welcome and almost welcome

Bob, David and JoJo have arrived!

MSEH, P and 7YO are almost here!

And DanielWBC and Alan will be arriving shortly!

War resisters + wmtc3 + Newfoundland = I have been remiss in my blog reading, and especially remiss in these greetings. I think we'll be in Newfoundland when Would Be Canadians and Two Moms To Canada make The Big Move, so please accept this advance welcome.

To all the new Canadian families: welcome home! My wish for you is that you will be as happy as Allan and I are in our new country.

holding the bully's coat, extended excerpt

Towards the end of Linda McQuaig's Holding The Bully's Coat, there is a great stand-alone piece, a meditation on war and human society. I really appreciated the historical perspective, the paradigm shift, the willingness to question our basic assumptions.

Although this post is not directly related to the war resisters, I'm tagging it with my "war resister" label, so that folks who come over from the Campaign website might read it.

When provoked, a gentleman didn't have to spend a lot of time in previous centuries thinking through the problem of how to respond. If his honour had been offended - if say, someone had questioned his integrity, or the virtue of his betrothed, or the extent of his bravery on the battlefield - he knew he had little choice but to challenge the offender to a duel. The stakes would be high; both men would have swords or pistols capable of killing the other. And the public, as well as family and friends, would come out to watch. Despite the potentially tragic consequences, the duel was an accepted part of social interaction. After all, humans have natural aggressive instincts, so what could be more natural than that two men, locked into an apparently irresolvable conflict, would resort to personal violence? It's all just part of the human condition. Or so it must have seemed, as the loved ones of the defeated gentleman watched him lie dying on the ground.

Looking back, the duel seems hopelessly quaint and primitive, an idea long ago shelved. It's not that humans have evolved so that petty insults no longer sting us or provoke our anger. It's just that, in the modern world, we've rejected the format of the duel as a way to resolve our disputes. Now, if someone insults us, we can sue that person for slander or libel. Or if a neighbour makes plans to build an extension on his house that will block our sunlight, we can try to stop him at a municipal bylaw hearing. If we were instead to show up at the offender's house with a weapon in hand, we'd be regarded as not only dangerous but weird and loopy.

Of course, violent personal behaviour still exists in pockets of our societies - in gangs and other outlawed forms. But our mainstream culture has fully adapted to solving disputes through the legal system. What once seemed no doubt utterly natural - that two men would resolve a dispute by recourse to personal violence - now seems part of a culture that exists only on the margins. This represents an apparently enormous change in human behaviour. What accounts for it?

Perhaps human nature has evolved, becoming more gentle and compassionate? Tempting as it may be to believe this contention, there doesn't seem to be much evidence to back it up. Duelling, which began in Europe in the mid-sixteenth century, was a common practice among upper-class men in parts of Europe and America, lingering even in some areas into the early twentieth century, when it finally disappeared. And yet, one would be hard put to make a case that humans somehow became more gentle and compassionate in the late nineteenth century. The twentieth century was perhaps the bloodiest century ever. One doesn't have to resort to statistics or laboratory studies to review the evidence around us in the modern world; humans appear to be still just as capable of aggression, violence and cruelty.

But if humans don't appear to have fundamentally changed, other things have. To begin with, our modern laws prevent duelling. If two men were to attempt to square off against each other with swords (or knives or guns) on a sidewalk or in a public park, someone would quickly call the police, and they would find themselves arrested and facing charges. But the prohibition against this sort of behaviour goes beyond the fact that we have laws against it. On another level, it has simply lost its cache, its social acceptability, its legitimacy. To behave that way is to identify oneself as a hoodlum, misfit or mental case. A normal person with a grievance doesn't even bother to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of being charged for criminal activities if he engages in some sort of duel. He's simply absorbed the notion, from all his experiences in life, that the duel isn't an acceptable form of behaviour. At some level, he is blocked from behaving that way because he knows if he did, his friends, family and acquaintances would regard him as, well, ridiculous. In fact, the duel has slipped so far outside normal practice these days that it likely wouldn't even occur to him that he could solve his grievance through a duel. The notion of a duel has become, as political philosopher Anatol Rapoport would put it, "an obsolete habit of thought."

So the disappearance of duelling from our modern culture probably has as much to do with our public disapproval of the practice as it does with laws actually banning it. What allowed duelling to exist for so long was the fact that it enjoyed some sort of public legitimacy, that it was accepted as a way to demonstrate one's "honour." So, for instance, as Alexander Hamilton prepared himself mentally the night before his famous duel with U.S. vice-president Aaron Burr in 1804, he felt he was conforming to an accepted social tradition. He even felt - strange as it may seem to us today - obliged to take part. As his diary makes clear, he was actually reluctant to take part for a number of logical and compelling reasons: he felt no ill will towards Burr, he opposed duelling on moral and religious grounds (and by this point, duelling was illegal under the laws of New Jersey, where the duel was to take place) and he realized his duel posed a great risk to the financial well-being of his wife and children. "I shall hazard much and possibly gain little," he wrote. Still, he felt the need to take part, because, he wrote, defending oneself in a duel was what "men of the world denominate honor." Therefore, if he declined, he would be the object of derision and contempt by those whose opinion mattered to him. So, with all logic and feeling against it, Hamilton made his fateful decision to bow to "public prejudice in this particular."

The peculiar set of social attitudes that drove Hamilton to enter into his duel have disappeared and been replaced with a set of social attitudes that would cause a similarly positioned person today to react very differently, without resort to violence. Thus, through social disapproval and legal prohibition, modern societies have rendered obsolete an institution that, for centuries, seemed just plain natural – an expression of the apparently basic human appetite for violence.

Of course, the duel was a particular institution. More broadly, we agree as members of society to give up our right to commit personal violence of any kind. We surrender that power to the state, as part of an implicit pact in which every other member of society does the same. The state then has a monopoly on violence, and we collectively - through our democratic voting power - determine the laws we will all live by. Only the police are given the right to use violence, and only to enforce the laws we've collectively agreed upon. By giving up the right to protect ourselves through violence, we achieve something even more precious - the right to live our lives free of violence.

Few today would lament this trade-off, any more than they would regret the passing of the duel. Modern living seems much more comfortable and congenial without violence in our midst. Indeed, the thought of any nation permitting such violence among its citizens - or unable to stop it, as in the case of nations where warlords are able to function - strikes us as evidence of a more primitive culture, something our society has evolved beyond.

Yet oddly we seem to see nothing absurd about continuing to accept an institution of violence between nations, namely the institution of war. As the Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz observed in his classic 1832 book, On War, "War is nothing but a duel on a larger scale." Compared to the duel, war is of course a far more lethal institution, indeed one with the potential today to obliterate not just a few proud gentlemen but the entire human race. How odd, then, that we continue to find war acceptable, making it a central part of the way we organize our societies, even though it's an institution no more "natural" than the duel.

* * * *

Of course, war is generally regarded not as an institution but rather as the inevitable clash that results from deep-rooted human aggression. In other words, it's regarded as not something we chose to accept or reject but rather simply something that happens. This prevailing view doesn't imply that war can't be averted; obviously it sometimes can be, through diplomacy or political strategies. But the prevailing view does see war as a sort of normal and inevitable part of human behaviour. So while it's good to work at minimizing the chances of any given war, there's an unspoken assumption that war, in some form, will always be with us. Any notion of "ridding the world of war" is seen as hopelessly naive, rooted in some misguided notion that human nature can be reshaped into some nobler form.

Aggression does appear to be something that occurs naturally in humans, just as many other behaviours - laughing, crying, loving, hating, working, mating, communicating, making friends, helping others, co-operating with others - seem natural. So war may well be an expression of the aggressive part of human nature. The question is: Is it an inevitable expression of that aggressive side? Duelling - something that appeared to be basic and natural - simply disappeared over time; today duelling would be considered a silly anachronism, if anyone bothered to think about it. Could it be that war, like duelling, is an institution, rather than an inevitable expression of human nature? As an institution, war requires some form of social approval and support. Is it possible that ultimately such social approval and support could be withdrawn? In other words, is it possible that humans could choose to reject war?

