pot, meet kettle

Letters to the editor in today's G&M.

I think highly of Bob Rae, and I deplore the war crimes of both sides in Sri Lanka's conflict, but the notion that Canada's government can protest with authority to Sri Lanka's government is hypocritical nonsense (Canada Demands Answers After Sri Lanka Expels Rae - June 11).

Our government recently forbade British MP George Galloway and U.S. peace activists Medea Benjamin and Ann Wright from entering Canada to lecture about the faults of our country; so, by what right do we criticize Sri Lanka for barring Mr. Rae? And for years, our government has detained Muslims who it thinks are terrorists on security certificates, without criminal charge or limits on the duration of imprisonment; so, where is our credibility to fault Sri Lanka for indefinitely detaining Tamil Tigers without charge?

One can debate questions of degree, but one cannot deny that Canada participates in identically stupid and wrongful actions as Sri Lanka.

Amir Attaran, Ottawa

*

A perfect example of don't do as we do, just do as we say.

Pat Seguin, Windsor, Ontario

trust women

Thank you, Katha Pollit. Ever my hero.

Dr. George Tiller, 1941-2009

By Katha Pollitt

Trust women. That was the motto of Dr. George Tiller, abortion provider and hero. Dr. Tiller trusted women: to know their own life circumstances, to know themselves. Trusting women has an old-fashioned ring to it, doesn't it, like "sisterhood." How quaint, the notion that a woman, faced with a crisis pregnancy, can reach into herself and make the decision that's right for her--at any rate, a better decision than someone else would make for her, someone who doesn't know her, has never been in her predicament and doesn't have to live with the consequences.

Someone like, oh, a man. In the immediate aftermath of Dr. Tiller's murder it was astonishing how many men were called upon to weigh in on abortion on national television. CNN featured William Schneider, Sanjay Gupta and Bill Press. On Fox, Bill O'Reilly defended his use of "baby killer" and "death mill" to describe Dr. Tiller and his clinic. On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann--who the last time I checked in spent a whole segment making fun of Miss Anti-Gay Marriage California's breast implants with waspish misogynist Michael Musto--had only men: Slate's Will Saletan, who thinks we can "end" abortion by stigmatizing women with unwanted pregnancies, because right now everyone is just too kind, and Andrew Sullivan, who knows as much about women's reproductive lives as I know about soliciting bareback sex on the Internet. Sullivan confessed:

I do think that--I mean, I'm personally opposed to what he does. I actually don't believe in late-term abortions. But I have to say--on my blog today, a lot of women wrote in and told me their own stories of this. And I was kind of shaken by the fact that most--most women--almost all women that go to these places, are in desperate straits. The children are very, very deformed or ill or will not survive birth or the mother's health is directly threatened. These are very grave and difficult circumstances.

So Sullivan, who has been an outspoken antichoicer for two decades, is only now finding out why women terminate pregnancies? Shouldn't that have been part of the basic research? And even after hearing the awful stories, he still, apparently, thinks Dr. Tiller was wrong to help them: women ought to carry anencephalic fetuses to term, give birth to Tay-Sachs babies who will live a few brief agonized years, postpone their own cancer treatment or heart surgery to give birth even if delay means they die, have their stepfather's baby in middle school. But at least he feels bad about it now.

In the more than three decades since Roe v. Wade, "the fetus" gradually became the star of the abortion drama, and the voices of women who had abortions, aka "the woman," leached out of the public discussion. How many embryos can dance on the head of a pin--now that's interesting! Off-the-cuff judgments about how late is too late and what kinds of health problems count as serious--everyone's a doctor! Even women who have had abortions sometimes play the blame game--my abortion was necessary, but you're just a slut. The murder of Dr. Tiller has gotten more women telling their stories, and that is a crucial, good thing. Not so that panels of pundits can approve or disapprove but so that society can hear, firsthand, what girls and women go through. After all, since Roe, 45 million American women have terminated at least one pregnancy. That's more women than the dwindling flock who accept Catholic doctrine on sexual matters, and more women, I'll bet, than even know who Rick Warren is.

President Obama speaks frequently about finding common ground in the quest to reduce abortions, as if we all agree that the problem is the number, and not the need. Prochoicers, who have rejoiced at his support for contraception, realistic sex ed and accurate reproductive science, must be scratching their heads at his nomination of Alexia Kelley, founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, to direct the Health and Human Services Department's Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. CACG has many fine positions--it opposes war and poverty and the persecution of immigrants--but it supports church doctrine banning abortion and contraception. It's a travesty that its head will now control more than $20 million a year in funding to religious groups for family-planning services: you might as well put an astrologer in charge of funding for NASA. Maybe reproductive rights organizations think they have bigger fish to fry, but I am disturbed by the quiet around this appointment, made before Dr. Tiller was even cold in his grave. Only Catholics for Choice seems worked up about it. As we go to press, Feminist Majority, Planned Parenthood and NOW have said not a word, although NOW's Kim Gandy told me she was "aghast" and would speak out soon. A NARAL spokesperson e-mailed me this tepid statement: "We would not have picked her for this position. What's important to note is that she will be working for a pro-choice Secretary of Health and Human Services and a pro-choice president. We fully expect this administration to continue to promote pro-choice policies in the same way they have since day one."

Meanwhile, word comes that Dr. Tiller's clinic will not reopen. Terrorism works...

* * *

You can honor the life of Dr. Tiller and make sure that low-income women receive safe abortion care by making a donation to the George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund at the National Network of Abortion Funds. Contribute online at nnaf.org/tiller.html or mail a check to George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund, c/o National Network of Abortion Funds, 42 Seaverns Avenue, Boston, MA 02130.

Also thanks to The Great Zerbisias for commentary and addenda to this.

thought for the day: michael ignatieff, your spine is calling you

I apologize in advance for temporarily turning wmtc into some kind of bad FacebookTwitter clone. I have a long list of topics to blog about, but no mental space in which to write coherently. It's wmtc4 minus 1 and counting!

Therefore, here is my thought for the day.

Canada needs a new Government. But first we need an Opposition with a spine. Michael Ignatieff, please find your vertebrae.

(And yes, I know we are not likely to see an election in June. This is not a prediction, merely a wish.)

toronto life: we won't go back

Very nice human interest piece on US war resisters in Canada in Toronto Life. Stories like this make me envious, as it's what I was trying to write for so long, with no takers. But it's out there, and that's more important. Read it here.

what's next for iraq war resisters?

Join us on Friday, June 19, for dinner, socializing, and a political and legal update on the situation facing US Iraq War resisters who have sought refuge in Canada.

Friday, June 19

Steelworkers Hall, 25 Cecil Street

Doors open 5:30 p.m.

Buffet dinner at 6:00 p.m., both vegetarian and non-veg options

Updates at 7:00 p.m., featuring lawyer Alyssa Manning, campaign representatives and war resisters

Tickets $20, available at the door. Proceeds go to war resister legal defense.

Please RSVP so we can plan food! Email resisters@sympatico.ca with your RSVP, or leave a comment here and I'll pass it along.

wmtc meets mseh

At this very moment, I am waiting for MSEH of Two Moms to Canada to arrive from the airport. She's staying with us for a couple of days, en route to a wedding in Detroit. In a bit of bad timing, she's leaving the morning of wmtc4! But it will be so great to meet the New Brunswick branch of our blog family, or one member of it, anyway.

Speaking of wmtc4, it's coming right up, this Saturday night. The potluck seems to be shaping up nicely. Now all we need is good weather. So far early summer in the GTA comes in spurts - a couple of beautiful days interrupted by chill and damp. Could I order one beautiful evening for Saturday, please?

more truth about the late dr tiller and the people he served

Check out Tom Tomorrow on abortion in the rightwingoverse.

Also in Salon, Kate Harding writes "Where will women go now?" and shines a light on the reality of third-trimester termination.

From that story, you can find the website A Heartbreaking Choice. Thankfully, this does not refer to all abortions, as for many women, first-trimester abortion is not at all heartbreaking. The Heartbreaking Choice is the decision faced by people who very much want a baby, but have discovered the fetus has a severe birth defect.

Pregnancy does not end happily for everyone. Sadly, some parents receive grim prenatal news that something is seriously or fatally wrong with their loved and wanted unborn baby. They have to make a decision about continuing or ending pregnancy. We realize that all parents make a loving choice, one they feel is better for their baby. Regardless of the fetal anomaly found, the decision to end a pregnancy is always a difficult one.

