![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 15th, 2009
The recent decision by the Canadian government to impose visas on visitors from the Czech Republic hasn't pleased Canadian Romany leaders.
St. Clair goes on to claim--sadly plausibly--that Romanies in the Czech Republic are faced with violence that meets with indifference from the state.
It's important to note that this 2009 exodus of Czech Romanies to Canada is not the first. As Josef Klíma wrote for Radio Prague ("The Roma Exodus to Canada"), an earlier exodus also strained Canadian-Czech relations.
Where did Canada's Gypsies come from? The ever-useful Multicultural Canada has a few pages on the subject.
Their urbanization began around 1920, it seems, and most Romany now are concentrated in central Canada with a total population numbering in the hundreds. The extent to which this population statistic is accurate is open to question, on account of the low status associated with Romany identity and those who claim it.
The Roma Community Center in Toronto has criticised the Canadian government for today's reintroduction of visa requirements for Czechs, which the Center says harms the persecuted minority of Czech Romanies.
The situation in the Czech Republic and other countries is similar to the situation in Germany in the 1930. Like at the time, Canada now prevents a persecuted minority from finding a safe refuge, Paul St.Clair, an activist from the centre, told CTK.
"We are disappointed that Canada has decided to shut the door to Czech Roma who are genuine refugees even if they come from a highly developed central European country," the Center said in a press release.
St.Clair recently faced accusations that he personally profits from the Romany immigration to Canada, being one of its organisers. He has sharply dismissed the accusations.
St. Clair said Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), which decides on granting asylum, has complied with 85 percent of Czech Romany asylum claims in the past one-and-a-half year.
However, in a press release concerning the visa reimposition on Monday, Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said that more than a half of the claims have been rejected or withdrawn before the IRB makes the final decision.
The statistics are therefore distorted, Kenney said, indicating that a number of Czech claimants only abuse Canada's asylum system.
St. Clair goes on to claim--sadly plausibly--that Romanies in the Czech Republic are faced with violence that meets with indifference from the state.
It's important to note that this 2009 exodus of Czech Romanies to Canada is not the first. As Josef Klíma wrote for Radio Prague ("The Roma Exodus to Canada"), an earlier exodus also strained Canadian-Czech relations.
On Tuesday, August 5 (not Aug. 6 as widely reported), the private television station Nova, by far the most-watched in the country, broadcast a documentary portraying the life of Czech Roma who'd emigrated to Canada as carefree and comfortable. The 15-minute report, by reporter Josef Klima on the Na vlastni oci (With Your Own Eyes) program, showed Czech Roma families living comfortably on state support as they waited to be granted asylum by the Canadian government.
Within days, there were reports of large numbers of Roma, reportedly 5,000 in the large east Moravian city of Ostrava alone, selling their property and possessions in preparation for emigrating to Canada. By the following week, the Canadian Embassy in Prague was receiving hundreds of calls a day, 90% from Roma, and flights to Canada from Prague were booked into October. The situation was also fuelled by offers by the mayors of some towns to contribute funds to buying airline tickets for the Roma who wanted to leave. The mayor of Ostrava-Marianske Hory, Liana Janackova, told Mlada fronta dnes, "we have two groups of people -- Gypsies and whites -- that live together, but can't and don't want to. So why can't one group take the first step toward finding a solution? I don't think it's racist. We just want to help the Gypsies."
[. . .]
Lucie Cermakova, spokeswoman for the Canadian Embassy in Prague, denounced the program as one-sided. "The program presented only one side of the matter and picked out only nonsensical ideas," she said. A similar opinion was voiced by a spokeswoman for the Czech Embassy in Ottawa, Marie Jurkovicova: "According to our information, the program was full of half-truths, which strongly distorted reality and practically invited the exodus of large groups of Czech Roma. It concealed a number of facts." (Mlada fronta dnes, August 13, 1997)
[. . .]