Rapoport, who belongs to a school of thought known as peace studies, sees war in precisely this way, as an institution that continues to exist only because we continue to give it legitimacy. Rapoport points to other human institutions and practices that have failed to survive to survive over time – slavery, absolute monarchy, binding the feet of young girls, gladitorial combat. Political scientist John Mueller adds a few other practices that also became defunct once our society began to regard them as uncivilized and even repulsive: human sacrifice, the burning of heretics, bearbaiting, freak shows, Jim Crow laws, family feuding, public and intentionally painful executions, public flogging, executive for minor crimes, deforming corseting, laughing at the insane. And yet all these practices were at one time considered acceptable, with some of them deeply ingrained in the social fabric.

Slavery, for instance, certainly offends our modern sensibilities about intrinsic human rights. And yet what could seem more basic to human nature than the desire to control and take advantage of others – a desire ultimately achieved in actually owning another human being? Hence, one could imagine an argument in which slavery would be defended as simply a basic extension of human traits, such as aggression, selfishness and the desire for dominance, and the rejection of slavery would be characterized as naive idealism.

Slavery might in some ways be considered a closer analogy to war than duelling, in that slavery, like war, involved a significant infrastructure that many profited from - slave-trading and slave-shipping companies and manufacturers of slavery equipment, like chains and restraints of various sorts. Furthermore, like war, slavery was an institution that existed in many parts of the world, and as far back as the dawn of civilization. Slavery also conferred important financial benefits upon the slave-owning class, which typically was the dominant social group with considerable, if not absolute, political power. So any campaign to do away with slavery - like doing away with war - would seem to face formidable obstacles.

What's striking, though, is how quickly slavery largely disappeared from the world. If we look at the span of human history, we see that slavery existed for thousands of years, and then effectively disappeared rather suddenly in recent centuries. The Swedes were ahead of the pack - who would have guessed? - abolishing slavery in 1335. After that landmark, nothing much happened until the late eighteenth century. Then, starting with Portugal, which abolished slavery in 1761, a wave of abolitions swept through many parts of the world, particularly Europe and the Americas: England and Wales (1772), Haiti (1776), Upper Canada (1793), France (1802), Argentina (1813), Chile (1823), Mexico (1829), Denmark (1848), Russia (1861), the Netherlands (1863), the United States (1865), Cuba (1880), Brazil (1888). By the late nineteenth century, abolition spread farther afield, including Korea (1894), Zanzibar (1897), China (1910), Burma (1929), Ethiopia (1936), Tibet (1959), Saudi Arabia (1962) and Mauritania (1980).

How did this happen? One might guess that society abandoned slavery simply because it became economically unviable, as some have argued. And it's true that Adam Smith, the eighteenth-century economist who came up with the theory of modern capitalism, argued that free labour was more efficient than slavery. Still, slavery apparently remained viable and profitable as an economic institution, and it was certainly financially rewarding to slaveholders, many of whom depended upon slavery for their financial well-being and who might have been unable to make a profitable transition to a slave-free world. . . .

Nor is there any evidence of slave owners en masse having a sudden change of heart and freeing their slaves, although there were individual cases of this. Rather, the determining factor in ending slavery appears to have been the rise of strong abolition movements in a number of countries, particularly Britain and the United States. Such movements had the effect of changing the way people viewed this age-old institution. What had been regarded for centuries as an acceptable, natural form of human behaviour came to be seen as uncivilized, immoral and repugnant. As Mueller puts it: "Slavery became controversial, then peculiar and then obsolete."

Rational argument certainly played a role in this process. The abolitionist movement and those responding to it were influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, ideas about human rights and freedoms. Adam Smith's arguments about the greater efficiency of free labour no doubt underscored the inappropriateness - and lack of economic necessity - of slavery. So rational argument was marshalled, along with appeals to human compassion, in order to fundamentally alter the way a vast number of people regarded this particular institution. The abolitionist movement worked on a number of levels, spreading its ideas through intellectual debate and literary appeals, as well as through political action that resulted in laws abolishing various aspects of slavery, such as the slave trade. In other words, concerted and determined effort, based on rational arguments as well as emotional appeals, succeeded in stripping slavery of its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Once the public no longer found it acceptable, slavery ceased to be viable, no matter how much certain powerful figures wanted to hold on to it.

Would the abolition of war, then, also be possible? This intriguing question is raised by Rapoport and others like Graeme MacQueen. It's important to note that the possibility of an end to war doesn't rest on the notion that humans would change in some fundamental way, becoming perhaps more peaceful or loving creatures. After all, duelling and slavery have passed into history without human nature becoming any more compassionate, or even improving in any detectable way.

The possibility of abolishing war also doesn't rest on the notion that the "warrior class" - those in the political, corporate and military establishments connected to war - would be converted to an anti-war stance. It's assumed that these people are unlikely to change, given their financial ties to the industry of war or perhaps simply because they've absorbed the values and arguments of a society long accepting of war's inevitability. Ultimately the views of the people in these elites - despite their enormous power - may not matter, however, just as the views of slave owners didn't matter once slavery had become peculiar, uncivilized and unacceptable in the eyes of the public.

If it seems inconceivable that war could ever be made to seem peculiar, consider the amazing transformation that has taken place in Europe in the last few decades. For centuries, Europeans were almost constantly at war with each other, from the age of barbarism that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire to the tumultuous world wars of the twentieth century. And yet, in recent decades, the inclination among European nations to wage war against each other has effectively disappeared. How to explain such a profound and sudden change, other than to see it springing from a kind of collective revulsion towards war - a revulsion that arose in the wake of the horrors of World War II? Given the scope and senselessness of that bloodbath, in which tens of millions of people died and much of the continent was destroyed, Europeans came to simply reject war as a means of solving their differences. To this end, European nations, with the support of their populations, came together and created the European Union, as a way of emphasizing their commonly held goals and as a forum for work¬ing together to jointly advance their prosperity. One could say that war among European nations lost its legitimacy. Today, anyone in Germany, France or Italy advocating war against another European nation would be regarded as unbalanced, unsophisticated, even ridiculous.

It's interesting to consider what role may have been played in bringing about this transformation by the establishment of the European Union, an institution aimed at breaking down patterns that in the past had led to war. In other words, was the ultimate result of de-legitimizing war among European nations advanced by the interim step of creating this new institution? Could a similar approach work in a campaign to de-legitimize war in general? Rather than focusing on trying to bring about a de-legitimization of war - a rather huge and difficult concept to convey - a campaign could set interim goals that would advance that ultimate goal. For instance, a campaign could set the interim goal of pushing national governments to pass laws banning participation in the arms trade, just as the anti-slavery movement focused on banning the slave trade as an interim step to the ultimate goal of banning the entire institution of slavery.

Rapoport reminds us that it's not even necessary to convert the general public to the philosophy of pacifism; it's simply necessary to undermine war's acceptability. Thus, the task is to destroy something, which is generally easier to accomplish than to build something. The strategy is simply to make the waging of war seem peculiar, uncivilized, even revolting. . . .

Indeed, the ever-increasing destructive power of war would seem to provide a solid rational and emotional basis to the war-abolitionist cause. It's interesting to note, for instance, how much more lethal the weaponry of war has become over time, with a particularly sharp increase in lethality since the mid-nineteenth century. Military historian Trevor Dupuy has drawn up an index to provide a rough measure of "lethality" - or killing power - of weapons through human history. For the first million or so years, the destructive power of weapons was relatively minimal. Throughout ancient and medieval times, the available weapons - the longbow, the crossbow, the early cannon - all score below 50 on Dupuy's "lethality index." This starts to change only in the mid-1800s, and by the late 1800s, rifles are scoring above 150 on the index. Then things really take off. By 1903, the Springfield rifle measures 495 in lethality. In the First World War, the lethality of machine guns comes in at 3,463; in the Second World War at 4,973. Meanwhile, the lethality of a Second World War fighter-bomber measures 1,245,789 on Dupuy's index. This is in turn utterly dwarfed by the lethality of the first nuclear bomb, which measures a staggering 49,086,000. By 1952, the hydrogen bomb scores 695,385,000 on the lethality index. Since then, the lethal¬ity of nuclear weapons has continued to grow in leaps and bounds.