Although it is estimated that between 80 and 95 percent of parents receiving a severe prenatal diagnosis choose to end the pregnancy, those who face this nightmare often feel alone. There is very little in the way of support programs for them. With this site and the dedication of courageous parents willing to reach out, we hope to create a safe haven of encouragement, validation, hope and healing.

AHC has a section dedicated to "Kansas Stories". While O'Reilly talks about "killing babies for profit," this is the reality of third-trimester termination.

Thanks to James for sending the Salon links; great stuff.

michael pollan answers readers questions

Today's Globe and Mail has a feature with author and activist Michael Pollan, in which he answers questions from readers. The questions the Globe chose are the ones many people ask, especially those of us who live in a colder climate, and who are struggling with difficult economic times. The story certainly reflects my own concerns.

Here's an example.

I found your arguments in The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food compelling. However, it is much easier to eat produce locally when one is living in California. I can manage to put up some fruits and vegetables in the summer, but not nearly enough to make it through the long Ontario winter. Perhaps if I did not work full-time things would be different. So what do you suggest for those of us in cold climates – are we really supposed to eat only root vegetables for seven to eight months of the year?
–Elizabeth Caucutt, London, Ont.

It's true it's really easy to eat this way in California – and Vancouver, too, I imagine. I'm not a locavore zealot and there's nothing wrong with frozen vegetables – they're really cheap and they are often picked at the height of nutritional quality and freezing does not ruin their nutritional composition. I think it's a very good way to get through the winter months.

I also do think, though, that the idea that you have to have a lettuce salad 12 months of the year has taken hold where there are many other vegetables suitable for salad – root vegetables, cabbage. There are all sorts of ways you can eat fresh vegetables in the winter, shredded with vinaigrette, whatever, that are more nutritious than lettuce salads. There is actually very little food value in lettuce – as much as we all love it, it's overrated.

There's no question it's challenging in the winter and I don't see lots of people putting up hoards of vegetables, but don't overlook freezing or canning. Putting up tomato sauce and preserves for the winter, if you have the inclination, is great – it's a wonderful burst of summer in the depths of winter.

*

I live in Ontario and have very limited access to local markets. In the supermarket, I am often faced with making a choice between local produce or organic produce. Is it better to buy organic apples from Chile, or non-organic produce from Ontario? I want to do the right thing, and price isn't really an issue (or at least I won't let it be), but I really don't know which is the best for the planet. I suspect organic is more important for me and my health, directly, but in the broader social context? What's best for the planet?
– Joan Burton, Newmarket, Ont

There are five questions in all; very worth reading.

what i'm reading: triangle, the fire that changed america

About a month ago, I blogged about Triangle: The Fire That Changed America by David Von Drehle. I finished it quickly, but never found the time to post about it again.

Here's my review: this book is great. It is without a doubt one of the best social histories I've read.

The Triangle factory fire was a microcosm through which to see an entire era, and Von Drehle is an expert at teasing out the many threads that comprise it: labour, urban immigrant life, the progressive movement, the women's movement, machine city government, corruption, reformers. He brings you mini-histories of each, always enough to imbue context, but never so much that you drown in information. This must be incredibly difficult to do, as any one of those topics is very complex, easily supporting the many volumes of books and hours of documentaries made about them.

For example, Triangle contains a capsule history of the garment industry in the US at this time. I knew that New York was the centre of this business, and that most of the industry - workers and bosses alike - were Eastern European Jewish immigrants (my forebears) and other European immigrants. Beyond that, I never asked why.

Why were millions of European Jews flooding to North America? I knew they had been persecuted, but what did that look like; what exactly is a pogrom? Von Drehle paints a brief, harrowing portrait of this horrific mob violence. Why did so many Jews work in the "needle trades"? Being a tailor was one of the few professions open to Jewish people under the Czar's anti-Jewish laws.

Why was the garment industry exploding at this particular place and time? Up until the Civil War, most American families made their own clothes. The Civil War was the first time soldiers wore factory-manufactured uniforms created in standard sizes. Two key inventions allowed for the mass production of clothes, at the same time two other innovations allowed for their distribution: the department store for urban consumers and the mail-order catalog for rural people.

Add to this a seemingly endless supply of cheap immigrant labour, many of whom had previous garment-making experience. Unfortunately for the bosses but fortunately for the rest of us, these immigrants were also activists. They were socialists, and they organized.

Another innovation inadvertently helped the workers organize: the loft factory. Garment industry workers were originally scattered through tenements, working for subcontractors who regularly and ruthlessly cheated them, "sweating" them for more and more work for less and less money. (This is the origin of the word "sweatshop," and it's different than its modern meaning.)

Working two and three to a room, never seeing or communicating with their fellow workers, they stayed weak and divided. When the workers were brought together in the modern factory shop, along with improved working conditions like sunlight and ventilation, they discovered something else: each other.

In this way, through lively, extremely readable digressions, Von Drehle sketches the background each theme. He includes wonderful mini-biographies of the workers, bosses, organizers, politicians, lawyers, and reformers who comprise the Triangle story.

This is a worn cliche to use about a history, but it's the best way to express it: the whole era comes alive.

way to go, nova scotia!

Is the next chapter of this blog "we move to nova scotia"? An NDP majority government, and a record-setting number of women. Wow.

the sad, unfriendly border

I neglected to mark a quietly momentous occasion. At long last, after years of delays and attempts to reconfigure them, the new travel restrictions between Canada and the US have gone into effect.

Beginning last Monday, June 1, people crossing the world's longest border now need either a passport or one of a few other approved documents.

I think this is sad, and completely useless. It obviously won't make us any safer, as there's no real danger in the first place. Despite persistent lies told by US officials, none of the September 11th hijackers entered the US through Canada. As usual, it all boils down to suspicion, innuendo and fear-mongering.

On the US side, that country may face the risk of terrorism within its own borders - Oklahoma City, anti-choice zealots, death threats against the new president - or from the hatred it sows by oppressing people all over the world. But Canada is not the problem.

On the Canadian side, this country faces the ongoing danger of its culture and identity being swallowed up by the US, but no border ID check has ever stopped that or ever will.

* * * *

For people who own passports, the new rules are not a big deal. But millions of Canadians and Americans don't have passports, and they're unlikely to spend time and money getting one for a brief trip over the border.

People who live in certain border provinces and states can apply for enhanced driver's licences or enhanced ID cards, an amendment hard-won by citizens who reasonably fear these useless rules will diminish their economies. But even that restriction may be onerous. It remains to be seen how many people will apply for those documents.

When Allan and I first met, he still lived in his hometown of Burlington, Vermont. Sometimes we'd rent a car and drive up to Montreal for the day. One summer, traveling around New York State, we popped up to Montreal for what turned out to be one of the most memorable baseball games of our lives.

Longer ago, when I was growing up, my family went to Canada several times. On a vacation to Acadia National Park in Maine, we also visited the Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick. Several trips to New England and western New York State included stops into Canada. Growing up in New York, Canada was something both friendly and familiar, and different and a bit exotic. It was cool that we visit another country in just a short drive.

It seems very sad to have lost that. For so many people who depend on border traffic for their livelihoods, it's more than sad. And it's all so completely stupid.

"military suicide is the nation's problem, not just the pentagon's"

Never forget: when you support military resistance, you help save lives.

Here's a New York Times editorial from Sunday, June 7. Thanks to NCF for sending.

Nearly the entire military corps at Fort Campbell, Ky., was summoned last month to hear an anxious general make an extraordinary plea about the alarming rate of suicide by soldiers. "Don't take away your tomorrow," the general beseeched his audience of thousands of men and women at the base, where 14 suicides in the first half of this year leads what many fear could be a record toll across the military services.

The woeful challenge reaches far beyond Fort Campbell, as Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emphasized in Washington last week. He predicted the toll this year will top the record of 2008, when the Army suffered 133 suicides. That was twice the number in 2004, before the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns turned into a slog of repeated tours.

"Leaders must address this," the admiral said, speaking to Congress as much as Pentagon brass in an interview with the newspaper The Hill. He conceded there may be no study establishing an "overwhelming" connection between combat stress and suicide, "but I just can't believe that it is not very much related."

Troops in the field already know this the hard way. About one in five returning home privately admit to post-traumatic stress disorders, but only half seek treatment. Soldiers fear their careers will be compromised if they reach out for help. Admiral Mullen offered a promising idea: mandatory early screening of all soldiers to ease any stigma. But much more is needed.

