7.04.2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian Press has the story. This is an important piece that ties together many threads of our fight to persuade the Harper Government to follow the will of the majority and allow US war resisters to stay in Canada.
The Harper government is denying claims that it stripped a section on Vietnam from a federal website to boost its case for deporting Iraq war resisters.

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

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

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

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

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

Several others expect to receive removal orders at any time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bully boy pride

Pride parade with pits!

Go! Watch!

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

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

I highly recommend these posts:

Hard Work

and

The other problem with all this anti-labour sentiment

and

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

san francisco vigil for war resister kim rivera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

military resistance is global

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

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

. . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.03.2009

sing sing sing

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

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





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

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

weds july 8: vigil for war resister kim rivera

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

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

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

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

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

the wolves of haliburton ontario

F1010025


F1010023


F1000015



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * *

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

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

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

* * * *

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

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

More photos from the Wolf Centre are here.

7.01.2009

we all must support striking city workers

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

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

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

The most important takeaway: hold the line.

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

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

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

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

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

Hold the line.

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

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

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

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

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

Hold the line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How would you feel if that were done to you?

Hold the line.

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

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

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

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

Hold the line.

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

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

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

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

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

Hold the line.

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

We working people give of ourselves every day.

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

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

They do not.

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

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

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

Hold the line.

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

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

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

+ + + +

Some ideas:

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

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

  • Hang a WE SUPPORT CITY WORKERS sign in your window.

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

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

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

  • What else? Your ideas are welcome.
  • o canada for our time

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

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

    walkom: city workers a convenient target

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

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

    by Thomas Walkom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So too the Toronto civic workers' strike.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In the '90s, the same thing happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    happy canada day

    Happy Canada Day!

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

    1. picket support

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

    3. blog

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

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

    6.30.2009

    we must support striking city workers

    I've just come home from an excellent meeting called by the International Socialists in support of striking city workers in Toronto - and in support of working people everywhere.

    I have many thoughts to share on why all of us - union and non-union, public workers and private, employed and unemployed - should support public employees in their fights against concessions.

    Tomorrow morning, along with many people who attended tonight's meeting, I'll join the picket at a garbage-transfer station.

    When I come home, I'll write about the meeting, and the strike, and me, and you.

    Meanwhile: solidarity. Their fight is our fight is all of our fight.

    debunking myths about canadian health care system

    This excellent story about the Canadian health care system doesn't break any new ground, but it's a clear, concise overview. I'm posting it in the hopes that it will help progressive USians in their efforts to bring sanity to the US's health care crisis. ("Crisis" seems like too small a word for the health care in the US. Disaster? Catastrophe?)

    It is estimated that 18,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance. And that's only the deaths. How many more suffer diminished lives? [Update. Sarah O. just alerted me to this study: "Make that 22,000 uninsured deaths".]

    The Institutes of Medicine, a source of hard facts on science, medicine, and health, has studied the effects of lack of health insurance on USians, and issued a series of reports.
    Many Americans believe that people who lack health insurance somehow get the care they really need. Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, the second report in a series of six from the Institiute of Medicine's Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance, examines the real consequences for adults who lack health insurance. The study presents findings in the areas of prevention and screening, cancer, chronic illness, hospital-based care, and general health status.

    The committee looked at the consequences of being uninsured for people suffering from cancer, diabetes, HIV infection and AIDS, heart and kidney disease, mental illness, traumatic injuries, and heart attacks. It focused on the roughly 30 million - one in seven - working-age Americans without health insurance. This group does not include the population over 65 that is covered by Medicare or the nearly 10 million children who are uninsured in this country.

    The main findings of the report are that working-age Americans without health insurance are more likely to receive too little medical care and receive it too late; be sicker and die sooner; and receive poorer care when they are in the hospital, even for acute situations like a motor vehicle crash.

    "Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths," by Rhonda Hackett, writing in The Denver Post.
    As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.

    Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.

    Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

    Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.

    As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

    Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

    In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

    Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

    The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

    Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.

    Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

    What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

    Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.

    While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

    There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

    Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.

    There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

    Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.

    Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

    Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.

    Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

    Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

    From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

    And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

    It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.

    mark sanford is really a democrat. just ask fox news.

    Recently I heard someone say, "The only person happy about Michael Jackson's death is Mark Sanford." Suddenly the scandals around the South Carolina Governor's whereabouts, lies and extra-marital escapades are no longer front-page news.

    But did you know Sanford is really a Democrat? Well, not really, but Fox News said he was. Please click through for screen shots!
    When does an embattled Republican suddenly become an embattled Democrat? When Fox News is covering him, of course.

