I woke up this morning to alerts on my cell phone, my calendar and my fridge, all saying the same thing: “Al Jazeera! Al Jazeera! Al Jazeera!”

That’s right, Al Jazeera English (AJE) is now available in Canada on three of the country’s largest cable providers. The channel also plans to open a bureau in Toronto as early as next month, after a nearly four year-long fight to get the channel on the air.

Last summer, the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission, Canada’s broadcast regulator, let the country’s people have a major say in whether Al Jazeera English would be allowed to broadcast in the country. An overwhelming 98 per cent of responses were in favor of allowing the channel to broadcast here, so AJE was given license last summer.

The channel faces much opposition, primarily from the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith (another Jewish group), because of some of the accusations made against Al Jazeera English’s sister station, Al Jazeera Arabic. That channel has been accused of airing some anti-American and anti-Semitic programming, however Al Jazeera English is managed by Tony Burman, the ex-Editor-in-Chief of CBC News, Canada’s public broadcaster. He has personally met with opposition groups in Canada, in an attempt to ease suspicions.

To mark the channel’s inclusion in Canada’s media landscape, Al Jazeera English will be adding a Canadian spin to many of its programs in the upcoming weeks, including, according to the CBC:

• A look at what Canada’s departure from Afghanistan in 2011 will mean for NATO.
• In-depth features on Canada’s oilsands, including reports from Alberta on life at Fort McMurray.
• An examination of Canada’s controversial climate change policy.
• A report from Winnipeg on the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for residential school survivors

Al Jazeera English began broadcasting in 2006. It is based out of Qatar with headquarters in Washington DC, London and Kuala Lumpur. It prides itself in covering issues that Western media tend to ignore, including Asian, African and South American issues.

So it’s official. The Guardian Council, Iran’s legislative body, has announced there will be no annulment of the widely disputed presidential election results. Not surprising, of course.

It was pretty obvious that the GC would say no to a re-election. Just a few days ago Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, in a news conference, that these protests would not push the ruling elite into a corner. He said the rallies wouldn’t force his government to re-examine the election results. He stayed true to his word.

Khamenei also ordered Iranians to stay off the streets. But, thankfully, that didn’t happen. The street revolution continues, the Twitter revolution continues and the government, hiding behind the cloak of a loose interpretation of Islam, must be feeling a bit apprehensive.

The news that these results won’t be annulled will likely anger opposition supporters. It is however important that peace in the streets is maintained. Violent protests won’t solve anything.

And violence as a reaction to peace is not a true democratic response. But that’s what the people in Iran are fighting for. Democracy, freedom, human rights and equality, which many believe can only be achieved through a separation of Mosque and state.

Of course, no one wants to relive Neda’s tragic death. Her murder and bravery now serves as a symbol of how brutal a government that receives its mandate from the cosmos can be, and how oppressed the men and women of Iran are. She will never be forgotten.

In response to all the deaths, Reform candidate Mehdi Karroubi recently called for mourning days across Iran. I wonder whether it will play out like it did in 1978, when every 40 days the death of a fellow revolutionary was mourned publicly.

The parallels between the ’09 and ’79 demonstrations are great. The fact that about 70 per cent of Iran’s population was not alive in ’79 is telling in itself. The ultimate goal of both revolutions is the same. Freedom. History can repeat itself.

The ’79 revolution was horrendous, though. Many were killed, beaten and tortured. And as Samira Moyheddin Mohyeddin, a young woman at a solidarity rally in Toronto, put it, speaking of the youth in Iran “we did not bring this government to fruition, this is not the type of system that we want.”

She is calling for a free democratic society. To sever the unwanted and now frayed ties that bind Mosque and state in Iran.

The youth in Iran have yearned for freedom and real democracy, not theocracy, for a long time. And now, as Iranian-Canadian CBC broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi put it “the floodgates have opened.” The youth are spilling out in are numbers, previously held back by arbitrary laws forbidding the right to assembly and free speech.

Only time will tell if this generation is successful in their fight. Many have already vocalized their willingness to die for their brothers and sisters. Death for democracy, death to ensure their brothers and sisters are not killed.

But now, no matter what happens this historically brave and rebellious collection of youth will never let Iran trip and fall back into the oppressive and suppressive society it once was.

The fight for democracy is on. The question now is not IF it will be won, but WHEN it will be won.

I was reading the American Journalism Review yesterday morning and I found a story about local TV stations cutting investigative reporting teams to fit budget. Investigative reporting on local TV has never been stellar, however it does provide citizens of a specific locality with an in-depth look at some of the less publicized scandals and atrocities occurring in their vicinity.

The AJR article reports the stations like WJLA-TV in the nation’s capital have cut their “I-Team” to save money. WJLA VP of News Bill Lord says that he needs to “do newscasts before I can do specialty items.” That makes sense; newscasts provide viewers with a small glimpse of everything that’s happening in the U.S. Some of the more learned viewers actually stick around to see what’s going on outside of America.

Adrienne Roark, the News Director at Miami’s WFOR-TV makes the best argument for keeping investigative reporters. “It’s what sets you apart from all the other noise out there” she told AJR. Ratings.

That, to me, makes more sense. Personally, I think all local news stations (just as most of them do) should only report local news and create in-depth local stories. If I want news on a broad scale, I turn to CNN or CBC, I don’t watch CP24 or City TV (those are local Toronto news networks).

But if I do want local news I flip to the smaller stations because I know they can offer a more detailed look into local stories that affect my area. Just like CNN or CBC can give me a better look into what’s happening in different parts of the country and in different countries.

This is where I think a structural overhaul needs to take place. Local stations should see investigative local coverage as a top priority. And while some do, investigative reporters that uncover local scandals and even triumphs should remain a part of the team because they are crucial to the survival of real journalism and to citizens understanding what’s going on in their surroundings.

Journalism is not just the reiteration of fact. It the discovery and analysis of new developments that provide the public with an all-encompassing view of an event. That’s what real journalists do, and that’s why it’s a trade that should be upheld and protected, as long as it continues to operate honorably.

To survive, these in-depth reports would have to air on a regular basis, not every few months. That makes the title of “investigative” null, however, something like in-depth coverage or in-depth storytelling should definitely have a place, at least on a weekly basis, in all local newscasts.

Just a thought.

Labeling the situation in Sri Lanka as bad is quite an understatement. It’s dire, dreadful and alarming. Even that’s an understatement. It’s hard to describe, through language, the emotional distress and pain Tamils are going through as their friends and families are being systematically killed back home. They’re a minority, it’s tough. The civil war between the majority Sinhalese government and the minority Tamil Tiger rebellion calling for an independent state has been going on for more than two decades. The end isn’t near.

Neither side is exactly peaceful. A recent attack, blamed on the government by the Tamil Tigers and the Tamil Tigers by the government, fired artillery shells that have killed 300, including more than 100 children, and injured nearly 1,000.

The government can be violent and the Tamil Tigers have been branded a terrorist organization in the U.S., Canada, India and 29 other countries. They’ve use child soldiers and suicide bombs. But their government kills their supporters too, so the real tragedy here is not the deaths of the Tamil Eelam fighters or soldiers, but of the civilians caught in the crossfire.

And while I’m not Tamil, I understand and recognize the hurt the innocent are going through, though I could never truly imagine or begin to comprehend the veracity of it. Hell, I can’t even describe it using language.

But here’s where it gets tricky. Some of you may have heard that a 2,000-strong five hour Tamil protest blocked off the Gardiner Expressway until midnight last night, the city of Toronto’s major highway which sees between 200,000 and 300,000 cars daily. It’s been called an artery at times as it transports citizens from the beating heart of the city out to the western suburbs, which are inhabited by more than 1,000,000 residents.

Imagine driving along a major highway when a Tamil mother and child suddenly pop up beside your car. Yes, they brought their children too. And yes, as you can see above, they actually walked up the ramp onto the highway. How? I have no clue.

At its height, the protest blocked off traffic in either direction for a few miles. It could have been quite dangerous if there had been a medical emergency, miraculously though, no ambulances reported to have been caught in the jam. No babies were delivered in taxis. Just some pissed off residents and a few missed flights (a friend of mine missed his).

Some might be saying, so what? How dare you compare a five hour inconvenience to the deaths of innocent Sri Lankans?

Well, I’m not doing that. But I am struggling to understand how in the world blocking off traffic and angering every Torontonian could possibly help the cause? Only those who hate Torontonians would laugh at us, and in Canada, there are a lot of those. But who cares about those haters, that’s beside the point.

Up to now, Tamil protests in Toronto have been pretty peaceful and sane. They walk down large streets in large numbers, disrupting traffic a bit in the downtown core but only for a little while. No big deal.

And I understand that the goal of this protest was to garner media attention so that the demands made would be heard by as many as possible. That’s fine.

But now everyone is angry at you. Torontonians are mad, many (as I read in the comments section on the CBC website) believe that the Tamils should respect Canadian society and protest in a way that doesn’t disrupt it. Or at least protest more at Parliament Hill, not downtown Toronto. Remember, the Prime Minister, that guy who runs our country (poorly) lives in Ottawa not Toronto.

The point of protesting is to get people to rally behind you and support you, not be angry with you.

And please, the next time you want to block off a highway or walk onto the court during a basketball game or something, don’t bring your kids. Someone could easily have gotten hit by a car last night, and the last thing anyone wants is to harm an innocent child.

I support the cause; the civil war should end or at least stop long enough to get the civilians out of there. Bring them to Canada, we’d love to take them. But seriously, angering Torontonians creates hate, and Torontonians are like the New Yorkers of Canada. Just waiting for something new to be pissed at.

Follow this blogger on Twitter.

Follow Blast on Twitter.

TORONTO — In several Toronto districts, disabled human beings are the target or unnecessary prejudice. Residents of certain communities feel that the introduction of rooming houses, often the only option of housing for disabled people living on their own, will decrease property value, and that the disabled people themselves will decrease the quality of the neighborhood.

The HomeComing Coalition is a Toronto-based non-profit that battles this prejudice and stigma. Last July, they, along with many other organizations, were pleased to see the Ontario Humans Rights Commission (OHRC) issue a statement reminding landlords that denying accommodation to those with disabilities violates the Ontario Code.

Then, in January of this year, they helped ensure that Toronto’s planning and growth committee introduce an order that would require all 44 wards in Toronto to draw up by-laws permitting the construction of rooming houses, where several disabled people could live together in one house, paying low-rent and being looked after full-time.

Article 25 of the UN declaration of human rights says, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.” Since rooming houses are often the only choice of housing for those with disabilities, it should known as a basic standard of living, and therefore a human right.

However, even with these cultural and political breakthroughs, the HomeComing Coalition remains wary of loopholes in the by-laws that may still be discriminatory. Since so many individuals across Toronto are concerned about property values, especially in tough economic times like these, the by-laws may take long to be drafted and passed.

The Coalition also fights prejudice towards aboriginals on the same grounds, that their introduction into a neighbourhood would decrease the overall standard of living, due to a stereotypical depiction of the group. Also, off-reserve aboriginals cannot access federally funded services that were previously available to them on-reserve.

The government is wary of aiding aboriginals in everyday society therefore, in urban centers, they must fend for themselves. They move to the cities in search of a better life, but are often the target of discrimination, leaving them without jobs and money.

Youths are the last of the three groups the HomeComing Coalition, along with other organizations like it, fights to defend. The introduction of youths into a neighborhood, residents believe, could pose safety risks, since the stereotypical view of low-income youth is negative. In reality, many low-income youth are students, without the necessary funds to live near campus or afford rent even with a roommate.

The next battle for the HomeComing Coalition and its partners will be to ensure the safety of those who do move into these neighborhoods. Aboriginals, youths and those with disabilities could be subject to verbal and perhaps even physical abuse, something that non-profits, along with the government, will have to prevent.

As I walked into the office of the program director of an environmental awareness organization in Toronto, I was surprised that there was no recycling bin. ‚ I was even more surprised to see several recyclable materials, like papers and water bottles, in the garbage can underneath his desk.

This, in one fell swoop, took away the interviewee’s credibility as an advocate for a cleaner, greener Toronto. ‚ The guy doesn’t even recycle. ‚ Why am I going to listen to him tell me why other Torontonians should? ‚ Talk about hypocrisy.

I didn’t include his testimony in my article, even though several of his quotes were very, very good. ‚ It just didn’t feel right to include his advice.

After talking to him, I walked down the tiny halls to talk to someone else. ‚ She was just as nice and helpful, however, she too had no recycling bin in her office. As if that wasn’t bad enough, she too had recyclable materials in her waste bin.

After interviewing her, I went to the lobby and sat on one of the couches, which was made of organic fabrics. ‚ As I waited for my next interview with one of the executives at the organization, I asked the receptionist why there were no recycling bins in some of the offices on the floor.

“Well, we haven’t gotten around to picking them up yet. ‚ It is high up on our list of things to do” she said.

“When do you think you will be getting them in?” I asked.

“Maybe a week or two” she answered.

“How long have you been at this location?” I asked. ‚ I could tell my questions were making her uncomfortable. ‚ But hey, I’m a journalist. ‚ It’s what I do.

“We’ve been here for about a year” she answered, very reluctantly.

I looked at her for a second, thanked her and walked back to the couch. ‚ I sat down for about a minute before the executive came out.

I asked him about the bins and he gave me the same answer. ‚ I also asked him why there were recyclable materials in the garbage bins in some of the offices. ‚ He just smiled and said “you journalists.” ‚ He got up, thanked me and walked away.

I find it funny that this guy tried to turn the blame on me. ‚ He’s the one in charge of an environmental awareness organization that throws recyclable materials in the trash. And I’m the bad guy. ‚ Sure.