ssod

Search string of the day:

odds of cheney war crimes indictment

Zero!

standard operating procedure

Have you seen this movie?

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

Allan is watching it downstairs right now.

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

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

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

My taxes used to pay for that torture.

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

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

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

These are the people who followed orders.

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

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

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

It breaks my heart.

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

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

* * * *

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

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

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

the wild among us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The remaining option was euthanasia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Sudbury Star.

Deserters have a right to stay in Canada

by Paul Copeland

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

All these statements are false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what canada is fighting for in afghanistan

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

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

Now about those Afghan women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai would not comment.

thank your m.p. for voting for war resisters

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

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

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

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

thoughts on recession, socialism and me, part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Chantal Sundaram:

How do workers fight back in a recession?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Carolyn Egan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

heather mallick: free speech does not exist in this hamster country

From CBC's Heather Mallick.

The bold, relentless, in-your-face-and up-your-nose, five-times-elected British MP George Galloway is a Scot.

He was coming to Canada to make a speech. The Harper government will not let this Scot across the border.

I never thought I would see the day when such a travesty would take place in a country as supposedly open as Canada.

Have we forgotten also that this country was largely built by 19th century Scots, those champions of banking and public schools.

I assume they were looking for a climate more challenging than the cold relentless sleet of their notoriously comfortable homeland, a landscape more alienating than the Hebrides, a cuisine more excruciating than toothsome haggis.

If you've ever eaten moose meat, you'll know that the Scottish settlers found it a laudable meat. Sturdy food, that's what Scots like. These are people who toss cabers, trunks of small trees, for sport. There's no profit in it, no point. It's painful. That's why they do it.

The Canadian character is Scottish (Margaret Atwood extracted a whole book from this, which she called Survival) and French. (If we Canadians have any joie de vivre, it's in Montreal, and you know that's true.)

Don't mess with Scotland

Scots are implacable. You do not mess with them. The American government happily let Galloway in to speak his mind and what a fertile fierce eccentric mind it is.

I could listen to Galloway all night. He's practically Shakespearean in his fierceness and perfect phrasing. He's like Tony Benn (another troublesome British politician of the left) whose oratory was so valued that it was actually released on CD with an ambient soundtrack.

I listen to it at night sometimes. How these Brits can talk.

But the Canadian government will not let this type of person in to speak. What type, you ask?

Another clever Brit, the polymath Stephen Fry, calls them the QIs. It stands for Quite Interesting. It is a category that includes The Literate, The Talkers, the people with a sense of humour who add gaiety to our increasingly grunted national discussion.

Banning this argumentative, energizing Scot will make Canada look even more like what we are rapidly becoming: a hamster of a country, petting and fattening its dullness, silencing dissent, mocking artists, musicians and anyone who's creative, or odd, or not entirely mainstream.

Governments with tidying, controlling tendencies are fanatical about two things: borders and loose talk. Travel and chatter — these are the things that make the right wing nervous.

The more they praise free speech, the more you come to realize that they detest it and would in fact like to put a pillow over your face, right there in airport Customs.

People banning

The Jewish Defence League of Canada is boasting about having sparked the government into barring Galloway from Canada.

People banning? In my Canadian way, this strikes me as not really something to boast about.

"This is not about free speech," spokesman, Meir Weinstein told a British TV interviewer in a riveting YouTube video.

Galloway, Weinstein claims, has been supporting terrorists by attempting to bring humanitarian aid to ravaged Gaza and by donating money to the Palestinian leadership of democratically elected Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization in Canada.

The JDL "lit a fire" in the Jewish community to contact the federal government and begin a campaign against Galloway's visit, Weinstein told reporters. And sure enough, the Scot was banned.

Weinstein went on. "We will be looking into these organizations that have invited them and their links to terrorists as well."

Galloway's response was that one of the churches that invited him would be interested to know that. Nice touch, George.

Gorgeous George

Given Galloway's supposed "links," it's odd then that the British House of Commons still allows him to enter the room.