    The network known for its conservative leaning ran footage of Mark Sanford admitting to an extramarital affair on Wednesday with a Chyron identifying the South Carolina Republican -- near tears -- as a D, for Democrat.

    Fox News apologized for the "mistake" (no unnecessary quotations here!), but what about all the other "mistakes"?

    InterShame.com - "Shaming bad behavior on the WWW since 1995!" - has gathered screen shots of Fox News identifying scandal-plagued Republicans as Democrats: go here to marvel at this wonder of "journalism".

    [Pet peeve note. If you are inclined to wonder, "What's become of journalism today?" or to lament the decline of journalistic standards, you're a few centuries late.]

    calgary herald: harper government barring door to u.s. war deserters

    This Calgary Herald story by Norma Greenaway really sums up the situation with the Harper Government's intransigence on Iraq War resisters. Please click through to see a great photo of Campaigner Patricia Molloy (the true identity of NCF revealed!) protesting Jason Kenney's appearance in Oslo!
    Jason Kenney's most memorable assault on U.S. war deserters seeking refuge in Canada occurred soon after he became immigration minister in October 2008.

    Kenney dismissed them as "bogus refugee claimants," a phrase that set off loud alarm bells among the deserters’ supporters because it was more loaded than anything said before by his Tory predecessors in the job.

    The phrase cannot be found in more than 300 pages of department briefing notes, e-mails and other documents relating to the issue obtained by Canwest News Service under Access to Information legislation.

    Not surprisingly, the language in the documents, including background briefing notes for the minister and his parliamentary secretary written by bureaucrats, is decidedly more neutral than the words chosen by the Calgary firebrand.

    Still, the underlying message in the printed material dating back three years is there is no appetite for intervening politically to do for Iraqi war deserters what Pierre Trudeau did for Vietnam War draft dodgers and deserters in 1969, when his government laid out the welcome mat for both groups. There also is nothing in the documents that suggests the issue has spurred any debate within government ranks.

    In a memorandum to Kenney in February, Richard Fadden, his then-deputy minister, provided a thorough review of the issue that, among other things, laid out why all Iraqi war deserters’ claims for refugee status had failed so far with the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal.

    . . . .

    Supporters of the deserters admit they are discouraged, but they vow to keep pressing the government to show some compassion before more get eviction notices.

    Immigration critics for the opposition Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois sent a joint letter to Kenney on Friday asking him to halt all deportations and to respect the "will" of Parliament, which has approved two motions calling for permanent resident status for the "war resisters."

    "We urge the government to show compassion for those who have chosen not to participate in a war that was not sanctioned by the United Nations," the letter said.

    Two deserters have been forced to leave already and are serving jail sentences on desertion charges.

    A handful of others could follow soon as they exhaust their legal options. Among them are Jeremy Hinzman, the first deserter to file for refugee status in Canada in 2004; Kimberly Rivera, the mother of three young children, one of whom was born in Canada; and Phil McDowell, an Iraqi war veteran who fled to Canada in 2006 rather than accept a call to report back to base as a reservist for a 15-month deployment to Iraq.

    Michelle Robidoux, a spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign, says about 50 deserters have applied for refugee status and there are dozens more living below the radar, waiting to see how the legal and political battles play out.

    Robidoux said Kenney's comments have tainted the Immigration Refugee Board process.

    "How can it possibly be an independent body when a Minister of the Crown is saying they are bogus refugees?" she said.

    If you live in striking distance of the Calgary Herald's base, will you take a few minutes and write a letter to the editor? Call on the Government to respect the will of Parliament and Let Them Stay. Tell them it's the Canadian thing to do.

    letters@theherald.canwest.com

    immigration critics to jason kenney: respect the will of parliament, do not deport war resisters!

    I've mentioned that the Campaign, along with our Parliamentary supporters, are concerned about what will happen to U.S. war resisters in Canada this summer.

    Several war resisters are at risk for deportation - Jeremy Hinzman, Dean Walcott, Patrick Hart and Kimberly Rivera, among others. There is good reason to fear that the Harper Government will use the Parliamentary recess as an opportunity to aggressively go after them - to send them back to the U.S. authorities, to face court martial and imprisonment - while there are fewer avenues of appeal, and less media to report on it. This has already happened twice, in the summer of 2008, and the winter of 2008-09.

    As part of an ongoing strategy to support war resisters during that time, all three Opposition Immigration Critics have sent an open letter to Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

    This is the text of the letter. Please feel free to circulate this and use it however you can.


