2013-05-21T20:16:37-04:00 Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=edward-jackson Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Edward Jackson Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1877229 2012-09-12T10:43:54-04:00 2012-11-12T05:12:01-05:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
Pulsing with hate, powered by bigotry, mobs have brutally attacked and killed fellow citizens solely because the sexual orientation of their victims differed from that of the majority. Though it can happen anywhere, media reports suggest that the worst of this violence is perpetrated in certain in parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

This is an extreme violation of fundamental human rights that the international community must address, with speed and vigor. But is it only an issue for the west, the Global North?

It's true that the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens are most advanced and visible in North America and Western Europe (though there is still a long way to go even there). However, countries from Eastern and Central Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia are also starting to step forward.

In early 2011, for example, when 85 countries delivered a joint statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council on ending acts of violence and other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the list of signatories included a dozen nations from the Americas, three countries from Africa and three from Asia.

As these states continue their efforts, what else can be done? As a US president once said: "It's the economy, stupid." Like all of us, LGBT citizens need livelihoods, jobs and income to sustain their households and enable them to live lives of dignity and fulfilment.

In hostile settings it makes sense for minority groups to join together in common businesses, networks and programs. There is some safety in numbers. There is also economic leverage.

It also makes sense then that social enterprises -- non-profit, for-profit or cooperative businesses with social or environmental objectives -- are becoming a popular option for LGBT groups in emerging and advanced markets alike. A leading catalyst that provides training and advice in this effort is NESsT, itself a non-profit, with operations in Eastern Europe and Latin America.

In October of this year, NESsT will convene a World Forum on Social Enterprise in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Among an array of innovative businesses, the event will profile inspiring LGBT social enterprises from both the global North and South.

Like all business ventures, LGBT enterprises require capital to start up or expand. A few years ago, Lee Davis, NESsT co-founder and social entrepreneur, set up Galeforce Capital to respond to this need. A philanthropic investment fund, Galeforce provides financial and business development support to LGBT social enterprises around the world. Davis is the author of End of the Rainbow: Increasing the Sustainability of LGBT Organizations Through Social Enterprise.

Last year, Galeforce Capital joined LGBT Capital to form what they term the world's "first global LGBT impact investing alliance." A unit of Galileo Capital with special expertise in the LGBT sector, LGBT Capital provides corporate advisory and investment management services and has operations in the United Kingdom and Greater China. The first vehicle created by LGBT Capital was a private equity investment fund promoting social media connections with LGBT consumers. The overall goal of the Galeforce-LGBT Capital alliance is to generate both attractive financial returns as well as positive social impact.

But gays, lesbians and others with sexual orientation and gender identity that differ from the mainstream should not be seen solely as consumers. Indeed, from Rio to Vancouver, San Francisco to London, middle-class and high net-worth members of the LGBT community, especially those in the Global North, possess the means to become active "impact investors" at a significant scale. What they need are precisely the accessible financial products and a track record of solid returns that Galeforce Capital and LGBT Capital are building.

There is also crowdfunding. A new law in the United States enables equity funds to be raised via social-media platforms that mobilize small investments by many individual investors. Globally, there are nearly 500 crowdfunding platforms expected to raise close to $3 billion this year. This strategy, too, can be used to finance LGBT businesses around the world.

From mob violence to crowdfunding -- a transformation that can save lives and improve livelihoods. We can all do more to make this happen.







 ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1707320 2012-07-31T12:01:48-04:00 2012-09-30T05:12:04-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
Only days ago, under the Black Star of African emancipation, John Dramani Mahama spoke these words when he was sworn in as President of Ghana after the unexpected death of his predecessor, John Evans Atta Mills, aged 68.

The late President Mills has been widely, and rightly, praised for his integrity and commitment to a Republic for all Ghanaians. Calm and quiet, he was a powerful and effective force for democracy and peace. Though he is 15 years younger and hails from Ghana's impoverished north, President Mahama is not so different from his mentor. He values dialogue and tolerance, the rule of law, education, innovation and enterprise. Above all, he too values duty to the Republic.

And, happily, so do a critical mass of Ghana's political class. That's what has helped this small, dynamic nation successfully achieve a series of smooth political transitions over the past 20 years: from one governing party to another, from one set of policies to another and now, again, from one leader to another.

And that is why Ghana has been consistently cited as an example of good governance and economic development on a continent that struggles mightily to improve the well-being of its people. That's not to say that Ghana faces no challenges; of course it does.

For one thing, the country is heading into a presidential election only six months from now. President Mills was to be the candidate of his party, the National Democratic Congress. Will President Mahama now become the candidate? Who will be the candidate's running mate for the position of Vice-President? Like most African parties, the NDC is a coalition of factions defined by ideology, ethnicity and geography; resolving these questions will not be simple.

The rival New Patriotic Party, which held power from 2000 to 2008, is running neck and neck with the NDC in national polling. A more pro-business, free-enterprise party, the NPP enjoys support from wealthy donors, especially in the powerful Ashanti region. The NPP could win the election. Both parties have their share of corrupt and volatile opportunists. That's why calm, even boring leadership is essential to the country's continued progress.

Another challenge, a permanent one, is how to spread the benefits of economic growth, including that spurred by Ghana's off-shore oil. The country's underclass, along with a dangerously large pool unemployed young men, demands serious action: where it is animated by the state, the market or civil society, economic opportunity must be created for the millions of citizens still on the economic margins.

And there's more.

Ghana's government must balance its external relations among a triangle that involves China, other new economic powers such as Brazil and India, and the west and its institutions. A fourth node, the Arab world, could be added; the Saudis and the Iranians are investing heavily in the largely Muslim north of the country.

Finally, the state's security agencies must monitor jihadist activity in Mali, Nigeria and elsewhere in West Africa, and cooperate with the African Union, the United States and other players to reduce the capacity of terrorist cells in the region.

These are just some of the issues facing President Mahama as he assumes office. What Ghana does next, therefore, matters to the citizens of the Republic. It matters to the African continent. And it matters to the world. The Black Star remains a beacon for us all.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1273300 2012-02-13T11:38:10-05:00 2012-04-14T05:12:01-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
Most Canadians understand why our political and business leaders have been doing everything they can to noisily sign trade agreements and commercial deals with China. We might even agree with some of it.

Who doesn't like pandas and jobs? Canada's China play certainly makes some tactical sense, at least in the short term. But it's the long term that poses the problem.

The threat to Canada's viability as a sovereign nation that is embedded in a closer relationship with China lies not in the tactics, but in the strategy.

