Then it came time for the question and answer period. There was a mix of sadness, frustration and anger as person after person shared their stories of not being able to find work in Canada, and not being able to have their work and qualifications recognized here. One doctor shared about being the #2 ranked surgeon in her country of origin, but not being recognized to work in Canada. People pay her great amounts of money to fly home and perform surgeries but she is not allowed to touch Canadians. “Are your bodies so different than ours?” she asked tearfully. Another doctor talked about how the medical textbook he wrote is being used to teach medical students at the University of Toronto, and yet he is not able to work as a doctor in Canada. How insulting! Many people shared stories of being told that they need “Canadian experience” before they can find employment here. But how do you get Canadian experience if you cannot work in Canada?

To become a permanent resident in Canada, you need to have a certain number of points (67 at the time of writing). You get points for your education, your ability to speak English/French, your profession or past employment, your proof of funds and your adaptability. Canada wants the best and the brightest from around the world to come and continue to build our country. But when they come here, Canadians refuse to let them work. It doesn’t make sense. My neighbourhood has the highest concentration of people with PhDs in the country. Most of these brilliant men and women are driving taxi cabs. This is not the Canadian dream.

Immigrants face justice issues in Canada and Bermuda. Click here to find out more information and get resources on justice for immigrants and refugees.

One such individual was Mohamed Cherfi. You may remember him as an Algerian refugee claimant. Entering Canada via the US in 1999, he resided in Montreal. Cherfi sought refugee status on humanitarian grounds. He had been particularly outspoken against the Algerian government and feared his life would be in danger if forced to return. Instead, Cherfi hoped to establish some sense of identity within Canada. After all, legal status offers one security: it prevents one from being subject to government surveillance, detention, and deportation. But it’s also a mark of belonging. It opens up certain rights and freedoms, like access to health care, education, and opportunities for social integration.

But upon making his claim for refugee status, Cherfi’s application was denied on the technical basis that he hadn’t integrated into Quebec society. Critics of the decision, including Cherfi himself, offered that the judgement was baseless. As a fairly new Quebec resident at the time, I remember being very sympathetic to his claim. After all, Cherfi was someone who not only had a Quebec spouse but was also fully bilingual. I was someone who, by accident of my birthplace, had been welcomed back into the province fully recognized as a “Quebec citizen”; yet I was not bilingual. On what basis was my claim to membership in Quebec society more valid than Cherfi’s?

If you know the whole story, however, the basis for the claim refusal becomes clearer. Like many other Algerian claimants, for a while Cherfi lived in Canada as a protected person on humanitarian grounds. A moratorium had been placed on deportations to Algeria due to volatile conditions in that country. Still, being covered by the moratorium was not enough for Cherfi and others. Despite his uncertain legal status, Cherfi refused to remain socially invisible. He became the spokesperson for the Action Committee for Non-Status Algerians. In addition to his activities that directly aided other Algerian refugee claimants in their applications for status, he participated in activities of civil disobedience. He joined peaceful sit-ins in provincial and federal immigration offices, making the point that the admission process into Canada discriminated against those without good education or strong work skills. In essence, standing up for human rights made Cherfi a thorn in the side of the government.

Cherfi continued to petition to have his status as a refugee recognized. While amnesty was offered to other Algerians, many of whom Cherfi himself had helped, Cherfi’s own request continued to be refused.

In 2004, with his deportation pending, Cherfi was provided sanctuary in St-Pierre United Church in Quebec City. Less than a month later he was forcibly removed by Quebec police on charges unrelated to his illegal status – charges that were soon dropped – and was immediately deported to the US. This act is considered by many to be the first blatant violation of church sanctuary in Canadian history.

Happily, Cherfi was eventually granted refugee status in the US and was able to return to Canada in 2009 as a permanent resident. Still, it remains unclear that Canada will consistently grant refugee status apart from bias against claimants who are publically engaged – claimants who, from the margins, point to the flaws in Canada’s humanitarian welcome.

Churches of many denominations have provided sanctuary over the centuries, and some are doing so now with increased fervour. Providing sanctuary is one way of respecting the human rights held by all of us – even failed refugee claimants. It is also a way of speaking up about the importance of having full legal status in a country of refuge, of finding a place of belonging.