Military suicide is the nation's problem, not just the Pentagon's. There is a shortage of mental health professionals in the military. The Obama administration and Congress must quickly address this, perhaps with bolstered programs of tuition assistance and volunteer professionals — two ideas Admiral Mullen raised.

At Fort Campbell, crisis counseling and "battle buddy" programs designed to identify severe depression saw a positive stretch of six weeks dashed by three suicides at the end of May. "It will be better tomorrow," the shaken general vowed to his troops — a risky promise as his audience faced more combat stress ahead.

canada's new leaf: war resister story in newsweek

A big story in Newsweek on US war resisters in Canada, which has been in the works for a long time, is now online, on newsstands next week.

America's war deserters could always take comfort in Canada. Now, it's the country that's deserting them.

By Gretel C. Kovach | NEWSWEEK

Kimberly Rivera thought joining the Army would solve her problems. Before she enlisted in 2006, she was struggling on her Wal-Mart paycheck while her husband worked odd jobs and tended their two small kids. She knew she'd be sent to Iraq, but she didn't mind. "I thought I was helping my family and helping my country," she says. But her problems only got worse; she and Mario did nothing but fight on the phone, and the war kept eating at her. In January 2007, while she was home on leave in Mesquite, Texas, she and Mario packed up their car and headed for Toronto rather than let her return to Iraq. The old junker barely made it before breaking down.

Now 26, Rivera has more problems than ever. Her mother hasn't spoken to her since she fled to Canada, although Rivera misses her terribly. And the Canadian government keeps trying to send her home to face desertion charges. She might end up in a military prison—but says she has no regrets about her broken commitment to the service of her country. "At least I can say I never killed anyone, ever," she says. "I think that's a little more honorable."

As Rivera awaits her next court appeal in July, some 50 other American deserters are waging their own asylum battles in Canada. They've inspired rallies and parliamentary resolutions, and triggered clashes between lawmakers and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Not long ago Iraq provoked similar passions on the U.S. side of the border. But after six years of conflict, thousands of combat deaths and innumerable scandals, most Americans are eager to move on. In some ways the war over the war now rages more fiercely in Canada than in the United States.

Dubbed "Resisterville" by opponents of the war, Toronto has become the deserters' refuge of choice. Many settled in the Parkdale neighborhood, a gritty area west of downtown, where placards pledging support for the dissenters sit in some apartment windows, framed by grubby stonework and peeling paint. Rivera and her husband rented a place there, and last year they had their third child, Katie. As the first mother to publicly campaign for asylum, Rivera offers an alluring face for the movement, appearing at rallies with her Canadian-born child to read a poem she wrote for the Iraqi people. "I was fighting for your liberty," it reads. "I was fighting for peace. But in reality, I was fighting to destroy everything you know and love."

When Rivera deployed to Iraq in October 2006, she sounded a lot more like the red-blooded, flag-waving Texan she'd been raised to be. As far as the enemy was concerned, "bomb them all to hell," she thought. A few months into her tour her attitude began to change. Standing in full battle rattle before a young Iraqi girl who shook and sobbed and peered up at her with wild-eyed terror, Rivera was painfully reminded of her daughter Rebecca. The carnage, the constant menace, the strain of separation from her family—all of it wore her down. She barely slept, ate little and withdrew from her fellow troops. Home on leave, Rivera couldn't fathom returning to the war zone. She and Mario talked things over, then packed up their belongings, loaded Rebecca and her older brother Christian into a beat-up Geo Prizm and took off for Canada. [Continue here.]

joshua key interview on suntv

Here's Josh in his own words. Worth watching.

I love how the anchor says "war resisters" with no qualifications and no quotes.

no need to go green: world to end in 2012

If the world is going to end on December 21, 2012, could I have a heads-up, please? I want to start spending our retirement savings.

It's so difficult for me to keep that money untouched anyway. I constantly think of how many trips I could take, where I could go. I wonder, will I live long enough to need this money? Because if I won't, I'm booking flights now.

Now I hear the world will end in a mere three and a half years. Not much point in having retirement savings, is it?

In case you haven't heard, yet another cottage industry has built up around the idea of The End Is Near. These latest End Is Near pronouncements revolve around the ancient Maya calendars, known as The Long Count.

The Maya, the dominant civilization of Mesoamerica (what is now Mexico and Central America) for more than a thousand years, were highly skilled astronomers and mathematicians. (They also had highly sophisticated agricultural systems, trading networks, architectural and engineering accomplishments... it's a long list.) Among their many achievements were several complex, highly accurate, interlocking calendars, around which Maya spiritual practices and culture was structured.

One of the calendars was called The Long Count. It began at the point the Maya dated the beginning of time (that is, the beginning of their civilization), and ended sometime far in the future. Modern translation of the Long Count calendar dates it as ending on December 21, 2012. So of course, people are making money selling books, movies, ads on websites and whatever else crying doom about the impending End Of The World.

Predicting doomsday is an ancient pastime in itself. Whether its Nostradamus or a spaceship coming to rescue the chosen, these doomsday scenarios come and go with astonishing regularity. For me the wonder is why people believe any of it. But believe it they do. At least until the predicted date passes, then it's on to the next thing.

These days, doomsday predictions are not just stupid, they're dangerous. If our planet and everyone on it is destined to be destroyed three years hence, then there's no need to take care of our Earth, is there? We can burn up all the fossil fuels, guzzle all the clean water, topple all the trees. In fact, we might as well consume everything with wild abandon. If there's no future, why not? It's enough to make me wonder if there's some connection between the climate change deniers and the 2012 crew.

I also find this particular doomsday scenario grossly offensive. Long-time wmtc readers may remember I have a fascination with all ancient cultures, but am especially drawn to the ancient civilizations of the Americas. I don't have an expert's knowledge of the Maya by any means, but I know enough to know there's a lot to know.

It's safe to assume that the people fueling the 2012 craze are not experts in Maya civilization. It's likely they've taken a cursory glance, cherry-picked a few factoids, then superimposed those facts (if indeed they used facts at all) onto our own time.

This is a dark version of "going native". Many modern people find solace or strength in ancient cultures, picking and choosing among the various perceived "wisdoms". Sometimes this hovers uncomfortably close to the the Nobel Savage stereotype: anything "native" and "ancient" is good. (Human sacrifice, anyone? Slavery? It ain't all about achieving balance with nature.) But I try not to be contemptuous, and to take a generous view. Many people are searching for guiding principles and philosophies, and we all travel different paths.

But the 2012 doomsday cult isn't a quest for knowledge. It's using another culture's knowledge to promote ignorance.

Plucking one fact out of a complex society's belief system, oversimplifying it, then simplistically applying that dilution to our own world, denigrates that ancient culture. It's a slightly more nuanced version of cigar-store Indians, Mammy and the inscrutable Chinaman.

vigils and memorials for slain abortion provider, and his own words

From NNAF:

The Network is tremendously grateful to the 500 people who joined us at Monday night's vigil in Dr. Tiller's honor, and thankful also to the hundreds of others who sent their thoughts.

In response to requests from Dr. Tiller's clinic staff, emails and phone calls we received from Dr. Tiller's friends and former patients, and a groundswell of support online, the National Network of Abortion Funds created the George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund late in the evening of Sunday, May 31, 2009.

Within the first 24 hours of the Fund's existence, we received more than $15,000 in donations.

The George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund will provide assistance to the same women Dr. Tiller served: women seeking abortions in their second-trimesters, women facing extreme obstacles to abortion, and women who often must travel from their homes to obtain the abortion care they need. The Fund will assist with the cost of the procedures as well as the costs of travel and lodging. Notably, this Fund will be available to patients of the late Dr. Tiller's clinic, Women's Health Care Services in Wichita, at such time when the clinic is able to regroup and reopen.

To donate to the Fund in Dr. Tiller's name, please send contributions to:

George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund
c/o National Network of Abortion Funds
42 Seaverns Ave
Boston, MA 02130

You may also donate online.

A video from the vigil in Dr Tiller's honour in Boston:

In New York:

In Wichita:

Some words from Dr. Tiller himself.

The video of Dr. Tiller is from a series called "Voices of Choice," created by Physicians for Reproductive Health and Choice. It includes many brief, excellent videos, but I'll leave you with this one.

A woman's life is more important than a fetus.

