By Kent Kuran

“Those who control the economic life of a country also tend to have an overwhelming influence over state policy“ was the message Noam Chomsky came to deliver on Thursday 2011 April 7, at Hart House of the University of Toronto. He added that such a truism should even be taught in grade schools.

Titled “The State Corporate Complex”, the event was coorganized by the Hart House Debates Committee (HHDCe), Science for Peace (SfP), and the Near East Cultural and Education Foundation (NECEF) and drew over 700 people to the sold out lecture.

It was the second of a three stop circuit for Chomsky in Canada, with the first held the prior evening at the University of Toronto at Scarborough, titled “Academic Freedom and the Corporatization of Universities” and the third to be held the following afternoon at Carleton University, titled “Democracy and the Public University”.

The afternoon began with an introduction to Hart House by Louise Cowin, Warden, followed by a foreword given by Linda McQuaig, columnist for The Toronto Star, who herself had given a talk at Hart House earlier in the school year. McQuaig described Chomsky as “arguably the most important intellectual alive today […] and the eighth most cited source of all time” as well as a holder of an honorary doctor from the University of Toronto itself. Yet, she asked how come he remains outside of the mainstream media.

Chomsky, a former professor of linguistics and an activist now aged 82, was in his hallmark blue shirt and sweater, missing his corduroy sport jacket. His talk, which initially focused on America, later diverged to touch on such varied issues as the Arab uprisings for democracy and the Israel Palestine conflict.

The nanny state has turned from helping the people to helping corporations, was Chomsky’s thesis. He presented a recent theory of what American democracy had turned into, where “elections are occasions in which coalitions of private investors coalesce to invest to control the state”.

“Elections are pretty much bought and the buyers expect to be rewarded. It happens all the time.”

“As illustrated very clearly in the last [American] presidential election in 2008, Obama’s victory traces largely to a huge influx of capital from the financial institutions especially towards the end of the campaign. They preferred him to his opponent, Mccain,” explained Chomsky.

“They expect to be rewarded and of course they were. The country at the time was mired in a deep recession. So Obama’s first act was to select an economic team.” Chomsky specifically pointed out that, “It was drawn almost entirely from those who had caused the severe economic crisis that he had inherited. [Obama] systematically avoided critics of their practices including such prestigious ones – Nobel laureates.”

Chomsky then elaborated on the media’s reaction stating that, “Actually the business press wrote rather ironically about this. Bloomberg News did a review of Obama’s economic team and looked at their records and concluded that these people should not be on the economic team to fix up the economy; they should be getting subpoenas. They did not of course,” a comment that brought laughter from the crowd.

“Not surprisingly the team chose measures that rewarded the major culprits who are now richer and more powerful than before; poised to lead the way towards the next more severe crisis,” warned Chomsky.

He then launched in to how the rest of the people was represented in Congress. “There are careful studies of Senate votes over a long period. They show the Senate is indeed responsive to a sector of the population, the top third in income. Actually closer analysis would show it is closer to a fraction of that top third.”

“In contrast there is no correlation at all between Senate votes and opinions of the middle third, and for the bottom third there is a correlation, it is negative. Senate votes are counter to preferences for the bottom third,” detailed Chomsky.

Chomsky went on to explain that the nanny state no longer works for society at large, but rather just the wealthy. “They [corporations] can rely on the government for an insurance policy to safely engage in risky transactions and make huge profits. Yet they do not take into account what the jargon of economics calls externalities.”

“And when [the system] does collapse it is not a big problem, they can run to the powerful nanny state that they nurture, clutching in their hands ‘Friedman’ and demand the bailout because they are ‘too big to fail’ as it is put.”

Chomsky turned sarcastic. “As one commentator added, ‘too big to jail’ would be [a better term] for these crimes. It is a pretty impressive scam and it is in radical violation of capitalistic principles. But, the masters of man kind only believe in those principles for others not themselves.”

The event included a donation speech by Marion Boulby, President of NECEF, asking attendees to donate to the Boat to Gaza. This was followed by Chandler Davis, Treasurer of SfP, thanking the audience and inviting them to a protest against tuition fee increases outside of the Council Chamber in Simcoe Hall.

The protest of the Governing Council meeting, organized just days before, coincided with the day of the talk, which had been planned months in advance according to Semra Eylul Sevi, the moderator for the event and Director, Communications of the Hart House Debates Committee. Nonetheless, Chomsky gave a short speech, with Mcquaig and Davis, to protestors outside Simcoe Hall before departing the university. He reiterated that universities must find funding from somewhere as they are a burden on society; one must just make sure they do not influence the activities that occur within.

This blog was adapted from an article originally published in The Blue and White.

Kent Kuran, a third year mechanical engineering student, is a Governor of the University of Toronto and Founding Editor of The Blue and White (http://theblueandwhite.ca). He is an avid photographer and prolific writer who will read anything that comes his way.

The Hart House Debates Committee is now accepting applications for the role of Tournament Director (TD) for the annual Hart House Invitational Tournament (HHIV). The HHIV is currently scheduled for the weekend of October 14-16, 2011. The HHIV has a great reputation; it is well known for having experienced judges and great socials, while attracting hundreds of debaters from across North America. This year the Debates Committee is expecting the TD to plan the event in a timely manner and to report back to the Debates Committee on a regular basis. Anyone who is interested in the TD position should submit an application to hhdebatescommittee@gmail.com by April 10, 2011. Applications should be no more than a page in length and should focus on relevant experience, organizational skills, history and commitment to the debating club and/or debates committee, and anything else you feel is relevant.

Sincerely,

Semra Eylul Sevi

Director
Communications

Hart House Debates Committee
University of Toronto

By Charlotte Tombs

“Be it resolved that support for democracy should be the foundation of Canadian foreign policy,” was the resolution under fire last Thursday, when the Hart House Debates Committee and the Churchill Society for the Advancement of Parliamentary Democracy hosted its formal debate of the year.

The evening started off with a debate between two teams of students from the Hart House Debating Club. This was followed by a speech by Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic and Member of Parliament, the Honourable Bob Rae.

Speaking on behalf of the government, Georgio Traini and Sophie MacIntyre argued in favour of the resolution, while the opposition members Steven Penner and Anisah Hassan argued against it. After Speaker of the House, Semra Eylul Sevi, asserted that unruly behaviour and protest would not be tolerated the debate got under way at about 7:30 p.m.

Traini spoke first and argued that as a democratic nation we must help other countries become democratic – “If we’re not on their side, we’ll be left behind.”

Penner then debated against the resolution, stating that not all democracies are good and not all dictators are bad.

MacIntyre argued that democracy forces extreme parties to moderate in order to be successful. She said that most people are moderate and that democracy leads to long-term moderation. If there is not a democracy, she claims, there will be no protection for minority groups. She also stated that we have a moral responsibility to the world to ensure human rights.

“We do expect that democracy will come in these countries eventually, and when it comes we don’t want to be recognized as [a country that propped] up a dictator and stood in the way of the country becoming a democracy.”

“It isn’t like we are supporting democracy and now showing up; we’re supporting democracy and not supporting the dictators.”

Hassan made the final case for the opposition. She argued that “The Canadian government’s ultimate responsibility is to its own people Canada – we cannot always provide infinite money and freedom to the world.”

“We’re not supporting massive repression on our side of the house – what we’re saying is that democracy for democracy’s sake is irresponsible”

“There’s a large number of good dictators and bad dictators and a large number of good democracies and bad democracies; we think that it’s overly simplistic to say that what makes a country good to its people is a democracy”

Sevi then gave Traini three minutes to present the Government’s official rebuttal. He said that “democracy is an essential value at the core of Canadian society – not supporting other countries’ transitions to democracy violates one of the key, core aspects of the country.” He further stated that by not supporting other countries’ transitions to democracy, Canada is allowing extremists to breed.

After all the speeches were made audience members voted on the resolution, by existing through the east doors (for the Ayes) or west doors (for the No side) and re-entering to hear the verdict. Chair of the Hart House Debates Committee, Jim Philips, announced the results. 24 voted in favour of the resolution while 38 voted against.

Sevi introduced the nights keynote speaker, Bob Rae, as a distinguished alumni and former debater at Hart House. Rae then took the floor and said “Hart House brings back lots of memories, and I am happy to be here today.” He explained how he used to debate Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff and that he is happy to be the one returning to Hart House to talk this evening.

Rae stated that “slowly but surely the world has been coming to the conclusion that rights are universal because they pertain to central qualities of the human personality.”

Attacking a government based on a theory will not yield good results, mentioned Rae. How you intervene and effectiveness of the intervention is a question of statecraft. According to Rae, we must ask what we can effectively do to encourage the emergence of something like democracy.

“Democracy and other related ideas connected to democracy and the rule of law – they’re not conducive to thrills, this has to be at the heart of how we engage with the rest of the world.”

“We have no chance but to keep on trying to establish a better world. We cannot pretend that we’re not part of this necessary world.”

“We need to create a world that is governed by the rule of law and that respects the individual, that treats people with dignity and that has the capacity to respond to disastrous events.”

“Engagement does not mean endorsement. We are going to engage politically and economically with China – it’s a part of the world we can’t ignore.”

According to Rae we must be consistent in our moral approach and look at the consequences of our actions, not just if they are moral.

Charlotte Tombs, a third year undergrad, is the Director of Publicity for the Hart House Debates Committee. Some of her personal research interests are related to the Middle East, particularly Iran, and she is currently an editor for the NMCSU Journal.

Presented by the Hart House Debates Committee, Science for Peace and Near East Cultural and Educational Foundation (NECEF)

Details: The Hart House Debates Committee, Science for Peace and Near East Cultural and Educational Foundation (NECEF) present The State-Corporate Complex: A Threat to Freedom and Survival, a talk by academic, author and political activist Noam Chomsky. Chomsky will be introduced by Toronto Star Columnist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig. A Q&A session will follow the talk.

When: Thursday, April 7, 2011 at 1:00pm. Doors open at 12:30pm. Please arrive early to ensure the best seating within your seating area.

Where: Hart House Great Hall (in-person) with overflow in Debates and East Common Rooms (audio and television screening only). 7 Hart House Circle, Toronto

Great Hall Tickets: Non-students $20/ Students $10

Overflow rooms: $10 for everyone

Tickets will be available from UofTtix on Monday February 28 2011 at 11am.

*** Please note: The first 400 tickets will be assigned to the in-person talk in the Great Hall, with an additional 300 tickets assigned to overflow rooms where live audio and video will be streamed.*** Limit of three tickets per purchase per person. Pre-purchased tickets can be picked up directly at the UofTtix Office.

Also, on the evening of April 6, Chomsky will be giving a talk at UTSC, entitled Academic Freedom and the Corporatization of the Universities, organized by the Office of the Dean and Vice-Principal Academic UTSC.

About the organizers:

Presented by the Hart House Debates Committee and The Churchill Society for the Advancement of Parliamentary Democracy

Details: U of T students will open the evening with a free formal debate on the resolution “ Be it resolved that support for democracy should be the foundation of Canadian foreign policy,” followed by an address on the state of Egypt by Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic and Member of Parliament, the Hon. Bob Rae, who has strong ties to debating at Hart House.

When: Thursday March 10, 2011, 7:30 pm

Where: Hart House Debates Room, 7 Hart House Circle, University of Toronto

Cost: Free to students

For more information, please contact: hhdebatescommittee@gmail.com

Or by phone, Hart House Senior Communications Officer Nicole Pointon 416.978.7585, or Hart House Debates Committee Semra Eylul Sevi 416.799.3368

About the Churchill Debate: Presented in association with the Churchill Society for the Advancement of Parliamentary Democracy, which seeks to advance learning and disseminate knowledge about parliamentary democracy.

About Hart House Debates: Since 1924, Hart House Formal Debates have been the premier forum of debate and discussion at the University of Toronto.  The Debates are led off by some ofthe best student debaters at the university and also provide opportunity for all in attendance to express their views.  The debates conclude with a prominent guest speaker, often newsmakers, journalists or academics, providing their perspective on the resolution.   The debates are often lively, always free, and open to the general public.

by Charlotte Tombs

On Wednesday February 9, 2011, the Hart House Debates Committee, in partnership with the Canadian International Council – Toronto Branch (CIC), Students in Solidarity with Haiti(SSH), the University of Toronto Student Union (UTSU), The Caribbean Studies Students Union (CARSSU) and The Caribbean Studies Department, hosted an event entitled “Haiti One Year Later: What Must Be Done?”

Instead of buying refreshments for the event, the Hart House Debates Committee decided to donate money to l’École La Reine Soleil Jardinière, a primary school and professional development school three hours outside of Port-au-Prince. Donations were also accepted from the audience.

The event was moderated by Melanie Newton, Associate Professor of History at U of T, and the panel was comprised of three speakers: Valerie Repka, Joel Etienne, and Maryse Bermingham.

The first panellist to speak was Valerie Rzepka, a registered nurse who volunteers 20-30 hours per week with CMAT (Canadian Medical Assistance Teams) as their national chairperson. CMAT is dedicated to helping those affected by disaster. The organization responded immediately to the earthquake in Haiti, providing medical aid to those left homeless and injured. Rzepka gave a very informative presentation, which included a PowerPoint presentation consisting of facts about CMAT and Haiti and pictures of the CMAT team assisting Haitians. Rzepka remarked that 3 million Haitians were left homeless, 222 570 died, and 300 572 were injured. The earthquake occurred inland, approximately 25km from Port-au-Prince. CMAT focused its efforts in the city of Léogâne,where they were assisted by Haitian students from the local nursing school who served as translators.

Rzepka and the other CMAT volunteers had to be resourceful, using an operating table built on cinder blocks. The CMAT team’s work saved many lives post-earthquake, but Rzepka remarked that there is still much work to be done in Haiti. Malnutrition, violence, lack of infrastructure, and internal displacement continue to be issues in a country that is among the least developed in the world.

Joel Etienne, an Immigration and Regulatory Law Lawyer based in Toronto, spoke second. Etienne focused on Haiti’s history and the earthquake’s aftermath. His emphasis was on the lack of transparency of the funds given to Haiti from outside sources. The Haitian government relies primarily on funds from sources outside of the country and no one keeps track of how the funds are being used within Haiti. For example, Etienne stated that the recent election in Haiti was a farce: 29 million dollars was contributed to the election from outside sources and no one can say how it was spent. Furthermore, this money could have been better used to provide civilians with essentials, such as food and housing, which were so desperately needed.

The allocation of funds that Canada sends to Haiti should also be questioned: in fact, Canada may send troops to help out in Haiti but much of the money spent in this endeavor simply gets repatriated into the Canadian economy while very little is given to Haiti. Etienne summed up his presentation by stating that in order for the situation in Haiti to improve there must be greater justice and accountability.

Sociologist Maryse Bermingham, a native Haitian, spoke last. According to Bermingham, Haiti did not become one of the least developed countries in the world overnight – this was allowed to happen. Haiti has long been used as a laboratory by other countries and this must stop. Everything currently used in Haiti is not produced in Haiti, which is problematic because jobs are not being created for Haitians, making the social development and the development of infrastructure impossible. Education and social development must be addressed and social structures must be put in place. Bermingham also emphasized that money gets repatriated back into the economies of countries that claim to be assisting Haiti: “the money will stay in Paris, in Washington” she says.

Each panellist was given a maximum of fifteen minutes and then audience members had the opportunity to ask the panellists questions. In response to audience questions, the panellists mentioned that competent leadership in Haiti is essential, but most importantly basic needs must be met. An infrastructure is also necessary in order to effectuate change.

The moderator, Melanie Newton, concluded the event by stating that Canadians should become more engaged in learning about Haiti, and that in order to effectuate change in Haiti you must first become an engaged citizen of your own country.

Overall, this event was very well organized and highly informative. Each panellist brought a unique perspective to the problems in Haiti, making for a more comprehensive overview of what has been done so far and what still needs to be done in the country.

Charlotte Tombs, a third year undergrad, is the Director of Publicity for the Hart House Debates Committee. Some of her personal research interests are related to the Middle East, particularly Iran, and she is currently an editor for the NMCSU Journal.

by Kent Kuran

On Wednesday 2010 November 10, I attended the Hart House Debates Committee’s event on “Are Billionaires Dangerous?” The evening began with a parliamentary style debate by students presenting both sides of the resolution, “Be it resolved that billionaires are a menace to society.”

Debaters were assigned a position. Arguing for the motion, Josh Stark and Deirdre Casey argued that billionaires distort power dynamics in society.

Christine Wadsworth and George Trotter argued against the motion. “What’s wrong with billionaires donating to universities and hospitals?“ asked Wadsworth. Continuing that billionaires step in where the government is unable to.

Following the debate, the speaker, Semra Eylul Sevi, introduced reporter and columnist, Linda McQuaig, as “Canada’s Michael Moore.” Sevi described two Macleans cover stories that McQuaig wrote probing the questionable business dealings of Conrad Black, who subsequently told the CBC “that she should have been horsewhipped for her stories.”

According to Sevi, McQuaig’s latest book, The Trouble with Billionaires, co authored with taxation law professor, Neil Brooks, “argues that the rise of an exceptionally wealthy elite has far-reaching negative consequences for society.”

McQuaig brought to point a position not mentioned in the debate: the taxation system is not only designed as a revenue source for governments, but also to equalize society, minimizing the distortions between the destitute and the wealthy.

McQuaig went on to explain that inequality in the western world has been increasing ever since the post war years, reaching heights only last seen during the 1929 economic crash. She primarily puts blame at the hands of the Reagan-Thatcher-Mulroney “reforms that reduced taxes for the rich and corporations as well as deregulating monetary gambling”.

During McQuaig’s address, she delved into the details of the Munk family’s donation to UofT, creating the new Munk School of Global Affairs. With the agreement in her hand, McQuaig revealed previously undisclosed details, in addition to what was revealed in an excerpt published in the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/859721–excerpt-the-trouble-with-billionaires-by-linda-mcquaig-and-neil-brooks).

McQuaig revealed that “the agreement stipulates that the school will also house the Canadian International Council [(CIC)] — a right wing think tank.” Furthermore, she alleged that the front door of the school’s new building on Bloor Street (formerly the Admissions and Awards building) “would only be for senior staff and special guests of the CIC. Everyone else would have to use the *back door*” (emphasis McQuaig’s).

McQuaig revealed that the debate was originally planned to also include Peter Munk, Bob Rae and Anna Maria Tremonti. According to McQuaig, Munk cancelled due to business in Europe. She sarcastically added, “I am not going to suggest in any way that Munk’s cancellation had anything to do with my Toronto Star excerpt being published just days before he cancelled.” I contacted Munk’s office to confirm this but received no reply after speaking to many people.

“However, I did want to ask Peter Munk one question. But since he is not here, I will ask you [(pointing to the audience)]. Why can’t we all just use the front door?” asked McQuaig.

McQuaig left the Hart House Debate Room to a standing ovation.

In a conversation with her after the talk, McQuaig went on to say that “the Munk School of Global Affairs is required to spend 2 million dollars of the Munk donation on advertising the school and brand,” explaining that “while excellence in education is important, it is not achieved through marketing. I don’t believe this is money well spent.”

Responding to David Palmer’s rebuttal in the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/Opinion/Letters/article/863414), McQuaig said that “I feel sorry for him, having to curry favor with all those donors.”

When asked to view the contract, McQuaig stated that a “new website for my book will soon be going up along with the contract.”

When asked to comment, the university stated that its Toronto Star letter was its official stance.

Overall, I enjoyed the debate very much. Hopefully you will find this to be a comprehensive overview of the evening.

This blog was adapted from an article originally slated to be published in The Strand.

Kent Kuran, a third year mechanical engineering student, is a Governor of the University of Toronto and Founding Editor of The Blue and White (http://theblueandwhite.ca). He is an avid photographer and prolific writer who will read anything that comes his way.

by Ben Peel

Too often I hear from friends and students that they couldn’t come out to events because of work, school, family obligations, etc. I don’t say this to their face but my initial thought is almost always, ‘well find the time to come instead of complaining about being busy…..we are all busy but somehow I made it’. I can’t lie though, I too am guilty of placing on-campus events at the bottom of my agenda. There were two conferences at U of T over the weekend (CanadianUniversityQueerServicesConference and thePeace and Conflict Studies Conference) I didn’t attend either despite my interest. I prioritized a number of important readings for class and some much dreaded time at Robarts.

As much as I would encourage everyone to make the time to go out to events on campus, which are made possible by the hard work of so many groups, I understand that for most of us there simply isn’t enough time in the day. In response, I am (stating now) going to write about Hart House Debate Committee events. I hope this will allow anyone interested in the work of the committee to learn about previous events. Hopefully, knowing what you missed might motivate you to come out next time or maybe you might be inclined to get involved in the committee.

Sex, Liberty, and Security: A Debate on the Decriminalization of Prostitution in Ontario—January 19^th, 7PM, Hart House Great Hall

The topic of discussion was complicated and controversial. It was remarkable how the panellists all had one goal in common, the security and well being of women, yet they approached this topic from complete opposite perspectives.

One side of the panel argued that the implementation in 1985 of the three provisions in question (operating a common bawdy house, living on the avails, and communicating) made the lived experience of many sex-workers far more dangerous. They believe that sex-work is not inherently violent. The current system of criminalizing workers is the problem. These laws drive sex-workers underground and often into dangerous situations.

In contrast, other panellists saw the changes in law as a greater danger to women because it inherently demeans the dignity of women. They argued that countries who have liberalized prostitution laws (such as the Netherlands) experienced an increase in prostitution, sex trafficking and exploitation of vulnerable women. The change in laws will only serve to worsen the sex-trade industry.

In such a short space I don’t think I can do justice to the debate. Luckily, the weekly independent newspaper covers both sides of the story in greater depth: http://www.thenewspaper.ca/the-news/item/395-decriminalizing-prostitution. If you were there please post below, I would love to know what you thought.   You can also check out some photos from the debate: http://www.harthouse.utoronto.ca/blog/debates-picture-galleryor check out the Debates Committee’s Faceboook page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=123834800970599.

About Ben: “Between the Hart House Debates Committee and my position on the Hart House Ambassador team, you can find me almost any day of the week somewhere in the house. I am currently in my third year specializing in political science and I absolutely love it. My interests include everything queer, anything political, and a good cup of Earl Grey tea (which some would say is both queer and political). I really believe that going to school is more than just studying but also getting involved on campus and learning outside of the class room. I hope my blog reflects that.”

A free panel discussion on the role of the Canadian government in aid and development efforts in Haiti since the devastating earthquake of January 2010.

On Wednesday, January 19th, at 7:00 pm, the Hart House Debates Committee, Hart House Social Justice Committee, and Free the Slaves U of T, presents a free panel debate on the court challenge Bedford/Lebovitch/Scott vs. Canada concerning recent changes to the laws criminalizing prostitution in Ontario and its implications.

On September 28, 2010, Justice Susan Himel, of the Superior Court of Ontario, struck down all three Criminal Code provisions regulating prostitution; communicating for the purposes of prostitution, pimping, and operating a common bawdy house. This decision has been accompanied by much debate and confusion over the rights of sex-workers in Canada.

The event will feature brief presentations from the panelists who will each argue why prostitution should or should not be decriminalized. Following the panel, the audience will have an opportunity to engage in lively dialogue on this issue. The event is free and will take place in the Great Hall at Hart House, located at 7 Hart House Circle, University of Toronto. Refreshments provided.

When: Wednesday, January 19 / 7:00 pm
Where: Hart House, Great Hall / 7 Hart House Circle, University of Toronto

Featuring: C. Gwendolyn Landolt, Founding member and National Vice President of REAL Women of Canada and intervener in Bedford/Lebovitch/Scott vs. Canada; Julie Grant, Exec-At-Large of Sex Professionals of Canada; Mariana Valverde, Professor and Director of the Centre of Criminology at the University of Toronto; Nikki Thomas, Treasurer & Deputy Director of Sex Professionals of Canada; Phil Horgan, President of Catholic Civil Rights League and intervener in Bedford/Lebovitch/Scott vs. Canada; Stacey Nichols, Solicitor for the applicant Valerie Scott; Detective Wendy Leaver of the Special Victims Unit, Toronto Police Services

For further inquiries please contact:
Email: hhdebatescommittee@gmail.com
Hart House Debates Committee Organizer Ben Peel 647-448-7631
Hart House Social Justice Committee hhsocialjustice@gmail.com
Hart House Staff Advisor Jenifer Newcombe (416) 978-5204
Free the Slaves U of T: freetheslaves@utoronto.ca

Hart House is a living laboratory of social, artistic, cultural and recreational experiences where all voices, rhythms and traditions converge. As the vibrant home for the education the mind, body and spirit envisioned by its founders, Hart House encourages and supports activities that provide spaces for awakening the capacity for self-knowledge and self-expression.

**********
Media Coverage:

The Newspaper: Decriminalizing Prostitution 2011-01-20 http://thenewspaper.ca/the-news/item/395-decriminalizing-prostitution

The Strand: Hart House debates prostitution 2011-02-03 By Leila Kent  http://media.www.thestrand.ca/media/storage/paper404/news/2011/02/03/News/Hart-House.Debates.Prostitution-3973477.shtml