In preventing harm and violence to those whom the state rejects, offering sanctuary also speaks against the injustices that may be perpetrated by governments that adjudicate refugee claims. In Canada, there is no law protecting churches that choose to offer sanctuary. Rather, providing sanctuary could be considered a noble tradition, an act of civil disobedience.

Still, the efficacy of sanctuary as a means of civil disobedience is now in question. The actions of the provincial and federal governments in Cherfi’s case show that the symbolic power of this practical expression of asylum is losing force. Moreover, providing sanctuary fails to offer governments constructive solutions to any problems associated with negotiating refugee claims. One could also argue that sanctuary neither frees vulnerable persons nor provides them with a sense of belonging. Ironically, its means of protection is incarceration.

Is sanctuary the only tool held by churches and religious organizations in the effort to protect refugee claimants? As an organization dedicated to advocating for newcomers to live in an inclusive Canadian community, what can The Salvation Army do about this situation? As people who are able to take our sense of belonging in Canada for granted, what larger role can we play in providing vulnerable persons from other countries a sense of belonging in our own?

For more information, see our resource page on Justice for Immigrants and Refugees.

But when I consider today’s government policies and procedures in the area of immigration and refugee services, the idea of “one human family” is difficult to perceive. Too often, husbands are separated from their wives. Children are separated from their parents. Families spend years – sometimes without success – attempting to be reunited in a destination country. And the rhetoric of certain government officials makes it clear that “one human family” is not what orients any welcome extended to newcomers from other lands. Maybe it’s more about one new workforce. Or one new means of population growth. But the attempted assimilation and pervading marginalization that come with migration and claims of refugee status often do not lead to individuals and peoples within our nation feeling like part of one big happy human family.

Sometimes we like to limit xenophobia to our “melting pot” American counterparts. But Canadians are not immune to this kind of insidious attitude. Let’s consider a couple of examples.

One regulation pertaining to family reunification is the introduction of DNA tests to prove genetic relationship. Such a test is now necessary when a Canadian immigration official doubts the claim of family relationship, perhaps because adequate documentation is unavailable. Sometimes this documentation is of poor quality due to different standards present in other countries. Sometimes documentation is deliberately destroyed by those fleeing dangerous and deadly situations at home. DNA tests may result in conclusive evidence. What they don’t offer is a solution that is timely for parents separated from children. They’re also quite expensive and many immigrants and refugees cannot afford them. Every year, thousands of migrants are asked to provide this kind of scientific proof. Are these people being treated humanely? Do they belong to our family?

Recently, our federal government published a list of “suspected war criminals,” non-citizens who were to be hunted down and deported. Certainly war crimes ought to be brought to public attention and treated seriously. But publishing this list only exacerbates any negative perception we may hold of non-citizens as being “criminal types” – people who are less likely to hold to our high moral standards, people who aren’t entitled to the right to privacy we enjoy, people who don’t belong to our family.

In the book of Leviticus we read that the Israelites were given a command regarding the immigrants and refugees of their day: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 19:33-34, ESV).

You shall love him as yourself…. Where have I heard that one before? Jesus commanded one should love one’s neighbour as oneself. But in this legal text, the Israelites are commanded to make even a stranger a neighbour by loving him as they love themselves. Indeed, the stranger is to become “native” among them. The NIV puts it as being “treated as your native-born” and the NRSV calls the stranger “the citizen among you.” You might say the stranger would become a member of the family. And this welcome was extended not only to random sojourners. Six Israelite cities of refuge provided places of asylum to those guilty of manslaughter who would elsewhere be killed in vengeance. In a sense, a familial welcome was extended even to those whose garments weren’t without stain.

It sounds kind of radical to make the claim that all those who would be immigrants and refugees in our country ought to be welcomed as family. Certainly there must be some means of bringing justice to war criminals and exposing imposters. On the other hand, the Israelites were to offer just such a radical welcome. And they were to do so not only because it was just or gracious. They were to do so, as the text says, because they themselves were once strangers in Egypt, a place where they had been welcomed only as slaves. Extending hospitality to strangers was one way of giving thanks to the God whose hospitality had saved their lives.

When was the last time you felt those seeking a new life or refuge in Canada were not only welcomed but celebrated? Do immigrants and refugees experience attempts to make them feel like they belong? Like they are part of one human family? How can we extend God’s hospitality to the sojourners in our land?

For more information on extending justice to immigrants and refugees see our resource page.

