Showing posts with label CANADA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CANADA. Show all posts

1.4.15

3536) Video: Prof McCarthy, Lawyer Fein: Press Conference -Canadian Parliament 26Feb2015


WWI 100th Anniversary
                                              Human Suffering in Eastern Anatolia

Presentations made by Professor Justin McCarthy, Professor and Historian at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, and Mr. Bruce Fein, a US lawyer specializing in constitutional and international law, who served as an advisor to the former US President Ronald Reagan. Also includes the opening and closing statements made by Mr. Maurice Vellacott M.P., who is currently a Conservative Member of the Canadian Parliament
video:

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

17.11.11

3329) Can Turks And Armenians Be Agreed On Genocide Claim?



Vahan Kololian
by Faruk Arslan *

I can not find a clear answer to that question in my mind: Each nation and each community who speaks a different language may establish a state, should they do? In the past, state-building experience poor Kurds and Armenians were the ones whose ideal of an independent state, has to be constantly postponed. Armenians, in 1991, Armenia got this dream with a dead birth.

Kurdistan’s birth is delaying because in the process of pregnancy it had a gestation period that is full of anomalies. Thus, it is inevitable the baby will be born deformed; it will be trouble for its guardian and also his neighbour! Head nurse at the birth of Kurdistan, who had to flee from Iraq, the United States, midwife, the financier, mentors Israel and Germany; the child not crippled but was born dead.

Anyway, let’s leave the Kurds alone with their
. . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

3.6.09

2870) Minister, Why Did Your Official Allow Mr. Turkkaya Ataov, Who Is A Denier Of Armenian Genocide—To Come To Canada To Speak To A Group . .

© This content Mirrored From  http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Lib.): Minister, would your department allow somebody who will deny the Holocaust to come into Canada to speak to a group?

Hon. Jason Kenney: I'm sorry?

Hon. Jim Karygiannis:
A Holocaust denier. Would your department allow somebody to come into Canada and speak publicly? . . .

Hon. Jason Kenney:
Mr. Karygiannis, I'm sure you know that under IRPA neither the minister nor the department to whom I delegate visa-granting authority have what's called negative discretion. So if someone is legally eligible to enter the country and obtain a visa—that is to say, if in the judgment of the visa officer they're likely to return, and they pass our security and health requirements—we are legally incapable of denying someone a visa on the grounds of, say, their political opinions.

Perhaps the committee would like to consider whether or not we should have negative discretion to prevent those kinds of people from coming to Canada.

Hon. Jim Karygiannis:
If somebody requires a visitor visa to come to Canada, and you know full well that this individual will come and preach about Holocaust denial, would you allow him in, yes or no? Yes or no, Minister?

Hon. Jason Kenney:
It depends on the particularities of the case. I can tell you—

Hon. Jim Karygiannis:
Somebody is going to come to a university—

+ -(0950)

The Chair:
Excuse me to both of you. You know, we can only hear one person at a time. The record can't capture two people speaking. Mr. Minister, you've been asked a question. Try to do your best, and then Mr. Karygiannis will have his turn.

Mr. Minister.

Hon. Jason Kenney:
Can I respond?

The Chair:
Absolutely.

Hon. Jason Kenney:
I just have a two-sentence elaboration, which is that I recall a couple of years ago—I think actually I was in opposition—there was an imam from Saudi Arabia with a long track record of anti-Semitic remarks, including Holocaust denial. And I recall putting the motion to the House of Commons asking the government not to allow him to come into Canada. Now, technically the government didn't have that power, but fortunately the person didn't come into Canada. So I think there are ways of dissuading individuals like that from entering Canada.

Hon. Jim Karygiannis:
So, Minister, you would not allow somebody in, correct? Yes or no? It's simple; it's all I'm looking for.

Hon. Jason Kenney:
If the person is guilty of a crime, or we have reasonable apprehension that he will commit a crime in Canada, then we can deny the person a visa.

Hon. Jim Karygiannis:
Minister, please answer the question with a simple yes or no. If you can't do that, then that's fine. Would you allow somebody to come into Canada and allow him to speak publicly—you know he's going to speak publicly—about Holocaust denial, yes or no?

Hon. Jason Kenney:
If a visa officer believes there's reasonable likelihood that someone will commit a crime in Canada, then he will be denied a visa.

Hon. Jim Karygiannis:
Then, Minister, why did your official allow Mr. Türkkaya Ataöv, who is a denier—he speaks of denial of the Armenian genocide—to come to Canada and speak at McGill University? This individual has a long track record. Now, why did your officials allow him in? You should deny him too.

Hon. Jason Kenney:
If someone is guilty of a crime in the country of origin and we believe they may commit a crime in Canada, the visa officer is likely to deny the person a visa. This is the first time I've heard of that case, so it's difficult for me to respond to it.

Hon. Jim Karygiannis:
Maybe you can look into it and come back to us.

Hon. Jason Kenney:
I would be happy to. If you have evidence that individual was guilty of crimes, either in his country of origin or Canada, I would be very keen to look at it.

Hon. Jim Karygiannis:
Minister, on April 10, 2008, in testimony before the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology of the other place, on Bill C-37, the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated that we can use a subsection 5(4) citizenship grant if individuals qualify under the new legislation: “...they could apply for a section 5(4) and not wait until the legislation comes into force.... We don't want to hold the people up, because the law has not yet come into force....”

Minister, can you tell me how many grants of citizenship have been made since last year, on subsection 5(4)?

Hon. Jason Kenney:
While I'm looking for this, I can say that it's not large in terms of order of magnitude. I'll get back to the member with that number, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is in the single digits or in the dozens. It's not a huge number.

Hon. Jim Karygiannis:
Minister, there were 72 applications and only one was granted. Why is your department denying Canadian citizens their citizenship? If you don't have the numbers, Minister, we have Don Chapman in the room here. He has been appearing in this committee. He can stand up and testify how many you have done: one. One to the veteran whom your minister flew down and who was coerced into saying yes, I want to take citizenship. Only one, Minister, and you've had a full year. There are 72 applications on your desk and you haven't done anything.

The Chair:
You're well over, Mr. Karygiannis.

If you can give a quick answer, go ahead, otherwise we'll move on.

Hon. Jason Kenney:
I'm afraid that Mr. Karygiannis is characteristically wrong. I can tell him that I personally made several recommendations under subsection 5(4) to the cabinet, I think in the order of eight.

[Translation].


http://www2.parl.gc.ca
Canada Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, EVIDENCE, March 10, 2009



Link To The Document

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

15.2.09

2746) Zoryan Institute Launches High School Essay Contest on Genocide, And You?

Yes You! Please Tell Us What You Have?


Toronto, Canada-The Zoryan Institute announced the "High School Essay Contest on Genocide." asking grade 11 students some thought-provoking questions about genocide.

Prizes: 1st $1,500, 2nd $1,250, 3rd $1,000. The prize money is intended to help students with their university tuition.

The essay is in two parts. The first part contains a series of questions about genocide, its definition, and several case studies, that every contestant must answer. In the second part, students can choose one of several subjects to answer in depth.
. .
The deadline: end of April 2009.

Every contestant will receive a gift from the Institute for their efforts.

In August 2007, the Ontario Ministry of Education approved a grade 11 curriculum for the teaching of Genocide and Human Rights (CHG38M). As a result, the Toronto District School Board adopted its own curriculum in June 2008, and the A.R.S. Armenian School in Toronto was one of the first schools in Ontario to teach the approved curriculum in the fall of 2008. The Institute's objective is to test the program at the A.R.S. School, with a view to expanding it to Armenian schools across North America, once financial sponsors for the program in each locale are secured.

Zoryan welcomes inquiries from educators, parents and sponsors about bringing this program to other schools.

This program will facilitate students engaging themselves in this challenging subject.

Zoryan's comparative approach demonstrates how the Armenian Genocide is part of the larger story of genocide in human history, and helps students be more aware of its universal lessons. This comparative study of genocide helps our youth understand not only their history and identity, but also the connections they have to their fellow human beings."

Roger Smith, Chairman of Zoryan's Academic Board of Directors, commented, "I am very pleased that the A.R.S. School has adopted this curriculum and this pilot project, whose objective is to encourage students in grade 11 across Canada and the US to take a deeper interest in genocide and human rights studies. It is my hope that the program will help sensitize and motivate Armenian students to make these subjects a lifelong pursuit."

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

3.11.08

2638) Atom Egoyan: Life and His Cinema by Sedat Laçiner

Atom Egoyan is a Canadian citizen, a well-known film director and scriptwriter.

EARLY YEARS: Mr. Egoyan was born in 1960 in Cairo (Egypt) as the first child of Joseph and Shushan Yeghoyan. Then the family was in the furniture business. However, his parents were interested in arts. Joseph Yeghoyan, in his youth, had studied painting in the Art Institute of Chicago. Sources say that the reason behind the family naming their first-born ‘Atom’ was the building of the first nuclear reactor in Egypt (Siobhan Rossiter, ‘Atom Egoyan’, Northern Stars, www.northernstars.ca/directorsal/egoyanbio.html; ‘All about Atom’, http:/members.cruzio.com/). .


