muslim women: pitting one stereotype against another

When I studied literature in university (which we called college), a familiar perspective on female characters was known as "the virgin/whore dichotomy". Women were either chaste caretakers and helpmeets in need of protection from the evils of the world, or wicked, monstrous sluts who connived and seduced helpless men in order to achieve their dastardly goals.

In Victorian literature, this was a familiar lens through which to see women. And despite passage of some 150 years, today's media sometimes hasn't progressed much further.

Of course, it's not only women who are portrayed in this black or white, on or off, good or bad, perspective. This is the laziest and easiest way to view any person or event, and it's the way most of us are taught history: good and evil.

But it seems to me women are subjected to this duality more than men, perhaps because so often we are not fully recognized as people. Full people, full humans, with the sweeping range of possibilities, nuance and complexity that applies. For so many people - sadly, people of both genders - women are objects on which to project their narrow views of what women can be.

In this essay in The Guardian, Soumaya Ghannoushi argues that Muslim women are particularly subject to this polarized view. Her conclusion makes sense to me, given how the Western world has demonized Islamic culture. (Cross-reference my recent post about a child-abuse death in my town.)

Ghannoushi's language and her references might be a bit difficult - at least for non-academics like myself - but her conclusion is interesting and important.

It seems that Muslim women - particularly those living in western capitals - are destined to remain besieged by two debilitating discourses, which though different in appearance, are one in essence.

The first of these is conservative and exclusionist, sentencing Muslim women to a life of childbearing and rearing, lived out in the narrow confines of their homes at the mercy of fathers, brothers, and husbands. Revolving around notions of sexual purity and family honour, it appeals to religion for justification and legitimisation.

The other is a "liberation" discourse that vows to break Muslim woman's bondage and free her of the oppressive yoke of an aggressive, patriarchical, and backward society. She is a mass of powerlessness and enslavement; the embodiment of seclusion, silence, and invisibility. Her only hope of deliverance from the cave of veiling and isolation lies in the benevolent intervention of this force of emancipation. It will save her from her hellishly miserable and bleak existence, to the promised heaven of enlightenment and progress.

It is a game of binaries that pits one stereotype against another: the wretched caged female Muslim victim and her ruthless jailer society against an idealised "west" that is the epitome of enlightenment, rationalism, and freedom. Those escapees who leave the herd are held up as living testimonies to the arduousness of transition from the twilights of tribe, religion and tradition, to the dawn of reason, individualism, and liberation.

There is no denying the manifold injustices that cripple the lives of many Muslim women and stunt their potential. But these appear in this condescending liberation narrative as representative of the condition of the millions of Muslim women around the world and exclusive to them. There are no colours, tones, or shades here. There are no living real women, urban or rural, educated or illiterate, affluent or poor, Turkish, Malaysian, or Egyptian - differences so crucial in defining women's life chances and shaping their situations.

All we know about this ghostly creature is her Muslim identity, as though she was entirely shaped and affected by religion and theology irrespective of social background, economic circumstances, political reality, or regional and local cultural traditions. Important as it is, legal and theological reform will on its own do little to improve the lot of impoverished, uneducated, or insecure women in Somalia, Iraq, or rural Bangladesh.

. . . .

No wonder then that the "Muslim woman" liberation warriors, the likes of Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens, and Pascal Bruckner, were the same people who cheered American / British troops as they blasted their way through Kabul and Baghdad, and who will no doubt cheer and dance once more should Iran or Syria be bombed next. Soldiers shoot with their guns; they with their pens. They are hegemony's apologists. Without them the emperor stands naked. [Complete essay here.]

reminders

Readers in the Toronto area, you are invited to join the War Resisters Support Campaign (Toronto chapter) tomorrow night for an evening of letter writing and holiday partying. Details here, or email me.

This Friday, December 21, is Iraq Moratorium #4. Please consider doing something public and visible to show your opposition to the US occupation of Iraq. It can be as simple as wearing a button, or talking to your co-worker.

Take action for peace.

ssod

Search string of the day:

maxing the credit card and then moving to canada

You'll still have to pay them off, you know.

thoughts on the bouchard-taylor xenophobia commission

I have six posts sitting in drafts about the Bouchard-Taylor Commission. Every time I started to write, the entry devolved into some version of "what is wrong with these people??", and I gave up.

But no one reads wmtc for breaking news. Maybe in February, I'll blog about Canada's embarrassing obstructionism in Bali.

So from the Better Late Than Never Department, this time the post is going up.

* * * *

If I were a Quebecker, I'd be painfully embarrassed by the public spectacle of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission. The Commission, supposedly studying reasonable accommodation of religious minorities "in response to public discontent" of those accommodations, is a carnival of racism, nativism and xenophobia. It would a laughingstock - if it weren't so dangerous.

As the Commission's road show continues, I've noticed a certain amount of delicacy in some of the media when dealing it. Are we Anglophones not supposed to criticize anything that comes from French Canada?

Racism is racism is racism, and it isn't any more palatable if it comes from a community that was once the target of racism themselves. Indeed, a case could be made that it's even worse, which is why I hate to see racism among Jewish people. I think we should know better.

The Commission was supposedly necessary because Quebec needs "a dialogue" about multiculturalism. The rights of women are supposedly being trampled in the Muslim community. And how shall we save Muslim women from themselves? By stoking fear and hatred of Muslims.

For a while there, each pronouncement emanating from the Commission was more outlandish than the next, a can-you-top-of-this of barely-disguised invective.

There was the veiled voting flap (I mentioned it briefly), which was never actually a problem at polling stations.

Quebec lawyer Guy Bertrand accused Montreal Canadiens captain Saku Koivu of "contempt for our language," because he is not fluent in French. The man was born in Finland, and speaks English and Finnish. From what I gather, he's a top player, a team leader, a cancer survivor and has lost some vision in one eye from an accident on the ice. Bertrand's statement was roundly (and rightly) rejected as nonsense, but it stands as a milestone in the What Will These People Say Next department.

Even the old kosher-tax myth reared its ugly head, because what's a racism and xenophobia without a little anti-Semitism thrown in?

The town of Hérouxville became famous when it passed a "manifesto" banning stoning and burning women. Guess what? That's illegal everywhere in Canada. No special laws are needed to prevent the Muslim hordes from burning women. One might almost think someone in Hérouxville wanted to stone a woman to death.

The declaration reads: "We wish to inform these new arrivals that the way of life which they abandoned when they left their countries of origin cannot be recreated here." So all the professional, middle-class Muslim families who are emigrating to Canada have abandoned "a way of life" where they murdered women in the town square? We might as well say Allan and I abandoned cross-burning and lynching. I've yet to figure out if anyone in Hérouxville has actually seen an immigrant.

In a CBC story, I read that "'Canadian style' multiculturalism a menace to Quebec, commission hears." Another Quebecker said, "I am ashamed to be a Quebecer sometimes, like when I hear idiocies like those coming from Hérouxville. ... Ignorance and fear produce xenophobia and racism, and the ideas of the extreme right."

I do wonder how much popular support this movement really has in Quebec. After all, it's easy to think everyone in the US is a bible-thumping, war-mongering, Wal-Mart shopping Bushbot. (No, they're not!) This op-ed by Lysiane Gagnon says that even René Lévesque, founder of the Parti Québécois, would have been disgusted.

For me, the worst part of this spew is when it's cloaked in women's rights. Christiane Pelchat, the president of the Quebec Council on the Status of Women, said, "Freedom of religion must be limited, intrinsically, by the right to equality between women and men". According to the Council, Islamic symbols such as the headscarf send "a message of the submission of a woman, which should not be conveyed to young children as part of a secular education, which is required to promote equality between men and women."

Freedom of religion should only be limited by what's illegal under the law. Telling a woman she cannot wear a niqab or hijab, which she feels is an expression of her faith, is not a step towards women's rights. It's just one group imposing their standards on another.

I found lots of good writing and organizing against the Commission, which was uplifting. The wonderfully-named blog Fagstein had some very good pieces.

The Quebec council on the status of women seeks to impose a dress code on all public employees, preventing them from wearing "visible religious symbols" like a scarf over their head or a little hat. Of course, it goes without saying that Catholics wearing crosses around their necks are specifically exempt. They get special treatment because they believe in the correct God.

Mostly Water reprinted this statement by the Montreal chapter of No One Is Illegal.

The "reasonable accommodation" debate in Quebec, and the related "Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences" (the so-called "Bouchard-Taylor Commission"), are fundamentally rooted in xenophobia, racism and sexism.

