Toes get stubbed on borders

Celebrations are in order, as a good friend has at last gained "residency" in Canada - after having resided here for many years. Life's a lot less stressful when you don't have to worry about getting deported. The timing is a little ironic, as she turns her sights southward to her family... and the ongoing electoral crisis in Mexico.

The CEPR (a group of American economists) has been analysing the 'partial recount' data released by the Mexican electoral authority; they found "a significant reduction" of votes for Felipe Calderón (whom the electoral authorities have nonetheless declared president-elect), and correspondingly significant gains for populist Andrés Manuel López Obrador (aka: "AMLO"). Their most recent update contains even more dramatic numbers; note in particular at the bottom of the page where they estimate that "it would take about 200 hours" to decipher the data. Clearly, no official effort will be made to determine the actual outcome. Obrador will announce his next move at the "Democratic National Convention" this weekend.

If you can read Spanish (or have a good bilingual dictionary, a verb conjugator, and a little patience), you might enjoy Marcos' insightful response to ("friends" and) critics of the "other campaign" (who have claimed that the EZLN and allied groups do, or should, support Obrador). Essentially: the election was a fraud, but even if it had been legitimate (and the 'leftist' candidate had won), little would have changed for those who are concerned with building alternatives to the state.

As i witness the unfolding electoral spectacle (and contemplate its consequences), i can't help but wearily recall the perennial debates around whether or not a principled engagement with electoral politics can be consistent with anarchism. It's a pretty boring and sophomoric discussion for the most part, in my humble opinion. Much of it boils down to false dilemmas ("to act" rather than "to elect" - can't we do both?) and posturing. While i agree with virtually every word of Jaggi Singh's analysis, i am nevertheless convinced that we can choose the lesser evil and refuse to co-operate with it. Or as Jaggi himself has said: we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Anarchists sympathetic to the Parti Populaire des Putes (People's Prostitutes' Party) could show their support by voting for them as well as supporting sex trade workers by direct action (like Copwatch).

I consider voting to be another form of harm reduction: injecting heroin is inherently harmful, but at least one can use a clean needle (and a safe injection site); states are inherently harmful, but at least citizens can exert an influence on the state (unlike a corporation, unless you buy shares) - to hopefully make it slightly less harmful. It may not seem like a worthwhile difference to some (especially to people of privilege), but to people on the margins it can matter a whole lot where the lines get drawn...

Anyway, here in the land where elections are lost "fair and square", an almost-amusing group of the usual, hard-core loonies (who warn of "secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality") has recently complained to the provisional Canadian government about the continued funding of Out on Screen, the group whose hard work brings us the delights of Vancouver's Queer Film Festival (and whose Out in Schools project is especially impressive, i think).

As usual, click here to find your MP and, if you have a minute, remind them that not all of their constituents are anti-choice, homophobic neanderthals (it's probably easy to 'forget'). You could even warn them that some of their constituents might be anarchists - who actually vote!