H Nl I a Continued from page 7 ' premium fares to use. Eighty percent of people who rely on public transit use the bus exclusively and will suffer the conse- quences of further fare increases and cuts to bus service that TransLink will need to subsidize RAV. People of colour and Aboriginal people, particularly women from these communities, are dispropor- tionately transit dependent and suffer the most from TransLink’s agenda of privati- zatiOn. This Friday (January 14) the Bus Riders’ Union is launching a one-day fare strike to protest this unjust fare increase. Union organizers will ride buses and encourage bus riders not to pay their fares. The fare strike is an opportunity for bus riders to take organized and collective direct action to demand our rights to affordable and accessible public transit. Vancouver’s history shows that we can fight to win our rights but only when we get organized as communities. The South Asian community fought hard in 1914 against racist Canadian law and court decisions that barred 380 passengers of the Komagata Maru from setting foot on Vancouver’s shores. In the early *70s the Chinese Community in Strathcona fought successfully to prevent freeway construc- tion through the heart of their neighbourhood, and in April of 2004 HEU workers, a majority of whom were women of colour, went on strike to fight massive lay-offs, wage rollbacks, and pri- vatization of health care. TransLink is trying to privatize the public transit sys- tem by increasing our fares, taking money away from the bus system, and paying for an over-budget and privatized RAV proj- ect at the expense of bus riders. They proceed with fare increases and cuts to bus services despite the racist and sexist implications of these decisions. They pro- ceed regardless of the devastating impact of high fares on community college stu- dents. The time for our communities to organize to defend our right to public services is now. Fight for your right to public transit: join the Bus Riders’ Union Fare Strike on January 14. For more information about the Fare Strike contact the BRU at 604.215.2775, or a [om ] ] = eet — — c3 Cc J.J. McCullough, OP Columnist And the Canadian of the Year is...uh.... News nerds like me always get a small pleasure from anticipating Time maga- zine’s annual announcement of the “Person of the Year.” It’s fun to try and predict who the magazine will decide has had the biggest influence on the last year’s events, “for good or for bad” as the Time editors put it. This year, rather unsurpris- ingly, the Man of the Year was President George W. Bush. Like him or hate him, few could deny that he’s been the central figure in the minds of most of the world for the last year. After presiding over one of the most controversial four-year terms in recent memory, 2004 saw the President come precariously close to losing office, and in doing so helped ferment a bitter political divide both at home and abroad. Time is a “split-run” magazine, howev- er, and as a result, the Canadian version of the publication also features a couple of Canadian stories here and there. In this particular issue, a special “Canadian of the Year” feature ran opposite the “Person of the Year,” as is the trend. Who was this year’s Canadian of the Year, you ask? Which Canadian had the greatest influence on our country’s news, culture, and politics in the year 2004? According to Time, it was Maher Arar. Do you remember him? He was that Syrian- Canadian who was accidentally deported back to Syria and tortured as a result of a tragic mix-up with RCMP and American intelligence officers who suspected him of possessing terrorist ties. His story was cer- tainly tragic, but “Canadian of the Year?” What was the profound lesson he taught us? Torturing innocent people is bad? Wow, glad we cleared that up that moral haze. But fine. After all, Tie magazine is an American institution, right? So maybe they don’t have the best lifeline into the Canadian consciousness. Surely Maclean’ magazine, that proud Canadian publica- tion, would have a better choice for Canada’s most noteworthy citizen of 2004, right? Wrong. As their “Canadian of the Year” they chose Chantal Petitclerc. Who? Petitclerc is a wheelchair-bound competitive racer, who apparently won Canada a gold medal in last year’s para- lympics. It may be an unfortunate truth worthy of great shame, but the simple fact is no one watches the paralympics. By crowning her “Canadian of the Year” MacLean’ is not recognizing the reality of 2004 Canada, but rather imposing upon us a politically correct, symbolic figure whom the magazine’s editors figure we should care about. In fact, when we look at Arar and Petitclerc together, it becomes pretty clear that we may as well just rename “Canadian of the Year” “Tragic Victim of the Year who Makes you Feel Guilty for Never Having Heard of.” Top that off with the fact that 2004 was also the year when CBC viewers decided our “greatest Canadian” was apparently an obscure Saskatchewan _politi- cian with an incredibly esoteric appeal, and you have a rather grim picture of Canadian achievement. I know what you’re thinking: “J.J. you self-righteous bastard, if you’re such a know-it-all, who would you name as the Canadian of the year?” Believe me, after reading Time and Maclean’ pitiful attempts I did indeed smugly assume that it would be simple to choose the obvious figure these two magazines had ignored. Yet...it wasn’t. Who WAS the most note- worthy Canadian of 2004? Was it Paul Martin? True, he won an election, but his minority-government victory clearly proved he was far from being an inspiring leader who captured the nation’s hearts. Likewise, Stephen Harper, a man I per- sonally admire, did little of note last year, coming in second-place in the parliamen- tary election just like legions of Conservative / Alliance leaders have done before him. 2004 saw no fiery Quebec separatist leaders challenging the status quo, nor were there any particularly notable western politicians rattling any cages (aside from the long-since-relevant Ralph Klein). Despite the election, there wasn’t even a strong defining political issue in this last year. Was it gay marriage? The Missile defense? Immigration? Certainly none of these issues could claim a charismatic propo- nent with a national appeal. The Canadian cultural scene similarly remained as bland Iraq wat? as ever, with no notable athletes, actors, authors, or pundits capturing the minds of anyone outside the Canadian Content Bureau. Amidst all these contemplations a thought suddenly occurred to me. A thought I had always openly denied, even when the evidence seemed overwhelming; a thought that my last-lingering threads of patriotism had always taught me to sup- press, and never declare. Maybe Canada is just a boring country. OSU Ta Hee oe eee LT ER) t Don't spend it all } — in one place now. y KO ron Jandary §=12/2008