From the outset, the "debate" fails to recognize that Quebec and Canada are built on stolen Indigenous land, and constituted through the dispossession and genocide of Indigenous peoples who have been forced into "accommodating" colonization. Moreover, it completely ignores the fact that racism and white supremacy were intrinsically tied to the creation of both Canada and Quebec, and throughout their histories, have been instrumental in defining who "belongs" and who does not.

The Bouchard-Taylor Commission was created in the context of xenophobia during an election campaign and has provided an uncontested platform for racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.

Opportunistic politicians and corporate media have appealed to public fears and prejudices, and manipulated false controversies over religious practices and cultural differences to create a generalized hysteria, with little to no basis in fact. In its very framework it creates a binary of 'us' vs. 'them'; the 'us' being made up of white people of European descent, and the 'them' being whichever non-white immigrant group is currently under the spotlight.

The supposed "debate" has made open bigotry publicly acceptable, using simplistic caricatures that render our communities homogenous, uncontested and monolithic. While we reject this offensive portrayal of our communities, we assert the diversity of our cultures and traditions as well as our multiple identities. [More here.]

There's a good photo on the blog Tadamon! of a No One Is Illegal Protest. Tadamon! is an excellent blog, written in three languages, and worth a visit if only for the brilliant masthead featuring a portion of "Guernica".

Here's an excellent story about community groups organizing to reject the racism and xenophobia of the Commission - worth looking at with the photos.

* * * *

You know, the xenophobes who support the Bouchard-Taylor Commission owe a huge debt to multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism gives them a smokescreen to hide behind. They can claim "widespread public discontent" - and then create some.

Without an official Canadian policy of multiculturalism, they'd be forced to baldly state their true purpose: "We believe our culture is superior to everyone else's! We hate and fear people not like ourselves!"

i heart snow

I am really digging all this snow.

I don't ski or skate, and I can't remember the last time I built a snowman or had a snowball fight. But for some reason the snow is making me so happy.

Snow was just a big pain in the ass in New York City. Here, I'm loving it. Why is that?

It can't be because getting around is easier here. In New York, the trains are always running. You can always trudge to the subway and get somewhere. In Mississauga, one snowflake and the GO is late.

Getting to work this morning was no picnic. First Allan had to shovel the driveway to take me to the bus. The bus was 40 minutes late. Then it got stuck on a hill for an hour! And poor Allan, when he finally left for work, it took him an hour just to get out of our little development! Mississauga has yet to plow our street.

So it sure as hell isn't transportation.

Maybe it's because the snow stays white and beautiful here. In New York City, it's pretty the first day, and that's if you live on a small sidestreet like we did. If you live on a main drag, it's pretty for 2 hours. Then it turns black. Even Mississauga - not the most beautiful of places! - is a winter wonderland right now.

Maybe it's because for our last five winters in New York, snow made life with our special boy even more challenging than usual.

Imagine walking a dog who can't be around other dogs, so you have to cross to the other side of the street every time you see someone with a dog approaching. But only a tiny lane in the sidewalk has been shoveled. And you can't cross to the other side, because there are two snowplow mountains in the way. But you have to cross, because your dog will become uncontrollable if the other dog gets too close.

Now imagine your emotionally unstable dog is also super-sensitive to rock salt on his paw pads, so he has to wear booties. And all the supers in the neighbourhood pour rock salt all over the sidewalks instead of shoveling properly.

And when your dog goes crazy, his booties may fly off. And then he's in pain, which makes him even crazier.

Far it be for me to admit that anything is better without my B around.

So maybe it's because we have a big backyard, and I can open our sliding door, and our pups can frolic whenever they want, and I don't even have to put my boots on, never mind take them to a dog park.

Could it be I love the snow because it makes me know I live in Canada?

abuse = abuse, murder = murder

The terrible, early death of Aqsa Parvez makes me so sad. But it makes me so angry that her death is being credited to Muslim fundamentalism, or to immigrants, or to multiculturalism. None of those killed Aqsa Parvez.

Aqsa, 16 years old, was killed by her father.

Aqsa was an abused child.

She was a victim of domestic violence, a tidy little euphemism we use for assault that is perpetrated in our own homes, by the people who are supposed to love us.

Child abuse, always terrible, sometimes fatal, occurs in homes of all faiths and of no faith. It occurs in families of all colours and all backgrounds. It occurs in families of all income levels. It occurs in single-parent families and in extended families.

One of my favourite bloggers, Impudent Strumpet, had this to say.

Think about your own adolescence. Did you ever want to hang out with friends instead of being home when your parents wanted you to? Did you ever want to listen to music they didn't want you to? Did you ever want to dress in a way they didn't want you to? Did you ever want to throw off the trappings of their values and be your own person?

This same drama is playing out in millions of households all around the world. There are, of course, variations. Perhaps instead of a hijab, the clothing in contention is hemlines or cleavage or heels. Perhaps instead of Muslim beliefs, it's Catholicism or Mormonism or Orthodox Judaism. But it is happening. And in some of these families, they do beat up their kids for not conforming. Hopefully in most they don't, but in some they do. I don't have statistics on hand to back this up, but I'd bet real money that within the next year, some other kid somewhere in the world will be killed by their parents in a similar dispute, and they won't be Muslim or a new immigrant.

My own partner was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, and he rebelled, and he was punished. He wasn't abused physically, but he certainly was abused emotionally and psychologically, forced to choose between having a parent and a home, and being himself. Was this because of Christianity?

Reliable child abuse statistics are hard to come by. In the past, statistics skewed heavily to low-income families, because they were the ones that ended up involved with public agencies. Private doctors, teachers and coaches from upper-income schools, would look the other way. Police were seldom called. Now, thanks to the work of activists, laws have changed. Those people are now mandated reporters: if they suspect child abuse, and they must report it. If they don't, they are partially culpable.

So now statistics are slightly more reliable. But still, abuse occurs in homes that never become statistics. My own, for example. No agencies were ever involved, no reports ever filed. We just lived with a certain amount of fear and pain. Although not as much as Asqa Parvez.

But Asqa Parvez didn't live with fear and pain because she was Muslim, or an immigrant. Her death doesn't point to the limits of multiculturalism or some problem inherent in Canadian society.

Her death speaks to the powerlessness of abused children, trapped in the homes of their abusers, dependent on their abusers for sustenance, betrayed by the people who should be their protectors.

Some statistics on child abuse globally, and in Canada.

More on the current "blame multiculturalism" mindset coming soon.

soliciting canadian travel information

It looks like we'll be able to take a good trip next year, and thank goodness, because it's been too long for me.

Travel in 2007 was limited to smaller getaways - the cottage in the Kawarthas, our friend's wedding in Vermont, and of course, the Ice Hotel back in January. I also went to California, in addition to our annual New York/New Jersey trips.

As fun as these smaller trips are - and I do love them - I missed taking what I consider a "big" vacation, for a longer period of time, someplace I've never been. Nothing does it for me like travel.

For a while it looked like 2008 might be our long-awaited dogsledding adventure, but we can't swing it financially, and Dogsled Stacie isn't quite set up for visitors yet. So now we're talking about the Yukon in '09.

But, finances permitting, we want to travel in Canada next year, and my first priority is heading east. I'm eager to see Newfoundland, thanks to those beautiful ads that ran during the Torino Winter Olympics, and also Nova Scotia. We haven't decided between the two yet.

Should we try to do both on one trip? Or go to Newfoundland and leave Nova Scotia for another time?

Do we start with a couple of days in Montreal? We haven't been there since 2004; I can always use a Montreal fix.

If we choose Nova Scotia, we can easily work in a bit of New Brunswick, too. But I hear Newfoundland calling me.

If possible, we like to travel off-season, while kids are in still in school and every place isn't over-run with tourists. Is the spring a good time of year to visit Atlantic Canada?

These are the questions we are kicking around.

If you have suggestions: we like natural beauty, scenic routes, and small towns, and we'll explore any city of any size. We love history, and always work in some historic sites. We'll take easy hikes, but we're not climbing mountains, and we do not go camping.

Fire away!

Folks who email instead of leaving comments, why not register with Blogger? It only takes a minute, and other people will enjoy what you have to say.

welcome tom and emilio

Tom and Emilio are here! Canadian Hope has made it to Canada!!