    CANADA
    HOUSE OF COMMONS - CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES
    [Official House of Commons letterhead]


    June 26, 2009

    The Honourable Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P.
    Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism
    325 East Block
    House of Commons
    Ottawa, Ontario
    K1A 0A6

    Dear Minister Kenney:

    As Parliament rises for the summer break, we write to remind you of the House of Commons' direction to the Government of Canada regarding Iraq War resisters.

    Twice now, on June 3, 2008 and March 30, 2009, Members of Parliament have voted to direct the government to immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may be commenced against Iraq War resisters and their families and to establish a program to facilitate these war resisters' requests for permanent resident status is Canada. In our consideration of this important issue we highlighted that the element of compulsion and the stop-loss provision in the U.S. are inconsistent with our sound values of fairness, understanding, compassion, and justice.

    Therefore, we urge the government to show compassion for those who have chosen not to participate in a war that was not sanctioned by the United Nations.

    When the House of Commons resumes sitting in the fall, we ask that you act in good faith in accordance with this direction from the majority of Canadians' elected representatives.
    Mindful that at other times there has been an apparent increase in deportation activity when the House is not sitting, we urge you not to use the Parliamentary recess to disregard the expressed will of the House of Commons with respect to the fair treatment of Iraq War resisters in Canada.

    Yours sincerely, [with signatures]

    Honourable Maurizio Bevilacqua
    Immigration Critic, Liberal Party of Canada

    Olivia Chow
    Immigration Critic, New Democratic Party of Canada

    Thierry St-Cyr
    Immigration Critic, Bloc Québécois

    *


    CANADA
    HOUSE OF COMMONS - CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES
    [Official House of Commons letterhead]


    Le 26 juin 2009

    L’honorable Jason Kenney, C.P., député
    Ministre de la Citoyenneté, de l’Immigration et du Multiculturalisme
    325, édifice de l’Est
    Chambre des communes
    Ottawa (Ontario)
    K1A 0A6

    Monsieur le Ministre,

    Nous vous écrivons en ce début de relâche du Parlement pour l’été pour vous rappeler les conseils don-nés au gouvernement du Canada par la Chambre des communes au sujet des résistants à la guerre en Irak.

    À deux reprises, soit le 3 juin 2008 et le 30 mars 2009, les députés du Parlement ont adopté une motion demandant au gouvernement de cesser immédiatement toute action de renvoi ou d’expulsion entreprise contre les résistants à la guerre en Irak et leurs familles, et d’établir un programme leur permettant de demander le statut de résident permanent au Canada. Durant nos délibérations au sujet de cette question importante, nous avons souligné que la prolongation forcée de la période d’engagement en vigueur aux États-Unis est contraire à nos valeurs d’équité, de compréhension, de compassion et de justice.

    Nous exhortons donc le gouvernement à témoigner de la passion à l’endroit de ceux et celles qui ont choisi de ne pas participer à une guerre qui n’a pas été sanctionnée par les Nations Unies. Lorsque la Chambre des communes reprendra ses travaux à l’automne, nous vous demandons d’agir en toute bonne foi conformément à la motion adoptée par la majorité des représentants canadiens élus.

    Conscient de l’augmentation apparente du nombre d’expulsions à d’autres moments où la Chambre ne siégeait pas, nous vous exhortons à ne pas profiter de la relâche parlementaire pour faire fi de la volonté expresse de la Chambre des communes en ce qui concerne le traitement juste des résistants à la guerre en Irak qui vivent au Canada.

    Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Ministre, mes salutations distinguées.

    Honourable Maurizio Bevilacqua
    Immigration Critic, Liberal Party of Canada

    Olivia Chow
    Immigration Critic, New Democratic Party of Canada

    Thierry St-Cyr
    Immigration Critic, Bloc Québécois

    This summer could be dire for people of peace and conscience, people who are working and contributing to Canadian society, people who ask only one thing: let us stay.

    Call, write, email. Show them we are watching.

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

    Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney
    613.954.1064
    613.992.2235
    minister@cic.gc.ca
    kenney.j@parl.gc.ca

    If you email Jason Kenney, please cc the opposition party critics. Or email them to thank them for their support.

    Liberal party immigration critic Maurizio Bevilacqua
    bevilacqua.m@parl.gc.ca

    NDP immigration critic Olivia Chow
    chow.o@parl.gc.ca

    Bloc Québécois immigration critic Thierry St-Cyr
    st-cyr.t@parl.gc.ca

    6.29.2009

    canada knew about afghan rape law in advance

    It turns out that Canadian diplomats had advance knowledge of Afghanistan's "rape law", weeks before the laws were passed. Antonia Z has some questions.
    1. If Canadian diplomats knew but didn't think it worth a briefing, what do they understand about our mission in Afghanistan?