The security sector in Canada is populated by a lot of smart people: intelligence experts, current and former military leaders, defence-industry executives, prominent academics, and journalists. They cut their teeth working closely with U.S. and UK security agencies and military forces -- our traditional imperial allies. And they have monitored the economic ascendance of China very closely, informed by a continuous, thick, real-time flow of data and analysis.

What, actually, do they know? Above all, they understand that China seeks predictable, permanent access to the commodities it needs, through decisive influence over the national economies that house those resources.

And our security experts recognize that China deploys a creative mix of methods to achieve these objectives, including:

1) Espionage: Human spies who, among other things, use sex to motivate their sources, cyber spies that break into online systems to steal secrets, and front companies that are positioned in pivotal sectors like oil -- espionage is a favorite tool in the Chinese economic toolbox;

2) Equity Investment: Direct investment by state-controlled Chinese firms -- at first in small and unremarkable amounts, and, later, through large and influential (often with veto rights) equity stakes -- in foreign companies in the energy, mining, finance, and communications sectors;

3) Debt investment: China's offering of large lines of credit to local firms or governments, sometimes targeting specific sectors or projects, or else made generally available, is a method that is evident in poor and rich countries alike;

4) Use of Chinese labour: One technique here is to require that workers on, say, an Australian mining project speak Mandarin fluently, a measure that inevitably results in Chinese workers populating project enclaves while limiting local employment benefits;

5)Construction of government buildings: Chinese companies have built new headquarters for host -government ministries, including, alarmingly, those of the Defence ministries of some poor countries;

6) Labeling opponents "enemies of the state:" In an irony of ironies, this method is catching on in Canada, along with its moronic twin label, "foreign funded radicals"; and

7)Waiting: More important, China is very good at waiting, over decades and even over generations, for the cumulative efforts of their methods to take full effect. Taiwan is the classic case here. However, the list of other countries where this waiting game is playing out is growing.

One of these countries is Australia, which has been grappling with the effects of increased trade and investment with China. A recent business press headline encapsulated the grand bargain now under public debate: "The deal is simple. Australia gets money, and China gets Australia." With its small population and open, resource-rich economy, Australia has much in common with Canada.

In recent years, fears of China's economic might and lack of sustainable local economic benefits have turned public opinion, and even the preferences of Australian investors, against further economic integration with China. Indeed, in late 2011, almost 60 per cent of Australians approved of U.S. leadership in the ASEAN region, while only 23 per cent approved of China's leadership role in the region.

Our spooks and warriors know all this and much more about China. But on this file, right now, they are looking the other way.

Why have they gone quiet?

Maybe the security people are confused, internally gridlocked. After all, these are the same folks who are taking us into the North American security perimeter that is led by our erstwhile best superpower friend, the United States. Now we're playing with America's rival. Still, our security sector has proven many times it can handle (and, indeed, often creates) ambiguity, so that can't be the reason for its failure to speak up.

Or perhaps our security elites have seen the sheer strength of the Chinese intelligence network and war machine and they have already thrown in the towel. This is very unlikely, though. For whatever critique we may hold of them and their deeds, our security specialists aren't cowards.

A better explanation, though, involves the upcoming federal budget.

It could be that, in order to limit the damage they would otherwise sustain from the government's intended cuts, CSIS, the Department of National Defence, related agencies and firms, and the security sector's associated talking heads, have simply decided to sit this one out on the sidelines, to take a pass. The price for raising the hard questions on China could be too high.

Nor is the long game a political priority, it would seem, for Stephen Harper. It's a reasonable bet that he'll be gone by the time the full impact of China's deep imperial reach fully penetrates the critical sectors of our economy. By 2020, China is widely expected to become the world's largest economy.

In the 30 years between 2020 and 2050, coping with stepped up economic incursions and acquisitiveness by China could well become the prime function of the Canadian state on almost every important policy front.

My question to our security elites, therefore, is simply this: What is your plan for ensuring Canada remains a viable sovereign nation while it strengthens its economic ties with China?

We need you to come clean with Canadians.

Speak up.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1137409 2011-12-11T00:50:57-05:00 2012-02-09T05:12:02-05:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
I put this question to my 22-year-old son, a dedicated hockey fan and nhl.com gamer. I asked him just after National Hockey League President Gary Bettman declared, brutally, that the findings of new research on chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, are premature.

"I don't know. Fighting is cool. But if there was no fighting, they'd have to change the game in some other way," our son replied. He wouldn't be happy, but he's open to a new solution.

So am I. I played junior hockey and grew up in the traditional culture of the sport. And I want the NHL to ban all fighting -- any time, everywhere, forever.

What is really premature, of course, is hockey's tough guys dying far too young, their brains decimated by repeated blows to the head, their bodies wracked by pain and addiction, the circumstances of their deaths tragic beyond imagination. The latest in the news, Derek Boogaard, was only 28.

However, the owners want to maintain fighting as part of the game. They believe that's why their fans buy tickets.

And their enforcers will continue to die young.

The owners "are trading money for brain cells," said Chris Nowinski, a former football player and professional wrestler who co-directs Boston University's Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy.

The centre would probably find serious damage in the NHL's corporate brain, too. Riven by decades of greed and conservatism, the league has shown itself utterly incapable of mounting serious responses to the real issues it faces in the 21st century; allegations of steroid use, rampant homophobia and racist incidents, and an epidemic of concussions are four big ones.

The NHL's failure to effectively address these and other issues is eroding hockey's credibility and relevance. And it is rapidly losing ground to other sports.

Across North America, the number of kids playing minor hockey is declining. Yet the number of young people opting to play soccer and basketball is growing fast, and breathtakingly so in many urban areas.

True, changing immigration patterns constitute a key contributing factor to this decline. So is the fact that hockey is expensive; its hefty travel and equipment costs are simply out of the reach of many families these days.

Ironically, a small percentage of kids may even refuse to join minor hockey because fighting is already banned at that level in some areas.

Taken together, all these factors mean that the long term doesn't look good for the NHL -- that is, unless the league makes some serious changes immediately.

But it looks like that won't happen. And that, too, is tragic.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1129561 2011-12-06T10:37:50-05:00 2012-02-05T05:12:01-05:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
This is not a secret. Quite the contrary: through the sly press scrum musings of their ministers, the incendiary rhetoric of their foot soldiers in the House of Commons, and the forced and ragged rationales of their friends in the media and right-wing think tanks, the Conservatives are tuning us up for some big hits.