These two men have been through so much, just to try to make a safe home together. And along the way, they've reached out to help others. Tom is always out there, writing letters, being public, eloquently stating their (simple and obvious) case.

I say it all the time: the US's loss is Canada's gain. And in this case, our gain, too, as now we have more friends in Toronto.

We haven't met Tom and Em in person yet, somehow the timing has never worked out. But now that they're our GTA neighbours, there'll be plenty of opportunity. They're already part of Nick and Mason's widening circle of friends. Nick and Mason seem to have embraced the role of Welcoming Committee. I just love how this whole thing goes around, each of us helping others along the way.

I continue to get emails from Americans making the big move north. I only wish everyone who wanted to move to Canada, could.

jon swift says she had it coming. not really.

I'm getting a ton of traffic from this post at Jon Swift, so I thought you might like to read it.

I made a rare appearance in comments. I usually avoid anyplace where I might run into a wingnut, especially where rape is concerned, but there were a few lies I simply had to respond to. I noticed other commenters had done the same.

On another note, it amazes at how many people simply do not understand the concept of satire.

It's a great post, from one of the very best blogs. Enjoy.

invitation: help let them stay

Write any good letters lately? This Wednesday, December 19, you're invited to attend an open meeting of the War Resisters Support Campaign (Toronto chapter).

Meet some great people, eat delicious home-made cookies and write letters. We'll be calling on our Members of Parliament, Stéphane Dion, Steven Harper, and various other key officials, to pass the resolution recommended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

That the Committee recommend that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.

It will be a fun, productive evening, and it's usually extended at a nearby pub. You can do something concrete for support peace without even breaking a sweat.

In Toronto, the Support Campaign meets in the Steelworkers Union building on Cecil Street, near Spadina and College. Email me for details.

Come along. You'll be happy you did.

extras on sicko, basics in canada

I had an interesting coincidence of events yesterday.

Last night we watched the DVD extras on Michael Moore's "Sicko". There's a lot of good stuff: an extended interview with the great Tony Benn; interviews with Dr. Aleida Guevara from Cuba and Dr. Marcia Angell in New York; information on HR 676, John Conyers's and Dennis Kucinich's bill for universal health insurance; Elizabeth Warren explains how even people who pay enormous sums for health insurance and think of themselves as well protected, find themselves bankrupt when they get seriously ill. And of course, there are more heartbreaking stories of Americans who have died because they are not rich.

In discussing these pieces, Allan and I agreed that real health care reform - single-payer, non-profit, universal insurance - would first require an entire overhaul of the election system.

In order to take on the insurance companies, candidates would have to be free of corporate influence, but still able to get their message to the public. It would take more than just limiting campaign donations, although that's important. A lot of it goes back to air time. If all candidates received free and equal time on television - on the publicly owned airwaves - they wouldn't need so much money to get elected in the first place. Free air time, and no ads. Only factual information on where they stand on issues.

Back in the real world, it happens that I had a doctor's appointment yesterday morning.

In Canada, amid all the talk of wait-times for procedures like hip replacements, an important fact is often overlooked. Canadians can see a doctor for routine, preventative care, and so maintain better overall health, without ever asking themselves, "Can I afford this?"

I've blogged about this before, in what turned out to be a very popular post. But it still amazes me. So I want to tell you what happened to me yesterday.

I had an appointment to see my doctor. For one of my prescriptions, she doesn't write refills, because she wants to check my blood pressure and find out if I'm having any side effects first. So this is a routine appointment. I waited less than 5 minutes, and went in.

She asked me the usual questions, checked my blood pressure (still normal!), and asked me if I've had a flu shot yet. I've never had a flu shot in my life. She explained why she thinks it's a good idea, why Ontario Health recommends it, and I agreed to get one. She gave me the shot.

I also wanted to ask her if she knows any acupuncturists that she refers to, as I've been thinking about trying it. (More on that coming soon.) We chatted about acupuncture, and how I might find a reputable practitioner, and she gave me her opinion.

She wished me well, we said goodbye and I left.

It was free. Or, it feels free because I pay for it with my taxes. The same amount of taxes I paid in the US.

As corny as this sounds, I left her office thinking, "Oh my god, I love Canada. I am so lucky to be here." I hope I always value Canada as much as I do today.

Then at night, we watched those DVD extras.

Why should I have access to this excellent system because I was lucky enough to be able to move to Canada? Why shouldn't everyone, everywhere, have the same access I do? And why shouldn't Americans, who supposedly live in the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth, have this basic need met?

In "Who Would Jesus Deny?", activist priest Mike Seifert calls health care in the US "a sin". Sin, crime, insanity. Call it what you will.

a little ancient history: queers on tv

I told you about my guilty pleasure: watching that 1980s TV relic, the first of the great night-time soaps, "Dallas". I usually indulge in Dallas only while slogging through that other relic of mine, ironing. But yesterday I was exhausted, and I plopped myself on the couch for a mid-afternoon Dallas fix.

I saw something unexpected: a bit of queer history. The episode I watched, from the first full season (on DVD as Season 2), must have been a very early, positive portrayal of a gay person on mainstream TV.

In this episode of Dallas, young Lucy Ewing is in love with the heir of another oil fortune, Kit Mainwaring. Kit cares for Lucy and tries to make it work, but realizes that he cannot change who he is.

In a plea for advice, he first comes out to Lucy's uncle Bobby Ewing: "I can't marry Lucy. I'm a homosexual." Bobby is shocked, but after digesting the news, he tells Kit that's his own business, but why did he have to hurt Lucy?

Naturally, it gets more interesting. Evil J.R., who has known all along ("There's very little goes on in Dallas that I don't know"), wants the marriage for his own business purposes. He argues with Bobby, insisting that the marriage should proceed - "Lucy? What's she got to do with it?" - and claiming that Kit will be no match for his machinations. To which Bobby replies: "J.R., Kit Mainwaring is more of a man than you'll ever be."

Whoa! Our hero says that about a gay man on 1979 TV! How cool!

When Kit comes out to Lucy and breaks their engagement, he explains that it was only after sleeping with her that he realized he can never change who he is: "I wanted to be socially normal. But I can't live a lie. I have to learn to accept myself the way I am."

Even while she's crushed by the breakup, Lucy invents a story that will prevent Kit from being blackmailed. She knows he did the right thing. No character even hints that it's wrong to be gay - even J.R.

I don't know if this was actually ground-breaking, but I think it must have been pretty cutting-edge at the time.

For most people, myself included, the first gay fictional TV character was Jodie, in "Soap". (Hard to believe that was Billy Crystal, eh? Back when he was funny.) Apparently there were a few earlier shows with gay characters, but none as popular and long-running (1977-1981) as Soap.

Later, "Dynasty", with the openly gay character Steve Carrington, would become a gay cultural icon. (At least it was in New York!) But Dynasty first aired in 1981; this episode of Dallas was several years earlier.

I can't find anything online about possible reaction to this Dallas episode: a strange coincidence makes it difficult to Google. Do you remember the last name of Billy Crystal's character on Soap? He was called... Jodie Dallas.

those pesky rape kits, they're always disappearing

A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.

"It felt like prison," says Jones, who told her story to ABC News as part of an upcoming "20/20" investigation. "I was upset; I was curled up in a ball on the bed; I just could not believe what had happened."

Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.

"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.

"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.

Poe says his office contacted the State Department, which quickly dispatched agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to Jones' camp, where they rescued her from the container.

According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by "several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally."

Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.

My heart goes out to Jamie Leigh Jones. I was her age when I was raped. I offer her my most heartfelt thanks and admiration for coming forward without anonymity.

Thanks to Allan for the story tip.

dems' only question on torture: are you sure it hurts enough?

Remember in 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress, how things in the US were supposed to change? Or so said the Americans voting Democrat.

And a corollary question. What is wrong with these people?

I know very well what's wrong with them, because I used to be one. But how many times can you let your abusive partner hit you before you finally walk out the door?

I know what they say, because I used to say it, too. It's not like I haven't heard it (and said it) a zillion times, so believe me, I don't need reminding. Voting for a third-party candidate is voting for the Republicans. You're throwing your vote away.

And when you vote Democrat you're not throwing your vote away?

(A reminder: I'm not voting in the US at all now.)

In Canada, the existence of the New Democrat Party exerts pressure on the Liberals: stay liberal, because we voters have an alternative.

In the US, where no such pressure exists, the Democrats have become Democrats In Name Only, in reality moderate (and some not-so-moderate!) Republicans, because they know liberal voters have no choice. Or liberal voters think they have no choice.

