segment due to the disparity of power. These laws eliminate the commission agent (arthiya) which has been integral to the farming economy, as the arthiya employs individuals who load and offload trucks, weigh the products, and find price rates. Each town has multiple arthiyas and individuals who work with them. This goes on to have a huge impact on the logistics industry since local truckers will be losing their livelihood. There was a “go green revolution in the 60s” where India asked Punjab and Haryana to feed the nation by planting wheat, so that they would no longer need to rely on foreign imports. The method for farming ruined the land, through various chemicals being introduced to the very same agricultural crops that feed the nation. Punjab and Haryana land specifically has sacrificed so much to feed India, but now that India needs them - everyone is turning their backs. Punjab’s economy is heavily agriculturally based, given that it is endowed with five rivers and fertile land. That being said, are Punjab’s interests always upheld at the national level through the saddening increase in farmer suicide rates over the years and the lack of governmental support for shopping local or fair pricing. As someone who practices the Sikh faith, I have been seeing a lot of the teachings of Sikhism in the hard work and determination of the farmers. In Sikhism, the first Guru, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji laid the principles as “Kirt Karo (an honest and earnest living), Naam Japo (pray) and Vand Chhako (share the fruits of your labour with others).” The first and third principles have deep roots in farming, as farming was seen as a practice of being self-sufficient and serving the community. This has also helped to develop the practice of langar through feeding individuals free meals, which can be seen in Gurudwaras across the world. During the pandemic, langar seva overseas for those who could not make ends meet, was witnessed around the world - to any person of the human race. By: Karen Randhawa and Sukhdeep Kullar As the movement continues to get strong, I thought it was a good idea to share it with the readers of LB. My ancestors were farmers, hence why this issue becomes personal. I wanted to try my best to do this issue justice with regards to explaining the bills in detail to those who may not be aware of why the “Farmers Protest” matters, and that too on this side of the world. It’s important to mention that you do not have to have any family connection to farmers, to acknowledge and understand the threat this bill poses to the livelihood of farmers, the very same people who continue to feed the world.
This series hopes to describe to our readers the largest protest in the world’s largest democracy, the significance for farming, and why it is a violation of rights. Laws are passed for the betterment of society. However, it is beneficial to contact and keep those individuals who are impacted in mind, in order to pass effective legislation. Yet common farmers had no part in the process of drafting and approving the legislation. The unity amid a pandemic and the resilience displayed by the farmers who left the comfort of their home to protest, is commendable to say the least. What Legislation is Being Opposed? In September 2020, amid a pandemic, the government passed 3 laws deregulating the agriculture sector. Bill #1 - Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 Eliminate all government subsidies for the farmers Currently, the government guarantees farmers a minimum support price for at least a few grain crops which range from 10 to 15 USD for 100 kilos of grain products. Currently, farmers trade their crops within a Mandi system, that allows them to trade in a market with minimum support pricing (MSP). Think of the Mandi as the middle man/ farmer’s market. With the passing of this bill, this law will eventually diminish within a year or two because of the lack of regulation that forces farmers to deal with the demands of big corporations. Going forward, the farmers will have to do contract farming with corporations on an agreed upon price and the corporation will dictate the specifications of products produced. Any excess product will not be purchased, and thus will go to waste. To explain it in comparable terms, it is the equivalent of eliminating a minimum wage or a price floor. The farmers now do not have any price stability and are at a greater risk of being taken advantage of. Bill #2 - The Farming Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill If the farmer gets into a dispute with a private company, they cannot go to the courts. Under contract law, will these corporations choose to perform in good faith? In this situation, what are the repercussions if the corporations decide against that? There is a clear power imbalance that tips the scale in the favour of corporations. There is no legal recourse for 50-60% of India's population in cases where a big corporation takes part in exploitation. In the event a dispute occurs, an arbitration will happen but who will have the bargaining power? You guessed right - the corporation not the farmer. Such a bill gives the corporations even more power so that they continue winning every single time, leaving nothing up to the farmers. Bill #3 - The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill Any person or entity can hoard or store an unlimited quantity of any essential commodity or product. A large corporation has the capacity to use their financial resources to purchase and hoard agricultural products.. Unfortunately, farmers do not have the capital to invest in storage. This becomes an issue because these very same corporations will have the ability to buy crops in bulk at a lower price. This will undercut the market for these crops on which farmers gain their profits thus leaving them with significantly less to take home. By: Karen Randhawa and Sukhdeep Kullar We would like to thank our healthcare workers who have worked tirelessly to test, diagnose, and care for patients during this pandemic. This pandemic shaped the way our society looks, interacts and operates. While many are staying home, healthcare workers are risking their own safety for our wellbeing. But what about those individuals who choose not to abide by the rules of social distancing, wearing masks or isolating when returning from travel? The issue that arises is whether doctors have the right to refuse treatment to COVID patients that have been contributorily negligent. That is, patients who have voluntarily failed to follow public health guidelines. There are individuals who don’t believe that the pandemic