Their chief tool for making the cuts -- the scalpel du jour -- is the federal program review, as opaque a process as you'll find anywhere in the governance of advanced economies. Senior civil servants have been asked not only to find up to 10 per cent savings in their operations and programs, but they have also been required to adhere to strict secrecy in the machinations of the review.

Yet, for his part, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has publicly stressed that his upcoming budget will be built on balance and aimed at maintaining Canada's economic stability, which he calls, with some justification, our "competitive edge" in an unstable world.

Moreover, the minister said, to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce no less, "It will not include raising taxes, cutting transfers to seniors, children or the unemployed, or reducing transfers to other levels of government that support health care, social services, or other Canadian priorities."

Flaherty appears to believe it is worth saying these things. For now, let's take him at his word.

But where, then, will they cut? Because of the disciplined, centralized control of information by the Harper government, we don't know yet. But we can speculate. Candidates include the sprawling Human Resources and Skills Development Canada department, foreign aid, cultural programs, the CBC and a handful of other big federal agencies. (The Environment department is not on this list because its workforce has already been quietly decimated by the Conservatives).

In any case, as the program review, pre-budget consultations and parliamentary committee work all proceed, Canadians have time to prepare themselves to assess the government's actions carefully, and in some detail.

As my former professor, the late Alan Thomas, often observed, all countries have historical moments of collective learning. This is one of ours. We will learn a lot about the Harper government from what it cuts from the federal budget, and how it goes about making the case for those spending reductions.

To make optimum use of this learning moment, citizens should ask seven questions:

1) To what extent is a given budget cut driven by ideology? The introduction of the omnibus crime bill and the elimination of the gun registry are red meat tossed to the Conservatives' electoral base -- the people that got their vote out and won them the election. What other programs will need to go in order to satisfy this core constituency?

2) What electoral factors are at work when a program is not cut? The Conservatives are working hard to secure the support of segments of the suburban immigrant population, for example. It is therefore unlikely that programs serving this group will be eliminated. Watch for other cases like this.

3) Who are the scapegoats? Tax-and-spend progressives, overpaid public servants, greedy trade unions, single moms on welfare, slothful artists -- take your pick. Someone must be demonized to justify specific spending cuts. Watch who the Conservatives and their allies target, and how carnivorous their rhetoric becomes.

4) What services do citizens lose? Especially in a period of economic slowdown and uncertainty, budget reductions have consequences. Real services to citizens may be curtailed, or eliminated altogether, at a time when all Canadians need help navigating through the economic storm. What services are lost? Who loses them? Who doesn't?

5) What private interests benefit from the program reduction or elimination? Conservative governments tell us that corporations can deliver services more efficiently than governments. But profit-seeking drives prices for services higher, often out of the range of low-income and even moderate-income households. This government privileges and amplifies the voices of big corporations in the policy process, so guess whose perspectives on the budget will carry the day?

6) What are the impacts on local economies? Government workers have good salaries and benefits. They buy houses, cars and other goods and services that generate positive multipliers in their local economies. When public servants are fired, all the other jobs that rely on government employee spending are vaporized, as well. And, unless you live in an oil-rich province, or work on prison construction, the Conservatives don't have a serious plan to replace those good-quality government jobs.

7) Is there an alternative way to achieve these savings? Of course. There always is. Reduce military procurement by one F-35 fighter jet and you save $80 to $100 million. It's not magic. It's a choice. Or how about reducing the aggregate tax benefits to the 250,000 richest Canadians? Embarrassingly, ridiculously, they captured one-third of the nation's total income growth between 1997 and 2007. The one per cent need to step up and do much more for their country, and it looks like they must be legislated to do so.

So, as you see the federal cuts roll out, ask these questions -- and seek real answers.

Talk to your neighbours, friends and family about what you learn, and what they learn, too. And write down what you find. It helps to demystify the whole process, to separate what really matters from the barrage of tactics to be thrown at us by the Harper Conservatives.

Four years from now, when the next federal election is called, your vote will be a very well-informed one. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.915914 2011-08-03T08:04:10-04:00 2011-10-03T05:12:01-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
That's the message that Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay and Chief of the Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk need to hear right now, as the federal government's spending review snakes through the bureaucracy, seeking new prey.

The fact is that a new front in the Afghanistan war has opened up right here in our own communities, and military spouses -- overwhelmingly women -- find themselves in harm's way. Every hour of every day, they are helping their returning partners adjust to Canadian society. This is dangerous work.
Why? Because the psychological and emotional -- not to mention the physical -- impacts on soldiers of serving in a theatre of war are profound, and can strip human beings of their spirit as fast and ruthlessly as napalm, spreading to the spouses and children of combatants like fire out of control.

I was an army brat. My father was a career soldier, a decorated veteran who served as a peacekeeper in Vietnam and Egypt. During the Second World War, he trained other soldiers to shoot rifles and ride motorcycles; he was strong and resilient. And yet he cried at every Remembrance Day service, mourning the human carnage of battle, honouring the fallen he had known.

He reintegrated pretty well, several times. Fortunately, he liked "civvy street", as he called it. But Dad was only able to adjust effectively because my mother was also strong and a full partner in the enterprise of the military family. She stepped forward during his absences, raising my sister and me, charting out her own career, learning to drive (which was unusual for women then), and focusing her energies on helping Dad re-enter society smoothly each time he returned. They were a team. There may be other ways to do it, but that's what they did.

Today, veterans are coming back to a country that -- while occasionally recognizing the service and valour -- never really suffered during the war. For better or worse, it's a society driven by a popular culture featuring Lady Gaga and movies like Transformers, and a political culture mired in incessant wrangling and undeserved narcissism. True, the very banality of this familiar social maw may comfort some returning veterans. But it is just as likely, maybe more likely, for them to experience civilian life as bizarre, self-indulgent, inconsequential, even alien.

If their country has remained basically the same, they haven't. Forget those elegant, top-down accounts of the noble victories of commanders. For the military employees who actually do the fighting on the ground, war is horrific beyond imagination. Wiping the hot bone and blood of your best friend off your face after a roadside attack changes you forever.

Only war veterans themselves really can understand what this means.

And the horror is coming home. Not surprisingly, after multiple deployment cycles, a growing number of members of the Forces report some form of "post-operational stress." The number of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder is rising, and there is some evidence that National Defence has been redeploying soldiers actually known to have PTSD.

There are other signs of stress in the military. Earlier this summer, 70 narcotics charges were laid by military police at CFB Wainwright (Alberta), where a drug lab and trafficking operation had been set up by trainees. There have been reports of an increase in domestic violence in military families, as well. And, according to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, military police received nearly 800 complaints of crimes in 2010, including almost 180 cases of sexual assault. Of course, these complaints are only the ones that are reported; as such, they likely significantly underestimate the scale of these problems.

The Department of National Defence currently offers programs for serving members to address operational stress, addictions, mental health and wellness. There are also 32 Military Family Resource Centres across Canada and more in other countries. The centres run a full range of services on youth, parenting, wellness, deployment, and family separation and reunion.

Like all programs, they need independent evaluations of their effectiveness. No doubt, they could work better and reach more people. They also could better target participants by working more closely with veteran's organizations.

Nonetheless, they are essential tools of support for military families -- especially for the thousands of spouses who are fighting for their partners, and for us, on the new front line of troop reintegration.
Minister Mackay, General Natynczyk: Don't touch the funding of these programs.

Don't even think about it.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.911228 2011-07-27T20:59:23-04:00 2011-09-26T05:12:02-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
As NGOs raise private donations that rich-country governments have promised to match, the UN's World Food Programme just airlifted 14 tons of nutritionally fortified food for children into Mogadishu.
This is dangerous work. About 9,000 African Union peacekeepers patrol that city, but there should be 20,000 -- the number that was originally pledged by the UN but that rich countries failed to ensure. Pirates control much of Somalia's coastal region. And large swathes of the interior are run by the militants of al-Shabab, an Islamist group with ties to al-Qaeda that has prevented aid agencies from reaching the hungry.

It's no surprise that when sustained drought is combined with lawlessness, the consequences for civilian populations are deadly and tragic.

But there is positive movement on another front. Celebrities with roots in Somalia are now speaking out on the famine. A few days ago, Somali-Canadian rapper K'naan joined U2 lead singer Bono on stage at a concert in Minneapolis to support the local Somali community's humanitarian efforts. "Yes, I'm the wavin' flag guy," says K'naan on his Twitter account, referring to his hit single that became the commercial anthem of the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. He's also an activist, and a staunch supporter of affordable medicines for Africa and of education for children in Somalia and Haiti.

Bono, of course, is well-known for his own activism. He is co-founder of the charity ONE, which campaigns against poverty in Africa, often focusing his efforts on heads of state. (Though he is often effective, the fact that there is even a need for someone like Bono to hold politicians to their promises is a continuing insult to the poor).

Meanwhile, in a video posted earlier this week, Somali-born model Iman warned of the one million children at risk now each day in Somalia. The head of a $25-million a year cosmetics company, and the partner of rock star David Bowie, New-York-based Iman is also a spokesperson for Keep A Child Alive, a nonprofit organization co-founded by singer Alicia Keys that provides drugs to children with HIV/AIDS in Africa.

It is estimated that nearly 11 million adults and children in East Africa now suffer from severe food insecurity triggered by the drought, including 3.7 million people in Somalia itself, as well as 4.6 million in Ethiopia, and 2.6 million in Kenya.

Ethiopia and Kenya are generally held up as successful African nations that are managing both their economies and governance reasonably well -- though their paths have not been easy or simple. While the famine is testing their ability to cope with crisis, these countries appear to have sufficiently strong institutions and systems that, with some external support, should enable them to prevail.

In fact, alongside the failed and fragile states that scar the face of the continent, Africa also boasts some of the world's fastest growing economies. Botswana and Mauritius have become middle-income countries. South Africa and Nigeria are major regional forces of commerce and trade. The economies and democracies of countries like Ghana and Rwanda are recording impressive gains as they proceed forward.

It is essential that these and other African nations succeed in economic terms. Such success will help to minimize ethnic and religious conflict, disease and food insecurity, and maximize income per capita, quality of life and civic participation. Achieving positive futures in these "other Africas" matters profoundly. The bottom line is that these countries need sustained economic growth.

To this end, the World Bank has approved a new 10-year strategy for the region that aims to boost competitiveness and employment and mitigate vulnerability. The foundation of the strategy involves strengthening governance capacity. However, on the economic side, the strategy will focus "reforms and public investments on areas of highest growth potential, a healthy and skilled workforce, women's empowerment and regional integration programs." Light manufacturing, agribusiness, mining, information technology and tourism, for example, are priority sectors for the strategy.

Such strategies are not without risks, however. Their economic benefits must be spread widely. Businesses must not be permitted to pollute or abuse human rights. Foreign investment must not undermine sovereignty. Nonetheless, economic development is a fundamental precondition for ensuring food security and a better life for African households and communities.

The celebrities' call to action on the famine in Somalia and neighbouring countries is welcome. And their efforts to mobilize solidarity in North America and Europe are valuable. But there is a longer game here in which they should engage. That game is to accompany all the Africas in the decades ahead in constructing a robust, fair and independent economic base -- and one that really could make famine history.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.899874 2011-07-15T12:26:39-04:00 2011-09-14T05:12:01-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
You have a lot to celebrate.

Your 3,000th hit was a home run that put your team back in the game. Your team went on to win, and you collected four more hits that day, adding an exclamation point to an already remarkable baseball achievement.

And there are more achievements to come. If you play another few years, and with reasonable productivity, you are likely to celebrate a dozen significant milestones, including, for example, 11,500 plate appearances, 7,000 assists, 2,800 singles and 2,000 runs scored -- all these are within reach.

There is no question that you, as New York Yankees shortstop and captain, have earned yourself a place in the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. You worked for it. You deserve it.
What accounts for your success? Your well-known focus, determination, goal orientation, preparation and integrity are all key factors.

Now, as you enter the last years of your active baseball career, these same factors can propel you to an elite level as a philanthropist and activist. In fact, that is exactly where you should turn your attention; it's the arena in which you should now ramp up your performance. And it's exactly the right time to do so.

Derek, If you think 3,000 hits is an achievement (and of course it is!), try helping 30,000 young people to stay away from drugs and become leaders in their communities. That's really changing the bigger game.

Yes, I know you already help hundreds of kids each year. Your vehicle for doing this is your private charity, the Turn 2 Foundation, in which your family is very active. The foundation is a serious entity, does very good work, and you are rightly proud of it.

Over 15 years, Turn 2 has made $12 million worth of grants to programs promoting healthy lifestyles among youth -- to help them avoid drugs and alcohol and become community leaders and responsible citizens. With your capital supplemented by funds raised through an annual dinner and celebrity golf tournament, the foundation runs an impressive suite of initiatives: scholarships, camps, baseball clinics, an after-school program, and more. These activities are centered primarily in New York City, West Michigan and Tampa Bay, all areas where you have personal roots.

One of your best programs is Jeter's Leaders. Eight to 10 high school students in both Kalamazoo and New York are invited to join the program for four years. Community service, biweekly leadership meetings, mentoring, life skills and leadership skills workshops, drug and alcohol awareness, and college preparation and visits are key activities for all Jeter's Leaders. Participants must maintain a B average and say free of drugs and alcohol for the duration of the program.

This is all good; better than good, in fact. It is an excellent model.

However, you and I know that the challenges young people and communities face are so large and complex that building hundreds of young leaders is not enough. We need tens of thousands. And you are in a position to make that happen.

You have a lot to build on if you decide to do more. There are five practical ways for you to convert your current assets and knowledge into larger-scale action.

First, you should transfer more capital to your foundation. It needs a larger endowment in order to make more grants. You have the resources. Over the next few years, you'll earn at least $56 million, and as much as $65 million, and maybe a similar amount again from endorsements.

Second, mobilize other people's money on a larger scale. Work with major philanthropists like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Bill Clinton to expand the pool of funds available to your programs. Use your star power to get other sports celebrities to give more. Move them from photo ops to major gifts.

Third, get the federal government and states to adopt and replicate your programs, especially the leadership work. Scale up the size of each city's program from 10 to 50 to 100. Scale up the number of cities and regions you work in, from two to 20 to 50 and maybe even to 100. This is ambitious, but it is feasible.

Fourth, hire professionals who have proven skills in implementing large-scale programs. Inspired by you, they will bring this bigger vision to life.

Finally, evaluate, learn from and adjust your programs -- continuously -- as you scale up. Understand what works and what doesn't, and talk about it. People know how hard this work is and will respect and support you even more.

In 1996, after you had signed with the Yankees and were sitting in a hotel room with your father, you announced that you wanted to set up a foundation. And you did.

You remember every day why you set that foundation up: to make a difference in lives and in communities.

Now you can take this commitment to the next level. You will have even more to celebrate.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. And best wishes for continued success--on all fronts.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.893883 2011-07-10T18:41:49-04:00 2011-09-09T05:12:02-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
That's what women leaders have to do as they rise through the ranks of government, business and the community sector: they must bring other women in the organization, especially younger ones, along with them, changing the organization as a whole as they move forward.

Interestingly, this advice came from a business executive -- McDonald's Canada VP Sharon Ramalho --during a dynamic panel on women in leadership roles, which also included former Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps, Nunavut Premier Eva Ariak, and Dr. Mamta Gautam, life coach to physicians. The event was chaired by my colleague Clare Beckton, head of Carleton University's new Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership.

The panel was one of more than 300 sessions offered this past week by the Women's Worlds 2011 Congress in Ottawa. The conference drew 2,000 delegates from some 90 countries.

(Disclosure: For two years I served a member of the steering committee that planned this excellent event. It was truly an honour.)

Have no doubt; though the movement faces menacing, mutating challenges everywhere, global feminism --I'm talking about today's 2.0 version -- is a dynamic force driven by passion, evidence, discipline, accountability, tolerance, innovation, and, perhaps most important of all, continuous learning and improvement.

Social-justice activists, government policymakers, engaged academics, progressive business leaders and delegates presented their work to each other, listened carefully to each other, challenged each other on both principles and tactics, and encouraged each other to do more, and to do it better. At the core of this mutual learning process was a work ethic so deep you couldn't see the bottom of it.

The conference participants didn't always agree, though, and were never shy about saying so. At the opening ceremony, when federal Status of Women minister Rona Ambrose went on way too long boasting about her government's work on women's issues (never, of course, referring to its ideology-driven funding cuts to feminist groups), she was booed forcefully by some in the audience.

But delegates also worked hard to build new history together. During one lunch break, nearly 1,000 conference participants marched on Parliament Hill to show their solidarity with those fighting for justice for 582 missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls across Canada.

In its report, "What Their Stories Tell Us," the Native Women's Association of Canada, one of the most active groups at Women's Worlds, summarizes research on these women and girls conducted by its Sisters in Spirit initiative. Aboriginal women represent 10 per cent of female homicides in Canada, but only three percent of Canada's total female population. Police too often have been slow to investigate and solve these cases. And there are insufficient resources to meet the needs of the families of murdered and missing Aboriginal women and girls.

While the Ottawa conference was underway, a new international report, "Progress of the World's Women: 2011-2012", was released by UN Women, the super-agency for women's rights and empowerment. While affirming the importance of well-functioning justice systems as "a vital mechanism for women to achieve their rights," the report emphasizes that "for most of the world's women, the laws that exist on paper do not translate into equality and justice."

Ten recommendations are advanced to make justice systems work better for women, including supporting women's legal organizations and one-stop shops providing forensic, legal, and health services for women, as well as putting more women on the frontlines of law enforcement.

Lift as you climb. This is heavy lifting. It requires focus, strength, resilience, and commitment to a larger, shared goal. It also requires money.

One of the impressive features of Women's Worlds 2011 Congress was its broad funding base: the governments of Canada, Quebec and Ontario all contributed, as did a long list of universities, public-sector and private-sector unions, and some companies (particularly law firms and credit unions). So did the Canadian Women's Foundation and the Belinda Stronach Foundation, as well as a group of Nordic embassies.

Conference organizers were especially appreciative of funding from the unions -- which stepped up when other government funding did not materialize--and were not unaware of the irony of this situation in the current context of repeated federal-government attacks on organized labour.

On the final day of the conference, a high-profile panel explored the theme of women and the power of philanthropy. Abigail Disney (yes, of that Disney family) urged more women to learn about giving and to start doing it. "Women with assets should be stepping up because it's the right thing to do," she said. The panel highlighted the Women Moving Millions campaign in the United States, Canada, Australia and elsewhere, which seeks to increase the number of high net-worth women who make substantial donations to women's organizations and projects. Animated in Canada by the Canadian Women's Foundation, the campaign is steadily gaining momentum.

So, what's next for feminism 2.0?

One upcoming event has a strong Canadian dimension: With the support of the Stronach, Clinton, and Mastercard foundations, among other funders, the G(irls) 20 Summit will be held in France in fall 2011. Organized as a counterpoint to the main G-20 leaders' summit, this event aims to generate "tangible, effective and scalable solutions" for the empowerment of the world's 3.3 billion women and girls.

Climbing and lifting. Learning and doing.

Permanent struggle. Permanent renewal.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.887786 2011-06-30T11:53:34-04:00 2011-08-30T05:12:01-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
This week's Women's World Cup of Football in Germany is a sporting event of great skill and drama, heroism and resilience. It is exciting to watch. Television coverage of this sport is improving steadily. Growing visibility and positive momentum are powering women's soccer forward.

But, in many parts of the world, anti-lesbian attitudes, talk and actions persist at both the grassroots and professional levels of women's football (as it is known outside North America). And in some countries, such discrimination can spark deadly violence and loss of life.

In 2008, the former captain of the South African women's football team, Eudy Simelane, was gang-raped by four young men and murdered. She was a prominent lesbian and gay-rights activist. A year later, the main perpetrator was convicted and given a life sentence. As his trial ended, he declared: "I'm not sorry at all."

South Africa is still the site of too many vicious and cowardly "corrective rape" cases where men use sexual violence to try to change women's sexual orientation. It is a continuing outrage that these rapists are rarely charged by the authorities.

In other countries, discrimination takes the form of harsh anti-lesbian talk that creates and sustains a climate of intolerance and fear. Only weeks ago, Eucharia Ngozi Uche, manager of Nigeria's Super Falcons, proudly announced a ban on lesbians in her national women's team. She called lesbianism a "dirty issue" and "spiritually, morally, very wrong." It is now, she said, a thing of the past for the Falcons.

The United Kingdom, Australia and other developed countries host lesbian soccer teams, and public discourse there on same-sex relationships is more open and tolerant than in African and Middle Eastern countries in particular. Yet there are still tensions. The Dutch national women's team recently fired a lesbian couple from its ranks because the couple's behavior was alleged to have disrupted the team.

Against this complex backdrop, there is a small global network of organizations dedicated to fighting discrimination against LGBT players in "the beautiful game." The International Gay and Lesbian Football Association, almost 20 years old, is an important one. The association claims 80 teams from more than 20 countries as its members. A more recent group is Red Card Homophobia, an activist website.

Maybe Canada can contribute to this struggle, too. The International Federation of Football Associations (FIFA) has named Canada as the host of the 2015 Women's World Cup. This is an honor, and an opportunity.

And Vancouver --one of the country's, and the world's, most gay-friendly cities -- has submitted a bid to serve as the lead site for the tournament. It stands a very good chance.

If it is successful, Vancouver could serve as the catalyst for a creative and sustained global campaign by FIFA against homophobia and for tolerance in women's soccer.

Eradicating homophobia in women's soccer by 2015 -- that's a target worth aiming at.
Why not use Canada Day 2011 to pledge to make this happen?
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.882230 2011-06-22T14:09:07-04:00 2011-08-22T05:12:02-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
Right now, nobody is promoting socialism better than the Harper Conservatives. It's becoming one of their core competencies.

In recent days, the federal government has used its legal powers and media platforms to undermine legitimate collective bargaining processes at Air Canada and Canada Post. Openly siding with the managements of these corporations, the government has, among other things, encouraged the parties to keep wage increases low and to put a stop to defined benefit pension plans for new hires.

The unions involved don't like any of this, but have chosen to protect the benefit packages of their current members and retirees.

At this point, young workers have little choice but to accept their fate. They lack voice and choice. But, over the next decade, they will have time to regroup to fight these deals. And who will they turn to help them?

The democratic socialists: the NDP.

There's little doubt that we're seeing the beginning of a prolonged, multi-pronged attack on unionized workers by the Conservatives. Their anti-worker war machine is revving its engines. Sirens have sounded. The first missiles have been launched.

This is a war that will hurt households and communities that rely on unionized salaries and benefits. The multiplier effects of good jobs are always underestimated in public policy and discourse. Take them out of the equation, and local economies suffer.

It is also a war that could strengthen labour. Union leaders, most already committed progressives, will strengthen their resolve. It will be a long four years, and they will have to pace themselves. But this war might actually result in a more energized and united labour movement.

Then there's the rank and file union membership. Election results in union-heavy regions like Ottawa and Oshawa suggest that many union members voted for the Conservatives in the 2011 poll. After the layoffs and pain wrought by this impending conflict, it's hard to believe so many will do so again.

Meanwhile, the infection of economic inequality spreads across the nation. It is not lost on young workers that all the players making these decisions -- ministers and MPs, managers and older union members, even university professors -- retain their defined benefit plans. And young people won't easily forget.

Nor are they oblivious to the fact that the compensation packages for chief executives have risen to obscene and embarrassing levels. In 2009, when economic recession battered all sectors of the economy, each of Canada's top 100 CEOs averaged more than $6 million in annual compensation, according to a study by economist Hugh Mackenzie for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. And that's without factoring in their future access to millions of dollars more in stock options. (In 2009 Canada Post's CEO was eligible for a mere $640,000 a year in total compensation). Indeed, in this time of job scarcity, CEOs enjoy benefits-packages-on-steroids.

Furthermore, another CCPA study, led by Armine Yalnizyan, found that the richest one percent of Canadians accounted for one-third of all income growth between 1987 and 2007. This report ominously concludes that social inequality in Canada has reached levels not seen since the 1920s.
None of this is lost either on the 3.2 million Canadians who are considered by Statistics Canada to be low-income, or the 1.5 million who are officially unemployed, or the 3.2 million who work at low-wage, no-benefit, part-time, precarious work.

Few Canadians would disagree with the need to contain public spending or to find ways of making our public and private corporations viable in a changing world economy. But there are better ways of achieving these objectives that don't require full-scale warfare against unions and workers. Free collective bargaining is one of those ways.

There are better ways of solving the pension issue, too. Citing the work of economist Bob Baldwin, the Globe and Mail's Barrie McKenna recently pointed out that there are creative ways of designing pension plans that are neither traditional defined benefit nor defined contribution plans -- ways that can provide greater economic security for younger workers while still containing employer costs and risk.

But the Conservatives are not taking Canada down that road. They want war with labour. And they not only accept that economic inequality will grow -- they are committed to taking actions that will help to spread and deepen it.

So be it. They'll be gone by 2019.

Maybe sooner.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.878103 2011-06-16T11:13:59-04:00 2011-08-16T05:12:02-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
Their veterans came through in the playoffs -- big time.

For the Bruins, forward Mark Recchi recorded a goal or assist in each game of the final series with the Vancouver Canucks. He's 43 years old and, after hoisting the Stanley Cup, made it official that he'll retire. Nice exit.

Even more spectacular for the Bruins was the play of their goaltender, Tim Thomas, who shut the door on the Canucks at every turn. At 37, it's been a long road for Thomas, who even had to win back his starting role earlier this year. Thomas was chosen series MVP.

For their part, the Mavs benefited from the fine performance of guard Jason Kidd, 38, whose distribution of the ball and three-point shooting were key Dallas assets. It was Kidd's first championship after a long Hall-of-Fame career.

But the real star of the NBA final playoff was 32-year old Dirk Nowitzki, the seven-foot forward whose ridiculously consistent shooting from the floor and from the free-throw line led the Dallas offence and devastated their opponents, the Miami Heat. If there were questions earlier in his career about his ability to come through in the clutch, this time Nowitzki sent a loud message with his energy and leadership. He won it all. And he was voted the MVP of his series.

Both winning teams were obviously close-knit, communicated continuously and held each other accountable. They trusted each other. They sacrificed their bodies, playing through an array of injuries. But all this could be said of their opponents, as well.

There was something else, though. In both cases, the champions played with less hubris and more honour.

The Canucks opened the final playoff series diving and otherwise embellishing for the referees; one Canuck even bit a Bruin during a scrum. The Bruins weren't angels, and did some trash talking. But, overall, they complained less and their work ethic and will to win drove them to victory. Theirs was old-style, defensive hockey, and it worked.

For their part, the Mavericks often found themselves in the media shadow of their noisier, more flamboyant opponents. With their three superstars -- Dwayne Wade, LeBron James and Chris Bosh -- the Heat attracted greater public attention externally and, internally, had to work harder to manage the different egos and styles of their young leaders.

The quieter Mavs simply went about their business and let their actions do the talking. Also an old-style, defensive team, they displayed less ego, more discipline and better focus.

The 2011 Bruins and the 2011 Mavericks -- powered to the top by humility and hard work.
And by their veteran players. This year, old guys rule.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.872454 2011-06-08T09:20:47-04:00 2011-08-08T05:12:01-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
That's what we should do when something big and new comes along. That's what we need to do about the Chinese yuan.

Why? Because it's going to become an international currency within the next five to 10 years, maybe sooner. Institutions and individuals around the world will be able to buy the yuan, also called the renminbi, and trade it on currency markets.

The Chinese will do this for two reasons: First, this internationalization process will reduce China's exposure to too many non-performing U.S. assets, now held in the form of stocks, bonds and treasury bills. Recent unemployment figures suggest that America's recovery is going to be a long and uncertain one. Second, having an international currency positions the Chinese to consolidate their growing economic strength around the world -- and take it to the next level.

What will that next level be? In a recent report entitled "Multipolarity: The New Global Economy", a forecasting group at the World Bank has predicted that, by 2025, the global economy will replace the U.S. dollar as the sole international currency with a new, multi- currency system comprising three major components: the buck, the euro and the yuan -- or, as my wife calls them, "our new four letter words!"

There's a lot more in the report. "By 2025," the World Bank team writes, "six major emerging economies -- Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation--will collectively account for more than half of all global growth."

"Emerging" is really a misnomer. These economies exercise their expanding power every day on every continent in every sector, from oil and gas to manufacturing to infrastructure. Let's just call them new economic powers. The only thing "emerging" about them is how powerful they could become.

Indeed, look at what these countries have already achieved: "Emerging and developing countries now hold two-thirds of all official foreign exchange reserves," the World Bank study confirms.

A decade ago, the advanced economies held two-thirds of all reserves. Reversals don't come any more complete than that. In other words, the report tells us, first, multipolarity is already here. Second, it will only gain greater momentum.

Note, though, that the study hasn't projected beyond 15 years out. How strong could China's economic power be in, for example, 2050? Can you say "global economic hegemony?"

These scenarios raise obvious and sobering questions about the economic future of our children and grandchildren. How much of Canada's resources -- our oil, gas, strategic minerals, forests, food and water -- are we willing to sell to China and the other new powers? How many good jobs will we be able to negotiate? How, ultimately, will we sustain our households and communities?

For defensive reasons alone, we should start buying yuan. It will give us a window on this new world. It will get our heads in the new game. Investing in yuan could also give us some say in how China itself performs -- socially, environmentally, in terms of labour and human rights -- as it rides the escalator of economic ascendance to the top.

We should invest in yuan -- but we can't. We'll only be able to buy it when the Chinese Politburo says we can.

In the meantime, however, there's important work to do. First, taking a page from the new powers' own approach, our governments should invest in one or two world-class Canadian multinationals in each strategic sector of our economy.

With the backing of both the state and the market, and deploying leading-edge technology, these companies would have the scale and resilience to compete in the multipolar world. (Yes, the original planners--not the later managers--of Nortel were right.)

Second, we should lever our capital pools for both offensive and defensive purposes. Again, as the new powers do, we should use our 'sovereign wealth funds' -- the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and Quebec's Caisse de dépôt et placement -- to invest in foreign securities as sources of economic intelligence and some influence on the behaviour of new-power companies.

At the same time, these funds should allocate capital to major Canadian companies that create and sustain good jobs for Canadians in the face of fierce competition. And, third, governments should give serious, preferential tax treatment to companies that maximize these jobs and minimize layoffs.

Advocates for such policies would be easily found in the caucus and allied organizations of the New Democratic Party, sections of the Liberal and Green parties, and some red Tory networks. What about the Conservatives? Without doubt, this approach would be too 'big government' for them.

But, in his quiet, private moments, Stephen Harper surely knows that Canada's market forces alone are no match for the new powers. The state must be fully engaged.

Something big and new has, in fact, come along. Multipolarity is here. What we do about it is, so far, still up to us.

Understand. Plan. Act. Now, not later.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.869463 2011-06-02T08:04:37-04:00 2011-08-02T05:12:01-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
That's what our 20-year-old son said when I told him Steve Nash had made a video supporting same-sex marriage.

True, our son comes from a socially liberal family, lives in an urban centre, and, most importantly, belongs to a generation that is North America's most tolerant ever. So his reaction perhaps isn't surprising.

However, professional sports should pay attention: As active, sophisticated consumers of information, games and gear, our son and his friends are already targeted by sports-related advertizing on television and the Internet. In a decade or so, they will become the mainstream core of the sports market. What they think, therefore, matters.

In making the video, two-time NBA MVP Steve Nash was just doing what he always does: helping others to be better, to achieve their goals. His uncanny ability -- his genius, really -- to get the ball to his teammates to enable them to score is near-legend. Unlike the rest of us mortals, who see little more than the chaos of bodies, colour and speed on the basketball floor, Nash senses where the openings will emerge before they happen and, like a magician, in a flash, makes the ball appear in his teammates' hands as they speed toward the basket.

He also creates new space for others through his social activism. Well-known for assisting progressive causes, Nash was an outspoken opponent of the U.S. war with Iraq. He opposed Arizona's bill giving police the right to detain citizens of that state who 'look' like immigrants. His foundation supports community projects that employ basketball as a tool for strengthening the skills, character and optimism of Aboriginal youth and other kids on the margins of society.

And he supports the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered citizens to the benefits, and enjoyment, of legal marriage. That's why he lent his name, very publicly, in support of the marriage equality project of the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group. He's in pretty good company, too. Other public figures featured in similar PSA videos for HRC include NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, comedians Whoopi Goldberg and Joan Rivers, and actors Julianne Moore, Julianna Margulies and Mark Ruffalo.

The first pro athlete to join HRC's video lineup supporting marriage equality was Sean Avery, the New York Rangers hockey player. An aggressive competitor on the ice, Avery attracted critical comments from Uptown Sports Management, a player agency whose owners argued for the sanctity of marriage between a woman and a man. However, most sports media commentators took positions that were neutral or favourable toward the Avery video, an outcome which is interesting in itself.

Predictably, those who oppose gay rights in general and same-sex marriage in particular pointed to their all-purpose bogeyman of 'political correctness' in the media, as the factor responsible for tilting the public debate in a liberal direction. Other commentators interpreted this as a natural shift in attitudes in sports to reflect the greater tolerance for diversity in society at large.

For his part, Nash's use of his video to endorse same-sex marriage was timed to give additional support to Rick Welts, the chief executive of Nash's Phoenix Suns basketball team, who a week earlier had confirmed to the media that he is gay. Welts is now the highest-ranking openly gay executive in men's pro sports. And he works in a state whose legislature is populated by some of America's fiercest opponents of LGBT rights and which, in 2008, banned same-sex marriage.

The NBA is trying to address the homophobia that still infects their sport. In recent months, two prominent players -- Kobe Bryant and Joachim Noah -- have been fined in separate incidents for anti-gay slurs, and they have apologized quickly and publicly. And, in a public service announcement, two Phoenix Suns players -- Grant Hill and Jared Dudley -- talk about why the word "gay" shouldn't be used as an insult or epithet.

Have professional sports, in fact, entered a new, more tolerant era? Perhaps more owners and advertisers are beginning to see how changing demographics, politics and economics in the broader society are shaping the future of their industry. Perhaps more players are already there. Talking about, recognizing and defending gay rights seems to be becoming, although haltingly and unevenly, the new normal in pro sports.

And what is the net effect of sports-celebrity endorsement of social-justice campaigns? The New York State legislature will soon vote on a bill to repeal the state's current ban on same-sex marriage.

Animated by Human Rights Campaign, the energetic coalition supporting marriage equality could well succeed. After the dust settles, it would be useful to assess the extent to which the strategy of making and disseminating the PSA videos by Steve Nash and Sean Avery brought new public support to the campaign, or convinced politicians to vote for the repeal.

We might find that these videos have actually made a difference. After all, it's 2011.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.865512 2011-05-23T10:37:16-04:00 2011-07-23T05:12:01-04:00

Edward Jackson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-jackson/
Fair enough. What positions the party will take on health care and pensions, how Leader Jack Layton and Quebec Lieutenant Thomas Mulcair will work together, what strengths and weaknesses the party's new MPs, particularly those from Quebec, bring to the House of Commons -- these are all relevant questions as Parliament resumes its work.

But Stephen Harper's naming of John Baird as the government's new foreign affairs minister is a signal that the NDP's strategic lens must be widened now, and quickly. Mr. Baird is a serious player and is close to the prime minister.

Governments and their oppositions must deal with the whole world. Evaluating and responding to natural disasters, famine, war, or the actions of fragile or rogue states, as well as the many other significant events that can erupt anywhere in the world, at any moment, is a time-consuming and expensive proposition for small countries like Canada. Yet it is a necessary one.

Indeed, how the Official Opposition performs on international issues -- whether they are remote or idiosyncratic, or directly affect the daily life of Canadians -- is a continuous test of its readiness to assume government.

While the world is an unpredictable, volatile place, certain things can be expected. The political temperature of the Middle East and North Africa is likely to remain high, with complex and mutating dynamics between civil-society movements, armies and states there. Regional and global fallout will flow from the unrelenting rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. China's economic and military rise will continue, and its growing influence in global capital markets and in Africa, in particular, could trigger a backlash.

North Korea's psychotic leader may cause new problems. Further reach by Mexican drug cartels, both southward and northward, will terrorize new areas and destabilize governments. And, in the midst of all of this, the US presidential election in 2012 promises to further intensify (if that is possible) America's domestic politics while at the same time shaping its foreign policy.

Is the NDP ready to do policy battle with the government on these issues? It has to get ready.

Because of its recent parliamentary work, the party is probably better prepared to raise critical questions and set out policy alternatives on more familiar issues that affect Canadians directly, including: protecting Canadian sovereignty while fine-tuning cooperation on border security and trade with an increasingly vigilant United States; managing Canada's military withdrawal from Afghanistan and the shift to training and aid there; and responding rapidly and assertively to ships carrying illegal immigrants that land on Canadian shores.

Clearly, the NDP needs to shift to a global frame as it tools up for its new role as Official Opposition. In doing so, the party should consider five factors: First, it has its own experienced and skilled internationalists. Paul Dewar's committee work on human rights, aid and defence has been superb. Other international experts include, for example, Olivia Chow on China and Hong Kong, and Peggy Nash on women and unions.

Second, the Official Opposition can forge alliances on key issues with MPs from other parties who also have substantial foreign-policy expertise, such as Bob Rae and David McGuinty of the Liberals, or the Greens' Elizabeth May.

Third, the party has access, in real time, to a powerful pool of strategic information to inform its international efforts. This knowledge is created minute-by-minute on the ground by progressive movements and networks around the world. It constitutes a comparative advantage for the NDP.

Fourth, the NDP can supplement this social-movement knowledge with analysis and policy options generated by the expanded research capacity that comes with Official Opposition status. NDP researchers can now be deployed to examine in detail the foreign-policy initiatives of centre-left governments in other OECD countries.

The fifth and most important factor is the party's own set of core values. Most Canadians support the principles of solidarity, human rights, equality, democracy and cooperation in international relations. The public expects these values to infuse all NDP efforts on international affairs.

Prime time has arrived for the NDP, and so has the world. The next four years will be quite a ride.]]>