The lethality of nuclear weapons is such that a nuclear war is simply irrational. Of course, nuclear war has always been understood to be irrational. But, as discussed earlier, the one apparently reasonable justification for it - the need for deterrence against the nuclear weapons of another power - was removed by the collapse of the Soviet Union, making it possible for Washington to begin the process of worldwide nuclear disarmament without jeopardizing American safety. We know that Washington has chosen to reject this path, and we can see in the documents produced by the Bush administration that the reasons for this rejection appear to be rooted in Washington's desire to consolidate U.S. control over the world.

But while a desire to control the world may be stronger in top administration officials than a desire to live in peace, this sort of megalomania is not shared by the American public. Polls consistently show overwhelming popular support among Americans for nuclear disarmament - even though the issue is not remotely on the actual political agenda. Ordinary Americans, like ordinary people throughout the world, intuitively understand that it makes no sense to support a policy capable of destroying humankind. We don't even need to think through the issue in some sort of cost-benefit analysis - the pros and cons of nuclear holocaust. It is intuitively obvious that there are only cons. John Mueller uses the example of a person in a hurry trying to decide how best to get from the fifth floor of a building to street level. The person could walk down the stairs - or jump out the window. Faced with such a decision, the person doesn't have to do a set of calculations to realize that the advantage of jumping - getting there faster - would be more than cancelled out by the disadvantage of ending up hopelessly crippled or dead.

And yet, astonishingly, we continue to prepare for the option of jumping out the window. . . .

There's more, and it's very good.

Ending the acceptability and seeming inevitability of war is a dream. But all great human endeavors began with a dream.

when you go to gitmo, stop by the gift shop and pick me up a t-shirt

It was difficult for me to celebrate the recent US Supreme Court ruling striking down the use of "military tribunals" (i.e. fake courts) for supposed terrorism suspects. Until I see that the junta actually complies with the ruling, and replaces their kangaroo courts with real trials, it's just a statement on paper.

You'll recall that in July 2004 there was a 6-3 ruling in favour of the prisoners in Guantanamo. At that time - four years ago - the US Supreme Court said that US courts have jurisdiction over the prisoners, that they can challenge their incarcerations through normal legal methods, and that habeas corpus applies.

The White House ignored it.

In fact, it was in response to that 2004 ruling that the Cheney administration set up the fake courts that were the subject of last week's ruling. Four years later, nothing has changed for the prisoners, most of whom have been there since 2001.

The junta has demonstrated their contempt for the law and the US Constitution over and over again. This ruling could be a turning point in their self-appointed expansion of powers. Or it could be completely ignored. My money is on ignored, and I'll be thrilled to be wrong.

While we wait for that verdict, why not pick up a Gitmo hat or t-shirt? Perhaps a mug or keychain for your mom. From the Washington Post blog Sleuth.

In light of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, we thought it would be a good time to disclose the "presents" we received last week from the gift shop at Gitmo.

The Sleuth's husband, a reporter who went to Guantanamo last week to cover the arraignment of five 9/11 suspects, brought back not one but three surprises: a Guantanamo Bay windbreaker, a baseball cap and a t-shirt. (Honey, you shouldn't have!)

Yes, the Gitmo Naval base actually sells t-shirts, caps and other souvenirs advertising its detainee operations. And apparently, military base officials were thrilled to have reporters buying up goodies at the gift shop for their loved ones back home.

The t-shirt is the most gung-ho of the souvenirs about boasting the base's detainee operations, the future of which, thanks to the Supreme Court, is now in question.

The left breast of the front of the shirt is emblazoned with the words "Operation Enduring Freedom" and "JTF," which stands for Joint Task Force. The back of the shirt, in large lettering, says "JTF GTMO" and in slightly smaller font below it, "DETAINEE OPERATIONS, U.S. NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA."

Check out Sleuth for pictures and links.

Do they sell t-shirts at Auschwitz?

norway makes it six

Hooray for Norway! That Scandinavian nation has become the sixth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

Check out the inimitable Slap Upside The Head for a typically wonderful graphic.

why is everyone so upset about tim russert's sudden death?

Pardon me for seeming insensitive. I hope by now you know I am not an insensitive person. People are expressing shock, grief, and deep sorrow over the death of US media personality Tim Russert, and I cannot for the life of me understand what all the fuss is about.

People die every day. Did this man actually mean something to everyone, was everyone actually emotionally attached to Tim Russert that they are so blown away by a man's sudden heart attack?

If you knew someone personally, of course you are upset at their death.

If you were very attached to someone's work, such as an artist or musician or political figure who meant a lot to you, yes, of course.

But a news commenter? A corporate media pundit?

It's sad for his family and friends, but many families lost people today, and the day before, and tomorrow, and the day after that.

What's more, people are acting like Russert was the second coming of Edward R. Murrow or Nellie Bly. Tim Russert was on the front lines of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld's propaganda team, selling the invasion of Iraq. He was one of the many who gave Bush the candidate a free ride while treating bogus accusations like "swift boats" as fact. He was one of the reasons the US media is in the shape it's in. To anyone who cares about good journalism, he should not be missed.

beijing offends, apologizes, then tries again

When the guide for volunteers at the Beijing Paralympics was published, athletes with disabilities - and their advocates and fans - were shocked. The manual was crammed with outdated, offensive, and downright stupid language, more in keeping with the 19th Century than the 21st.

This story in Australia's Herald Sun says Beijing organizers could use a "swift education in political correctness". I'd say they could use a lesson in humanity, decency and plain old common sense.

Disabled people can be unsocial, stubborn, controlling, and defensive according to an official Beijing Olympics guide.

The Olympic manual for volunteers in Beijing is peppered with patronising comments, noting for example that physically disabled people are "often" mentally healthy.

Volunteers at the Olympics and Paralympics are instructed not to call Paralympians or disabled spectators "crippled" or "lame", even if they are "just joking".

The document, which indicates the Chinese hosts could use a swift education in political correctness, says the optically disabled "seldom show strong emotions".

"Physically disabled people are often mentally healthy," adds the guide.

"They show no differences in sensation, reaction, memorisation and thinking mechanism from other people, but they might have unusual personalities because of disfigurement and disability.

"For example, some physically disabled are isolated, unsocial, and introspective; they usually do not volunteer to contact people.

"They can be stubborn and controlling; they may be sensitive and struggle with trust issues.

"Sometimes they are overly protective of themselves, especially when they are called crippled or paralysed."

Volunteers are instructed never to "stare at their disfigurement".

"A patronising or condescending attitude will be easily sensed by them, even for a brain damaged patient (though he cannot control his limbs, he is able to see and understand like other people).

"Like most, he can read your body language," says the 2008 volunteer guide.

"Show respect when you talk with them.

"Do not use cripple or lame, even if you are just joking.

"Though life has handed many difficulties to them, disabled people are often independent and self-reliant.

"Volunteers should offer assistance on a basis of equality and mutual respect...

"Disabled people can be defensive and have a strong sense of inferiority."

I was so flabbergasted when I read this, I hardly knew where to begin. This column in the (California) Contra Costa Times does a nice job.

Perhaps the authors never met Staff Sgt. Josh Olson, a veteran of the Iraq War who lost his leg to a roadside bomb and now uses his marksmanship skills as a shooter on the U.S. Paralympic team.

If they had, they would never say he has a "strong sense of inferiority."

Maybe they've never come across swimmer Jessica Long, a double below-the-knee amputee with her heart set on a huge medal haul inside Beijing's "Water Cube." If they had, there's no way they would describe her as "isolated, unsocial and introspective."

Surely, they've never gotten to know me, a basketball-player-turned-sportswriter born with mild cerebral palsy. If they had, they certainly wouldn't claim I have an "unusual personality because of (a) disfigurement or disability."

Yet all of those sweeping generalizations still came to the surface inside a training manual given to volunteers of both this summer's Olympic and Paralympic Games. Ignorance, backwards thinking and a poor choice of words are all rolled into a 20-page section titled "Skills for helping the disabled."

On the surface, such material seems well-intended, but those good intentions are almost totally lost upon a single reading. Instead, a helpful tool comes across as a cruel, humorless joke crafted by people who don't know the first thing about discretion or tact.

Exhibit A: "Paralympic athletes and disabled spectators are a special group. They have unique personalities and ways of thinking."

Exhibit B: "Sometimes they are overly protective of themselves. ... Do not use 'crippled' or 'lame,' even if you are just joking."

The language is so offensive, so over the top, Olympic organizers recently requested a rewrite and on Monday offered an apology. Quite frankly, that's exactly what they should've done.

When it comes to human-rights issues, China is already under an intense microscope because of its actions in Tibet and Darfur. To paint such a broad picture of disabled athletes using a purely stereotypical brush certainly doesn't help. And it hardly meshes with the open-arms idea of the Olympic movement.

Zhang Qiuping, director of Beijing's Paralympic Games, told the Associated Press, "Probably it's a cultural difference and mistranslation. ... We've already asked the author to modify the relevant content."

Even if there was something lost in translation, is such a guideline really necessary? Who requires tangible literature to understand the simple notion of decency, tolerance and respect? And if enlightenment truly is required, can't it be obtained on the playing field, where every competitor in Beijing has overcome sizable, deeply personal obstacles just to get there?

Consider Olson. His life was forever changed when a rocket-propelled grenade hit his truck while on night patrol in Northern Iraq in 2003, severing his right leg. Olson spent months at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and was later invited to compete on the U.S. Army marksmanship unit, a break that kick-started his Olympic dream.

"For me, it is an opportunity," said Olson, recipient of the Purple Heart. "I was always taught growing up to never quit."

What about Long? The 2006 Paralympian of the Year, she was born without the long bones in both of her legs. At 18 months, she had surgery to remove her misshapen feet.

When we met in April, Long, now 16, recounted a story of watching the kids in her neighborhood run up a hill with little effort, knowing it would be hard for her to do the same because the surface wasn't flat (she gets around using prosthetics). I instantly began to nod. Having a disability sometimes means routine tasks require great effort, but you dig deep and get the job done.

"I think I got my determination from my disability," said Long, who won nine gold medals at the 2006 world championships and last year beat out Michael Phelps and Candace Parker for the Sullivan Award. "There's nothing I can't do. It's better to (think like that) than staying in my room and being ashamed."

If the volunteers in Beijing really need "skills for helping the disabled," that's the best insight they could ask for.

After a nearly global outcry, Beijing organizers apologized, pulled the offensive manual and said they will publish a new volunteer guide.

Some people have tried to explain this away as a "cultural misunderstanding". I've met Paralympic athletes from many countries, including many developing nations. Most told me about strong national and community support for athletes with disabilities. If official Chinese culture is this behind the times on disability, then it shouldn't be hosting the Paralympics.

terrific european news feature on iraq war resisters in canada

France24, a French TV channel, has a terrific English-language feature on the Iraq War resisters in Canada. They were with us on the bus to Ottawa and in the House of Commons while we watched the vote. I hope you'll take 13 minutes of your day to watch this. It's great!

Watch here.

what i'm reading: holding the bully's coat, by linda mcquaig

I started and finished Holding the Bully's Coat - Canada and the U.S. Empire by Linda McQuaig without finding a chance to blog about it, so here goes.

This is a very interesting and, I think, important book. For anyone interested in modern Canadian history and current Canadian foreign policy, especially as it relates to the United States, it's a very worthwhile read. Even people who are well versed in Canadian history and politics may learn a few things, and to someone like me who is just catching up, it was fascinating.

As you may recall, I've been put off by much of the rhetoric and (what I see as) scare-mongering put out by the No Deep Integration movement - talk of secret agendas, superhighways that supposedly threaten sovereignty, and so forth. It's not that I would ever support Deep Integration; it's that no one has been able to show me there is an actual threat.

Holding the Bully's Coat has helped me understand this from a different angle: it's not so much the end of Canada, the country, that we need to worry about, as it is Canada charting its own course of foreign policy, rather than tagging along with the United States. Do we want to spend our taxes on building a healthier and more just society, or do we want to help the US bully the world, while increasing the profits of US-based military industries? Do we want a foreign policy that emphasizes international cooperation and peacekeeping, or one that supports aggression and empire?

McQuaig also confirms my understanding that, when it comes to foreign policy, the Liberals have not been very different than the current Conservative government. Liberal supporters who were so horrified by the Conservative's election would do well to pressure their preferred party to get out of bed with the US, too.

The book gives a good overview of Canada's international role since the second World War, the birth of peacekeeping, and when Canada's military stopped being used for peacekeeping and started taking on more aggressive stance that neatly dovetails with US priorities.

Much of Holding the Bully's Coat is about the illegality, immorality and brutality of US foreign policy, with an eye towards how Canadian foreign policy often helps support it. McQuaig shows how how media figures, academics and business leaders perpetuate the idea that Canada is better served by aligning itself with the US and imitating its model - huge military spending, unchecked energy consumption, plutocracy, unaddressed gross social inequality - than by adopting a European model of international cooperation, social spending, attempts to ameliorate social inequality, and peacekeeping.

As always, there is a profit motive behind this alignment. Of course that is seldom shown to the Canadian public. A war - or mission, as the Canadian euphemism goes - needs a loftier justification, like democracy, freedom, liberation, and so forth. But we know that war is seldom about such ideals. And now, there is another layer of justification for Canadian military involvement.

Although the plight of Afghan women has been a major selling point for the war, there has also been a determined effort by the Canadian defence establishment to deftly move the focus away from soft, humanitarian considerations - like helping desperate women - to more geopolitical purposes, like fighting terrorism. Thus, [military historian] Jack Granatstein declares: "The war on terror is a reality and Canadians are targets, no matter how we try to convince ourselves that the world loves us. It doesn't." The attempt is to make Canadians feel at risk of terrorist attacks, simply for being part of the Western world, and to erase the connection between terrorist attacks on the U.S. and the U.S.'s history of military intervention in that part of the world.

Of course, Canada could well be the victim of terrorism. Canadians were stunned by the arrests of seventeen young Canadian Muslims in June 2006, on charges of plotting terrorist attacks in Canada. It's difficult to know what to make of these alleged plots, which seem to have been at least partly encouraged by undercover government agents. Let's just note at this point that the charges have not yet been proven in court.

[Ed note: let's also note that no evidence was ever presented to the US public about the terrorists attacks there. We're supposed to take those liars' word for it about how it all went down. Back to McQuaig.]

It should also be noted that Canada's past insulation from terrorist attacks is almost certainly connected to the fact that we haven't provoked rage abroad as the U.S. has - or as Britain and Spain did with their support for the U.S invasion of Iraq. Our insulation, of course, could change as we get more fully on board with the U.S. "war on terror." Granatstein's assertion that the world doesn't love Canada - whether true or not - could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy if we behave aggressively in the world or connect ourselves directly with the aggressive actions of others.

In the summer of 2005, Canadian major general Andrew Leslie explained why the war in Afghanistan will be long - because, he said, "every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating fifteen more who will come after you." This might seem like a good reason not to go over there and kill angry young men.

Granatsein goes on to hint at what is more likely the real purpose of our venture in Afghanistan: to please the United States. "Our superpower neighbour, the nation to which 87 per cent of our exports go and on which our security depends, has been attacked and is still under threat, but somehow Canadians have not grasped that they are involved. We are." Similary, Sean Maloney, a professor at the Royal Military College in Kingston, suggested in an article in The Walrus that "the thinking [in Ottawa] may be that we will finally resolve the softwood lumber issue and keep our border open to trade by lessening America's burden in Afghanistan."