is even real, whether it be because of the conspiracy theories, the lack of physical symptoms unlike the bubonic plague or the privilege of not knowing anyone who is battling with the disease. Some of these individuals engage in self-destructive habits. It can be seen through protests on the TTC where individuals have proclaimed they do not want their body to be regulated by the state and that masks hinders their freedom of expression. I ask these same individuals who went to school here, dress codes were also enforced – where was this energy when children weren’t allowed to wear spaghetti straps to class? Another example is Bill 21 in Quebec, banning religious symbols such as the hijab, niqab and turbans. The freedom of expression argument is an interesting take, is it more important than the right to life, liberty and security of the person? Wearing a mask has a utilitarian purpose, protecting individuals from spreading the virus to one another. If healthcare workers can wear it for hours a day, we can wear them for limited time periods, when leaving our homes to run errands or going to work. The way COVID-19 impacts individuals differ greatly based on their immunity levels. While some can overcome it without knowing they even had it, others require ventilators to breathe and have reduced lung capacity once treated. Since there is no one cure fits all approach, the spectrum of treatment varies in costs, treatment time and resources. Labour boards across Canada have outlined a four step test to justify refusal to work because of unsafe or dangerous conditions:
However, the situation is different for healthcare professionals given the nature of their work. Doctors have a mandate to help the ill. Healthcare professionals cannot dictate how patients live their lives, nor can they withhold treatment based on the disparity in standards of morality. Physicians are not in the position to determine when self-destructive behaviours warrant treatment. If this were the case, healthcare professionals could refuse cases related to smoking, eating disorders or sports injuries since it could be argued that is “self-destructive” behaviour. Doctors are expected to provide equal treatment for all, without their biased judgment and projected complications. The difference between those cases, and COVID-19 is the risk of contracting the virus. Healthcare professionals are putting themselves, their families and others in close proximity at a heightened risk of infection because it is unknown how this disease is spread. Regardless, the code of ethics highlights that the patients’ welfare be placed above their own self-interest. How can it be monitored if a patient was negligent? Would specific measures need to be in place to assess if they broke by-laws such as congregating with more than 10 individuals? Went shopping without a mask? Should it be that people need to surrender their health card if they break a law to say that they are willing to risk everything, their health included to live a lifestyle that cannot be supported at this moment in time? As a member country for the World Health Organization (“WHO”), Canada is committed to providing healthcare for every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. Therefore, physicians in Canada owe a legal duty of care to patients and there is a limited right to refuse the work based on the four step test identified by the labour board. By: Karen Randhawa The Canadian government’s decision to close its borders, in an effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19, has wielded a substantial impact on the Canadian immigration system. Amongst several measures in response to COVID, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) has paused all in-person hearings and the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has come to a temporary agreement with the United States (US), which allows Canada to turn away irregular asylum claimants that have entered through the US-Canadian border. The suspension of IRB hearings has left asylum-seekers uncertain about their status and their fate in the country. It is particularly difficult for the hundreds of asylum seekers detained by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA), awaiting their IRB hearings. In its call to action, Amnesty International has urged the Canadian government to consider the health of detainees and to develop an effective plan aimed at preventing both physical and psychological harms. The CBSA has made some progress, with the number of immigration detainees in provincial detention centres dropping from 353 detainees in March to 147 detainees by April 19th. While these numbers are promising, some concerns arise about the lives of these newly released individuals. (Read more about it here:https://globalnews.ca/news/6861756/canada-releasing-immigration-detainees-coronavirus-covid-19/) Asylum-seekers often do not have family or a viable source of income within Canadian borders. Given the current state of the country, there is no doubt that resettlement has become a difficult task for refugee claimants. Comprehensive resources must be allocated for these individuals, who likely need assistance in housing, employment and legal affairs. The current agreement with the US, however, questions Canada’s commitment to the 1951 United Nations Convention on the State of Refugees. When Canada ratified the Convention in 1969, it agreed to protect the lives of those who have a well-founded fear of persecution. In returning individuals back to the US before hearing their refugee claims, Canada has deeply contradicted the core principle of the Convention. This sort of agreement is not new to the IRCC. In 2004, the US and Canadian governments signed the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) which prohibits people from entering Canada through the official US-Canadian border, if they have already sought protection in the US (and vice versa). The purpose was to alleviate the domestic pressures on the countries’ immigration systems. Many human rights advocates have criticized the STCA on the basis that it violates Charter rights to life and security. Although these are uncertain times for governments across the world, Canada hs an obligation to uphold its commitments in the Convention. Rather than turning away potentially legitimate claimants and reneging on international commitments, alternative methods must be adopted to process asylum claims amidst these difficult times. By Lucinda Chitapain |
Legally BrownThis page is dedicated to providing insights on current events and reflecting on recent legal developments. Archives
January 2021
Categories
All
|