The family migrated to Canada three years after Atom was born. While there was a considerable Armenian population being established in Nontreal and its environs, the family settled in british Colombia with their newborn daughter ‘Eve’ (Atom’s sister Eve Egoyan is also an artist. Eve, who is a well-known pianist, has contributed to Atom Egoyan’s mo¬vies, family Viewing, Speeking Parts, The Adjuster and Calander, with her piano. The Things in Between is her the latest work). In other words Atom Egoyan found himself a part of the Canadian society from an early age and was detached from the Armenian culture. The family deciding to change their last name to Egoyan shows their struggle to found a new life and to forget the past. The family continued to do their furniture business in Canada. Atom, in his youth ignored his Armenian background and lived like a typical Canadian. For many years, he was so hostile to his Armenian identity he refused to learn how to speak Armenian. Egoyan believes that this was due to Iiving at a place where there were no Armenians and the people around him were unreceptive to foreigners. In other words, Egoyan who was discriminated by the environment felt a lot of resentment to his own identity and tried very hard to be a part of the dominant culture. Egoyan describes those years by:

“During my childhood I was desperate to assimilate, in Victoria, I wanted to be like the other kids.[1] They used to call me the little Arab boy because I was a little darker, had a strange name and came from egypt. It wasn‘t until adolescence that I realized something had been lost in my life,” (Hrag Vartanian, ‘The Armenian Stars of the Canadian Cultural Universe’, Feature Articles on Canada, www.agbu.org).

According to himself, he became aware of his ethnic identity when he started his university education in Toronto (Hrag Vartanian, ‘The Armenian Stars of the Canadian Cultural Universe’, Feature Articles on Canada, www.agbu.org). We can easily say that the reason why assimilation is the most prevalent topic he uses in his movies, is due to his experiences from his childhood and youth (Hrag Vartanian, ‘The Armenian Stars of the Canadian Cultural Universe’, Feature Articles on Canada, www.ag¬bu.org).

As a student, Egoyan worked at the Empress Hotel as a busboy for four summers. Egoyan says that his experiences there prepared him for what he was to do later in his life. He summarizes these experiences as “to see events through many angles”. The movie Speaking Farts (1989) might be the movie where he used these experiences the most because it takes place at a hotel room.

Egoyan intensified his artistic endeavors while continuing his higher education at the Toronto University Trinity College. It is interesting to note that Egoyan chose to study International Relations. While studying diplomacy, Egoyan learned how to play guitar and continued his attempts at writing script.

EGOYAN REALIZES THAT HE IS AN ARMENIAN:
As mentioned before, Egoyan for years denied his Armenian identity. His transformation corresponds with his years in Toronto. Maybe under the influence of the politics education he was receiving or maybe in Toronto’s particular environment, Egoyan rediscovered his Armenian roots and joined an Armenian association at the university. As a member of this association he concentrated on the history and language of Armenia and under the tutelage of an Anglican priest, developed his Armenian identity. Afterwards, he was active in every Armenian social event and tried to develop his identity as an Armenian. Egoyan explains those times by saying, “Armenian student events at that time became a part of my life” (Hrag Vartanian, ‘The Armenian Stars of the canadian Cultural Universe’, Feature Articles on Canada, www.ag¬bu.org). According to Egoyan his revolutionary transformation was due to him being in a part of an Armenian group for the first time in his life. Egoyan, who lived apart from Armenians for many years, discovered that being an Armenian was not something to be ashamed of, and started to enjoy having a different ethnic identity. In this framework, it can be said that Atom Egoyan became an ‘identity convert’.

If we study Egoyan’s artistic identity, we should not be surprised that he turned out to be an artist, considering he grew up in a family that gave primary importance to art. Young Egoyan started writing plays when he was only 13 years old and continued this hobby into his university years, becoming more professional. The writers that influenced him the most were Eugene lonesco, Samuel Beckett and Harold Finter (Brian D. Johnson, ‘Exotic Atom’, Maclean’s, Vol. 107, No: 40, 3 October 1994). During his years in university, he also became interested in music and cinema. Egoyan started to make short films when he was at the university. His first movie, Howard In Particular (1979), was made with help from Hart House Film Board. This movie brought him an award from Canadian National Exhibition. This became his first of many awards. This success brought many other opportunities and Hart House continued to help him with other short films.

Atom Egoyan also discovered his talent for writing screenplays during his university years. Open House, which he wrote while he was at the university, was a movie script for a half an hour-long film. Canadian organizations acknowledged his talent and Egoyan received every support they could provide. In forming his identity, his struggles with the Hollywood and Western culture and the policies of local governments were influential. The backing provided by the Canadian Art Council for his script support this conclusion.

After graduating from Toronto University in 1982, Atom Egoyan started working at the Tarragon Theatre as a play writer. At that time Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) became interested in Open House and bought its broadcasting rights and later broadcasted it on national TV (1982).

In 1983, in spite of his moderate successes, Atom Egoyan was trying to overcome his identity crisis, trying to succeed in what he was doing but was known only by a limited number of people. While working on his first long-movie, Next of Kin, he met his current wife Arsinee Khanjian, and she helped him find himself and later his Armenian identity became more dominant.

Arsinée is a Lebanese Armenian and she migrated to Canada when she was 17 years old. In other words Arsinee Khanjian is an Armenian who lived as an Armenian for much longer than Egoyan. This caused her Armenian character to be stronger, distinct and maybe more radical. Arsinee was working as an actor in an Armenian movie called Mousetrap. Arsinee was a young actress, who was helped by her dentist husband, in trying to get famous. The dentist husband insistently followed Atom Egoyan for giving his wife a chance. While this caused him to lose his wife, she eventually became famous. The professional relationship between Atom Egoyan and Arsinee Khanjian soon became a passionate love affair that lead to marriage. For Arsinee, getting married with a talented director was important. However that director being an Armenian was even more important. Arsinee summarizes this situation as such,
‘I had met an artist with my history and culture. This had always been, maybe unconsciously, my dream.’ (Brian D. Johnson, ‘Arsinée Unveiled’, Maclean’s, Vol. 112, No.37, 13 September 1999, p.597).

Atom Egoyan’s relationship with his wife affected his professional life and forced him to think more strongly about his Armenian identity. Egoyan admits this:

‘Our relationship with Arsinee merged with the stories of the movies.’

Egoyan’s nickname for his wife, ‘Armenian Princess’, shows that the basis of the relationship is being Armenian. Arsinée, just like Egoyan, studied political science at university. This later affected her political behavior. Khanjian currently is 42 years old and the couple has a seven year-old son. Khanjian’s nationalism is at such a level that, when the role of a Latino woman in the TV program Foolish Heart was given to her, the character was changed in to an Armenian woman. Because the story of the program was about a middle class lady’s ‘liberal’ adventures, Arsinee admitted that she was a little worried about how the Armenian society would react towards it (Rick McGinnis, ‘Khanjian Emerges from the Shadow, Actor’s recent Work Establishes Her Own Identity’, National Post, 9 September 1999). In other words Arsi¬nee tries to keep her relations with the Canadian Armenian society at the highest level and in this way, can also influence her husband.

After finding ‘his desired actress and wife’, Atom Egoyan recorded his first long movie Next of Kin in 1984. This movie is also the first film in which his Armenian identity becomes apparent (Jonathan Rosenbaum, ‘Tribal Trouble’, Chicago Reader, 19 August 1994). The movie is about the relations between an Armenian family and the lead character (Peter). This movie was also funded by official Canadian organizations. Without the help of Canada Council and Ontario Art Council, this movie could not have been made. The movie was screened but it’s hard to say that it received much appraisal from the viewers. The movie was judged as being ignored by a movie critic (Brian D. Johnson, ‘Exotic Atom’, Maclean’s, Vol. 107, No. 40, 3 October 1994). At that time Egoyan was in dire straits and some television projects provided his only income.

Soon after this period, Egoyan agreed with CBC to direct a political movie about the Fife of an Irish boxer. As a result In This Corner (1989) came to being. These successes brought him many other projects from Canadian and the US television corporations. Egoyan, based in Toronto, directed many TV shows until the mid-1980s.
In the mid-1980s he directed his second long movie, Family Viewing. The story is about a woman’s relations with her husband and stepson, and Arsinee Khanjian and Gabrielle Rose play in the lead. The movie was first screened in 1987, and was the first movie of Atom Egoyan to attract considerable attention from the cinema world. Egoyan started to appear in many international and national film festivals. At that time he emphasized his support for the development of the Canadian culture and as a result was duly awarded. Ft is not surprising to see Armenian actors is Atom Egoyan’s movies that are full of Canadian nuances. In an interview, Egoyan stated that he felt this movie to be closest to him (Johnson, ‘Exotic...’).

Family Viewing was followed by Speaking Parts (1987) (About this movie see: A Taubin, ‘Up and Atom’, Film Comment, Vol. 25, No: 6, November-December 1989). The story of the movie is about a Hotel maidservant’s love and surrounding stories. It was shown in 1989 Cannes Film festival. The actors were, Aidan Tierney, David Hemblen, Gabrielle Rose and Michael McManus. The Adjuster made in 1991 is one of the rare big budget movies of Egoyan. The budget was 1.5 million dollars and was the second movie of Egoyan to be shown in Cannes.

Adjuster was a movie with many sexual overtones. (About this movie see also: B. D. Johnson, ‘Journeys Into Darkness’, Maclean’s, 16 September 1991, B. D. Johnson, ‘Bleak Beauty’. Maclean’s, 30 September 1991. D. Ansen, ‘A Holiday From The Hype’, Newsweek, 29 June 1992). Even some critics said that the movie was an important illustration of Egoyan’s “sexual obsessions”. The lead of the movie was again Arsinee Khanjian. Other actors were Elias Koteas and Maury Chaykin. When asked about the sexual nature of the movie and the con¬servative Armenian society. Arsinee said that. ‘I was never uncomfortable with Atom’s way of presenting sexuality. Maybe it was satisfying my secret fantasies too’. Johnson, ‘Exotic ...‘. It is quite surprising to hear these words from a person who constantly talks about respecting the conservative nature of the Armenian society. Cannes appearances attracted the Orion Classic to sign a U.S. distribution deal with Egoyan. As a result, Adjuster was the first Egoyan movie to have received wide audience viewing in the U.S. and Egoyan became a well-known director. Moreover Adjuster received the Jury Award at the Moscow Film Festival. This one million-ruble award laid the foundations for his next movie in Armenia. Because a special clause of the award was to make a movie in the old Soviet Union lands. Egoyan became known as the ‘Canadian director’ as a result of this movie. The movie also received the ‘Best Canadian Film’ and 250 thousand dollars from the Toronto Film Festival.