More videos here.

jeffrey simpson: no stoop is too low for the harper conservatives

This column by the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson doesn't break any new ground, but it's a good summary of the divisive, toxic nature Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

Stephen Harper has made two contributions to changing Canadian politics.

First, Mr. Harper reunited the right, driving the union of two parties to produce a strong and effective Conservative Party that has won two minority governments. Today, the Conservatives remain competitive with the Liberals, no mean feat in a recession.

Second, Mr. Harper introduced negative television advertising between elections as a staple of Conservative politics.

Parties had deployed attack ads, very personally aimed at other party leaders, during election campaigns. That they should now be featured between elections is Mr. Harper's contribution.

The ads are not universally popular, even in the Conservative caucus. Some MPs hear from Conservative constituents that they reinforce the party's image under Mr. Harper for thuggishness and excessive partisanship.

But Doug Finley, the party's national director, and Guy Giorno, the Prime Minister's chief-of-staff, tell squeamish MPs that the ads are "working" to frame negatively Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, just as the party's previous televised assault on former leader Stéphane Dion framed him as a nerd and a weakling with crazy ideas.

The current ad campaign costs around $3-million. The ads appear on radio and television, with target "buys" on sports programs, including the Stanley Cup playoffs. Only a party that raises large sums of money can afford television ads between elections, and the Conservatives are the masters of fundraising.

The ads reflect the Harper idea/ideal that politics is a never-ending war in which no quarter is asked or taken. No stoop is really too low for the Harper Conservatives.

Read it here.

gordon liddy isn't pms, so what's his excuse?

From ThinkProgress. See original for links.

Yesterday on his radio show, conservative host G. Gordon Liddy continued the right wing's all-out assault on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. First, just like Tom Tancredo, Liddy slammed Sotomayor's affiliation with the civil rights group La Raza — and referred to the Spanish language as "illegal alien":

LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, "the race." And that should not surprise anyone because she's already on record with a number of racist comments.

Finished with the race-based attack, Liddy moved on to denigrate Sotomayor's gender:

LIDDY: Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Finally, Liddy disputed the entire idea that there's anything wrong with the paucity of women and total lack of Hispanics on the Court:

LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body.

Among the many things wrong with these statements is the fact that there already have been two female US Supreme Court justices. The first was appointed by none other than the patron saint of the wingnuts, one Ronald Reagan. But maybe Sandra Day O'Connor was done menstruating. Or she was taking testosterone injections. Or she was assumed to be conservative.

The denigration of the Spanish language and of Latino culture is icing on the bigotry cake, especially as the Republicans fall all over themselves courting "the Hispanic vote".

joshua key irb hearing, part six, final

[Part one - Part two - Part three - Part four - Part five]

After another break, Mr Gould, the Refugee Protection Officer, made a closing statement. The Ministry and Alyssa both asked to make their statements in writing, so Mr Gould's statement served as the conclusion to the hearing.

This was very interesting, and very surprising. Although he spoke in the most qualified language imaginable, the RPO was, in fact, arguing on Josh's behalf.

Nothing was direct. Everything was "...the Board should at least consider the possibility..." and "...can it fairly be said that this might possibly be...". At the time, I felt like Josh's clear voice of truth was being diluted by polite legal language. Imagine an eyedropper of pure truth being squeezed into a swimming pool of words. The truth is in there somewhere, but how can you find it?

But later, reading over my notes, I saw that the RPO was on Josh's side. Granted, he's not the one who renders the decision. That's done by the Board member, who is a political appointee. But if the Board member wants to grant refugee status in this case, the RPO has given him plenty to go on.

* * * *

Mr Gould said it is necessary to consider the military backdrop "that permeates the entire claim". Josh's actions or non-actions at every turn must be seen in terms of violence, fear of a violent death, the necessity to follow orders, and the consequences of refusing an order.

He said that in this case, state protection must be seen in a military context, and that justice in this context would be very harsh, because the charge of desertion is very serious. While there must be clear and convincing evidence that state protection is not available, and that the bar is set very high because the US is a democracy and the military has a justice system, the Board, still, must ask several questions.

Will the claimant be in a position to raise a defense?

Will he be given an adequate hearing?

Mr Gould said it's clear that Josh will not be able to mount a defense, as his motives for desertion would not be allowed as evidence. "This is the first point where state protection becomes complicated," he said, noting that we must turn to the Barnes decision for guidance. He then quoted extensively from it:

...officially condoned military misconduct falling well short of a war crime may support a claim to refugee protection. Indeed, the authorities indicate that military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates either combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is the proven reason for refusing to serve.

Mr Gould pointed out that Josh was involved in, as a conservative estimate, some 200 house raids, which he has described in detail, all involving civilians. Mr Gould said the repetitive nature of these raids, the fact that the degrading treatment of noncombatants was inherent in the orders, must be weighed against the issue of state protection.

The RPO quoted from another decision that speaks to a soldier refusing orders that are morally repugnant and considered unacceptable by international standards. That decision states that any form of punishment, at any level, arising from the soldier's refusal to follow orders constitutes persecution, and thus supports a claim to protection.

He suggested that this should be given considerable weight, saying there is "clear and convincing evidence" that the claimant will have no defense at his court martial, and that "similarly situated people" (an important factor in refugee law) have been dealt with harshly.

The RPO said that if the IRB accepts that "any level of punishment in this situation amounts to persecution, it puts a very different cast on this claim. It is incumbent on the Board at least to consider this."

He mentioned, again, the US as a democracy, and the extensive military justice system. But then he returned to Josh's speaking out, and how similarly situated people have been punished for speaking out.

He said there was an additional complication: hazing before a court martial would even take place. "Is that an unfortunate fact of military life? Or does it amount to persecution in and of itself?" Can the claimant complain about that harsh treatment? No. Can he refuse to comply with it? No.

Mr Gould questioned whether Josh's "notoriety," for having written a book in which he publicly opposes the war, would put him in an even worse situation if returned to the US.

"The Board should at least consider the possibility that the level of hazing the claimant is likely to endure may put him at least within the guidelines of section 97, if the test for section 96 fails."

* * * *

Now both sides are given time for written submissions: first Alyssa, then the Ministry's response, then Alyssa's response to that. The IRB will render its decision in late July.

joshua key irb hearing, part five

[Part one - Part two - Part three - Part four]

The final examination was from the Immigration and Refugee Board member, Mr Ken Atkinson.

He asked about Josh's attempts to get out of the Army, seemingly implying that he hadn't tried hard enough. I also thought he tried to imply that Josh has not received an official diagnosis of PTSD.

Early on, Mr Atkinson asked about Article 15. If you read my post about war resister Dale Landry's recent federal court hearing, you'll recall that the Crown attempted to portray Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as a "dispute resolution mechanism". (See the reaction of a former member of the US military, here.)

At this point, Alyssa strenuously objected, and attempted to clarify what Article 15 actually is: punishment without a court martial. For a deserter, the outcomes of Article 15 could be jail and a discharge, or jail and forcible return to Iraq. The outcomes of court martial: jail and discharge, or jail and forcible return to Iraq.

The Board member insisted that Article 15 is something less onerous than court martial. Alyssa was as strong as she could have been, but it's unwise for a refugee claimant's counsel to go up against the board member too strongly, and she had to let it drop.

The Board member asked if there has been any change in the procedures for house raids in Iraq, if the US military is still stopping Iraqis' cars at checkpoints, and how Iraqi detainees are now being processed. To Josh's knowledge, nothing has changed. The IRB member then implied that perhaps Josh is just ignorant of these changes. And what does this have to do with Josh's claim for refugee protection? I'm not sure.

In response to a question from the member, Josh briefly described what it was like to "live in the shadows" for 14 months in Philadelphia. Driving to work by a different route every day. Seeing a police car and changing course, driving into a wealthy neighbourhood and pretending to live there. Never revealing anything about himself, never trusting anyone, living hour to hour, day to day.

Mr Atkinson asked a lot of questions about refusing illegal orders, and about the chain of command. There's clearly a disconnect here, where the IRB believes - or wants to believe, or uses a feigned belief as an excuse - that a soldier in the US military can simply say, "I don't want to participate in this," and continue living a normal life.

The member brought up an incident in Ramadi, in which Josh's entire squad objected to an order, an insane suicide mission from which none of them would have returned. Weren't those orders changed? Josh explained that (a) that mission was out of the ordinary (unlike the house raids), and (b) the entire squad, including the squad leader, had objected.