Amazingly, I hear some liberal Canadians call for a merger of the NDP and the Liberals! As if Liberal and NDP voters all want the same thing, and as if the Liberals actually stand for the same thing as the NDP? We need more parties, not fewer parties. Fewer parties, and you end up with... the US. Of course that's not the only thing wrong with the US election system, but it's part of the problem.

If you haven't guessed what's driving my disgust this morning, take a look at this story from the Washington Post. It's part of the ongoing America Tortures saga, and it proves that America Tortures with the consent of both ends of the duopoly.

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

[Read the full story here.]

I'm not only saying it's immoral to vote for these people. I'm saying it doesn't work. For all that liberal (and some progressive) Americans love to blame everything on the Bush regime, it's been governing with the consent of what's supposed to be an opposition party.

More:

Glenn Greenwald on the Dems' complicity in torture (easier to access through Common Dreams than the original at Salon):

This information was almost certainly leaked to the Post by intelligence officials who are highly irritated — understandably so — from watching the manipulative spectacle whereby these Democrats now prance around as outraged victims of policies to which they deliberately acquiesced, when they weren’t fully supporting them.

. . . .

Just look at how compromised Congressional Democratic leaders are when it comes to those charged with exercising "oversight" over our intelligence communities. And one finds this with almost the entire list of Bush abuses.

Whether it's the war in Iraq or illegal surveillance or the abolition of habeas corpus and now the systematic use of torture, it's the Bush administration that conceived of the policies, implemented them and presided over their corrupt application. But it's Congressional Democrats at the leadership level who were the key allies and enablers, never getting their hands dirty with implementation — and thus feigning theatrical, impotent outrage once each abuse was publicly exposed — but nonetheless working feverishly the entire time to enable all of it every step of the way.

Full column here; I recommend it.

what i'm reading: siegfried sassoon, pat barker, roddy doyle

I finally finished the Siegfried Sassoon trilogy. It took me forever, but then, with three books, and nonfiction, plus reading some other books in between, it's bound to take a while. My reading alternates between fiction and nonfiction, because I love and need both, but I read nonfiction very slowly.

These books were very good, but more for someone already interested in the first World War, British pre-war society, and in war protest in general. The segments on fox-hunting and cricket assumed a fair amount of knowledge, and were full of slang, so were far too technical for me to understand. The parts on trench warfare were the same. I can't say I got a lot of out of those portions, but I continued reading, because the author's descriptions of his mental state and feelings were so compelling.

In general, I'd recommend Pat Barker's wonderful "Regeneration Trilogy" - Regeneration, The Eye in the Door and The Ghost Road - as a more accessible and compelling look at this history. But I'm glad I went back to read the material Barker used as a jumping-off point. Especially since the beautiful hard-cover, boxed edition was part of such a (typically) thoughtful birthday gift.

I've just started Roddy Doyle's Paula Spencer, the follow-up to his excellent The Woman Who Walked Into Doors. I'm sure I'll fly through it, and unless it's a great departure for Doyle, I'll love it.

The Woman Who Walked Into Doors looks at domestic violence and abusive relationships - and mid-life, and alcholism, and just life - from a woman's (the victim/survivor's) point of view. It's told in the first-person by a female narrator, and written by a man. Having recently seen "Volver," I am reminded that Roddy Doyle and Pedro Almodóvar are two artists who disprove any notions that men can't understand women. Maybe most don't, but then, maybe most people don't understand people.

dems won't fix u.s. health care. they're not even trying.

Last week I blogged about Michael Moore's "Sicko," which I think is brilliant. I mentioned one thing in the movie that bothered me: Moore's depiction of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as receiving excellent treatment.

Well, there were actually two things.

Moore's history of recent attempts at US health care reform struck me as dangerously revisionist. He made it sound like Hillary Clinton, during her husband's first term in office, was taking on the insurance companies by proposing single-payer, universal health insurance.

But that's not what really happened.

Clinton's proposed plan was actually heralded by the insurance companies. They loved it, because it put more Americans into HMOs and took very little control away from the industry.

Even this highly favourable (to Clinton) Wikipedia article states:

The bill was a complex proposal running more than 1,000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely-regulated health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

This isn't to say that Hillary Clinton was not unfairly maligned. Of course she was. She's a strong, independent woman, working alongside her husband as an equal, and the Washington Republicans weren't about to allow her to succeed. But she wasn't about to save the American public from the insurance industry.

And neither are any of the Democrats now.

I'll let Barbara Ehrenreich explain.

Bow your heads and raise the white flags. After facing down the Third Reich, the Japanese Empire, the U.S.S.R., Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein, the United States has met an enemy it dares not confront – the American private health insurance industry.

With the courageous exception of Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic candidates have all rolled out health "reform" plans that represent total, Chamberlain-like, appeasement. Edwards and Obama propose universal health insurance plans that would in no way ease the death grip of Aetna, Unicare, MetLife, and the rest of the evil-doers. Clinton – why are we not surprised? – has gone even further, borrowing the Republican idea of actually feeding the private insurers by making it mandatory to buy their product. Will I be arrested if I resist paying $10,000 a year for a private policy laden with killer co-pays and deductibles?

It's not only the Democratic candidates who are capitulating. The surrender-buzz is everywhere. I heard it from a notable liberal political scientist on a panel in August: We can't just leap to a single payer system, he said in so many words, because it would be too disruptive, given the size of the private health insurance industry. Then I heard it yesterday from a Chicago woman who leads a nonprofit agency serving the poor: How can we go to a Canadian-style system when the private industry has gotten so "big"?

Yes, it is big. Leighton Ku, at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, gave me the figure of $776 billion in expenditures on private health insurance for this year. It's also a big-time employer, paying what economist Paul Krugman has estimated two to three million people just turn down claims.

This in turn generates ever more employment in doctors' offices to battle the insurance companies. Dr. Atul Gawande, a practicing physician, wrote in The New Yorker that "a well-run office can get the insurer's rejection rate down from 30 percent to, say, 15 percent. That's how a doctor makes money. It's a war with insurance, every step of the way." And that's another thing your insurance premium has to pay for: the ongoing "war" between doctors and insurers.

Note: The private health insurance industry is not big because it relentlessly seeks out new customers. Unlike any other industry, this one grows by rejecting customers. No matter how shabby you look, Cartier, Lexus, or Nordstrom's will happily take your money. Not Aetna. If you have a prior conviction – excuse me, a pre-existing condition – it doesn't want your business. Private health insurance is only for people who aren't likely to ever get sick. In fact, why call it "insurance," which normally embodies the notion of risk-sharing? This is extortion.

Think of the damage. An estimated 18,000 Americans die every year because they can’t afford or can’t qualify for health insurance. That’s the 9/11 carnage multiplied by three-- every year. Not to mention all the people who are stuck in jobs they hate because they don’t dare lose their current insurance.

Saddam Hussein never killed 18,000 Americans or anything close; nor did the U.S.S.R. Yet we faced down those "enemies" with huge patriotic bluster, vast military expenditures, and, in the case of Saddam, armed intervention. So why does the U.S. soil its pants and cower in fear when confronted with the insurance industry?

Here's a plan: First, locate the major companies. No major intelligence effort will be required, since Google should suffice. Second, estimate their armed strength. No doubt there are legions of security guards involved in protecting the company headquarters from irate consumers, but these should be manageable with a few brigades. Next, consider an air strike, followed by an infantry assault.

And what about the two to three million insurance industry employees whose sole job it is to turn down claims? Well, I have a plan for them: It’s called unemployment. What country in its right mind would pay millions of people to deny other people health care?

I'm not mean, though. If we had the kind of universal, single-payer, health insurance Kucinich is advocating, private health insurance workers would continue to be covered even after they are laid off. As for the health insurance company executives, there should be an adequate job training program for them – perhaps as home health aides.

Fellow citizens, where is the old macho spirit that has sustained us through countless conflicts against enemies both real and imagined? In the case of health care, we have identified the enemy, and the time has come to crush it.

ssod

Search string of the day:

what is the relative location from mississauga to mt everest in north south eat or west

december 6: day of remembrance

Two days late, I want to acknowledge the anniversaries of two terrible, important events in Canadian history.