In Britain, he is known as "Gorgeous George" because he dresses so well, which may say something about Brit politicians' fashion sense that this is considered remarkable. I mean, Brits are pretty clever but they're often a sartorial shambles; they can look like their mother still dresses them.

Governments who ban free speech thrive in somnolent rodent nations. The U.S. government, in the pre-Obama era, refused to let in Cat Stevens, a.k.a. Yusuf Islam. That inspired protests from the (pro-Bush) Tony Blair government, which rather liked its British singer/songwriter turned Muslim peacemaker.

In the McCarthy era, the U.S. government let an outspoken Brit into the country — the anti-Nazi Jessica Mitford, niece of Winston Churchill. But when she became an earnest Communist, the authorities refused to let her leave for some strange reason.

Martha Stewart, a felon, was briefly barred from entering Canada in 2005, lest she abuse free speech by introducing us to her frittata recipe, which I would like to say, frankly, needs some refining.

Free speech does not exist in this hamster country. I, for instance, cannot speak about the value of English literature at a university campus in Alberta because anti-abortionists dislike my pro-choice views and promise to riot over my presence, harming donations.

But if those same anti-abortionists are told that they cannot go on campuses and graphically liken women who have abortions to Nazi killers, then they complain that their "free speech" is being curtailed. Jeez, I only wanted to talk about the gently subversive novels of Barbara Pym and her touting the benefits of hot milky drinks at bedtime. But my feminist views apparently contaminate my speech, which must be cancelled. Fine, whatever.

Because of these experiences, I have learned to distrust anyone who uses the phrase free speech as a weapon to attack others. They want speech to be free when it is theirs alone.

Free speech is no longer a cause. It is a weapon used against those who wish to speak by those who don't wish to let others hear it.

I wish to hear Galloway speak and not only because he speaks so well. I am ashamed of what this country is turning into, a humourless place that celebrates unreason and the subtraction of ancient freedoms.

george galloway: watch last night's speech now

Do you have plans this evening? Here's something to do.

George Galloway addresses Toronto, March 30, 2009

Many thanks to Rabble for making this available!

house of commons vote on war resisters and galloway event, continued

We got to the Metropolitan United Church, where Galloway was supposed to speak, just before the vote in the House of Commons was set to take place. We were hoping to watch CPAC on a laptop at War Resister Support Campaign information table, but the wireless connection had been shut off as the organizers prepared for the webcast.

A Campaign friend stuck at work put her cell phone near her computer, and we gathered around another friend's cell on speakerphone. Four or five of us were huddled around the iPhone when someone ran over to tell us the vote was being projected on a big screen for the whole church!

Just in time for the start of the vote, we ran in, and everyone who was early to the Galloway talk watched it together. I think most people didn't know what was being voted on and why we were watching.

The vote was called, and the "yea"s came in. Everyone who was present from all three opposition parties stood.

When the yes votes were finished, Allan said he had been counting, and there were 129. 129?? We were horrified. That's way too close. I asked, Is it possible you're off by 10 votes? Please let that be the case.

Then it got really nerve-wracking. My heart was absolutely pounding while the Conservatives were voting. Campaigners later told me they thought we had lost. And then, finally, the tally: 129 for, 125 against.

We won.

We won!

Again!

Now the House of Commons has voted twice - once on June 3, 2008 and again on March 30, 2009 - to Let Them Stay.

A Campaigner announced from the podium what the vote had been for, and the crowd erupted in cheers. Unfortunately, he had to explain that the vote was non-binding, but nonetheless an important victory.

We were hugging and crying - seems like I write that every-other day! - with relief. Honestly, I was sitting and listening to the first speakers before it sunk in that we had actually won.

James Clark, from Toronto Coalition to Stop the War - who George Galloway singled out as an "organizational genius" - took the podium, and two speakers later, I realized I was so caught up in the moment that I hadn't been taking notes.

Rev. John-Joseph Mastandrea, a minister from the Metropolitan United Church, welcomed us and talked about the church's long history of activism and community-building.

Rafeef Ziadah, a Palestinian-Canadian activist, brought us up to date on attempts to silence Israeli Apartheid Week and pro-Palestinian activism on campuses. She gave an inspiring rallying cry about the strength and resiliency of her people all over the globe.

Sandra Ruch, a Canadian woman with Independent Jewish Voices, told us about her journey to Gaza with Code Pink. They're going again on May 22 if you want to join them.

Hamid Osman, a York University student organizer and activist expounded on the meaning of the slogan "Education, Not Occupation," itemizing what could be done in Canada with the money wasted on needless military spending.

And Ali Mallaha, a stalwart of many peace and justice movements, pulled it all together, railing about the hypocrisy of the Harper government for banning George Galloway from Canada: "Last time I checked, giving humanitarian aid to suffering people was not an act of terrorism!" I was so pleased to hear another bit of hypocrisy called out: after Jason Kenney cut funds from the Canadian Arab Federation's ESL program, he announced that immigrants who don't speak either English or French "well enough" should not gain citizenship!

James Clark returned to the podium to remind everyone of the April 4 global day of action, and to introduce the "ban-breaking broadcast," the speech Jason Kenney didn't want you to hear, now being beamed into 20 cities around Canada and the world.

Then there was George Galloway.

He congratulated Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney on failing spectacularly, as hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands, so many more people than we ever would have imagined, would now hear his talk.

Galloway promised Canadians: "I'm on standby. The minute you think this ban can be broken, I'll grab my toothbrush and head to Heathrow Airport, and fly straight to Toronto," then challenged Jason Kenney to a head-to-head debate. He accused Stephen Harper of being determined to add Ottawa to the axis of evil that runs straight from Pennsylvania Avenue to Downing Street to occupied Jerusalem.

He said "it just isn't credible" to call a five-time elected Member of the British Parliament a terrorist threat or a security risk. "The real danger I was to you, Mr. Kenney, is that I had come to tell the truth" about what's happening in Gaza.

I took copious notes, but my notes can't even begin to do justice to George Galloway. Should I wait until the speech is on YouTube and the transcript is made available, and post that?

I will post that, but here are some notes anyway.

Thanks to the organizational genius of James Clark, people all over the world will hear what you tried to stop...

Mandela was branded a terrorist...

It's our movement that tries to stop racism, against Jews, against Muslims, against the original people of North America...

Galloway described the convoy he took from the UK to Gaza, the aid they brought, the hardships they faced to get there.

Who should I have brought aid to if not the suffering?...

Is it terrorism to bring food to the hungry? Is it terrorism to bring wheelchairs to disabled people? Is it terrorism to bring medicine to the sick?

What kind of language is it that your government has indulged in that call acts of humanitarian kindness terrorism?

You are making a mockery of the very real concept of terrorism... and making a laughingstock out of Canada...

Galloway reminded us that we must be careful who we put on the list of "the banned and the damned," because today's terrorists may be tomorrow's government leaders that we must meet around the negotiating table. He named several examples, but Nelson Mandela and Gerry Adams come to mind.

Galloway said Gaza looked like it had been hit by an earthquake, the very big difference being that if the destruction had been caused by an earthquake, all the governments of the world would have given aid to the survivors. Instead, a siege sealed the victims into the largest open-air prison on earth, where they were slaughtered.

Galloway said he didn't have time to detail the case against the war in Afghanistan, but reminded us that the people of Afghanistan have not given in to foreign occupation ever, over thousands of years, and that continued occupation will only meet with increased resistance.

* * * *

Questions from the audience were an interesting challenge, communicated by cell phone, then answered on the screen.

During questions, Galloway described the horrific scenes of massacre and violence that North Americans didn't see on mainstream TV, but that the rest of the world witnessed on Al-Jazeera.

He answered to charges of anti-Semitism, and it seems quite out of the realm of reality that this man could be credibly accused of anti-Semitism. As he said, it's our movement that has fought against racism in all its forms. He described anti-Semitism as the most virulent of all forms of racism, invoking the systematic annihilation of millions upon millions of Jewish people.

But, he reminded us, Israel is a state. It is a state, like the United States, like Canada, like the UK, like France. It is a state, and as such it can and should be criticized for its political policies, just as all the countries that support it should be.

His rejection of anti-Semitism and his explanation of why criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitism was so brilliant, so rousing, so spectacularly thorough, that I wish I had taped it and could transcribe it for you now.

He also responded to questions about his "one-state solution".

On one hand, he said, the two-state solution, announced and shook upon in the White House rose garden lo these 14 years ago, has not been acted on, not for one moment. Israel clearly rejects it.

But beyond that, why do we want an Arab state and an Israeli state, a Jewish state and a Muslim state? Why don't we want one nation, where all people - Jews, Muslims and Christians - are equal, and equally free?

When Mandela was finally released from prison, and became president of South Africa, he was asked if he would keep one portion of land for a white South Africa, the so-called Orange Free State. He replied, I don't want a white South Africa and a black South Africa. I want one nation where we are all equal.

To the notions of nationalism, division and apartheid, Galloway offered a vision of internationalism, inclusion and equality.

It's a vision that fills me with joy and hope.

In the past week I've heard George Galloway described as a "clown", a "buffoon", a "closet anti-Semite", who talks "rubbish" and defends terrorists.

I defy anyone to hear this man speak, to read his words, and defend those descriptions. Without lying.

George Galloway is a hero for peace and justice. It was my privilege to hear him speak last night, and it was Canada's shame to deny him a place in our country.

kenney out! galloway in!

A letter from today's Globe and Mail, by my partner Allan, who posts here as Redsock.

So Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was successful in having British MP George Galloway banned from Canada because of Mr. Galloway's support of Hamas (British MP Loses Bid To Enter Canada - online, March 30). But in April, 2006, Mr. Kenney addressed a rally organized by the supporters of a banned terrorist organization, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. The group was placed on Canada's official terror list in May, 2005.

In the interest of fairness, I ask that Mr. Kenney now ban himself from Canada.

Allan Wood
Mississauga, ON

The title of this post is our rallying cry. Kenney Out! Galloway In! Kenney Out! Resisters In! It makes a great chant.

parliament passes war resister motion; galloway appears by telecast

This was a long, nerve-wracking, joyous, frustrating, scary, uplifting evening.

The motion in support of US Iraq War resisters was passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 129 - 125.

We are thrilled and relieved.

George Galloway addressed a packed house in Toronto via internet.

He was incredible.

I'll tell you more tomorrow.

breaking news: federal court judge denies galloway's request to enter canada

A dark day for freedom of speech.

Controversial British MP George Galloway's request for an injunction to enter Canada has been denied by a Federal Court judge.

The decision prevents Galloway from appearing in person at an event in Toronto Monday evening, the first of three scheduled events in Canada.

The federal government has told Galloway he could not enter Canada because he allegedly engaged in terrorist activities.

In a letter to Galloway, the government says the MP delivered humanitarian goods to war-torn Gaza and gave $45,000 to Hamas, which is a banned terrorist organization in Canada.

etc. etc.

today! parliament votes on resisters, george galloway speaks to (in?) toronto

Big day today!

At 6:30 p.m., the House of Commons will vote - yet again - on a resolution to allow US Iraq War resisters to stay legally in Canada.

This is the same motion that Parliament passed last June, which the Harper government has ignored. And while Harper can continue to ignore this motion, too, its passage in this Parliament will be a very important re-affirmation of the strong support for US war resisters throughout Canada.

If your MP is Liberal, Bloc or NDP, please call her or him today.

Remind your opposition MP that this issue is important to you, and important to Canada.

Remind your MP that we want Canada to be a nation of peacemakers, a "refuge from militarism" (thank you, Monsieur Trudeau).

Remind your MP to vote yes tonight.

Then, at 7:00 p.m., George Galloway will address a crowd in Toronto on "Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar". Depending on what the federal court decides, Galloway will either be in Toronto physically, or broadcast live via Skype. Either way, the event is on! The federal court decision is expected by 2:00 p.m. today.

I'm told that tickets are still available for all four events: Toronto, Mississauga, Montreal and Ottawa. Toronto info below.

I'll be at the George Galloway event, so I won't be able to update wmtc with the result of the House of Commons vote until later tonight.

* * * *

George Galloway in Toronto:
Tonight, March 30, 7:00 p.m. (doors open at 6:30 p.m.)
Metropolitan United Church
56 Queen Street East

Tickets: $15.00 Adult, $10.00 Students and seniors

Tickets available at:
Canadian Peace Alliance 427 Bloor Street West (cash only)
Ryerson Students' Union 55 Gould Street (cash & debit)
Toronto Women's Bookstore 73 Harbord Street (cash, credit & debit)

united church asks its congregation to help let them stay

The United Church of Canada issued a "Take Action" advisory on their website, asking members to call on the Canadian government to support US war resisters.

So if you belong to United Church, do this now!

war resister legal defense campaign update

Our Fundable campaign to raise money for war resister legal defense ended on March 25. After all the pledges were sorted out and Fundable took its cut, the total was $4450. There were another $400 in cash donations from people who couldn't get the site to work, bringing the net to $4850. But that figure is in US funds. Converted to Canadian, it should be around $5900!

It's so frustrating how quickly that money goes. Every cent of it is already accounted for. Campaigners are funding the campaign on their own credit cards, to be paid back slowly over time.

We need a wealthy benefactor to bankroll the legal campaign until we can get a law passed for all the resisters to stay.

But despite these frustrations, our online fundraising campaign was a huge success. I'll email each donor individually, but for now, on behalf of the War Resisters Support Campaign, please accept my most sincere thanks. You've made a real difference in people's lives. You've helped support peace.

galloway in toronto federal court on sunday, be there!

Oh man, I wish I could go to this! I can't, but maybe you can. I will definitely be at the Toronto Galloway event on Monday. In fact, I'll be watching the House of Commons vote on our motion from our table there.

But if you're in the Toronto area and you don't work on Sunday like I do, here's news from the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War:

Pack the court on Sunday!

Federal Court hearing on ban on George Galloway

George Galloway's Canadian legal team will be in federal court on Sunday to argue against Jason Kenney's ban preventing Galloway from entering Canada. The Defend Free Speech campaign is calling on all supporters to show up at the federal court to attend the hearing, which is open to the public. Help us pack out the court: the more people we have in attendance, the more clearly we show support for our case.

Before the hearing begins, we will hold a Free Speech rally outside the court house, starting at 10:30 a.m. Please bring placards and banners to show your support for free speech, and to oppose the ban on George Galloway from entering Canada.

A ruling on the ban is expected to be made at the hearing or later in the day.

We won't let Jason Kenney silence us, and we won¹t let him silence George Galloway! See you on Sunday!

Federal Court hearing on the ban on George Galloway
Sunday, March 29
10:30 a.m. free speech rally
11:00 a.m. Federal Court hearing
Federal Courthouse
180 Queen Street West (west of University, north side of Queen)
TTC: Osgoode

Organized by the Defend Free Speech campaign

Please note: Regardless of the outcome of the hearing, all scheduled events will proceed as planned
- Toronto March 30
- Mississauga March 31
- Montreal April 1
- Ottawa April 2

Tickets are still available! See Defend Free Speech for info.

earth hour tonight at 8:30. it's not stupid.

What I said last year. Good discussion in comments, too.

Earth Hour

rcmp response to dziekanski murder? why, loosen taser restrictions, of course

One more quickie and I'll call it a morning. From the Canada Meets George Orwell file.

RCMP softened Taser-use restrictions

In response to national anger at the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski in the Vancouver airport, the RCMP was urged to curb multiple Taser use by its officers — but instead deleted an existing restriction from its stun-gun policy.

CBC News has learned that on Feb. 3, 2009, two sentences were erased from the main document that guides officers' actions — the first limiting Taser usage to one shot and no more than 20 seconds at a time, and the second requiring officers to warn suspects before deploying a stun gun.

"They have in fact not placed stricter guidelines on the multiple usage of the Taser; they've in fact removed the ban on multiple use in their new guidelines," said Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, who was a member of a parliamentary committee that reviewed RCMP Taser use.

"And that is absolutely reprehensible, it's unacceptable, it's retrogressive — it's actually moving backwards."

Covered much more thoroughly and passionately by Alison at Creekside: RCMP: Getting away with murder.

checking in on diebold, and nothing has changed

You know, just because Obama won the election, doesn't mean the US voting system has been fixed. It just means no one will pay attention to the corrupt, broken system until 2012, when they have another opportunity to do nothing about it.

More quickies, these from the Is The US A Democracy file.

In California:

Diebold Admits Audit Logs in ALL Versions of Their Software Fail to Record Ballot Deletions

Startling admission made during public hearing in CA to consider decertification of the company's voting and tabulation software...

Even the audit log system on current versions of Premier Election Solutions' (formerly Diebold's) electronic voting and tabulating systems --- used in some 34 states across the nation --- fail to record the wholesale deletion of ballots. Even when ballots are deleted on the same day as an election. That's the shocking admission heard today from Justin Bales, Premier's Western Region manager, at a State of California public hearing on the possible decertification of Diebold/Premier's tabulator system, GEMS v. 1.18.19.

An election system's audit logs are meant to record all activity during the system's actual counting of ballots, so that later examiners may determine, with certainty, whether any fraudulent or mistaken activity had occurred during the count. Diebold's software fails to do that, as has recently been discovered by Election Integrity advocates in Humboldt County, CA, and then confirmed by the CA Secretary of State. The flaws, built into the system for more than a decade, are in serious violation of federal voting system certification standards.

The problems may lead to decertification of the company's voting systems, as well as an examination of voting systems made by other companies to determine if they too may have been able to sneak such violations past both federal and state testers...

Today's hearing was a response to the startling discovery last December, by a volunteer group in Humboldt County that, under fairly common circumstances, the older version of GEMS used by the county, and several others in the state, dropped all votes from the ballots in the first deck of ballots run through GEMS. (See BRAD BLOG coverage: here, here and here.)

The Humboldt County Election Transparency Project, using the free and open source software program Ballot Browser, found that Diebold's GEMS system had eliminated all votes from 197 vote-by-mail ballots cast in a single precinct in Eureka, CA during last November's general election. . . .

Following the discovery of Diebold's dropped votes, and the equally disturbing revelation that Diebold had been aware of the problem for years. . .

And in Kentucky:

KY Election Officials Arrested, Charged With 'Changing Votes at E-Voting Machines'

Circuit court judge, county clerk and election officials among eight indicted for gaming elections in 2002, 2004, 2006 County uses popular, unverifiable ES&S touch-screen voting systems. . .

Over the years, we've detailed the arrests and other unsavory behavior of many of the not-so-good election officials who, we were told, should simply have been trusted (our "favorite" has always been the case of Monterey CA's Tony Anchundo, who told us on air we should "trust" him, just a month or two before being arrested on 43 counts).

Well, now we've got a whole passel of still more crooked officials to add to the list. Moreover: The Kentucky officials arrested and indicted today, "including the circuit court judge, the county clerk, and election officers" of Clay County, have been charged with "changing votes at the voting machine" and showing others how to do it!... [Excellent story here on The Brad Blog.]

Also good discussion about this here on BoingBoing.