Now hold it a minute. How did the softwood lumber issue and the fact that 87 per cent of our exports go to the U.S. creep into a discussion of our military involvement in Afghanistan? Is it concern about our trade balance that compels us into battle? This might come as a surprise to Canadian soldiers fighting over there, hyped up on a message of the life-and-death imporatance of their mission, on the need to help the desperate people of Afghanistan and rid the world of terrorists. Is it actually increased profit margins for the Canadian lumber industry that they're risking their lives for? This focus on the Canada-U.S. trading relationship also raises an interesting question: does the fact that Canada has extensive trade ties and common security arrangements with the U.S. oblige us to join in the US's wars?

Advocates of closer economic and military ties with the U.S. have always denied that such ties infringe on our sovereignty. So why are these ties even being raised here? Do these ties restrict our freedom of action, oblige us to participate in America's wars, or don't they? If they do, this would seem to be a compelling argument for loosening these ties, for developing more independent economic and military policies, in order to free ourselves of such obligations. If they don't, they shouldn't be part of a discussion about the purpose of our missison in Afghanistan.

The possibility that we are in Afghanistan to curry favour with Washington - to help make up for the fact that we sat out the Iraq war - is disturbing, and not just because it suggests a colonial mentality. It also suggests that, for the sake of enhancing our leverage in a trade relationship, we are willing to participate in a war to which we are not connected, and in which there is no evidence that we are making anything better in that country and very possibly making things worse. It suggests that in order to smooth relations with Washington, we are killing people in Afghanistan and handing others over to torture.

McQuaig writes about the Canadian defence industry, and its behind-the-scenes pressure to move the military away from priorities of peacekeeping and internationalism, towards an aggressive, US-based orientation.

All this suggests the rise of a mini Canadian military-industrial complex. The Canadian defence industry is actually relatively small. There are some 1,500 companies involved to some extent in arms production, mostly in building components for US weapons systems. A handful of these companies - including CAE, General Dynamics and Bombardier - dominate the industry and get the lion's share of Canada's military contracts. Altogether, the industry generates revenues in the range of $7 billion a year. But its influence is multiplied well beyond this by its close cooperation with the Canadian military, as well as with prominent military-funded think tanks. The result is an influential bloc promoting ever-greater government spending on the military.

The development of a strong defence economy can have important consequences, creating a dynamic for an ever-expanding military. If the number of companies - and citizens - involved in weapons production and the military is significant, they become a potent force politically, pushing for ever more military expansion. Once the nation's economic growth becomes closely tied to military spending, that creates a pressure for ever more military spending, to keep the economy buoyant. This economic dynamic, sometimes called "military Keynesianism," means that the nation's economic well-being becomes integrally connected to high levels of military spending. When this happens, military spending takes on a life of its own, disconnected from the country's actual military needs. What happens if the military threat to the nation declines? The military budget won't necessarily decline, because that would threaten the interests of a sizable sector of the economy - a sector that will use its considerable political clout to prevent a spending reduction.

[Thus when the Soviet Union collapsed, eliminating the decades-long justification for massive military spending in the US, the citizens of the US never benefited from that elusive "peace dividend". Instead, a new enemy was presented to us. Exit communism, enter terrorism. For more on this, see the movie "Why We Fight".]

Helping the US militarily isn't the only way that Canada "holds the bully's coat". McQuaig points to Canada's often obstructionist environmental policies - on the Kyoto Protocols, the export of asbestos, bottom trawling, the human right to clean water and of course on the oil sands. Did you know Canada continues to be one of the world's leading exporters of asbestos, a deadly toxin, with almost all of its exports going to developing countries, where standards for use are poor or not enforced? Every member of the European Union and Australia support adding asbestos to the treaties that restrict trade in toxic substances. Canada continues to lobby against the ban.

And again, it doesn't appear that the Conservatives are very different than the Liberals on these issues. Whether or not the next Liberal government will reverse that trend remains to be seen, but so far, Liberal policies on the environment have been window dressing, inaction, or obstruction.

Tomorrow, I will post a lengthy, stand-alone excerpt from Holding the Bully's Coat, about war and its abolition.

I'm now reading Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow - America's Century of Regime Change, often recommended by wmtc readers. I've just started it and am already completely engrossed.

happy birthday to me

I have been alive on this planet 47 years today. The number is shocking to me, but I'm damn glad to be here. (I feel like quoting Keith, happy to be anywhere.)

Because of work schedules, we celebrated yesterday. And because of wmtc3 and our upcoming Newfoundland trip, I hadn't thought about planning anything. So we went with what's become our favourite Toronto place to celebrate, Jamie Kennedy Wine Bar.

If you like small plates or tapas-style eating, and you like a stylish wine bar atmosphere and excellent service, this place is tops. They also use almost all local ingredients and work with Canadian food artisans, with superb results. This restaurant is also home to one of Toronto's great food finds: the Yukon Gold frites, a generous cone of the best French fries you will ever eat for a mere five bucks. (I noticed I blogged about Jamie Kennedy Wine Bar on two other birthdays, both mine and Allan's!)

After enjoying several small plates of deliciousness with several small glasses of wine, we drove out to Scarborough and took a walk on the Lake in Bluffer's Park. We hadn't been there yet, and it's a beautiful park. Is there a way to walk on the cliffs, above the park? We didn't see any access.

On the road where The Beaches turns into Scarborough are a lot of sad-looking businesses and many empty storefronts. I wondered if some big development is in the works; so many unrented stores often points to that. Also, who stays at all those cheap motels? The old motel strip in Etobicoke, not far from where we used to live in Port Credit, is all closed now. But the ones in Scarborough are all open for business. There are at least a dozen of them.

Today I'm spending a quiet day at home, reading and blogging. Allan's still sleeping, so I haven't seen any presents yet, but I know they're in the works.

question about eating locally

Many of us, myself included, are trying to buy and eat more locally grown and produced food. I'm not attaching myself to any set plan, such as the now-popular 100 Mile Diet, as that strikes me as yet another "how to eat" book, albeit one with a social conscience. But it is something I'm trying to work more into my life, and I'm looking for ways to expand on the theme.

But some things don't make sense to me. If you are really sticking to an all-local diet, what do you do in the winter? Do you can and preserve fruits and vegetables during the warmer months, for winter consumption? That's something that most modern people are not going to do. In my own life, I can put that aside in the "not going to happen" category.

Do you not eat fruits and vegetables all winter? That wouldn't be a very healthful eating plan. Our ancestors might have "put up" fruits and vegetables, but they also didn't eat a balanced diet.

Even in the warmer months, there are foods we North Americans grew up eating that have never been local. I'm not thinking of foods once considered exotic that are now available in supermarkets everywhere. I'm thinking of foods we've always considered ordinary in my lifetime and my mother's, such as oranges.

In the northern latitudes, will you give up eating citrus fruit? Inland, will you not eat seafood? While I very much intend to eat more locally - and I've been trying, on a small scale - these are changes I would not make, as they would be so personally unhealthy.

One of my nieces is an organic/conscious-eating chef, and is learning about working in the farm-to-table movement. But she lives in California. It's easy to cook and eat locally there; in fact, that's a primary reason she close to live there. Living in Ontario, how could I possibly eat locally, and healthfully, in the winter?

If there's some basic tenet I'm missing, please forgive my ignorance, and educate me and other readers.

Allan and I are out today, so comments will sit in moderation for a while, but we'll get them through as soon as we can. Thanks in advance.

horse slaughter in canada

I've been reading about horse slaughter in Canada for a while now. After much pressure from activists, the US outlawed the slaughter of horses in March of 2007. Immediately after, the same people began to ship horses to Canada for slaughter.

The animals are transported under brutal conditions - why would you spend money on the comfort of a creature you're about to kill? - then slaughtered under terrifying conditions. Their meat is then exported to countries where horse meat is consumed. These animals were not raised for meat; humane slaughter, if one believes such a thing is possible, has not been designed for them.

Today CBC News has this story.

A CBC News investigation into the horse slaughter industry in Canada, including hidden-camera footage from one slaughterhouse in Saskatchewan, is raising questions about how horses are being killed.

The footage, obtained from the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition but shot by an unidentified videographer, documents slaughter practices at Natural Valley Farms in Neudorf, just east of Regina. It appears to show what anti-animal cruelty activists say is the inhumane treatment of horses.

A vet from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is posted at the plant but doesn't appear on the footage to have done anything to stop the practices.

Many of the horses slated for slaughter are race or workhorses no longer fit for their former jobs, or unwanted pets. The horses are shipped to any one of seven slaughterhouses in Canada from the U.S. The meat is sent to parts of Europe and Asia where it is considered a delicacy.

Horse slaughter businesses in Canada have grown by 75 per cent since laws were passed in the United States in 2006 making it illegal to kill horses for food, according to figures from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It is still legal to ship horses outside the country for slaughter.

John Holland, an engineer from West Virginia, was one of those responsible for getting the slaughter ban passed in the U.S.

"Those people have simply moved over to your border," he told CBC News. "So Canada is basically being used to get around the fact that we don't want our horses slaughtered."

One of the arguments Holland and others used in advocating for the ban on horse slaughter was that it is extremely difficult to slaughter horses humanely.

Experts such as Dr. Temple Grandin, an American professor who has designed dozens of slaughter facilities in the U.S., said it is possible to deliver a humane death if the right slaughter infrastructure is in place.

The key to humane horse slaughter is a stunning box, or kill pen, that is designed specifically for horses and high enough so the animals cannot see over the side in order to contain their large bodies, Grandin said. Non-slip flooring is also essential.

"Animals panic when they start to slip. People need to be calm. No whistling, no yelling, no hitting and you can do it where they can just walk right in," Grandin, who did not review the hidden-camera footage from Natural Valley Farms in Neudorf, told CBC.

A veterinarian who did see the footage said the kill pen being used at Natural Valley was designed for cattle, not horses.

Dr. Nicholas Dodman, a professor of veterinary medicine at Tufts University in Medford, Mass., and a founding member of Veterinarians for Equine Welfare, said the pens at the farm are too large.

He said the pens allow the horses space to move around and back away from the captive bolt operator responsible for shooting them with a device called a captive bolt pistol, sometimes referred to as a bolt or cattle gun, which is used to stun horses before slaughter.

The footage shows the operator is not always able to stun the horses properly to render them fully unconscious before they are slaughtered by slitting of the throat, Dodman said.

The footage also showed horses slipping on the kill pen floor, which appeared extremely slippery.

"Its legs are spinning around; it's like it's on ice. The legs are just spinning around in circles, it's trying to go backwards, it's trying to go forwards — it's just sheer terror, sheer panic," Dodman said of a horse on the videotape.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency allows for about five per cent of animals to wake up during the slaughter process. But in the worst cases, the horses are incorrectly shot, usually as a result of struggling, Dodman said.

"There are parts of the animal that are still moving that let you know that for at while at least, it's conscious," he said.

Twyla Francois, central region director of the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition, said she is trying to raise awareness among horse owners who don't realize the horses they take to auction could end up at slaughter.

In the 10 to 12 hours of hidden-camera footage she watched, a CFIA inspector was never present at the kill pen, Francois said, despite government regulations that require a vet from the agency be present to oversee the slaughter process at the plant.

The CBC left repeated phone messages at the plant that weren't returned. Requests for an interview with someone from the organization that represents the horse slaughter industry were turned down.

Two months after CBC News filmed compost heaps at the facility from outside the property, the hidden camera operator returned to the compost area to find large exposed mounds of horse remains dumped in a field that were not covered, as required under Saskatchewan environment ministry regulation.

When CBC reporters arrived at Natural Valley Farms to speak to the man who runs the operation, Ken Pillar, he also refused a request for an interview and a tour of the plant. But he did say that the facility follows all regulations.

"We have trained and went through every possible thing to unload horses carefully. They are euthanized here in a perfect manner, as humanely as possible," Pillar said.

The CFIA said it has investigated complaints about the plant in the past, but never found any problems.

One scene from the video footage shows a stun gun operator repeatedly hitting an unco-operative horse with a stick. There was also evidence horses had been transported with their horseshoes still on, which violates regulations, unless the animals are separated in the truck, because the horses could hurt each other.

In accepting the hidden camera footage, CBC agreed not to contact government officials for comment until after the footage was released publicly.

Full disclosure time. I eat meat. I care about animals. And I know there's a contradiction inherent in those two statements. After being a vegetarian for a few years, then returning to being an omnivore, I've decided to live with the contradiction.

I want all animals to be treated as humanely as possible, including ones that are raised and killed for meat. I believe humans, being animals ourselves, have a right to eat other animals, but I also believe we have a responsibility to minimize the damage we do.

Animal activists in the US were able to change laws to protect horses. I hope Canadian animal activists can do the same.

more stories on war resisters

Here's a small round-up of some recent stories on Iraq War resisters in Canada, in addition to what I've already posted.

Toronto Star columnist Joe Fiorito supports Corey Glass's right to remain in Canada, and Juana Tejada's. Tejada is originally from the Philippines. She has been living and working legally in Canada since 2003. Now, ill with cancer, she is being deported.

Fiorito seems very optimistic that Corey and other resisters will not be deported. I can only hope he's right.

These two pieces in neighbourhood Toronto papers spotlight Corey Glass and his fellow resister Chuck Wiley. We've had a lot of press like this, in small papers from wherever resisters are living. Even in generally conservative areas - Kingston, Sudbury, Simcoe, Owen Sound - the media has been extremely supportive.

There also has been a lot of French-language coverage in Quebec, and several local and national radio stories.

The Guardian (UK) ran this piece. It concludes:

Opposition MP Olivia Chow, who introduced a motion calling on the government to allow Glass and others to stay, said: "The government had to listen, even though they didn't want to in the beginning," she said. "Canadian values haven't changed that much in terms of we are a peaceful country and we want to allow people that would be deported to jail to stay in Canada."

But the citizenship and immigration minister, Diane Finlay [sic], said Stephen Harper's administration would not be swayed by emotional pleas. "The emotion in the House does not change the law in the country."

Ms. Finley, the laws in Canada are supposed to be made by people. And the people, through their elected representatives, have already spoken. They said: Let Them Stay.

What you dismiss as "the emotion in the House" is called democracy.

summer in toronto, spring in newfoundland

I happened to notice a national weather broadcast on CBC the other day. Reading west to east, it went something like this.
Vancouver 22
Calgary 23
Regina 20
Winnipeg 25
Toronto 28
Montreal 23
Halifax 18
St. John's 7

Whoa. Everyone has told me that June is not yet summer in Newfoundland, but looking at the difference was still starling. Here's the forecast in three Newfoundland towns we'll visit.

St. John's
Today 7
Thurs 11
Fri 6
Sat 7
Sun 8

Twillingate
Today 10
Thurs 12
Fri 6
Sat 7
Sun 8
Monday 9

Deer Lake
Today 23
Thurs 18
Fri 11
Sat 12
Sun 15
Mon 13
Tues 12

Lucky for us we don't like hot weather! A Campaigner friend who grew up in Grand Falls says they refer to a brief period in July as "summer week".

We leave Tuesday.

PS: US friends, I'm not bothering with conversions anymore. This is a good site if you need help.

letter exchange on war resisters in toronto star

From this week's Toronto Star, first, we have this:

In defence of the United States
Re: MPs vote to give asylum to U.S. military deserters

As a retired U.S. army officer, I can no longer remain silent while apologists for Iraq war deserters accuse my country of war crimes and denigrate our armed forces. I would remind them that the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were reported by a soldier, just as the massacre at My Lai in Vietnam was reported to an army chaplain by a soldier.

In war, just as in civilian society, people may commit crimes. However, it is not the policy of the U.S. or its army to violate the Geneva or Hague conventions. I have taught the "law of war" to many soldiers, and I can tell you that they are taught to disobey any order that they believe to be illegal or immoral. This training works: Our soldiers do refuse illegal or immoral orders, and they do report violations of the law of war.

The deserters from the U.S. army were not draftees; they were volunteers. They joined the army of their own free will. These people who have come to Canada are not heroes. It is moral and physical cowardice masquerading as principle. The only "asylum" they should be granted is at the U.S. military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Do not embrace these fugitives from justice. I can guarantee you this: If Canada were attacked, these deserters would desert you, too.

James R. Reese, Major, U.S. Army (Ret.), Toronto

Can you spot the holes in this man's reasoning? I mean the holes big enough to drive a Humvee through? These five Canadians did!

James R. Reese, a retired U.S. army major, writes, "I can no longer remain silent while apologists for Iraq war deserters accuse my country of war crimes and denigrate our armed forces."

In what appears to be a feeble attempt to put a positive spin on two dark points in U.S. history, he argues that the abuses at both Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and My Lai in Vietnam were reported by soldiers. He fails to note, however, that both of these heinous events were perpetrated by U.S. soldiers.

Reese also notes that "it is not the policy of the U.S. or its army to violate the Geneva or Hague conventions." Sure, while it may not be a formal policy to violate either of these noted conventions, they are being violated just the same. Consider extraordinary rendition and waterboarding.

Finally, he says, "The deserters from the U.S. army were not draftees; they were volunteers. They joined the army of their own free will. These people who have come to Canada are not heroes."

The argument that current U.S. deserters are professional soldiers and not draftees has been uttered many times by people who hold viewpoints similar to those of Reese. However, the argument is largely irrelevant. If a war is illegal and unjust, it is illegal and unjust to all aggressors, not just to those who didn't volunteer.

Reese is fully within his rights to consider U.S. military deserters as cowards, but he is wrong to imply that the U.S. always takes the moral high road. It clearly doesn't.

R. Glenn McGillivray, Oakville

Retired U.S. army major James R. Reese says he is opposed to Canada granting asylum to U.S. military deserters. He also states that he has taught the "law of war" to many soldiers, and that they are taught to disobey any order that they believe to be "illegal or immoral."

With that reasoning, all of the U.S. armed forces deployed in Iraq would have been fully justified in laying down their arms and deserting once they realized that the war had been waged on spurious grounds and was deemed illegal by the United Nations.

Mohamed M. Jagani, Markham

As a retired officer of the U.S. army, a force guilty of documented excesses and various corrupt and illegal acts, James R. Reese is hardly qualified to lecture Canadians on morality and justice. And if "it is not the policy of the U.S. or its army to violate the Geneva or Hague conventions," perhaps he can explain why U.S. troops are in Iraq under false pretenses, killing, maiming and torturing innocent citizens.

Our Prime Minister may do as he's told, but for now, Canadians are still free to think for themselves.

Randy Gostlin, Oshawa

Retired U.S. army officer James R. Reese states that U.S. soldiers are taught to "disobey any order that they believe to be illegal or immoral." If this is the case, all U.S. military personnel should have refused to take part in the Iraq war, which is illegal and immoral.

Unlike Reese, I believe that those soldiers who decided not to participate in this war and have taken refuge in this country should be supported by Canada and given the chance to stay here.

Ramin Farsangi, Innisfil, Ont.

I wonder if James R. Reese, a retired major in the U.S. army, would consider an order to wage an illegal war based on distorted intelligence and false premises grounds for disobeying orders. He then says, "If Canada were attacked, these deserters would desert you, too."

I wonder if Reese could let us know when Iraq attacked the United States. I would remind him that his country was the last to attack Canada. (We won that one.)

Howard Kaplan, Toronto

Terrific letters! Perhaps you will take a minute and write one of your own.

an apology, a shame, a crime, a genocide

Tomorrow is an important day for many First Nations people in Canada, as Stephen Harper, on behalf of the country, apologizes to Canada's aboriginal people for the horror that is euphemistically known as "residential schools". I think "concentration camps" is more appropriate.

As in Australia, Sweden, and several other countries*, aboriginal children in Canada were forcibly removed from their homes and sent to boarding schools, where they were forbidden to use their own languages, practice their own religions or cultural traditions, and were forced to assimilate into the culture of their oppressors.

As if this wasn't bad enough, many of them were horrifically abused - physically, sexually and emotionally. Like abused children everywhere, these victims were wholly dependent on their abusers, and so entirely helpless.

Many died from preventable diseases, spread by overcrowding, lack of sanitation and neglect. The deaths of sick or abused children were covered up; many were buried in unmarked, mass graves.

These concentration camps were run by various mainstream churches, beginning in the early and mid 19th Century; the last church-run school didn't shut its doors until Native peoples forced its closure in the 1970s. Through the 1970s, management of the remaining schools was assumed by Native councils. The widespread abuse was uncovered and made public by activists in the 1990s.

This is surely one of Canada's most terrible legacies and greatest shames.

That sentence is so pale. It feels impossible to articulate how disgusting and shameful this is. It is vitally important to acknowledge and always remember these human-rights crimes, perpetrated by governments and churches, right here in Canada. And to never forget what is happening now, in our own backyard.

* * * *

From Wikipedia:

In 1998, the government made a Statement of Reconciliation – including an apology to those people who were sexually or physically abused while attending residential schools – and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. The Foundation was provided $350 million to fund community-based healing projects focusing on addressing the legacy of Indian residential schools. In its 2005 budget, the government committed an additional $40 million to continue to support the important work of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

In June 2001, the Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada (IRSRC) emerged as a new department of the federal government. Its mission is to address the legacy of the residential schools system and its effects on former students by providing alternative means of compensation and support to the victims.

In the fall of 2003, after some pilot projects launched since 1999, the Alternative Dispute Resolution process or "ADR" was launched. The ADR was a process outside of court providing compensation and psychological support for former students of residential schools who were physically or sexually abused or were in situations of wrongful confinement.

On November 23, 2005, the Canadian government announced a $1.9 billion compensation package to benefit tens of thousands of survivors of abuse at native residential schools. National Chief Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of First Nations said the package covers, "decades in time, innumerable events and countless injuries to First Nations individuals and communities." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler called the decision to house young Canadians in church-run residential schools "the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act in our history." At a news conference in Ottawa, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said: "We have made good on our shared resolve to deliver what I firmly believe will be a fair and lasting resolution of the Indian school legacy."

This compensation package became a Settlement Agreement in May 2006. It proposes, among other things, some funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, for commemoration and for a "Truth and Reconciliation" program in aboriginal communities, as well as an individual Common Experience Payment. Any person that can be verified as attending a federally run Indian residential school in Canada is entitled to this Common Experience Payment. The amount of compensation is based on the number of years attended by a particular former student of residential schools: $10,000 for the first year attended plus $3,000 for every year attended thereafter.

The Settlement Agreement also proposed an advance payment for former students alive and who are 65 years old and over as of May 30, 2005. The eligible former students had to fill out the advance payment form available for download on the IRSRC website to receive $8,000 that was deducted from the Common Experience Payment. The deadline for reception of the advance payment form by IRSRC was December 31, 2006.

Following a legal process including an examination of the Settlement Agreement by the courts of the provinces and territories of Canada, an "opt-out" period occurred. During this time, the former students of residential schools could reject the agreement if they did not agree with its dispositions. This opt-out period ended on August 20, 2007.

The Common Experience Payment became available to all the former students of residential schools on September 19, 2007. All former students (including those 65 years of age and over as of May 30, 2005) have to fill out the Common Experience Payment application form to receive their full compensation. The deadline to apply for the CEP is September 19, 2011. This gives former Indian Residential School students four years from the implementation date of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement to apply for the Common Experience Payment (CEP).

Similar forced residential boarding schools for native communities were operated in the United States (under the name Indian boarding schools) and in Australia (the Stolen Generation).

In June 21, 2008, the Indian Residential School Museum of Canada is scheduled to open on Long Plain First Nation, near Portage La Prairie, Manitoba.

Tomorrow's apology by Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to be lengthy and detailed. Nothing can change the past, but a full accounting by the perpetrator can help heal wounds. In this case, the perpetrator is an entire country, and someone has to speak for it.

CBC's FAQ page on residential schools, including video.

An abstract of a paper called Schooling As Genocide by two Swedish scholars.

Plans for the Residential School Museum

The Legacy of Hope Foundation, "healing the legacy of residential schools".

If you haven't seen the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence," about forced-assimilation schools in Australia, I highly recommend it. The film features aboriginal actors and survivors of these concentration camps, and the DVD has lots of very good extras about the history and how the film was made.


------
* There were forced-assimilation schools in the US, but the US's methods of dealing with its "Indian problem" was quicker and more direct: outright massacre, then complete neglect of the survivors.

u.s. plan to control iraq through the 21st century

To everyone who is excited about the Democrats, I wish you good luck. For my part, four stolen elections (two presidential, two midterms) plus an enormous expansion of executive power equals the junta's not going anywhere. People don't drastically change a legal and legislative framework to give themselves unchecked power, then turn that power over to someone else. Never mind that "someone else" is a liberal black man!

I'll be beyond happy to be wrong. I'll be ecstatic. I'll be immensely relieved. I hate the Democrats - they are at least half the reason the US is in the shape it's in - but I'll be glad to see an actual election and a change of administration. I'll also be very surprised.

Here's another scrap to throw on my evidence heap.

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region.

More here.

kevin brooker of calgary herald: do the canadian thing, let them stay

From Calgary Herald columnist Kevin Brooker:

"Bittersweet" was how many news accounts described last week's parliamentary vote on whether or not Canada should offer asylum to Americans who deserted their military service rather than fight in Iraq.

On one hand, the NDP-sponsored motion to grant permanent residency to otherwise non-criminal deserters and their families -- or as many prefer to call them, war resisters -- passed by a vote of 137-110. Since the motion was non-binding, however, the Conservatives who represented that minority are expected to do nothing to implement it.

Yet there was much more bitterness than honey in that outcome, as far as I could see. I have strong feelings about the shameful abdication from Canada's traditional approach, and many of them are deeply personal. More about those in a moment.

There are many outward reasons why granting sanctuary to an estimated 200 former soldiers should be an automatic gesture for Canada. Foremost is the simple fact that the United Nations itself, not to mention enlightened voices around the world, declared the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to be a violation of the UN charter. It also would support the Nuremberg Principles, which compel a soldier to withdraw from military acts, like this one, which are patently illegal.

Second, the ultimate penalty for the crime of desertion from U.S. military service is execution, although that has apparently never occurred in the modern era. Still, Canada normally denies extradition for convicted murderers if they are sought by a death-penalty state. I would suggest that these soldiers are even more deserving of our reprieve.

Third, there are indications that many soldiers were fraudulently inducted into service. Conservative opponents of asylum like Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn have been quick to point out that the U.S. army is an all-volunteer service. "People do not join with their eyes closed," Hawn said in the House of Commons. "If they do, then they have their own problems."

In fact, young men have reported that during the post-Mission-Accomplished period, if not up until today, chummy military recruiters routinely said things like, "Dude, don't worry about going to Iraq. That's over and done with. You won't be seeing any combat."

But let me explain why I'm so incensed by the Tories and their leader, Stephen Harper, a man who claimed Canada made a mistake by not joining the coalition of the strong-armed in 2003.

I refer to the era of the Vietnam war, when Pierre Trudeau personally sparked the compassion which led to Canada welcoming some 50,000 to 80,000 young American draft-avoiders.

I would never have met my partner, a wonderfully principled woman, had she not fled the U.S. with her fiance back in 1971. They arrived at our border on a cold, rainy night in a state of dull terror, on little more than the strength of a rumour that Canada would welcome them. She still emotionally recalls the female customs agent in Creston, B.C., who went out of her way to comfort the young couple.

She wound up staying in Canada as a single mother, put herself through school, and became a therapist and counsellor. For the last three decades, she has offered comfort and advice to thousands of grateful Calgarians.

Like most of her cohorts, she brought sterling qualities to this country. Without the imaginative contributions of those draft evaders -- as academics, founders of theatres, filmmakers, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, social workers and many other vital occupations -- Canada would be inestimably worse off.

The argument that, this time around we would simply be importing cowards is a ridiculous one. If granted reprieve, these young people, like their earlier counterparts did even after President Jimmy Carter amnestied them in 1977, would suffer gravely the loss of their country. As for a potential opening of the floodgates, that alone makes it highly unlikely.

Mr. Harper, it's time to set aside your kowtowing to hawkish U.S. interests and do the right thing. The Canadian thing.

corey glass safe for one more month, but our fight continues

Corey Glass, the Iraq War resister whose deportation is pending, is free to live in Canada for at least one more month. A long appeals process has been going on in court, and it was finally accepted last Friday.

But the fight to keep Corey and all the Iraq War resisters safe in Canada continues. We need to keep the issue visible. Your calls to the Prime Minister's office and to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, your letters to the editor in newspapers, and phone calls to your own MPs are vital.

From today's Toronto Star (emphasis added):

He was told to have his bags packed by this Thursday, but it appears U.S. war resister Corey Glass will remain in Canada for at least another month.

Initially ordered to leave the country by June 12, Glass's departure date has been extended to July 10, after a month-long appeal process by his lawyer was finally approved last week.

The former American soldier was set to become the first Iraq-war resister to be deported from Canada, after his application for refugee status was rejected more than two weeks ago.

Glass said his lawyer put forward the appeal so he would have sufficient time to properly settle his accounts and allow him to leave his job in a professional manner.

This week, all three opposition parties in the House of Commons passed a motion urging the government to allow U.S. military deserters and their families to remain in Canada as permanent residents – instead of deporting them to face possible jail time. The motion passed 137-110, but it is non-binding and the government can choose to ignore it.

The motion that was passed in parliament had nothing to do with Glass's extension.

New Democrat MP Olivia Chow (Trinity-Spadina), who brought the conscientious objector's motion forward, says Glass's extended stay is an opportunity for people to speak out, and ensure war resisters like Glass are not sent to prison.

In the late '80s, the Canadian government was planning to deport Vietnam draft dodgers and war resistors, Chow said.

"There was a huge outrage – it was phenomenal," she said.

That public outcry moved the government to reverse its decision, Chow said, adding it's the kind of response needed to ensure sanctuary for the estimated 100-plus American war resisters currently in Canada.

Through the counsel of his lawyer, Glass says he is planning to file for a three-year temporary resident visa, which may buy enough time for the outcome of the coming U.S. election to possibly change the consequences he will face at home. When he returns to the U.S., Glass will face jail time – a reality, he says, that will make his life a permanent struggle.

"I probably won't be able to get a job. I'll have a felony charge – I won't be able to vote," he said.

Glass said Wednesday's motion, and word that he'd been given an extra month in Canada, boosted his optimism.

"I feel like things are maybe going to turn around for the best," Glass said. "People are working really hard on this. I hope they'll be successful."

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley
613.996.4974
finley.d@parl.gc.ca / finled1@parl.gc.ca

Prime Minister Stephen Harper
613.992.4211
pm@pm.gc.ca

Letters to your local newspaper, the Globe and Mail, the CBC, CTV and other media outlets are very helpful, too.

canada a.m. this morning

Don't forget, watch TV this morning if you can.

There's also an online poll about the war resisters on the CTV website. Please take a minute to show your support.

us govt makes an honest move: quits human rights council

From another wmtc reader:

The news that the US has completely withdrawn from the Human Rights Council spread like wildfire Friday afternoon (June 6) through the corridors of the Palais des Nations in Geneva. There was general consternation amongst diplomats and NGOS. Reached by phone, the American mission in Geneva neither confirmed nor denied the report. Although unofficial, the news comes at a time of long opposition by the Bush administration to the reforms which created the Human Rights Council in June 2006. Washington announced from the beginning that the US would not be an active member but its observer status would mean that it could intervene during the sessions. To date even this has rarely happened.

. . .

Human Rights Watch is still worried about the withdrawal. "The message is worrying", says Sebastien Gillioz. "Ever since September 11, 2001, the US has constantly interpreted international standards in an "a la carte" manner that has eroded human rights. Its behaviour has served as an example to a stream of states, including Pakistan, Egypt and other, who are not embarrassed to review human rights standards on homosexuality, abortion, capital punishment. It is a step backwards."

The US government has no business sitting on any international body that has anything to do with human rights. This could be the most honest move the junta ever makes.