Link Back to North America Group Project Page

Link to Group Annotated Bibliography Page 

Link to PDF copy of Report

Link to Visual Representation of Similarities and Differences, courtesy of Spicy Nodes

 

Link to Stage 4 Group Comparison Matrix 

 

North America: Critical Analysis of Similarities and Differences between Organizations

 

Written by: Danielle Phan, Katie Ahern, Naseem Khan and Sukaina Tejani

 

IDSB10

 

Introduction

 

     Social media is used to promote campaigns and activisms.  It is interesting to analyze how media and technology has today, facilitate knowledge, as well as facilitate the functioning and care of the people.  As a collaborative project, we have analyzed four campaigns within North America; which have built a platform to express opinions, and raised awareness locally and nationally. These organizations are Canadian Federation of Students, Forest Ethics, Mainers United for Marriage and We are Woman. We will stage four organizations in depth individually; in which encompasses the use of social media which interacts with the movements of the government, and their people on different levels and manners.  Furthermore, analyze the organizations effectiveness, weaknesses, and strengths to better understand the beneficial activities that come forth in our network society.

 

Differences amongst Organizations

 

Government Vs Market/Economy Focus for Change

 

     Before citizens can claim rights, they first need to identify where ‘power’ lies within their community, society, or country. That is, while our knowledge and understanding of human rights and civil liberties are inherently individual (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of assembly), the bodies which maintain power over these rights and liberties (to bestow them or take them away) are detached from the individual (National Freedom to Marry Inc. 2003). For example: Government bodies, Political Parties, Market Economies. Thus, before we can claim rights, we must first identify the bodies which hold the ‘power’ over our rights, and then lobby and engage them.  As citizens of, or living within, the Western World we assume the Federal Government’s role in protecting and delivering us our rights. We assume that the government both wants to, and maintains the power to, bestow upon us, all the rights guaranteed to us as human beings (National Freedom to Marry Inc. 2003). This assumption can be clearly seen within three of the case studies: Mainers United for Marriage, Canadian Federation of Students Association, and We are Women. All three of these campaigns attempted to claim rights through interaction with or lobbying of government bodies. Mainers United for Marriage and We are Women both utilized their interactions with the government (votes) to claim rights, while the Canadian Federation of Students Association claimed rights through government lobby and mass demonstration (Canadian Federation of Students 2010) (Mainers United for Marriage n.d.). This government centric focus is the consequence of both the governments within these societies having power to bestow rights on these organizations, as well as the governments will and ability to engage these specific citizens. However, as we saw within the Forest Ethics case study, the power to bestow rights does not always lie within the government, and furthermore the government does not always display a willingness to engage certain citizens (Forest Ethics 2010). The Canadian governments ill-attention to the First Nations peoples forced the organization Forest Ethics to lobby outside the regulatory sector, in the market economy to be heard. Furthermore, given the direct link between private industry and rights violations in Canada, namely the Oil industries’ denial of First Nations’ communities right to a healthy environment, Forest Ethics was forced to claim rights from the very people who took them away; Private Industry (Forest Ethics 2010). Having located the power over First Nations rights outside government, Forest Ethics lobbied consumer markets, and more specifically consumers of oil to claim their rights. Specifically, Forest Ethics claimed the First Nations peoples negative freedom, freedom from unhealthy living environments and living conditions (Forest Ethics 2010). Further, by going outside government, Forest Ethics was able to claim rights for First Nations, irrespective of the apathetic and at times hostile Canadian Federal government (Forest Ethics 2010).

 

Long term goals versus short term goals. (Organizations aimed to see a difference during the election versus organizations that want to see permanent change)

                                                                                                                     

     Be it MUM, FE, WAW or CFS, all of these organizations are activists that aim to promote environmental or human rights. However each has a different goal, a different perspective and a different working mechanism. Most organizations are ongoing such as CFS that began in 1981 and is ongoing (Canadian Federation of Students 2010), FE which began in 1990 (Forest Ethics 2010) and still continues and   the most recent organization WAW that began in 2012 and is functioning to date (We are woman 2012) . However MUM’s time frame was slightly different from the other three organizations as it was short term. It began in January 2009 (Mainers United for Marriage n.d.), and ended during the elections on November 6, 2012 (Mainers United for Marriage n.d.). The reason for MUM’s finish compared to the other three organizations is simple. CFS for example is fighting for students tuition fees and rights, they are in the process of success but have not yet fully achieved a satisfactory level since tuition fees is not a law that can be  rewritten. FE is based on the protection of the environment also has a more complex situation as protecting an environment isn’t as simple , it requires more awareness in the community  together with action taken by governments. WAW is still continuing to date because it is waiting for the president of Obama to introduce more pro- woman bills into the congress. Thus, bringing us to the next difference which is dependency. Organizations such as WAW and MUM’s success and failure is dependent and  determined by the political parties of the Unites States, for instance  as mentioned once President Obama introduces new and improved pro woman bills into the congress, the WAW would automatically have achieved success and would most likely end. MUM on the other hand has already achieved its level of victory and thus ended the day of the elections as president Obama is a supporter of same sex marriages and will thus promote and urge laws of acceptance for such marriages and equalize their rights. CFS to a certain extent aims to change a political system (which is government’s control of such high tuition fees) and thus success is not determined by any sort of political party, but rather CFS are fighting for a change in this political act. And finally FE aims to work with the government in promoting environmental protection .FE is not dependent on the political party but does require collaboration and assistance from the government in achieving their goals.

 

Partisanship vs. Non-partisanship

 

     Partisanship is exclusively seen in We Are Woman (WAW), while the other organizations; Mainers United for Marriage (MUM), Forest Ethics (FE) and Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) are all non-partisan, essentially meaning they do not formally commit themselves to a political party (WAW). This difference is significant because it shows that the groups have different goals and interests in terms of what they are trying to accomplish. WAW feels that their goal of securing women’s rights can only be done if the Democrats won the election. Their blog page clearly endorses Obama, telling their supporters to vote for him because they feel that he is the pro-woman candidate unlike his former Republican opponent, Mitt Romney (Abdullah 2012). By openly supporting the Democrats, WAW is making it clear to their supporters that gaining women’s rights will be easier with the Democrats in power who support “pro-women” legislation. This includes The Fair Pay Act, The Affordable Care Act and the Violence Against Women Act (Klein and Pappas pg. 2, 2009). They are clearly opposed to the Republicans who they have openly criticized for their “anti-women” remarks and views. MUM is not interested in partisanship. Rather they are interested in securing marriage rights regardless of who is in power (Mainers United). MUM sees marriage rights as a human right and it should not be dependent on which party is in power, as any human right should be. Furthermore, MUM looks to get one piece of legislation through unlike WAW who looks for longer lasting change regarding women’s rights (ibid.). MUM is less dependent on political parties. FE is interested in restoring the environment and removing tar sands from Canada. They are also interested in gaining Aboriginal rights (Forest Ethics). This is not dependent on political parties because like MUM, it should be human right for people to live in acceptable conditions. It is also not “political” to try and preserve the Earth. CFS is also a non-partisan organization. This organization is based on students’ ability to get together and rally for change (CFS Ontario). It is not dependent on government unlike WAW who rely on government enacting and amending legislation. Thus there is no need to attach themselves to one political party. Partisanship is only seen in WAW because they rely on a certain party to hold pro woman views (WAW Facebook page). The other organizations are not interested in partisanship because their goals are more abstract and can be done regardless of which party is in power.

 

Similarities

 

Technology used:

 

     ICT is one of the key methods of communication in today’s developing globe.  Maine’s United for Marriage, Canadian Federation of students association, we are Woman and ForestEthics all use technology to stimulate and promote their goals. MUM, CFS, FE and WAW use the means of “New aged” or “Modern” technology such as several Web 2.0 sites i.e. Facebook, twitter, Tumblr to get their voices heard and to bring awareness. However, Traditional Technology such as emailing, texts is also used as a means of spreading their word and interactions amongst members. Groups such as MUM and CFS also have customized ICT methods of communication and technology such as MUM’s 4 iPhone Apps for voter registration  (Mainers United for Marriage n.d.)  and CFS’s Ufile option for free tax (Canadian Federation of students 2010).  Not only do these types of services promote ICT but also stimulate an incentive for non-member students to join as well. 

 

Advocacy for Human Rights/Minority Rights   

 

    By definition to “claim rights” is to affirm, protect, or gain rights (Summers 2005). In this way, “rights claiming” is a process that involves both current and assumed “rights holders” as well as unassumed and neglected “non citizens or non rights holders (Summers 2005).” Current and assumed rights holder claim rights by reaffirming or protecting their rights from being eroded. Groups such as Caucasians in Western societies, Women in Western societies, and Upper middle class men, all maintain a high degree of ‘rights access,’ that is they are proscribed rights, and are further able to enact and utilize those rights (Summers 2005). These groups for example, would claim rights by halting the inaction of a law that would decrease already held rights. Whereas unassumed and neglected “non citizens” claim rights by demanding access to or being bestowed equal rights by the state or some third party. Visible minorities, Women in Southern contexts, and low income individuals maintain a low degree of ‘rights’ access, in that they are legally proscribed very few rights, and further, are unable to enact and utilize those few rights/guarantees provided by the government or third parties (Summers 2005). These groups, for example would claim rights by enacting or demanding the inaction of new laws or practices that outline and provide for their increased rights status. All three of our case studies fit into this category of “rights claiming,” and moreover all three aimed to claim rights for minority or neglected non citizens. Mainers United for Marriage claimed marriage rights for the previously disenfranchised LGBTQ community in the State of Maine, the Canadian Federation of Students Association claimed income and socio economic status rights for students in Ontario, ForestEthics claimed environmental justice rights for Canadian First Nations peoples, and We are Women claimed rights to women’s reproductive health in the United States (Canadian Federation of Students 2010) (Mainers United for Marriage n.d) (Forest Ethics 2010) (We are Woman 2012). All three of these cases demanded a legal and regulatory change to enshrine the equal rights of these citizens in their respective countries.

 

Changing entrenched and accepted social/religious norms

 

Our organizations – ForestEthics, Mainers United for Marriage, We are Woman, and Canadian Federation of Students look to change rooted and accepted social and religious norms through various activities. ForestEthics looks to change the views on the environment, in this case the Tar Sand industries. Industries believe that the world is theirs to abuse and destroy as they please as long as they benefit and profit off the products (FE). ForestEthics looks to change that view, in order to preserve the environment by empowering local communities to fight against environmental damages. In addition, they motivate environmental groups and the public to protest against environmental degradation (ibid.). Mainers United for Marriage looks to tackle the government’s actions and attitudes towards homophobia. It looks to change and give equal social rights to those who are socially neglected (MUM). Mainers United for Marriage look to push governments to change their policies to allow for same sex marriage by challenging culturally accepted social and religious norms (ibid.). We are Woman is about altering sexist attitudes towards women – gender inequality. They look for change through the markets of large scale corporations that can make an impact on society (WAW). Lastly, Canadian Federation of Students looks to change the general perspective of seeing students as second class citizens. Canadian Federation of Students look to give students equal rights – reduced tuition feeds, research funding, anti-racism, and rights for women (CFS). Through small changes, such as discounted metro passes, bottled water campaign, etc a big step as already been taken. All these organizations reach out through social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. and by connecting with large scale corporations with the ability to touch millions of consumers (ibid.).

 

Conclusion

 

The citizen driven organizations discussed in this paper all have significant similarities and differences. WAW openly affiliates itself with a political party while the other organizations do not. Some are also more focused on short term goals, like MUM focusing on signing one piece of legislation while others look to make change that will have a long lasting effect.  All groups are interested in securing human rights for oppressed groups including women, Aboriginals, students and same-sex couples. All of the groups also use a significant number of ICT platforms. ICT was arguably the most important component in all of these organizations because it was the organizations’ main way of communicating with citizens and garnering support for their organizations that accounted for their successes.

 

Works Cited

 

Abdullah, Halimah. "How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong - CNN.com." CNN Politics.

<http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/08/politics/women-election/index.html>.

 

Beltrame, J. (2012, 09 11). tuition fees rising faster than incomes and inflation, report warns. The globe and mail.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tuition-fees-rising-faster-than-incomes-and-inflation-report-warns/article4535869/

 

Canadian Federation of Students. (2010). Retrieved from http://cfsontario.ca/en/section/99

CBC News. ForestEthics giving up charity status to take Tories on Environmental group spearheaded campaign to get U.S. companies to boycott oil sands-derived fuel (2012). http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/politics/story/2012/04/18/pol-forest-ethics-charity-status.html

 

Central Intelligence Agency. (2012). The world fact book gini coefficient. In Gini coefficient.

Retrieved from Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book database.

 

Central Intelligence Agency. (2003). The World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html.

 

ForestEthics. (2012). Stop the US Demand for Canada's Toxic Tar Sands.  Retrieved from http://www.forestethics.org/tar-sands

 

GlobalEdge. (2011)  Canada: Statistics. https://globaledge.msu.edu/Countries/Canada/Statistics

Human Development Statistical Annex. (2011). In United Nations Development Programme

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Tables.pdf

 

Index Mundi . (n.d.). Canada country profile 2012. Retrieved from http://www.indexmundi.com/canada/

 

International Telecommunication Union. (2011). In Measuring the Information Society.

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/backgrounders/general/pdf/5.pdf.

 

Mainers United for Marriage (Portland Office). (n.d.). Vote yes on one, marriage for all families.

http://www.mainersunited.org/

National Freedom to Marry INC. (2003). About Freedom to Marry. Retrieved 2012, from Freedom to Marry      website: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/about-us

Oil Sands Truth. (2011). Tar Sands 101. Retrieved from http://oilsandstruth.org/

 

Peslak, A. (2004). An analysis of regional and demographic differences in the United States internet usage. First      Monday, 9(3-1).

 

Reporters Without Borders. (2002). Press freedom index 2011-2012. Retrieved 2012, from Press Freedom Index      website: http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

 

 

 

Social Science Research Council. (n.d.). American human development index. In Human Development (Vol.      2012). Retrieved from Measure of America database.

Summers (Secretary of State), C. (Ed.). (2005). Citizen initiative application packet.

October, 2012, from Maine.gov website: http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/initpak.htm

 

Tar Sand Watch. (2011). Energy Security.  Retrieved from http://www.tarsandswatch.org/energy-security

We are Woman (2012).

http://www.wearewoman.us/