    2. If Canadian diplomats knew and actually did give the government a briefing, why didn't we hear about this law sooner?

    3. Why are Canadian men and women dying to keep Karzai in power?

    4. Isn't our "mission" in Afghanistan supposed to be humanitarian?

    Please click for links and details.

    Canada out of Afghanistan now.

    another canadian abandoned by the harper government

    Abdihakim Mohamed is a Canadian citizen. He's 25 years old, of Somali heritage, and he's autistic.

    He's been stuck in Kenya for more than three years. All Mr. Mohamed needs to return to Canada is a passport, or some similar travel document. Canada won't issue him one, and there's no good reason why.

    * * * *

    Mohamed is at risk in Kenya, and if he's deported to Somalia, he'll be in grave danger there.

    In Kenya, Mohamed faces a life without adequate supervision and care, in a culture where there is said to be a great stigma against people with disabilities. He has been harassed by police, and likely faces more police abuse in the future. If, because he is ethnically Somali, he's deported to Somalia, he faces more danger there.

    Somalia is one of the countries for which Canada has issued an official warning: "Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against all travel in Somalia. Canadians in this country should leave. There is no resident Canadian government office in Somalia, and the Government of Canada cannot provide consular assistance to Canadian citizens in distress in Somalia."

    All that Mr. Mohamed needs to ensure he will not be sent to Somalia is a one-way travel document or replacement passport.

    But the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade allege that Mr. Mohamed is not who he says he is, claiming he is an "impostor" who his mother is trying to "smuggle" into Canada. Apparently there aren't a lot of family photos. But numerous people have filed affidavits attesting to Mr. Mohamed's identity. Mr. Mohamed has offered to submit to DNA testing, but Passport Canada hasn't gone ahead with that.

    David Yerzy, a Toronto lawyer who knows Mr. Mohamed and signed an affidavit attached to his recent photo, says, "He had a valid passport, which was seized by the government. All he needs is a passport renewal."

    Mohamed has already been arrested twice and poorly treated by Kenyan authorities who, discovering he was Canadian, assumed they would be bribed for his release. This pattern might escalate to further arrests and requests for bribe money. With each passing day, Mr. Mohamed is in danger of arrest, imprisonment, and worse. Why can't he come back to Canada?

    For more information on how Mr. Mohamed got to Kenya, and why he doesn't have a Canadian passport with him, you can read an extended backgrounder on this case here, at Toronto Coalition to Stop The War. [This case was recently featured on CBC's The Current. I didn't hear the show; I don't listen to the radio.]

    The backgrounder is very interesting. It describes a simple human error in judgement - not even an error, really, just a judgement call that didn't work out - then a maddening, and likely racist, bureaucracy.

    Popular pressure helped bring Abousfian Abdelrazik back to Canada. Maybe we can help this man, too. Here's what you can do.

  • Write a short, polite letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. Cc Prime Minister Stephen Harper and your own MP. As Minister Cannon to stand up for the right of Mr. Abdihakim Mohamed to come home, and to issue him a passport or other appropriate travel document so he can be brought back to Canada.

  • If you prefer, call the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Or do both!

    Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs
    613.992.5516
    CannoL@parl.gc.ca

    Stephen Harper
    613.992.4211
    HarpeS@parl.gc.ca

    More information and links to details are here.

    Many thanks to the good folks of Toronto Coalition to Stop the War for calling this campaign. Let's bring this man home.
  • "the only person in canada who can send someone to their death is a member of the irb"

    Forty years ago, when Canada signed the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, it agreed not to expel anyone within its borders to any place where their lives or freedom would be threatened because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

    And Canada has been looking for loopholes ever since.

    There's a good, lengthy feature in the Montreal Gazette about Canada's refugee policy, both historically and currently. It ran on June 20, which was World Refugee Day. (By coincidence, I spent the day transcribing a war resister's IRB hearing!)

    "Sometimes A Safe Haven" lays out the facts and myths about the Canadian refugee system - who it serves, who it fails, and how it measures up. Unsurprisingly, as this endless Conservative government smears its fingerprints over every aspect of Canadian life, refugee claimaints are waiting longer for resolution, a smaller percentage of claims are being accepted, and the entire process is being prejudiced by a minister who can't seem to keep his mouth shut.

    Some excerpts:
    The last time Esly Moreno ever saw the man she loved was on a snowy day in February 2006, at the St. Bernard de Lacolle border crossing. Dennis Asuncion Rivera, 21, a handsome car salesman, and the petite Moreno, then two months shy of her 19th birthday, had fled Honduras together three months earlier.

    The common-law couple, who were expecting a baby, hoped to find refuge in Canada from a criminal gang that had made death threats against Rivera.