CALENDAR: EGOYAN’S ARMENIAN IDENTITY MEETS CINEMA
Until 1992, Egoyan created some small Armenian characters in his movies but his dream was to make a movie wholly about Armenians. We can say that he made the movie of Calendar with this in mind. As mentioned earlier, Egoyan had to make a movie in the old Soviet Union lands in order to collect his 1 million-ruble prize. This condition gave birth to the movie of Calendar. As time went by the prize decreased and Armenia was separated from the Soviet Union. As the movie project was about to falter, Atom Egoyan contacted the German Television Channel ZDF during the Rotterdam Film festival and with its financial backing reinitiated the project.

The crew went to Armenia, but because of financial and time limitations the most important scenes of this 75-mimute movie had to be recorded in 10 days. Most parts of the movie were recorded by a home-camera and script had to be shortened. It is even claimed that the movie was recorded without a set script. Soldiers were in attendance for the duration of the recordings. In conclusion, Egoyan’s dream turned out to be not what he desired, due to a small budget (80,000 dollars) and unsuitable envi¬ronment. However this was his first ‘historical’ movie and could be considered as his first step towards Ararat. The director not achieving what he really wanted in Calendar tried again in Ararat. The director also acted with his wife in this movie. Ashot Adamian, was the other lead. Even though the movie could not be distributed widely, it received good reviews. Issues these reviews most discussed were the close connection set between Armenia and Canada, family relations of the director, sexual relations and problems faced by an ethnic minority (Armenians) that the movie cultivated. Another point that has to be considered is that Calendar was one of the most promoted movies of the director. Especially in Canada, the USA, the UK and France local Armenian organizations worked very hard to promote the film.

Calendar, as mentioned earlier, is the second movie by Egoyan, which deals with Armenian identity. Egoyan, in this movie, studies being an Armenian on three levels. a) Nationalism, b) Diaspora, c) Assimilation.[2] The driver-photographer’s wife and photographer-wife relationships represent these levels in the movie. The movie is based on three characters and three time periods. Changing timelines is one of Egoyan’s most prominent specialties. In Ararat he uses two different timelines. Calendar begins in the bedroom of a Canadian Photographer (Atom Egoyan). There is a 12-page calendar on the wall with photographs of historical Armenian Churches and all through the movie the photographer has affairs with many women speaking in different languages. From time to time he looks at these Churches and remembers his wife (Arsinee Khanjian) he left back in Armenia. When he went to Armenia to take the photos of the Churches for the Calendar, a nationalist Armenian (Ashot Adamian) worked as a guide and driver for his wife. The dialog between the wife and the driver is always in Armenian and the director did not use any subtitles. Further on in the movie, we see that the photographer and his wife have separated and we learn about his thoughts on the relationship between the driver and his ex-wife. The real reason of the tension between the photographer and his wife is that he takes the photos of the churches and considers this just another job while his wife respects what these churches stand for.

The last word we can say about the movie is that the director found this movie to be too ‘personal’. The separation scene between the photographer and his wife is even thought to represent the separation of Egoyan and his wife (‘Viewing Atom Egoyan’, Maclean’s, Vol. 106 (49), 6 December 1993). While the couple discounts these claims, Egoyan states that Calendar put himself and his relationship on the forefront and included some sections of his life. In other words, Calendar Contains some clues to Egoyan’s thought process and his life.

Exotica: The next important work of Egoyan after Calendar, was a British-Canadian production, Exotica (1994). This was the Egoyan’s largest movie until then (5 million dollars). Egoyan studies an isolated life, mixed emotions and their consequences to ones sexual life in this movie. The movie takes place at a striptease bar called Exotica and deals with a young lady Christina (Mia Kirshner), her close relations and her customers (Other characters and actors in this movie are, Zoe (Arsinee Khanjian), Eric. prehent owner of the establishment (Elias Koteas) and Thomas (Don McKellar). Exotica became the most successful Egoyan movie up till then. It entered the official contest of the 1994 Cannes Film Festival and received the International Film Critics Award. It found a large audience in Canada and received 8 Gerie Awards. Its distribution in the USA was done by the Miramax, which is also doing Ararat. The script of the movie was published as a book in 1995. Additionally, positive response from the US media created large opportunities for Egoyan. Some say that Exotica was the movie that opened the doors of the US movie industry to Egoyan (Janet Maslin, ‘Atom Egoyan May Have His Breakthrough In Exotica’, New York Times, 5 March 1995, section 2, p.13. For detailed information about Exotica look.: J. Hoberman, ‘Ghost Story’, Village Voice, Vol. 40 (10), 7 March 1995, Shlomo Schwartzberg, ‘Exotica’, Performing Arts & Entertainment in Canada, Vol. 29 (I), Fall 1994 / Winter 1995, Brian D. Johnson, ‘Exotic Atom’, Maclean’s, Vol. 107, No. 40, 3 October 1994).

Egoyan’s success in the US increased his popularity in Canada. According to the distribution firm, it is hard for a Canadian director or movie to attract attention in Canada (Brian D. Johnson, ‘In Search of a Uniting Embrace’, Maclean’s, Vol. 107, No. 40,3 October 1994). Canadians usually wait until a Canadian artist becomes well-known overseas before they embrace him or her. In this context, Egoyan success overseas, especially France, made Egoyan and his films much more popular in Canada.

SWEET HEREAFTER: EGOYAN, AN OSCAR NOMINEE
Sweet Hereafter (This movie was shown as ‘A Different World’ on Turkish television) is one of the most significant Egoyan movies. It can be said that this movie made him the success that he is. This movie was the successful movie that the Canadian movie industry was dreaming about and made Egoyan one of the most important movie personalities in Canada.[3] Sweet Hereafter was made by Egoyan adapting Russell Banks’ novel to the silver screen.[4] While novel takes place in New York, Egoyan changed it to Sam Dent (British Colombia). This change emphasi¬zed the Canadian character of the movie. British actor Fan Holm played the lead. Initially Donald Sutherland was considered for the role but it did not happen. The movie premiered in Cannes Film Festival and received the Special Jury Award, International critics Award and the Ecumenical Jury Award (Barbara Wickens, ‘Triple-win Canadian at Cannes’, Maclean’s, Vol. 110, No. 22, 22 June 1997). The movie also opened the 1997 Toronto film Festival and became the international pride of the small Canadian cinema. Canadian Film industry compared to Hollywood is very small and is hungry for international success. That’s why Egoyan’s success is very important for Canadian Cinema (Charles Gordon, ‘Why Cultural Canada Has Yet to Come of Age’, Maclean’s, Vol. 111, No. 19, 11 May 1998, p.11. For Egoyan’s place in the Canadian Film industry: Brian D. Johnson, ‘Hollywood Stars and Canadian Style’, Maclean’s, Vol. 112, No. 38, 20 September 1999, p.56. For a comparison between Hollywood and the Canadian Film Industry: Geoffrey Macnub, ‘Light at the End of the Tunnel’, Independent, 13 July 2001). The movie won eight Genie Awards from 16 nominations in 1997 and first time in the history of the Canadian cinema a Canadian movie was nominated for two Oscars in 1998 (‘Best Script’ and ‘Best Director’). It was considered ‘unbelievable’ for a Canadian movie and Canadian director to be nominated for Oscars. Apart from the awards, international critics’ reviews were also very positive (Johnson, ‘Champagne ...’). Especially, appraisal from Le Monde, The New York Times and USA Today made Egoyan’s connection with the American and French public that much stronger.

In spite of all this success, Sweet Hereafter, just like other Egoyan movies, was not a box office success. This should be tied to Egoyan’s style and stories, which are hard to understand by ‘intellectual’ and popular audience.[5]

While the movie has nothing to do with the Armenian problem, Armenian groups still could find some connection between the movie and their accusations. For example lirag Vartanian’s review about the movie;

‘Some see the affects of the genocide in Sweet Hereaifier. It is based on Russel Banks’ novel of the same name, and is about the trauma of a town in British Colombia that has a deadly bus accident. Critics say that this is a unconscious representation of the unhealed scars of the Armenian nation and the Turkish denial’ (Hrag Vartanian, ‘The Armenian Stars of the Canadian Cultural Universe’, Feature Article on Canada, www.agbu.org).

His following movie Felicia’s Journey is also a typical Egoyan movie. While it did not bring large box office revenues, it was still considered as quality work by the viewers. With this movie Atom Egoyan became the first Canadian director to have competed three times (at different times) in the Cannes Film Festival (Tanya Davies, ‘It’s Cancon Time at Cannes’, Maclean’s, Vol. 112. No. 20, 17 May 1999, p.8). The movie is a thriller that tells the story of a young Irish girl’s adventures in Birmingham (UK). This film also gave the director the opportunity for him to strengthen his connections in both the UK and Ireland.[6]

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF EGOYAN’S FILMS
If we list the main characteristics of Egoyan’s films in the context of Ararat:

- Egoyan stresses his two identities. Being a Canadian and being an Armenian. His emphasis on being a Canadian returns as financial assistance from a nation that is hungry for artistic success and makes him a ‘hero’. Having found his Armenian roots later in life makes him much eager to remind people of his Armenian background. However he present this issue as not conflicting with being a true Canadian. The Toronto Star newspaper even describes him as a Canadian nationalist (‘Atom Splitting’, The Toronto Star, 22 December 2000).

- The issues and style he chooses to use in his films are sometimes found incomprehensible and too deep and this decreases the box office revenue he generates. However, Egoyan’s choices are found to be very valuable for Cinema and bring considerable respect from his peers. To be perceived to form an alternative to Hollywood also brings him respect.

- He is known for bringing a new dimension to movies, compared to American films. He is a perfectionist and seems to demand the viewers’ attention. Actor Fan Holm summarizes this as, ‘You might not see him. Maybe you even have to watch the movie three times in two weeks. But he is always there. This is his style, the use of Light, sound and shadows, his surroundings and time. This is his everything...’ (http:/members.cruzio.com/).

- Director has a special link with France. Especially Cannes Film Festival is where his real success started. That’s why it is not surprising for him to make his new movie’s (Ararat) premiere over there. There are two more reasons why the director has close relations with France. The first is the special relationship between Canada and France and secondly, the important Armenian minority in France.

- Most of his movies, even those that mainly deal with his Armenian identity, received funding from Canadian Art Council, Telefilm Canada and local governments. In other words, he cannot be accused of being sponsored solely by Armenians. Egoyan states that the most important reason behind him making his movies in Canada as official funding and claims that government support frees him from market pressure (Brian D. Johnson, ‘In Search of a Uniting Embrace’, Maclean’s, Vol. 107, No, 27, 1 July 1994).

- In Egoyan’s movies structure is more important than dialog.

- It can be said that he likes using his camera from an unusual angle. However, with increasing fame, his choice in stories and presentation has become more conservative.

- Stories mostly deal with assimilation, identity crisis and personal problems. Director ties this to his personal experiences: ‘Characters I form in my movies are usually those who want to find a place to settle.’ (Johnson, ‘In Search of a...’).

- While Egoyan’s movies have small budgets, their influence has been much greater than most big-budget movies.

EGOYAN’S OPINIONS ABOUT THE ARMENIAN PROBLEM
After examining Atom Egoyan’s art and movies, another important issue in the context of Ararat is his opinions about Armenian problem. First of all, as mentioned earlier, Egoyan’s stance during his university years and his stance before are completely different. We can say that this transformation radicalized him. When one experiences a transformation as great as he did, in order to justify ones identity, a person moves to the edge and his or her emotions and thoughts become more radical. We can also see similar changes in Egoyan. His wife, who is known to have radical opinions, has not helped him in his transformation. She even encouraged him to be more radical. Arsinee Khanjian was so radical that she could legitimate terrorism for her political aims: As known three armed Armenians stormed the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa, and they killed a Canadian security guard and the ambassador was badly wounded. The attackers took his wife and daughter as hostage. When asked her about this terrorist attack Arsinee Khanjian said “it really put the Armenian genocide on the table” (Dealing With The Ghosts Of Genocide’, Toronto Star, 5 September 2002). It can be understood from these words that she is obsessed with the 1915 events and she could not see the evil behind a terrorist attack
.

Media learned about Atom Egoyan’s radical opinions about Armenian problem in 1999. (Bob Thompson. ‘Egoyan to Produce Film on Genocide’, Toronto Sun, 1 November 2000). Around those times, Canadian officials discounted the ‘genocide’ claims of the Armenian lobby and a member of the Parliament from Liberal Party Julian Reed took a openly hostile stand against Armenian accusations. Egoyan in response reacted surprisingly and entered an aggressive discussion. (Bob Thompson. ‘Egoyan to Film Armenian Tragedy’. Toronto Sun, 31 October 2000). On February 15, 1999, Parliamentary secretary of Foreign Minister Loyd Axworthy, deputy Reed made a speech in response to the special proposal made by the House of Commons under the direction of Armenian lobby. In the speech he stated that, arguments and counter arguments made by both Armenians and Turks made it impossible to discern between the right and wrong and had placed the Canadian Parliament in an uncomfortable position. Reed, in his speech stated that, ‘These days there is a tendency to use the word genocide outside of its meaning, sometimes even figuratively... What happened in 1915? Both sides take a different view and each tackle different events.’[7] He said that around 700,000 Armenians had died as a result of these vents. However, he continued, most had died from illness, hunger, harsh weather conditions and to have had to survive in open air. According to Reed, it is unacceptable for the Canadian government to pick a side or to take a stand where Turks would be accused of being guilty. He added that, the proposal would not solve the problem. Because, Reed said, the proposal forces us to choose a side to be hostile to the other. (Jonathan Gatehouse, ‘Egoyan ‘Appalled’ by comments on Genocide’, The National Post (Canada), 25 February 1999). Egoyan’s reply to Reed was very harsh. Famous director, in a statement to the media, openly accused the Canadian Government and Deputy Reed as:

“To form a cloud of misinformation around the problem, to bend the truths and to make it harder to ffind the real answers is to ignore the seriousness of the is¬sue at hand... It appalls me to see that an issue that has had a great influence over my and other families to be discussed in such an old-fashioned way... I always tried not to get involved with politics. However, these actions have shocked me... Armenians believe that there is signifficant evidence to convince the most cynical observer that this genocide really took place... Reed’s statement seems to approve the Turkish governments point of view... An issue as important as this cannot become a tool for propaganda.” (Gatehouse, ‘Egoyan...’).

Another occasion that Egoyan conveyed his thoughts on Armenian accusations is 1999 Cannes Film Festival. The director, who attracted attention with his movie Felicia’s Journey, stated that Turkey had to accept the ‘Armenian genocide’ and added that his struggle would continue until this happened. Egoyan, who was interviewed by an Italian journalist, continued:

‘I have lived my life always feeling the wounds of the genocide. However, the world still does not acknowledge the Armenian genocide. This is the reason why my struggle continues.’ (‘Egoyan Discusses Genocide at Cahnes Film Festival’, Asbarez, 20 May 1999).

Though Egoyan claims that his film, Ararat, is not a propaganda film, his words quoted above clearly prove that he is not open to question his belief about the 1915 events, he just tries to persuade the other people by filming that period, not to examine the reasons of the events and the tragedy that the Turkish and Armenian people had shared.
Egoyan continued to express his views anytime Ararat was discussed and stated that he had made this film in order to make the Turkish government to accept the ‘fact’ and his only desire was Turkish recognition. (‘Atom Egoyan: Türkiye Soykırımı Tanısın’, (Atom Egoyan: Turkey Must Recognize The Genocide), beyaz Perde, 7 November 1999). In another interview about Ararat, he said that he felt this project to be a great responsibility for him and added that all Armenians had been waiting for decades for a big movie about the Armenian ‘genocide’ and it was his desire to response that call:

“I think, as an Armenian filmmaker (he was born in Egypt and raised in Canada but is of Armenian heritage), you’re always wondering about this film, because it has never really been made, as such. It is a unique piece of history. The crime has never been admitted by the Turkish government that perpetrate it so, that makes for a very interesting dramatic situation, dealing with issues of denial. “ (Bruce Kirkland, ‘Egoyan Mounts Testament; New Film Ararat A Personal Take On Genocide’, The Toronto Sun, 8 June 2001).

[1] Stressed by the author.
[2] ‘Diaspora’ means to enjoy diaspora and to accept what it stands for, ‘Assimilation’ means to accept being assimilated.
[3] About the interpretation of the movies success as Canadian success see: Brian D. Johnson,’ A Celluloid Circus’, Maclean’s, Vol.10 (20), 19 May 1997; Brian D. Johnson, ‘champagne Dreams’, Maclean’s, Vol. 110, No. 21, 26 May 1997.
[4] The novel was purchased by the director’s wife and was given to him as a present.
[5] For additional information on Sweet Hereafter: Susanna Haas, ‘Atom Egoyan’s Sweet Success’, The Peak, vol. 97, No. 7, 13 October 1997, John McKay, ‘Sweet Genies’, Calgary Herald. 15 December 1997, p.89. Geoff Pevere, ‘Atom Egoyan’s The Sweet Hereafter: Death, Canadian Style’, take One, fall 1997, p.6-11, Gillian Roberts, ‘Spec¬tacle Matters: Titanic, The Sweet Hereafter, and the Academy and Genie Awards’, Canadian Review of American Studies, 2000, Vol. 30, No.3, p.22.
[6] In the movie Felicia is played by Elaine Cassidy and the murderer is played by Bob Hoskins. For a detailed review of the movie: Patricia Hluchy, ‘Starvation of the Soul’, Maclean’s, Vol. 112, No. 44, 15 November 1999, p. 148. For a psychological analysis of Felicia’s Journey: Carrie Zlotnick-Woldenberg, ‘Felicia’s Journey: An Object-Relati¬onal Study of Psychopathy’, American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2001, p.40. The movie was shown in the Istanbul and Izmir Film Festivals.
[7] While Reed’s statements are found to be conciliatory, we have to say that Turkish researchers find the figure of 700,000 incorrect. Considering that there is a large gap between the sides, we can see the figure as an attempt by Reed to find a halfway point.

Copyright © 2005 Journal of Turkish Weekly http://www.turkishweekly.net


Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

5.6.08

2487) Toronto District School Board Reaffirms Teaching of Armenian Genocide

Toronto--At a special meeting on June 2 the Program and School Services Committee (PSSC) of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) unanimously approved the recommendation of its Review Committee (RC) and its Director to include the Armenian Genocide in its Grade 11 genocide curriculum. Turkish groups have, in the past six months, lobbied against the inclusion of the Armenian Genocide in the Grade 11 curriculum. The PSSC recommendation now goes to the board's June 25th meeting for final adoption.

At the beginning of the meeting, the committee provided 20 minutes each for the Turkish and Ukrainian community representatives to make an oral deputation in regard to their concerns about the curriculum.

The Council of Turkish Canadians (CTC) objected to the inclusion of the Armenian Genocide in the curriculum and called for its removal. Furthermore, CTC threatened to take legal measures to halt the introduction of the curriculum if the board did not consent to the CTC demand.

A representative of the Muslim Canadian Congress, Farzana Hassan, turned the curriculum teaching issue to a religious crusade. She accused the board and the Western world of religious bias. She made similar accusations against Canadian media, specially the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star newspapers. Two Turkish parents also made presentations.