Ahmed is also a refugee. He and his family are living in Canada now, but Ahmed still has flashbacks to living in Pakistan where he received death threats and had to undergo torture from his local police. Ahmed has enemies because of his “political activity” which meant that he wanted freedom for his people. Ahmed literally looks over his shoulder all the time and usually talks in a whisper because he says you never know who is listening. His words sound paranoid, but they are legitimate. He knows that some of his enemies live in Canada.

A refugee is someone living outside their country of origin that has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion (definition from the 1951 Geneva Convention). Refugees flee from their home countries because they fear being punished and persecuted for who they are. Some people flee from their homes but stay inside their country’s borders. These are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).

According to United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) statistics, in 2010 there were about 15.4 million refugees in the world , but the total population of concern (including asylum seekers, stateless persons, internally displaced persons and people living in refugee-like conditions) is 43.7 million people — the highest number in 15 years. In Canada, there are approximately 165,549 refugees and 216,574 people of concern. There are no refugees in Bermuda.

Although Canada has a good reputation for welcoming many refugees, refugees in Canada face many injustices, such as long processing delays, separation of families, living in limbo and lack of a Refugee Appeals Division.

Refugees have already experienced so much injustice. Let’s pray for them and take action so that they might know true peace and justice.

Click here for prayer and information resources on justice for refugees and immigrants.

In Bermuda, it is very challenging to become an immigrant because of strict immigration guidelines. Staying in Bermuda long-term is difficult, and work permits are generally limited to one-to-three years. Attaining Bermudian citizenship is almost impossible for those born outside of the island. As a foreigner you cannot buy a home in Bermuda unless you can afford a multi-million dollar property. There are a lot of misconceptions about migrants and this leads to stigma, intolerance or hate from host communities.

In Canada, newcomers often find it hard to find meaningful employment in their field due to language barriers, not knowing people to network with, not having their credentials recognized and not having “Canadian experience.” Migrants and their families are vulnerable to human rights abuses from human traffickers or unscrupulous employers. Sometimes they are condemned to live and work in appalling conditions. Immigrant and refugee youth who come to Canada in their early teens have a high drop-out rate, particularly if their families are low-income. Many newcomers are living in unsafe, crowded and unaffordable housing situations and they are vulnerable to exploitation because of not knowing their rights and discriminatory practices of landlords. Even when a workplace, church or community is diverse, often the leadership of those institutions is not. There are a lot of misconceptions about immigrants and refugees leading to stigma, intolerance or hate from host communities.

Immigrants and refugees face many injustices. So what can we do?

• Pray for refugees and immigrants in Canada and around the world.
• Befriend refugees and immigrants.
• Correct misinformation and confront prejudicial comments against immigrants and refugees when you hear them.
• Stay informed. For example, join one of the Canadian Council for Refugees’ campaigns to keep current on the issues and to take action.
• Write to your Member of Parliament or set up a meeting with her/him, showing your concern for any or all of the justice issues facing refugees and immigrants in Canada.
• Include immigrants and refugees in leadership positions at the corps.
• Teach English formally or informally, one-on-one, in a conversation circle or as a class at the corps.
• Mentor a newcomer to Canada who is looking for work in your field. Help them connect with other professionals and give tips and ideas on finding meaningful employment.
• Volunteer at an agency in your community that assists newcomers to Canada.
• Write welcome letters to new immigrant and refugee children. These can then be sent to The Salvation Army’s Immigrant & Refugee Services Centre (160 Jarvis St, Toronto ON M5B 2E1) or Multicultural Family Centre (51 Morrow Ave, Winnipeg MB R2M 1A5) to be distributed.

Click here for more information and resources on justice for immigrants and refugees.

My resolution is different. I’m going green. You might say I’ve been converted.

I don’t mean environmentalism is my new religion or the centre of my faith. I do mean I’ve been persuaded to reorient my lifestyle away from vices like waste, consumerism, materialism, and dissatisfaction and toward virtues like conservation, frugality, gratitude, and hope.

Wait a sec…hope? I don’t hear too many environmentalists out there preaching “hope.” Environmentalists are the doomsday prophets of old – modern-day Jeremiahs and Amoses prophesying rising waters, famines and droughts, and widespread loss of plant and animal species. Sure, some of the nicer ones like Al Gore also encourage us to act in hope for a better future. Yet the forecasted doom seems utterly unavoidable regardless of our actions. Even if we conform to extremely stringent standards when it comes to energy and material consumption, even if we practice entirely sustainable lifestyles, many say we’re too far along to avert disaster now. In fact, some scholars writing in The Ecologist have gone as far as to argue that hope is the wrong motivator for sustainable living. What is there to hope for when we are doomed? If the essence of hope is now in denying the reality we see all around us, it’s no better than burying our heads in the sand.

But we hope not for what is seen but for what is unseen.

A favourite quote comes from Reinhold Niebuhr’s book The Irony of American History. Although it wasn’t uttered in the context of an impending environmental crisis, it might as well have been:

“Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope.”

In my process of conversion I have had to recognize one fact: all my efforts to save the planet will not result in a saved planet. There’s nothing more to it. The work I do to conserve and to mend may have some positive consequences that I get to witness. It may encourage others to live sustainably too. The best case scenario is that it may be one small part of a larger effort made by human beings. But this effort is always and only ongoing. The conditions of the global climate, of the ozone layer, of biodiversity – these conditions are not subject to a permanent fix. They cannot be corrected once for all. Living responsibly in this world is not the kind of task that we can complete.

But in a lot of ways, this is much like life in the “already-but-not-yet” Kingdom of God. Conversion to life with God and commitment to God’s ways are lifelong efforts, not singular events. Following the Way often does not result in the great achievements we expect. We don’t eradicate poverty and injustice. We don’t adequately communicate Gospel to those who have shut their ears. But we continue to live in hope that God’s Kingdom is coming, that God’s will will be done.

The Christian virtue of hope can enlighten us about how to live responsibly in creation. “Going green” is just that: go-ing green in the present continuous verb form. It’s a change in attitude about and behaviour toward the natural world that must be maintained over time and despite impending doom. The alterations in habit and practice come slowly and progressively, piece by piece, even in the face of overwhelming cultural opposition. Conversion doesn’t mean perfection. It doesn’t even mean completion. But it does mean reorientation.

As you seek to live responsibly on the earth and in the presence of all creation, may you be saved by hope.

A happy, hope-filled New Year from The Ethics Centre.

Climate injustice.

Climate justice is a concept that deals with the causes and consequences of climate change. Since greenhouse gases are rising dramatically because of the carbon emissions of the developed West, we are most of all to blame for climate change. People with greater means consume more. People with lesser means consume less. However, as the consequences of climate change begin to rear their heads, we find that the burdens to be borne by these groups are distributed in the reverse. It is those who are least responsible for climate change who are most vulnerable to its effects. These are the people living in developing nations who don’t drive cars, who don’t expand into suburbs, who don’t order in from the other side of the globe, who aren’t “addicted” to oil. They experience the most poverty. They have no resources for adaptation to climate change and will suffer its effects greatly.

Some authorities maintain climate injustice is already a reality. Rising temperatures are a factor in the spread of certain illnesses like malaria. Changing rain patterns and shorter growing seasons thwart the subsistence of rural, agriculturally-based communities in sub-Saharan Africa. Climate-related natural disasters, such as drought and flooding, storms and tidal surges, are also a major concern. Advocates of climate justice often point to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the US as a sign that climate injustice is compounded by the injustice of socio-economic disparities. The more affluent corners of New Orleans are now refurbished and the tourists are back. But the rebuilding of the poorer districts remains a low priority. Many of the residents of these neighbourhoods will never return home.

The longer we in industrialized nations take to curb our own contributions to global warming, the more those in developing nations will have to do to prevent disaster. Indeed, we’re now being told that our unsustainable lifestyle will soon make their very lives unsustainable.

What’s the solution? If climate change is, as many argue, unavoidable, how do we protect the lives of those vulnerable to its effects? Climate justice advocates encourage a two-fold response: mitigation and adaptation. Clearly, we must address our own consumption to mitigate the damage we cause. The focus of adaptation is on developing nations that take practical steps to reduce their vulnerability. But how to afford this? One idea comes from Canada’s Naomi Klein. She promotes we assume “climate debt”: wealthy, developed nations should pay reparations to poor, undeveloped nations for the climate crisis. Moneys would be used to prevent damage due to climate disaster by funding higher sea walls or clean technologies.

Christmas is a welcome feast. It’s a time to celebrate our blessings. But it’s also become a time of added consumption – flights or road trips to see family, all that non-recyclable wrapping paper, and evidence of an economy well supported underneath our Christmas trees. Let’s not forget that much of this consumption depends on oil. This year, reflect on how you can celebrate more responsibly, on how you can be a good steward of your blessings. Invite the most vulnerable around the world to a just celebration of the good news that is for all creation.

Climate change – it’s not just for tree huggers. It’s a social justice issue too.

Check out our Environment resource page. And see this piece from the International Social Justice Commission for another account of the climate justice movement.

Let’s see. First I find out that I should eat in-season and locally produced food in order to cut down on the carbon put into the atmosphere during transportation. And supporting local farmers is important to the well being of my community. Of course, just because something is produced locally doesn’t mean it is produced sustainably. Looks like I need to consider a few other factors while browsing the grocery store aisles. If a commodity is available in a Fair Trade Certified version, that’s what I will opt for. I vow to eat organic produce in order to cut synthetic fertilizers and pesticides out of my diet; they’re harmful both to my own health and to the health of farmland. Plus, ecosystems suffer greatly under the monoculture practices of industrialized farms. The meat, dairy and eggs I consume will be organic and from free-range or grazed sources. The hormones, antibiotics and additives used in factory farms have questionable health effects, and the mainstream meat industry depends upon grossly inhumane conditions to keep costs down. Also, I will avoid eating big fish like tuna and salmon because aquaculture is largely unsustainable – I’ll just stick to anchovies and sardines. But really, I should go vegetarian – or, better yet, vegan – because meat and dairy production is excessively costly to the earth both in terms of air pollution and in terms of energy, land and water usage.

Generally speaking, these rules preclude the purchase of any processed or pre-packaged convenience foods. Ideally, everything in my shopping cart will be unpackaged, but I’ll give a pass to minimal, recyclable packaging. And speaking of packaging, whatever comes home with me must be in reusable shopping bags or bins. No disposable plastic. Ever. (I get extra points for bagging my produce in my washable mesh sacks.) I’ll transport my reusable bags home on the handlebars of my bicycle because I wouldn’t dream of driving to the grocery store — er, farmer’s market. I’ll cook from scratch whenever possible. I’ll also make sure not to waste anything — leftover chicken bones and vegetable peelings are great for making stock. And then I’ll plant a backyard garden so I have my own fresh veggies in the summer and fall, and canned goods for winter.

Oh – and I can rule out restaurants from now on.

Have I forgotten anything? Undoubtedly. This doesn’t nearly cover all the concerns that occupy food ethicists out there. But it’s enough to convey how broad the issue is and how tall an order it demands of us. It may be an impossible order to fill. One of the most salient problems is the debate between local and organic options. Often it’s impossible to meet both criteria. That luscious-looking lamb leg I have my eye on is from a free-grazing farm, but that farm is all the way in New Zealand. No organic lamb farms in my province. The same problem applies to Fair Trade coffee. It seems that the more I educate myself on food ethics issues, the more confused I become. Just how am I supposed to eat ethically?

I think it’s safe to say that few of us will have the time, energy, money and opportunity it takes to eat 100% ethically or, might I say, conscientiously. But that doesn’t mean we should throw in the towel. Ethical eating starts with a first step: recognizing that the effects of the food we buy go well beyond satiating our hunger. Our diet affects not only our health, but also the health and welfare of animals, farmland and ecosystems, and the well being of farmers and producers. And since each of us in the West eats a few times each day, these effects are massive. If we can make it to step one we’ve come a long way.

If you’re concerned about food ethics, there certainly are small, practical changes you can make to your purchasing and eating habits. Frequenting farmers’ markets or joining a local food co-op can be easy switches from the grocery store. You might go organic when possible. Or you could try going meatless one day a week. But I’ve learned to follow a really helpful rule. It’s neither fool-proof nor wholly adequate, but it often leads me to make more responsible choices when it comes to food. That rule is: eat what tastes good. Think about it. Home- or locally-grown fruits and veggies are so much more flavourful than produce grown in distant countries and preserved for a long trip to Canada. Organic meats are also a much more delicious choice. Ditto for the eggs I get from a local farmer. And most things cooked on a stove or in the oven are a million times tastier than anything zapped in the microwave.

Think about it. Eat what tastes good. It’s not really an ethical tip. But it may make you a more ethical eater.

Check out the Ethics Centre’s Environment resource page on how you can pursue responsible living in God’s world.

Bill McKibben’s The Comforting Whirlwind is a fascinating read that links environmental concern with the book of Job. McKibben discerns that conventional wisdom doesn’t always hold true, both in Job’s time and in our own. Job’s friends — those well-meaning men who come to comfort him in the depth of his tragedy — are experts of conventional wisdom. They attempt to console Job with the “common sense” interpretation of his situation. God is just. So, if Job is suffering, Job must be guilty. Job simply needs to admit that he’s sinned against God. But Job knows that this interpretation just doesn’t wash; he’s done nothing to invoke God’s wrath. And he’s proved right in this when God’s view of the situation overturns the conventional wisdom of the day.

Who are Job’s friends in our time? According to McKibben, they are the people in our society who advocate a materialistic and very human-centred way of evaluating success and failure. The contemporary public philosophy of the West places value on expansion, consumption, domination. It’s simply common sense that human beings are good at reaching for more, that we’re good at putting things under our thumb. Some would argue this kind of development is even biblically mandated. But McKibben perceives this approach to miss the mark entirely. Again, God’s view of the situation, he believes, overturns the conventional wisdom.

In both Job’s time and our own, the view from on high is communicated in a fairly straightforward way. God simply says, “You want to know the truth? Just open your eyes. Look around you.”

The Comforting Whirlwind aims to point the reader away from the commonly held position that “the earth is humanity’s and everything in it.” In fact, McKibben argues, the earth is the Lord’s. Most of us wouldn’t have trouble agreeing. But McKibben articulates a natural correlate of that belief, one that may be a little harder to come to terms with: The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, and neither it nor anything contained in it was created for human beings. In defence of this, McKibben spends some time listening to the lengthy soliloquy God delivers “out of the whirlwind” toward the end of the book of Job. In it, Job is asked to open his eyes and look around him. His attention is directed to the winds, the sun, the sea monsters Behemoth and Leviathan, and other great wonders of creation. None of these wonders was created by Job nor has he any control over them. Some of them are threatening to human beings. Some of them seem downright purpose-less, at least, according to the perspective of a human being. They are truly wild, without capacity for domestication. In fact, it is fitting and beautiful, according to God’s speech, that much of creation is untameable. In other words, it is fitting to displace human beings from the domineering position we so easily assume.

It’s part of God’s plan, McKibben concludes, to expand Job’s view of creation – a vast creation of which human beings are merely one small part; a creation that, in its totality, exists to delight the Creator. In the face of utter confusion, Job is taught humility.

Are we still capable of humility today? We are not God, yet we do know a lot more about God’s wonders of creation than did Job and his contemporaries. And conventional wisdom teaches us that our world is getting smaller as our reach expands. Although we may not control the wind and sun, we can now harness their power. Although we still have natural predators, we’ve become quite skilled at protecting ourselves from them by squeezing them out of their habitats and eradicating species. As creatures, we’re only becoming more and more successful in achieving the goals we have set for ourselves.

Then again, the more expansive our reach becomes, the more natural forces seem to work against us, presenting larger and larger obstacles. All we have to do is open our eyes to see that conventional wisdom is again being thwarted by evidence presented in the natural world around us.

McKibben wonders: will we ever learn to be small again?

For more information on environmental responsibility see our Environment resource page.

Currently, 2 billion people live on less than $2US/day, and this is a severe threat to their life and health. No matter where you live, it is very difficult to live on so little. So people living in poverty are looking for alternatives and being trapped into oppressive working situations like sweat shops and trafficked work.

Right now, international trade is neither free nor fair. Fair Trade offers an alternative. Fair Trade ensures that people are paid a reasonable wage for their work and that their working conditions are safe. Fair Trade producers also have access to funds for community projects and, often, a guarantee that their work is not harming their environment.

Let’s pray for workers and their families who are living in extreme poverty. Let’s pray for Fair Trade producers and their communities. Let’s pray for an international trading system that is more fair. And let’s pray that consumers like you and me will purchase wisely.

People in the poorest countries of the world need a chance for true, fair development. Buying Fair Trade Certified products and praying for economic justice will make a difference in their lives.

Take a look at our Fair Trade resources.