another cost of the occupation of iraq: iraqi refugees

My previous post gives me an opportunity to blog about something that's been sitting in my inbox for ages.

These two videos are part of a campaign to focus attention on the five million Iraqis who have been made refugees from the US invasion and occupation of their country. The most serious situations are in Syria and Jordan.

Refugees International is calling on US President Obama to include Iraqi refugees in the US's plans for Iraq. The organization's language strives for the neutral and apolitical - the US "military intervention" in Iraq? that's quite a mouthful - but I'm sure that's necessary in their line of work. I don't know why the website says "five years," as the invasion took place in 2003, six years ago.

But my quibbles aside, we must remember all the costs of war. Along with the dead, the wounded, the psychologically shattered, there are the millions of people displaced from their homes, everything they own destroyed, family members dead or disappeared, left to cope in a surreal world, a vacuum. Why? Because they had the bad luck to live in a place the US wants to control. A place with oil.

Five years into the US military intervention in Iraq, the country is dealing with one of the largest humanitarian and displacement crises in the world. Millions of Iraqis have fled their homes – either for safer locations within Iraq, or to other countries in the region – and are living in increasingly desperate circumstances. Failure to address the needs of Iraqis will have dramatic impacts on security inside Iraq.

Current Humanitarian Situation

Refugees International has observed extreme vulnerabilities among the approximately 1.5 million Iraqi refugees living in Syria, Jordan and other neighbors of Iraq, as well as the 2.7 million internally displaced persons within Iraq. Most are unable to access their food rations and are often unemployed; they live in squalid conditions, have run out of resources and find it extremely difficult to access essential services.

The Government of Iraq has access to large sums of money, but it lacks both the capacity and the political will to use its resources to address humanitarian needs. Due to this failure, militias of all denominations are filling the vacuum and playing a major role in providing social services in the neighborhoods and towns they control in Iraq. Not only do these Shiite and Sunni militias now have a quasi-monopoly in the large-scale delivery of food, oil, electricity and money, but an increasing number of civilians are joining their ranks– including displaced Iraqis.

Some Iraqis who have tried to return home have found their homes occupied or destroyed, the likelihood of violence still high, a collapse of social services, and neighborhoods divided into homogeneous, sectarian areas. While Refugees International hopes that Iraqis will be able to return to their homes in the future, the necessary conditions for returns to take place in safety and dignity do not exist. Returns must not be encouraged until the violence subsides and people can receive adequate assistance and protection.

Actions Needed

The U.S. must craft a new policy to:
1. Assist Iraqi refugees.
2. Ensure a safe, voluntary return home when possible.
3. Pressure Iraq to meet its responsibilities to its own people.
4. Increase resettlement for those who can't go home.

Read more about our comprehensive plan here.

Refugee International's website says: "A campaign by Refugees International and other organizations led the U.S. State department to increase the resettlement of Iraqi refugees from 200 in 2006 to 13,823 Iraqis in 2008." 13,823 is a small portion of five million, but that's nearly 14,000 people who would be suffering even more today, had it not been for these advocacy groups.

You can show your support by signing a letter to Obama. Refugee International's blog is here.

iraqis protest on anniversary of staged statue-toppling (updated)

From Al Jazeera:

Thousands of people loyal to an Iraqi Shia leader have gathered in Baghdad to protest against the US' continued presence in the country, six years to the day after the capital fell to American troops.

Supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr rallied on Thursday in Firdous Square, where the statue of then-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was pulled down on April 9, 2003.

The demonstrators waved banners and carried pictures of al-Sadr, calling for an end to the US occupation of Iraq.

The rally, which went ahead despite heavy rain, comes amid US preparations to pull its combat troops out of Iraq by the end of June.

Iraqi police kept watch over the protest but did not enter the main square. Iraqi and American armoured cars were on standby a short distance away.

Public opinion

Abdel Wahab Al-Qassab from the Strategic Studies Centre in Doha, Qatar, which researches political and military strategies, said that Iraqi public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of US forces leaving the country.

"The US has said verbally that it will end the occupation but we do not know what the real ambition of the invaders is. They could yet say there is no stability in the country and extend their presence there.

"The US has already said that 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq for what they say is training Iraqi troops. But I think that every Iraqi wants US troops out of the country because what has occurred is the shattering of the Iraqi society." . . .

If you haven't read about the famous statue-toppling, six years ago today, you might find this piece from Source Watch interesting.

Toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein was a staged event, by U.S. soldiers, for the media. A Reuters long-shot of Firdos Square where the statue was located (see below) shows that the Square was nearly empty when Saddam was torn down. The Square was sealed off by the U.S. military. The 200 people milling about were U.S. Marines, international press and Iraqis. However, the media portrayed it as an event of the Iraqi people.

An American military vehicle actually pulled down the statue. Marine Corporal Ed Chin, who temporarily placed a U.S. flag over Saddam's face, became an instant media celebrity. His sister, Connie, appeared on the "Today" show and spoke with her brother via a video hook-up.

. . .

On Point, a US army report on lessons learned from the war, notes that it was a Marine colonel, not Iraqi civilians, who decided to topple the statue. "We moved our [tactical PSYOP team] TPT vehicle forward and started to run around seeing what they needed us to do to facilitate their mission," states a U.S. military officer involved in the operation. "There was a large media circus at this location (I guess the Palestine Hotel was a media center at the time), almost as many reporters as there were Iraqis, as the hotel was right adjacent to the Al-Firdos Square. The Marine Corps colonel in the area saw the Saddam statue as a target of opportunity and decided that the statue must come down." The psychological team used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, packed the scene with Iraqi children, and stepped in to readjust the props when one of the soldiers draped an American flag over the statue. "God bless them, but we were thinking from PSYOP school that this was just bad news," the officer reported. "We didn't want to look like an occupation force, and some of the Iraqis were saying, 'No, we want an Iraqi flag!' So I said 'No problem, somebody get me an Iraqi flag.' "

There are also these photos, and "Is this media manipulation on a grand scale?", both from Information Clearinghouse.

Update. As a joke, I said to the Campaign friend who sent me the Al-Jazeera story, "Does 'thousands' mean 'tens of thousands'? Does Al Jazeera do that, too?" I assume you all know what I'm referring to!

My friend pointed out that Reuters did say "tens of thousands". Tens of thousands of people coming out to protest in the rain, in an occupied country, where protest could bring great risk to themselves, is a testament to human strength and spirit.

Tens of thousands of followers of anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr thronged Baghdad on Thursday to mark the sixth anniversary of the city's fall to U.S. troops, and to demand they leave immediately.

"Down, down USA," the demonstrators chanted as a Ali al-Marwani, a Sadrist official, denounced the U.S. occupation of Iraq that began with the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, and the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Firdos Square.

The crowds of Sadr supporters stretched from the giant Sadr City slum in northeast Baghdad to the square around 5 km (3 miles) away.

Protesters burned an effigy featuring the face of former U.S. President George W. Bush, who ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and also the face of Saddam. . . .

prorogation was "fundamental abuse of power". but you already knew that.

This is making the rounds through the Canadian blogosphere, and worth reading:

Canada cannot be both a parliamentary and a populist democracy.

Parliamentary Democracy In Crisis, an explosive new book analyzing December's constitutional showdown, written by 15 of Canada's leading parliamentary experts, says Canada must bridge its two largely irreconcilable democratic cultures or face an uncertain future.

Canada's two solitudes are no longer Quebec and English Canada. Today, the two solitudes are Historic Canada and The West.

Polls taken during the crisis found that Historic Canada -- Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes -- backed parliamentary democracy and the Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc Quebecois. Under parliamentary democracy, the government of the day must win and maintain the confidence of a majority of the members of parliament to retain power.

The West overwhelmingly supported the populist outcome -- a two-month prorogation allowing the minority Conservative government to avoid defeat on a confidence vote. Populist democracy, as promulgated by Reform Party leader Preston Manning, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his former chief strategist Tom Flanagan, favours the American presidential model of one directly elected leader not responsible to the legislature but answerable only to the people.

. . . .

Simon Fraser University professor Andrew Heard says Harper's prorogation was "unconstitutional... (T)his type of manoeuvre is simply unheard of among modern established democracies. It is a fundamental abuse of power to shut down a newly elected parliament at the moment when it is poised to vote non-confidence in the incumbent government."

The University of Toronto's Peter Russell says the crisis has "left a legacy that could be the basis of a serious constitutional crisis in the near future: a country dangerously divided over the fundamental principles and the rules of its parliamentary democracy."

The most damning indictment comes from David Cameron, chair of the University of Toronto's political science department. "Stephen Harper demonstrated that there was no bridge he would not burn, no low road he would not take, to stay in power. Beyond the deceit and the intentional obfuscation, what could not be forgiven was the prime minister's willingness to conjure up our national-unity demons...

"Successive prime ministers have seen it as their duty to manage the national unity file with prudence and care; to light a match near a can of gasoline -- to set east against west... simply for the sake of personal political survival was to scatter this primordial leadership obligation to the four winds."

Read the Winnipeg Free Press column here.

on canada and the us switching places, or, why canada, part 3

Canada and the US have switched places. The US is now an open, free society, marching steadily to the left, and Canada is "the new US," regressing ever rightward.

Wherever there is punditry, you can find this theme.

Too bad it's bullshit.

Ever since Barack Obama was elected President of the United States - at roughly the same time Stephen Harper shut down democracy in Canada in order to maintain his government, and Michael Ignatieff backed him up because that's better for his party - this has been the easy headline.

Whenever I see a column or blog post on this theme, I wonder if the writer knows anything at all about the US, or indeed, has forgotten some basic facts about Canada.

* * * *

First, on the US side. There's no doubt Obama casts a better shadow than the last person to live in the White House. But are we so shallow as to be fooled by window dressing, no matter how pleasant the appearance or more advanced the vocabulary?

How is the US changing?

War? Empire? The same, or worse. The US bases in Iraq are permanent, at least in terms of our lifetimes. Someone will be needed to defend them, and whether a privatized security force, US-trained Iraqi puppets, or actual US military, the defending will be done by the US.

In case there is any loss of military-industrial contracts from a step-down in Iraq, Obama is insuring the maintenance of profits by stepping up the war in Afghanistan. And of course, there will be more invasions and wars to come, although they might not be called wars. A change from Republican to Democrat to Republican does not change US foreign policy substantially. No, strike that. It doesn't change foreign policy. Period.

Health care? No sign of single payer now or on the horizon.

Abortion rights? That happens under state law. Obama has no control over it, except indirectly through the Supreme Court. Twenty-five years in the US pro-choice movement taught me that the focus on Roe v. Wade is wishful thinking for the uninformed. The damage has already been done, as the Supreme Court through the late 1980s and 1990s allowed the states to make Roe irrelevant in most of the US.

Equal marriage? Obama has no control over that. I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the US equal marriage movement, and I imagine there is a lot of work going on to move something federally, but states right are states rights. That is, when it comes to limiting the rights of citizens.

Fair elections? No change.

Unchecked, deregulated capitalism? The Globe and Mail scare-graphics notwithstanding, Obama is not a socialist. In case you missed it, Canada's self-proclaimed national newspaper ran a front-page, above-the-fold illustration of the US flag, with communist hammer-and-sickles replacing the stars. Cute. I guess I missed the part where Obama nationalized the vast corporate wealth and distributed it to the people.

All the President is going for is a little accountability, to quell some of the well-justified rage of taxpayers who financed bailouts only to see CEOs retire with more money than they will see in ten lifetimes on their Wal-Mart poverty wages. Like Franklin D. Roosevelt before him, Barack Obama will rein in capitalism to secure capitalism.

Death penalty? There does seem to be some movement away from capital punishment - but it started ten years ago, as activists using DNA evidence helped exonerated many death-row prisoners. How far the movement will go and whether it will have traction on a federal level remains to be seen. That has little to do with which party is in power, as the Democrats will follow public opinion on this, not lead it.

I'm not saying nothing is changing in the US. But in the ways that matter most to me, the US is still the US.

* * * *

On to Canada.

Things are changing here. There's no doubt that the Harper-Ignatieff coalition is moving the country to the right. When you're a political immigrant, the political blends seamlessly into the personal. How many times have I been asked, Are you sorry you moved here? Are you going to move back? I wish I had been keeping track.

I detest the Harper Government, what it stands for, how it stays in power, where it is taking Canada with its de facto majority government. But the Harper Government is not Canada, and it has not yet re-made Canada, in the ways that are most important to me.

When I first started this blog, while still living in New York City, I answered the question "Why Canada" like this:

National health insurance, legal gay marriage, no death penalty, full abortion rights, less crime, less poverty. Canada didn't support the invasion of Iraq, and they don't keep a huge military with which to bully the rest of the world. Religious fanatics do not control the government.

So which of these has changed?

Of the above, there are only three areas Canadians could possibly dispute.

Poverty. Obviously, there has been an increase in poverty here, as there has been everywhere on the planet. Too many people are unemployed and social services are inadequate.

But Canada could not have been immune to the global recession, no matter who formed the government, and the party that will be trusted to help the economy the most will form the next government.

Relative to the US, Canada is booming. Because of the de-regulated banking industry and the subprime mortgage catastrophe, millions of USians have lost their homes, unemployment and underemployment has skyrocketed. And remember, in the US, if you lose your job, you lose your health care.

Crime. I know many Canadians are upset about an increase in crime in Canadian cities. If a US city the size of Toronto - roughly speaking, Philadelphia or Boston - had less than 100 murders in a given year, they'd appoint a Mayor For Life and hail him as a national hero. I know Vancouver is currently in the throes of crime hysteria, but when a city is in the midst of that, it's difficult to distinguish between reality and media-fueled hype. From my US-raised perspective, Canada is very safe.

That only leaves the religious influence on government. Having lived in both countries, I can tell you that the US at its most secular is ten times as religious as Canada at its most religious. If we want a secular society, we must continue to be vigilant and take an active role in ensuring that. But that's always the case.

A few months after we moved to Canada, I wrote "Why Canada, Part 2," and added this:

We knew life in Canada would be different, if only for how we see the United States: foreign wars for profit; unchecked poverty and its twin, rampant violence; increasing government intrusion into citizens' personal lives; media controlled by the government, and a government controlled by religious fanatics; a corrupt, antiquated election system.

Elections. The Canadian election system is still first-past-the-post, so it is not truly democratic. But the votes are counted fairly, with independent oversight. There is at least a legitimate movement fighting for proportional representation.

And although the Canadian system is not not fair - and not democratic - if you are a Conservative voter in a traditionally NDP riding, or a Liberal voter in a riding the Conservatives have a lock on, and your vote is consistently thrown away, at least a riding is a relatively small slice of the population. The US first-past-the-post system divides 306,000,000 people into only 50 voting blocs!

Add to that partisan, politically-appointed "oversight", electronic vote-changing, and byzantine rules that disenfranchise millions of citizens. And only two parties!

There are, sadly, many liberal Canadians who don't understand this: having more than two parties at the federal level helps keep Canada, Canada. When people call for the NDP and the Liberals to merge - as if they stand for the same things! - they are calling for Canada to take one massive step towards becoming the US.

* * * *

I didn't leave the US because of which party was elected. As I always say, anyone who would have been happy enough in the US had John Kerry been elected wasn't moving anywhere. Nor did I come to Canada because I was in love with the Liberal Party of Canada, who formed the government when we got here.

I don't like the Harper-Ignatieff government, but for me, Canada is still Canada. I'm proud to be working to keep it that way.

sweden, too!

Did I forget Sweden? Whenever a country (or state) gets equal marriage, I usually welcome them into the fold. But apparently I missed Sweden. Ledset!

Sweden is is the seventh country on the planet to recognize same-sex marriages as fully equal. One day this will be so commonplace, it won't be worth mentioning. But until then...

Thanks to the wonderful Slap.

four down, forty six to go: vermont gets equal marriage

Four down, forty-six to go, as Vermont becomes the fourth US state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

It’s now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws.

Gov. Jim Douglas, who vetoed legislation, said, "I prepared myself for this outcome and predicted it. The outcome was not unexpected."

He had called the issue of gay marriage a distraction during a time when economic and budget issues were more important.

"What really disappoints me is that we have spent some time on an issue during which another thousand Vermonters have lost their jobs," the governor said Tuesday. "We need to turn out attention to balancing a budget without raising taxes, growing the economy, putting more people to work."

House Speaker Shap Smith's announcement of the vote brought an outburst of jubilation from some of the hundreds packed into the gallery and the lobby outside the House chamber, despite the speaker's admonishment against such displays.

The true jubilation didn't start until everyone gathered downstairs where they congratulated legislative leaders who championed the cause.

Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."

Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.

"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.

"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."

Also, the Washington DC city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Progress!

ann jones: "the boys are coming home, and they're not the boys who went away"

Military resistance save lives - in more ways than one. Here's a piece by Ann Jones, author of many important books about violence against women, now a gender advisor to the UN.

How Can We Stop the Epidemic of Killing Women and Children By Returning Soldiers
By Ann Jones

Wake up, America. The boys are coming home, and they're not the boys who went away.

On New Year's Day, the New York Times welcomed the advent of 2009 by reporting that, since returning from Iraq, nine members of the Fort Carson, Colorado, Fourth Brigade Combat team had been charged with homicide. Five of the murders they were responsible for took place in 2008 when, in addition, "charges of domestic violence, rape and sexual assault" at the base rose sharply. Some of the murder victims were chosen at random; four were fellow soldiers -- all men. Three were wives or girlfriends.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Men sent to Iraq or Afghanistan for two, three, or four tours of duty return to wives who find them "changed" and children they barely know. Tens of thousands return to inadequate, underfunded veterans' services with appalling physical injuries, crippling post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suck-it-up sergeants who hold to the belief that no good soldier seeks help. That, by the way, is a mighty convenient belief for the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, which have been notoriously slow to offer much of that help.

Recently Republican Senator John Cornyn from Texas, a state with 15 major military bases, noted that as many as one in five U.S. veterans is expected to suffer from at least one "invisible wound" of war, if not a combination of them, "including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and mild traumatic brain injury." Left untreated, such wounds can become very visible: witness, for example, the recent wave of suicides that have swept through the military, at least 128 in 2008, and 24 in January 2009 alone.

To judge by past wars, a lot of returning veterans will do themselves a lot of damage drinking and drugging. Many will wind up in prison for drug use or criminal offenses that might have been minor if the offenders hadn't been carrying guns they learned to rely on in the service. And a shocking number of those veterans will bring the violence of war home to their wives and children.

. . . .

The battered women's movement once had a slogan: World peace begins at home. They thought peace could be learned by example in homes free of violence and then carried into the wider world. It was an idea first suggested in 1869 by the English political philosopher John Stuart Mill. He saw that "the subjection of women," as he called it, engendered in the home the habits of tyranny and violence which afflicted England's political life and corrupted its conduct abroad.

The idea seems almost quaint in competition with the brutal, dehumanizing effectiveness of two or three tours of duty in a pointless war and a little "mild" brain damage.

We had a respite for a while. For nearly a decade, starting in 1993, rates of domestic violence and wife murder went down by a few percentage points. Then in 2002, the vets started coming home.

No society that sends its men abroad to do violence can expect them to come home and be at peace. To let world peace begin at home, you have to stop making war. (Europe has largely done it.) Short of that, you have to take better care of your soldiers and the people they once knew how to love.

Excellent (long) article here.

suite française, last post

If the novel Suite Française is not your cup of tea, I highly recommend reading the transcripts of the author's notebook and the letters appended to the novel. They are, as commenter Cid says here, heart-wrenching.

Némirovsky's husband continues to write his wife's publisher and anyone who he believes can help, becoming increasingly frantic, desperate to know the whereabouts of his beloved wife. If her release is not possible, he concedes, can he send her a package? Medication? Can he get word to her that the children are safe? Can he just know where she is? He says he can neither sleep nor eat, as he is so consumed with worry for her.

In his letters, he lists the many logical reasons that his wife should be spared, but none of those matter. It doesn't matter that she was never political. It doesn't matter that she converted to Catholicism. None of that matters.

While he writes, trying to get information, trying to save her, she is already at Auschwitz.

She is already dead.

Soon, he will be, too.

When the war ends and the concentration camps are liberated, Némirovsky's two daughters, now out of hiding, go to the Paris train station where survivors are returning. Every day, they stand in the station, holding signs with their names, waiting and hoping.

* * * *

Amid the carnage of the 20th Century, the Holocaust is not unique in size or scope, and amazingly, is only one of the many genocides and political massacres with victims numbering in the millions. Yet it is the one massacre that I know would have happened to me, had I lived in Europe at the time. It's the one my parents or grandparents would have perished in, had my great-grandparents not escaped the pogroms of Russia a generation earlier.

As I mentioned here, when I blogged about the movie "Fugitive Pieces," my Holocaust education is over, having been absorbed into my bones, my DNA.

But every once in a while, something slips through my defensive wall, like this book has. When it does, it effects me in a visceral way. My stomach knots, my throat clenches. I have nightmares.

Now, in Israel, Jews are acting like Nazis.

The details differ, but they always do. The means are different, but the end results are the same.

There's a semi-apocryphal story that the political satirist Tom Lehrer declared irony dead when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize. Surely there can be no irony more cruel, more ridiculous, more head-spinning, more insane, and simply more horrifying, than a state founded as reparations for the Holocaust committing genocide.

suite française: "our parents practice no religion; as for us, we are catholic..."

I recently blogged about Suite Française, the novel about Nazi-occupied France, written by a woman who was living the nightmare. The "suite" was meant to be five novels; the author wrote two before being arrested, imprisoned, and murdered at Auschwitz.

Yesterday I read the appendices to the novels. The first appendix is the English translation of Némirovsky's handwritten notes. She writes about the situation in France, and about her plans for her books. It begins:

My God! what is this country doing to me? Since it is rejecting me, let us consider it coldly, let us watch as it loses its honour and its life. And the other countries? What are they to me? Empires are dying. Nothing matters. Whether you look at it from a mystical or a personal point of view, it's just the same. Let us keep a cool head. Let us harden our heart. Let us wait.

The author's notes are even more riveting than the book itself. The entries on what is happening in France are impossibly tragic, as the reader knows the ending, but the writer did not. Naturally, The Diary of Anne Frank comes to mind, but this is written by a mature woman, now stripped of her means of providing for her family, struggling to survive.

The entries about the book itself are fascinating to me as a writer. Némirovsky sounds flush with discovery and joy; I recognize the excitement of the creative process, the questions she wrestles with. She believes she is creating a masterpiece. (She did.)

In Dolce, the second book of Suite Française, Némirovsky writes about the ordinary German soldiers with a great deal of sympathy, distinguishing between the individual soldier and the regime that sent him there. She has infinitely more sympathy for the German soldiers than she does for the French upper-class who couldn't capitulate fast enough in order to maintain their own comfort. In her notebook she writes about the Germans that were occupying the town.

They're leaving. They were depressed for twenty-four hours, now they're cheerful, especially when they're together. The little dear one sadly said, "The happy times are over." They're sending their packages home. They're overexcited, that's obvious. Admirably disciplined and, I think, no rebellion in their hearts. I swear here and now never again to take out my bitterness, no matter how justifiable, on a group of people, whatever their race, religion, convictions, prejudices, errors. I feel sorry for these poor children. But I cannot forgive certain individuals, those who reject me, those who coldly abandon us, those who are prepared to stab you in the back. Those people...if I could just get my hands on them... When will it all end? The troops that were here last summer said "Christmas," then July. Now end '41.

The second appendix is correspondence: Némirovsky's to her publisher, Némirovsky's husband, Michel Epstein, trying to save her. He naively believes that his wife's specific circumstances will save her.

My wife, Madame M. Epstein, is a very famous novelist, I. Némirovsky. Her books have been translated in a great many countries and two of them at least - David Golder and Le Bal - in Germany. . . . [He details how their families fled the Russian Revolution.] All this must satisfy you that we feel nothing but hatred for the Bolshevik regime.

In France, not a single member of our family has ever been involved in politics. I was a bank manager and as for my wife, she became a highly esteemed novelist. In none of her books (which moreover have not been banned by the occupying authorities) will you find a single word against Germany, and, even though my wife is of Jewish descent, she does not speak of the Jews with any affection whatsoever in her works. My wife's grandparents, as well as my own, were Jewish; our parents practice no religion; as for us, we are Catholic and so are our children, who were born in Paris and are French.

If I may also take the liberty of point out out to you that my wife has always avoided belonging to any political party...

Finally, for many years my wife has been suffering from chronic asthma . . . and internment in a concentration camp would be fatal to her.

I know, Ambassador, that you are one of the most eminent men in your country's government. I am convinced you are also a just man. And it seems to me both unjust and illogical that the Germans should imprison a woman who, despite being of Jewish descent, has no sympathy whatsoever - all her books prove this - either for Judaism or the Bolshevik regime.

Although this letter is clearly written as a plea - it's doubtful that he really thinks the German ambassador is a just man - Epstein writes many other letters, to everyone and anyone who might be in a position to help. The correspondence is gruesome to read, because you know the ending.

There is also an afterward, which was the preface to the French edition, and gives the chronology of Némirovsky's life, her exile, her arrest, and what happened to her and her family afterwards. About her husband's letters, it explains:

When Irène was taken away, Michel [her husband] did not understand that to be arrested and deported meant certain death. Every day he expected her to come home and insisted, at mealtimes, that her place be set at the table. In complete despair, he wrote to Marshal Petain to explain that his wife had a delicate constitution and to request permission to take her place in the labour camp.

In October 1942, the Vichy government responded by arresting him. He was first imprisoned at Creusot, then Drancy, where his search document shows that 8,500 francs were taken from him. On 6 November 1942, he too was deported to Auschwitz and was sent straight to the gas chamber.

spring begins today at 2:00

Happy Opening Day!

Major League Baseball began its 2009 season yesterday, and today, Baseball Season begins - freals - in our home. This afternoon, the Boston Red Sox host our new archrival Tampa Bay Rays in beautiful, historic Fenway Park.

Am I ever glad not to be in New York City today. With both the Yankees and the Mets opening new stadiums, the hype must be out of control. Here, we live in our little cocoon of Soxness. Now if we could just have some spring weather - it's chilly, gray and wet today - we'd be all set.

As always, see Joy of Sox for all your Red Sox needs. As we of Joy Nation like to say:

It is on.

toronto star says let them stay

Let U.S. deserters stay

With support from all three opposition parties, the House of Commons last week again voted for a motion calling on the Conservative government to allow American deserters from the Iraq war to stay in Canada. And again the government paid no attention.

The opposition parties note that during the Vietnam War some 50,000 American draft dodgers and deserters were given asylum in Canada. "It is an identical parallel situation right now because what is happening in Iraq is very similar (to Vietnam)," said New Democrat MP Olivia Chow during debate on the motion. "Canada chose not to fight the war in Iraq. It chose not to fight the war in Vietnam. We really should allow war resisters to remain in Canada."

But Conservative MP Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence, responded: "They are not identical at all. In Vietnam it was a conscripted army, and in Iraq it is a volunteer army."

Not entirely true. Many Americans (and even some Canadians) volunteered to fight in Vietnam, and some of them later became disillusioned with the war and deserted.

The government's real concern is that the Americans will be mightily displeased if we don't send back their deserters. That may, indeed, have been the case when George Bush was president. But the concern seems misplaced with Barack Obama now in power. He has vowed to end the war.

There are not many U.S. deserters seeking refugee here – about 200 in all. Those who have already been deported to the U.S. have been sentenced to time in the military stockade. Allowing the remainder to stay here is the humane response.

what i'm reading: suite française

Still reading novels, I'm now finishing Suite Française by Irène Némirovsky.

Némirovsky was born in the Ukraine and grew up in France; she was Jewish. (That is, she had Jewish ancestry. She and her husband, from a similar background, were Catholic.) In France, she became a best-selling novelist, until 1940 when the Nazis prevented her from publishing. In 1941, when Paris fell to the Nazis, Némirovsky and her family went into hiding in a small village. The following year she died in Auschwitz.

Her two daughters managed to escape, and they kept with them their mother's most valued possession: a box full of notebooks, written in a nearly microscopic script. They assumed the notebooks contained a diary, and never read them, believing it would be too painful.

When the sisters finally delved into the contents of the box, they were amazed to discover that their mother had been writing a series of novels about life in occupied France. There were to be five novels. Suite Française represent the two books - both unfinished - that Némirovsky wrote before the Nazis found her.

Unlike most books set in the past, these were written when the outcome of the events were still unknown: written as the author was living them. But perhaps the most amazing thing about Suite Française is that the books themselves are not dwarfed by its provenance.

The portrait of society Némirovsky paints is not a pretty one. No tales of heroism and solidarity here. The people in these books are greedy, selfish and hideously materialistic. They cling to their possessions at the expense of other people's lives, and use war as a way of increasing their wealth in any way possible.

People not only do what they must to survive, they do whatever they can get away with. They stop at nothing to accumulate more than their neighbours, all the while criticizing and denouncing others who appear to do the same. Even charitable do-gooders are Dickensian in their hypocrisy and self-interest.

The books seethe with the arrogance and entitlement of the rich, the bitter resentment of the middle and working classes, and the numbing survival instincts of the poor. The people Némirovsky shows us are class-conscious to an extreme degree, the rich truly believing their lives are more important than those of the lower classes, and acting accordingly. As the elite begin to form alliances with the Germans, an aside notes, "What separates or unites people is not their language, their laws, their customs, their principles, but the way they hold their knife and fork."

But the poor and working classes are not saints. At every level of society, there is utter selfishness, seen alongside the random chance of who survives, and who does not.

And there is hypocrisy to spare, especially the stark contrast between how people imagine themselves and what their actions show them to be.

"...They'll raid the farms. We could be denounced."

"Frenchman don't denounce one another," the old woman said proudly. "You've forgotten that, my girl, since you got friendly with the Germans."

Lucile remembered something Lieutenant von Falk had told her in confidence: "The very first day we arrived," he'd said, "there was a package of anonymous letters waiting for us at Headquarters. People were accusing one another of spreading English and Gaullist propaganda, of hoarding supplies, of being spies. If we'd taken them all seriously, everyone in the region would be in prison. I had the whole lot thrown onto the fire. People's lives aren't worth much and defeat arouses the worst in men. In Germany it was exactly the same."

In the first book, Storm In June, Paris has been invaded, and every Parisian who can manage it is fleeing to the provinces. The second book, Dolce, takes place in an occupied town, illuminating the complex relationship between conqueror and conquered when they are forced to coexist. Both are told from an on-the-ground perspective, short vignettes of people's lives.

Although her portraits of her countrypeople are unflattering to the extreme, Némirovsky's vision is also more nuanced than what many official histories will show. This world is not divided into "resistance" and "collaboration". People's choices, and their motivations, are complex.

This edition of Suite Française, translated by Sandra Smith, also includes Némirovsky's handwritten notes, and her correspondence with her publisher and others.

I have only one minor criticism of the book as published. As the stories pile up, they do become a little repetitive. However, the book was unfinished and may have been edited significantly before publication. Also, this was meant to be two separate books, and the effect would be different if they weren't read back-to-back.

The writing is superb, and the author's ability to describe human motivations and emotions is astounding.

Here is the New York Times book review of Suite Française; it was the lead review on Sunday, April 9, 2006. The book is truly a masterpiece.

wmtc in the g&m again

Here's a letter exchange in the Globe and Mail.

First:

The NDP's message has been consistent through good times and bad (With Capitalism On Its Derrière, The Left Still Gets No Respect - April 2). Eventually, they were going to be at least partly right (pun intended). However, most people are not in favour of government control of most aspects of their lives, which is what socialism is about.

Despite its up and downs, or maybe because of them, capitalism is still the most responsive system and therefore, because of its continual improvement, it always will be better than socialism in the ability to deliver freedom of choice.

Colin Lowe,
Nanaimo, BC

Then:

Letter writer Colin Lowe is off base when he suggests socialism is about "government control of most aspects" of citizens' lives (Ideology's A Tough Sell - April 3). It is conservatives who want to control most aspects of individuals' lives - who you marry, where you travel, what you watch on TV, what you read, what you say, what you smoke. Freedom is reserved for businesses.

Socialism, on the other hand, wants to ensure fair access to scarce resources and make sure businesses behave in socially responsible ways.

Bryan M. Kramer, Oakville, ON

*

[Letter writer Colin Lowe says "most people are not in favour of government control of most aspects of their lives, which is what socialism is about". In fact, socialism is about public resources being used for the public good.]

Socialism is the reason Canadians don't have to worry about providing their families with health care, even if they are unemployed. Socialism is the reason there are minimum wage laws, workplace safety laws, and a little something called "the weekend."

People shouldn't accept or reject an idea until they understand it.

Laura Kaminker
Mississauga, ON
[The portion in brackets was cut.]

*

There is a good reason why the NDP have not made gains during this economic crisis (With Capitalism On Its Derrière, The Left Still Gets No Respect - April 2). Every day in the news, it's the same thing: Market up means good, market down means bad. We are swamped with econo-speak nonsense that shows little acknowledgment of our joint human endeavour: to lead a good life.

The message is clearly geared toward frightening people back into overspending and debt with the explicit message that to be living well is to be a fully engaged consumer, not a fully engaged citizen.

The project of socialism is not to destroy people's lives with meaningless talk about anti-capitalism. It is the step-by-step process that directs the economy toward non-predatory purposes and goals.

The NDP are on the right course; they know that it's never too "left" to do the right thing.

Paul J. Graham, Saskatoon

Thanks to Bryan Kramer and Paul Graham; together, the three letters make a nice statement. I write a lot of letters, but I hope nothing as ignorant as Colin Lowe's letter ever escapes my keyboard.

five reasons to march this saturday

Tomorrow, April 4, is a global day of action to protest the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. From Toronto Coalition to Stop the War:

Five reasons to march this Saturday

Saturday, April 4 is a global day of action against war in Afghanistan. The date coincides with the 60th anniversary NATO summit in Strasbourg, France and is the anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous "Beyond Vietnam" speech at the Riverside Church in New York. [L note: it is also the anniversary of King's assassination.]

The Canadian Peace Alliance and the Collectif Échec à la guerre are calling for pan-Canadian demonstrations on April 4 to demand an end to the NATO-led war in Afghanistan. These demonstrations have taken on a renewed significance this week.

Here are five reasons you should join demonstrations across Canada this weekend:

1. Free speech - use it or lose it!

The Harper government and its backers are trying to silence anti-war voices in Canada. They have banned British MP George Galloway from speaking in Canada, cut funding to the Canadian Arab Federation because it spoke out against war on the people of Gaza, encouraged suppression of free speech of Palestine solidarity activists on university campuses, and are denying refuge to US war resisters against the will of the people and the Canadian Parliament.

Every person that comes out this Saturday will help protect our hard-won civil rights and freedom of speech.

2. The surge and expansion

The US has already sent another 21,000 troops to Afghanistan and has expanded the war to Pakistan. This is a disaster that will stoke more violence in the region - bringing open war to a nuclear armed nation of 170 million people. They have also begun arming local militias throughout Afghanistan, sowing the seeds of a bloody future. Every new soldier sent to Afghanistan makes the situation worse. According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "The mere presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in Afghanistan is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban."

The Canadian Forces have told soldiers to expect their tours-of-duty to be extended and Harper has hinted that they may be willing to extend Canada's deployment. We need a strong show of opposition to the expansion. Don't extend it. End it!

3. Women's rights

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just passed a law that legalizes rape in Afghanistan. The new family law also places draconian limits on a woman's right to education and employment. It allows their husbands to determine when they may leave the house and bans women from refusing their husbands' sexual advances.

As the courageous Afghan MP Malalai Joya has been saying for years: "The government that Canada supports in Afghanistan is a 'photocopy' of the Taliban when it comes to women's rights."

4. $18 billion is being spent on the war

We are in the midst of the biggest economic crisis in decades yet the Harper government has continued to plow more money into war. It will spend $18 billion on the war in Afghanistan and is increasing military spending to a total of $490 billion over the next 20 years. With $4 billion, we could provide affordable housing for all Canadians or abolish tuition fees. That money could be used to expand Employment Insurance, invest in green technology, re-tool empty factories and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions or nationalize industries in financial trouble.

Join us to demand that we fund peace, a clean environment, good jobs and human needs - not war.

5. Self-determination for the people of Afghanistan

The Afghan people want disarmament and a free society. NATO responds by sending troops, tanks and guns to support a corrupt warlord government, and then they wonder why it's not working. The only way we will see a bright future in Afghanistan is if the Afghan people are in charge of their own country. That cannot happen under a foreign occupation concerned with its own geo-political interests.

Join us this Saturday!

Freedom for Afghanistan. Bring the troops home now!

In Toronto:

Rally & march
Saturday, April 4 at 1:00 p.m.
Yonge-Dundas Square, Toronto / TTC: Dundas

For a list of events in Canada, go here.

In the US, national mobilization march on New York City.

my new chair

I'm in love with my new chair.

I can't believe I spent so much money on a chair, but I'm so happy I did. And in the long run, it's actually a great value.

I've had a long series of office chairs that last a few years and are never quite right for me. I need to add a removable back support, or sit on a pillow, or use a foot rest, or something, and I'm never really comfortable.

Fibromyalgia makes my joints hyper-sensitive, and arthritis doesn't help, and the march of time just adds insult to injury. My old chair was so uncomfortable that it was exacerbating everything else.

I started looking for a better chair, but every place I looked had the same models. And they were mostly crap. For $250 or $300, you can buy the best chair at Staples, but it's not well made, and comes with only a one-year warranty. Which is why I've been buying a new chair every two or three years.

Driving around one day, we saw the ergoCentric retail store, and went in, just to look. The prices looked completely out of our range. It seemed ridiculous.

But the chairs are amazingly comfortable. They adjust for five different parameters, and are warrantied for a full ten years. These days, when things are purposely made to fall apart, that's pretty amazing. Their factory is right here in Mississauga! Not just Canadian-made, but locally made. They are also a very environmentally-conscious company, and although I wouldn't choose the chair for that reason, it doesn't hurt.

But the price seemed prohibitive, so we kept looking around. And all we saw was crap, crap and more crap.

We started thinking that if we spend $200-300 on a chair every two or three years, spending $800 on a chair that is supposed to last a lifetime isn't so crazy. It might actually be a bargain.

Allan also suggested that I think of this chair the way I think of my glasses or custom orthotics: something I need for my health. I spend an enormous amount of time in my chair. It's not just blogging and emailing (although that would be a lot); it's all my writing and any other work I do from home, like legal transcription.

The more we shopped around, the more convinced I became.

The only other option was an Obus Forme chair. $650 before tax, three to four weeks to order, three-year warranty, and it wasn't nearly as comfortable as the ergoCentric, for $150-200 more.

To seal the deal: an interest-free payment plan. Twenty-five percent down, the remainder spread over a year.

On Monday we ordered it, and on Wednesday we picked it up.

I love it.

This week I am transcribing, and I am utterly amazed at the difference in how I feel at the end of the day. At the end of a long day of transcribing, I'm used to being in pain, and barely mobile. Yesterday I felt completely fine.

ergoCentric advertises that they are the first chair recognized by the Canadian Physiotherapy Association, and now I know why. Wow!

Some good ergonomic info on their site here.

ssod

Search string of the day:

odds of cheney war crimes indictment

Zero!

standard operating procedure

Have you seen this movie?

"Standard Operating Procedure" is filmmaker Errol Morris's look at what happened at Abu Ghraib, the former Saddam Hussein prison and torture chamber that the US turned into a US prison and torture chamber.

Allan is watching it downstairs right now.

I made it through one hour. A quarter-way through, I took a short break. Halfway through, I had to leave the room.

I knew I probably wouldn't be able to watch the whole movie, but I thought I should try, at least see what it was like. Torture is the one place I can't go. Even the suggestion of torture in a movie - even in a non-serious movie - can make me sick for days. I only push it out of my mind through force of will. And it doesn't really go away.

And this torture. This was ordered, organized and financed by the country of my birth, torture carried out by my former countrypeople.

My taxes used to pay for that torture.

Like all of Erroll Morris's films, the story is told by the people who participated. "Standard Operating Procedure" is first-hand testimony from US soldiers who were stationed at Abu Ghraib, some of whom become famous, like Lynndie England, Charles Graner and Sabrina Harman. They talk about what they saw, what they did.

Some are remorseful. Some are angry. Some try to explain it away.

Some say, "We just did what we were told to do."

These are the people who followed orders.

And I keep thinking, our guys - pardon my possessive - the war resisters, they are fugitives. They are fighting to stay free.

Robin Long didn't follow orders, and he's in a fucking prison cell.

Dale Landry, Chuck Wiley, Kimberly Rivera, Joshua Key, they stopped following orders, and they are called cowards, traitors, criminals.

It breaks my heart.

But at the same time, it gives me hope. Because if the world was only made of the people in this movie, there would be no hope. If this was all that could be said - "we were just doing what we were told" - there would be no point in living. That there are people in the world who are able to find their humanity and do the right thing, despite the enormous pressure, then there is hope.

All my life I have looked at the people I admire in the world, people of inner strength and moral courage, and I have wondered, What would I have done? Could I do what they did? I have always felt, even before I could articulate it, that being around people of moral courage would help me find my own. That by being around people who have demonstrated moral courage, perhaps I might increase my chances of doing the right thing, if the time ever came. I can only hope.

* * * *

"Standard Operating Procedure" seems like a very good movie, very well done (music by Danny Elfman), and important. This is just a place I can't go. I already feel such rage, and such grief. The only thing that will come of my watching this movie is nightmares and flashbacks.

Many of you have probably seen "Taxi to the Dark Side," also about the random torture of random prisoners. I also only saw half of that. In "Standard Operating Procedure," there are several mentions of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib being random people who were swept up merely for existing. Someone says, "They are taxi drivers, welders, bakers...". Taxi drivers.

There are lots of reviews and other good stuff at Errol Morris' website. Among his many films is one of the greatest arguments against capital punishment ever made: The Thin Blue Line.

the wild among us

I meant to blog about this when it happened, but it's still good news. First:

Outraged Beaches residents are demanding a stay of execution for their controversial neighbour, Neville the Coyote.

More than 230 people have signed a petition demanding to know why the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources refused to issue a special permit allowing the silver-grey coyote dubbed Neville to be relocated outside the city.

Under normal rules, the coyote can only be moved one kilometre.

In downtown Toronto, that does little to ease a potentially dangerous situation. Neville lives in the ravines around Neville Park Boulevard, a beautiful cul-de-sac of well-tended houses nestled between steep banks of trees.

Without a permit to take the animal further afield, Toronto Animal Services says it has no option but to catch and euthanize the coyote, which killed a small dog last month.

"I think everybody recognizes right now that the coyote is behaving in a manner that isn't suitable for the City of Toronto. If it was shying away from people, that'd be fine," said street resident Larry Blake.

But killing the coyote - one of three seen in the ravine - has some residents incensed.

Long-time resident Richard Milne said the province should explain its refusal to permit the animal's relocation.

"Obviously in the city, if you move it one kilometre, you may as well not move it," Mr. Milne said.

"I think the city could find a solution if the province would co-operate. I really feel it should be saved."

Not everyone feels the same way. When Katherine Blake started the petition on Saturday morning, knocking on neighbours' doors and gathering signatures on Queen Street East, she discovered a broad range of opinion.

"Some neighbours are obviously upset by what's happened," she said. "I can understand... [but] I still would not want to kill it. Fear should not dictate how we react. It should be based on an intelligent solution."

The city acknowledges the coyote's boldness is probably not its fault: Someone in the neighbourhood was likely feeding the coyote, making it less fearful of humans.

To Neville's advocates, that underlines their belief that the coyote isn't to blame, and shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price.

And regardless whether the coyote is relocated or killed, its absence will open the ravine for another coyote to move in.

The problem is not going to disappear with Neville's removal, said Humane Society of Canada CEO and long-time Beaches resident Michael O'Sullivan.

"The whole city is built around a ravine system. This could happen in your neighbourhood," Mr. O'Sullivan said.

"We need to learn to co-exist. Neville is in many ways the flagship species, and the harbinger of what's to come."

The Humane Society said coyotes are adaptable and would survive relocation well. It suggested Neville could be turned loose in Algonquin Park or on open land north of the city.

Residents agree that something must be done, but Mr. Blake insisted that Neville should not be killed for doing what comes naturally.

"We live in a ravine area," he said. "If you don't like wildlife, go live in a condo."

Natural Resources Minister Donna Cansfield could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Then:

Conrad Black and Scooter Libby missed out, but yesterday Neville the Coyote got his pardon.

After animal services posted notices of their intention to kill the notorious chihuahua hunter, calls and e-mails poured into the offices of Councillor Sandra Bussin over the weekend.

Ms. Bussin called Natural Resources Minister Donna Cansfield yesterday morning, and it was decreed that Neville's life should be spared.

Neville, who was named for Neville Park Boulevard, the road near Queen Street East and Victoria Park Avenue in the Beaches where he roams, gained notoriety when he grabbed a six-year-old chihuahua out of a backyard last month. Days later, when a Maltese and then a terrier were also attacked, residents became seriously concerned.

For the last five weeks, the city has tried to convince Neville to move on. But paintballs, air horns and other deterrents didn't do the trick.

Ms. Bussin was told by Toronto Animal Services agents that at least five families were feeding the coyote, which may explain why Neville has become so brazen and has been so reluctant to leave the bounty of his ravine.

"The wildlife expert believes that the coyote was born somewhere near that ravine last year, has become very accustomed to being fed and likes it there and didn't want to move on, no matter what intervention was used," Ms. Cansfield said.

It became clear that more drastic measures were needed, but the city's hands were tied: Approval from the ministry is required to move a coyote more than one kilometre from its home, and the city's application to have the coyote removed was denied last month.

The remaining option was euthanasia.

But despite Neville's appetite for household pets, some residents rose to his defence. By Sunday evening, a petition to spare his life was started and more than 230 signatures had been collected.

Ms. Bussin said she was glad to learn that Neville will live, and will likely be relocated to a zoo or rehabilitative area.

"I don't want to see it happen again, and the message to people is please do not feed the wildlife. People think they're doing the right thing, but in essence it really was jeopardizing the animal," she said.

Sean Maxwell, the owner of the chihuahua who fell victim to Neville, was less enthusiastic.

"I don't have a vendetta against [the coyote] or anything, I just don't want to see this happen to anyone else," he said.

I hope the coyote fares better than some others that have been trapped and relocated. I blogged about one in New York City who died in captivity, probably from mishandling.

I find coyotes as beautiful and fascinating as all canines. They are one of the most adaptable species on the planet. Even when they're killing dogs, I root for their survival.

paul copeland: time for the government to stop lying and let them stay

This is a beautifully concise argument demolishing the Harper Government's case against allowing US war resisters to stay in Canada. Even if you know this stuff backwards and forwards, it's worth reading. Thank you, Paul Copeland!

From the Sudbury Star.

Deserters have a right to stay in Canada

by Paul Copeland

The Harper government attempts to justify deporting U. S. Iraq War resisters with a familiar, but untrue, narrative. They say that unlike during the Vietnam War, U. S. soldiers are now volunteers and are not considered refugees by the United Nations. They say refugee applications are evaluated fairly on their own merits, and there is no need to create a separate program for U. S. Iraq War resisters.

All these statements are false.

Firstly, not all Vietnam War resisters were conscripts, and many Iraq War resisters are redeployed against their will. Vietnam War resisters included draft dodgers who fled before induction, those who accepted their draft notice and were inducted, and those who voluntarily joined the military services.

After a brief political struggle in 1969 concerning those who came to Canada after induction, Canada welcomed both groups without distinction. Although current war resisters volunteered and some completed their service, many found themselves involuntarily redeployed to Iraq. Programs of Stop-Loss and Individual Ready Reserve recall soldiers after they have been discharged. Many soldiers, like Jeremy Hinzman, have had their applications for conscientious objector status denied.

Secondly, it is not true that the UN does not consider war resisters refugees. Section 167 of the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status states that "a deserter or draft-evader may also be considered a refugee if it can be shown that he would suffer disproportionately severe punishment for the military offence on account of ... political opinion".

After being deported, war resister Robin Long was sentenced to 15 months in prison, the harshest punishment so far for resisting the Iraq War, partly because of his political statements about the war. Multiple Federal Court of Canada decisions have granted stays of removal on the grounds that U. S. war resisters who have spoken out against the war would suffer differential punishment.

Section 171 of the UNHCR Handbook states that "where the type of military action, with whom an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft-evasion could ... in itself be regarded as persecution."

This is precisely the position in which Iraq War resisters find themselves, refusing, like Canada under Prime Minister Jean Chretien, to participate in a war condemned by the international community.

Thirdly, while war resisters who have applied for refugee status may be treated the same as every other applicant, the government's blanket opposition to war resisters as revealed in public comments by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney -- who labeled them "bogus refugee claimants" -- led the Canadian Council for Refugees to rebuke the minister because such a statement gives "the strong appearance of political interference" and "threaten claimants' right to an unbiased decision."

And to date, where U. S. war resisters have attempted to access the humanitarian and compassionate grounds application process, instead of their claims being decided fairly, the majority of these individuals have received negative decisions that are almost identical word for word.

The final argument of the government is that they do not believe in creating a program to allow war resisters to apply for permanent residence. But the majority of Canadians do, and Parliament passed a motion to that effect last June. Rather than listen to Parliament, the government has been deporting war resisters to punishment in the U. S., justifying government actions with a series of false arguments.

It is time for the Conservatives to stop making false claims, and to start respecting the will of Parliament. Iraq War resisters should be allowed to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada.

Paul Copeland is a cofounder of the Law Union of Ontario, a previous copresident of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted and Life Bencher (director) of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

what canada is fighting for in afghanistan

The pro-war commenters who used to hang around here (before they were banned) liked to accuse me of being a hypocrite on women's issues. Their equation: Taliban bad for women, war in Afghanistan bad for Taliban, therefore war in Afghanistan good for women. They often claimed the war in Afghanistan was being fought to liberate Afghan women.

Women are oppressed all over our planet. I wonder why the US and Canada only want to liberate women in certain countries? It couldn't have anything to do with a certain three-letter resource... No, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Now about those Afghan women.

President Hamid Karzai has signed a law the UN says legalises rape in marriage and prevents women from leaving the house without permission.

The law, which has not been publicly released, is believed to state women can only seek work, education or doctor's appointments with their husband's permission.

Only fathers and grandfathers are granted custody of children under the law, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women.

Opponents of the legislation governing the personal lives of Afghanistan's Shia minority have said it is "worse than during the Taliban".

Mr Karzai has been accused of electioneering at the expense of women's rights by signing the law to appeal to crucial Shia swing voters in this year's presidential poll.

While the Afghan constitution guarantees equal rights for women, it also allows the Shia community, thought to represent 10 per cent of the population, the right to settle family law cases according to Shia law.

The Shiite Personal Status Law contains provisions on marriage, divorce, inheritance, rights of movement and bankruptcy.

The bill passed both houses of the Afghan parliament, but was so contentious that the United Nations and women's rights campaigners have so far been unable to see a copy of the approved bill.

Shinkai Zahine Karokhail, a female MP, said the law had been rushed through with little debate.

She told the Guardian newspaper: "They wanted to pass it almost like a secret negotiation, "There were lots of things that we wanted to change, but they didn't want to discuss it because Karzai wants to please the Shia before the election."

The Afghan justice ministry confirmed the law had been signed, but said it would not be published until technical difficulties had been overcome.

A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai would not comment.

thank your m.p. for voting for war resisters

Here's the Hansard of Monday's vote on the war resisters.

If you emailed or called your MP about the vote, why not take a minute to thank him or her for voting yes? (Or if your MP is a Conservative, chastise them for voting no.)

I've been surprised to see that my own MP, Albina Guarnieri, is front-bench under Ignatieff. In the vote on adjourning or continuing the debate, with Ignatieff absent, she voted second after Stephane Dion. On Monday she voted third, after Ignatieff and Dion.

Ms. Guarnieri has been in cabinet before, and has a strong interest in veterans affairs, which is one reason I wanted to talk to her about the war resisters. Although supporting war resisters is often mistakenly characterized as the opposite of "support our troops," supporting a soldier's right to conscience is very much part of veterans affairs.

thoughts on recession, socialism and me, part 2

It was the title of the talk that caught my eye: How Can Workers Fight Back in a Recession?

I feel helpless. We all do. Our lives are being squeezed, made more difficult, for many of us ruined, by forces beyond our control.

I'm angry - but I'm also afraid. Compared to most people in our society, I'm not very materialistic. But there are things I want to do, goals and dreams I want to accomplish for which I need income, and right now those plans are increasingly out of reach. I've already adjusted my expectations downward. Will I have to do that again and again? Will the goal eventually be basic survival?

I'm afraid - but I'm also angry. This global economic crisis is the predictable result of an irrational system that benefits too few at the expense of too many. There are resources enough for all, but they are controlled for private profit, rather than public good.

When I'm angry and frightened, I try to do something about it. That's part of what I get from activism. It combats feelings of helplessness. I need to be out there fighting, surrounded by others who are also fighting.

I was thinking about fighting back, because right now, in my own life...

... 48 people were let go from the company where I work, leaving the rest of us to work much harder for the same compensation, with a cloud of uncertainty hanging over our heads,

... our evening transportation allowance has been cut, making our commutes longer, more stressful, and less safe,

... I'm already underemployed, my day-job doesn't cover my expenses and I have to make up the difference with whatever extra work I can find,

... the minimum standard for freelance writing work hasn't increased since the early 1980s,

... and in fact, writer's fees have decreased, and paid writing opportunities have become increasingly scarce, in some fields nearly vanishing,

and through all this, I know I'm very lucky, relatively speaking, because my partner and I are both still employed.

I was thinking about fighting back, because right now, in other people's lives,

... on my way home, the cab driver tells me how the firm's transportation cutbacks will devastate his income, and he was already struggling,

... a huge percentage of unemployed people aren't even eligible for Employment Insurance,

... Employment Insurance isn't enough to live on,

... Ontario may renege on its next minimum wage hike, balancing its budget on the backs of those who can least afford it,

... and on and on. The further down the economic ladder one is, the harder this economic depression hits, the more impossible it is to climb out of it. For too many people, this will never end.

Thoughts like these were swirling through my head when I put the IS talk on my calendar.

The two people who spoke that night, Chantal Sundaram and Carolyn Egan, gave me their notes to post here. They said much that wasn't in their notes, but this was the general background of their talks.

From Chantal Sundaram:

How do workers fight back in a recession?

I was lucky to be in France for the founding of a new anti-capitalist party in the wake of the biggest strike movement France has seen in years, that has some lessons for us.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy used to be known as the "French Ronald Reagan". Last July he said that France had changed so rapidly under his leadership that "these days, when there is a strike, nobody notices anymore".

Sarkozy noticed last Jan 29 when 2.5 million people took part in a one-day general strike and demonstrations across France to protest his leadership.

And not just the effects of the economic crisis, but Sarkozy's handling of it: the government has found 26 billion euros to bail out France’s banks while thousands of workers are being laid off, a 10% unemployment rate, falling wages and cuts to pensions and public services, and mean-spirited things like the cutting of 3,000 jobs among professionals who specialise in helping children who have difficulties in nursery and primary schools.

But in the lead-up to the general strike, even Sarkozy started speaking about the need to find a "more moral" version of capitalism, because the neoliberal version of capitalism "isn't working".

Now, his biggest political adversary is a 34-year-old postal worker who ran against him in the last election as an open revolutionary and is now polling at 18%.

People say that France is exceptional, but in particular...

In 2006, millions of youth mobilized to defeat the CPE (casualisation of youth labour); riots in suburbs by youth of colour; huge mobilizations of high school students against education reforms: they successfully defeated reforms of the high school curriculum.

In December, when Greek students were rioting and occupying campuses in Greece, Sarkozy expressed concern that we could be on the brink of a new May 1968.

Maybe not yet, but students and youth have been passing the torch on to workers.

In fact, the defeat of Sarkozy's school reforms was really the result of action by both students and teaching unions together, including a one-day strike in October.

So the one-day general strike in January was actually just the latest in a series of escalating labour actions and even multiple-day strikes in various sectors against job cuts, government reform plans and decreased purchasing power because of the economic crisis - so it didn't come out of nowhere.

In fact, there was already a labour victory against plans to introduce laws on Sunday working, causing them to be delayed.

Early in the new year, as the general strike movement was gearing up, some MPs and Ministers expressed concerns about how broad the movement was, feared that the strike movement would escalate into a wider movement of opposition against the government: "People think public money is being given to bankers but nothing is being done for them, so they support those taking to the streets."

In fact, polls published in the lead-up showed that 69% of French people said they "supported" or "sympathised with" the strike actions, despite the fact that only about 10% of the French workforce is unionized (compared to over 30% in Canada).

I remember being impressed with this during the Days of Action movement in Ontario, which was going on at the same time as a massive general strike movement in France against cuts to social programs with only a third the union rate.

The Jan 29 strike was called by France's eight major trade unions and pulled in teachers, postal employees, transport and media workers, civil servants, hospital staff, bank staff, car industry and shop workers, even lawyers, judges, and journalists; and in many smaller towns groups of workers from small private firms demonstrated for the first time.

So not only across public and private sectors, but also well beyond organized labour.

They were joined by school and university students, as well as some of their parents, on marches.

On the day there were over 200 demonstrations across France, with slogans like: "The crisis is them – the solution is us."

The movement can easily go well beyond organized labour because it's against the crisis as a whole, i.e. not just its effects but about how government is dealing with it, which gives the movement a character that's not just economic but political, and even somewhat ideologically opposed to what's going on in the global system and how it's manifesting in France.

But there is also a concrete focus on the economy: the eight major unions issued a joint document listing demands on both the government and company managers. Here are some of them:

- Any state aid to companies must be conditional on them supporting jobs and salaries.

- Companies that reduce working hours or ask staff to take leave as ways of coping with a slowdown in activity must negotiate such arrangements with the workers. Staff on a temporary break from production should be offered training.

- The government must immediately drop plans to cut 30,000 public sector jobs by not replacing some retiring employees.

- State stimulus measures must be directed at consumers, not just firms. They should revive the economy through consumption.

- The government must repeal legislation that has relaxed rules on the 35-hour working week.

- The government must withdraw its bill proposing to make it easier for shops to open on Sunday.

- The European Union must be at the forefront of efforts to curb financial speculation, get rid of tax havens and increase transparency on financial markets.

An offensive struggle, but these are still defensive demands...

Following the strike day, Sarkozy appeared on TV and incensed the unions enough that they resolved to go ahead with plans for another one-day general strike in March.

But Sarkozy's strategy has combined attacks with some tactical retreats, and he allowed himself to be forced to the table to negotiate with the eight major trade unions and a number of employers' representatives on February 18 (unique for a state to set up national negotiations between workers and employers on the crisis).

Result: a kind of "bailout" package for the poor, which Sarkozy unveiled to the nation on live prime time news that same day of the meeting with unions and employers' reps: he announced new measures worth 2.65 billion euros ($3.4 billion) to help vulnerable people across France weather the crisis, such as tax breaks for low income households and extra benefits for the jobless and big families.

But he rejected union demands for a hike in the minimum legal wage and vowed to stay the course of structural reform.

Despite the concessions, there is still another nation-wide one-day general strike planned for March 19.

And also an ongoing strike movement in the universities that emerged days after the general strike, not just by students, but by university workers, lecturers and researchers, against job cuts and reforms of their job status that would see university presidents have more control over their professional lives (in France, teachers are civil servants), and some university unions are even pushing for an "unlimited" strike (meeting of French university presidents at Sorbonne while I was there...).

Sarkozy will be under enormous pressure, also because of the unlimited general strike already going on in the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, which entered its 42nd day yesterday, and has now spread to Martinique.

The strike is also over the economic crisis, and for higher benefits and higher pay for low-income residents, but it has an added anti-colonial/anti-imperialist dimension against the white French minority that enjoys better conditions that the Afro-Caribbean majority.

That's a lesson on how workers can fight back in a recession: hit them from all sides: it was no doubt a factor in forcing Sarkozy to the table with unions, to avoid things spiralling into unlimited strike action in France.

And just as Sarkozy was sitting down at the negotiating table on Feb 18, a union representative in Guadeloupe was shot dead.

In his televised address after talks with union leaders, Sarkozy spoke only briefly about Guadeloupe, paying lip service to the "anxieties and despair" of the people there, and that he would address the people of Guadeloupe on the radio.

But despite this pressure there are dangers: today, union leaders are continuing their demonstrations in Guadeloupe, but more and more businesses are re-opening, and the president of the French Confederation of Business Enterprises in Guadeloupe has predicted that up to 14,000 people could lose their jobs as a result of bankruptcies triggered by the strike.

In this context, the strike in France on March 19 will be all the more important in determining whether the movement will advance or retreat.

The New Anti-capitalist Party is trying to take the vision of a just society even further in appealing to the growing desire to see collective ownership and redistribution of wealth.

From the Guardian, about Olivier Besancenot, 34-year-old postal worker and leading figure of the new party:

Besancenot was given a hero's welcome by protesters during last week's nationwide strikes and demonstrations. Chewing gum and dressed in leather jacket and jeans, he explained yesterday that his shifts had been interrupted for 10 days by a workers' strike "for better pay".

Asked whether it felt strange to deliver letters in Neuilly, France's wealthiest and most conservative town, he shrugged. "Well, you know, it's work. I guess even the rich need their public services."

From Carolyn Egan:

The working class is under attack in this country. There have been 129,000 job losses in the month of January alone, mostly in manufacturing but also in service, retail and the building trades. This has been on top of hundreds of thousands of previous layoffs.

Only 45% are able to collect unemployment insurance. In some sectors as few as 25% are able to collect.

The system has been gutted in past years and the neo-liberal agenda is being pushed forward by governments ideologically committed to privatization, cutting services, and pushing back workers demands. They are taking advantage of the economic crisis to continue their attacks.

The auto workers are under particular pressure with federal ministers like Tony Clement telling them that they have to do their part and share the pain, accepting concessions when the CAW has shown that wages are only 7% of the cost of making a car. If they are defeated it will have an effect on workers in every sector.

The horror of the capitalist system is glaringly obvious whether you are a laid of worker with EI benefits running out, a student who can no longer bear the cost of school, an agency worker trying to maintain two jobs just to keep your family afloat, or someone who lays awake at night not knowing what the next week or month will bring.

The economic crisis has sent the rich and the powerful into a blind panic as they see their assets and profits disappear overnight. Whatever there claim, they have no solutions to the problem except one: make workers pay the price through unemployment or reduced wages or conditions. The class divide is clearer and clearer.

Fear is stalking the world but so too is resistance. We have seen how workers, students and immigrant communities in France have risen up and are fighting back, and it’s not just happening there.

In Ireland, workers at Waterford Crystal occupied their workplace because they were being denied there severance. This militant resistance sparked 200,000 marching in the streets of Dublin against the government.

In Chicago, workers at Republic Window and Doors occupied their plant, also being denied severance. Bank of America which was the recipient of bail out monies urged the employer to bilk the workers. A solidarity rally by other unionists at the bank upped the ante and the workers won their demands. Numbers of them had been involved in earlier mass demonstrations for amnesty for people without status.

A year and a half ago workers in southern Ontario occupied plants primarily Steel and auto workers in workplaces such as Collins and Aikman, Masonite demanding just severance The militancy and class solidarity were palpable and you got a glimpse of the power of the working class and what we mean by socialism from below.

But these were defensive struggles and we know that deep recessions have contradictory effects on workers consciousness. They create anger and fear at the same time. The anger can erupt into sudden struggles that are more militant. The fear can lead people to avoid struggle, hunker down and try to wait it out.

Which of these factors predominates is not preordained. in advance. It depends on concrete circumstances - the way the crisis hits particular industries or sectors—past traditions of struggle — the general political mood and the degree to which there is some sort of fighting leadership or rank and file organization.

Confidence can be built by a victory that inspires, locally or around the world. A particular action can be the spark to a much broader fight back. The shooting by the police of a teenager in Greece led to huge demonstrations and fightbacks because of the volatility of the situation people were facing and the depth of the crisis.

This is possible today in Canada as well. There is a much greater opening to a criticism of the market and the capitalist system itself. But nothing is automatic.

We also have to be aware that there can be right wing responses to crisis. We have seen that in Britain with demonstrations calling for "British Jobs for British Workers" a backlash against Italian and Portuguese workers from the EU, blaming them instead of the bosses and the government for the effects of the crisis. Anti-immigrant sentiment. We have to be aware that when we raise demands for jobs, domestic content and local procurement for the manufacture of wind turbines, subway cars etc we must always put it in the context of internationalism and class solidarity.

Our enemy is not the workers of China, Mexico or any other country but the corporate owners and their governments who are trying to continue to make profits at our expense.

There have not been general strikes or mass demonstrations in the streets in Ontario but there has been growing resistance locally.

We have seen the 2000 PMP workers barricade their workplace for days demanding severance, surround the federal Minister of Labour, and sparking a movement for expanded EI benefits. They have inspired laid off Steelworkers to follow suit and organize among the 6000 in Toronto who have lost their jobs forming “Workers Without Jobs” as a voice of laid off workers.

We have seen PSAC workers at Canada Post mount a courageous battle against concessions, rejecting the first tentative agreement and holding out as longs as they could with picket line support.

A while back activists at the Toronto and York Region Labour Council looked for an issue that could link union and none union workers. After talking with a lot of people, we decided to see if the fight for a $10 minimum wage could be the spark to bring people into action. The employers came out fighting. and they fought hard saying it would lead to greater layoffs, businesses would be shutting down. The same scare mongering we always hear whenever workers make demands.

But the support was broad and deep and it led to real links between union and non union workers. Meetings took place in neighbourhoods across the city — Malvern, Parkdale, Davenport, Regent Park, Rexdale and others. A bill was moved in the legislature, because of the growing pressure and we won, not everything but a 28% increase in three years.

That led to activists intervening in the CLC convention last June with a Labour Action Agenda, trying to test the sentiment and connect with other rank and file workers who and wanted to fight. We leafleted at the entrances and held side meetings which attracted hundreds of workers talking about local campaigns, deteriorating conditions and the need for action. We intervened at the mikes and gave confidence to ourselves and others that there was an appetite to fightback against the attacks.

This led to an organizing effort to counter the huge job losses, connect with agency workers, the unoganized to build a coalition in Toronto "Good Jobs for All" with both union activists and community members particularly communities of colour who were being hard hit. During the organizing, the economic crisis deepened.and more and more came out to the meetings. Late November we held a conference and over 1000 workers came out representing the diversity of the Toronto working class.

They endorsed a "Good Jobs for All" Declaration and continued to organize. Activists organizing International Women's Day in Toronto took up the call "Good Jobs and Dignity for All" with a march and rally that brought thousands into the streets.

One of the most exciting campaigns to come out of the coalition is around Employment Insurance. This was a major demand on the Harper government during the last election and it was ignored. The Montreal Labour Council recently called the Toronto and York Region Labour Council due to the connections we made at the CLC convention asking if there would be a taste in English Canada for a campaign around EI.

And there is. Rallies have already begun in Toronto. Similar action are planned in other cities. On March 21st there will be a huge rally at the Hamilton Convention Centre protesting the shut down of the US Steeol plants in Hamilton and Lake Erie. Workers are busing into the city that has been devastated by the impending layoffs.

In Toronto there will be public forums in low income neighbourhoods in Rexdale, Brampton, Parkdale to organize within communities in the same way as happened during the minimum wage campaign. Hopefully this will lead to national actions.

We have to defend the CAW workers, fight for good, green jobs for all ,tackling both the economic and the environmental crisis, build a campaign to improve EI, start occupying the factories once more and inspire workers that they can fight back and win in these tough times. Steelworkers just occupied a mattress plant for two days.

We may not yet have seen the huge demonstrations in France, Greece or Ireland and there is tremendous fear about what the future may bring but the circumstances are such that they could erupt, and involvement in local campaigns that can make a difference in peoples lives can be the spark to much larger mobilizations.

The central thing that we need to understand is that the crisis is not simply a fault of a lack of financial regulation or bankers greed. It is the capitalists system itself that is in crisis,and we must take advantage of the turmoil to put across socialist arguments while seeking to be at the centre of the many forms of resistance as our rulers try to make working people pay for the crisis.

In the discussion that followed, someone pointed out that economic crisis dovetails nicely with militarization. Military recruiting is easier in tough times. But war costs a fortune, in both economic and human terms. We need good jobs, and we need peace.

The speaker quoted an unemployed neighbour as saying, "It's Alberta or Afghanistan". That's something we have to fight back against, too.