    But their dream of a safe haven shattered against the Safe Third Country Agreement, which enables the United States and Canada to turn away asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Canada border by requiring them to apply for refugee status in the first country they entered.

    Moreno, who had a sister in Montreal, was allowed into Canada under a provision for refugee claimants with relatives in Canada. But immigration agents returned Rivera to the U.S., which deported him to Honduras.

    A month later, members of the M-18 gang murdered Rivera, an increasingly commonplace tragedy in a country where, according to the U.S. State Department, gang members outnumber police by three to one.

    His death highlights what refugee advocates say are growing cracks in Canada's record as a refuge for people fleeing persecution.

    . . . .

    Canadians have led the world in sheltering people needing protection. . . . But as they mark World Refugee Day, advocates charge that Canada's measures in recent years to deter asylum-seekers are undermining its legal commitment to refugees.

    "Canada, like most western states, ever since it signed the convention, has been looking for ways to evade its international legal responsibilities," said Audrey Macklin, a professor of law at the University of Toronto.

    "The objective is to prevent asylum-seekers from arriving at the border and claiming the rights provided under the convention." In addition to the Safe Third Country Agreement, Canada uses a variety of techniques to deflect refugees from its borders, Macklin added. These include stringent immigration rules, intercepting ships on the open seas and posting immigration officers in overseas airports to screen passengers' travel documents before boarding.

    . . .

    The 35,000 refugee claimants who managed to outwit immigration laws to reach Canada in 2008 are a mere trickle compared to the 42 million people in the world uprooted by war and persecution, according to a report this week by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. They include 16 million refugees who have fled their countries and 26 million displaced people within war-torn countries.

    Goldman noted that media reports often tout Canada's generosity toward asylum-seekers. But 80 per cent of refugees live in developing nations like Pakistan and Iran, which bear the costs of hosting them. It's all but impossible to seek refuge in Canada without breaking immigration laws, Goldman said. That's because you need a visa to travel from a refugee-producing country, but such visas are usually unobtainable.

    "There's a kind of hypocrisy," Goldman said. "Canada does everything possible to stop people from ever getting here. It's a Catch-22." While the media often portrays asylum-seekers unsympathetically, Goldman said, most people are compassionate toward individual refugees.

    . . .

    Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has expressed similar [negative] sentiments, charging that asylum-seekers are committing "wide-scale and almost systematic abuse" of Canada's refugee system.

    "This is clearly an abuse of Canada's generosity," Kenney told a Canwest News reporter in March, commenting on a rise in refugee claims last year.

    The number of asylum-seekers from April 1, 2008, to March 31, 2009, was 36,269, up from 30,581 for the same period in 2007-08, according to the IRB.

    The spike in claims "is a violation of the integrity of our immigration system," said Kenney, adding that there is a "broad political consensus" that Canada's refugee system is broken. The minister did not respond to a request for an interview.

    Kenney singled out a surge in asylum-seekers from Mexico, who can enter Canada without a visa under the North American Free Trade Agreement, as evidence the system is being abused.

    But Crépeau said that drug-related and family violence in Mexico is cause for concern. "The state is not protecting you," he said. The fact that Mexican resorts like Cancun are popular with Canadians does not mean all refugee claims from the country are unfounded, he said.

    . . .

    Last year, the IRB accepted 7,596 refugees and rejected 6,816 others. Another 3,778 applicants gave up their claims.

    The drop in the number of successful asylum-seekers "is part of a continued trend wherein access to Canada via land borders has become very difficult," Jedwab said.

    A growing backlog at the IRB also contributed to fewer refugee claims being approved. The backlog of asylum-seekers in the system has risen to 58,000 from 20,000 since 2005. Understaffing of the IRB was a contributing factor. In March, Auditor General Sheila Fraser called attention to the government's failure to fill openings on the IRB, creating delays in processing refugee claims.

    In the House of Commons last month, Kenney vehemently denied the suggestion the government was letting delays accumulate in order to undermine the refugee system.

    . . .

    "The only person in Canada who can send someone to their death is a board member of the IRB," he said. While most IRB members are well-intentioned, some are unqualified to rule on the validity of refugee claims, said Crépeau, who recommends increasing lawyers on the IRB to 50 per cent of board members from the current 10 per cent.

    Crépeau also called on the government to enact a bill passed in 2001 to establish an appeal division in the IRB, a cause the Bloc Québécois has championed in Parliament.

    In the wake of 9/11, the rights of refugees were sometimes set aside as western governments tightened security in the fight against terrorism, Crépeau said.

    But the human rights of non-citizens must not be forgotten, he said.