The Board member seemed to pretend not to understand the difference.

* * * *

Alyssa's cross-examination again helped clarify some of the Board member's erroneous implications.

Is there an appeal from a court martial sentence? There is no appeal for the charge of desertion. And for any appeal, the soldier serves time in prison while waiting for the appeals process.

What was the difference between the incident in Ramadi and the house raids? The orders in Ramadi were for a one-time mission. Also, tellingly, the refusal to participate was out of concern for the lives of the US soldiers themselves. It was not a refusal based on concern for the victims of the mission: the squad was being sent to blow up a school.

Final part next.

[Part six]

joshua key irb hearing, part four

[Part one - Part two - Part three]

After lunch, the RPO asked a few more questions, about what happens to military deserters in the US, the hazing they face while waiting for punishment, and if it's possible to refuse such hazing. Again, I now think he was helping to establish that Josh would be punished for refusing to systematically degrade and humiliate people.

Then it was Alyssa's turn. She asked Josh questions which clarified and further detailed his earlier answers. Details like being taught how to curse in Arabic, specifically for the purpose of humiliating Iraqi women in the street, and further enraging Iraqi men. Details like the names of the captains who ordered the house raids. Details like the fact that nothing was ever found in any house raid. Ever.

"At first I thought we were there because of weapons of mass destruction, and because Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant. But nothing was ever found. No terrorists, no weapons, nothing. Nothing but homes being broken into, and soldiers taking whatever they wanted. Months of this, and it never changed. I had to ask myself, Why? Why are we here? Why are we doing this?"

Alyssa was typically brilliant about asking simple questions that prompted Josh to tell parts of his story in more detail. How did you know you'd be punished if you tried to object?

"One time a lieutenant colonel was coming to speak to us. Our sergeant instructed us that we were not to ask him any questions. We were told the colonel would ask if anyone has any questions, but we were not to ask him anything.

"The lieutenant colonel gave his talk, and sure enough, he asked us, Are there any questions. One soldier asked why we were using Vietnam-era body armor, instead of the more effective armor we knew some other units had. After the lieutenant colonel left, that soldier's pay was cut in half. For asking one question."

Alyssa asked Josh about the two times he tried to object by filing a mission statement, which is supposed to be his right as a soldier. If you've read The Deserter's Tale, Josh attempted to file mission statements after the incident with the decapitated head, and with the little girl outside the hospital. Both times, he was told, "It's none of your concern, soldier."

Alyssa also asked about some incidents in which soldiers were punished for their behaviour in Iraq. Nine people were court martialled for incidents in the Abu Ghraib prison, and two were court martialled for murdering Iraqi civilians in cold blood. Doesn't this show that the Army cares about this inhumane treatment?

Josh explained that those actions were outside of normal activity. "That was insanity. Craziness. But what we did, the house raids, that was normal. Standard operating procedure. We weren't cowboys. We were following standard orders."

Alyssa had Josh mention a platoon-mate who deserted and was forcibly returned to Iraq. The platoon leader told his chain of command, "You'd better send him somewhere else, because we'll shoot him in the back."

Josh was able to explain why conscientious objector status, as defined by the US Department of Defense, does not apply to him. "I can imagine that some wars could be justified, in the past or perhaps in the future. Also, it's based only on religious beliefs. I'm not a particularly religious person. I object to the immorality of this war."

Do you think the Army might be more lenient with you because of your PTSD? Josh said, no, if anything it would be the opposite, citing the example of war resister James Burmeister. The Army views PTSD as weakness.

Do you think the Army would help you with your PTSD if you were to return?

"There are thousands of veterans not getting help with their PTSD. Why would I be any different? 'Drink water and drive on.' That's the Army's answer to everything.

"No one gets treatment. They're only given medication. The suicide rate of soldiers returning from Iraq is massive. Iraq vets are already living on the streets."

Alyssa established how the US military has already tried to silence Josh, hunting him down in Toronto - not asking to speak to him through his lawyer, but trying to trick him into being taken into custody - and changing his record after the fact. A few years ago, when police pulled Josh over for some car issues, they ran his license, told him his car was riding too low in the back, and said have a nice day. Last year, when he was pulled over (the man is famous for driving junkers), police ran a license check, then pinned Josh against the car with a gun to his head. Why the difference? His license check came up as "known for drugs, weapons and explosives". Since none of that is true, how did the change occur?

Through Alyssa's questions, Josh was able to emphasize how the US military's policy towards deserters has changed since the invasion of Iraq, how soldiers who desert because they oppose the war, and who speak out about that opposition, are selected for prosecution and then punished more harshly than a soldier who, for example, goes AWOL to go home to see a dying parent.

Alyssa helped Josh clarify the futility of trying to get out of the Army through any legal means. It's stay in and do as you're told, or go AWOL.

[Part five]

joshua key irb hearing, part three

[Part one - Part two]

Mr Railton, counsel for the Ministry, went next.

His first incomprehensible, scattered questions set the tone for his examination. He asked Josh where certain pieces of evidence were located in the record, which Alyssa pointed out was a question for counsel, not the claimant.

He asked about the Army Chain of Command, as if he never heard of such a concept.

He asked Josh why he believed he would be treated more harshly because of his book, meaning, because he had spoken out. Then, incredibly, Railton said, "I understand there is a cult of celebrity in the the US. If you were sent back to the US, wouldn't it be good publicity for your book?" He asked Josh if his "celebrity status" would protect him from punishment.

It was all we could do to not get up and object ourselves! Celebrity status?! The idea that Josh Key has "celebrity status" in the US is completely absurd. The idea that the military would care about such a thing is beyond absurd. Can you just see it now? I understand, Mr Key, that you may want to appear on Oprah in the future. Therefore, we will not charge you with desertion or put you in jail.

Next Railton set out to paint a picture of Iraq during the first month Josh was there. (He got the dates wrong, whether by accident or to trick Josh into assenting to incorrect dates, therefore introducing an inconsistency in his testimony, I don't know. Josh simply corrected the dates.) Railton mentioned the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction, about the "Sunni triangle," about the contractors who were killed, about snipers and suicide bombers.

Alyssa asked, "Excuse me, how is this relevant?"

"I want to establish that Iraq during that time was not a walk in the park."

"Nowhere in the evidence does anyone assert that Iraq was 'a walk in the park'. This is not relevant."

Railton said he was establishing that the aggressive stance taken by the US in the house raids may have been taken out of necessity.

Josh said, "The violence was what we created. Myself and my fellow soldiers. There would have been no violence if not for us. We never saw a combatant face to face the whole time we were in Iraq."

"At what point did you conclude that?"

"We all knew that if the positions had been reversed, if Iraq had invaded the US, there would have been ten times the violence. We were bringing death and destruction on Iraq. People may call them terrorists, but they are also freedom fighters. They are doing what anyone would do, what we would do: fighting for their families, fighting for what is theirs."

Railton asked if Josh objected to the house raids at the time, and Josh talked about what happened to people who objected even slightly, how they were punished, threatened with having their pay cut off, so their families would have no way to support themselves, threatened with jail time.

Did you object? "I did what I was told, sir."

Railton tried to get Josh to pinpoint the time when he realized what they were doing was wrong. Josh described an evolution of thought, rather than an epiphany moment. "When I first went, I believed in the mission. It took a while for me to see the reality."

"And what was the reality as you saw it?"

"That the US was terrorizing the Iraqi people."

Railton took Josh through his time back in the US, trying to establish that Josh had other options besides jail, Iraq or Canada. It was clear there were no other options, certainly none that Josh was aware of.

Josh said the military brought him as far as Atlanta, then he made his way back to Fort Carlson, Colorado, where his family was living on base, on his own. At this point, the IRB member interrupted, "You mean the military transported you from there?"

"No sir. We had to make our own way."

"You had to buy your own ticket?"

"From the hub, which in my case was Atlanta, yes."

Incredulous, Mr Atkinson asked, "Were you reimbursed for that?"

"No, sir."

Josh mentioned someone from his squad who went home on leave, and finding "he had nothing there," reported back for duty early. I made note of that heartbreaking fact.

* * * *

Railton continued asking Josh about his two weeks of leave, and then about the 14 months he and his family spent living in hiding in Philadelphia. Josh described "living in the shadows" in a paranoid state.

Railton helpfully pointed out that he recently did a Google search for things like "army deserter needs help" and "AWOL need help," and found the GI Rights Hotline and "four or five civilian lawyers who bragged that they could get AWOL soldiers off without jail time".

Josh pointed out that he was in hiding in 2004. Much has changed.

[Railton made the GI Rights Hotline sound like a federal agency. It's a coalition of peace activists! It bothered me that this wasn't clarified.]

Railton continued questioning Josh about his time in Philadelphia, trying to establish that Josh didn't try hard enough, or didn't try at all, to find a way out of the Army. Josh was steady, consistent and perfectly clear. There was no way out. There was no one to help. There was either jail or Iraq.

Did you seek a civilian lawyer? "No. I was scared of being sent to jail or back to Iraq. At that time, I had never seen a lawyer in my life. I didn't know what you told a lawyer was private and confidential."

Did you see a medical doctor? "No. I was afraid of being apprehended, and being stop-lossed back to Iraq. I also didn't know that what you told a doctor is private."

[Apparently Railton "doesn't know" that Josh couldn't afford to see a doctor in the US. Lack of medical insurance for his family was one of the reasons he joined the Army in the first place!]

Did you seek spiritual counseling? "No, sir. After my time in war, my spiritual state was a little off."

* * * *

Then Railton went off the rails, asking Josh if he had made plans for what would happen if he was returned to the US, if he had sought legal counsel there. Alyssa asked about the relevance of the questions, and he tried a slightly different approach.

Have you made plans for what you would do in the US? "I focus my energies on trying to remain in Canada, sir. I want to stay, and I should be allowed to stay, and I focus all my energies on that, sir."

He asked why Josh thought he would be sent to prison if returned to the US.

"Because of the examples of the people who have already been sent back, sir. Why would it be any different for me?"

Then Railton asked Josh how many copies his book had sold in the US. Josh didn't know, but Railton pressed on. "Would you say it sold well? Would you say it sold thousands of copies? I have a friend who just self-published a book, and he has already sold 8,000 copies--"

The IRB member interrupted. "Be careful, Mr Railton."

We broke for lunch.

[Part four]

joshua key irb hearing, part two

[Part one]

The Refugee Protection Officer (RPO) went first.

He started out asking Josh questions about his book. (And if you haven't read this yet, you must! You'll understand this issue in a lot more depth after you read The Deserter's Tale.)

In Iraq, Josh was involved in house raids. In these raids, US soldiers, in the middle of the night and without warning, would use explosives to blow the door off an apartment. While some of them shouted commands in English at the terrified occupants, holding them at gunpoint, others would search the apartment - often destroying all the contents, as well as taking whatever they wanted for themselves.

Any male occupant over five feet tall was removed from the home. These men and boys were forced to strip naked, then were cuffed, hooded and loaded into trucks - and taken away.

I want to note here that Josh Key's credibility is not an issue here. Contrary to what his wingnut detractors say, the IRB found Josh's claims truthful.

Mr Gould asked Josh more details about the raids. In his IRB first hearing, Josh thought he had participated in about 75 raids. However, when working on the book with Lawrence Hill, carefully going over how long he was in Iraq and how often the raids were conducted, piecing together the chronology, Josh realized that the number of raids he participated in was closer to 200.

This is an important point, because in order to be considered a refugee for refusing illegal orders, the orders have to have been systematic and standard - not something out of the ordinary that someone was asking to do once, but something that soldiers had to do all the time. Clearly 200 raids in seven or eight months constitutes systematic. And now that was in the record, too. I think that may have been the RPO's intentions.

Mr Gould asked Josh about the details of the raids. Did you (meaning the squad) treat the occupants roughly? Yes. Did you beat them? Yes. Why? This was Operating Procedure.

Were you trained to do this? Yes. Did your superior officers demonstrate how to do this? Yes. But not in the US, only in Iraq.

Did they instruct you to cuff the men? Yes. To hood them? Yes.

Mr Gould delicately and hesitantly mentioned that the book says the "detainees were de-clothed"? Yes.

Where did they remove their clothes? In a room or separate area? No. Out in the open.

What was the purpose of their being de-clothed? "To dehumanize, sir."

"What was that?"

"To dehumanize."

"Were you told that?"

"Yes."

"By whom?"

"By our chain of command."

Mr Gould established that this was done to all males over five feet tall who were found in randomly chosen homes. They were placed on trucks, and Josh never saw them again, and doesn't know what happened to any of them.

In this manner, the RPO had it read into the record that the US soldiers in Iraq were under orders to systematically degrade and humiliate civilians. I'm thinking this man Gould - at least that day - was on our side.

Did any soldiers comment on the rough treatment given to these detainees or to the women in the households? Yes.

What were they told? That they would stop complaining or be charged.

Who said that? My lieutenant, sir.

The RPO then asked Josh about the two weeks while he was in the US on leave, trying to get out of going back to Iraq. Josh made two anonymous phone calls to a JAG (military) lawyer, as well as a call to a relative who is a lawyer. Josh was willing to stay in the military and complete any other assignment. Anything, as long as he didn't have to go back to Iraq.

The RPO easily established that Josh learned he had two options: go to Iraq, or go to jail. And after jail, he could be sent to Iraq anyway.

He asked, "How important was the treatment of detainees in your decision to not return to Iraq? How strongly did you feel, what role did it play in your decision?"

Josh said, "It played a very big role. At first, it was an adrenaline rush. Then seeing the faces of the people, it played on me. It played on me then, and it plays on me now. I didn't know if what we did was illegal, but I know it was immoral."

The RPO asked Josh what would happen if he were sent back to the US. Josh told him he'd be hazed, then sent to prison. Josh mentioned Robin Long, who was sentenced to 15 months.

Would you be charged with desertion? Yes.

Would you be given a trial? A military court martial.

Would you be able to raise a defense? No.

Josh testified, truthfully, that his specific orders in Iraq - that is, his reason for deserting - would be excluded from the court martial. War resister Camilo Mejia was not allowed to show any evidence, including his attempts to file for conscientious objector status. War resister Ehren Watada was not allowed to give evidence about what he witnessed in Iraq, or to bring expert witnesses to the court martial. War resister Kevin Benderman was not allowed to testify in his own defense.

Josh testified to the names of other war resisters who were selected for prosecution and punished more severely because they spoke out against the war. James Burmeister. Kevin Benderman. Camilo Mejia. Robin Long. Clifford Cornell.

When you decided to speak out, to write your book, did you know your sentence would be increased? No, sir. That was before these men were sentenced.

Why did you speak out? Because I wanted to get my story out there. I wanted the truth to be known.

Mr Gould asked about hazing or "smoking," as it is also known in the military. Josh testified about the verbal, mental and physical abuse soldiers are subjected to, which often includes forced physical labour until the point of muscle failure. Under military guidelines, a soldier is required to be given four hours of sleep per day, so hazing often includes 20 hours of forced physical labour. War resisters Christian Kjar and Matt Lowell were both subjected to this kind of hazing.

Mr Gould asked if a soldier could refuse hazing, or get someone else, such as a chaplain or JAG lawyer, to stop it. In the hearing, I thought he was being naive or patronizing. Now, however, I think he was purposely establishing the brutality of the military.

At one point, he asked Josh, what do you think is the point of this hazing? Josh said, "To have complete, total control over you. To have total control."

[Part three]

joshua key irb hearing, part one

About 20 of us gathered on Victoria Street in downtown Toronto to make a visible presence outside this very significant hearing. A campaigner handed out about 200 leaflets; later in the day, on our way back from a break, someone in the elevator told us she had read the flyer. She looked at Josh and said, "Good luck."

There were only a few seats for spectators in the small hearing room. I was fortunate to attend, by virtue of writing about the proceedings for all of you. Among our little group were three reporters, Canadian author Lawrence Hill, who wrote The Deserter's Tale and is a friend of Josh's, and the wonderful woman who gave the Keys a home when they first came to Canada. (She is named in The Deserter's Tale, but since I didn't ask her permission, I'll leave her anonymous here.)

The Immigration and Refugee Board member who heard the case - the person who will render the decision - was Ken Atkinson.

The Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration was represented by James Railton.

The Refugee Protection Officer, who is supposed to be a neutral party and ensure that the refugee claimant is given due process, was Robert Gould.

Every spectator also had to identify her- or himself for the record, spelling our names and indicating our reason for being there.

Much of the morning was taken up with procedural business, and through much of that, we waited in the hall outside the hearing room. Josh looked very sharp in his suit jacket and tie, and very nervous. He was eager to get it over with.

Even during the procedural part of the hearing, the Ministry was up to dirty tricks. Among the documents they wanted to introduce was an National Crime Information Center (NCIC) search showing no listing for Joshua Key.

Lawyer Alyssa Manning asked them to explain the relevance of the document. The NCIC shows only one thing: whether a person has a criminal record in the United States. In other words, an NCIC search is a historical document. It shows the past; it doesn't show the future. Josh has never been convicted of a crime, so he doesn't have a criminal record. Similarly, an FBI search on his name would come up clean.

No one has ever alleged that Joshua Key had a criminal record. So what was the Ministry up to?

One of the points the Conservatives always make is that the war resisters aren't really wanted in the US, they may not even be prosecuted, and if they are, they'll get off with a slap on the wrist. Showing that Joshua Key's name doesn't come up in an NCIC search supposedly makes this point. But the NCIC doesn't show that.

The IRB did not accept the document as evidence.

That gave me a good feeling at the outset.

* * * *

It's important to note that most of Josh's case would not be re-heard. All the evidence from his first hearing is already on record. That was an all-day ordeal in which Josh, suffering from serious post-traumatic stress disorder, told his story in detail, possibly for the first time. My campaign friends who were there tell me it was grueling and heart-wrenching.

This second hearing would focus on two issues, in light of the Federal Court decision by Justice Robert Barnes. The decision is a fascinating lesson on refugee law and human rights. For our purposes, the most relevant portion are the following paragraphs.

29. It is clear from the above passages that officially condoned military misconduct falling well short of a war crime may support a claim to refugee protection. Indeed, the authorities indicate that military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates either combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is the proven reason for refusing to serve. I have, therefore, concluded that the Board erred by imposing a too restrictive legal standard upon Mr. Key.

30. I would add that the Board's assertion that Mr. Key's past combat participation would not be sufficient to support his claim to asylum unless it constituted excludable conduct cannot be correct.

This would give rise to an unacceptable "Catch 22" situation where the factual threshold for obtaining protection would necessarily exclude a claimant from that protection.

An "excluded person" cannot be admitted into Canada. Someone who has committed war crimes is by definition an excluded person. You can do the math.

The first issue in today's IRB hearing would be state protection. A refugee claimant must show that his country of origin cannot or will not offer him adequate state protection from harm or persecution. Justice Barnes said the IRB did not properly address this in its original decision on Josh.

The second issue is prosecution vs persecution. In certain circumstances, prosecution is persecution, and sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) apply. Section 96 says:

96. A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,

(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or

(b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.

Section 97 is the same, but instead of "refugee," it applies to "a person in need of protection". This is a slightly different status, but for our purposes, not an important distinction.

Then, finally, the meat of the hearing began.

[Part two]

[Photos by Ken Marciniec, with thanks. Click to enlarge and to see more photos. Hi to wmtc readers NCF and Boyd!]

gay penguins raising abandoned chick

[redsock guest post]

AP:

A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April. The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

additional note on recent jason kenney picket in toronto

I forgot a little Campaign note that I wanted to share. So rather than bury it in an old post, here's a new one.

This past Monday, Toronto Campaigners showed up at the Sutton Place Hotel, where an unpublicized event featuring Immigration and Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney was taking place. (How do we know about these things? Magic!)

About 15-20 supporters were outside the hotel, holding our huge DON'T DEPORT WAR RESISTERS! banner and handing leaflets to passers-by. Someone going into the event took a leaflet and said, "I agree with you!"

We later heard that, inside, the protest "was definitely noticed". Someone in the audience stood to ask a question, and, identifying himself as an historian, "upbraided" Mr Kenney for his stance on war resisters in Canada, and "was warmly applauded".

People of peace and good conscience are everywhere!

* * * *

Kenney was at the hotel to announce Canada's participation in an international Holocaust education effort. The event was held on the 70th anniversary of Canada's refusal to allow a ship full of Jewish refugees into the country.

Canada had a lot of company on that one: every country in the Americas also refused to allow the passengers of the St Louis onto their shores. The 907 Jewish people on board were sent back to Germany.

That was a mistake that Canada now admits and regrets.

Today the Canadian government makes another mistake, by turning away and deporting war resisters.

blues diva koko taylor, 1929-2009

Koko Taylor, known to many as Queen of the Blues, has died at the age of 80. Taylor worked until shortly before her death, a vibrant, sensual presence at 80 years old.

A few lifetimes ago, Allan and I interviewed her backstage at New York City's Beacon Theatre. She was gracious and generous with her time, totally down to earth, and an electrifying performer.

This from AP:

Koko Taylor, a sharecropper's daughter whose regal bearing and powerful voice earned her the sobriquet "Queen of the Blues," has died after complications from surgery. She was 80.

Taylor died Wednesday at Northwestern Memorial Hospital about two weeks after having surgery for a gastrointestinal bleed, said Marc Lipkin, director of publicity for her record label, Alligator Records, which made the announcement.

"The passion that she brought and the fire and the growl in her voice when she sang was the truth," blues singer and musician Ronnie Baker Brooks said Wednesday. "The music will live on, but it’s much better because of Koko. It’s a huge loss."

Taylor's career stretched more than five decades. While she did not have widespread mainstream success, she was revered and beloved by blues aficionados, and earned worldwide acclaim for her work, which including the best-selling song "Wang Dang Doodle" and tunes such as "What Kind of Man is This" and "I Got What It Takes."

Taylor appeared on national television numerous times, and was the subject of a PBS documentary and had a small part in director David Lynch's "Wild at Heart."

In the course of her career, Taylor was nominated seven times for Grammy awards and won in 1984.

Taylor last performed on May 7 in Memphis, Tenn., at the Blues Music Awards.

"She was still the best female blues singer in the world a month ago," said Jay Sieleman, executive director of The Blues Foundation based in Memphis. "In 1950s Chicago she was the woman singing the blues. At 80 years old she was still the queen of the blues."

Born Cora Walton just outside Memphis, Taylor said her dream to become a blues singer was nurtured in the cotton fields outside her family’s sharecropper shack.

"I used to listen to the radio, and when I was about 18 years old, B.B. King was a disc jockey and he had a radio program, 15 minutes a day, over in West Memphis, Arkansas and he would play the blues," she said in a 1990 interview. "I would hear different records and things by Muddy Waters, Bessie Smith, Memphis Minnie, Sonnyboy Williams and all these people, you know, which I just loved."

Although her father encouraged her to sing only gospel music, Cora and her siblings would sneak out back with their homemade instruments and play the blues. With one brother accompanying on a guitar made out of bailing wire and nails and one brother on a fife made out of a corncob, she began on the path to blues woman.

Orphaned at 11, Koko — a nickname she earned because of an early love of chocolate — at age 18 moved to Chicago with her soon-to-be-husband, the late Robert "Pops" Taylor, in search for work.

Setting up house on the South Side, Koko found work as a cleaning woman for a wealthy family living in the city’s northern suburbs. At night and on weekends, she and her husband, who would later become her manager, frequented Chicago’s clubs, where many the artists heard on the radio performed.

"I started going to these local clubs, me and my husband, and everybody got to know us," Taylor said. "And then the guys would start letting me sit in, you know, come up on the bandstand and do a tune."

The break for Tennessee-born Taylor came in 1962, when arranger/composer Willie Dixon, impressed by her voice, got her a Chess recording contract and produced several singles (and two albums) for her, including the million-selling 1965 hit, "Wang Dang Doodle," which she called silly, but which launched her recording career.

From Chicago blues clubs, Taylor took her raucous, gritty, good-time blues on the road to blues and jazz festivals around the nation, and into Europe. After the Chess label folded, she signed with Alligator Records.

In most years, she performed at least 100 concerts a year.

"Blues is my life," Taylor once said. "It's a true feeling that comes from the heart, not something that just comes out of my mouth. Blues is what I love, and blues is what I always do."

In addition to performing, she operated a Chicago nightclub, which closed in November 2001 because her daughter, club manager Joyce Threatt, developed severe asthma and could no longer manage a smoky nightclub.

Survivors include her daughter; husband Hays Harris; grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Funeral arrangements will be announced, the label said.

Video at that link, too.

stop quibbling and let them stay

Here's a letter exchange from the Toronto Star, in response to Mary Jo Leddy's excellent op-ed, which you can read here.

First this:

The recently blocked torture photos from Iraq provide a grim vindication of U.S. war resisters. By deporting them to jail, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is making Canada complicit in these crimes. Canada has a tradition of welcoming war resisters – volunteers and conscripts alike – and Parliament has twice voted to renew that proud legacy. When will Kenney stop punishing soldiers for resisting a war based on torture, and start respecting our tradition and democracy?

Jesse McLaren, Toronto

It is with disappointment that I read yet another article in support of those who flee to Canada to avoid service in the U.S. military. Mary Jo Leddy refers to the men applying for refugee status in Canada as "resisters" and "conscientious objectors." It needs to be made clear that, first, a true conscientious objector would never enlist in the military, and second, that enlistment in the U.S. military is one of a voluntary nature as there has been no draft since the end of the Vietnam War.

By enlisting in the U.S. military service, a person signs a contract and is given a short period of grace to withdraw from it. Once that window has passed, the enlistee is obligated to fulfill the contract. So what are they resisting? It appears that they are trying to avoid the obligations of their contractual duties.

I have no problem with these men applying after their contract has expired, or if they are trying to avoid the odious aspect of their contract wherein the U.S. military can and has forced service personnel back to active duty after their period of duty has expired.

Michael Cook, Scarborough

Then this:

Michael Cook objects to Americans who had a contract to serve in the U.S. armed forces claiming refugee status here in Canada. But this argument ignores the fact that the invasion of Iraq was illegal according to the Charter of the United Nations, the conclusions of the Nuremburg trials, etc.

The position of those who seek to remain here is that the U.S. government dishonoured their contracts. Many of those who have fled to Canada already served one term in Iraq and were required to perform acts that were illegal under international law.

We ignore Canadian history and tradition if we do not let them stay. Canada has been always been a haven for Americans: the United Empire Loyalists who founded English-speaking Canada, escaped slaves, and servicemen who had been drafted without their consent.

We should allow these people to stay regardless of legal quibbling over the terms of their contracts.

John Brinckman, Toronto

There's no need to get caught up in the "quibbling" (good word) over conscription versus voluntary enlistment. Soldiers volunteered to protect and defend their countries, not murder innocent civilians. A soldier has a responsibility and a duty to refuse illegal orders.

Canada's Parliament has already voted on this - twice! The majority of Canadians believe US war resisters should be allowed to stay. Canada's a democracy, right? Right?

another step towards marriage equality in u.s.

Yay New Hampshire!

Despite its east-coast location, New Hampshire is not particularly progressive. This is a great step in the right direction.

josh key irb hearing, report coming tomorrow

I attended yesterday's court-ordered second IRB hearing for war resister Joshua Key. I took massive amounts of notes, and I'll attempt to re-create it for you as best I can. I'll work on that tonight, and have it up for tomorrow morning.

In general, it went very well. Josh was excellent - a clear, strong voice for peace and morality. Alyssa Manning was excellent as his advocate, and even the Refugee Protection Officer was clearly inclined towards granting refugee status.

However, it would be unwise to infer a victory based on that. None of us in the movement believe the IRB is a neutral and impartial body. Their employer, so to speak, has already called the war resisters "bogus refugees". Board members are political appointees, and to date have shown little interest in addressing the facts.

On the other hand, if this board member wants to rule in favour of Josh, he has statutes and court orders to back him up.

So I'll get the details up tomorrow. Meanwhile, here are some reports by the media who attended.

Short wire-service story from Canadian Press,

Longer CP story as picked up by the MetroNews,

and an excellent story by NewsFix.ca, with a lovely photo of Josh and his youngest child.

who is responsible for the assassination of george tiller?

I know this is being circulated like crazy, but just in case you haven't seen it yet, from Salon: O'Reilly's Campaign Against Murdered Doctor, by Gabriel Winant.

I haven't been able to read the whole piece yet. I'm still too upset about Tiller's murder. I can't stomach this hatred, this fatwa, against a man who, despite danger to himself, helped desperate women and girls get their lives back. But it's here.

Keith Olbermann says Fox News incited Dr Tiller's murder:

Adele Stan asks, Tiller Murder: Ann Coulter's Happy Day?

There's a lot more, but these make the point well enough.

nebraska doctor vows to keep tiller clinic open

It's heartening to read this, a testament to the courage and conviction of ordinary people. From the McClatchy news service.

Women's Health Care Services, the clinic that has been bombed, blockaded and vandalized for more than 20 years because late-term abortions are performed there, will be closed this week to mourn the slaying Sunday of founder George Tiller.

But the clinic will resume normal operations next Monday, said LeRoy Carhart, a Nebraska physician who has been coming to Tiller's clinic on a rotating basis for more than 10 years now.

"What people need to know is... the women's services that we provided for 30 years are not going to change," Carhart said. "The same abortion services will remain available in Wichita."

Tiller, 67, was shot to death just after 10 a.m. Sunday in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, where he was serving as an usher.

Scott Roeder, 51, of Merriam, has been arrested in connection with the shooting, according to the Johnson County Sheriff's Office. He remains incarcerated at the Sedgwick County Jail pending the filing of charges.

Carhart said he drove to Wichita last night. He met with clinic staff members and Tiller's wife and daughters Monday morning.

"It was a really, really good meeting," Carhart said. "It was a chance to go over all the important things and the good things George had done for each of us, and ways that we could appreciate all that he's done for the community and the women of this country.

"His daughters and his wife are doing far better than I would be doing if I just lost my life partner or my mother or father," he said.

Patients who had appointments this week have been notified of the clinic's closing, and other arrangements have been made, Carhart said.

"Starting next Monday we should be back to 100 percent," he said.

Carhart said he and two other out-of-state doctors have been rotating weekly shifts at the clinic, and that will continue.

good morning, mr kenney, we haven't forgotten you

Yesterday Jason Kenney made an appearance at a Toronto hotel. Like most of the Immigration Minister's activities these days, this one was not publicized. No matter. Members of the War Resisters Support Campaign were there to greet him anyway.

The story in the Toronto Star ends with this paragraph:

A small group of supporters of the American war resisters in Canada picketed outside the Sutton Place Hotel where Kenney was speaking. Former U.S. soldier Kimberly Rivera has been living in Toronto with her family for two years fighting deportation to the United States. Her three months in Iraq, she said this morning, made her realize "It was wrong for me. Every person, no matter what they wear or what they believe deserves to be treated the same." Rivera's next court hearing is July 8.

tomorrow: morning vigil for war resister joshua key

Tomorrow, June 3, the Immigration and Refugee Board will hear the case of war resister Joshua Key for the second time.

Last summer, the Federal Court ordered the IRB to re-hear Josh's case with a new immigration officer.

In a strongly worded opinion, Justice Robert Barnes said, "Officially condoned military misconduct falling well short of a war crime may support a claim to refugee protection. Indeed, the authorities indicate that military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates either combatants or non- combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is the proven reason for refusing to serve. I have, therefore, concluded that the Board erred by imposing a too restrictive legal standard upon Mr. Key.” This is the first of the war resisters' cases to make it this far, and we have been eagerly awaiting the hearing.

Josh Key, as you probably know, is the author (with Lawrence Hill) of The Deserter's Tale, a riveting book that exposes the heart of military resistance. I always say that if you want to understand everything about this issue - why people in the US join the military, what they find there, what happens when they try to leave - you should read this book. It's very compelling; once you start, you won't be able to put it down. I posted the book's introduction here, and blogged about it again here.

If you're a supporter of US war resisters in Canada, and you live in the Toronto area, please join us for a vigil outside the IRB tomorrow morning. You can also attend the hearing, as space permits.

Please note the address; this is not the Federal Court on Queen Street.

When: Wednesday, June 3, 8:00 a.m. vigil, 8:30 hearing
Where: 74 Victoria Street, east of Yonge, south of Queen
Why: LET THEM STAY!

Hope to see you there.

george tiller memorial abortion fund established by nnaf

The National Network of Abortion Funds, known as NNAF (En-Naf), has established the George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund. The Fund will help women who need to terminate pregnancies in the second trimester pay for procedures, as well as paying for travel and lodging enroute to providers.

Contributions can be sent to:
George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund
C/o National Network of Abortion Funds
42 Seaverns Avenue
Boston, MA 02130

NNAF will honour the memory of Dr. George Tiller with a rally and vigil today in Boston. Details here.

For those unfamiliar with NNAF, go here and here to learn more.