Canadian officals in the Czech Republic are attempting to convince Czech Roma that emigrating to Canada is no easy or safe path to follow, Terry Mooney, charge d'affaires at the Canadian Embassy in Prague told the Canadian Press. "We're trying to stop them by indicating that they're taking an enormous risk in going," he said. "They may not be accepted. And if they are returned, they will return, generally speaking, to impoverished circumstances...We're trying to tell them that life in Canada is not a bed of roses, even if they are accepted. They need to think very soberly about whether all of this is worth it." (CP, Aug. 26, 1997)
There were also reports in Canada that the Canadian immigration officials were delaying the processing of asylum claims by Roma to make checks for criminal records. During this delay, the Roma applicants are left without any legal status in Canada and they cannot apply for working permits or social aid. And the hostels in Toronto, for instance, are already beginning to run out of space to house them.
Where did Canada's Gypsies come from? The ever-useful Multicultural Canada has a few pages on the subject.
Beginning in the nineteenth century, the Rom began to migrate to other parts of Europe and, after the 1880s, to both North and South America. Today, most Gypsies in Canada are Rom. Although no systematic research has been conducted on their arrival in this country, on the basis of available data, it is reasonable to estimate their first appearance as having been around the turn of the century. Passenger lists record Rom arriving at New York in 1899, 1900, and 1901 who claimed either to have been in Canada or to be headed here. Border-crossing records show Rom entering the United States from Winnipeg and Montreal in 1903, and a photograph exists from the following year of a band of Rom camping at Innisfail, Alberta.
The Canadian Rom are divided into two main tribes – the Machwaya (from the Mačcva region of northern Serbia) and the Kalderash – of which there are numerous branches. According to the Rom themselves, most belong to the Mineshti clan of the Kalderash tribe, a group of related families claiming descent from a common ancestor, Mina, who is variously identified as a man or a woman. If the latter, she is described as a large, strong woman who travelled across Russia with her seven sons and a pig. The majority of Canadian Rom trace their ancestry to four brothers, Zlatcho, Grofia, Wasso, and Bochi, the sons of Zurka, a descendant of Mina. According to oral tradition, they first came to the United States in the 1880s or 1890s and thence to Canada. Other clans arrived at about the same time and were probably associated with one another through marriage ties. They include the Papineshti (geese clan), the Supeshti, a clan of Russian Kalderash, and the Goneshti, who claim to be members of the Churara tribe, a group distinct from both the Machwaya and the Kalderash. Since 1970 there has been a steady influx of Lowara Rom from Europe, and if police reports are any guide, they now constitute the largest Gypsy group in Canada. The Lowara are closely related to the American Rom but have diverged from them to some extent in dialect and customs as a result of their longer stay in Europe.
Regardless of nomenclature, all these groups are Rom with almost identical speech and customs. They apparently interact and intermarry freely; for all practical purposes they should be considered variants of a single ethnic entity. In addition, several other Gypsy groups have arrived in North America and subsequently sojourned or taken up residence in Canada. The Rom were preceded in this country by the Romnichals from the British Isles (1870s) and the Ludar from Bosnia (1890s). Hungarian musician Gypsies, or Romungros, are found in the bigger Canadian cities, but their history in Canada is largely unknown. As well, several Irish and Scottish traveller groups, who are not of Gypsy origin though they are commonly so regarded by non-Gypsies, have immigrated to this country.
Their urbanization began around 1920, it seems, and most Romany now are concentrated in central Canada with a total population numbering in the hundreds. The extent to which this population statistic is accurate is open to question, on account of the low status associated with Romany identity and those who claim it.
[BRIEF NOTE] The new Solar System
Jul. 15th, 2009 02:53 pmIn the course of an examination of the possibility of a high-speed mission to the dwarf planet of Haumea, one of many Kuiper belt of icy bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune, Centauri Dreams makes the point that our understanding of the structure of the Solar System has changed radically, from a solar system with nine planets to one with eight planets and huge numbers of dwarf worlds.
The images, and much else, are available at the blog site.
As Poncy did, I’ll use outer planet specialist Mike Brown’s illustrations of what has happened to our Solar System in the last few decades. The first illustration shows the Solar System most of us grew up with, a system with nine planets that were more or less clearly defined, with what was assumed to be a certain amount of debris and cometary material further out.
Now, of course, we see a new Solar System. Depending on how we define planets, we can declare that we have numerous such objects in the outer system — call them ‘dwarf planets’ — along with, much further out, the enormous, spherical system known as the Oort Cloud. Think about this: The number of objects with a diameter beyond 500 kilometers has doubled in just ten years from thirty-five to more than seventy as we’ve continued our investigation of trans-Neptunian objects. It is fully assumed that within another decade or two, we’ll know of hundreds more of these objects.
Let me quote [space proponent Joel] Poncy on this:If we now recap all sizable Solar System planetary objects larger than 500 km, we get 19 objects closer than the orbit of Uranus, orbit-able after a decade or so of cruise with current technologies. Uranus itself can be flown by but not orbited for a decent travel time. We have already more than 40 objects at Uranus and beyond and this number will grow considerably by 2020. This is even starting to change the appellation ‘Outer System,’ which was previously used to name the part beyond the frost line at 4 AU, and is now sometimes used to designate the part beyond 30 AU.
Consider, too, that we once thought of the the Solar System as being enclosed in a well defined heliosphere that separated it from true interstellar space. Now we have objects like Sedna, with an aphelion (942 AU) that is well beyond the heliosphere. In moving to its perihelion at 76 AU, Sedna moves from interstellar space into the heliosphere and then gradually works its way back out again. The new Solar System is packed with objects that defy all the definitions we once brought to the term.
The images, and much else, are available at the blog site.
[LINK] "A Calendar for Ceres"
Jul. 15th, 2009 02:59 pmLong-time readers will be aware of my boosterism for 1 Ceres, a dwarf planet of largely rocky composition located in the asteroid belt--I even have a dedicated Ceres tag. With its likely abundant water, carbonaceous, and metal resources, if there is space colonization Ceres is as likely a target as any, perhaps even as much as Mars. The question of a local calendar may well come up--Robert Zubrin has devised one for Mars. Now, Andrew Barton has come up with a calendar for Ceres.
Go, read the post in whole.
Once humans go into space to stay, the Gregorian calendar isn't something they'll necessarily take with them. A timekeeping system based around equinox and solstice and organized for the needs of an agricultural society may not have much more than nostalgic value to the pioneers of Sol, considering that the environments they inhabit will be purely artificial. Depending on the tempo with which space is settled, humanity's new worlds may well ditch Earth's dating system in favor of one which is relevant to them, and not just an apron string binding them across the light-hours to a land that's no longer home.
[. . .]
Ceres' orbital period is a little over four and a half Earth years - 1680.5 days, and the Cererean calendar divides this out into 1,680 twenty-four hour days with a bit left over at the end. The days are grouped into twenty-one months, each eighty days long, and owing to my vision of Ceres as being run along technocratic lines, they are for the most part named after scientists, astronomers, and people relevant to the discovery of Ceres.
Go, read the post in whole.
[FORUM] "Should California Be Broken Up?"
Jul. 15th, 2009 03:04 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy's Ilya Somin asks this question over at that blog.
This is almost certainly not going to happen, since Californians aren't interested in this project and I can only imagine the extreme political and institutional difficulties associated with a division of California into multiple states. This plan is destined to be one of many abandoned plans. That said, what do you think of the idea? Are there other political entities that you think are too large?
Discuss.
By now, almost everyone agrees that California government is seriously dysfunctional. The state suffers from a grave fiscal crisis, extraordinarily high taxation (which, however, is still not enough to finance the state's exorbitant spending), overregulation, and numerous other problems. "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger has been no more able to curb these tendencies than his much-reviled Democratic predecessor, Gray Davis. Steven Greenhut suggests that California's problems are structural, not merely the result of bad decisions by individual politicians. He argues that the Golden State's people would be better off if it was broken up into three or four separate smaller states. The idea of partitioning California is not a new one; but it has never been more timely. While I don't necessarily endorse Greenhut's specific proposal, I do agree with the general argument that California's problems stem partly from its excessive size. With some 38 million people, California has about one-eighth of the nation's population.
Normally, the ability to "vote with your feet" is one of the strongest checks on dysfunctional state policies, a point John McGinnis and I discussed in this article. If a state government has poor economic policies, excessive taxes, or bad public services, taxpayers will tend to migrate elsewhere, putting pressure on the state to clean up its act. That, for example, is what happened with my own home state of Massachusetts when it lost population to southern and western states in the 1970s and early 80s. Even if the poorly performing state government doesn't shape up, at least migration will reduce the number of people who have to put up with it.
California has been largely insulated from foot-voting pressure because of its huge size, and the way in which it monopolizes most of the desirable parts of the US West Coast. Because of these geographic advantages, the cost of leaving California is often much higher than that of leaving most other states. As a result, Californians have had to put up with more abuse than most other state governments could get away with.
If California were divided into three or four smaller states, the cost of exit would be lower, and the new states would have strong incentives to compete with each other for people and businesses. Foot-voting would be a far more viable option. Of course we wouldn't want states that are too small to exploit economies of scale. However, each of the new states would probably have some 8 to 14 million people, more than such medium-size states as Virginia, Washington, Indiana, and Massachusetts, which few if any believe to be too small.
This is almost certainly not going to happen, since Californians aren't interested in this project and I can only imagine the extreme political and institutional difficulties associated with a division of California into multiple states. This plan is destined to be one of many abandoned plans. That said, what do you think of the idea? Are there other political entities that you think are too large?
Discuss.
Talk about creating a Province of Toronto has surged then and again, usually prompted by complaints that the Ontario provincial government is neglecting Torontonian interests, in infrastructure and government service investment, say, in favour of thsoe of a wider province. Others have proposed that Montréal be separated from Québec in the event of Québec secession. Talk of the city-region, a region centered upon a city characterized by a sort of economic and demographic unity, as the defining entity of the 21st century has been current for a while. Kenichi Ohmae's The End of the Nation State imagines the deconstruction of nation-states into much smaller subnational units, each having their own policies in order to maximize growth. Jane Jacobs, famed Toronto urbanist, went so far as to suggest that each unit could have its own currency, the better to exploit its particular niche.
Andrew Sancton's The Limits of Boundaries: Why city-regions cannot be self-governing shoots these ideas down simply be pointing out that the boundaries of these regions are far too narrow. He examines other city-regions and finds them lacking: the failure of the 1996 referendum on uniting Berlin with the Land of Brandenburg that surrounds it has forced the two Länder to establish unwieldy common planning boards, while the huge fuss over language rights for Francophones in the Flemish districts around Brussels and the question of these territories' ultimate fate has risked shattering the Belgian state. Sancton approves of the Community of Madrid, but notes that the Community's frontiers were specifically designed to include Madrid and its hinterland during the post-Franco democratic transition. Sancton also raises the very important point that the frontiers of city-regions move outwards as technology advances and transport becomes easier. At one point, Hamilton was an entity separate from Toronto; soon, London may be included. Ironically, enfranchising city-regions as levels of government would stifle the dynamism that makes them so productive. The traditional levels of government, he concludes, are large enough and stable enough to accomodate cities' needs through their economies of scale, perhaps with a bit of tinkering necessary but nothing that can't be maanged..
(And yes, I know that The Limits of Boundaries is a book of obvious relevance to--say--talk of the partition of California into several units. Guess why I picked it?)
Andrew Sancton's The Limits of Boundaries: Why city-regions cannot be self-governing shoots these ideas down simply be pointing out that the boundaries of these regions are far too narrow. He examines other city-regions and finds them lacking: the failure of the 1996 referendum on uniting Berlin with the Land of Brandenburg that surrounds it has forced the two Länder to establish unwieldy common planning boards, while the huge fuss over language rights for Francophones in the Flemish districts around Brussels and the question of these territories' ultimate fate has risked shattering the Belgian state. Sancton approves of the Community of Madrid, but notes that the Community's frontiers were specifically designed to include Madrid and its hinterland during the post-Franco democratic transition. Sancton also raises the very important point that the frontiers of city-regions move outwards as technology advances and transport becomes easier. At one point, Hamilton was an entity separate from Toronto; soon, London may be included. Ironically, enfranchising city-regions as levels of government would stifle the dynamism that makes them so productive. The traditional levels of government, he concludes, are large enough and stable enough to accomodate cities' needs through their economies of scale, perhaps with a bit of tinkering necessary but nothing that can't be maanged..
(And yes, I know that The Limits of Boundaries is a book of obvious relevance to--say--talk of the partition of California into several units. Guess why I picked it?)