    "The ultimate issue we're seeing emerging is that we're talking about human beings," Crépeau said.

    "Why should they be treated with less fairness simply because they are not Canadian? We're talking about justice."

    6.28.2009

    welcome home, mr abdelrazik!

    no pride in war

    rainbow peace


    Happy Pride, everyone!

    Today's Pride Parade in Toronto will feature the "No Pride in War" contingent, organized by CUPE Toronto District Council and Educators for Peace & Justice. From the organizers:
    Take a stand against the military presence in our Pride 2009 celebrations. Help us as we unfurl the beautiful billowing banner boldly proclaiming:

    NO PRIDE IN WAR!

    Pride is political! Queer rights are meaningless without human rights!

    Demand:
    An end to the militarization and corporatization of our Pride!
    An end to military recruitment. Hamilton Pride has done so; why can't we?
    An end to Israeli Apartheid!
    Indigenous sovereignty!
    Status for all! Justice and dignity for immigrants and refugees!
    An end to Canada's occupation of Afghanistan!
    An end to colonialism, imperialism, occupation and war!

    March with:
    Educators for Peace and Justice
    Teachers for Palestine
    Queers United Against Israeli Apartheid
    No One Is Illegal
    Toronto Coalition to Stop the War

    ...and other peace activists who march under the rainbow flag.

    I'm working today, of course, but if I were marching, you know this is where I'd be. Consider making your Pride celebration about more than your own rights: make the connection to the rights of all people to live autonomously in peace.

    To join the No Pride In War contingent, meet at 1:45 p.m. on Church Street, north of Bloor, at Rosedale Valley Road. Access from the north via Sherbourne Street to avoid road blocks.

    6.27.2009

    maher arar: "the stamp of canadian involvement in torture is growing"

    At long last, Abousfian Abdelrazik comes home to Canada today, thanks to citizen pressure and an independent judicial system. A contingent of peace activists are meeting Abdelrazik at the airport to welcome him home.

    A man who knows better than any of us how Mr Abdelrazik may have suffered draws attention to something very rotten and very disturbing happening in Canada. Maher Arar, writing in the Globe and Mail, asks how many more Abdelraziks we'll see.
    Recently, it seems like every new day has brought new revelations about the depth of involvement of Canadian government agencies, past and present, in the torture of Canadian citizens. Despite the clear conclusions of Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor's inquiry and the findings of former Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci's inquiry, the unique stamp of Canadian involvement in the torture of its citizens is actually growing.

    An inquiry into the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik, which now seems inevitable, will certainly shed more light about the widely used practice of "obtain information by proxy." But Canadians need not wait for a full-blown inquiry to learn the facts in this case: A glimpse into the heart of a possible inquiry can already be gleaned from a recent federal court order ruling that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was, at the very least, complicit in Mr. Abdelrazik's initial detention. We can add to that all the rest of what we have learned recently from extensive investigative journalistic reporting, which has mostly quoted official Canadian government documents.

    What is particularly puzzling is how CSIS keeps repeating its hopeful mantra that it was never complicit in any of these cases. What the agency may not realize is that, regardless of how often or loudly it denies the obvious, Canadians have learned enough from two federal inquiries and the work of reporters to draw their own conclusions. CSIS should be more worried about its credibility, and be open and forthcoming about the facts of this most recent matter. This is the only path that will allow it to restore its credibility, and the most direct route to providing Canadians with the truth.

    Canadians deserve to know why so many of this country's citizens, all of Muslim background, have been imprisoned and tortured abroad. Human-rights organizations, activists and national-security experts have been calling for the current government to establish the credible oversight agency that was recommended by Judge O'Connor several years ago. Their calls have landed on deaf ears.

    How many more victims will it take before our government realizes that it needs to act? If the government had established this agency, Mr. Abdelrazik could launch a complaint upon his return. The time required for him to get answers and justice would be much shorter. For taxpayers, it would be a much cheaper alternative than a full-blown federal inquiry.

    Most importantly, Canadians would have a reason to trust that their security agencies are being properly held to a higher standard.

    In the meantime, even before another inquiry is called, agencies that have played any role in the ordeals of Canadians detained and tortured abroad should be truthful in their statements and not defensive in their rhetoric. They should apologize to the victims of overzealous national security practices. Moreover, they need to take actions assuring Canadians that this will never happen again. It is that simple.

    striking workers fight for us all, take two

    I have a letter in the Globe and Mail today - or, I should say, a portion of a letter. This one was edited beyond recognition, no doubt to make room for the flood of anti-union, anti-worker letters the Globe is receiving.

    Today there are two pro-union letters, mine and one other person's, which I've reprinted below. The bracketed portion of my letter did not run.
    [I am dismayed at the lack of public support for striking city workers. When union employees gain good salaries and benefits through collective bargaining, all workers benefit, as standards are raised for everyone. The anger and vitriol being directed at the striking workers should be saved for the CEOs who cash out of sinking companies with massive bonuses, not working people who are trying to hang on to a decent living.]

    In my non-union workplace, there have been layoffs, deteriorating working conditions, and benefit cuts. I wish I could challenge these unilateral decisions, but without representation, my fellow workers and I are at the mercy of our employer.

    The striking city workers are fighting for all of our rights.

    Laura Kaminker, Mississauga

    *

    Unionized Toronto city staff earning about $25 per hour to pick up and dispose of garbage are roundly vilified as greedy. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs charging as much as $50 per visit to do the same task are hailed as enterprising free marketers. If that's what the market value of this essential service is worth, the unionized workers should be praised for doing the job so much more cheaply.

    Something doesn't smell right.

    Allan Goulding, St. John's

    It's a lonely world out there for the people who are fighting for good jobs - for themselves and for all of us. If you support the workers' right to strike and to fight benefit cuts, please take a few minutes and let the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, or other local paper know.

    letters@globeandmail.com

    lettertoed@thestar.ca

    6.26.2009

    toronto cupe strike explained

    The issues behind the Toronto CUPE strike explained for you.

    A discussion about unions and why we need them is going on in this thread: i support striking city workers and you should too.

    insurance spin doctor opens his eyes: "it was like being in another country"

    David Corn, writing in Mother Jones, has a portion of an interview with Wendell Potter, a former spokesperson for CIGNA, the fourth-largest health insurer in the US. The interviewer is a writer with Columbia Journalism Review.
    Trudy Lieberman: Why did you leave CIGNA?

    Wendell Potter: I didn't want to be part of another health insurance industry effort to shape reform that would benefit the industry at the expense of the public.

    TL: Was there anything in particular that turned you against the industry?

    WP: A couple of years ago I was in Tennessee and saw an ad for a health expedition in the nearby town of Wise, Virginia. Out of curiosity I went and was overwhelmed by what I saw. Hundreds of people were standing in line to get free medical care in animal stalls. Some had camped out the night before in the rain. It was like being in a different country. It moved me to tears. Shortly afterward I was flying in a corporate jet and realized someone's insurance premiums were paying for me to fly that way. I knew it wasn't long before I had to leave the industry. It was like my road to Damascus.

    Potter's "it was like being in a different country" relates perfectly to my US-turning-into-third-world-country theme. Every year, my brother travels with expeditions that bring surgical procedures to un-served populations. What he has experienced in Kenya, Nicaragua and elsewhere isn't too far from what Potter saw in Virginia.

    The CJR interview details how the insurance industry manipulates the media, and runs covert campaigns to scuttle reform efforts. Corn writes:
    It's a chilling account--especially when you consider that the Obama administration and Dems on the Hill this time around are trying to bring the health insurance industry into the tent. Reading Potter's account, you'll find it hard to believe that the legislators or the White House can get the better deal in any collaborative process with these profit-driven wizards of publicity and politics.

    Potter reached a wider audience by testifying at a health-care hearing in Washington, confirming what we all know.
    "[T]hey confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors," former Cigna senior executive Wendell Potter said during a hearing on health insurance today before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

    Potter, who has more than 20 years of experience working in public relations for insurance companies Cigna and Humana, said companies routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

    "They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment," Potter said. "…(D)umping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line."

    Small businesses, in particular, he said, have had trouble maintaining their employee health insurance coverage, he said.

    "All it takes is one illness or accident among employees at a small business to prompt an insurance company to hike the next year's premiums so high that the employer has to cut benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering coverage altogether," he said.

    Potter also faulted insurance companies for being misleading both in advertising their policies to new customers and in communicating with existing policyholders.

    More and more people, he said, are falling victim to "deceptive marketing practices" that encourage them to buy "what essentially is fake insurance," policies with high costs but surprisingly limited benefits.

    Insurance companies continue to mislead consumers through "explanation of benefits" documents that note what payments the insurance company made and what's left for consumers to pay out of pocket, Potter said.

    The documents, he said, are "notoriously incomprehensible."

    "Insurers know that policyholders are so baffled by those notices they usually just ignore them or throw them away. And that's exactly the point," he said. "If they were more understandable, more consumers might realize that they are being ripped off."

    Until the profit motive is removed from health care, the system will never work. As long as the private insurers are involved, there can be no meaningful reform.

