Archives: Публікації

Sexual violence and media: how to report rape during war

The russian military has committed and continues to commit sexual violence against Ukrainian women, men, children and the elderly. Police have launched a series of criminal proceedings for the abuse and rape of women and girls in Donetsk, Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson regions. But not all victims are ready to tell their stories. At the same time, Ukrainian and foreign journalists are looking for heroines for materials on this topic.

Lawyer, human rights activist, writer, trainer on gender-sensitive communication Larysa Denysenko, editor-in-chief of Hromadske Radio, presenter, trainer on gender-sensitive communication Tetyana Troshchynska and editor-in-chief of Divoche.media Oksana Pavlenko prepared these recommendations.

Why do you need this?

We want to be the first to tell the world about this!

This needs to be told!

We need examples, we can’t be abstract about evil.

People need to know tragic stories; real stories are better perceived by the audience.

The woman wants to speak up, we will make her voice louder!

Everybody will know about you!

The world has to know about such crimes!

The public has to know what kind of horror is happening.

The editorial board is always focused on such topics.

Women and girls have to be sure that there are mechanisms of protections and support for those who experienced this crime.

Evil must be punished.

Which of these scenarios is yours?

You have to follow the principle ‘Not to harm a person’ even when you think that this is minimal harm which will allow to protect others against sexual crimes.

Proceed from the principle of trust: You have been entrusted with a painful story: Listen to a person. Don’t become an investigator.

When the verification of the story is concerned, be an attentive documenter, this is not a topic for investigative journalism.

The topics for investigative journalism may be the security process, the work of ‘green corridors’, state-provided relief, the behavior of occupiers’ armed forces.

International justice stipulates that the correctly documented story of a person who survived sexual violence does not require other proof.

Rape is, first of all, a trauma and a crime, and only after this it is a hot topic. Rape during war is a war crime.

Leading theoreticians, like Cathy Caruth, think that a sign of traumatic experience is that it tries to avoid speaking out, retelling, narrating (her book, ‘Listening to Trauma‘).

This means that far from everyone who has traumatic experience dreams of retelling it to a person with a camera or a microphone. In this situation, refusing to give an interview rather than giving it may be a norm.

Why Is It Happening?

Traumatic experience is so unexpected and mind-throwing that it cannot be related with words. The words are often lagging behind the experience, they are not enough to describe the experience. We are human beings first of all, and only then we are journalists.

Far from everyone who feels traumatized looks like a regular victim. Some are rather tough and, at the first glance, calm people. This does not mean that they don’t want quiet about their experience.

People may also be aggressive, distraught, lost, worried, as if frozen and not able to speak.

This, however, does not mean that we cannot single out common signs of traumatic experience, and they should be understood by everyone who wants to work with such interviews or even just read cues to them in the studio.

All these people are vulnerable, they do not expect anyone to throw a microphone or a recorder at them or call upon their conscience from the screen, and appeal, in the lofty tone, to the important mission of punishing the culprits.

Rape is among the most traumatic experiences that a human being may endure. Apart from physical pain, most of the cultures have a special stigma of shame where the raped are concerned.

This is one of the most important reasons why women in this situation do not want publicity. It is for this reason that no journalist has the right to manipulate the need for justice demanding that the raped people speak publicly.

Sexual violence during war means not only rape but also subjugating people with the help of power, and this is a horror in itself.

A woman who endured this traumatic experience feels:

– THREAT, DANGER: Fear that the rapist will return or recognize her; she also may relive her helplessness when telling her story. It is because of this that the attack of a pack of journalists cannot be a norm in this situation. Such conversations require preparation, and often people who had such experience choose to be with a person of trust (a lawyer, a psychotherapist, a female friend), and this is normal.

– SHAME: The feeling of shame and being put down is present in all the experience of people who survived, even in simpler circumstances.

– GUILT: Those who suffered rape often feel that they are guilty of what had happened to them: as if they had not done something, as if they were not able to somehow defend themselves, as if they had provoked the rapist. THIS IS NOT SO: Only the rapist is guilty.

And this is important to remember when we are telling their stories as journalists. In particular, it is about the choice of words.

This is what attention should be paid to:

You should not intentionally provoke tears; however, if a person cries, don’t be afraid and be prepared for this. Tears are natural, and you should not say ‘Calm down’ or ‘Why are you crying…’ It is enough to say that a person may feel safe talking to you, that you can give them as much time as they need to come to senses. If you are working with a camera, it is worth asking if you may continue filming.

Don’t try to catch people when they say something wrong. When a person keeps silent this does not mean that they want to hide something. When a person tells a confusing story, this also is not a reason to suspect them of lying. It is normal for people who endured trauma to be confused about the timeline of events.

This does not mean that you cannot try to specify something. Do ask for clarification but be sensitive in your speech, body and face language, and gestures.

It is categorically forbidden to touch a person who tells you their story of sexual violence: Do not touch their hands, shoulders, or their back. Do not hug this person.

Be careful while making compliments, better avoid such moments even if you think that you won’t offend a person but create the atmosphere of trust instead.

Don’t stigmatize this person, do not share your vision of an ideal victim, do not share your fears, make round eyes, shame them, blame them, treat their words with skepticism, demonstrate presumptuous attitude or put yourself higher than them.

In the same way, you should not fall in a state of pitying a person: ‘Oh My, how did you manage to survive this?’ The person may be in the state of acute stress reaction, and you may make it worse. Compassion and empathy are in NOT HARMING the person.

Never ask about what the person felt when they were in the situation of trauma. Specialists work with emotions; journalists have other tasks.

Also, do not ask to show albums from their peaceful life or their life before trauma (children, childhood, ‘Could you show your photo album?’). Channel the conversation not to emotions but to the facts that the woman is prepared to tell.

  • This means that ‘How do you feel?’ or ‘What have you felt?’ are bad questions. More acceptable options are ‘What is more convenient for you to start from?’, ‘What do you remember?’, ‘What have you done then?’, ‘What was later?’

Don’t exploit the person. Even if you sensed an incredible career opportunity for yourself in connection to this story, this can never be the number one motive. Do not use the vulnerability of people who entrusted themselves to you. Do not prosecute. Do not manipulate.

Be honest and frank, transparent in your plans. Ask those who survived about their expectations: What do they want to get from their story? What do they want from the media: Protection, information support, publication, justice?

Do not promise what you cannot do: For instance, that you will protect them, take them to another country, punish the criminal who had done such a thing to them. You cannot do this. However, you will always be capable of listening to them and promising to stand by this person and truth.

When you talk to a survivor, it would be expedient to consult this person’s legal defense so that this interview does not impede criminal prosecution of perpetrators. Be mindful and tell this person that this piece can be read by lawyers of a suspect or an accused, and they may build their defense on this interview. This will allow to treat details in a more thoughtful way, as well as circumstances and words, to protect the witnesses of the events from publicity, and to not endanger anyone.

Do not take and do not request from a person who survived after sexual violence possible proof from the site of the events, etc. Inviolability, entirety, and integrity of evidence are important for the investigation and for the survivor.

Be a journalist

People who survived sexual violence are often in the state where adrenalin speaks instead of them. This is the state when a person wants to speak out in order for everything to end as soon as possible, the person is burning with the desire to tell and vent out their pain.

You should understand that in this state the person cannot themselves understand the results of their frankness.

You should make sure that such people are not on their own, that they have support, that they have received at least the first-necessity package of medical and psychological assistance, that they are warm, that they have water and food.

You have to suggest that your conversation is recorded on their phone so that they could later listen to the interview themselves or in the presence of a person of trust (a psychologist or a lawyer) and decide whether everything is left as it is, or the process is not launched at all, or make changes. Or you may send this person the recording you made.

Never should you use this state of the person and entice them to tell the details: ‘Were you raped by one or by three?’, ‘Were the clothes taken off you?’, ‘Had you undressed yourself?, ‘Were you raped in an unnatural way?’, ‘Had you treated the rapists to tea?’, ‘Had you drunk with them?’, ‘Can you tell us how they threatened your child?’

The questions have to be open-ended, the person will tell you themselves everything they consider necessary and what they are prepared to tell. Your task is to listen and to be an attentive editor. Switch on a safety filter for this woman, girl, or man.

Think about protecting the traumatized person’s personal data, do not use photos and/or videos that can disclose their identity or location.

Do not ask for photos of this person’s children even if it seems to you that this would add a human touch to the story and more people would sympathize with the survivor.

Do not use any links to any social networks’ pages even when you are sure that you have disguised everything masterfully: You may be mistaken.

Do not take pictures, even if it seems to you that a photo of a person’s profile will harm no one, and the person won’t be recognized.

Do not take pictures of even the person’s hands: Practice shows that people can be recognized by their nails, decorations, nevi, etc.

Do not push the person towards even bigger frankness, do not ask for personal details: Where they live, where they work and in which position, which school you attended, do you have a husband and children, and where are they now?

Remember that in this duo you are a journalist, and this is a profession, while you are talking to a person who survived after suffering a horrible crime. As a person, you may sympathize and want to bring retaliation upon the criminal. However, do not forget about ethics, the standards of your work, editorial policy and protection of the person who shares their pain with you. This is your professional duty.

People who survived after such crime may be in different states, like the state of being unnoticeable, when the person seems as if being still; the state of aggression when the person thinks that not everyone understands what they had gone through. From numbness to a loud cry.

Try not to focus on their appearance, age (if they are not a young or underage child), their clothes, their manner of speech). We all have our presumptions, our own visions of how the victim has to talk and look; we visualize the traumatized person according to our habitual patterns of what is adequate, what adds ‘rightfulness’. All this impedes listening and perceiving everything in an unbiased way.

The person who suffered sexual violence may not look, talk, behave in the way that you determined for yourself

You don’t have the right to talk to a young or underage child in absence and without permission of a responsible adult. Besides, if you see that the presence of this adult is not to the child’s liking, try to find another adult, a person of trust for this child. It is expedient that an experienced psychologist who knows about children’s sexual traumas work with you. The same rule applies to working with children who were witness to sexual violence.

If this is a sound recording, think how the person’s voice can be changed, warn them about it. The same applies to video recording. Ask for a specific agreement for both sound and visual recordings and explain consequences to the person.

A person who survived after a sexual crime has to feel that now they control their life. Do not talk to them as to a person who knows zilch both in their life and in your profession.

Tone: Respect, solidarity, attention, trust

Do not tell them that you understand their pain, that you understand what this person feels. Because you do not.

Do not tell them that you had such experience in the past, so you were in their shoes. That had happened to you, and this has happened to another person. Our body reacts individually, and every case of violence is individual. There exist no generalizations for this crime, no similar manifestations of trauma.

Please make sure that the person is aware of the results of every step of their openness. The victim should be warned of possible consequences of their statement (irrespective of whether they contacted you first or you contacted them).

‘This piece will be on the Internet. Yes, everything will be anonymous but someone may recognize you. Are you prepared for this? What can we do to avoid this? Let’s think together’.

‘Let’s think whether we may harm your family, your child, your near and dear by telling this the way we do? Let us change these lines for something else’. Suggest options and take counsel with the person.

‘There are many scoundrels, trolls, bots on the Internet. They may post horrible comments under this piece. Are you ready for this? What can we do to minimize this impact?’ Moderators should use the function of closing comments if it is available on the site.

Your media may decide to pay honorarium for an exclusive material. The person who survived violence may agree to financial terms of working with you. This does not mean that you have bought this person, their body and feelings. This means that you have bought a license to tell their story, and not in the format that you deem more apt for publication and a bigger number of clicks.

It would be better if your media makes a charity donation for the sake of the victim or their family and opens an account, for instance, for a relief fund. These things must be agreed.

When any contractual relations are involved, if you want to make the person the story’s or the documentary’s protagonist for the sake of a noble goal (an advocacy piece for the world, translations, stage productions, other formats of the story) you must ask for consent for everything. The person who suffered from sexual violence has to know that they are entitled to the right to legal advice, to the right to choose a lawyer or a company who will represent their interests

Media often stress that they will talk not to the people who experienced sexual violence but to witnesses to the crime. It is considered that in this way, the person is not traumatized, but the story is verified by witnesses, while the harm is minimal.

Don’t forget that a witness may have their own stereotypic vision and presumptions. You can check this at the start of the conversation or during the interview.

Please pay attention that certain adjectives, links to time and area, description of the survivor or of the situation, voiced by witnesses, may point to the identity of a person who survived sexual violence, interfere with this person’s safety space, as well as influence the evidence collected by the investigation. This is why you should carefully treat all the evidence and switch on the filter of protecting the person’s data.

Illustrations

Do not use photos of children at all. Realistic photos may be taken from photo reports but it is desirable to agree this with relatives. Don’t manipulate and don’t transform violence into glamour.

Photos of ‘victims’ from photo banks should not be used (women with bruises, a raised man’s hand, etc.), better use illustrations or infographics. For instance, paintings by contemporary Ukrainian artists and illustrators.

Your own attitude to the survivor and to the story itself should be expressed in an extremely cautious way. Empathy, sensitive attitude, knowledgeability, respect to human dignity should be displayed towards a person who experienced violence.

What you need to know:

  • What is sexual violence, why sexual violence is torture? Why sexual violence is not only rape, wat are its forms?
  • What is trauma?
  • How to talk to children who experienced sexual violence or are witnesses to sexual violence?
  • How to talk to men and boys who experienced sexual violence?
  • What is personal data protection?

The Murad Code: Important to Know

Nadia Murad is an Iraqi human rights activist of Yazidi origin, a Nobel Peace Prize winner 2018, along with the Congolese doctor, Denis Mukwege. After Kocho was captured by ISIS in August 2014, Nadia became a victim of persecution of Yazidis by Islamists. With other girls, she was deported and found herself in sexual slavery. She was kept in the city of Mosul from were she tried and failed to escape. For this reason, she was tortured. She had been re-sold into slavery several times. After her liberation from slavery, Murad became an activist. She is now fighting human trafficking and military rape.

The Murad Code is a global voluntary code of behavior for those who collect data about those who survived sexual violence because of a conflict.

Next follow important excerpts from the Murad Code project that may help while getting ready for the interview:

  • The interview’s safe structure: We guarantee that our interview has a safe and sensitive structure. We try to combine sexual violence with broader experience and we will not concentrate, research or extract only clear or evident details of sexual violence from the person who suffered.

What does this mean? Tell what the piece will be about, who else you will talk to, what is the purpose of this piece, what sexual violence means to you.

  • Open-ended questions: We will use open-ended questions and correlate the tempo and the tone of our questions. Recognizing the potential harmful impact of closed-ended or leading questions on the affected person, we will limit the use of such questions to exceptional circumstances.

What does this mean? We will watch how the person feels. We will tell them that they may take a pause or that we need a pause. We may say that they have the right to not answer the questions, ask questions to us or ask not to talk about this altogether.

  • Safe completion: We will find the time to complete the interview in a safe and careful way, bring the victim back to the present time, thank them for the time they allotted to us, for bravery, for the trust they displayed when telling us their story. We will discuss further actions with the victim, how we remain in contact, and the possibility of making changes and voice objections. We are prepared to answer any question.

Don’t forget to take care of yourself after your work with such material. Watch your breathing, pulse, indignation, the speed of reacting to questions and events, your sleep, nourishment. Control your state and body. You are working as a pain storage: it is important not to forget that when you are entrusted with trauma, this is painful as well.

 

Larysa Denysenko, lawyer, human rights activist, writer, trainer on gender-sensitive communication

Oksana Pavlenko, founder and editor-in-chief of Divoche.media

Tetyana Troshchynska, editor-in-chief of Hromadske Radio, presenter, trainer on gender-sensitive communication

 

russia is not only fighting the Ukrainian army, but also the Ukrainian nation, but it is impossible to defeat the nation — professor Lydia Smola

What does the last 12 days of battles between Ukrainian citizens and the Russian army show the world about Ukraine? How do we change ourselves? Hromadske Radio spoke with Lydia Smola, a professor who holds a doctorate in political science.

Lydia Smola: 12 days of battle show that big changes are taking place: both in the world and in Ukraine. Russia destroyed the international security system in 2014 when it occupied Crimea. The international community accepted this and allowed Russia to proceed.

In 12 days we destroyed the myth that has prevailed for 50 years — the myth about the grand, invincible Russian army, an army whose actions can dictate negotiations. We have show that we can beat this army, and beat it successfully.

But international security has de-facto ceased to exist, because when UN and Nato did not taken decisive action, they showed the world that they will not stand up to protect international security. A parallel can be drawn between these organizations and the League of Nations, that in 1939 similarly stood back and expressed “concerns” when the USSR attacked Finland.

Therefore, after our victory there will be global changes in the context of international security.

russia is self destructing

russia at this moment is self destructing. Not only because the mask has fallen off, but all the actions russia takes now are only worsening it’s condition, and will soon face the International Tribunal in The Hague. russia is also waging a colonial war in the 21st century. russia is fighting the Ukrainian army, and while our army is incredible, it will still attempt to have a say after this war has ended. The russian army is fighting the Ukrainian nation. And it is impossible to defeat a nation.

The events that we have see unfold before us, in Nova Kakhovka, in Kherson, where people with flags stood before tanks, this will help us prevail, this spirit is impossible to destroy.

Also read – Among the russian war criminals bombing peaceful cities are traitors who betrayed Ukraine, siding with Russia during its occupation of Crimea

All Russian collaborators, who have worked in Ukraine for 30 years, the OPZZh, the Party of Shariy simply took money and lied about how much they support russia.

That’s why during the global changes, russia as a country that has held influence internationally, will exit the arena. The russian nation will not start a revolution, but it will feel the consequences of russia’s actions, more and more.

A new political elite is being created

As for Ukraine, we see that the level of solidarity, the level of self-reliance, that evokes the feeling of pride and of love. The one million people have fled west or left the country, have not diminished the countries strength. We will mourn the heroes, people who sacrificed themselves! We have rejected political divisions in the name of preserving independence. These sorts of things do not simply cease.

Also we are protecting our cities, our country, these photographs, where people are carrying their dogs, cats — right now we are establishing this country, that will shock the world, after it overcomes. The might of Russia lies in it’s inhumanity, but this is only fleeting success. Our strength comes from that love that we show to people, to our neighbors.

In Ukraine a new political elite is being formed. Who could have known about the head of Mykolaiv regional state administrator Vitaly Kim? But this is a person who has stood his ground.

See, when there are no politics to air on television to entertained the people and deceive them, it becomes very clear who stands for what. Who volunteered, who under the constant bombing is helping the people, who after our victory, will be worthy of having a voice in the political sphere.

As to the future of Ukraine

The west which is still hesitant about providing us weapons and closing the sky, is only hurting itself because the question of our victory is only a matter of time.

We have shown that we are significant. That we can really fight for our independence. That we truly love those who, along side us, are ready to give their lives for our nation.

We already have a pantheon of heroes, these are not made up heroes, and not heroes of other countries. In the future the distraction between Ukraine’s east and west will finish, and what will be left is simply Ukraine. The relocation of people is bringing together into a single people. They wanted to make us a fake “federation”, instead they made an incredibly strong nation.

It’s difficult to think about the future because all we see around us is war, but I allow myself to imagine that we will defeat russia. It is only a matter of time.

We will still have to reckon with the fact that russian refugees will appeal to us, and when we expel them from our land. Right now this seems strange but Ukraine and the rest of the world will soon be very different.

Also read

What do great brands have in common and how they do things

When you’re running a business, no matter if it’s a start up, a small or even a medium one, you must have one goal in mind: reach for the stars. And how could you do that, if not by analyzing the greatest businesses and brands that already lead the way of your industry?

But what do great companies have in common? How do they do things? Is there a recipe you could follow, step by step or a whole culture you can inspire from? Here’s the well established features that great brands usually check:

Great brands differentiate from their competitors

Core brand values, great services, high quality products, an educational positioning and, of course, marketing techniques that work – this is how you can differentiate from your competitors. Go for a Times Square billboard when your main competitor unrolls a metro station campaign. Join a movement and support a cause. Associate yourself with the best of the best. There are so many ways you can be there for your customers, just pick the ones that work for you and be consistent!

Great brands connect with their customers

A well known medical service company will always give their customers all the information they need before making an appointment to one of their doctors. A notorious cosmetic company will always have all the answers for active ingredients questions and deliver them through video tutorials, live chat or highly informational written content marketing. Both of them are there for their audience, 24/7, whether it’s Google search, community management, social media platforms, blogs, vlogs or other types of content and interaction. Do so and you will only gain.

Great brands keep their promises.

Always. Your transparent cultural values reflect in the way you deliver your promises. If you send a newsletter about free delivery for a whole month, don’t ask your customers to pay delivery fees. If you send push notifications about discounts, respect the offers you promised. If you announce a new store opening via billboards from tpsengage , be prepared to get visited by the people who saw it, stick to the schedule and respect the needs of your participating audience. Always deliver the promises you make and achieve your customers’ respect and trust through your consistent actions.

Great brands have a greater purpose than just making money

Of course, the starting point of any business is making money. But that’s not a purpose per se. IKEA’s purpose is to deliver nicely done, nordic furniture to the masses. Coca Cola is using their brand to spread American values. Starbucks wants to let their customers indulge in a little pleasure break from any busy day. Nike inspires people to action and personal achievement. Each great brand has a greater purpose than just making money. Find yours and enjoy the results.

Great brands know how to communicate

Whether it’s for joy or sorrow, great brands know how to communicate. This reflects in the way they promote their products and services, in the way they manage crisis situations, in the way they communicate internal changes that could affect the external environment, including customers. They work with the best specialists and have their core values well defined, so that their messages are compatible and harmonious.

Now that you know what great brands have in common, you can start your own growing plan for your business. Baby steps, little by little and you’ll get there when you’ll be ready.

Weipu Connectors: All You Need to Know

There are very few industry workers in the 21st century who aren’t familiar with Weipu connectors. A proud product from the Chinese company having its namesake, there are multiple sectors in which it is considered as a valuable component. Its versatility and reliability make it a solid choice for fulfilling multiple purposes.

Our article will inform you all there is about this brand, its products, and the sectors in which they are performing effectively. You can consider it to be a short course in all there is to know about Weipu connectors!

Redefining Renewable Energy

Weipu connectors play a major role in improving the global renewable energy scene. Solar energy systems, in particular, are largely dependent on the small connectors and other electrical components they manufacture.

Its involvement in this field prevents unfortunate incidents like an increase in contact resistance, the creation of deformations that are unfixable, and many more.

Connectors that are involved in the production of renewable energy are typically out in open conditions and have to weather extreme conditions, pollution, and vibration. Weipu is perfect in this regard as its components have the capability to combat all of these issues effectively.

5G and Weipu

There’s no doubt that artificial intelligence is the beacon of progress and the future of human civilization. Weipu is actively involved in this field to ensure that it’s established as soon as possible.

The brand provides a plethora of different connectors that are necessary for this technology while ensuring that all requirements are fulfilled.

One of the main reasons why Weipu connectors are doing so well in 5G technology development is their durability. All the connectors are fully resistant to water and dust.

Moreover, these components have the capacity to handle massive amounts of energy and data rates which this field needs and work perfectly for both cable-to- cable and cable-to-machine scenarios.

Empowering the Military

National defense has become a hot topic in recent times, and a plethora of threats are imminent. Weipu understands the urgency of this field and is constantly working to ensure that its connectors are effective in various security measures.

Each component meets the high standards and benchmarks which this sector demands with flying colors.

Weipu connectors are useful in the military due to the high-quality threading it bears to increase sturdiness. Furthermore, its ability of bayonet coupling, tests and measurements make it able to withstand tough temperatures and not become affected by moisture.

Conclusion

There’s no doubt that Weipu Connector is a brand that produces some of the most versatile and prized connectors in the world at the moment. The amount of value it brings to the table is staggering. Therefore, there are very few industrial fields in which it isn’t a welcome addition.

All you have to do is see if there are any functions in your place of work where it can serve. The device will do the rest.

One Yet Many: Living and Upholding Multiculturalism in Canada

By Logan Borges

 

Ukrainians throughout the world will likely remember the early spring 2014 for the Euromaidan Revolution, centring the international community’s attention towards Kyiv as people came together and protested against the repression and cronyism of President Yanukovich and his aides. That year’s spring also saw something unusual happen, far away on the other side of the Atlantic, just on the outskirts of the Greater Toronto Area’s Peel community; a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was burnt down. Thankfully, nobody was hurt, and the fire was caused by accident, unrelated to the events of far-off Ukraine, but Father Roman Galadza could not help but look upon the ruins of his church without feeling devastated.

This event has a happy ending, however, as the community came together in support of the parish, offering temporary space for Sunday mass as well as offer financial aid for the rebuilding of the church, which was finally completed in the fall of 2016. By community, I do not mean just the Ukrainians inhabiting the town, but a community crossing denominations and cultural backgrounds, who sought to give aid to one whom they saw as a fellow Canadian. Such was the sense of solidarity inspired by this support that Father Galadza felt convinced that everyone is bound for heaven. Such is the kind of community-building that one sees in Canada thanks to multiculturalism.

What exactly distinguishes Canadian multiculturalism? Or to put it in a manner for which you, dear reader, may find more interesting and closer to heart, what is it like to live within Canadian multiculturalism? To those who live outside of Canada, it may seem curious to live among others of various diverse, far-and-wide backgrounds, especially if you come from a place where meeting people of different backgrounds only comes through the seasonal tourist. How, you may think, is it possible to manage so many different peoples inhabiting the same space, and more importantly what is it like to live in such a space?

The easiest way to feel what it is like living within Canadian multiculturalism would be to walk the streets of any town in Southern Ontario and look for places to purchase food, such as restaurants or grocery stores. One will see the widest possible variety of cultural dishes available at one’s fingertips. Depending on where in the city you are, some kinds of food predominate the space over others, such as the usual Chinatown district, or the Indian/Pakistani grocery market. Nevertheless, the cuisine of every continent is available, from Chinese dumplings to Afghani soya chaap,  from Ukrainian varenyky to Portuguese bifes, and from Jamaican jerk chicken to Hawaiian pineapple pizza.

Perhaps more importantly, however, those of a more devotional, spiritual turn can seek company with those of other faiths or backgrounds. A simple way to illustrate this diversity is to look at the Catholic parishes in my hometown alone, as each caters to a particular cultural background, such as those for Filipinos, Portuguese, Poles, and even Ukrainians. Outside of Catholicism, Sikhs and Hindus constitute a major demographic as well as a growing Muslim community, therefore making it easy to reach out to nearby Mosques, Gurdwaras, and Mandirs.

As a result of everyone’s proximity to each other, Canadians are given the opportunity to engage with multiculturalism from the moment they enter school. Children are encouraged to share their cultural background through presentations and banquets. Canadians are further exposed to multiculturalism as they grow older, particularly when entering the workplace where people of various backgrounds work together. In my own experience, I have worked with people from Afghanistan, Poland, Vietnam, Iraq, Ukraine, and Quebec, many of whom were themselves immigrants from different points in time, and each were happy to share stories about life back home and the particularities of their own culture. Thanks to all this close interaction, it is easy for fellow Canadians who have grown up sharing this space to share resources and even help other communities when most needed, inspiring community cooperation that goes beyond one’s cultural background, hence the support of the wider community towards the rebuilding of the Greek Catholic church in 2014.

Canada is of course not immune to instances of hate crime, as seen recently in the murder of a Muslim family in London, Ontario this past weekend. However, these acts only force Canadians to come together and restate their commitment to the values of multiculturalism, against the lures of national or religious animosity. Furthermore such events draw attention to the political scene in Canada, as political leaders from the local mayor to the Prime Minister also promise to uphold Canada’s multicultural atmosphere and combat hatred in all its toxic forms.

Naturally this leads us to the grand, structural politics which make multiculturalism possible in Canada; such is the degree to which multiculturalism is entrenched in Canadian society that maintaining it is almost a given in Canadian politics.

As a little history lesson, multiculturalism became a cornerstone of Canadian domestic policy in 1971 under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, though somewhat unintentionally; a Royal Commission during the 1960s had been set up to evaluate the status of bilingualism and multiculturalism within Canada, the focus being on English and French influence due to growing concerns of separatism in French-dominated Quebec. The status of other cultural groups came second in priority. Thanks to the expressed concerns of these groups, however, the commission recommended that Canada should recognize the importance its other cultural groups, thereby denying the cultural  privilege of any one group over another. Though Canada’s administrative languages remained English and French, services remain available in other languages depending on its prevalence in certain areas, and people are freely able to develop and maintain their cultural communities.

Though multiculturalism has remained a cornerstone of Canadian government policy, the notion of it has varied to some degrees, depending not so much on which party is in power but rather more dynamic factors to which the government must respond, such as changes in immigration demographics. For instance, preceding the 21st century, Canada’s ministry for multiculturalism focused on overcoming issues of prejudice and exclusion by celebrating diversity and encouraging participation. Since the turn of our century, however, the shift from European to non-European immigration led to a corresponding change in priorities under conservative PM Stephen Harper’s government, particularly towards forging social cohesion, which meant highlighting shared values between groups despite cultural differences. The goal of this shift in policy was to allay fears of cultural conflict, particularly in regards to matters of faith and values. Though Ottawa has seen a change of the guard since then, with Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau succeeding Harper in 2015, worries of cultural gaps between groups have still remained. In response, Trudeau’s government has reached back to the celebratory policies that characterized multiculturalism in the 1970s, hence the mantra of diversity being Canada’s strength.

Beyond government policy, multiculturalism can also be itself a matter of political debate, as some have concerns for its impact on Canadian civic values. Questions of «extreme multiculturalism» were raised during Canada’s 2019 federal election, as the newly-created populist People’s Party of Canada (PPC) sought to reverse what it saw as needless help at the expense of “government programs and taxpayers’ money.” The PPC represented an outlier, however, as each major Canadian party upholds multiculturalism as an integral part of Canada’s identity. Trudeau and the Liberals maintain the mantra that “diversity is our strength.” Canada’s other political parties, including the Conservatives, New Democratic Party (NDP), and Green Party, similarly uphold multiculturalism as part of Canada’s identity on a consistent basis, although they tend to stress different aspects of what that entails. These differences can impact other areas of concern, such as immigration, as they attempt to balance multiculturalism with meeting Canada’s labour demand.

Furthermore, multiculturalism allows for various cultural groups to have certain influence on Canadian policy, not just domestic but also foreign. For instance, Canada’s Ukrainian community is politically represented by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC), but they also seek the interests their fellow Ukrainian compatriots back in Ukraine. Doing so requires close relations with Ottawa, and in the years following the outbreak of the Donbas Conflict interaction between the two has been greater, as seen when the UCC lobbied for Canada as well as the international community to pressure Russia into securing the release of Ukrainian sailors who had been captured during an attack in the Black Sea in late November 2018. Known as the Kerch Strait incident, sanctions were eventually launched against Russia in response, furthermore in coordination with the US and EU, and the sailors were eventually returned to Ukraine before the year’s end.

Canadian multiculturalism is more than a phrase used by the Canadian government to exemplify a self-imposed humanitarian mission. Rather, it is a real policy that has important impacts on both everyday life and grander political events. Canadian citizens are raised in a multicultural setting, thereby ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to share each other’s backgrounds as they grow up. Workplaces are also hotspots for cultural exchange, even in those where you are likely to find first generation Canadians. Beyond daily immersion, multiculturalism has important consequences for Canada’s government, as well as potentially the international political order. These realities confirm just how much multiculturalism really is a cornerstone of Canada.

Logan J. Borges is a Master of Arts Candidate at the University of Toronto’s Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies.

Must Ukraine Rise from Investment Purgatory to Reach Paradise?

By Logan J. Borges

 

In a recent article published by the National Interest, authors Oleksiy Honcharuk & Roman Waschuk emphasize a gap between an ideal “new era in Ukrainian policy” put forward by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the lingering reality which continues hampering Ukraine’s ability to attract foreign direct investments (FDIs) towards its still-emerging still-in-transition market economy. Corruption, failure to enforce the rule of law, and lack of “bold reform initiative” represent the greatest factors cited as impeding Ukraine’s ability to become what Zelensky termed as “the investment ‘Mecca’ of Central-Eastern Europe” during his visit to the Davos Economic Forum in January 2020.

Very little about this situation is new to those familiar with post-Soviet Ukrainian history; Ukraine’s oligarch class have held the reins on many of the country’s most important industries since their transition from the ‘red director’ days, while also holding considerable influence within the country’s legislature. This situation negatively affects Ukraine’s ability to attract FDIs, as businesses must risk the potential of a reiderstvo, whereby the value of their investment  is lowered by arbitrary legal means until they are forced to sell cheaply to the Oligarch who pulls the strings. A two-year battle in Dnipropetrovsk between the Canadian energy company TIU and the Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant best embodies this cycle, as the Kyiv Economic Court refuses to consider the case, leaving TIU’s solar stations without power unless they are sold to the local oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky.

What is new about this situation, however, is the leadership under which these conditions persist. Zelensky’s 2019 electoral campaign was based on the idea that he represented a break from the pattern of corrupt, self-interested politicians running Ukraine since 1991. An every-man voters could relate promised to put the country on the right track by dealing head-on with corruption. That the TIU-Nikopol plant case is unfolding under Zelensky’s presidency therefore threatens to undo the image he has created for himself, suggesting not even a fresh face can make stable that “promising but unpredictable country.”

For the authors, this story reflects an ongoing dilemma among Ukrainian politicians over what degree of reform to pursue; deep, meaningful reform of Ukraine’s legislature will help turn it into a branch truly independent from outside pressure, allowing it to uphold the rule of law and raise the country’s business attraction. Simultaneously, however, Ukraine is a land known for its dramatic transitions between leaderships, and in Ukrainian politics one always needs loyalty from insiders to get anywhere. As a consequence, to maintain such relationships, politicians resort to “half measures,” tackling particular problems affecting Ukrainians, as Zelensky has done with land reform and digitization, without treading on the networks that are in their political interest to maintain.

That such an article on Ukraine appeared within a major Western, American-based journal may speak to the continued growth of interest in Ukrainian affairs among Western states. Indeed, recent developments in D.C. suggest Biden giving Ukraine higher priority among the United States’ foreign relations than his predecessor, as seen in his personal reassurance to Zelensky that Ukraine could still find a “strong friend and ally” in America. At the same time, however, much of this is early on in Mr. Biden’s presidency, a time where he must set a new tempo for relations between his country and Russia, who views Kyiv’s post-Maidan status quo as a threat to its own foreign policy. Furthermore, recent developments in late March near the Russo-Ukrainian border have forced Biden to be more active, with Russia mobilizing troops, tanks, and other offensive weaponry towards Ukraine, allegedly in response to recent NATO exercises in Europe.

Outside of these developments, how much does Ukraine’s situation matter to Canada? For Ottawa, events in Ukraine since 2014 have been the reason for its sour relations with Moscow, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has remained committed to this position in spite of those calling for a thaw in Russo-Canadian relations. Canadian commitment to Ukraine is not without condition, however. This conditionality revealed itself in October 2020 following the Ukrainian Constitutional Court’s curbing of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention’s powers, when Canada followed the U.S.’s lead by warning Kyiv of “growing concern” for the country’s ability to curb corruption.

It would seem to follow, therefore, that Canada’s concern for Ukraine is a conditional one at best, dependent on Kyiv’s ability under Zelensky to follow through on his promise of curbing corruption. As a result, Ukraine is now caught in a juggling act in its struggle against corruption; as its leadership tries to present itself as a reliable partner, it simultaneously depends on the West to defend its sovereignty and independence from Russian interference.

What happens, however, if by term’s end Zelensky can no longer justify his office as one acting in the interest of the average Ukrainian? How will this affect Western commitment, particularly in Canada, towards Ukrainian sovereignty? Will Ottawa along with the West be content to backtrack on its position towards Russian interference by leaving Ukraine’s fate to the whim of Moscow?

At the time of writing, much of this question depends on the White House’s own commitment towards Ukraine, as Ottawa has tended to follow their lead on this regard. Biden’s internationalist foreign policy promises the maintenance of that commitment, especially with Russo-American relations as cold as they are today, and the contested Donbas region being the front-line of this conflict. Trudeau’s humanitarian image coalesces with Biden’s outlook such that continued support for Ukraine may be a logical way for Ottawa to solidify renewed relations with D.C.

Furthermore, the current situation at the border of Ukraine may shift questions of Ukrainian support from financial or structural concerns to those of security, with the increasing presence of Russian military personal. This shift may give Zelensky the opportunity to refocus his own resources and efforts towards the separatist oblasts, thereby removing the spotlight from Kyiv’s setbacks against corruption.

In the end, however, at some point Russo-American relations will normalize, and Canada will likely follow suit as well. Only when this happens will one may be able to judge the depth of Canadian commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty, and how much concern for corruption affected that commitment.

Logan J. Borges is a Master of Arts Candidate at the University of Toronto’s Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies.

John E. Herbst: Nasty episodes in relation to Ukraine like President Trump had won't happen under Biden Administration

Former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center talked to Hromadske Radio’s Andriy Kulykov of Ukraine’s importance for the security of the USA, Moscow’s full-scale war against Ukraine, Western sanctions against Russia in response to the aggression, and of changes that will happen in the USA’s policy towards Ukraine once the US Administration is changed.

The immediate reason for the interview was to get an answer to the question of why Mr Herbst has signed a letter of 16 American diplomats and military experts in support of Major General (Rtd) Viktor Nazarov, a Ukrainian military commander convicted for his 2014 decision to send a miltary transport aircraft to Luhansk, a city in Eastern Ukraine where Ukrainian forces fought the Russian invasion.

The aircraft was shot down, and 49 military on board died. In 2017, General Nazarov was sentenced to seven years in custody after having been tried by a civilian court under peace time legislation.

Hromadske Radio journalist meets a man on whom «Novichok» was tested in USSR

Hromadske Radio’s journalist, Yaroslava Volvach, succeeded in finding a person on whom «Novichok» was tested in 1980s. According to British law enforcers, former Russian Federation’s GRU (Main Intelligence Directorate) agent Sergeo Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a substance with this name.

Yaroslava Volvach: True, I managed to talk to a person on whom the stuff now called «Novichok» was tested. For safety reasons I won’t tell the name or surname, as well as the place where this person lives. This person was not the only one on whom what is now called «Novichok» was tested. This could be up to 20 people, according to different data. The person who I talked to knows of 4 people who were part of this experiment.

Iryna Romaliyska: This means that they had been experimented upon?

Yaroslava Volvach: Yes. I want to tell about the substance in more detail. My first conclusions are: in reality, there is no such a substance, a chemical element or compound
as «Novichok». What we were talking about with the person who was directly involved in this case was rather about an entire «Foliant» operation. This was an operation by the USSR Ministry of Defence launched, probably, in early 1980s. Within the framework of this operation, they conducted tests on the person whom I talked to. The logic has been like this: the USSR Ministry of Defence sends a request for some substances development to the Ministry of Industry, and accordingly, the latter readdressed this request to a specific laboratory.  In this case, we talk about a laboratory in Saratov Region, the town of Shikhany. This is a secret military laboratory where they were developing a number of poisonous substances, and they were tested on people.  So I talked to a person who says that people on whom these substances were tested don’t know what they were taking. This person had specifically told me about the testing of a substance that had to be inhaled.

Iryna Romaliyska: Did he know that he was a subject of testing?

Yaroslava Volvach: He volunteered for this. This person was a military serviceman at the time. One of my key questions was: «»What for, what was the motive?» He explained to me that he was assured that this experiment would not bring about any negative impact on his health. He undertook this as an absolutely safe thing. So he agreed.

At that time a person was told to do something, and this person would do this. His family or his friends had known nothing about this. Each of the  participants in the experiment would probably get different substances developed within Operation Foliant. Based on his words, I can tell about what the impact on health was. The visible results: impact on skin, change of its color, rather noticeable. I saw this person, I won’t probably be specific but there is a visible impact on skin.

Iryna Romaliyska: So you noticed? After all these years…

Yaroslava Volvach: Yes, the impact on skin is absolutely evident. As for the invisible, there is an impact on lungs, on breathing tunnels, rather serious consequences for health. The experiment was conducted as a one-off, in a sterile chamber. The process was entirely controlled by the laboratory staff. He inhaled certain vapors, and laboratory workers were measuring his health indicators before and after this, compared them, and after all this they kept himin the lab for several days, assured him that was healthy and could leave. Later, he began to feel an impact on his health.

In 1986, when the universally known Chornobyl NPP disaster happened, he was sent there. When he returned to Russia, He was dismissed from service without any compensation or pension, according to him. He is the only person from among those on whom chemical substances were maybe tested who in 1990s went to court with the aim of receiving a compensation, payment of a pension, anything. According to him, he was ordered a compensation, however it was in no way linked to the experiment, it was for something entirely different: for the 1986 events.

Iryna Romaliyska: What had he written in his claim?

Yaroslava Volvach: His claim was related to his signing of a document which had not corresponded to reality. The document says that there won’t be a negative impact on health. He linked deterioration of his health to the 1982 events, not to those of 1986.

Vasyl Shandro: Had he told you about his treatment by the press? How public is this information about him?

Yaroslava Volvach: This is not for nothing that I don’t name the names and details. In reality, he said, the information is available but it is important to say here that this relates to an earlier period, when court hearings continued, when he wanted to draw attention. Now, there is little information even of this sort. It is hard to find.

Vastly Shandro: Had he talked in any way about the case relating to Great Britain?

Yaroslava Volvach: I asked about theories and about how this person links the Salisbury situation in March and the situation in Amesbury which resulted in a woman’s death. This person’s theory suggests that in the Skripal case this substance has the form of a spray , and it was sprayed on a handle, and people touched it, and this was why the impact was not fatal. In the other case, a person found a flask, and it was in direct contact with this person’s skin.

Vastly Shandro: Where does this person take conviction that this is one of the substances to be found in the composition of «Novichok»?

Yaroslava Voivach: I don’t think that we can say that  it is in the composition of «Novichok». I think that rather  it  is one of the substances developed during Operation Foliant. According to him, «Novichok» is a general word to denote all these substances. We can’t at the moment talk about a specific substance called «Novichok», according to my information.

Iara Lee: «I go where urgency is, where life-and-death problems arise»

Iara Lee is the founder of the Cultures of Resistance Network Foundation (formerly named the Caipirinha Foundation) and a longtime supporter of Greenpeace International, SOAS University of London, Amnesty International, Center for Constitutional Rights, Committee to Protect Journalists, and Doctors Without Borders. Among other things, she was a witness to the dramatic «Gaza Freedom Flotilla» raid where nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed by Israeli naval forces and many were injured. Her footage of the event was released in a press conference at the United Nations in June 2010.

In the interview she gave to Hromadske Radio’s Andriy Kulykov, Iara Lee shares some details of her quest for global justice and peace and explains what stands behind her cinematographic and activist efforts.