soldiers have rights too: the human right of conscience applies to everyone

This is an excellent letter written by Dick Cotterill, who came to Canada when he deserted the US military during the Vietnam War. Dick wrote the letter in response to this drivel in the Toronto Sun.

Peter Worthington characterizes U.S. Iraq War resisters -- soldiers who refuse to engage in a war that most of the world has recognized as illegal and immoral -- as insulting to the work of our Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. As a veteran who voluntarily joined the United States Marine Corps during the Vietnam War but left in disgust to eventually find a new home and establish a small business in Nova Scotia, I find his argument insulting to the intelligence of most Canadians and to our soldiers.

I was born in Ithaca, N.Y., in 1950 and grew up on a dairy farm. In June of 1969, after completing my freshman year at Cornell University, I decided not to return in the fall. Many of my high school classmates were in the military and many were already in Vietnam at that time. I felt a patriotic duty to serve my country and enlisted in the Marine Corps for four years. During my second year in the Corps, I was stationed with operational squadrons and the reality of my situation began to become a moral burden. I was a fire control technician, working on F4 phantom jet fighters. My job was to keep the radar and fire control electronics working properly. We had sidewinder and sparrow missiles for air to air combat; rockets, Napalm and bombs for air-to-ground operations. As I met more and more Marines returning from Vietnam it became obvious that the war was a mistake, unjust and immoral. Eventually, I reached the moral and ethical decision that I could not complete my enlistment. I applied for discharge as a conscientious objector and when that failed, I decided to desert.

International protocol and several United Nations rulings recognize the reality and the right of a volunteer soldier to become a conscientious objector. Does Mr. Worthington truly expect soldiers to give up their conscience and all their rights when they enlist? If a war is shown to be based on false pretenses and deliberate falsification of information and not sanctioned by the United Nations, does he really think soldiers should just follow orders when their actions can be judged as criminal?

The international community established key principles after World War II to prevent genocide, invasion, occupation and war crimes. The laws and principles of war under the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg principles are part of a soldier's training. Is Mr. Worthington seriously suggesting there are no laws or rules of engagement in war and that soldiers should just ignore their training? If so, why are soldiers being prosecuted in Canada and the U.S. for engaging in war crimes?

Ultimately, Mr. Worthington is in the minority of Canadians who still stand by George W. Bush's illegal and immoral war in Iraq. While he may admit that public opinion is against the war, his suggestion that soldiers must be unthinking robots who follow illegal orders does not stand up to common sense or the basic standards of international law.

The fact remains that the Iraq War was wrong -- even Prime Minister Stephen Harper agrees, having said that it was "absolutely an error" -- so our government should welcome Iraq War resisters just as I was welcomed in Canada.

Dick Cotterill
Truro, Nova Scotia

Wmtc readers, don't forget to contact Michael Ignatieff and other Liberal non-voters. Tell them how you feel about their betrayal of basic values of justice. See this thread, including comments, for details.

teabaggers for animal cruelty

Just when you think you know how insane the tea-crazies have gotten, one of them manages to drain a little more water from the pool. (A mixed metaphor, I know, but the Seinfeld line is too good to pass up.)

Concerned folks in the state of Missouri are trying to pass a law against the worst excesses of puppy mills, by legislating some minimum standards for breeders.

Puppy mills are horribly inhumane places where dogs are kept in disgusting conditions and used as breeding machines, forced to bear litter after litter of puppies until they die of exhaustion. The offspring of those tortured dogs are crammed into tiny cages, never socialized, exercised or attended to, and fed the bare minimum for survival.

Then they are cleaned up and sold to retail pet stores, to sit in windows until someone buys them. They often end up abandoned because they are so completely unsocialized, or die an early death caused by the abuse and neglect.

So who could oppose legislation against puppy mills? (Except, of course, the people who profit from them.) Why, the tea-partiers, of course. It's a socialist plot to prevent red-blooded Americans from owning as many dogs as they want.

A conservative group in Missouri is picking up the backing of the Tea Party and Joe The Plumber in its quest to stop the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups from passing "radical" anti-puppy mill legislation.

The measure, which can be read in full here, is called Proposition B or the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act." It aims to help eliminate the "3000 puppy mills" in Missouri that constitute "30% of all puppy mills in the U.S.," according to Michael Markarian, the Chief Operating Officer of the HSUS.

The HSUS is a national animal rights advocacy group that doesn't financially support local Humane Society shelters.

"This measure would provide common sense standards for the care of dogs," Markarian told TPM, including sufficient food and clean water, vet care, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles, among other things. Markarian said the measure only applies to "commercial dog breeding facilities" that have more than 10 breeding females who they use for "producing puppies for the pet trade."

Sounds pretty straightforward, no?

Well, according to the Alliance For Truth, the main force behind the anti-Prop B movement, there is something much more nefarious afoot (er, apaw) in the HSUS measure. The Alliance For Truth claims that the HSUS has a "radical agenda" and is "misleading the public with its intentions on Prop B. The society seeks only to raise the cost of breeding dogs, making it ever-more difficult for middle-class American families to be dog-owners."

Anita Andrews from Alliance For Truth told TPM that it's a "deceptive, lying bill" that is "trying to purposefully get rid of the breeders." The state of Missouri, she said, has been given a bad rap as "the puppy mill capitol" of the U.S. but "in truth we have the best ribbon breeders in the country." And, Andrews said, the state already has anti-cruelty laws on the books.

"They don't like animals," she said of the Humane Society of the United States.

Via AMERICAblog, via James.

To learn more about Missouri puppy mills and what you can do to help, go here.

they grow up so fast: jungle cat world wolf pupdate

Do you remember these guys? This was in Jungle Cat World in June, only four months ago.

Look at them now! We weren't there, but we sure wish we had been!

In the US, despite the court ruling re-listing the gray wolf as an Endangered Species, wolves are still in grave danger. At least four states are attempting to pass laws that make an end-run around the Act and single out the wolf for extermination. Read about it here: "New wolf bills: bad science, bad policy, and bad legislation".

welcome to canada, welcome to the blogosphere

I haven't done a "welcome to Canada, welcome to the blogosphere" post in a long time.

Many years ago, this kind of post was a wmtc staple. Folks who had found this blog and each other during their emigration process would start blogs, and we'd all cheer each other on as the months and years of waiting dragged on . . . then finally we'd welcome each other to Canada. Some of those folks have become mainstays of the progressive blogosphere, but most have moved on.

I'm very pleased to introduce a new moving-to-Canada blog, written by friend-of-wmtc Northern Girl. NG and her family escaped the hell of Florida, first for the limbo of Ohio, and now, at last, for the freedom they hope to find in Guelph. That's one more family to help make Canada the country we want it to be. You can welcome Northern Girl and follow her family's progress at Moving to Ontario.

Another USian defector introduced himself to me recently. He and his family moved to Canada - also from the US south - around the same time Allan and I did. They're the second US ex-pats we've met with that coincidence of dates. Charles, who lives in New Brunswick, contacted me asking how he could help the war resisters campaign. He doesn't blog, but he's written an essay on why he moved to Canada. It may surprise you.

And finally, a friend and comrade of mine has started an excellent new progressive blog: "your heart's on the left", musings on health and politics. I love the title, especially as the blogger is a physician.

Dr. J is the first socialist doctor I'd ever met, the first doctor I've known who doesn't introduce himself with his title. He's a committed activist and an excellent writer, and this is his first foray into blogging. I'm glad to tune in from the beginning, so I can read everything he posts. Check it out.

One of the items on my to-do list this past summer - one of the few things I didn't accomplish - was to re-design the look of wmtc. I'm already looking ahead to my winter break for the renovation. I'm totally sick of looking at this blog in its current form. I'm thinking of going stripped-down, minimalist. So one day I'll surprise you.

it gets better: dan savage, sarah silverman and my friend nick

I'm thinking most wmtc readers have seen this by now, but if even one of you hasn't, it's worth posting.

There has been a rash of suicides of of gay teens in the US. All of the young people were bullied in high school, because they were gay.

Columnist Dan Savage and his partner Terry Miller made this video in response.



Nick is the first friend I met through wmtc. He's Canadian now, having left the US for a better life in Toronto. Here's his contribution to "It Gets Better".



Sarah Silverman puts the bullying and the suicides in context. This is short; please be sure to watch it.



Bullying isn't limited to queer kids, nor is teen suicide. The deaths of those six young people is not a "gay problem". It's our problem - all of us. It's up to each of us to create a safe world where each and every one of us can be ourselves, and can live without fear.

We have a long way to go.

"When you're sure you've had enough of this life... hang on."



My heart breaks for those boys and their families. I've known what it feels like to wonder if death might be the way to stop the pain. I've also known the pain that suicide leaves behind. It's so important to know that there is a way out, that there may a better world on the other side. Thank you to everyone who is a part of "It Gets Better". Pass it on.

saturday october 16: "refusing orders, crossing borders", a dialogue with u.s. war resisters"

On Saturday, October 16, in Fort Erie, Ontario, there will be a very special event in support of US war resisters in Canada. "Refusing Orders, Crossing Borders: A Dialogue with American War Resisters" is co-sponsored by the Buffalo, New York chapter of Veterans for Peace and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Many American veteran peace activists will be there, along with Canadian supporters from the Niagara region. We'll be getting to know some of the war resisters who have come to Canada, hearing about the issues they face, and learning how we can help.

If you're in striking distance from Ft. Erie, please consider spending your Saturday with us. There'll be lunch, music, socializing - and undoubtedly some very moving and eye-opening talks. Buses will leave Toronto that morning, 8:00 a.m., and return around dinner time. To book a seat on the bus, call 416.598.1222.

There's an event website here, and you can find it here on Facebook.

tell michael ignatieff: you do not want war resisters deported, and you expect him to help

From the War Resisters Support Campaign:

MAJORITY OF MPs DO NOT WANT US IRAQ WAR RESISTERS DEPORTED
Send a message to Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff

The defeat of Bill C-440 on Wednesday September 29th is a setback for US Iraq War resisters. There is a real danger that Jason Kenney will take the defeat of a bill as a green light to resume deportations.

Bill C-440 received significant support, but 7 more votes were needed to pass it at Second Reading. Stephen Harper voted against it, and the leaders of two of the three opposition parties – the Bloc Québécois and the NDP – voted for it. But the leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, left the House of Commons before the vote.

Last week, Mr. Ignatieff’s office told supporters of Iraq War resisters that “party leaders do not vote on Private Members’ Bills”. This is clearly not true, as the results of the vote demonstrate.

What is true, however, is that Mr. Ignatieff could have voted for the bill to allow it to be considered by a Parliamentary committee and shown leadership by proposing amendments that would have improved it. Mr. Ignatieff’s presence and his vote would have sent a message to Canadians that the Liberal party is indeed in support of finding a way to let war resisters stay as he publicly claims.

An overwhelming majority of Liberal MPs voted for both Parliamentary motions in support of war resisters, and for this Bill. Mr. Ignatieff himself supported the two motions.

Mr. Ignatieff needs to hear loud and clear that people across this country want him to reflect the views of the majority of Canadians, and the overwhelming majority of his own MPs.

Please write, call or email Mr. Ignatieff. Ask him to:
• demand that Stephen Harper’s government not deport any US Iraq war resisters
• press the Conservative government to enact a provision that would allow Iraq War resiters to stay in Canada, as the Trudeau government did with Vietnam draft resisters and deserters
• vocally support any Iraq War resister that is targeted for deportation by the Harper government
• commit to ensuring that Iraq War resisters will be able to stay in Canada should he become Prime Minister.

The result of last week’s vote is not an endorsement of Harper’s desire to punish these courageous men and women for taking a principled stand against the Iraq War.

Twice, in 2008 and 2009, a majority of MPs supported a motion that instructed the government not to deport war resisters, and to enact a provision that would allow them to stay in Canada.

Twice, the majority of Parliament expressed the views of the majority of Canadians on this question. A poll conducted by Angus Reid showed that 64% of Canadians want Iraq War resisters to be allowed to stay in Canada.

Tell Mr. Ignatieff that people who, like himself, changed their minds on the Iraq War have the support of Canadians. The consequences for the US soldiers who changed their minds are severe, if we allow the Conservatives to impose their minority views by sending war resisters back to face harsh punishment.

Michael Ignatieff
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
613.995.9364 Parliament Hill
416.251.5510 Constituency Office
ignatieff.m@parl.gc.ca

galloway in toronto: decision was "the soundest judicial caning of a government minister" we've ever seen

I wish I could tell you everything George Galloway said in Toronto yesterday, because I'm sure it was an inspiring, energizing, truth-telling and sobering talk. I wasn't able to stay for most of it, because Sunday is a work day for me. But by rearranging all my break time for the weekend, I was able to run up to Trinity St. Paul's United Church, spend an hour with my resister-campaign family, be part of the triumphant scene to cheer Galloway on, hear some important words, and run back to work.

You'll be able to see Galloway's talk on Rabble TV, but I'll share a few cool things I did catch.

The church was packed to the rafters. War resisters and Galloway's legal team held places of honour on the stage. An organizer began a chant of "Kenney out! Galloway in!" but when Galloway - and his volunteer bodyguards - entered, we all jumped up and broke into wild cheers and applause.

James Clark, a lead organizer with Toronto Coalition to Stop the War and Defend Free Speech, and one of the applicants in the lawsuit, chaired the event. James was interrupted over and over by jubilant applause and cheering, as he outlined how the Harper Government and Jason Kenney tried to stop George Galloway's appearance in Canada - but how they couldn't stop us, how thousands of us watched Galloway address us by video - how Kenney attacked Galloway, smeared him, slandered him - then gloated and bragged about keeping Galloway out of Canada.

But, James said, our side won "a massive victory in the Federal Court of Canada," and now we must use that victory as a new beginning, to turn the tide against the Tories, to push back against their attacks on free speech, democracy and all our struggles: "Today is a victory, but it is only a first step. Jason Kenney must pay for lying to the public" and for making Canada look like a banana republic!

Next the two lawyers who defended the Galloway case in Federal Court spoke. They made it very clear just how big a victory this was for our side. Jason Kenney lost throughout: George Galloway was cleared of any wrongdoing, the court found that Kenney acted in bad faith, that the government declared Galloway inadmissible to Canada because they disagree with his political views, and that humanitarian aid is not equivalent to terrorism.

Immigration and refugee lawyer Barbara Jackman spoke briefly and eloquently on a few points that I want to share.

One, the Federal Court is the most conservative judicial body in Canada. For that court to rule against the government shows just how far this government went.

Two, we were able to win this case in large part because of the overwhelming display of community support. "Decisions are not made in a vacuum," Jackman said. The government's banning of Galloway sparked outrage and condemnation - and that made a huge difference.

Three - and most importantly - Jackman reminded us of the larger context behind this case. The "membership clause" - section 34 of IRPA, the anti-terrorism clause - is used to criminalize dissent. Anyone who is a member of a terrorist organization is inadmissible to Canada, but the government defines "membership" with a broad, sweeping brush, and through its own ideological lens. Jackman said, "Huge numbers of refugees have been deported back to torture" because they support popular movements in their countries of origins, and these movements have been labelled terrorist organizations by Canada.

The membership clause was brought in under a previous Liberal government, and used in a sweeping and abusive way by this Conservative government. Jackman and others have been trying - so far unsuccessfully - to get the clause struck down. But when the government used this clause against George Galloway, they went too far. This decision was the first ever to narrow section 34.

Jackman reminded us that the people this clause usually affects are from immigrant communities that have been racialized and marginalized. They can't vote. They need good people of conscience who can vote to speak for them.

* * * *

Next, Jamine Aponte, the partner of war resister Phil McDowell, spoke briefly about the C-440 vote, appealing to the crowd to support war resisters, to contact Michael Ignatieff and other Liberal MPs, and to help her and all the war resisters stay in Canada. Galloway greeted and thanked some of the war resisters.

Then, after a few more brief remarks by organizers, Galloway addressed the cheering crowd. He thanked all the key people in this fight and all the good people of Canada. He thanked Justice Richard Mosley for issuing "the soundest judicial caning of a government minister" ever to be handed down from the bench.

And now, when we get to the really good stuff, I have to leave you in the good hands of Rabble TV.

* * * *

When I wrote about the Galloway court hearing (parts one, two and three), I mentioned that I have copies of the documents that were submitted by our side, including the appendix outlining the e-mail exchange begun by CIC flak Alykhan Velshi - evidence that the government first concealed, then accidentally released to our side, then tried to have excluded from the proceedings. At that time, I said I would upload those documents for anyone who wanted to read them, then I never followed up. Should I post them? Anyone interested?

u.s. admits infecting guatemalan mental patients with gonorrhea and syphilis in secret medical experiments

[redsock guest post]

The US government has admitted it infected up to 700 men and women in Guatemala in the 1940s, including institutionalized mental patients, with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge in secret medical experiments.

Susan Reverby, a professor of women's studies at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, who has written extensively about the Tuskegee experiments, found the evidence while conducting further research. You can read some of Reverby's work, including this recent paper, here.

Amazingly, the NBC link above baldly admits that at the time, the US government

exerted a powerful influence in the Latin American country, largely in order to protect the interests of the American-based United Fruit Company. In 1954 the U.S. CIA helped overthrow Guatemala's democratically elected president because of land reforms that opposed the multinational corporation.

The list of incidents of the US government funding or conducting experiments on humans is quite long. No other country in human history has caused so much deliberate pain, misery, torture and death. Many of the studies were done by (or for) the US military and the subjects were often US citizens -- prisoners, regular citizens, and military personnel.

In the course of my 9/11 research, I have heard people claim that the US would never do anything (or allow anything to happen) to its own citizens. As though those in charge of the US would bother to make some distinction based on where people happened to be born. History says the truth is the exact opposite. Here is a super-small sample from this webpage (emphasis mine; I have also edited some entries for brevity):

From 1944-46, Dr. Alf Alving, a professor at the University of Chicago Medical School, purposely infected psychiatric patients at the Illinois State Hospital with malaria, so that he could test experimental malaria treatments. The study was conducted in conjunction with the US Army and the State Department.

In 1955, the CIA conducted a biological warfare experiment by releasing whooping cough bacteria from boats outside of Tampa Bay, causing an epidemic in the city, and killing at least 12 people.

In 1956-57, several US Army biological warfare experiments were conducted on the cities of Savannah, Georgia and Avon Park, Florida. Hundreds of residents contracted a wide array of illnesses, including fevers, respiratory problems, stillbirths, encephalitis, and typhoid. Army researchers pretended to be public health workers, so they could photograph and perform medical tests on the victims.

In 1966, the US Army released Bacillus globigii into the tunnels of the New York subway system as part of a field study called "A Study of the Vulnerability of Subway Passengers in New York City to Covert Attack with Biological Agents". A similar experiment was done in the Chicago subway system.

From 1946-53, at the Walter E. Fernald State School in Massachusetts, in an experiment sponsored by the US Atomic Energy Commission and the Quaker Oats corporation, 73 mentally disabled children were fed oatmeal containing radioactive calcium and other radioisotopes, in order to track "how nutrients were digested". The children were told that they were joining a "science club".

In the 1950s, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia performed experiments on burn victims, most of them poor and black, without their knowledge or consent, with funding from the Army and in collaboration with the AEC. Subjects were exposed to additional burning, experimental antibiotic treatment, and injections of radioactive isotopes 50 times the "acceptable" dose.

From 1948-54, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Hospital inserted radium rods into the noses of 582 Baltimore schoolchildren to determine the effects of radiation on hearing loss. Similar experiments were performed on over 7,000 US Army and Navy personnel during World War II.

Between 1960 and 1971, the Department of Defense funded non-consensual whole body radiation experiments on poor, black cancer patients. Consents forms were forged and the men were exposed to 100 rads of radiation (the equivalent of about 7,500 x-rays).

From 1942-44, the US Chemical Warfare Service exposed thousands of US military personnel to mustard gas, in order to test the effectiveness of gas masks and protective clothing. The military refused to pay disability benefits to the victims of the experiments.

From 1950-53, the US Army sprayed toxic chemicals over six cities in the United States and Canada, including Winnipeg, in order to test dispersal patterns of chemical weapons.

In 1967, the US Army paid [doctors] to apply skin-blistering chemicals to the faces and backs of inmates at Holmesburg Prison, near Philadelphia, to "learn how the skin protects itself against chronic assault from toxic chemicals". (In the 1960s, 33 pharmaceutical companies tested 153 experimental drugs at Holmesburg. When Dr. Albert Kligman, Professor of Dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, first saw the inmates and the potential they held for his research, he said, "All I saw before me were acres of skin. It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time.")

In order to "perfect techniques for the abstraction of information from individuals, whether willing or not", Project Bluebird researchers dosed over 7,000 US military personnel with LSD, without their knowledge or consent. More than 1,000 of these soldiers later suffered from several psychiatric illnesses, including depression and epilepsy, as a result of the tests. Many of them tried to commit suicide.

From 1963-69, the US Army sprayed thousands of US military personnel aboard ships with various biological and chemical warfare agents. The personnel were not notified of the tests, and were not given any protective clothing. Chemicals tested on the US military personnel included the nerve gases VX and Sarin and toxic chemicals such as zinc cadmium sulfide and sulfur dioxide.

***

During the Nuremberg trials, several Nazi doctors and scientists claimed that the inspiration for their studies had come from studies that they had seen performed in the United States. In 1945, the US government recruited 1,600 Nazi scientists, many of whom had performed horrific human experimentation in Nazi concentration camps. The scientists were offered immunity from any war crimes in return for doing research for the United States government. Many of the Nazi scientists continued their human experimentation when they arrived in the US.

The wiki page notes that, as of 2007, not a single US government researcher has ever been prosecuted for human experimentation.

[L: Warning: comments contain some details of torture that took place in Guatemala; readers may find some comments triggering.]

veterans for peace: "mr obama, end these fucking wars! war is the obscenity"

Have you seen this? Some members of Veterans for Peace did a series of banner drops in Washington DC's Newseum. The video is a bit crude but it's worth watching.

For context on "war is the obscenity," see Glenn Greenwald.

from peace alliance winnipeg: petition to withdraw canadian troops from afghanistan

From Paul S. Graham and Peace Alliance Winnipeg:

More than 250 Winnipeggers signed a petition [last Saturday afternoon] calling on the Canadian Parliament to withdraw all Canadian troops from Afghanistan and to "not extend the military mission in any way, shape or form including training of local forces."

Most Canadians oppose having a military role in Afghanistan beyond 2011. We must do all we can to make sure Parliament respects this opinion. Yesterday's two-hour information picket in Winnipeg’s Osborne Village marked the beginning of a Peace Alliance Winnipeg campaign to help our fellow citizens express their opposition to Canada's continued participation in the occupation of Afghanistan.

You can join this effort by:

signing the online petition.

downloading the pdf of the petition and collecting signatures.

downloading and circulating Peace Alliance Winnipeg's fact sheet: "Ten Reasons to Bring Canada's Troops Home From Afghanistan".

urging friends, family, co-workers, and everyone else you know to do likewise

sharing the petition link on Facebook, Twitter, and any other online networks or forums you belong to.

letting your MP know how you feel.

We know it is likely that the war-mongering Harper government, in concert with the do-nothing Liberals, will renege on promises to bring our troops home in 2011. Call it "training" or "non-combat" or "policing" - however they disguise it with verbiage, the war will continue. We want the troops home now, but let's at least try to hold them to planned 2011 withdrawal date.

Sign, circulate, agitate.

canada for the people, not the conservative party

This was originally supposed to appear at The Mark, as part of a series called "Who Owns Canada?" I ran into a few editorial snags, so I'm posting it here instead.

The Mark asked for short pieces answering the question, "Who Owns Canada? Which person, organization, or idea wields more influence than any other?"

Here's my answer.

* * * *

When The Mark asked "Who owns Canada?" I immediately considered the question in reverse: "Who doesn't own Canada?" The answer: Canadians.

A democracy should reflect the will of the people, but current Canadian policy reflects only the will of the Conservative government and its supporters. A majority of Canadians did not vote for Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Yet we are held hostage to his anti-democratic agenda because he has so successfully exploited an antiquated, first-past-the-post electoral system and a pitifully weak opposition.

The majority of Canadians do not support the war in Afghanistan, but the Harper government extended Canada's military involvement past its original deadline and hints at continuing it even after next year's planned withdrawal date.

The majority of Canadians want to protect our magnificent environment, but the Harper government continues to stand with climate-change deniers and industrial polluters. This is, after all, a government that tried to let polluters reclassify tar-sands tailing ponds as "lakes". (What is it about the Conservatives and fake lakes?)

Canadians want fairness in all things, including the treatment of immigrants, war resisters and refugee claimants. The Harper government continues to defy two motions passed in Parliament by harassing and deporting US war resisters. It has interfered in the process of the supposedly independent Immigration and Refugee Board and demanded that immigration officials conform to government ideology.

Fairness is, at bottom, the reason Canadians want to retain the long-form census – so this country’s policies reflect reality, not ideology. Fairness is why Canadians want a fully funded court-challenges program, so that all Canadians can defend their Charter rights. Fairness is why Canadians want the government to repatriate and defend all Canadians – including those accused of terrorism and those on death row in every country. And while it's not a life-or-death issue, the government denying a Member of the British Parliament entry into Canada because of his political opinions is not only unfair – it's downright embarrassing.

Canadians care about their country's standing abroad. By aligning Canada with US military policies, and by putting corporate oil interests ahead of action on climate change, the Harper government has sullied Canada's international reputation and tainted the country's moral authority. And it could be much worse: if Stephen Harper had been Prime Minister in 2003, Canadian soldiers would have been dying in Iraq for the last seven years.

Canadians want to live in a democracy – a real democracy. They don't want the Prime Minister to shut down Parliament to avoid losing power, to fire civil servants whose politics he doesn't like, to instruct MPs on how to disrupt Parliament, and to refuse to open the military record to the highest elected body in the land. They don't want dissent criminalized by pre-emptive arrests, jailing of peaceful protesters and tactics more suited to a police state than "the True North strong and free".

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have hijacked this country and we want it back.

george galloway in toronto today and tomorrow!

Today, join a welcome rally for international peace activist George Galloway at Toronto's Pearson Airport.

Tomorrow, hear Galloway speak at Trinity St. Paul's church. Galloway's talk will be "From Gaza to Afghanistan - Resisting war, occupation and censorship". He'll also meet and honour US Iraq War resisters on stage.

Saturday, October 2, 5:00 p.m.

Terminal One International Arrivals Gate
Lester B. Pearson International Airport

Rally 5:00
Media conference 5:15

Sunday, October 3, 3:00 p.m.

Trinity St. Paul's United Church
427 Bloor Street (just west of Spadina)

Doors open 2:30 p.m.
Event begins 3:00 p.m.

Admission $10, cash only, at door only

Seating will be very limited!

Event on Facebook

c440 dies, but the campaign to keep war resisters in canada lives and thrives

As you know, on Wednesday, Bill C-440, the private member's bill that would have allowed US war resisters to stay in Canada, was defeated in second reading by seven votes.

It was a terrible shock to everyone who had worked so tirelessly to get the bill through, including MP Gerard Kennedy. Kennedy did everything he could to see this bill pass, and he was blindsided by the results.

We were angry, and hurt, and sad. Many of us were especially angry at a dozen Liberal MPs who were in the House of Commons for the vote on the long-form census, but left before the C-440 vote.

This is understandable, and I initially shared that anger. But now I've refocused my sights on the real culprit: the Harper Government.

* * * *

First, let's review what we were up against.

Most private member's bills do not pass. That's a given. This one sought to change the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a pillar of Canadian law - a tall order. The political atmosphere in Parliament is, to put it mildly, highly fractious. We've heard some reports on what went on behind the scenes during the five votes in Wednesday's House of Commons - the political infighting, the vindictiveness, the accusations and threats. It was intense - and in the larger picture, quite sad and scary.

Given all those obstacles, C-440 was defeated by only seven votes. The war resisters have a lot of political support.

It's still a setback; I obviously understand that. But it's not a repudiation of what we're fighting for. 136 Members of Parliament, from all three opposition parties, voted in favour of allowing US war resisters to stay in Canada, and several who were not present for the vote also support the idea. That 136 is actually a greater number than voted for the second motion in favour of war resisters, passed in March, 2009. Our support has not decreased: it has increased.

The bill had some obvious flaws - and the reason it was flawed, the roots of the problem, are Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney and the rest of the Conservative government, who ignored two recommendations passed by a united Opposition, calling on the government to stop deporting war resisters and let them apply for permanent residence. The motions were clear, focused and direct. They contained none of the pitfalls that had to be written into the bill; they required no reconfiguration of IRPA. It doesn't take a law. All we need is a provision.

Our obstacle is the arrogant, hypocritical, undemocratic, war-loving, fear-mongering Harper government. That's what we should focus on. That is our fight.

If you live in a Liberal, NDP or Bloc riding, I encourage you, as citizens and as voters, to learn how your MP voted: look here. Then contact your MP and either thank her or him, or ask why she or he didn't vote. If you're a Liberal voter - or if you might ever be one - I encourage you to contact Michael Ignatieff, and express whatever you need to express. That's your right as a resident of Canada and I hope you will exercise it.

At last night's meeting, I heard some stories about how key votes have been influenced by constituent pressure, and by MPs learning that they do have support, that they will not be hung out to dry if they vote in favour of any given bill. Your voice makes a difference.

But in the larger picture, the entire issue of deporting war resisters and refusing to implement the two motions lies at the Conservatives' doorstep.

On the one hand, they have forced the war resisters to fight their battles individually through the refugee system - a drawn-out, expensive process, conducted with Minister Jason Kenney's thumb squarely on the scales, as he has politicized the process so thoroughly that all decisions are tainted and no justice can ever be attained. The Canadian courts have consistently affirmed this, most recently in the positive decision in Jeremy Hinzman's humanitarian and compassionate application.

And on the other hand, when a majority of Parliamentarians seek to remove the resisters from the refugee system and courts, by passing a simple provision that would allow them to stay, the government ignores it. The same way they always ignore the will of the majority of Canadians.

The bottom line is: we are not giving up.

If you believe Canada should be a peaceful nation - if you want to live in a Canada that provides a refuge from US militarism - if you believe Canadian policy should reflect Canadian sensibilities, not be a lapdog of the Pentagon - then stand with us.

In the coming weeks and months, the war resisters will need your support more than ever. The Campaign will need phone calls, letters to MPs, letters to newspapers, public actions, and we will desperately need funds. This is about the fate of people and families, but it is also about what kind of country we want Canada to be.

Let Them Stay!

former irb showler excoriates jason kenney and current cic policy

Peter Showler, former head of the Immigration and Refugee Board, currently director the Refugee Forum, a human rights education centre at the University of Ottawa, wrote an open letter to CIC Minister Jason Kenney.

It was published in Embassy magazine.

* * * *

The Honourable Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1L1

September 19, 2010

Dear Minister,

On July 22 of this year, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) sent a directive to all Immigration Officers in Canada that sets a basic principle of refugee law on its head. The directive, Operational Bulletin 202, concerns the processing of military deserters who claim refugee status in Canada. The first paragraph of the directive sets out the following line of logic:

Military deserters from other countries have sought refugee protection in Canada. Desertion from the Canadian military is a serious criminal offence. Therefore these deserters may also be serious criminals and therefore inadmissible to Canada.

Conscientious objection to military service, whether by draft resisters or deserters, is a widely recognized ground for granting refugee protection, both in Canada and internationally. Over the years, hundreds of conscientious objectors have been given protection although not all deserters or draft resisters are accepted as refugees. The facts of each individual case are considered, particularly: the motives and sincerity of the claimant, the legality or illegality of the military exercise they are seeking to avoid, and the possibility of excessive punishment or discriminatory prosecution. These are all facts and issues of law to be decided by a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) after hearing the claimant’s testimony and evidence. It is fundamentally wrong-headed and a violation of the UN Refugee Convention to suggest that deserters are automatically inadmissible to Canada before hearing their claim because desertion is an offence in their own country.

Although the bulletin cites a general principle of law, a closer reading identifies the real target of the directive, namely, military deserters from one country, the United States of America. I presume then that military deserters from other, less friendly and more offensive regimes, such as Iran, Burma, Sudan, North Korea, possibly Syria and Kyrgyzstan, are still welcome to seek refugee protection in Canada and that their violation of state laws will not be a deterrent to making a refugee claim. The bulletin implies that military deserters from the US should be treated differently than deserters from other countries. There is no basis in law for that proposition. At the risk of repeating myself, that is the job of the Immigration and Refugee Board and not something to be decided prematurely by a border official before the evidence is heard.

The bulletin then discloses that its precise target is even narrower, namely those U.S. deserters who have already had their refugee claims denied and who have asked to remain in Canada for humanitarian reasons. Once again, the government appears to be circumventing the law and intruding on the independence of the Immigration Officers who are delegated to decide humanitarian applications based on the law and the evidence. It is the Immigration Officer who has the discretion to decide whether a refused claimant, for example, someone who has married a Canadian and may now be the parent of Canadian children, whether that person should be permitted to remain in Canada for humanitarian reasons.

These are difficult decisions with complicated and often heart-rending facts that include the best interests of the children but may also include the violation of US military laws. Regardless of the relevant factors, responsibility for the decision lies within the discretion of the Immigration Officer. Does any Canadian reasonably think that an Immigration Officer is making an independent decision when he or she is instructed, for US deserter cases, to “seek guidance” from the Regional Program Advisor and to copy their communications to very senior levels of their department? The clear implication is that any deserter from the US should be denied permanent residence in Canada no matter how sincere their motive for deserting or how compelling their reasons for staying in Canada.

Operational Bulletin 202 misstates the law and seeks to intrude on the independence of both IRB members and Immigration Officers. Out of respect for due process of law, I urge you to withdraw the bulletin.

Respectfully,

Peter Showler
Director, the Refugee Forum
Human Rights Research and Education Centre
University of Ottawa

bill c-440 is defeated, but our support of war resisters will never be

See below for more information.

CANADIANS CONTINUE CAMPAIGN TO GET STATUS FOR IRAQ WAR RESISTERS

Federal Court of Appeal ruling in Hinzman case stands as government chooses not to appeal

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

OTTAWA--Despite support by the majority of Canadians for US Iraq War resisters, Bill C-440 An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (war resisters)­ failed to pass at second reading in the House of Commons on Wednesday evening.

While the bill received strong support from a large majority of opposition members of parliament, it needed 7 more votes to pass.

"This is a setback for Iraq War resisters seeking permanent resident status in Canada, but our campaign to make the government respect the will of the majority of Canadians on this issue is far from over," said Michelle Robidoux, a spokesperson for the War Resisters Support Campaign. "These courageous men and women have the support of two-thirds of Canadians across the country, and they are still threatened with punishment if returned to the United States."

"Over the past few weeks, some MPs had expressed concern about the scope of Bill C-440 as it was presented," said Robidoux. "We will be working with opposition MPs to find a way to give effect to Parliament's two votes, in 2008 and 2009, in favour of letting Iraq War resisters stay."

Two motions that were previously adopted by Parliament which directed the Conservative minority government to immediately cease deportations of Iraq War resisters and facilitate their requests for permanent resident status have been ignored despite public opinion polls indicating that 64 per cent of voters support Parliament's direction.

The Harper government has repeatedly interfered with the cases of war resisters that are supposed to be considered on a case-by-case basis by making blatantly prejudicial comments and issuing an operational directive that intrude on the independence of both Immigration and Refugee Board members and immigration officers.

Coincidentally, Wednesday was also the last day of the Government of Canada’s window to challenge the Federal Court of Appeal decision in the case of resister Jeremy Hinzman. In a unanimous ruling on July 6, 2010, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the government’s assessment of Mr. Hinzman’s bid to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was substantially flawed because it did not take into account his sincerely held religious, moral and political beliefs against service in the war in Iraq. Jeremy’s case will now be sent back for reconsideration by a different immigration officer in accordance with the court’s ruling.

The government's failure to file an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in Mr. Hinzman's case means that the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision stands.

"Canadians expect that their government will treat everyone with basic fairness," said Robidoux. "Minister Jason Kenney must ensure immigration officers stop issuing the cookie-cutter decisions that have ignored the Iraq War resisters' motivations for coming to Canada, and instead follow the direction of the court that each individual's circumstances should be considered."

* * * *

If you are disgusted, angry or sad about this setback, and you live in the GTA, you are welcome to attend an emergency meeting tonight, where we will collectively assess the results and plan our next steps. Contact me for details.

Please feel free to discuss the C-440 vote here.

george galloway to speak in toronto this weekend

The Globe and Mail headline put it best: "‘I'm coming to get you,’ George Galloway tells Jason Kenney".

Galloway arrives in Toronto Saturday, and will speak at Trinity St Paul's United Church the following day, Sunday, October 3, at 3:00 p.m.

It will be quite a triumphant scene! We sure could use that right now.

c-440 is defeated in second reading

We lost. 143-136. More when I can.

bill c-440 vote today!

Twelve hours from now, we'll know whether Bill C-440 lives or dies. The vote in the House of Commons is today at 5:45 pm.

Core campaigners have been very busy - contacting opposition MPs, reaching out to our network of supporters all across Canada to encourage specific Members, working closely with Gerard Kennedy's office, and in general leaving as little to chance as possible.

It's been nerve-wracking, but it's also been beautiful to witness. If we win this fight, it will because so many good people worked together to make it happen. If we lose, it will be a great injustice, and we will continue to fight.

I fully expect we will win this vote and the Bill will go to committee. But until it happens, we're all holding our breath and biting our fingernails.

in u.s., raids on peace activists; in canada, raids on... who?

In case you didn't hear elsewhere, the FBI raided and vandalized the home of peace activists in Minnesota, claiming they had links to terrorist organizations. This wouldn't be big news if not for the current so-called anti-terrorism laws - under which these peace activists could be imprisoned indefinitely without charges. Local coverage:

The homes of six Twin Cities activists, including three prominent leaders of the Twin Cities antiwar movement, were raided Friday by the FBI in what an agency spokesman described as an investigation into activities concerning the material support of terrorism."

An FBI spokesman Steve Warfield confirmed that six Minneapolis homes were raided this morning.

Among the homes raided were the apartments of Jessica Sundin, who was a principal leader of the mass antiwar march of 10,000 on the opening day of the Republican National Convention two years ago, and Mick Kelly, who was prominent in that protest and among those who announced plans to march on the Democratic National Convention in Minneapolis, if the city is selected to host it in 2012. Neither has been arrested.

Kelly said in an interview this morning he had "absolutely not" been involved in illegal activities.

A raid was also in progress at the home of Meredith Aby, another local antiwar leader who was frequently the spokeswoman for the march on the GOP convention. Sundin and another source said that a fourth raid took place at the home of Tracy Molm, a leading activist in Students for a Democratic Society, an organization at the University of Minnesota.

The source said raids occurred at the addresses of two other activists whose names he did not disclose.

Supporters of Sundin, Kelly and Aby had gathered on the sidewalks outside each of the residences.

Ted Dooley, an attorney, said he had reviewed the search warrant issued in the raid on Kelly's apartment. "It's a probe into the political beliefs of American citizens and to any organization anywhere that opposes the American imperial design," he said.

Kelly said he was the subject of a similar early raid.

“They broke down a door, smashed a fish tank, and went through my books and papers,” Kelly said.

Kelly described himself as a 40-year veteran of the peace movement . . .

Lest you think this is only a US issue, and could never happen in Canada, please read this important post by Alison, writing at Dawg's Blawg.

On the same day the nation was preoccupied with the national Lib/Con competition for votes to preserve/kill the long gun registry, the Libs and Cons combined forces to slip the Combating Terrorism Act through second reading in the House - 220 votes to 84 in a classic Lib/Con vs NDP/Bloc split -just ten minutes before the long gun vote.

The Libs and Cons may disagree on whether it is either useful or an egregious invasion of privacy and civil liberties that Canadians should have to spend a few minutes registering a long gun online, but when it comes to locking Canadians up for 12 months without a warrant or compelling them to appear before a court based on some anonymous tip, they're both just fine with that.

The right to remain silent, the right not to be jailed without charge, the right to know what the charges are against you - pfft!

In reintroducing Bill C-17 for the third time on Monday to reinstate provisions from the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson emphasized a fabulous new feature:

"The key here is that the person required to attend an investigative hearing is treated as a witness, not someone who is accused of a crime."

True, as long as your definition of "witness" includes being arrested if you don't comply and being detained for up to 72 hours if you do.

But what if you are also suspected of being likely to commit a terrorist crime some time in the future. Over to you, Mr. Nicholson :

"a judge can order the person's detention for up to 12 months."

Go to the original for more plus full linkage.

As you may recall, I don't care very much about the long-gun registry. I think gun registration is a good idea, but I also know it does very little to reduce crime. I view the whole kerfuffle as a lot of overheated political grandstanding on both sides, and misplaced enthusiasm on the part of many activists. So while many people were behaving as if the gun registry is the ultimate determinant of Canadian civilization, the Liberal-Conservative coalition continued to support the deterioration of your basic human rights and civil liberties.

Progressive bloggers flogged Jack Layton for not toeing their party line on the gun registry, but only the NDP was standing up against "slipperysloping into 12thC pre-Magna Carta sensibilities" (Alison). Why was that?

By Wednesday Libby Davies wondered aloud in the House why there were hundreds of articles in newspapers across the country dealing with the gun registry but no mention of the debate on the Combating Terrorism Act.

Good question, Libby.

Gee, do you think it has anything to do with who is affected by the so-called anti-terrorism laws? Hmmm.