    Thanks to Allan, James and two anonymous senders.

    rent-a-wife, for (almost) all your wifely needs

    James sent me this disconcerting image: a New Orleans business that contracts out personal-assistant work, with a clever, sexist marketing twist: the assistants are called "wives".

    Image and excellent commentary here: The Occasional Wife. This must be a great site, because the comments won't make your head explode.

    I'm sure many of you are familiar with the classic feminist essay, "Why I Need A Wife," often misattributed to Gloria Steinem, but actually written by Jane Schlosser. You can read it here.

    harper wants to hide cost of war in afghanistan

    How much is Canada's pointless presence in Afghanistan costing Canadian taxpayers? Stephen Harper doesn't want you to know the answer to that question. And no wonder!
    The Treasury Board says that the cost of Canada's military mission in Afghanistan for the next two years will be $1.35 billion higher than projected a year ago by the Defence Department. [emphasis mine]

    Those revised estimates of the incremental costs of the Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan are posted on the Treasury Board website.

    The Defence Department, citing national security provisions, censored an Access to Information request by the federal NDP that asked for those figures three weeks ago.

    The Treasury Board says the military mission will cost $822 million in the fiscal year 2009-10 and $943 million in 2010-11. It also estimates that the mission will cost $178 million in fiscal 2011-12, when Canadian troops are expected to pull out of combat roles in Afghanistan. It's the first time figures for that year have been made available.

    "The left hand and the right hand seem to have different strategies here. It's time they came clean and let the public know what was going on," said NDP defence critic Jack Harris.

    "It's pretty strange. You've got secret numbers for national security reasons, then they put them on their website."

    These latest estimates by Treasury Board are far larger than the Defence Department predicted in April 2008 when it released information to the NDP that showed a $261-million price tag for 2009-10 and $150 million for 2010-11.

    When the NDP asked for those figures again this year, they were rebuffed under Section 15 of the Access to Information Act which allows an exemption in "the defence of Canada or any state allied" in the withholding information.

    Harris said it is also curious that the Treasury Board figures show for the first time an estimate for the fiscal year 2011-12 when the combat mission is due to end.

    He said that suggests the military has a plan for operations in Afghanistan after the planned withdrawal date.

    "They've got those plans in place. Let's put on the table what they're spending that for and have a real debate and discussion (about) what we're going to be doing there after the troops come back," he said.

    "The whole point of asking for these numbers is to get the facts out there so we can have a discussion and debate about that. They apparently didn't want that."

    Remember "accountability" and "transparency", the Conservative buzzwords that helped elect them in 2005? Hell, remember 2005? That "sponsorship scandal" that ignorant voters thought was sooo important...

    Hat tip to Buckdog.

    6.25.2009

    u.s. supreme court decision on teenage strip-search victim

    An significant decision - somewhat positive, somewhat negative - from the United States Supreme Court was just announced. I've followed this case with interest through the ACLU. I was encouraged that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but the outcome - although partly positive - leaves a lot to be desired.
    In a ruling of interest to educators, parents and students across the country, the Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 1, on Thursday that the strip search of a 13-year-old Arizona girl by school officials who were looking for prescription-strength drugs violated her constitutional rights.

    The officials in Safford, Ariz., would have been justified in 2003 had they limited their search to the backpack and outer clothing of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade at the time, the court ruled. But in searching her undergarments, they went too far and violated her Fourth Amendment privacy rights, the justices said.

    Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

    "In sum, what was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," the court said. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

    In fact, no pills were found on Savana when her underwear was examined by two school officials, both women, who were acting on a tip passed along by another student.

    . . .

    Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to conclude that the strip search of Savana Redding did not violate the Fourth Amendment. He asserted that the majority's finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline "and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."

    The majority said it meant to cast "no ill reflection" on the assistant principal, Kerry Wilson, who ordered the search at a time when there were incidents of students using alcohol and tobacco. "Parents are known to overreact to protect their children from danger, and a school official with responsibility for safety may tend to do the same," Justice Souter wrote.

    But Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not agree, and would not have protected the officials from liability. Justice Ginsburg singled out the assistant principal, noting that he had made Savana sit on a chair outside his office for more than two hours in what Justice Ginsburg called a "humiliating situation" when the case was argued.

    "At no point did he attempt to call her parent," Justice Ginsburg wrote on Thursday. "Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity."

    During the April argument, Justice Ginsburg seemed taken aback by the circumstances of the case, particularly that Savana came under suspicion because of a "tip" to officials from a classmate. "And nothing is done to check her veracity, nothing is done to follow up on it at all," the justice observed.

    Justice Stevens wrote on Thursday that "it does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude."