© theotherpress ¢ Features

continued from page 17

representative of Canadians by moy-
ing to proportional representation.
That's seriously addressing the dem-
ocratic deficit. If you're serious
about the democratic deficit, you
tackle head-on growing corporate
concentration and convergence in
the media. If you're serious about
the democratic deficit, you replace
undemocratic trade deals like
NAFTA, that take away the power
of elected representatives to make
decisions about healthcare and the
environment. If you're serious about
the democratic deficit, I think
you've got to do an awful lot more to
empower members of parliament to
be able to play a meaningful role in
the political process. And Paul
Martin's not doing that.

OP: Moving outside of Canada now,
I want to ask you about some foreign
issues, which I know you have a lot
of interest in.

You were one of your party's lead-
ing voices of opposition to the 2003
Iraq War. Now that the Baath party
has been deposed, Saddam Hussein
has been captured, and his two sons
have been killed, do you still feel
confident you took the right side of
that debate? Many would argue the
Iraqi people are a lot better off now.

ROBINSON: There's no question

that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless
and cruel dictator. You just have to
ask the Kurds in Northern Iraq who
were the victims of gas attacks in
Halabja in 1988. But I think we
have to remember that in the 80s
Saddam Hussein was propped up
and supported by the Americans,
and they were silent about the
gassing of the Kurds. Now George
Bush’s rationale for going into Iraq
was to get rid of weapons of mass
destruction, and to break the ties
with Al-Qaeda. Well, both of them
are lies, absolute lies. There were no
weapons of mass destruction and
there was no connection to Al-
Qaeda. So now he pretends that he’s
concerned with the Iraqi people. If
he was so concerned with the Iraqi
people, why was his government
part of an inhumane regime of sanc-
tions that killed hundreds of thou-
sands of Iraqi children? They don’t
give a damn about the Iraqi people.
This is about oil and geopolitical
power. It was wrong, and it remains
wrong.

OP: Do you see the United States
generally as a force for good or a
force for bad in the world?
ROBINSON: Bad.

OP: Did the United States deserve

 

SET?

ROBINSON: Of course not. No
innocent civilian deserves to die. I
mean, how could anyone seriously
argue that a restaurant worker, or a
woman who was cleaning the floors
of the 91st floor, or an investment
banker, for that matter, deserved to
die? Of course not.

OP: What, if anything, should
Canada’s role be in the war on ter-
ror? Are we doing enough?

ROBINSON: No, we're not doing
nearly enough. I think that we have
to identify some of the conditions of
those who promote terror can use to
recruit new supporters, and we have
to address some of those conditions.
I mean, abject poverty, the profound
injustice of what is happening to the
Palestinian people in the occupied
territories, the terrible lack of
democracy throughout the Middle
East. Those are some of the issues
that have to be addressed. We also
have to recognize that terrorism can
also be terrorism at the hands of a
government: state terrorism. When I
see, for example, Israeli planes and
helicopter gun ships shelling crowd-
ed apartment buildings in Gaza, I
think that’s terrorism just as much as
it is terrorism to strap on a suicide

 

 

bomb and go into a bus in
Jerusalem. Both of them are wrong
and both of them have to be con-
demned.

OP: Do you consider yourself a

socialist?
ROBINSON: Absolutely.

OP: Do you think socialism is still a
vital political force?

ROBINSON: More than ever.

OP: A lot of countries seem to be
moving away from it these days.

ROBINSON: It’s never really been
given a chance. I certainly don't
describe the political structure, for
example, of the former Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics as being
my vision of socialism. My vision of
is one which celebrates
diversity, and is democratic and
respects fundamental human rights.

socialism

OP: What do you think of Fidel
Castro?

ROBINSON: He's the ultimate sur-
vivor. I think that Castro has defied
countless attempts to assassinate
him and to destroy the accomplish-
ments of the revolution in Cuba. I
think he and the Cuban people
deserve enormous credit for keeping
alive a vision of an alternative sys-
tem. At the same time, clearly I
think there are concerns, serious
concerns, about some of the most
fundamental freedoms within the
context of the Cuban Revolution.
I’ve spoken out on those concerns
and will continue to speak out.

OP: What is your response to the
accusation that left-wing politicians
such as yourself have essentially
“politicized” homosexuality? That is
to say, the public perception among a
lot of Canadians seems to be “if
you're gay, that means youre also a
left-winger who supports everything
Svend Robinson says?”

ROBINSON: I think that’s ludi-
crous. All you have to do is look at
who an awful lot of gay people voted
for in the west end of Vancouver,
which is one of the areas that has
one of the biggest concentrations of

February 25, 2004

gay people. They voted for a right-
wing Gordon Campbell clone in
Lorne Mayencourt: You don’t vote
with your genitals. Sexuality is sexu-
ality. Gay people, lesbians, bisexuals,
and transgendered people are very
diverse. What I would hope is that
because we have, as gay people,
experienced varying levels of oppres-
sion and denial of equality, that that
would make us more sensitive to
issues with respect to minorities, for
example, and more open to progres-
sive arguments. But that hasn't been
the case so far, by and large.

OP: Obviously you have been a big
proponent of gay marriage. Why are
civil unions for gay couples not
enough?

ROBINSON: Well, civil unions are
Civil
unions are saying it’s okay to be sep-
arate but equal, and that’s not equal-

second-class citizenship.

ity. If | chose to marry my partner
Max, with whom I’ve shared my life
for almost ten years, how does that
weaken the institution of marriage?
It should strengthen it, surely. It
allows more people to be able to cel-
ebrate their relationships in front of
their families and their friends and
their community. To say that you
can have a civil union and you can't
have marriage is saying that for some
reason marriage has to be fenced off
from gay or lesbian couples, and
somehow if gay or lesbian couples
were given access to marriage it
would weaken or diminish mar-
riage—that’s just a false argument.

Besides, when I go to speak to a
group of elementary school students
in Burnaby, at a local school, and
they ask me about my family and
what I do, and I talk about my part-
ner, one of the first question kids
will ask is “Oh, are you guys mar-
ried?” And then I have to go into
this long convoluted explanation
about how “No, I’m not married
because I’m not allowed to get mar-
ried.” I’m not going to go through
and say, “Well no, but we actually
have this thing called a ‘civil union’
though, and that’s okay.” Kids know
that that’s not fair. In fact, that’s
their response—it’s not fair.

OP: Thank you very much for your
time, Mr. Robinson. Good luck in
the future.

 

ee Page 18 «

http://www.otherpress.ca