Ukrainian community representatives commended the board for introducing the "worthy program", but they objected to the omission of the Ukrainian famine/genocide from the curriculum. They urged the PSSC to reconsider the exclusion of the Ukrainian case.

In responding to a question from trustee Gerri Gershon, David Rowan, associate director of TDSB, reassured the Ukrainian community that the Ukrainian famine /genocide, even though it is not in the curriculum as a separate unit on its own, it will be discussed and taught in many forms during the curriculum teaching.

After the presentations, the committee unanimously voted to adopt the recommendations without any changes.

Based on yesterday's meeting and the approval of the recommendations, the Armenian Genocide will be part of the Grade 11 genocide curriculum and it will be taught as one of the three case studies along with the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide and as a separate unit.

In regard to Barbara Coloroso's book, Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide, even though it will not be required reading, it will be included in the curriculum as resource material.


Representatives of the Armenian National Committee of Canada (ANCC), the Greek and Cypriot communities, Zoryan Institute, the Armenian Certified Teachers Association, the Armenian Community Centre of Toronto, Armen Karo Student Association, the Armenian National Committee of Toronto, and many other supporters of the curriculum turned out in large numbers to attend the meeting.

ANCC President, Dr. Girair Basmadjian, commended the TDSB for upholding its moral and ethical principles and for not wavering in the face of unprecedented revisionist campaign to falsify and rewrite the history of the Armenian Genocide. -By approving the recommendations, TDSB proved that the Turkish government interference and manipulation of academic institutions and its attempt to suppress freedom of expression is a failed policy. We are confident the curriculum will create better understanding between Turkish and Armenian students and will help them rationalize their common history,- stated Dr. Basmadjian

Aris Babikian, executive director of ANCC, criticized the Turkish representatives who tried to use an educational forum to promote unsubstantiated accusation against the Armenian community by insinuating that Armenians are teaching hatred against Turks in their churches, schools and community centres. -Once again, we would like to emphasize that we do not have any conflict with the Canadian-Turkish community. At issue is the Turkish government's denial policy. A policy which Turkish ultranationalist are using to whip hysteria and animosity between the two people. A policy which simply does not fit with the school boards view of history, nor that of Canadians generally,- said Babikian.

***********
Armenian National Committee of Canada Press Release June 3, 2008
The ANCC is the largest and the most influential Canadian-Armenian grassroots political organization. Working in coordination with a network of offices, chapters, and supporters throughout Canada and affiliated organizations around the world, the ANCC actively advances the concerns of the Canadian-Armenian community on a broad range of issues.




Looks Like The Genocide Course In Toronto Has An Open Ending
Too Many Holocausts By Brett Clarkson
School trustees face the conflicting wrath of many in bid to limit genocide course

Tears flowed, shouting matches erupted and a chorus of boos rang out after a Toronto District School Board committee voted last night to go ahead with a controversial Grade 11 course on genocide.

The packed meeting at the school board's headquarters on Yonge St., at Sheppard Ave., saw a delegation of Ukrainian Canadians pleading with the board to include the 1932-33 Soviet-engineered famine that killed millions of Ukrainians included in the course.

Turkish Canadians also protested the inclusion of the 1915 Armenian genocide in the curriculum. Armenian Canadians, on the other hand, lobbied the board to keep the slaughter of 1.5 million of their ancestors -- at the hands of the ruling Ottoman Empire -- in the course.

The three-member committee voted in favour of director of education Gerry Connelly's recommendations to base the course specifically around the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, and the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

But the decision isn't final.

The recommendations will go to a vote of the full board of trustees within three weeks, Connelly said.

She added the course's intent isn't to deem certain genocides more worthy of study than others, but to use the three cases as examples.

"It's not a survey course of all the genocides," Connelly said. "The intent is to take these as an example and use them in order to help students become more critical thinkers and to understand the impact of crimes against humanity and to actually go out and be advocates to ensure this never happens again."

'I WAS INSULTED'
Members of the Ukrainian community said they were "insulted" by the decision.

"I was insulted; our community was insulted," said Markian Shwec, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.

Armenian Canadians expressed relief the board didn't heed the Turkish-Canadians demand to expunge the Armenian genocide from ther course. Outside the meeting, Turkish Canadians who dispute the Armenian claims that they suffered a genocide, argued with the Armenian Canadians.

Toronto Sun www.torontosun.com June 3 2008 Canada


Armenian ‘genocide' becomes optional course in Toronto
The Toronto District School Board has given the green light for the study of an alleged genocide of Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire in an optional course, the Anatolia news agency reported.

The course, titled "Crimes and Genocides Committed against Humanity," will include studies of the Holocaust, which saw the extermination of 6 million Jews during World War II, the Rwandan slaughter of nearly 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus in 1994 and the killings of Anatolian Armenians at the beginning of the last century.

A petition campaign was launched by Turks living in Canada opposing the decision in Toronto to include the alleged Armenian genocide in the course. Nevertheless, the Toronto District School Board disregarded the 11,000 petitions collected in the online campaign, Anatolia reported. In January, the Unity Group, consisting of several Turkish NGOs in Canada, said the course would put the safety of Turkish and Muslim students at risk. The group called on authorities to reverse the decision to include the course in the 2008-2009 curriculum.

The course will still need to go to a vote of the full board of trustees before it receives final approval, the Canadian media reported, while Anatolia said there was a three-week period for appealing the school board's decision.
05 June 2008, TODAY'S ZAMAN

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

7.5.08

2457) Genocide Course Approved in Toronto Now - Soon in USA-AU-UK . .

Can You See The Implications in Other States & Countries? : Genocide Course in Toronto Approved Now, and it's coming to your neighborhood in USA, Australia, UK, . . soon.

The Director has made a decision regarding the recommendations accepting all but recommendation 9, regarding the name change.. . .in Toronto Canada

Other Educational Boards / Institutions worldwide can easily be convinced into similar decisions without much trouble, right?


Director Reviews Course CHG38M, Genocide: Historical and Contemporary Implications

The TDSB is planning to introduce a new 11th grade History course, CHG38M Genocide: Historical and Contemporary Implications approved by the Ministry of Education for the 2008-2009 school year. The course focuses on three genocides: The Holocaust of WWII, The Rwandan genocide, and the Armenian genocide of WWI.

A review committee was established under Board Procedure 532 to examine the course content and has provided a report, including 9 recommendations, to the Director of Education. The Director has made a decision regarding the recommendations accepting all but recommendation 9, regarding the name change. The Director has requested that the name of the course be changed immediately (rather than in three years time as per the recommendation) to: Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.


PDF 1 Content : Director's decision
Report of the Genocide Curriculum Review Committee, April 23, 2008
E03(R:\Secretariat\Staff\e03\genocide\080502 Genocide Dir Dec.doc)sec.1530

Director’s Decision re a Learning Resource

Course CHG38M: Genocide: Historical and Contemporary Implications

In accordance with Operational Procedure PR.532: Handling Concerns About Learning Re-sources, I have considered the report of the Genocide Curriculum Review Committee, dated April 23, 2008 (attached), and have decided:

(a) That the Review Committee’s Recommendations 1 to 8 be approved;
(b) That Recommendation 9 be replaced with the following:

That the Ministry of Education be requested to immediately change the title of course CHG38M to “Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.”

Therefore, the Director decided:
1. That a course on Genocide be taught by the TDSB at the Grade 11 level;

2. That the module on the Armenian genocide be included in the course as a case of genocide, but note taken that some respected scholars disagree;

3. That the number of actual case studies not be expanded at this time;

4. That a teacher course review committee be set up in the third year with a view to re-examining the curriculum content and the course description;

5. That Barbara Coloroso’s book, Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide, be re-moved from the resource list;

6. That the resources be reviewed by a committee of academic experts as determined by Pro-gram staff and in alignment with Board procedure with a view to deleting some items and adding others;

7. That the bibliography be separated by topic as well as by nature of the work (i.e. memoirs, encyclopedia, social psychology, theoretical work) and that the resource list be grouped in items recommended for use by teachers and items recommended for use by students;

8. That a course on genocide be taught at the Secondary school level given that the genocide-related decisions of governing bodies are irrelevant to the consideration of course appro-priateness;

9. That the Ministry of Education be requested to immediately change the title of course CHG38M to “Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.”

Gerry Connelly
Director of Education

Attachment

MEMORANDUM
Date April 23, 2008
To The Director of Education
From Melanie Parrack, Chair Genocide Curriculum Review Committee
Subject REPORT OF THE GENOCIDE CURRICULUM REVIEW COMMITTEE
REVIEW OF COURSE CHG38M: GENOCIDE: HISTORICAL AND CON-TEMPORARY IMPLICATIONS

BACKGROUND
Ministry approval was received in August 2007 to implement the course “Genocide: Historical and Contemporary Implications”. Subsequent to that, TDSB received concerns from members of the public regarding the development and content of the course.

A number of submissions was received from members of several specific communi-ties, some advocating for the course and others objecting to the course, either in part or in its entirety. The submissions are listed in Appendix A.

In accordance with Operational Procedure PR.532CUR System Superintendent Nad-ine Segal received hundreds of completed Forms 532B – Request for Reconsidera-tion of a Learning Resource. In response to these concerns and in accordance with Board approved procedure 532 “Handling Concerns about Learning Resources” the Associate Director of Education established a Review Committee in February of 2008.

CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF REVIEW COMMITTEE
TDSB Program and Equity Department staff members were selected based on Pro-cedure 532. Additionally, specific criteria were used to determine the selection of community resource personnel who could address the issues in an impartial way:

• At least 2 external resource persons from legal, political or academic areas;

• Background in policy and curriculum development;

• Consultation with universities that have departments of genocide studies in his-tory, faculties of law or human rights for recommendations of scholars: McGill, Concordia, OISE, U of T, Nipissing, Western, Queens, Virginia, and Minnesota. Consultation also occurred with history departments in Ontario universities;

• Community members who previously responded either orally or in writing and members of the steering committee that developed the course were not eligible for the Review Committee.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Melanie Parrack, Chair, Executive Superintendent, Student Success, TDSB
Karen Grose, Superintendent of Program, TDSB
Patricia Hayes, Manager, Human Rights, TDSB
Professor Howard Adelman*, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy, York University
Professor Doris Bergen*, Faculty of History, University of Toronto
Professor Darryl Robinson*, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

REVIEW COMMITTEE PROCESS
Meetings were held on March 3, 2008 and April 9, 2008.
The Committee was provided with an extensive summary of the materials received
by the staff and the Board of Trustees and was afforded the opportunity to review
in depth all materials received.
Online collaboration and communication among members of the Committee was
ongoing.

TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Review Committee took as its terms of reference that it would only deal with the issues raised by community responses to the approved course that were appro-priate to a pedagogical review. Upon review of the submissions of various aca-demic, political and community inputs, the Committee summarized twelve issues that emerged from the materials received:

1) Members of the Turkish and other communities and some academics do not accept the Armenian Genocide and want either the course cancelled or the module removed from the course.
2) A claim was made that the course was based on Barbara Coloroso’s book Ex-
traordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide and that Barbara Coloroso is not considered to be a historian.
3) The Ministry of Education guideline for approving a locally developed course was not followed.
*Academic Biographies are found in Appendix B
4) Representatives of the Turkish community were not consulted in the develop-ment of the course.
5) 1915 events regarding the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian population are disputed by historians as is the validity of some documentation.
6) The Government of Canada is considering changing its commitment and sup-ports the formation of a historical commission to study the Armenian Geno-cide.
7) Armenian texts and bibliography are one-sided. Turkish resources and per-spectives were not included in the course outline. Recommended historians disputing that the deaths of the Armenians constituted genocide include:
• Justin McCarthy
• Bernard Lewis
• Heath Lowry
• Barbara Lerner
• JC Hurewitz
• Guenter Lewy

8) Turkish children will be victimized.
9) A similar course prepared by the Ottawa Board of Education was shelved.
10) The United Nations did not acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.
11) After WWII the authorities in Great Britain advised against any prosecution of Ottoman officials for want of reliable evidence of complicity in Armenian mas-sacres.
12) Members of other communities advocated for inclusion of additional examples of genocides and crimes against humanity, for example the Ukrainian Famine and the mistreatment of First Nations.

METHOD OF THE PROCEDURE OF THE COMMITTEE
The members of the Committee were provided with an overview and background on the development of the curriculum for the genocide course, the guidelines for course approval provided by the Ontario Ministry of Education, a set of procedures provided for selecting, approval and handling concerns about learning resources and how to deal with controversial and sensitive issues, various submissions and responses by academics, politicians and community organizations and individuals as well as some newspaper articles.

After surveying the material, Review Committee members agreed to review the ma-terial in depth and the expert academic members of the Committee agreed to un-dertake different specific assignments relative to the agenda items and write drafts on those different issues for distribution to the whole Committee which, upon re-view and revision of those drafts, would prepare its report.

The Committee determined that it would not deal with such issues as who was con-sulted, what other educational jurisdictions decided with respect to the Armenian deaths in the first World War, and what different levels of government or interna-tional bodies have decided about whether the Armenian deaths were defined as a genocide. The course would be assessed on it academic merit rather than on the current political context and debates.

The Review Committee decided to address the twelve issues under the following topics:
• Rationale for the Course
• Course Description and Content
• Resources for the Course
• Supplementary Issues
• Title of the Course

RATIONALE FOR COURSE
Members of the Toronto educational community including teachers, administrators, trustees, students, parents, and community groups believe that the study of the tragedies and horrors of genocidal acts in the past and present must be studied and addressed. Democracy, justice, and the rule of law must be understood, claimed, and defended by each generation of citizens if we are to confront this demonstra-tion of human evil. It is believed that a full-credit course will engage students and allow them to study genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in a sys-tematic and thoughtful way.

Many students within the Toronto District School Board and their families have ex-perienced bias, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination both in their home coun-tries and here in Canada. Our community includes refugee students, as well as the children and grandchildren of people who have experienced genocidal acts and extreme human rights abuses. Given the specific multi-cultural and multi-ethnic diversity within Toronto, it is felt that it is essential that students born within and outside Canada have the opportunity to explore in depth the causes and conse-quences of genocide and the lived realities of the aggressors, targets, bystanders, and resisters to these horrific acts of violence. A study of these experi-ences will help foster a sense of empathy for the targets of these violent acts and encourage students to understand the connections they have to their fellow human beings.

The Review Committee believes that a full-credit course on genocide will foster an open exploration of the controversial and sensitive issues surrounding genocide. The course as proposed has not only pedagogical and historical value, but would be of interest to students and would possibly support the development of civic virtues in students. This exploration will provide a context for students to begin to think critically about the world they have inherited and in which they currently live. This critical reflection will provide a context for students to begin to understand the no-tion of moral judgment in relation to history. As well, it will allow students the op-portunity to understand their rights and responsibilities as global citizens and chal-lenge them to take action to ensure that human rights are protected and that geno-cide be confronted.

As a record of the human past, history reflects the full range of individual and col-lective behaviour. It might be comforting to create a version of the past that tells us only what we want to hear, but doing so is not only dishonest, it is self-defeating. Studying history can only help deepen our understanding of the present if it is done with an open mind – and that means a mind open to acknowledging the painful realities that are part of every human life and every society. It is essential to approach the past, like the present, with respect for the complex situations that ordinary people and leaders faced and sensitivity to the impact that our depictions
of individuals, events, and societies can have on our view of the world.

It is also important to recognize that any historical account is incomplete. There will never be access to every piece of information about the past, nor will there ever be the wisdom to understand perfectly what is known. Given that, history can-not be revised in order to remove reference to acts of violence and destruction or to expunge the memory of people’s victimization and suffering at the hands of others. This approach might serve the short-term interests of some people but could not be defended in the long run.

While it is recognized that Ministry expectations for the course include the teaching of empathy and engendering responsible citizenship, the Review Committee ex-pressed some skepticism whether these high expectations could be realized by a single course. They are laudatory goals that might need to be recalibrated.

Recommendation 1
It is recommended that a course on Genocide be taught by the TDSB at the grade 11 level.

COURSE DESCRIPTION AND CONTENT
This course investigates examples of genocide in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, including the Holocaust, Armenia, and Rwanda. Students will investigate the terms genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes and explore them through the lens of historical analysis. Students will examine identity formation and how “in groups” and “out groups” are created, including an analysis of how bias, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination impact on various groups. As the course unfolds students will be challenged to draw appropriate connections between the history of genocide and Canadian history and between the lives of the people they are investigating and their own lives. Students will use critical thinking skills to look at the themes of judgment, memory, and legacy and will evaluate the ways in which active citizens may empower themselves to stop future genocides. Throughout the course, students will gain an understanding of the role of perpetra-tor, victim, bystander, rescuer, opportunist, and resister.

From the course description two issues were discussed in response to concerns raised:
1) Inclusion of the Armenian case study as a Genocide.
2) Exclusion of the Ukrainian Famine and other cases, such as the treatment of First Nations.

1) Inclusion of the Armenian case study as a Genocide
The Committee believes that Grade 11 students can appreciate and, more im-portantly, should appreciate that history is a contested area without making everything relative. There are legitimate and illegitimate disputes. Holocaust de-nial is an illegitimate dispute. The labeling of the Armenian massacres as a genocide is a legitimate dispute, with reputable historians denying that the deaths of the Armenians during Word War I should be characterized as a geno-cide. This is also true of contemporary slaughters where some scholars and members of the international judiciary dispute the characterization of the deaths of Darfurians from 2003 until the present as a genocide. Such disputes, how-ever, do not in themselves provide reasons for not teaching a course which characterizes the atrocity as a genocide. Further, the Committee noted that cur-rently the conclusions of the vast majority of scholars who have studied the Ar-menian case, particularly those who have specialized in the study of genocide, support characterizing what occurred as a genocide. Genuine historical contro-versies do belong in a high school curriculum and can be very beneficial in giving students an in-depth understanding and in teaching students critical thinking. Students should be taught the importance of establishing intent when character-izing a crime against humanity as a genocide, and the various indirect as well as direct ways that can be established in order to draw a conclusion whether or not a case constitutes genocide.

2) Exclusion of Ukrainian Famine and other cases, such as the treatment of First Nations
As a study of the dynamics of extreme violence, the course, “Genocide: Histori-cal and Contemporary Implications”, is built around three cases: the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Holocaust and Rwanda. These are not the only his-torical cases that might have been included, but, in the assessment of members of the Review Committee, this selection is appropriate for a number of reasons. Given the complexity of the subject matter, it is essential to examine specific historical cases to give concreteness to the general concepts involved. It would be very difficult to cover more than three cases in the level of detail required in a year-long course. These particular cases range geographically and chronologi-cally from the early decades of the twentieth century to its end, from Central Asia to Europe and Africa. There is adequate documentation for each of these cases so that students and teachers can work with a variety of types of materi-als: eyewitness accounts, government records, and after-the-fact representa-tions. Each of the cases is distinct, and the particularities of the historical con-texts allow certain themes or patterns to be investigated and assessed. Exam-ples of these themes and patterns may include the role of pre-existing preju-dices, the role of the state and the government and international responses. Students will be expected to study other examples of genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, war crimes and human rights abuses in the 20th and 21st centuries based on their own personal interest and appropriate academic resources. These examples might include Cambodia, Aboriginal Peoples in Can-ada, Ukrainian Famine, Bosnia, Darfur, the former Yugoslavia and others. While it is noted that more people died in the Ukrainian Famine than in all of the geno-cides that are included in the course, the Review Committee did not recommend altering the course at this time but this should be considered when the course is
reviewed.

Recommendation 2
It is recommended that the module on the Armenian genocide be included in the course as a case of genocide, but note taken that some respected scholars disagree.

Recommendation 3
It is recommended that the number of actual case studies not be expanded at this time.

Recommendation 4
It is recommended that a teacher course review committee be set up in the third year with a view to re-examining the curriculum content and the course description.

RESOURCES FOR COURSE
A concern was raised regarding the appropriateness of Barbara Coloroso’s book, Ex-traordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide. The Committee determined this was far from a scrupulous text and should not be on a History course although it might be included in a course on the social psychology of genocide because of her posited thesis that genocide is merely the extreme extension of bullying.

There is a recognition that as this is an extremely complicated subject matter and that the resources that underpin this course will need to be regularly reviewed and updated.

Recommendation 5
It is recommended that Barbara Coloroso’s book, Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide, be removed from the resource list.

Recommendation 6
It is recommended that the resources be reviewed by a committee of aca-demic experts as determined by Program staff and in alignment with Board procedure with a view to deleting some items and adding others.

Recommendation 7
It is recommended that the bibliography be separated by topic as well as by nature of the work (i.e. memoirs, encyclopedia, social psychology, theo-retical work) and that the resource list be grouped in items recommended for use by teachers and items recommended for use by students

SUPPLEMENTARY ISSUES
The Committee responded to two supplementary issues:
1) The relevance of government decisions
2) Consultation

1) The relevance of government decisions
Some petitioners have argued that, although Canadian Parliament has passed a motion recognizing the Armenian genocide, the governmental posi-tion may be changing. However, the current or future position of the federal Parliament or executive branch does not appear to be germane to the ques-tion at hand. The study of history must be based on the evidence and the quality of the critical assessment of that evidence. No legislature, in Canada or elsewhere, has jurisdiction to legislatively determine the past. Legislative motions and executive statements are, however, of interest as they can pro-vide insights into the politics of denial, acknowledgement and debate that surround contested historical events. In this sense, the reactions of the Ca-nadian, Turkish, Armenian and other governments are a valuable topic for inquiry and discussion in the described course.

In addition, some petitioners have argued, as a reason to withdraw refer-ences to the Armenian genocide, that the events of 1915 have not been offi-cially recognized by the United Nations as a genocide. The premise of non-recognition is empirically open to question.1 In any event, and more impor-tantly, while there are many organizations and offices of the United Nations that may take action in response to evidence of genocide,2 none are charged with making exclusive authoritative determinations of genocide, particularly with respect to events that long preceded the existence of the United Na-tions. A United Nations determination is not a legal prerequisite to recogni-tion of genocide, nor is it an empirical prerequisite to evaluation and discus-sion of historic events in terms of the concept of genocide.

2) Consultation
Many complainants argued that members of the Canadian Turkish community had not been consulted in the preparation of the course materials. Some of

1 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub. 2/416/1985/6, 2 July 1985, adopted by the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimina-tion and Protection of Minorities.

2 Examples include the General Assembly, the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the Office of the Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide, and the Human Rights Council.


the requests for reconsideration objected that Ministry procedures had not been followed. The Review Committee found that such procedural questions fell outside of its mandate and expertise and should be addressed to the To-ronto District School Board. In the course of its work, the Committee did however review the objections, the responses from the TDSB, as well as the relevant procedures – such as the Ministry of Education Guide to Locally De-veloped Courses, Grades 9 to 12: Development and Approval Procedures, and found no indications of departure from the prescribed procedures. For example, some complaints or requests for reconsideration note that the course of study mentions consultations with post secondary and community partners, and raise the objection that members of the Canadian Turkish com-munity were not consulted. As the Ministry of Education Guide to Locally De-veloped Courses, Grades 9 to 12: Development and Approval Procedures make clear, however, consultation with partners refers to “appropriate post-secondary partners (i.e. universities, colleges, trade associations or work-places)” in connection with “destination-related courses (i.e. university, uni-versity/college, college or workplace preparation course)” . The course of study reference to community partners involved in the writing of the courses refers to organizations with teacher education outreach programs (e.g. UNI-CEF, Facing History and Ourselves, the Canadian Society for Yad Vashem, the Canadian Centre for Genocide Education).

Recommendation 8
It is recommended that a course on genocide be taught at the secondary school level given that the genocide related decisions of governing bodies are irrelevant to the consideration of course appropriateness.

TITLE OF COURSE
The Committee considered whether the course should be called “Genocide” or “Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity”. Objections to adding “Crimes Against Humanity” to the title had largely to do with the length and awkwardness as well as a reluctance to make unnecessary changes.

On the other hand, given the origin of the course, there was a determination to cre-ate a course on crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as genocide. The Committee suggests that a course entitled “Genocide and Crimes Against Human-ity” might be more appropriate if only to understand that some cases of Crimes Against Humanity took far more lives than the Holocaust. Further, by inclusion in the title the phrase “Crimes Against Humanity”, one is better able to distinguish be-tween different types of atrocities. Finally, the foremost encyclopedia on the subject is entitled Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.

Recommendation 9
It is recommended that the course title be changed when feasible and practicable to “Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity”.

A further discussion of the issues by the Review Committee should be pursued in
Appendix B of this report.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
It is recommended that a course on Genocide be taught by the TDSB at the Grade 11 level.

Recommendation 2
It is recommended that the module on the Armenian genocide be included in the course as a case of genocide, but note taken that some respected scholars disagree.

Recommendation 3
It is recommended that the number of actual case studies not be expanded at this time.

Recommendation 4
It is recommended that a teacher course review committee be set up in the third year with a view to re-examining the curriculum content and the course description.

Recommendation 5
It Is Recommended That The Barbara Coloroso’s Book, Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History Of Genocide, Be Removed From The Resource List.

Recommendation 6
It is recommended that the resources be reviewed by a committee of aca-demic experts as determined by Program staff and in alignment with Board procedure with a view to deleting some items and adding others.

Recommendation 7
It is recommended that the bibliography be separated by topic as well as by nature of the work (i.e. memoirs, encyclopedia, social psychology, theo-retical work) and that the resource list be grouped in items recommended for use by teachers and items recommended for use by students.

Recommendation 8
It is recommended that a course on genocide be taught at the secondary school level given that the genocide related decisions of governing bodies are irrelevant to the consideration of course appropriateness.

Recommendation 9 [amended, see the Director’s decision]
It is recommended that the course title be changed when feasible and practicable to “Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity”.

Appendix A: Submissions from Community Representatives
Appendix B: Community Resource Personnel

Submissions from Community Representatives
Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations
Turkish – Canadian Society in Vancouver
Canadian Turkish Cypriot Association
Turkish Society of Nova Scotia
Council of Turkish Canadians
Turkish – Canadian Cultural Association of Calgary
Representatives from the Turkish Community: Toronto, Ottawa, Markham, Bramp-ton, Mississauga, Pickering, Kanata, Windsor, Turkey
Ukrainian National Federation
Canadian Ukrainian Opera Association
Ukrainian Catholic Brotherhood of Canada
Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society
League of Ukrainian Canadians
Ukrainian Canadian Congress
Ukrainian Youth Association of Ontario
Representatives from the Ukrainian community: Toronto, Windsor, Kitchener
Canadian Croatian Congress
Assyrian Chaldean Syriac Student Union of Canada
Azerbaijani Community Association
Canadian Arab Federation
Canadian for Genocide Education (Canadians for Genocide Museum)
North American Bosniaks
Bosnian Islamic Association
Lithuanian Canadian Community
Serbian National Shield Society of Canada
Association of Serbian Women
Cypriot Federation of Canada

APPENDIX B
Community Resource Personnel

Professor Howard Adelman
Professor Adelman was Professor of Philosophy at York University where he was the founding Director of the Centre for Refugee Studies. He has been a Visiting Fellow at the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies. His many books and articles are on topics related to genocide, with a special focus on Rwanda, theories of explanation and the role of bystanders regarding prevention and inter-vention. He has written extensively on the Middle East, humanitarian intervention, membership rights and ethics.

Professor Doris Bergen
Professor Bergen is the Chancellor Rose and Ray Wolfe Professor of Holocaust Stud-ies, University of Toronto. Her research focuses on issues of religion, gender and ethnicity in the Holocaust and World War II and comparatively in other cases of ex-treme violence. A winner of prestigious research grants and awards for excellence in teaching, Professor Bergen is author of numerous books and articles. She has held many grants and fellowships and has taught at the Universities of Warsaw, Notre Dame and Vermont.

Professor Carole Anne Reed
Professor Reed has been Co-Director of the graduate diploma program of Holocaust and Genocide Education at Ontario Institute of Studies in Education. She is well known and respected in human rights circles for her work as Director of the Toronto Holocaust Centre and has years of experience as a curriculum developer and au-thor. She has co-authored “Pax Warrior”, (a teaching module on the Rwandan genocide.)

Professor Darryl Robinson
Professor Robinson currently teaches the international human rights law clinic in the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto and will soon join the law faculty of Queen’s University. He has served as Legal Officer at Foreign Affairs Canada, working on international criminal law, human rights law and humanitarian law. His primary focus was international criminal justice, including the negotiation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the development of Canadian legis-lation on genocide and crimes against humanity. He received a Minister’s citation and Minister’s Award for Foreign Policy Excellence.


PDF 2 Content: Questions and Answers
Governance Procedure for Appeals of the Director’s Decisions re Learning Resources
As adopted April 16, 2008

1. Publication of the Director’s Decision
A decision of the Director, made as a result of a recommendation from a review committee that was convened under operational procedure PR.532, Handling Concerns About Learn-ing Resources, will be posted on the Board’s website as soon as practicable. The posted decision will be accompanied by the report (if any) and recommendation of the review committee.

2. Receipt of Appeals of the Director’s Decision
As per PR.532, any individual or group that disagrees with the Director’s decision may ap-peal to the Board through the Program and School Services Committee. The individual or group must submit the request to appeal in writing to the Associate Director no later than two weeks following publication of the Director’s decision.

3. Timeline for Hearing Appeals
It is expected that the Program and School Services Committee will consider such appeals
within 30 days of receipt of the appeal. If there is an aspect of urgency, a special meeting
of the PSSC shall be convened to consider the appeal.

4. Documentation
Trustees will be provided access to written submissions that are received by Board Ser-vices by 2 p.m. of the day prior to the Program and School Services Committee meeting that will consider the matter.

The agenda to PSSC will include the following:
• The requestor’s initial request for removal of a learning resource (in summary form, if necessary, as determined by the Associate Director);
• The report of the review committee;
• The Director’s decision;
• The requestor’s written notice of appeal of the Director’s decision (in summary form, if necessary, as determined by the Associate Director).

5. Oral Presentations

(a) If more than one individual or group has submitted an appeal, and the nature of the appeals is similar, the Associate Director will determine the individuals who will make a presentation. Total time shall be no more than 20 minutes.

(b) If more than one individual or group has requested an appeal, and the nature of the appeals is significantly different, the Associate Director will categorize the appeals that have similar concerns and identify one or more individuals to represent each category. Each category of appeal will have a total of no more than 20 minutes to make the presentation.

(a) If neither of the above two options are practicable, as determined by the Associate Director, due to the number and/or diversity of individuals and groups that have re-quested an appeal and difficulty determining representatives of the groups, the Pro-gram and School Services Committee will consider the matter based on the written submissions received.

6. Staff Resources Available to the PSSC

The Chair of the review committee and the Director will be available at the Program and School Services Committee meeting to answer the members’ questions, if any, following the presentations.

7. Program and School Services Committee Decision

The Program and School Services Committee will consider the appeal and make a recom-
mendation to the Board.


PDF 3 Content
Questions and Answers re the 11th grade History course, # CHG38M

Genocide: Historical and Contemporary Implications Review Committee report, recommendations and the Director of Education’s decision

Background:
TDSB is planning to introduce a new 11 grade History course, # CHG38M Genocide: Historical and Contemporary Implications approved by the Ministry of Education for the 2008-2009 school year. The course focuses on three genocides: The Holocaust of WWII, The Rwandan genocide, and the Armenian genocide of WWI.

This course has drawn both criticism and support from representatives of various communities - some demanding that TDSB remove the course from the curriculum or remove any discussion of the Ottoman-Armenian conflict from its content. Representatives from the Ukrainian and other communities have expressed their wish to have their genocide included in the history course.

A review committee was established under Board Procedure 532 to examine the course content and has provided a report, including 9 recommendations, to the Director of Education. The Director has made a decision regarding the recommendations accepting all but recommendation 9, regarding the name change. The Director has requested that the name of the course be changed immediately (rather than in three years time as per the recommendation) to: Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.

Questions and Answers:

Why has the TDSB developed this new course on genocide and crimes against humanity?
This course originated with a Board motion and decision:

• June 2005: That previously written documents on the Holocaust and its contemporary implications be revised to reflect the current high school program and recent global events such as Rwanda.

• December 14, 2005: Board decision to integrate the Armenian Genocide into high school level history curriculum.

• March 2006: Board report on the Armenian Genocide

The review committee examined the rationale for the course and found it to be convincing. The first recommendation in its report to the Director of Education is that a course on genocide be taught by the TDSB at the grade 11 level.

How were members of the Review Committee chosen?
In accordance with procedure 532, consultation was undertaken with the following universities that have departments of genocide studies in history, faculties of law or human rights: McGill, Concordia, OISE, U of T, Nipissing, Western, Queens, Virginia, and Minnesota. Criteria used were that the committee members be persons of stature in academic, legal or world affairs and that they be familiar with public policy and curriculum development. None of the persons chosen has previously responded on this issue.

Why has the TDSB limited the course to only three genocides and why among those three has the Armenian conflict with the Ottoman Turks been included. Surely the situation of the former Yugoslavia in the early '90's would have been an obvious choice for inclusion on the grounds that it was a tragedy of very recent memory?

This course investigates examples of genocide in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, including the Holocaust, Armenia, and Rwanda. Students will be expected to study other examples of genocide and crimes against humanity.

The course is 110 hours and not every tragedy can be honoured in its entirety. There is no intent to undermine the suffering of any one group by studying 3 case studies.

The Review Committee recommended that the number of actual case studies not be expanded at this time citing that it would be very difficult to cover more than three cases in a year-long course. These particular cases range geographically and chronologically from the early decades of the twentieth century to its end, from central Asia to Europe to Africa.

Why doesn’t the course include the mistreatment of Canada’s Aboriginal people?
Under the Ministry of Education Guidelines for locally developed curriculum, there must not be any overlap with existing courses. The mistreatment of Aboriginal peoples in Canada is addressed in the compulsory history courses in grades 7, 8, & 10 as well as the grade 12 Canadian history course. However, the mistreatment of Aboriginal peoples in the Americas and elsewhere would be an appropriate area of study for interested students taking this course.

One of the criticisms against the TDSB is that it did not follow the Ministry of Education Guidelines for approving the course. What did the Review Committee decide regarding this issue?
The Review Committee found that such procedural questions fell outside of its mandate and expertise and should be addressed by the TDSB. However, during the course of its work, the Committee found no evidence that the correct procedures were not being followed.

The Board’s own Equity Foundation Statement says: “The Toronto District School Board values the contribution of all members of our diverse community of students, staff, parents, and community groups to our mission and goals. We believe that equity of opportunity, and equity of access to our programs, services, and resources are critical to the achievement of successful outcomes for all those whom we serve, and for those who serve our school system”.

Why weren’t representatives of various communities consulted in the development of this course?

The Ministry of Education Guide to Locally Developed Courses, grades 9 to 12: Development and Approval Procedures makes clear that consultation with partners refers to appropriate postsecondary partners including universities, colleges, trade associations or workplaces. The course of study reference to community partners involved in the writing of the courses refers to organizations with teacher education outreach programs such as UNICEF and Facing History and Ourselves.

Who will be responsible for writing the course content?
The course is being written by a team of certified history teachers in the TDSB with considerable expertise.

Some complainants argued that the Government of Canada supports the formation of a historical commission to study the Armenian Genocide and the United Nations does not officially acknowledge the Armenian genocide so why is this course, particularly the Armenian Genocide, still being proposed?

The study of history must be based on the evidence and the quality of the critical assessment of that evidence. No legislature, in Canada or elsewhere, has jurisdiction to legislatively determine the past. However, solid, political debate that surrounds contested historical events is an essential part of the critical process that produces serious history. There are many organizations and offices of the United Nations that may take action in response to evidence of genocide; none are charged with making exclusive authoritative determinations of genocide, particularly with respect to events that long precede the existence of the UN.

A similar course prepared by the Ottawa Board of Education was shelved. Why is the TDSB course allowed to move forward?
The course in Ottawa was developed 20 years ago and was not written to Ministry of Education guidelines or approved by the Ministry. The federal government of the day intervened and asked the Ottawa Board to withdraw the curriculum. Since then, the Government of Canada, House of Commons, Senate of Canada and Province of Ontario have publicly recognized the Armenian Genocide. The federal government later apologized to the Ottawa District School Board for its intervention in curriculum development.

The Review Committee has recommended that the course title be changed if feasible and practicable to Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity at the time of course review in three years. Why has the Director decided to have the name of the course changed immediately, rather than wait for the three year review as recommended?

The Review Committee recognizes that the intention of the course is to create a course on crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as genocide. In that perspective, the Committee has suggested that a course entitled Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity would not only be more appropriate, but would also underscore that some recognized cases of crimes against humanity took more lives than many or even any recognized cases of genocide. The use of the term Crimes Against Humanity would also better enable students to distinguish between different types of atrocities. The Director accepts this rationale for the course title change and felt that this was the appropriate time to make that change prior to the course being finalized for next school year.

Barbara Coloroso’s book: Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide has been rejected by the Review Committee to be on the resource list. Yet wasn’t this the book that became the basis for the curriculum?
No. Ms. Coloroso’s book was a consideration to be on the resource list because the author is a renowned educator and the subject matter was relevant to the course. However, as the Review Committee has concluded, while the book is not necessarily the best example of rigorous historical scholarship, it could be included among readings on the social psychology of genocide as the extreme extension of bullying. The removal of the book from the resource list will not impact on the development of the curriculum in any way.

Why is the TDSB intent on including the Armenian/Ottoman Turk conflict in the genocide course when there is so much debate as to whether it truly was genocide?
As the Review Committee has noted, there is a vast number of scholars who have studied the case and concur that what had happened in 1915 was genocide and as such, the module should be taught as a case of genocide. At the same time, students should be taught the importance of establishing intent, and the various indirect as well as direct ways that intent can be established in order to draw a conclusion whether or not a particular case could be considered genocide. They should also be taught that a crime against humanity can be just as horrific, criminal and deserving of attention. The Committee further notes that disagreeing about the appropriateness of the label of genocide is not the same as denying the killings occurred. Genuine historical controversies and debate do belong in a high school curriculum and can be beneficial in giving students an in-depth understanding of complex events and in teaching students critical thinking.

Is the decision of the Director with regards to the Review Committee’s recommendations final?
Yes. However, those that disagree with the Director’s decision can appeal to the Board. On April 16th the Board adopted a governance procedure to facilitate the process required by the operational procedure.
© Copyright Toronto District School Board

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !