saskatchewan officials, do your job or give it up

When you're too far right for the Globe and Mail, you know you're well outside the Canadian mainstream. The bigots in Saskatchewan who want to give government officials the right to not marry same-sex couples are more like something from 1955 Alabama than 21st Century Canada.

Saskatchewan wishes to give its marriage commissioners the legal right to refuse to marry gay couples. Imagine a U.S. state, after the last anti-miscegenation laws fell in 1967, granting government officials the right to reject interracial couples. Wouldn't that have continued the discrimination? Or how about giving a bus driver the right to stop driving when a black man or woman sits at the front of the bus. A right accepted so grudgingly - a right from which public officials may opt out - is not truly a right.

The governing Saskatchewan Party seems to know it's on weak ground. Rather than simply passing a law giving marriage commissioners the right to refuse to marry gays, it developed two versions (refusal rights for marriage commissioners employed as of 2004, when same-sex marriage became legal, and refusal rights for all marriage commissioners) and referred them to the province's Court of Appeal for an advisory opinion. Both versions fly in the face of Charter equality-rights protections, but if the government disagrees, it should have the courage of its convictions, rather than inviting unelected judges to write the laws for it.

Even the provincial Department of Justice's own lawyers did not wish to argue for the government's position in court, after they took the contrary position for a previous government, according to Don Morgan, the Minister of Justice. That should have been enough to raise red flags. Of course, Mr. Morgan could have simply fired all the government lawyers. Instead, he sweetly said that "they feel that to argue a different point now ... would be problematic for them." He then went out and retained a lawyer in private practice to handle the case. Mr. Morgan is certainly consistent in backing the right to opt out. (Can people in Saskatchewan opt out of paying taxes?)

This is not, really, about a clash between the religious freedom of marriage commissioners and the rights of gays. Public officials have no right to decline to do their core duties because of religious belief. A public school teacher cannot refuse to teach sex education because of religious objections. A library worker cannot refuse to sign out books that violate her belief system. That is not what is meant by an "accommodation." To destroy the spirit of equality and impartiality in which public services are delivered would be an unreasonable accommodation indeed.

If you work for the government, you have to uphold the laws of the land and citizens' Charter rights. That's really all there is to it. If your antediluvian beliefs preclude you from doing that, you have only one option: quit.

info on emigrating from u.s. to new zealand

This has been sitting in my inbox forever, waiting for a time when I have nothing to blog... only that time never comes. I always have more topics to write about than I can possibly put up.

But several months ago, I told the person who emailed me that I would post this info, so at long last, here it is.

Many USians who emigrate to Canada also consider New Zealand. I've heard it's a great place to live, and we even have friends there, thanks to the internet. But for me, moving to other side of the planet was not an option. I felt it would have been a severing of all ties with friends and family, and that was not my intent.

So I never researched the New Zealand emigration process. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information in this post, only that it's taken directly from an email from a USian who plans to move there.

Some of the process is the same as emigrating to Canada - the point system, the background checks and such. The lottery is different, as is the phone interview. It also sounds like the process is much shorter. I assume that's because fewer people are in the system.

Here is a brief run-down of the immigration process as we experienced it. There are several schemes that NZ offers to gain permanent residency. We applied via the skilled migrant category.

Basically how the process starts with this category is with a points system. You are eligible for points for a number of things such as: age, educational qualifications, work experience outside NZ, work experience in NZ, job offer in NZ, qualifications or work experience in a area that NZ currently has a shortage of.

We got our points for our age (the younger you are the more points), educational qualification, work experience outside NZ, and my qualification (Bachelor degree) was in an area that they are currently short of.

The first step of the process is to submit and Expression of Interest (EOI). This is basically the initial application one which you claim how many points you will get. Then every 2 weeks there is a draw from the pool of applicants. Everyone above a certain point value is selected, but the selection threshold shifts to meet NZ immigration quotas.

After you are selected from the pool of applicants you then have to basically prove that you are entitled to the points you claimed. I had to send in proof of my work
experience and qualifications, along with proof that I was married, FBI criminal background checks, and a medical exam.

You mail all of this off to the immigration service and then they review everything and do some checks on what you are claiming in your application. After this you have to do a phone interview with the case officer basically deciding your fate. This is the last step. They ask you a bunch of questions to gauge your ability to successfully migrate and if you know what you are getting into and have researched in full.

The case officer then makes a final decision and then you get your permanent residency.

This whole process took us about 8 months from the time we submitted our EOI until we obtained our residency. The only real stipulation attached to it is that our residency has to be "activated" within one year of being granted. This means we have to enter NZ within a year from when we got it.

So our status right now is that we are permanent residents, and as long as we enter before that one year is up, will be forever.

If you want to talk to someone who went through this process, I can put you in touch. People find posts years later, so you never know.

report on kim rivera federal court hearing, part two

[Part one here.]

The Crown's rebuttal was short and nonsensical.

The lawyer argued that there is no evidence that war resisters were punished for their beliefs or for being outspoken, citing the negative decision in Dale Landry's case that "a handful of affidavits" does not statistical analysis make. Supposedly there are no hard numbers to prove outspoken resisters are being punished more harshly than ordinary AWOL soldiers.

In the usual dismissive, sarcastic tone that Ministry representatives take in war resister cases, Mr Gold said that naturally those people who were sentenced feel they were punished too harshly, and statements from their spouses or "professional advocates" is not real evidence.

Mr Gold also introduced new evidence from out of nowhere, handing copies of a statement to Alyssa and the clerk. This is not done: lawyers do not see evidence for the first time when they are in a courtroom. Justice Russell asked Alyssa if she was ok with this; she had to shake her head, mystified, and say, "I don't know," since she didn't know what it said.

To Alyssa's point that the PRA officer did not demonstrate that he considered the new evidence, the Crown said, in essence, "Yes he did," without offering any proof.

The Crown claimed Kim's decision to not file a conscientious objector application because she knew it would be no help was "speculative" in nature.

I'm saving the best for last. In response to Alyssa's assertion that the PRA officer did not consider what happened to AWOL soldiers who were sent back from Canada, Mr Gold said she did: right here, where she referenced the case of Mr James Corey Glass.

Corey Glass lives in Sault Ste Marie.

He was never sent back from Canada.

NCF, Allan and I were all staring at each other with our mouths hanging open, whispering, "Corey?? Corey??"

In his general closing remarks, the Crown lawyer claimed that since Kim was denied leave to appeal the negative decision in her Humanitarian & Compassionate Application, this appeal of the PRA should be automatically denied; that the court should not "hypercritically and microscopically dissect" decisions; and that Kim Rivera has already had "more than one turn at bat" (ack, baseball metaphor!) to stay in Canada.

In other words, just take our word for it, the PRA officer did her job properly, you've had your chance, now go away.

* * * *

Alyssa's rebuttal was beautiful. She's a great lawyer and a terrific speaker, but she's at her absolute best in rebuttal. Her attitude is the perfect balance of strength and respect, with just a whisper of sarcasm and disgust.

Alyssa demolished the notion that the court not granting leave to appeal an H&C has any relevance in the appeal of the PRA. Since no reasons were given for the denial of leave to appeal, it was not a comment on the merits of the case. Period.

Indeed, Alyssa showed, Kim Rivera has not had more than one turn at bat, because the issues in her case have not been properly assessed even once.

To the nonsense about Corey, Alyssa responded as if she were brushing off a fly that had landed on her robe. She remarked briefly that using the case of James Corey Glass as proof that the PRA officer examined the circumstances of other AWOL soldiers who were sent back from Canada would seem impossible, since Corey Glass lives in Canada.

Alyssa easily and definitively struck down the idea that evidence of differential treatment is supported only by the opinions of supporters. She showed how the important points being raised are not personal opinions, but facts. Evidence of the resisters' outspokenness was used against them at court martial and their opposition to the war was an aggravating factor in their sentencing. That's why Amnesty International is prepared to consider some of the war resisters prisoners of conscience if they are court martialed and imprisoned.

Alyssa refuted each and every point in a clear and thorough fashion. In her conclusion, she reiterated that the PRA officer "borrowed her analysis from a colleague" without making reference to new evidence, and suggested that if officers are permitted to borrow language from other cases in this way, perhaps "the integrity of the entire decision-making system" is compromised.

* * * *

One more note. After Alyssa's rebuttal, the Crown insisted that the PRA officer citing Corey Glass was relevant, because even though Corey wasn't sent back from Canada, there's evidence about what punishment he received.

What punishment this is or from whom Corey received it is anybody's guess. Corey lives and works in Sault Ste Marie with his wife and Canadian-born child.

report on kim rivera federal court hearing, part one

For those of you who would like a view into the federal court hearing I attended yesterday, here are some details.

Alyssa Manning argued the case before Justice James Russell; Stephen Gold was the attorney for the crown. This was the exact configuration in Jeremy Hinzman's most recent federal court appeal - which is why I find it difficult to be optimistic.

The day of the Hinzmans' hearing, I left court feeling so hopeful. All the facts and proof were on our side. Alyssa performed brilliantly, and the Crown had nothing. In addition, we thought Justice Russell was sympathetic to the war resisters' cases, as he had granted temporary stays and leaves to appeal.

Yet the Hinzman appeal was denied.

To many of us, this speaks to a basic injustice and a bias against the war resisters percolating through the whole system. What can we expect when the Minister himself publicly calls the war resisters "bogus refugees"?

* * * *

Yesterday's hearing was an appeal of the negative decision in Kim Rivera's Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRA).

The hearing began a little oddly. The Crown was trying to exclude some evidence Alyssa had put forward (I don't know what it was). Justice Russell denied the request, saying that Justice Zinn's decision granting leave to appeal was not restricted in any way. The Crown withdrew its objection but called the evidence "quite unprecedented".

Justice Russell then told Alyssa he had "already seen a great deal of this file", and that she didn't need to needlessly repeat herself. He emphasized that she was free to say whatever she wanted and use her time however she thought best, but that she didn't need to re-argue the entire case. He specifically asked for clarification on what he called her "linchpin argument".

Alyssa is arguing that the officer who assessed Kim's PRA did not properly analyze the risk to Kim and her family, because he looked at the wrong part of the process and skipped over the most important part. Not properly analyzing the risk "is fatal" (in legal parlance) to everything that follows - the key issues of state protection and differential punishment. Meaning, if you don't properly analyze the risk, you can't properly analyze the protection offered from that risk.

Justice Russell said he was having trouble seeing the PRA officer's "non-responsiveness" to the risk, and requested Alyssa direct him to it.

Alyssa's central point was that the differential treatment received by war resisters who speak out against the war in Iraq is not adquately measured in the length of the jail sentences some war resisters have received. The differential treatment is seen much earlier, in who is selected for court martial. Most soldiers who go AWOL from the US military are given administrative discharges. Only a handful are chosen for court martial. The deserters selected for court martial are the ones who have been outspoken in their opposition to the US war in Iraq.

This means that a "law of general application," as they say, is being used in a persecutorial manner. It means the war resisters are being punished for their political and/or religious beliefs.

Alyssa showed Justice Russell how the PRA officer failed to address this issue of differential treatment at the selection for court martial stage. Among other evidence, she showed how, in the court martials of war resisters Robin Long and James Burmeister, their speaking out publicly against the war was used as an "aggravating factor" - not only in their sentencing, but in the military choosing to prosecute them in the first place.

The entire risk analysis was conducted on what happens after court martial and conviction - not why the solder is selected for court martial in the first place, which is entirely based upon the soldier's political opinions and beliefs.

There was a lengthy exchange between the judge and the lawyer, and the judge had some trouble understanding Alyssa's point. We observers were bursting! We were all dying to yell out the answer. Alyssa rephrased and repeated herself over and over, and finally Justice Russell understood: an administrative discharge means a soldier is not being court martialed. Ah-ha! We all smiled and breathed a sigh of relief as Alyssa could move on.

* * * *

Remember, a Refugee officer cannot simply render a negative decision. He or she must state the reasons for the decision, referencing and refuting the claimant's evidence. So a large portion of Alyssa's case is demonstrating how the PRA officer erred in not examining the evidence or holding the evidence to the proper tests.

For example, the PRA officer didn't look at evidence of what has happened to other former soldiers sent back from Canada - the "similarly situated persons" which are so important to refugee claims.

Alyssa said that considering this was the main point of Kim's argument, it was a "glaring omission" on the part of the PRA officer.

My notes on this are copious. If I wrote them out here, it would be numbingly repetitively to read. But in court, demonstrating the same idea multiple times with all different evidence and examples is making your case as thoroughly, methodically and rigorously as possible. I imagine Alyssa beginning with a cube full of interlocking parts, like an architecture building set. From the cube, she unpacks each piece, attaching it to the previous piece, fitting them together with slots and pegs, building higher and wider and stronger, until there's an elegant structure in front of us - vast and solid and indisputable. It's wonderful to observe.

* * * *

Alyssa demonstrated how the PRA officer didn't address new evidence of deserters being persecuted through selective prosecution, evidence from the cases of resisters who came to Canada and who were outspoken (Robin Long, James Burmeister, Ivan Brobeck), other resisters who were outspoken and then cherry-picked for prosecution (Stephen Funk, Camilo Mejia, Augustin Aguayo, Kevin Benderman), and in fact ignored much of the evidence that is central to Kim's case. Alyssa argued that a blanket statement - something like, "we find there will be adequate state protection" - is not adequate when there exists so much contradictory evidence.

The PRA officer also misconstrued and misinterpreted one of the laws pertaining to court martial. You may recall from an earlier case that the Crown characterized Article 15 of the UCMJ as a "dispute resolution mechanism," which brought gales of guffaws and "WTF?"s from wmtc readers who have military experience. Article 15 is non-judicial punishment; it means (roughly speaking) you will receive a sentence without a court martial.

Similarly, the PRA officer in Kim's case said Kim would be afforded an Article 38 investigation. First of all, Alyssa said, it's not Article 38 - they must mean Article 32. Secondly, the PRA officer completely misconstrued Article 32. It is a preliminary hearing to decide which type of court martial will be used, depending on the evidence. In terms of who is selected for prosecution and punishment, it's completely irrelevant.

One eye-opening moment came when Alyssa showed that some of the wording in Kim's PRA decision was identical - word-for-word! - to some paragraphs in Dean Walcott's and Jeremy Hinzman's decisions. So the Refugee Board is using cut-and-paste templates for decisions that profoundly and permanently effect the course of a family's life?

Alyssa invited Justice Russell to review the wording in several paragraphs - and not just incidental paragraphs, but wording relating to crucial aspects of the case.

So, Alyssa proved, not only did the PRA officer misconstrue the meaning of the process Kim would be subjected to, not only did he fail to analyze the risk at the proper step, not only did he not adequately provide his reasons for the negative decision, and not only did he fail to address new evidence in the claim, his reasons were provided by way of boilerplate language that demonstrates his inattention to the details of this case.

Finally, Alyssa addressed the PRA officer's finding that Kim Rivera did not file a conscientious objector application. She produced a letter from Amnesty International showing that CO applications have had absolutely no bearing on similar cases. War resisters who filed CO applications were re-deployed to Iraq while their applications were pending. (This is one of many reasons conscientious objector applications are a farce.)

* * * *

Next, the Crown's response and Alyssa's rebuttal.

cupe workers on strike for us all (wmtc in the mark)

This has been running for a few days, but I forgot to share. My essay on supporting the striking CUPE workers, from The Mark:

On Strike for Us All, taken from this (longer, more activist) post.

You can also see it, for now, on The Mark's front page.

robin long released from prison today!

Today, at long last, war resister Robin Long becomes a free man. Or perhaps I should say, Robin will be released from military prison. Because in a very real sense, Robin has been a free man all along, because he followed his conscience.

During the year he has been in prison (he is being released slightly early for "good behaviour"), Robin has received a lot of support from peace activists in San Diego, and from Veterans for Peace and Vietnam Veterans against the War. It's remarkable and so wonderful how the peace community embraced Robin, making sure he had visitors and morale support, and providing financial support both to Robin and his former partner (Robin's child's mother).

Nevertheless, Robin leaves prison with a long road ahead of him, and with few resources. In other words, he's flat broke.

Robin has been punished harshly for his opposition to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. His principles have been tested in a way few of us will ever experience. It's my privilege as a peace activist to help him.

If you would like to make a contribution to Robin Long, to help him get started in the next phase of his life, you can send a cheque to:

VVAW
PO Box 2065, Station A,
Champaign, IL 61825-2065
Write "War Resister Fund / Robin Long" in the memo line.

If you do send a cheque (or check if you're USian), please email vvawinc@vvaw.org and let them know money is on the way. If you'd like to contribute but can't do it yet, email to say you are pledging a donation and will send it at whatever time.

kim rivera: nervous, hopeful, moral, resolute

Canadian Press story on Kim Rivera.

American war resister Kimberly Rivera says she's nervous but hasn't given up hope she'll be allowed to remain in Canada.

The 27-year-old mother of three, who now lives in Toronto, made what might have been her final appearance Wednesday morning in Federal Court.

Rivera, from Texas, deserted the U.S. army in 2007 because of her opposition to the war in Iraq.

She had been facing deportation and a likely court martial until a judge granted her an 11th-hour reprieve in March.

Now, the court is probing whether a Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration report from December 2007 adequately measured the potential risks Rivera could face if she were returned to the U.S.

"I'm more optimistic (than pessimistic)," said Rivera, flanked by dozens of anti-war supporters, as she cradled her seven-month-old daughter Katie in her arms outside the downtown Toronto courthouse.

Lawyers for Rivera and the ministry delivered their final arguments on the merits of the report Wednesday morning in front of Judge James Russell.

Rivera's lawyer Alyssa Manning argued her client would more likely face a court martial and jail time - instead of a simple administrative discharge - because of her political opposition to the war. The report, Manning said, failed to account for this risk of "differential prosecution."

But that wasn't the only flaw, Manning said. The report also contained sections that were copied "word for word" from assessments carried out on two other war deserters four months earlier, she said.

"It's almost that the conclusion was reached before the evidence was even looked at," Manning said outside court.

In her arguments, Manning cited the cases of a number of U.S. war resisters, including Robin Long, the first resister to be successfully deported from Canada.

Long was given a dishonourable discharge in 2008 and sentenced to 15 months in a military prison after pleading guilty to charges of desertion.

Manning told court that 94 per cent of all army deserters are given administrative discharges, but not those who air their beliefs in public.

"People who speak out about their political opinions get prosecuted," she said afterward. "People who don't, don't."

Ministry lawyer Stephen Gold told court that the conclusions in Rivera's risk assessment were "perfectly reasonable." The report fully considered whether Rivera would be at greater risk if she were returned to the U.S., Gold said.

Rivera enlisted in March 2006 and was deployed to Iraq, where one of her main duties was to search suspicious vehicles at checkpoints.

She became disillusioned with the mission, however, and in February 2007, while on a two-week leave in the U.S., she crossed the border into Canada.

Manning said that unless the court orders a new risk assessment, Rivera will probably be out of options.

"There are very limited avenues," she said. "I would say that today is essentially the last chance."

Rivera said even if she is deported and court-martialled, her opposition to the war will continue.

"It doesn't matter whether I get to stay in Canada or I have to leave Canada," she said. "I'll be the same as I am now."

It's not known when the court will deliver its final decision.

kim rivera vigil and hearing: report to follow

There was a strong turnout this morning at the vigil for Iraq War resister Kimberly Rivera. People representing many faith and activist groups gathered with signs and distributed flyers, and generally tried to be a supportive presence for Kim, who was there with baby Katie Marie.

I attended the hearing and hope to write about it either tomorrow (Thursday) or Friday.

We don't know when Justice Russell will render a decision. I will let you know the minute I have news.

a venn diagram for our time

From Despair, Inc. (via Facebook!).

my journey to the library: an update

The Big Life Change continues. [See here, here and here for background.]

I've been accepted to the University of Toronto Faculty of Information. I start in September, going part-time, to attain my Master of Information, surely the coolest name of any degree going.

My goal (as of now) is to work part-time in a public library system, preferably in my own town of Mississauga.

Ideally, employment as a librarian would replace my current day-job as a legal document production specialist, and I would still write. However, I'm not opposed to considering full-time librarian work at some point. I could see doing that for a few years for financial reasons, then dropping back to part-time work.

With this is mind, yesterday I met with the Director of the Mississauga Library System, for information and to start making connections there.

Everything I learned got me really excited about working in Mississauga, for so many reasons.

I really enjoy living in Mississauga. I love the diversity, the excellent services, the friendliness, the cleanliness. I don't love the ugly townhouse developments, but I do love the big-box stores (something I never thought I'd say!) and all the mom-and-pop restaurants hidden in the ugly strip malls. I love the dog parks, and the community centres, and my friendly neighbours who speak 25 different languages. I especially love the library system.

Working in Mississauga would be a joy for commuting, and I would be be proud to serve this community in the excellent, accessible system.

I was thinking along these lines anyway, but since my meeting this week, I'm even more certain.

The Mississauga Library System is very modern, very progressive, for both patrons and employees. It serves 26 different languages in 18 branches and an amazing Central Library.

It offers a vast array of services, from online book clubs, to story times geared for working parents, free computer workshops for seniors, teen poetry slams, a commitment to documenting local history... you can even borrow a pedometer as part of the Get Active Mississauga program.

Almost everything is state-of-the-art, and anything that's not is about to be upgraded. They have an enviable budget, plus a Friends of the Library organization that raises another $100,000 a year with book sales.

From the employee's point of view, the librarians are unionized (a CUPE local), so there's job security and a pay-scale agreement. But, unlike the older seniority systems that many city library and school systems run on, advancement in the Mississauga Library is merit-based.

I'm not knocking seniority systems in general, they were important gains in the early days of public employees' unions. But they have their drawbacks, especially for a person starting a new career in mid-life. In a merit-based system, I'll be able to advance and thrive.

I'll also have more control over my career. If I work in Toronto, I'll have to take whatever part-time job is available, because I'll be so far down the seniority list that I'll have no choice. I could easily have to work in branches that will be difficult to get to and have bad hours, but have no choice. In Mississauga, I'll have a much better chance of having my hard work and talents noticed and rewarded.

There's one drawback, and you can already guess what it is: lower salaries. But the salaries are still fine. They're certainly comfortable, and that's all I've ever looked for or expected.

The Director said the employment outlook is very positive. They're not expecting a wholesale retirement of baby boomers (there is no mandatory retirement, which is good!), but of course some people are retiring, and branches are expanding, and new branches are being built. There are also several nearby towns - Oakville, Brampton, Halton, Milton - that also have good library systems, and where the population is also expanding.

The Director introduced me to a few library managers, who were excited to meet a Mississauga resident about to begin library school. They've already put me in touch with several other resources: a current U of T FI student and a recent graduate, both working in the Mississauga system, the Director of Children's Services and several other relevant folks. They're all so friendly and helpful; it reminds me of our first weeks in Canada.

* * * *

Soon I have to get a student ID, fork over a bunch of borrowed money, and enrol in my September classes.

I'm fighting hard to take it one step at a time and not be overwhelmed. The same strategies that got me through the Canadian Immigration process will work here. Plan the next step, take that step. Plan another step, take that step. Step, step, step. Anytime I feel my stomach knot up with anxiety, it means I'm thinking too many steps ahead. Breathe and back up.

weds july 8: vigil for kim rivera in toronto, support demo in san francisco

A reminder: tomorrow, July 8, US war resister Kim Rivera and her family will be in federal court. Their lawyer, Alyssa Manning, will argue an appeal of the negative decision on Kim's Pre-Removal Risk Assessment.

If you live in or near Toronto or San Francisco, you can show your support for Kim, and for all the war resisters, in person.

In Toronto:

When: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 8:00 a.m.

Where: 180 Queen St. West, west of University Ave (subway: Osgoode)

In San Francisco:

When: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 12:00 to 1:30 p.m.

Where: Canadian Consulate, 580 California Street, San Francisco

Kimberly Rivera served in Iraq, and was appalled by what she witnessed there. When she saw the traumatized face of a little Iraqi girl, she thought of her own daughter, waiting for her at home. Kim realized that if she continued to participate in the war, she might make a small child lose her parent - maybe her own child, maybe some other little girl. Either way, she knew she couldn't do it. She wouldn't do it.

Back in the US on leave, Kim was tormented by nightmares and depression. She was horrified that people in her hometown in Texas thought she was a hero. She knew she couldn't go back to the war, but she had no idea where she could go instead.

Kim and her husband Mario packed up their little car and their two children, and they drove. They drove east, then north, still not sure of their destination, and with no idea what they would find. In February 2007, they crossed the Rainbow Bridge to Canada.

Since then, Kim has become a constant voice for peace. She is a regular fixture at every meeting of the War Resister Support Campaign, attends every rally, function and fundraiser - whether or not it relates to her own situation, speaks to media at every opportunity, and supports all her fellow war resisters in any way she can. Kim has become active in her Parkdale neighbourhood, and enjoys the support of all her neighbours, many of whom are refugees themselves.

In November 2008, Kim and Mario had another child, little Katie Marie, a Canadian citizen (who also attends all our meetings). The Riveras don't have much money, and their life is hard in many ways. But, Kim says, it's a life of peace and community, and that's what counts.

If Kim is deported, she will be court-martialed and likely face a long sentence in military prison. Because she didn't want to make a child motherless or fatherless.

* * * *

Polls show that 64% - nearly two-thirds - of Canadians support the Iraq War resisters, and believe they should be allowed to remain in Canada.

The House of Commons has twice passed a motion - in June 200 and March 2009 - calling on the Government to stop deporting war resisters and let them become permanent residents of Canada.

Yet the minority Harper government continues to thwart democracy. The Riveras face deportation, along with several other war resister families, including Jeremy Hinzman and his family.

* * * *

If you can make it to the vigil or demo tomorrow, please do.

If you can't, please show your support in any way you can: write your MP, write Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney (and cc the Immigration critics), write a letter to your local newspaper, post on your blog, alert your friends on Facebook or Twitter.

Will Canada deport a mother of three young children and send her to prison, because she refused to kill?

Is this the country you want Canada to be?

non-recyclable plastics and the dilemma of organic lettuce

In early May, I discovered my recycling efforts were not as good as I thought. Ontario's Peel Region, a leader in waste management, does not accept clear plastics for recycling.

This does not include, for example, ketchup or juice bottles. That kind of heavy plastic is recyclable. But lightweight clear plastic, the kind that is often seen in clamshell form - containing berries, for example - is not recycled.

I was very disturbed by this. It means that my non-recyclable household trash has just increased enormously.

As I said in the earlier post, we immediately switched from the President's Choice Omega-3 Eggs, packaged in massive amounts of plastic, back to the regular old eggs packed in cardboard that my generation grew up on. That was easy - but it still leaves me with a lot of non-recyclable clear plastic.

I decided to investigate further. And it didn't get any better.

On its website, the Region of Peel suggests:

The Government of Ontario has jurisdiction over packaging. The Region of Peel has passed Council resolutions requesting the Province of Ontario to require brand owners and retailers to only use plastic packaging that is recyclable in municipal Blue Box programs.

If you are concerned about the amount of non-recyclable plastic packaging in the marketplace, the Region encourages you to contact your Member of Provincial Parliament, local grocer or retailer and make your views known.

I wrote to my MPP; haven't heard back yet. If I don't hear back, I will follow up.

I wrote to Loblaws, the supermarket that markets itself as the greenest (while packaging eggs in plastic). I don't expect to hear anything, but I do believe they should hear from consumers, so I'm glad to do that.

I also wrote to Peel. Here's their answer.

Their response also addresses the question of why local recycling guides don't simply use the numbers on the plastic instead of examples of types of packaging. Also note that the reference to York Region is in response to something I wrote. A wmtc reader suggested that clear plastics are accepted for recycling in York, but that turned out to be incorrect.

Ms. Kaminker:

Thank you for your email. On behalf of Norman Lee, Director Region of Peel Waste Management I will take this opportunity to explain about the Region of Peel's stance on non-recyclable plastics.

The clear plastic containers may have a resin code within the chasing arrows symbol with a number in the centre - however, that doesn't mean it's recyclable. Other jurisdictions may collect it but that doesn't mean it was ever recycled. Non-recyclable materials collected at the curb increase the cost of collection and processing, as these products are culled or left in the residue stream for disposal.

This is a plastic industry and Provincial & Federal packaging regulator's concern. The Region of Peel (taxpayers) have incurred the cost of collection and sorting plastics on behalf of the plastic packaging industry who are not paying their fair share for handling these products.

The Region of Peel along with other municipal peers, including the Region of York, across the Province has been informing our residents since August 2007 that this specific packaging is not recyclable. The intent is to have plastic resin manufacturers utilize a standardized resin for all plastic containers and provide an equitable cost sharing for the public service of collection and processing their containers. I refer you to the attached web pages where we do go into detail about non-recyclable packaging:

http://www.peelregion.ca/pw/waste/blue-box/blue-box.htm

Please see also the Region of York's webpage on blue box materials which is very similar to the Region of Peel in that we have most of the same acceptable materials:

http://www.york.ca/Services/Garbage+and+Recycling/Blue+Box+Recycling+Program.htm

In regards to sorting non-recyclable materials such as a clam shell package of fresh berries - the container may be the same shape but the resin type changes over time depending on the cost of the resin used to manufacture it. Sorting staff cannot identify specific plastic resins such as these when travelling on a conveyor belt.

Incompatible resins in a bale of plastic can be rejected by a buyer and not only have we expended time and money on sorting, baling and transportation to get it to market - we now have to bring the rejected bales (or whole truck load) back for either resorting or disposal. The revenue margins for the material does not allow for sorting errors.

We as a municipality are being up front with our residents and telling them that this particular packaging is not recyclable and our Regional Council has passed a Resolution calling on manufacturers to use a standardized resin type so we can identify and recycle it or request that they pay for the expensive optical sorters that can differentiate between their resins.

You as a consumer have the purchasing power to demand change - call the 1-800 customer service numbers on products you buy and demand packaging materials that are standardized resins and truly recyclable.

Sincerely, etc.

Now what?

On one hand, the Peel representative is correct. We can use our power as consumers to demand change.

On the other hand, is the produce industry - which exploits migrant labour, and poisons the water supply with pesticides, and has enormous shipping costs - going to change packaging materials because a few industrious consumers make a phone call?

And frankly, the idea of calling every company that uses this packaging exhausts me. Is this a project I can take on?

One thing I will do is investigate what's already being done on this issue. Are environmental groups and consumer groups already on it? If so, I can add my voice to the fight. I will look into it, but if you know anything offhand, please share.

* * * *

The clear-plastic recycling issue is the tip of a much larger dilemma that defies easy resolution. It's answering this environmental question: "Which is better?"

Organic, pre-washed lettuce is the perfect example of the "which is better" problem. Michael Pollan devotes a section of The Omnivore's Dilemma to Earthbound Farms' pre-washed, organically grown lettuce production. This is the category of food production he didn't realize existed until he researched the book, which he dubbed "industrial organic".

Producing this organic, pre-washed lettuce and getting it to the consumer requires an enormous amount of fossil-fuel energy. The lettuce has to be kept cold throughout the entire process, it's packaged in special plastic, and it's shipped in refrigerated trucks from California. (That's a very cursory summary.) And now, in addition to all that, I discover the damn plastic packaging isn't even recyclable in my community!

So there are a lot of reasons not to buy this lettuce, especially living nowhere near its source.

But it's not that simple.

Organically grown lettuce is absolutely less polluting to the water supply. It is absolutely better for your health than conventionally grown lettuce, especially if you eat a lettuce-based salad almost every day, as I do. It is absolutely better for farm labourers, who are not exposed to pesticides (and who, in the case of Earthbound Farms, have better working conditions).

So, which is better? Pollan suggests we must ask in return, "Better for whom? Better for what?" It depends on our goals.

Another example of this dilemma in my life - which will horrify serious locavores - is asparagus from Peru. Eating asparagus shipped from South America in the winter certainly supports a fossil-fuel-intensive food chain. Not good.

But Peruvian farmers use traditional, earth-friendly methods. (They have to.) The asparagus is grown on small, cooperatively owned farms. The farmers of Peru, living a substinence existence, have painstakingly developed this new crop with North American consumers in mind. If the asparagus sells well in the US and Canada, their lives will be improved in a very real way.

And, because a few years ago I met some of the people who grow this asparagus and learned something about their lives, I feel a connection to them. I want to support their worthy efforts.

When Ontario asparagus is in season, we buy it. But when it's not, we buy from Peru.

Back to the lettuce. Up until now, I've been satisfied to buy the organic lettuce from California, and (I thought) recycle the plastic packaging. Learning the box goes into landfill tips the balance - but no one solution feels right just yet.

We can buy conventional lettuce, not packaged in plastics, and ingest more pesticides. I'd rather not.

We can stop relying on green salads as a major part of our diet. Without going into great detail about our eating habits, I'll just say there are many reasons why that will be difficult, perhaps impossible.

We can't buy organic lettuce from farmer's markets. Where we live, and with our schedules, farmer's markets are all but useless.

And that's just the lettuce. We buy organic strawberries, blueberries, grape tomatoes, and other vegetables. (In case you're not aware, berries are heavily sprayed with harmful pesticides. If you're only beginning to buy organic produce, berries are a good place to start.) But organic or conventional, these all come in plastic clamshells.

What to do?

* * * *

If you read this blog regularly, you may remember that last year, heavily influenced by the writing of Michael Pollan, I stopped buying and eating industrially-raised meat (meaning meat of all kind). We switched to local, organically, ethically raised meat. This was a big lifestyle change - a change in shopping, cooking and eating habits, and a very big change to our budget. We do still eat meat products in restaurants that must be industrially raised - although buying this expensive meat, we have much less money to eat out now! So it's not a perfect system, but it's much better.

It took me a long time to work out a solution to the meat dilemma. On the one hand, I've been a vegetarian; it doesn't work for me, and I don't feel it's necessary for good health or ethics*. On the other hand, I learned too much about factory farming - the cruelty to animals, the environmental degradation, the poisons to our bodies - and I couldn't un-learn it. But a solution didn't effortlessly appear. I had to dig it out, and I had to rearrange a portion of our lives to implement it.

I expect that's what solving the clear-plastic dilemma will entail.

I need all the help I can get.


----
* I'm not opposed to your vegetarianism. I applaud you for it. It is simply not for me. Please hold your fire.

"they check your wallet before they check your pulse"

My astonishing track record with letters to the Globe and Mail continues.

I wrote in response to this column by Jeffrey Simpson. The sentence in brackets was edited out.

[The US media would have us believe Canadians wait months for routine care and that we all regularly travel to the US for treatment.] When I immigrated here from the United States, I learned that if you want to know about Canada's system - its strengths and its flaws - you ask a Canadian. Similarly, if you want to know about the U.S. system, ask an American.

Jeffrey Simpson calls Jean Chrétien's phrase, "They check your wallet before your pulse" a "gross exaggeration." I suggest it's barely an exaggeration at all.

In these difficult economic times, it's worth remembering that every unemployed Canadian and his or her family has health insurance. In the United States, if you lose your job, you lose your health care - if you were lucky enough to have a job that included benefits. Part-time and contract workers, who make up an increasingly large portion of the modern work force, do not.

Laura Kaminker, Mississauga

"the moral choice should be honoured, not vilified"

Here's a great letter in the Toronto Star, in response to this column by Haroon Siddiqui.

While most Canadians agree with Haroon Siddiqui that George W. Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq is a failure, the Harper government continues to support it in principle by deporting U.S. soldiers who have said no to the war and come to Canada seeking refuge.

Even though Stephen Harper has admitted that the war was "absolutely an error," his minister of immigration continues to attack war resisters in the media and to send them to face military jail, even though Canadians oppose this war and chose not to send our own troops into this costly quagmire.

Our government must be convinced that the moral choice not to kill or torture innocent civilians should be honoured, not vilified.

David Fox, Toronto

Thank you, David Fox!

As you know, I disagree with Mr Siddiqui. The invasion of Iraq was a failure only if you believe its purpose was to spread democracy or prevent terrorist attacks against Western interests.

For Dick Cheney and others who profited from it, the invasion of Iraq was a spectacular success. They reaped record profits, privatized the largest American public sector (the military), gained control of ever more resources and continued to be a destabilizing presence in the region. What more could they ask for?

This week we learned that foreign companies will bid on Iraqi oil. This has widely been interpreted to mean that the US will no longer control the lion's share of the profits. But US interests are multi-national. The trickle-down effect remains to be seen.

Of course, I do understand Siddiqui's point. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was - is - a disaster on every conceivable human level. But we knew that it would be. We knew it would be exactly what it has been, because we've seen it all before.

With Mr Siddiqui's final paragraph, I have no disagreement.

Iraq is the imperial adventure that both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, one a neo-con hawk and the other a liberal hawk, fully backed. A monumental failure in judgment, their common stance was, and remains, an affront to the collective will of Canadians.

stonewall turns 40

A little late, but no less relevant: see Slap Upside The Head on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising. Slap has links to liberation news from around the globe.

Forty years and counting. Keep on keepin' on.

samuel pepys: "it is a great tyranny"

From the Diary of Samuel Pepys, 1 July 1666.

...and so back to the Tower several times, about the business of the pressed men [i.e. impressment, conscription], and late at it till twelve at night, shipping of them. But, Lord! how some poor women did cry; and in my life I never did see such natural expression of passion as I did here in some women’s bewailing themselves, and running to every parcel of men that were brought, one after another, to look for their husbands, and wept over every vessel that went off, thinking they might be there, and looking after the ship as far as ever they could by moone-light, that it grieved me to the heart to hear them. Besides, to see poor patient labouring men and housekeepers, leaving poor wives and families, taking up on a sudden by strangers, was very hard, and that without press-money, but forced against all law to be gone. It is a great tyranny.

There may be some contradictions or hypocrisy in Pepys' observation of this "tyranny", discussed in annotations here.

Nevertheless, impressment was a barbaric practice. No less barbaric is the modern practice of the draft, or stop-loss, or otherwise forcing human beings to be soldiers - including not allowing them to break their contracts.

Cross-reference: involuntary military service is a form of slavery.

johann hari: the other 9/11 haunts latin america

Excellent perspective on the situation in Honduras from Johann Hari in the The Independent.

The ghost of the other, deadlier 9/11 has returned to stalk Latin America. On Sunday morning, a battalion of soldiers rammed their way into the Presidential Palace in Honduras. They surrounded the bed where the democratically elected President, Manuel Zelaya, was sleeping, and jabbed their machine guns to his chest. They ordered him to get up and marched him on to a military plane. They dumped him in his pyjamas on a landing strip in Costa Rica and told him never to return to the country that freely chose him as their head of state.

Back home, the generals locked down the phone networks, the internet and international TV channels, and announced their people were in charge now. Only sweet, empty music plays on the radio. Government ministers have been arrested and beaten. If you leave your home after 9pm, the population have been told, you risk being shot. Tanks and tear gas are ranged against the protesters who have thronged on to the streets.

For the people of Latin America, this is a replay of their September 11. On that day in Chile in 1973, Salvador Allende – a peaceful democratic socialist who was steadily redistributing wealth to the poor majority – was bombed from office and forced to commit suicide. He was replaced by a self-described "fascist", General Augusto Pinochet, who went on to "disappear" tens of thousands of innocent people. The coup was plotted in Washington DC, by Henry Kissinger.

Read it here.

harper government tries to rewrite history, and won't explain why

Back in February, I asked, "Is the Harper Government erasing Canadian history to justify attacks on war resisters?".

Citizenship and Immigration Canada's website used to include a page called "Forging Our Legacy," which summarized the history of Canada's acceptance of large groups of refugees, such as Chileans and the Vietnamese so-called "boat people". Among that refugee history was Canada's acceptance of Vietnam War resisters during the 1960s and 70s - some of whom were draft resisters and some of whom enlisted voluntarily, then deserted with moral objections.

You can see a pdf of the page here. Scroll down to the section on "Draft-age Americans in Canada".

Then, suddenly, that page disappeared. This is the page today.

A few weeks before the CIC website was changed, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney publically called US Iraq War resisters "bogus refugees" - prejudicing all of their refugee claims in what is supposed to be an independent, case-by-case process.

The Conservative Government and its supporters have always used the technical absence of a draft as an excuse to deny and minimize the plight of Iraq War resisters. As if volunteering to protect and defend one's country relieves a soldier of all moral obligations, and denies him or her all rights of conscience!

You can read the Campaign media release on the website change here.

Since February, War Resister Support Campaign volunteer Ken Marciniec has been trying to learn what happened to the web page and why. The CIC wasn't saying.

Ken filed Access to Information Act applications - but got nowhere.

Canadian Press has the story. This is an important piece that ties together many threads of our fight to persuade the Harper Government to follow the will of the majority and allow US war resisters to stay in Canada.

The Harper government is denying claims that it stripped a section on Vietnam from a federal website to boost its case for deporting Iraq war resisters.

Text on how both draft dodgers and resisters of the Vietnam War were ultimately allowed to stay in Canada suddenly vanished from the Citizenship and Immigration site earlier this year.

"Starting in 1965, Canada became a choice haven for American draft-dodgers and deserters," said the passage as it appeared online in February.

"Although some of these transplanted Americans returned home after the Vietnam War, most of them put down roots in Canada, making up the largest, best-educated group this country had ever received."

Fast-forward to 2009, and the Harper government takes a much dimmer view of dozens of U.S. soldiers who've come north after refusing to serve in Iraq - an invasion never sanctioned by the United Nations.

Some have already been deported to face military jail terms ranging from about six to 15 months.

Several others expect to receive removal orders at any time.

An internal document released under the Access to Information Act summarizes the government's position:

"Unlike American draft dodgers who immigrated to Canada during the Vietnam conflict, the individuals coming to Canada now voluntarily joined the United States military and have subsequently deserted."

A spokesman for the War Resisters Support Campaign says the Conservative stance is flawed and misleading.

In fact, many Americans volunteered to serve in Vietnam only to recoil from a horrific mission and flee to Canada, said Ken Marciniec. They, too, were allowed to settle here after 1969 following some initial legal wrangling.

Marciniec has been stonewalled since February in his attempts through the Access to Information Act to discover why the accurate history of Vietnam - including the welcoming of both draft dodgers and deserters - was cut from the government website. At first his applications were delayed, then he received a heavily censored response dated June 26 that offered no explanation, he said.

Department officials told The Canadian Press on Friday that the document in question, called "Forging our Legacy," was indeed removed.

The reason? An "accessibility audit" found "it did not comply with (federal) common look and feel requirements" that help viewers use websites, said spokeswoman Karen Shadd in an emailed response.

She did not immediately clarify how the document failed these standards.

Marciniec says it was likely stripped because "it directly contradicted the government's claim" that Iraq war resisters are voluntary deserters who can't be compared with Vietnam draft dodgers.

"The minority Harper government is misleading Canadians about Iraq war resisters to distract from the fact that they're ignoring the direction of Parliament, and the will of the majority of Canadians who want the deportations to stop immediately."

The majority opposition in Parliament has passed a non-binding motion to let Iraq resisters stay.

And an Angus Reid poll last year found 64 per cent of Canadians want the removals to end, and would support a program to offer permanent resident status to the troops.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney drew fire from Amnesty International and other critics earlier this year when he described the AWOL soldiers as "bogus" refugee claimants.

His spokesman, Alykhan Velshi, said Kenney had nothing to do with removing the website material on Vietnam and was not even aware of it.

Marciniec says recent estimates from across Canada put the number of Iraq war resisters at more than 200. Many are living underground, afraid of being deported.

Kim Rivera, the first female Iraq vet to publicly seek refuge in Canada, deserted while on leave from her first tour of duty in February 2007.

"I don't agree with the war," she said in an interview from Toronto. "I didn't have that opinion until after going there."

She is haunted by the traumatized kids she saw while serving as a gate guard.

"It's like they're looking right into your soul. And they're asking one simple question: 'Why are you hurting my family? What did I do to you?' And I couldn't answer that question for the life of me."

Rivera, a 27-year-old mother of three children aged seven, four and seven months, was ordered to return to the U.S. after her request to stay in Canada on compassionate and humanitarian grounds was denied.

She will argue in Federal Court on Wednesday that the immigration officer who ordered her removal didn't comprehend what Rivera faces back in the U.S.

Soldiers who've spoken out against the Iraq war have received much stiffer penalties than deserters who keep quiet, said Rivera's lawyer Alyssa Manning.

A joint letter signed June 26 by the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc Quebecois urged the Conservatives "to show compassion for those who have chosen not to participate in a war that was not sanctioned by the United Nations."

"Did not comply with (federal) common look and feel requirements"? What, it was truthful?

bully boy pride

Pride parade with pits!

Go! Watch!

i thought we were supposed to reward hard work, and other thoughts on labour

Impudent Strumpet has more excellent posts on the Toronto city workers' strike, and the bitter selfishness of the general public against the striking workers.

I highly recommend these posts:

Hard Work

and

The other problem with all this anti-labour sentiment

and

Things They Should Study: economic demographics of people who are opposed to good wages for garbage men

san francisco vigil for war resister kim rivera

If you are in the Bay Area, come to the Canadian Consulate in San Francisco this Wednesday, July 8, to show your support for war resister Kimberly Rivera.

Members of Courage To Resist will bring signed petitions to the Consulate General, urging the Canadian government to respect the will of the Canadian people and the will of Parliament - and to honour a basic moral imperative: not to break up a loving family.

As you know, Kim Rivera, mother of three, refused to redeploy to Iraq and is seeking refuge in Canada. The majority of the Canadian people want her to be allowed to say. Only the minority Conservative government stands in our way.

Kim told Courage To Resist:

I want to stay in Canada, with my family, because the Iraq War is immoral, illegal and I couldn't in good conscience go back. The amount of support I'm getting from Canadians is amazing. The parents of my kids' friends, MPs and even strangers on the street keep telling me that they can't believe the votes in Parliament aren't being respected.

If you are in the area, join the vigil. If you know people in the area, send them this post. More information is at this link.

When: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 12:00 to 1:30 p.m.

Where: SF Canadian Consulate, 580 California Street, San Francisco

Why: The right of every person to choose a life of peace

military resistance is global

From The Moscow Times:

A soldier appeared on Georgian national television to ask for political asylum Thursday, becoming the second Russian soldier to do so this year.

Private Dmitry Artemyev told Rustavi-2 television that he had fled his military unit stationed in the South Ossetian village of Perevi because of hazing and unbearable living conditions and asked the United Nations office in Georgia for help.

. . . .

Another Russian soldier, Private Alexander Glukhov, deserted his military unit in South Ossetia in January for similar reasons and has been granted asylum in Georgia. That case prompted a war of words between Russia and Georgia, whose relations remain strained after a brief war last August.

Last month, Georgian Lieutenant Alik Bzhania deserted his unit and surfaced in Moscow, requesting asylum because he feared renewed fighting.

This one should be of special interest to Canadians. From Courage To Resist:

"There is no way I will deploy to Afghanistan. The occupation is immoral and unjust. It does not make the American people any safer. It has the opposite effect." The words were scrawled in black ink on the bottom of a military counseling statement, a routine piece of paperwork turned in May 1st to the commander of a Ft. Hood, Texas Army unit headed for Afghanistan. It was signed Victor Agosto, U.S. Army.

Agosto is publicly refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Having served in the Army since 2005, including a tour in Iraq, Agosto can no longer bear to serve and says that he is, "ready for the consequences, whatever they are." Since May 11th, he has been refusing all orders directly connected to his unit's deployment to Afghanistan, including an order to track the serial numbers of trucks headed for Afghanistan. He has since been assigned to non-deployment tasks such as sweeping the motor pool and "company area beautification" as he waits to see what the military will do to him.

Agosto's refusal comes as the first waves of troops are being shipped to Afghanistan under the Obama Administration's recent escalation. President Obama has ordered 21,000 more troops to deploy to Afghanistan this summer, seeking to more than double the 32,000 deployed to 68,000 in the next few months.

There is scant evidence about how the troops themselves feel about this escalation. The most recent study, a 2006 Zogby poll for Iraq, found that 72% of all U.S. troops there thought the U.S. should immediately withdraw. Many of those same troops are now being asked to fight in Afghanistan.

Go here to see Victor Agosto's statement. There's also a link to donate to his legal defense fund.

Every soldier who chooses to resist an immoral war is one more voice for peace.

sing sing sing

I am currently obsessing on this song, so why not share. This is some of the hottest, coolest, swingingest music ever recorded. I think it may be impossible to hear this song and sit still.

Unfortunately the best sound quality on YouTube has only still visuals, but check out Gene Krupa.

Not incidental to my love for him, Benny Goodman led an integrated band in deeply segregated times.

And, to be fair to the creator, although "Sing, Sing, Sing" is most associated with Benny Goodman, it was written by the multi-talented Louis Prima.

weds july 8: vigil for war resister kim rivera

Toronto-area supporters of US war resisters in Canada, please join us this Wednesday, July 8, in front of the Federal Court on Queen Street. Lawyer Alyssa Manning will argue on behalf of Kimberly Rivera, her husband Mario and their three children, appealing the negative decision on Kim's Pre-Removal Risk Assessment.

Please come out to support the Rivera family and to demand that the Harper Government respect democracy and the will of the Canadian people. It is time to let the war resisters stay!

The minority Harper Government continues to thwart the will of Parliament by deporting US war resisters. War resisters Robin Long and Cliff Cornell are now in US military prisons because Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney have refused to respect two House of Commons motions - passed June 3, 2008 and March 30, 2009 - calling on the Government to let
war resisters stay in Canada.

Stop by on your way to work, or take the morning off to support the Rivera family.

When: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 8:00 a.m.
Where: 180 Queen St. West, west of University Ave (subway: Osgoode)
Why: LET THEM STAY

the wolves of haliburton ontario

Yesterday we went to the Haliburton Forest Wolf Centre with our friends C & J, who are US war resisters. J and I discovered we share a mutual intense fascination with wolves, and before we knew it, a plan was hatched for a weekday trip to the Haliburton Forest.

We left very early in the morning, driving about three and a half hours north and a bit east, and arrived shortly after the Centre opened.

A 15-acre enclosure of land - a piece of the Haliburton Forest Reserve - is home to a pack of wolves who live and breed in a semi-wild setting. The Wolf Centre is a small wolf-education museum with windows that overlook a clearing on the edge of the enclosure. The wolves come to the clearing to relax, play and eat.

When we got there, five of the six wolves that currently comprise the pack were there, curled up or sprawled out in little depressions they've dug out for themselves.

The Centre guide pointed out the alpha male - a big, white, older male lying apart from the others - and the younger wolves, telling us their names and their status in the pack. We learned that the alpha female had died two months earlier, while carrying six pups. She had a tumour (which also explained why she hadn't bred the previous year). She appeared to be going off to give birth, but was found dead, and staff was unable to save any of the pups.

Within days, her daughter took over as alpha female. Now the staff sees signs that two younger males have begun to challenge the old alpha male. The staff expects to see a changing of the guard this winter.

While the guide was talking, the sixth wolf wandered out of the woods, and all the wolves started to play. It was amazing to see.

Anyone who has read about and observed dog-pack play, would recognize all the behaviour. In fact, Allan said he had to remind himself that these weren't actually dogs - the behaviour is that familiar to us.

After a while, the wolves settled back into their lounging positions, some lying right near each other, others a bit further off, all six visible to us.

We all checked out all the information in the small museum part of the Centre, going back to the windows every so often to see if the wolves were active again. We had a picnic lunch outside, then attempted a short hike in the nearby woods, but were driven back by mosquitoes.

Afer lunch, we watched the wolves again and were lucky enough to see another play time. Two wolves were play-fighting for the same sleeping hole - one would be lying in the hole, and another would walk over and lie right on top of him, trying to get him to move. Eventually they lay beside each other, and one continually slapped the other's head with his paw.

We saw lots of dominance gestures, like one wolf standing above another, straddling it. I recognized the younger wolves greeting the alpha with kisses or nips on his snout from below - their heads lower than his - with their tails wagging submissively. We also saw the bottom wolf get chased out of a sleeping spot, her head down, tail between her legs, slinking off to find another place to lay.

We took tons of photos. Our higher-quality camera is not digital (yes, we still shoot film!), so it will be a few days before I can get the pictures up.

* * * *

The Centre can't guarantee you will see wolves - it's not a zoo - but if it's not very hot out, it's likely you will. In 2008, there were only eight days that wolves were not seen. (Not fun for the employees dealing with disgruntled visitors.)

But the guide also said the best time to visit is the winter. The wolves have more energy, are much more active, and their gorgeous winter coats are thick and gleaming. (Right now they are in the process of blowing out their winter coats and look scraggly. Later in the summer they will appear to be very thin, but that's only because their winter coats are so huge.)

The Centre gets practically no visitors in the winter. We instantly decided to go up again for a mid-week winter trip.

I had been under the impression that the wolves are fed at regular times for the public to view, but the guide explained that the Centre purposely doesn't do that. They don't want the wolves to become conditioned to regular feeding hours as domestic or zoo animals do.

Food - usually beaver carcasses that are bought from trappers, but sometimes deer or moose roadkill - is brought in at irregular times. Wild wolves can eat as much as 20 pounds in one feeding, then not eat again for a week, so the Centre seeks to mimic that as much as possible. Live animals are not brought in. The wolves live in an enclosure, so the animal would have no chance to escape, making that option unethical.

From the observation area, you can see white bones and bits of bone scattered around, especially several intact jaw bones with teeth still in them. The guide told us when the wolves are done feeding, the bones are completely clean, as if they were washed and polished.

As a visitor, there is a slim chance that you'll see the wolves eat, but it's unpredictable. Our guide related a story of a viewing area packed with people just as a deer carcass was brought in the enclosure. When the alpha male grabbed the carcass by the head, dragged it on the ground and stripped the hide off the entire body in one rip, the front row of visitors cleared out in 30 seconds, everyone turning green. But J and I immediately said, "Oh man, I'd love to see that!"

I can only hope to see something like that when we go back this winter.

* * * *

After a while, with many hours of daylight left and no pressing need to get home, we asked around for something else to do in the area.

We managed to find - no thanks to the ridiculously bad directions we got at the Visitors Centre - the Haliburton Sculpture Forest. On a trail through a wooded section of a park, there are around 20 sculptures. Some comment on, or echo, or provide an unusual juxtaposition with, the surrounding nature. I liked some of the work, but for me it doesn't matter if I love the art or not. I really enjoy sculpture, especially large pieces in a garden or natural setting. I just love the idea of a sculpture park or garden.

[If you are ever in New York State's Catskill Region, I highly recommend a visit to Storm King Art Center, an amazing outdoor sculpture park, and a favourite place of mine.]

The Haliburton Sculpture Forest won't change your life, but it's a pleasant and interesting stroll if you're in the area.

On our way home, we stopped in Barrie, a small city on Ontario's Lake Simcoe, kind of the gateway between the more populous southern Ontario and the more rural north. (When I first moved here, a contemptuous commenter predicted I'd "never go anywhere north of Barrie".)

The tail end of a street fair was just closing up - a good excuse to eat some delicious, disgustingly unhealthy food - then we strolled along the waterfront in a beautiful park. On Barrie's website, I see the town has several waterfront parks; it looks like this was Heritage Park. It had rained off and on all day - fortunately only when we were driving - but for our little walk, the sun was out and sparkling on the bay. It looked like a nice little downtown and we saw lovely small houses and yards while getting lost trying to find our way back to the highway.

* * * *

In addition to the wolves, we had several other wildlife sightings. C and J saw a very large deer, I saw a red fox, and in Barrie we all watched a mink scamper along the rocks on the water's edge. I would have guessed it was a weasel, but J identified it as a mink. [I had previously written that a mink is a rodent, but commenters tell me it is a mustelid.]

The animal was so fast and nimble, zipping in and out of the rocks, sometimes swimming (startling some ducks, who swam quickly away). It was really cute, too, with an alert little face, and seemingly unafraid of humans. And small. Seeing how small these things are, it's even more horrifying to think of how many mink pelts it takes to make one coat for a human.

I've mentioned how I love that nearly everyone, almost universally, enjoys seeing wild animals. There's just something about unexpectedly observing animal life going on around us that is such a joy. I've never met anyone who didn't respond to it. So this was a fun wildlife-sighting day, and it was a huge treat and privilege to see the wolves.

* * * *

Our domestic canines had to be left home for this trip; we had dog-care for the day. C and J are among the friends who have helped us with emergency dog-care, so we all enjoyed imagining how Tala would react in the Wolf Centre. Not to mention the three and a half hours of non-stop barking and spinning on the way up!

For more information and thoughts on wolves, and how these magnificent creatures are threatened, click on the category animals (other than dogs) and scroll through.

More photos from the Wolf Centre are here.

canada day, good and great

Two Canada Day reads, one good and one great.

Good: Eleven Canadians living in the US say what they miss about Canada.

Great: Antonia Zerbisias names four reasons to be proud of Canada.

Zerbisias is the goddess of my internet.

we all must support striking city workers

This is a continuation of sorts of the post I started here: i support striking city workers and you should, too.

I attended a public meeting called "Fighting for a fair deal: public sector workers resist concession". Carolyn Egan, president of the Toronto District Council of the United Steelworkers, and David Kidd, Vice-President and Chief Steward of striking CUPE local 79, were the speakers. Following their talk, there was an excellent discussion of what this strike means for all of us, and how we can support it.

I learned some very useful facts, but mostly the meeting helped me articulate what I already know and feel.

The most important takeaway: hold the line.

The working class is being made to pay for a flawed system it didn't create. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, and jobs that remain are shrinking in value. Toronto Mayor David Miller wants to use this economic crisis as an excuse to roll back hard-won labour gains. He wants concessions. He wants give-backs.

My employer has cut staff benefits in a way that seriously impacts our quality of life. And because we're private sector, non-union employees, it was done unilaterally: take it or leave it.

When the economy improves, will those benefits be restored? Only the very young or the very naive think so. The lower standard will become the new normal.

Because once you lose benefits - once you give concessions - you never get them back.

The striking CUPE workers are on the front lines of a fight for good jobs for all of us.

Hold the line.

The striking day care, sanitation, parks and recreation employees, and others are holding the line against a drive to save money by eroding the quality of their jobs - and our quality of life.

They have been negotiating since February, with the City trying to renege on its own promises. If these workers are finally worn down by management and public pressure, their concessions will trigger a feeding frenzy in municipalities all across Canada. If the largest city in the country can get away with this, it will signal open season on workers.

And when the public sector gets away with it, the private sector, always eager to cut costs at workers' expense, will feel even more entitled to slash pay and benefits than they do now.

When city workers' job standards and quality of life falls, standards for all workers will fall.

Rather than sneer, "I don't have that, why should they?" - essentially advocating for a race to the bottom - we could ask, "Could I have that, too? Could more employers offer that benefit? Is my labour - my brain - my strength - my talent - not worthy of that benefit?"

Hold the line.

Toronto settled its contracts equitably with parking employees, with EMS, with transit, fire and police. Sanitation workers want only what every other union has already gotten. They want their contract honoured.

Other municipal workers received "3/3/3" - a 3% pay increase in each of the next three years. The sanitation workers have been offered 0/1/1.

The workers of these two CUPE locals earn an average of $40-45,000 a year. That puts them squarely in the working class, the lower-middle class if you will. It's not a bad living, but you can't sell that as rich. If you live within that income bracket, that small cost-of-living increase can be the difference between a manageable budget, and a stressful, precarious life.

Another important issue in the fight is seniority. Workers who have accrued a certain amount of hours have the ability to choose their own shifts. For many people, that means being able to work the day shift as one is aging and less able to stay up all night. That "benefit" - I hesitate to call it that, as it seems so basic - is threatened, too.

When you take a sick day, is it a day with full pay? The CUPE workers have their first three sick days with full pay, but the fourth is at 75% pay, and the fifth at 50% pay. They can either use part of a vacation day to make up the difference, or manage without the pay. Would you like that? I wouldn't.

And what about the banked sick days, that issue that seems to get under the public's skin like a bad rash? Last night at the meeting and today on the picket line, I spoke to people who used their banked sick days when they had cancer. If you are unlucky enough to get cancer, would you like to have a job when you return? Would you like to be paid while you're sick? I sure would. Bankable sick days is a form of a short-term disability plan.

In previous negotiations, the City of Toronto wanted bankable sick days: it's an incentive to keep attendance high. Bankable sick time keeps people from doing what I do with my few measly, use-them-or-lose-them sick days: I use them whether I'm sick or not.

But more importantly, the option to cash in unused sick days upon retirement was also what the City of Toronto wanted: it represents deferred wage increases. In other words, the union agreed to go without wage increases during several negotiations in the 1980s and 1990s, in return for this cash-in option. And now that it's time to pay up, the City wants to change the terms of the contract.

How would you feel if that were done to you?

Hold the line.

Working people didn't create this economic crisis, and we shouldn't be made to pay for it. Of course, many of us are being made to pay for it - my quality of life has declined while my employer turns a profit, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. But do I want everyone to have that same unilateral, crappy deal? The fewer people who suffer, the better! The better for all of us, economically and in terms of our quality of life in our cities and towns.

I've heard people incensed that sanitation workers have "the nerve" to call themselves essential services, like fire, transit or police. If trash collection wasn't an essential service, why would anyone care that they are on strike? Is day care an essential service? Are parks and recreation essential? They are essential to maintaining a liveable city.

Many of these CUPE workers do jobs that are tough and dirty. They are on the front lines of public health, exposed to potential disease and contagion at every turn. (That's another reason they need good sick benefits.) If you think sanitation work is a cushy job, I ask: Do you want to do it? If you think $40,000 a year is too high for trash collection, how much would you want to be paid to do it?

These are the people who keep our cities livable. They deserve a decent life. They are not asking to buy a second home and drive a BMW. They are asking for a decent working life and a safe old age.

Hold the line.

Workers didn't pay million dollar bonuses, outsource jobs to boost shareholder profits, deregulate the banking industry, or invent Ponzi schemes.

Workers didn't change the rules so that only 45% of unemployed people in Canada are eligible for Employment Insurance. (In Toronto, that figure plummets to a shocking 25%.)

We hear that everybody "must tighten their belts" and be "team players". But is everyone doing this belt tightening, or only the people who already live on tight budgets? Who can most afford such cinching, the worker who lives paycheque to paycheque on a per-hour wage, or the six- and seven-figure earner?

Management, and the media who serve their interests, love to pit workers against each other. But we don't have to buy what they're selling. I've heard much evidence that there is more support for striking workers than immediately meets the eye. As someone said at last night's meeting, "You think the barrier between the strikers and the general public is very thick, but you talk a little - it doesn't take much, a few minutes is all - and you see the barrier is in fact very thin, and easily broken down."

Friends of mine held signs reading "We Support City Workers" at last weekend's Dyke March, and heard cheers and raised fists all day. I'm told the majority of callers on Rex Murphy's recent "Cross Country Check-Up" were pro-union. A CityTV poll clocked support at 50%. Maybe we're not all swallowing the company line.

Hold the line.

One familiar refrain is that the striking workers are "lucky to have jobs". Working is better than unemployment, yes. But does that mean the City shouldn't honour its own contracts?

We working people give of ourselves every day.

In bad times, our bosses come to us and ask us to give a little more.

In good times, do they come to us and give us a little back?

They do not.

Last weekend, when my co-workers bad-mouthed the strikers, I asked them to imagine how our own lives might have been improved if we were unionized. Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have someone (maybe me!) negotiate for all of us? Wouldn't it have been better to have a contract our employers could be held to honour - something that spelled out our job duties and work load and pay increases - rather than being subject to the whims of management? Wouldn't we like bankable sick days and a 3% annual increase if we could get it?

Isn't it better that someone has a fair deal, rather than nobody?

One of my co-workers has young children. Another has children just entering the workforce. And another is herself a young woman on her first job. I asked them, do you want there to be good jobs available for you, and for your children? Or should all the jobs be casual, part-time, no benefits, pay increases, security?

Hold the line.

Every progressive activist must look at this struggle as their own.

Each one, reach one. Each one, teach one.

Get on board behind the striking city workers, and make your voice heard.

+ + + +

Some ideas:

Write a letter in support of the strike to the Toronto Star, National Post or Globe and Mail.

Talk to your co-workers, friends and family about the strike. Educate yourself so you can respond factually to their complaints.

Hang a WE SUPPORT CITY WORKERS sign in your window.

If you live in Toronto, visit a picket line. Bring a striker a cup of coffee or a bottle of water. Spend some time with the strikers and hear their point of view.

If you live in Toronto, contact your City Councillor. Tell her or him you support the striking workers. Encourage her or him to make a public statement of support.

If you live anywhere, contact the Mayor's Office, tell them you want the City to honour its contracts. mayor_miller@toronto.ca / 416.397.CITY (2489)

What else? Your ideas are welcome.

o canada for our time

Oh Canada
Our home on native land,
Repatriate Khadr, Canadians demand.
War resisters, we see thee rise,
The movement strong and free.
From far and wide, oh Canada,
Let's take it to the streets.
Bring 'em home now, from Afghanistan.
Oh Canada: let's organize for peace.
Oh Canada: let's mobilize for peace.

Many thanks to great Ottawa-based peace activist Dylan Penner.

walkom: city workers a convenient target

Many cheers for Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star. His rational, pro-worker column is a welcome bright spot amid the mainstream media's anti-strike hysteria. Too bad we'd need about 500 stories like this to get anything approaching balance.

Striking city workers a convenient target

Former Conservative Ontario premier Mike Harris used the recession of the early 1990s masterfully to stoke class resentment against welfare recipients.

by Thomas Walkom

Hard times breed class resentment. Unfortunately, the wrong class usually gets targeted.

During the slump of the '90s, then Ontario Conservative leader Mike Harris persuaded Ontarians that welfare recipients were responsible for the province's economic difficulties.

Harris got the premiership and the poor got whacked, ultimately creating a set of poverty problems that, 14 years later, continue to fester.

The current recession however, appears to have created a new scapegoat – unionized workers.

Evidence of this first surfaced during the auto bailout. In both Canada and the U.S., polls showed that the public at large viewed unionized autoworkers as overpaid and underskilled.

There was little sympathy for those in danger of losing their auto plant jobs and even less for the idea of governments helping them out.

In the context of recession, the benefits that autoworkers had won – the pensions, the days off, the extra pay – became objects of resentment rather than emulation.

Those without such perks didn't say to themselves: Maybe if we unionize, we'll be able to get the same deal.

Instead, the reaction was: Who do these guys think they are?

The very fact that autoworkers were so normal seemed to make it easier to treat them as objects of scorn.

They weren't professionals with multiple degrees. They weren't financiers who dabbled in arcane but lucrative areas of investment.

They were just ordinary people who had managed to land unusually well-paying jobs.

So too the Toronto civic workers' strike.

At the best of times, the public has little sympathy for municipal strikes. They are, by definition, nightmares.

That's why the findings of a Toronto Star poll this week – that 53 per cent of Torontonians blame the Canadian Union of Public Employees for the strike – should come as no surprise. Indeed, the only surprise is that this figure isn't higher

What is unusual, however, is the visceral level of hostility against the strikers that emerges in casual conversation: The workers are uppity; they are already paid too much; they should all be fired.

"I find it sickening to listen to these people hold a city hostage in order to maintain an unsustainable contract. It reminds me of the autoworkers," one reader wrote to the Star website. "Get back to work and do your job," wrote another. "Fire all the union workers and hire private (garbage) collectors," added a third.

These comments were in response to a report of a striker who had been hit by a car attempting to drive through his picket line.

Yet are Toronto city workers overpaid? Wage comparisons are notoriously difficult. But a unionized city receptionist, for example, starts at $20.50 an hour; a truck driver makes $24.14; a landscape architect earns $36.95.

By comparison, the average full-time hourly wage in Ontario, according to Statistics Canada, is $24.35, while the average union wage is $26.40.

As for the charge that public-sector workers are pampered, think back.

In the recession of the '80s, they had their wages trimmed or frozen as governments at all levels attempted to deal with massive deficits.

In the '90s, the same thing happened.

After that recession, wages for all workers (except corporate executives) were slow to rebound. But for public-sector employees, the pace was even slower. According to CUPE, Toronto civic workers went eight years without any wage increase.

It's their bad luck to be trying for catch-up just as the country has entered another slump.

Finally, there is the issue of sick pay. Nothing, it seems, rankles Torontonians more than the idea of civic workers being able to bank up to 18 unused sick days a year and then cash them out upon retirement, a perk that one critic calls "a bonus for coming to work."

Yet in the strange world of collective bargaining, non-wage arrangements such as this are exactly the kinds of deals routinely struck – often at the behest of employers anxious to avoid paying their workers up-front cash.

Toronto's sick-pay deal, for instance, benefited the city and its taxpayers for years. Instead of paying higher wages over that period, the city was able to defer this particular portion of its labour costs until employees retired.

Now, with the city's largely middle-aged workforce close to retirement, the bills are coming due. But instead of paying what it owes, the city wants to scrap the arrangement. No wonder the workers are miffed.

Not that any of this will stop the public from fuming and the media from fulminating.

This recession was triggered by a runaway financial system. For a while, those who ran the system were in the doghouse. Now, thanks in large part to the remarkable tolerance shown by governments and their regulators, they're back on top.

In the U.S., banks that had to be rescued by Washington because their highly paid help took undue risks are once again back in the business of paying princely salaries. Yet such matters are no longer front-page news. They are too complicated.

Instead, we have found a more convenient group of people upon whom we can vent our fear and frustration. They're closer. They're easier to beat up.

happy canada day

Happy Canada Day!

I was planning on watching fireworks tonight at one of several Mississauga locations, but an opportunity to support fellow workers with my IS friends was more compelling. So, Canada Day 2009 to do:

1. picket support

2. Red Sox day game [i.e. down-time]

3. blog

4. go to sleep early to wake up super early for big day tomorrow: Haliburton Wolf Centre

Canadian readers, I hope you all have a lovely mid-week holiday. More later!