On December 6, 1917, the people of Halifax were devastated by the detonation of a French cargo ship, fully loaded with wartime explosives, that collided with a Norwegian ship in Halifax Harbour. Now known as the Halifax Explosion, about 2,000 people were killed, and more than 9,000 people were injured. The population of Halifax was about 50,000 at the time. The Halifax Explosion was the largest artificial explosion until the United States destroyed Hiroshima, and is still one of the world's largest artificial non-nuclear explosions to date.

The loss of life could have been much worse, were it not for the heroism of one man, Vince Coleman. James sent me this excellent re-telling of that well-known story.

On December 6, 1989, 14 women, students at École Polytechnique in Montreal, were murdered by a man named Marc Lepine. Another 14 women were injured but survived, and Lepine committed suicide on the scene.

This was the ultimate hate crime: Lepine killed the women because they were female. He announced, "I hate feminists".

December 6 is remembered in Canada as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. In the House of Commons on Thursday, I saw many Members wearing white ribbons in remembrance.

Although response to the massacre led to changes in laws, especially gun-control laws and the police response to shootings, violence against women in Canada remains a serious problem, as it is everywhere, in every country in the world.

Here are some facts, and a statement about the Day of Remembrance from the NDP. Look at their names. All but one was younger than me.

Geneviève Bergeron (b. 1968)
Hélène Colgan (b. 1966)
Nathalie Croteau (b. 1966)
Barbara Daigneault (b. 1967)
Anne-Marie Edward (b. 1968)
Maud Haviernick (b. 1960)
Maryse Laganière (b. 1964)
Maryse Leclair (b. 1966)
Anne-Marie Lemay (b. 1967)
Sonia Pelletier (b. 1961)
Michèle Richard (b. 1968)
Annie St-Arneault (b. 1966)
Annie Turcotte (b. 1969)
Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (b. 1958)

new jersey set to do the right thing

Next week, the state of New Jersey will begin the process of abolishing its death penalty. In doing so, New Jersey will become the first state to abolish capital punishment through legislation since the United States Supreme Court re-allowed it in 1976.

Eight people are on New Jersey's death row, although the state has not executed anyone since 1963.

This surprising news gives me hope. It shows that in the midst of the madness going on in the US, some people can still see their way clear to do the right thing.

1,099 Americans have been put to death by their states since 1976. Here is a state-by-state map of those executions.

For more information on capital punishment in the United States, see the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. A good talking-point list is here.

let them stay: a victory!

This morning I am thinking of that Todd Rundgren song:

Shining still,
To give us the will
Bright as the day,
To show us the way
Somehow,
Someday,
We need just one victory
And we're on our way
Prayin' for it all day
And fightin' for it all night
Give us just one victory,
It will be all right
We may feel about to fall
But we go down fighting
You will hear the call
If you only listen
Underneath it all
We are here together
Shining still

We had a victory yesterday! Just one victory, and not the final victory, and a long struggle remains. But the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration passed our motion. Things went in our favour, we carried the day, and we deserve to be happy.

The Committee passed a motion saying that non-Canadians in Canada who refuse to participate in wars not sanctioned by the UN, and who do not have a criminal record, should be allowed to remain legally in Canada, and to apply for Permanent Resident status while living here, and all deportation or removal actions against them should cease while their applications are being processed.

It's exactly what we needed, yet alone, it means very little.

Here's how it went down.

* * * *

The folks in my car, who went up just for the day, missed the morning press conference; folks who attended that went up the night before. We heard the press conference was very sparsely covered because of the Karlheinz Schreiber scandal. After that, people attended Question Period, which I wish I could have done, but I'll certainly do some other time. Instead, we met up with a few other Campaigners, and had something to eat and hung out in the West Block cafeteria. Olivia Chow opened her office as our home base for the day, letting everyone leave their coats and bags in there, and buying lunch for the Campaign.

The Committee hearing itself was in the late afternoon, under a strict time schedule because of a House of Commons vote immediately afterwards. We packed the room with supporters. Among them was Jen, activist nurse, who read about the hearings on wmtc and volunteered to house people the night before.

On the Committee itself, there were supposed to be five Conservatives and seven combined opposition, but one Tory was the chair, so he didn't vote. That was nice for us, but it turns out it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

First two CIC bureaucrats testified and defended their policies. They were dolts and couldn't answer any of the Committee Members' questions.

They didn't even present an accurate institutional history. For example, they claimed that during the Vietnam era, the people Canada let in were escaping conscription - "draft dodgers". In reality, they were not only draft dodgers. There were also volunteers who deserted (one of those now co-leads the Campaign!), people who tried to get Conscientious Objector status in the US but were refused, and people who left in protest of the war, who were never in danger of being forced to serve.

A Tory made a speech decrying Canada creating "special loopholes" for certain people who deserted "voluntary duty" in their "country's time of need". A Liberal asked him if he needed a teleprompter.

Oral testimony on our behalf was: a Mennonite, whose people have benefited from conscientious objector status since coming to Canada; a war resister, former Sergeant Phillip McDowell; Jeffry House, the lawyer who represents most of the resisters pro bono (and who was a Vietnam deserter); and a representative from the Quakers. There were also written statements of support from other people and groups.

Everyone was good, but Phil was awesome. He's an excellent speaker, and he utterly demolished the Tory's non-arguments. The Conservatives' two central points were "service is voluntary" and "if they go back, they get a slap on the wrist, so just face the music".

Phil himself was stop-lossed. He joined the military after September 11, 2001, because he felt compelled to help his country. Instead of going to Afghanistan, he was deployed to Iraq. There, he saw war crimes, to which he can testify first-hand, and he saw that his continued participation in the army was part of those crimes. He saw men heavily punished for attempting to refuse participation, so he vowed to serve out his contract, then end his time with the army. He did so, and was discharged.

Months later, he was ordered back to Iraq. He tried every legal means to remain a civilian. There was no recourse. Absolutely none. He was ordered to deploy.

Voluntary?

Phil then rang out a list of US soldiers who refused deployment to Iraq and did prison time. Real prison, and real time. Each of them received a "bad conduct discharge," a felony which is on your record for the rest of your life.

Slap on the wrist?

Another Conservative supposed argument was the "tens of thousands" of people waiting in refugee camps, fleeing torture and starvation, who are supposedly waiting to come to Canada. How can we justly take you folks, whose lives are so good, and turn those others away?

Jeffry House pointed out that this is a false construct. There is no finite number of slots, through which accepting a US war resister means turning away a Kurdish refugee. A Liberal pointed out that if the Conservatives are so concerned about those refugees, they could make it a priority to help them. Why have those poor folks been waiting in camps for so long anyway? And why haven't we heard about them until today?

Going into the hearing, we knew the NDP and the Bloc were on our side. We needed the two Liberals to vote in our favour in order to carry the motion. There was not a lot of optimism about it; I later learned that Campaign leadership did not expect it to pass.

But during the hearing, the Liberal Members asked very good questions, and seemed sympathetic. One of them mentioned a constituent who needed similar status to escape punishment for refusing to fight in a different war of aggression, by a different country. The motion was amended to change "the US war in Iraq" to "any war not sanctioned by the UN or other international governing body".

Notes were passed, Members briefly left the room together, people whispered in each other's ears. We were watching consensus being reached.

Meanwhile, it was getting late; a vote had to go off before 5:15. But first another Tory had to make another speech: they were running down the clock. This MP actually started talking e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y s - l - o - w - l - y, telling stories about his Mennonite grandfather and uncle, how they served administrative duties during World War II, and how "we Mennonites" have the courage of "our" convictions, so if you have to go to jail, just shut up and go.

I believe Olivia Chow had to interrupt him to ask for the question to be called.

The Tories would not give unanimous consent for the question to be called, and insisted on an individual voice vote so they could oppose even that. Finally, as the clock ticked down to 5:13, the motion was called. After four Tory "nays," we heard seven ringing affirmations: "YES," "OUI," OH YEAH" "certainment".

We exploded with joy.

* * * *

So what does this mean? Both nothing, and a lot. The Committee motion itself has no teeth. The Committee will recommend to the Government that the war resisters be allowed to stay in Canada and apply for Permanent Residence. The Government will say no.

But we are trying to get a resolution passed in the House by a united Opposition. We already have the support of the NDP and the Bloc, so our primary objective is to lobby the Liberals. Now we can show them that their own Members who sit on the Immigration Committee, and who have studied the issue, support this. It can only help. The best way to think of it is as a stepping stone, or a springboard. Just one victory.

* * * *

I left my house at 7:00 a.m. and got back at 2:00 a.m., a bit of a long day for an old girl like me. I drove up with a resister and a campaigner (who was a Vietnam War resister), both people I'm friends with. On the way back, another resister came with us and he drove. Ten hours in a car together is a good way to get to know each other and for friendships to deepen, so that was really nice.

We also went out for a small celebration at a pub, something most Campaign members do after every meeting, but I drive back to Mississauga. So this was a nice opportunity for me to hang out a little. Jen (from Keep Insite Open) and two folks from Courage To Resist were there. The Courage to Resist people came from San Francisco to submit a supportive brief and attend the hearings. They're the reason I first heard about these war resisters, so I was very pleased to shake hands and exchange cards.

A good day. A win. And now, onward.

Update:

Exact wording of the motion:

The Committee recommends that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.

The minutes of the committee session are available here.

When everything is translated, you can read the witnesses's submitted statements and all the supporting documents by clicking on the "evidence" box for the December 6 meeting on this page.

today in ottawa: let them stay

I'm off for Ottawa this morning. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is holding hearings on the US war resisters. Resisters and some supporters will be testifying, and the rest of us will be there to lend a supportive presence. There's also a press conference and some lobbying going on.

I'm driving a small group for my first trip to Ottawa! It will be all business, and only for the day. I'm excited to be going. See you tomorrow.

cheap shopping vs health care

Something came up in comments recently that I realized I've never mentioned here, and should.

When I tell people I am from the US - not that I advertise it, but it tends to come up in conversation - reactions fall into a few different categories. Some people are happy and excited; they understand the difference between the two countries and why an American might choose Canada. Interesting conversations ensue. But one fairly common reaction repeats itself nearly verbatim: "Why would you want to move here? We all want to move there!"

I first heard this during an interview at an employment agency, and let me tell you, I was taken aback. I hardly knew how to respond in a way that would be appropriate for a job interview. I laughed, played it down and changed the subject.

Since then, I've heard it many times, mostly from co-workers, but also from Canadian-born neighbours and in other casual interactions. To generalize, I would describe the people who say this as apolitical, largely ignorant of and unconcerned with events outside their own lives, and superficial. People who live in their own little world of family, friends, work and shopping.

By now I've figured out how to respond in a way that feels both comfortable and honest. The conversation goes like this.

Co-worker: You moved here from the US? Why would you do that? We all want to move there!

Me: Why do you say that?

Co-worker: The shopping is so good! We love to go to Buffalo to shop! [When we visit our relatives in Florida, we love to go shopping!] [My son lives in California, and when we go there, we shop all day!] [Etc.]

Me: There seems to be plenty of shopping here.

Co-worker: But things are cheaper there. You can get more for your money. There are more stores, too, a bigger variety.

Me: Next time you go shopping in Buffalo, think of two words: health care. Which would you rather have, free, guaranteed health care, or more stores?

Co-worker: Yeah, that's true! I hadn't thought of that!

Me: [it if still seems appropriate] Or think about Iraq. Which would you rather live in, a country that goes around the globe dropping bombs and invading other countries, or a peaceful nation where you don't have to worry about those things?

Co-worker: Oh yeah, you're right. We take all that for granted, but sure, that's true, I hadn't thought of that.

It doesn't take an hour of talk to get to that point. It takes only a bit of quick perspective. Nevertheless, the person's immediate reaction to the words "United States" is "cheap shopping". And cheap shopping is all you need to know, you'd rather live in a country that has it! (I never raise the issue of why shopping might be cheaper in the US. That seems too complex and abstract in this context.)

I've gotten so accustomed to this reaction in the workplace, I started assuming it. To the question, "Why did you move here from the US?" I started saying, "We wanted to live in Canada rather than the US, believe it or not." Little did I know, the person I said this to was more politically aware than I expected. She said, "Oh I can believe it. Good for you." She's a Canadian-born black woman with many relatives in the US. She was quite clear that her quality of life is better than theirs.

This "shopping" reaction, as I'll call it in shorthand, no longer surprises me, but it does still alarm me. Ignorance is so dangerous. Presumably these people vote. (Or do they?) How are they choosing their party and candidate? Are lower costs their first priority? Do they understand that higher taxes may be necessary for better services? And most importantly, do they fully recognize the rights and privileges they have as Canadians, and their responsibility to protect those rights?

Every so often on wmtc, I hear from Americans in Canada for non-political reasons - for jobs or family - who warn me about Canadian anti-Americanism. When I get more information, I generally find that they are confusing anti-US policy with anti-them. They carry the reflexive defensiveness that most Americans grow up with, the attitude that any criticism of the US is a personal attack.

The Canadians who pine over cheap US shopping and the Americans who feel threatened by criticism of the US government may be counterparts of each other. Each lives in an insular, superficial world. I'm used to that in Americans but it still bothers me in Canadians.

norval morrisseau

The great Canadian artist Norval Morrisseau has died. The Anishinabe painter was either 75 or 76, depending on what you read, and had Parkinson's disease.

I loved this man's work. I'm glad he was recognized in his lifetime.

what i'm watching: "they live in a world of we, not me"

We finally saw "Sicko" last night; we bought it for our complete Michael Moore collection. (New readers wondering why it's taken me so long to see this movie: Movie Season runs from November to April.)

It's a great movie, of course, and more than I had heard. I'd heard and read that Moore compares the health care systems of three countries: the US, Canada and Cuba. But the UK and France are in there, too. The segment on France, when he interviews Americans living in France, is particularly telling and important. I really related to the woman who said she feels guilty because she has it so good and her family in the US does not. I regularly receive emails from Americans who would like to emigrate to Canada but can't meet the requirements, and it makes me very sad.

And the movie is about more than health care. There's a lot of basic political information on the root of the problem (profit) and how to remove it. In other words, Sicko is about capitalism vs socialism. Moore's interview with Tony Benn, more of which is included on the DVD extras, is particularly instructive. Benn is a genius at reducing the issues into clear, simple terms.

Moore's conclusion, before he does the very funny ending with the laundry, is similarly succinct and brilliant.

It was hard for me to acknowledge that, in the end, we truly are all in the same boat and that, no matter what our differences, we sink or swim together.

That's how it seems to be everywhere else. They take care of each other, no matter what their disagreements.

You know, when we see a better idea from another country, we grab it. If they build a better car, we drive it. If they make a better wine, we drink it.

So if they've come up with a better way to treat the sick, to teach their kids, to take care of their babies, to simply be good to each other, then what's our problem? Why can't we do that?

They live in a world of we, not me.

We'll never fix anything until we get that one basic thing right. And powerful forces hope we never do. . . .

Because if we ever did remove the choke-hold of medical bills, college loans, day care and everything else that makes us afraid to step out of line, well, watch out - because it will be a new day in America.

The world of we? That, my friends, is socialism. And that new day would be nothing short of social revolution.

We'll never see pure socialism in Canada or France or the UK, and I'm not necessarily saying we should. A mix of capitalism and socialism, with powerful restraints put on the capitalist system for the greater good, might be best. (I'm not altogether sure of that.) But if we accept capitalism as a necessary evil, then the more socialism we mix into our society, the healthier, stronger and more inclusive our society will be.

In that sense, Sicko is Moore's most radical movie to date.

I have only one criticism of Sicko: Moore's depiction of the supposedly excellent care the prisoners receive at Guantanamo Bay. I understand where he was going with it, of course. But I don't like the implication that there is anything positive going on in the US's offshore concentration camps. Too many viewers could come away thinking that those prisoners are actually living the good life - you know, the "but the slaves were well treated" argument.

"Sicko" should be required viewing for every Canadian, lest we take for granted the most precious gift bequeathed to us from a great socialist, and our treasured fundamental right. More on that in my next post.

* * * *

We also recently saw "Volver," the latest from the brilliant Spanish director Pedro Almodóvar. It is simply wonderful. I have absolutely loved every movie he's done for many years, especially "Talk To Her" and "All About My Mother".

This has been an excellent movie week - Ken Loach, Almodóvar and Michael Moore, three of my favourites. On deck: "Shut Up And Sing," "The History Boys," and a British mock-horror-comedy called "Severance".

it can happen, it has happened, it is happening

Allan recently printed out for me a discussion from Rigorous Intuition, a website started by Canadian author and activist Jeff Wells. There's a lot of good stuff on his site, and a lot of strange stuff, and a lot of overlap between the two.

The conversation in question is from a discussion board, not Wells's own writing, and it addresses a long-running wmtc theme.

The American socialist writer Sinclair Lewis gave a sarcastic title to his work about a fascist takeover of the US: It Can't Happen Here. For some years now, progressive Americans have been remaining watchful, wondering if and when "it" is going to happen. Meanwhile, some of us believe it already has happened. As you may know, I believe this. (My posts about this are scattered through the wmtc category "US regression," but perhaps I should break them out into a separate category: "US Fascism"?)

I didn't conclude that the US is no longer a democracy by reading it somewhere and adopting a position. On the contrary, when I first started thinking about it, I felt isolated, or at least in the wrong camp. But conceiving the US as a new kind of fascist state - one that appears on the surface to be a democracy - enabled me to re-frame many issues, and things started falling into place.

As time went on, I found others who felt the same way, and their writing confirmed and strengthened my beliefs. If sometimes these writings appear on sites that also contain ideas I find bizarre or a bit wacko, so be it. Allan's serious 9/11 Truth inquiry taught me not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. (Sometimes cliche is the only way!) We don't have to agree with everything on a discussion board to understand the validity and relevance of any given post. (We can even ignore unnecessary quotation marks and misplaced apostrophes.)

And with that in mind:

What if we have already been "rounded up?"
The pragmatism of a dystopian present-tense.

It seems reasonable to me that politically aware people would be waxing dystopian lately. We're witnessing bizarre and regular shocks to our collective pysche...

- The Katrina Massacre (a city overtaken by paramilitary thugs, mass death and random imprisonment/police violence

- police brutality at shutting down mass demonstrations (such as the LAPD Immigration rally melee)

- tasering civilians practicing free speech in a university setting

- Grand jury subpoenas IP addresses of alt-newsweekly readership

Given these abuses, it's only normal to air our anxiety about what happens next. We worry for our kids: what sort of world they are inheriting? We want to fix it. Instead of paranoid "fantasies," I see worried "parents" are getting over their fear of what happens next and entering a "strategy" phase, as Naomi Klein hopefully posits in The Shock Doctrine: when the shock starts to wear off, we can get down to the business of making life better.

So, it's with alarm and puzzlement, that "worst case scenario" discussions often attract heated debate as to whether or not the worst could really happen "here." Some people seem personally invested in the notion that nothing that bad could ever happen here. Their posts are peppered with tinfoily hats and eyeroll icons. I guess the desire is to claim a moral or intellectual high ground, as if there's an upside to ignoring creeping authoritarianism. Is there a real-world upside to ignoring the temperature rising under our amphibious butts?

I'm puzzled by this response, because, as I see it, no one loses when ideas are freely discussed. If no worse case scenario happens, well, yea. In the meantime, why wouldn't you "reality check" and strategize?

Setting this aside for a moment, I think it's significant that our discussions are evolving from mere anxiety to strategizing. Might we be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, if we are no longer afraid to answer these questions?

I'm going to assert that our worst case scenarios HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED. Consider New Orleans in the wake of the levee failures and the paramilitary takeover.

Doesn't it seem like we had a worst case scenario there? For all the people who died in their attics, or lost their homes, or are forever poisoned from the environment, it doesn't get any worse.

The narrative that has captured our imagination and generated controversy is the "good german" myth, where rights are diminished to the point of non-existence, while everyone looks on. We imagine that we'll know when "it's fascism" by the presence of government troops and concentration camps. But, the founders of this country imagined a different worse case scenario -- tyranny in the form oligarchy and theocracy. Our laws and Constitution were written to protect the people from the concentration of wealth and political power. Who here can say that we are not yet danger regarding these threats? Who here can say that economic and political power haven't ALREADY slipped from our grasp?

What if the shit hit the fan a long time ago and we're not noticing it because we've grown accustomed to the constant stream of poo covering our cultural landscape? "Good german" scenarios warn against the loss of freedom. So, can someone please tell me what freedom it is that you are afraid of losing? Can you put that "freedom" in plain sight so that we can guard it more carefully? Because, think we have basic misunderstanding. The Good German Syndrome is the fear of complicity in the face of loss of freedom. I think our problem is more serious and talk about "freedom" is meaningless. Our problem is that we've lost our POWER, not our FREEDOM.

Our problem is that we've lost our POWER, not our FREEDOM.

We can speak all we want. We can speak in "free speech zones." We can speak if we don't mind being tasered. We can march in mass demonstrations if we aren't too afraid of being caught in the middle of a melee. We can post on DU, as long as we don't mind that the telecomms are keeping track of everything we say. We have freedom of movement as long as we don't mind cavity searches if we show up on a secret "no-fly" list.

We have freedom-in-quotation-marks in spades.

The problem is we have no power to be heard because our government has no interest in speech that doesn't come in an envelope with a large donation.

We have no power to be heard.

Does money equal speech, as the Supreme Court will likely rule 5-to-4 for the rest of our lifetimes? If corporations enjoy "freedom of speech" via money (which I have very little of), then, how likely is it that my speech will be heard?

Earlier this week, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi lamented her inability to arrest those exercising free speech outside her Bay Area mansion. Do you think, if those wishing to be heard, came bearing giant corporate donations, that they'd be outside building buddahs? No, they'd be inside being heard. Forget about having the power to compete against the deafening ka-ching of lobbyist checks being cashed. We no longer even have the commodious tolerance for speech (even in San Francisco!), by our so-called Democratic leadership. Were that we were homeless, indeed.

Freedom is nothing without POWER, and we're starting to realize just how vulnerable this has made us. Discussing "what if" and "worst case" scenarios is a response to our loss of power. It makes perfect sense to take inventory of our assets and formulate a response in the face of another, larger, deeper catastrophe -- such as the "World War 3" Bush says is "worth starting" in Iran.

I think we've already been "rounded up." We're fed-up, and we're not going to take it anymore. Our discussions at this point are about REGAINING POWER -- not pre-empting a disaster.

We have already been "rounded up."

Read more discussion here.

study confirms no nukes in iran. think it will matter?

In the news this morning:

Despite months of sabre-rattling by U.S. President George W. Bush, America's top spies have concluded that Tehran's ruling mullahs may not want a finger on the nuclear trigger after all.

As recently as October, Mr. Bush was hinting at air strikes against Iran's secretive and mostly underground nuclear sites, warning that averting World War III meant preventing Tehran from tipping its missiles with nuclear warheads.

So a key finding in yesterday's National Intelligence Estimate, that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program four years ago, was unexpected and may avert a showdown.

May avert a showdown, eh? UN inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, either. Thank goodness that "averted a showdown"!

Oh, wait.

Sometimes it still amazes me how the media plays along. Even fairly decent mainstream media that is critical, or at least skeptical, of the US still gives credence to its rhetoric and methods. But then, what else can be expected, when the governments of most of the world's respected nations still treat the US like it's part of the fold, a normally functioning democracy, instead of the rogue state it has become?

After the US invaded Afghanistan - and after it secured the pipeline and its energy interests there - it started laying the ground work for the invasion of Iraq. After installing the puppet government and building its permanent bases in Iraq, it started laying the ground work for Iran.

Perhaps our only hope is that the US will so impossibly overextend its military that they'll have no choice but to institute a draft. And that will - we hope - wake up the American middle class and drive them into the peace movement.

It's a bad thing to hope. I have five nieces and nephews of draft age, and they'll all be sleeping in our living room before they march off to die for US imperialism. Still, I often think it's the only way.

more smart australians

So Australia has removed another roadblock to the Kyoto agreement. Several international sources say this "isolates the US as the only developed nation outside the pact". While technically true, Canada giving itself an extra decade or so to reach emissions targets doesn't exactly fall within the protocols, either.

Yet another reason to look forward to a spring election. I guess we'll soon see the Liberals looking liberal.

a dirty swindle

. . . By daylight the doctors dealt successfully with these disadvantages, and Slateford, so to speak, 'made cheerful conversation'.

But by night they lost control and the hospital became sepulchral and oppressive with saturations of war experience. One lay awake and listened to feet padding along passages which smelt of stale cigarette smoke; for the nurses couldn't prevent insomnia-ridden officers from smoking half the night in their bedrooms, though the locks had been removed from all doors. One became conscious that the place was full of men whose slumbers were morbid and terrifying - men muttering uneasily or suddenly crying out in their sleep. Around me was that underworld of dreams haunted by submerged memories of warfare and its intolerable shocks and self-lacerating failures to achieve the impossible.

By daylight each mind was a sort of aquarium for the psychopath¹ to study. In the daytime, sitting in a sunny room, a man could discuss his psycho-neurotic symptoms with his doctor, who could diagnose phobias and conflicts and formulate them in scientific terminology. Significant dreams could be noted down, and Rivers could try to remove repressions. But by night each man was back in his doomed sector of a horror-stricken Front Line, where the panic and stampede of some ghastly experience was re-enacted among the livid faces of the dead. No doctor could save him then, when he become the lonely victim of his dream disasters and delusions.

Shell-shock.² How many a brief bombardment had its long-delayed after-effect in the minds of these survivors, many of whom had looked at their companions and laughed while inferno did its best to destroy them. Not then was their evil hour, but now; now, in the sweating suffocation of nightmare, in paralysis of limbs, in the stammering of dislocated speech. Worst of all, in the disintegration of those qualities through which they had been so gallant and selfless and uncomplaining - this, in the finer types of men, was the unspeakable tragedy of shell-shock; it was in this that their humanity had been outraged by those explosives which were sanctioned and glorified by the Churches; it was thus that their self-sacrifice was mocked and maltreated - they, who in the name of righteousness had been sent out to main and slaughter their fellow men. In the name of civilization these soldiers had been martyred, and it remained for civilization to prove that their martyrdom wasn't a dirty swindle.

-- Siegfied Sassoon, Sherston's Progress, writing about survivors of WWI

----
1 psychotherapist

2 post-traumatic stress disorder

canadian judge: u.s. is not safe country for refugees

We had some excellent news from the Canadian federal court this week.

In a surprise decision, the court recognized that the United States is not a safe country for refugees, because it deports people to countries that torture.

This means the refugee treaty between the US and Canada - the so-called Safe Third Country Agreement - has been nullified.

Canada will no longer have the right to turn back asylum seekers at the American border under a federal court ruling that deems the United States not a safe country for refugees – opening the door for a potential flood of northbound claimants.

In a surprise judgment yesterday, the court concluded that the three-year-old Safe Third Country Agreement – which denies refugees who have landed first in the U.S. the right to later seek protection in Canada, and vice versa – breaches the rights of asylum seekers under the United Nation Refugee Convention or the Convention Against Torture.

"The interest at stake is highly important to an individual's life, safety and dignity," wrote Justice Michael Phelan.

"I would therefore conclude that the designation of the U.S. as a safe third country leads to a discriminatory result, in that it has a much more severe impact on persons who fall into the areas where the U.S. is not compliant with the Refugee Convention or CAT (Convention Against Torture), as well as discriminating and exposing such people to risk based solely on the method of arrival in Canada."

Refugees arriving in Canada by air, rather than by land, have continued to have the right to remain in Canada while awaiting a ruling on their claim.

The reasoning issued yesterday, which will essentially nullify the agreement with a final court order expected early next year, is a huge victory for refugee advocates, including the Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International and John Doe, a failed Colombian refugee claimant in the U.S., who brought the declaration application to the court.

Activists have long complained that the agreement, which requires refugee claims in Canada and the U.S. to be processed in the country where asylum seekers first land, is unfair and unconstitutional.

"We are somewhat surprised but very pleased with the decision, which is basically everything that we've been looking for," said lawyer Andrew Brouwer, who, along with Barbara Jackman, Leigh Salsberg and Lorne Waldman, represented the applicants.

"This is a vindication of the rights of refugees that we haven't seen around the world in a while."

Ottawa is pondering its options, and says that the treaty remains in effect for now. But with rumours of a spring election, they don't have much to go on.

Canadian wingnuts will be fuming over activist judges and a potential influx of immigrants. But most Canadians will be proud their country is still a safe haven for those lucky enough to make their way north.

I can't help but wonder what this ruling might mean for our Campaign. It can't hurt.

violent radicalization bill: a historical perspective

From Philip Giraldi, via Huffington Post. Emphasis mine.

There has been a long tradition of fear-mongering legislation in the United States directed against groups and individuals believed to threaten the established order. The first such measures were the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress in 1798 during the administration of the second president of the United States John Adams. The Acts, consisting of four separate laws, made it more difficult to become a citizen, sought to control real or imagined foreign agents operating in the United States, and also gave the government broad powers to control "sedition." Sedition was defined as "resisting any law of the United States or any act of the President" punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years. It also made illegal "false, scandalous or malicious writing" directed against either the government or government officials. The next President, Thomas Jefferson declared that three out of the four laws were unconstitutional and pardoned everyone who had been convicted under them.

Early in the last century, hysterical fear of anarchists resulted in the conviction and execution of Sacco and Vanzetti 1927 despite clear evidence that the two men were innocent. A few years later, in 1934, a Special Committee on Un-American Activities was set up by Congress to monitor the activities of fascists in the United States. Ironically, the two congressmen who were most instrumental in the establishment of the committee, Samuel Dickstein of New York and Martin Dies of Texas, both Democrats, were themselves tainted by activities that might reasonably be described as Un-American. Dickstein was himself a paid agent of the Soviet NKVD intelligence agency and Dies regularly spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies. After the Second World War, the committee was renamed the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and focused almost exclusively on communists, continuing to do so until it was incorporated into the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. Concurrent with HUAC on the Senate side, Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, a Republican, became the public face of anti-communism in the early 1950s, with his frequent claims that communists had infiltrated the US government at various levels. Few of the claims could be substantiated, however, and McCarthy eventually fell out of favor and was censured by the Senate.

More recently, there has been the post 9/11 creation of a virtual avalanche of legislation and commissions designed to protect the country at the expense of the Bill of Rights. The two Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2006 and the Military Commission Act or 2006 have collectively limited constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of association, freedom from illegal search, the right to habeas corpus, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from the illegal seizure of private property. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights have all been disregarded in the rush to make it easier to investigate people, put them in jail, and torture them if necessary. A recent executive order of July 17th, 2007 goes even farther, authorizing the President to seize the property of anyone who "Threatens Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." The government's own Justice Department decides what constitutes "threatening stabilization efforts" and the order does not permit a challenge to the information that the seizure is based on.

One would have thought that the systematic dismantling of the Constitution of the United States would have been enough to satisfy even the most Jacobin neoconservative, but there is more on the horizon, and it is coming from people who call themselves Democrats. The mainstream media has made no effort to inform the public of the impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. It is believed that approval by the committee will take place shortly, to be followed by passage by the entire Senate.

Harman's bill contends that the United States will soon have to deal with home grown terrorists and that something must be done to anticipate and neutralize the problem. The act deals with the issue through the creation of a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as "homegrown terrorists." The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them. Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out. Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country. The ten commission members will be selected for their "expertise," though most will be appointed by Congress itself and will reflect the usual political interests. They will be paid for their duties at the senior executive pay scale level and will have staffs and consultants to assist them. Harman's bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn't. Language inserted in the act does partially define "homegrown terrorism" as "planning" or "threatening" to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label. The act also describes "violent radicalization" as the promotion of an "extremist belief system" without attempting to define "extremist."

As currently envisioned, the Commission will not operate in perpetuity. After the group has done its work, in eighteen months' time, a Center of Excellence for the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism will be established to study the lessons learned. The center will operate either out of the Department of Homeland Security or out of an appropriate academic institution and will be tasked with continuing to monitor the homegrown terrorism problem and proposing legislation and other measures to counter it.

As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist," ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process. Through their proven access both to the media and to Congress, the agenda will undoubtedly be shaped by the usual players including David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Frank Gaffney who see a terrorist hiding under every rock, particularly if the rock is concealing a Muslim. They and their associates will undoubtedly find plenty of terrorists and radical groups to investigate. Many of the suspects will inevitably be "anti-American" professors at various universities and also groups of Palestinians organized against the Israeli occupation, but it will be easily to use the commission formula to sweep them all in for examination.

The view that 9/11 has "changed everything" is unfortunately all too true. It has unleashed American paranoia, institutionalized mistrust of foreigners, and created a fantasy universe in which a US beset by enemies must do anything and everything to counter the alien threat. If it were a sane world, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would believe that a Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is even necessary. The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in strengthening law enforcement and intelligence capabilities against terrorists and has every tool imaginable to investigate and make arrests. It has created a whole new bloated and dysfunctional branch of government in the Department of Homeland Security. What is not needed is groups of congressionally empowered vigilantes roaming the country at will looking for "homegrown terrorism."

world aids day

Today, December 1, is World Aids Day.

Reflect, remember, re-dedicate yourself to learning about the issues.

Canadians: something you can do.