war resister marc hall writes from jail in kuwait

The following is an open letter from Marc Hall. Hall, a US Army veteran, spoke out about the Army's "stop-loss" (involuntary re-enlistment) policy, and was forcibly taken to Kuwait for court martial and either jail time, or deployment, or both. (My most recent post about Hall is here.) He wrote this letter through Courage to Resist.

I never thought that I would join the Army only to one day be incarcerated by the Army. I have never been to jail in my life, until now. The Army is charging me with Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, "communicating threats" towards my chain of command. Yet I was only communicating how I felt about what I have experienced in the Army and how I felt about the Army’s "Stop-loss" policy. That policy meant that I could not leave the Army when I was supposed to, and after I had already served in Iraq for 14 months.

I guess this all started with a hard core "rap" song I made about the Army’s very unpopular "Stop-loss" policy back in July 2009. Like any "rap" or rock song, I was expressing my freedom of expression under the US Constitution. Being that the Army’s "Stop-loss" policy was a Pentagon decision from what I had heard on the news, I decided to send a copy of my song directly to the Pentagon.

I don’t know if anyone at the Pentagon listened to my song, but somebody in Washington DC mailed the package back to my chain of command. My First Sergeant called me into his office to discuss it. I explained that the rap was a freedom of expression thing. It was not a physical threat, nor any kind of threat whatsoever. I explained that it was just hip hop. He told me that he kind of liked the song, that it sounded good.

1st Sgt Chrysler and Capt Cross, our company commander at B-CO 2-7 IN [Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment] at that time, just recommended me for mental counseling and evaluation. I attended mental counseling at the behavioral health clinic on Ft. Stewart from late July 2009 through November 2009. I had about four visits to the clinic, but I couldn’t attend all the appointments because we were always training in the field. In the end this counseling still left me feeling the same way about Army life, “stop-loss” and war in general.

I spoke to our chaplain and told him my feelings, including all of the domestic things I had gone through with my estranged spouse and my three-year-old daughter over the last four years. I let him hear the "Stop-loss" song and I explained that he shouldn’t take anything in the song personally. He said he liked the song but wished it was not "gangster".

Later, when we trained in the field in Georgia and at the National Training Center (NTC) in California, I was made to train without a weapon due to the song and my ongoing counseling. However, during that time of training without a weapon I felt a surprising sense of peace for the first time.

At NTC, in October 2009, I spoke again to our chaplain after attending services one night. I explained to him how I still felt hurt by the Army policies. He replied that my chain of command had already "forgiven" me about the song. But that didn’t really help me with what I was going through and trying to deal with.

After we came back from NTC, in November 2009, I got to go on leave. I thought maybe two weeks leave would do me some good. But during my leave, from November 21 to December 7, a deep depression sunk into me. I just wanted to be alone. I did not want to be around people. I stayed at home alone. My friends and family were worried that I had turned my phone off. I did not feel like talking to people. I barely made it to my mother’s house for Thanksgiving. I thought about all the depressing things that brought me to this state of mind. I thought about how it all pertained to war. I thought about the times I spoke to the chaplain at basic training at Ft. Knox, and the legal assistant at Ft. Stewart, about my divorce and the safety of my daughter and my rights as a father, and how neither of them could help me. I thought about "Stop-loss" more and more. I started drinking hard every day to help me forget the hurt and pain I was feeling. I thought about how war brought me to this war, and the war I would have to face to remove myself from the presence of war in order to keep my sanity.

When I returned to Ft. Stewart, on December 7, 2009, I really felt from that point on that I did not belong there. I realized that I was not fit for war anymore. I was burnt out and war was the cause of it. I was feeling a little unstable and shaky and I didn’t know what to do about it. The very thought of holding and being around a loaded weapon again gave me the chills. I did not know who my enemies were anymore.

About a week later I spoke to my commanding officer, Captain Wynn of F-CO BSB, about how I am still feeling. I explained to him that I felt a little unstable, angry and depressed about war and how unfit I was for war. I said I did not want to get anybody hurt in this war—being that my battle buddies might have to depend on me. I did not want to be a misfortune to anybody. I explained that I had made an official I.G. complaint (with the Army Investigator General) about the treatment I felt I had not received from my last visit to behavioral health, and the unfair treatment and words that came from my direct NCOs. Behavioral health just rushed me out the door and left all decisions up to my chain of command to decide if I was fit or not.

I know my behavior health treatments were pushed aside so that 2-7 IN could have more bodies for this deployment. I believe that this was not fair to me, and it’s not fair to my battle buddies to put a troubled solder on the battlefield knowing that I still have issues.

Capt. Wynn got me in to speak to the Lt. Colonel about my mental state. I tried to explain about the indirect way I might hurt other soldiers in uniform due to how I was burnt out. But he took it as a threat, basically read me my rights, and put me in the Liberty County Jail in Hinesville, Georgia.

I realize now how going to war can bring unwanted results. Now I sit in jail at the hands and mercy of our US Government vs. little old Marc A. Hall on a charge that was not a threat before, but all of a sudden became a threat now. I communicated an extended need for mental evaluation — not a threat.

The negative sworn statements used to jail me are false. One of the Soldiers who wrote a negative statement told me that same day that he did so because he thought it was a way to "help me out" as he knew what I was going through. Another Soldier who wrote a statement said that I was "his hero" because I stood up for what I believed. These negative statements were also the results of jokes that my battle buddies said about me — and I had played along with them at the time when the jokes were presented — while passing long boring hours at the NTC in California. I do appreciate the "help" guys, but the Army is now saying that talk were real threats, and now they have me in confinement awaiting court martial.

I have to say that I have never been so humiliated in my entire life. I’m in jail with and next to people who have committed real crimes, including murder. And I’m in here for trying to get real treatment, voicing my feelings, and for asserting freedom of expression through my art.

Sincerely,
Marc A Hall

two important war resisters event, including appearance by ron kovic

Iraq War Resisters in Canada: WHY THIS FIGHT MATTERS
Fundraising dinner and campaign update

Friday, March 19
Steelworkers Hall
25 Cecil Street, Toronto

6:30 pm Dinner
7:30 pm Programme

Featuring lawyer Alyssa Manning and Iraq war resisters Robin Long (by Skype) and Phil McDowell

$20 suggested donation • raffle prizes • refreshments

* * * * * * *

On the 7th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq: VETERAN RESISTERS SPEAK OUT AGAINST WAR

Sunday, March 21
Friends Meeting House
60 Lowther Avenue (north of Bloor at Bedford – St. George subway)
4:00 pm

• Live from LA: RON KOVIC, Vietnam veteran and author of Born on the Fourth of July
• Live from Vancouver: RODNEY WATSON, US Iraq war resister in sanctuary
• Live in Toronto: JEREMY HINZMAN, first US Iraq war resister to seek asylum in Canada

Followed by Q&A.

Admission by donation, pay what you can.

War Resisters Support Campaign

Support Bill C-440

wmtc the obsession

You remember this post, a brief history of wmtc trolls? It was reprinted in shorter (better) version at The Mark.

Many of the trolls featured in that story are still around, continuing to post comments that I reject, unread. Some of them have been doing this for years. Hard to believe, but true. I still wonder about the psychology behind this, but anything I come up with is pure conjecture.

There's another species of obsession that I find through Statcounter. In "came from" I will find the URL of a forum, where someone has shared a wmtc link and is slagging me. The wmtc-hating post is completely off-topic; it never has any connection to the thread. The poster clearly has taken more than a passing glance at wmtc, although he's not one of the regular trolls whose coments I reject. He knows the topics I write about, whatever I share of my personal life, my opinions on various things. He (I'm sure he's male) claims to hate me and everything I stand for. So why is he reading my blog?

I recently posted this.

Did you know Allan and I are ...
Fucking hippies, thinking they're so smart and all by being anti-everything except promiscuos sex, indie music and converse sneakers. oh and leftist lesbian poetry too.
...?

I lifted that from one of these forum posts. (This wasn't him, it was a response to the link. He knows I don't write poetry!) In the span of a week, I found similar postings at four different forums. The guy uses different names and different avatars, but it's fairly obvious that it's the same person. It seems like he is always at the ready with a wmtc post to paste and deride.

Why?

That's all I keep wondering. Why?

He is prone to saying that everything about me and wmtc "makes me rage". There are countless blogs out there that would make me rage, too. So I don't read them.

Why would someone who hates everything I write come here, and why would they share my posts with all their communities?

I'm not implying wmtc is unique in being the object of obsessive wingnuttery. This must be a common phenomenon. But why? Why?

each one, reach one: waterloo war resisters edition

In January, I co-organized a war resisters event in Mississauga. We had a small turnout, but a very engaging discussion, we got a little local media coverage, and felt it was a successful event. There were three surprise attendees: a friend we know through our Red Sox community, his girlfriend, and a friend of theirs.

The two women were so moved by what they heard at the Mississauga meeting, that they decided to organize their own event at the University of Waterloo. This was very gratifying to me as an organizer, and it speaks to the power of the war resisters' stories.

If you're in the K-W area, you can hear many of these stories for yourself tomorrow night. Two war resisters will be there to speak and answer questions, and there will be a screening of "War Resisters Speak Out," a film of a past event, in which (former) CBC radio host and former Vietnam War deserter Andy Barrie interviews a dozen war resisters.

Details here - a cool website to check out whether or not you can attend.

WHEN: Thursday March 11, 6:00 pm

WHERE: University of Waterloo Campus, Tatham Centre Room 2218

WHY: Support Bill C-440! LET THEM STAY!

a simple lesson: how to tell the difference between hatred of a people and criticism of a nation's policies

All right, boys and girls, put your thinking caps on. There will be a quiz.

Jews are people.

Whether they are adherents to the religion of Judaism, or identify as ethnically Jewish, or both, Jews are people.

Advocating harm, discrimination, or the infringement of rights of Jewish people = anti-Semitism.

Hatred of people because they are Jews = anti-Semitism.

Pre-judging people because they are Jews = anti-Semitism.

Characterizing a person one does not know as having certain traits because he or she is Jewish = anti-Semitism.

Israel is a country, a modern nation-state.

That country is run by a government.

That government has policies.

Criticism of those policies is no different than criticism of the policies of the US, Canada, France, South Africa, the Netherlands, or any other country.

You see? It's actually very simple. Here's the quiz. Let's do it together.

"Death to Jews" ? Anti-Semitism.

"Jews are cheap and will try to swindle you." ? Anti-Semitism.

"Jews control the US government." ? Anti-Semitism.

"But you're OK, you're not one of those real Jew-y Jews." ? Anti-Semitism. (This has been said to me.)

"Palestinians deserve equal rights." ? Not anti-Semitism.

"I oppose Israel's policies towards Palestinians." ? Not anti-Semitism.

"I believe Israel's policies towards the Palestinian people constitute an apartheid regime." ? Not anti-Semitism.

"Boycott, divest, sanction against Israel to help the Palestinian people." ? Not anti-Semitism.

You may disagree with the characterization of Israel as an apartheid regime. But the belief that Israel is an apartheid regime is not anti-Semitism. Because Israel is a country. It is not "the Jews".

Why is that so hard to understand?

It's not.

The political posturing of various Canadian politicos is a self-serving crock of shit. They know perfectly well that opposing Israel's policies regarding the Palestinian people is not anti-Semitism. But they care infinitely more about their political careers than they do about justice. They won't go up against the US, the Israel lobby, and what is maddeningly, condescendingly called "the Jewish vote".

One day, when Israeli apartheid is dismantled the way South African apartheid was, this condemnation of anti- Israeli apartheid activity will be exposed, then forgotten.

Until then, we can only continue to speak out.

I am Jewish.

I condemn anti-Semitism.

I condemn Israel's apartheid policies.

I am not anti-Semitic.

I am pro-justice.

[Two excellent pieces linked above, by the way: Siddiqui and Dr. Dawg.]

jungle cat world

Earlier this week, we visited Jungle Cat World, about an hour east of Toronto, with our friend J. Last summer, J and I discovered we shared a love of wild canines, and when I told her there was a wolf centre in driving distance from Toronto - long on my to-do list - we immediately started making plans.

In July, J and her partner C (who are both war resisters) and Allan and I had a great day at the Haliburton Forest Wolf Centre, and we all vowed to return in the winter, when the wolves' coats are thick and the animals are much more active. Since then, I had been planning on doing this - we started to make plans - then learned the Wolf Centre is only open on weekends in the winter. I was sooo disappointed. There's no way I can take a day off work for that.

Somewhat as a consolation prize, J suggested we go to Jungle Cat World. J is a regular visitor there - the staff knows her by name, and she knows all the animals' names, their histories, and their personalities. It was pretty amazing to see two wolves trot over to the fence and greet J with obvious signs of canine happiness! J has known the male wolf since he's a cub - she has cuddled with him and rubbed his belly more than once. But now that he's in a breeding pair, no play allowed.

First we walked through the park and saw all the animals, then we did another walk-through to watch the daily feeding. The keeper, dragging a sled full of raw meat behind her, told us about the different animals, both the individuals we were seeing and their species, which are all at high risk for extinction. She is clearly very attached to all the animals and committed to their welfare.

When we were walking around by ourselves, before the feeding, we spent a long time admiring the magnificent arctic wolf. She's alone right now, as the park works on finding her a partner (apparently it takes a very long time to transfer an animal from one facility to another).

Suddenly, Bianca, the white wolf, threw her head back and started to howl. The other wolves in separate enclosures all picked it up and began to howl, too. The three of us looked at each other in amazement, and just stood there drinking it in for as long as it lasted. The sound was so beautiful; it gave me chills. When they finished and I could breathe again, J said, You guys have seen something special. That doesn't usually happen.

After the animals ate, we had our "meet-and-greet", which J arranged in advance. You can interact with your choice of three animals. (That is, three of those that are available for human interaction. I don't think they let you in the enclosure with full-grown lions.) We chose the tiger cubs (which counts as one), the fox and the bobcat.

The tiger cubs are about 5 months old and weigh around 60 pounds. J played with these same cubs when they were only six weeks old, and the size of housecats! We saw a pair of tigers that are about one year old, and look pretty big... until you see the full-grown pair, which clock in at about 600 pounds each. The female is pregnant again, and J and I are going back as soon as the babies are old enough to handle.

Even though I had a great day, I still have mixed feelings about seeing wild animals in captivity. These animals are very well cared for, they have interaction with other animals, and with humans. Most of them were hand-raised, and they clearly enjoy the stimulation of human interaction. Some were rescued from neglect or abuse; our fox friend was rescued from a fur farm. The rest were all born in captivity in zoo breeding programs. All their species are heavily endangered. Jungle Cat World does outreach and education about endangered species, especially big cats. All good.

But still, there's something painful about seeing a captive wolf. This is the main reason I haven't yet been to the Toronto Zoo. I used to love zoos, and I hear the Toronto's is a wonderful place, but... I don't know. It makes me a little sad.

On balance, I think it's a great place and I'm definitely going back to play with baby tigers.

Not least of why this was such a great day: I took a day off. A real day off, not a "day off" getting my hair cut or going to the dentist. It was heavenly - and my last one until my term ends on April 6.

A selection of our photos is here. We only had our crappy digital camera, so they're not great, but you'll get the idea.

A few of J's photos are here.

facebook survey

I'm still working out my own Facebook friend policy. I'm also curious about yours. Facebook users, I have three questions for you.

1. How do you deal with friend requests on Facebook?

a. I confirm all friend requests.

b. If I don't know the person, I try to find out why they are friending me (how they know me, what circles we have in common). Depending on their answer, I might confirm or might ignore.

c. If I don't know the person, I always ignore the request. I only friend people I know.

d. I ignore all friend requests.

e. Some other answer. Which is...?

2. To whom do you send friend requests?

a. I friend anyone I know.

b. The above, plus anyone who my friends know.

c. The above, plus I look at the friend suggestions and may send requests to some of those.

d. I am very selective about who I friend.

e. Some other answer. Please share!

3. Have you ever ignored a friend request from someone you know or used to know?

a. Yes.

b. No.

Thanks for sharing.

c-440 help wanted, take two

The War Resisters Support Campaign has distributed our entire first printing of 5,000 postcards. Hopefully we'll receive a large percentage of those back, signed. Now we have a fresh batch of 5,000 typo-free postcards ready to make their way around Canada.

Can you take 30 cards, get them signed, and return them to us by March 31? 25 cards? 10 cards? Every single card counts.

Many US war resisters in Canada are at risk for deportation back to the States, where they'll face court martial and prison time. Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney would rather kiss up to the US military than allow Canada to be a haven for people of conscience. This is a pretty easy way to get involved.

Check out our postcard campaign, and if you want cards, email me: movetocanada at gmail.

iwd: fighting for women is fighting for us all

Monday, March 8, is International Women's Day. It's a celebration of the power of women, and a reminder that the status of women, both globally and at home, is a battle that still needs fighting.

I usually post a historic perspective on this day. This year, as I started to gather information, I realized that next year is the 100th anniversary of IWD!

In Toronto, IWD is a celebration of women's historic - and current - role in the fight for justice: for labour, peace, personal freedom and security. The march, rally and fair is today.

unredacted documents = the smoking gun

Stephen Harper, you can run (which you did), and you can hide (which you did), but not forever.

Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.

If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.

"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.

"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That's what's in these documents, and that's why the government is covering up as hard as it can."

I don't usually just regurgitate news stories without comment but my anger at this government has to go somewhere.

pogge: shorter opposition

Pogge: Shorter opposition parties.

God I hate these spineless Liberals! If I wanted a one-party government, I would have stayed in the US fercrissakes.

"injurious" to whom? to the conservative party, of course

The federal government has asked a former Supreme Court of Canada judge to review whether there would be "injurious" effects if some Afghan detainee documents were made public.

I have no doubt that releasing the documents would have injurious effects. On this Prime Minister Stephen Harper and I agree. The effects could be catastrophically injurious to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Therefore: dissemble, impugn, mock, deny, cover, stall, prorogue, censor, obfuscate, obstruct, smear, refuse, redact, dismiss. Invoke "national security". Repeat as necessary.

rip al weisel, aka jon swift

I was so saddened to hear that a man many of us knew as the blogger "Jon Swift" has passed away.

As a blogger, Jon Swift wrote a hilarious, dead-on, brilliantly satirical, fake conservative blog with the memorable tagline:

I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues.

As a person, he was warm, inclusive and unerringly compassionate. Jon Swift was well known for his "Blogroll Amnesty Day," where, in response to some of the more famous blogs jettisoning unknowns from their link lists, Swift would add anyone and everyone to his. Each year, he would invite readers to submit their favourite post from their own blog, and would post a huge round-up of everyone's self-selected best-ofs. Years later, I still get traffic from those posts.

Jon Swift's real name was Al Weisel. He truly will be missed. I offer my heartfelt condolences to his family and friends. They lost Al way too early - and immediately after the death of his own father. Awful.

You can read about Al here.

advice needed on erroneous parking ticket

Last week I parked at what I thought was a Toronto Parking Authority "Green P" lot, but apparently is a lot operated by a private company called Imperial Parking, or Impark.

The machine appeared to take my money (credit card payment) but did not print out a receipt. This had happened to me once before at the same lot, and I learned that I was supposed to call the phone number on the machine. I tried to do so, but couldn't get through.

I left a note on my dashboard saying that the machine wasn't printing receipts.

When I came back, I had a ticket.

I called Impark the next day, and was told that, since I was already on record as having had a ticket cancelled, and at that time had been informed to call from the parking lot, they would not cancel the ticket.

However, since I paid by credit card, when the payment showed up on my statement, I could fax the statement to them and they would accept it as proof of payment.

I found this very annoying. Their machines don't work properly, but the onus is on the customer to prove that she has paid. Surely if the machines weren't printing receipts, I am not the only person this happened to that night. Can't they check the system to see if the machines were off-line or malfunctioning? No. I have to take the time and expense to fax a copy of my credit card statement to Vancouver.

Payment for parking usually appears on a credit card statement in 3-5 days. I've waited a full week, and still no payment has posted. Obviously the machine appeared to take my payment but did not.

Today I called Impark again. They will not cancel the ticket, because they have already cancelled a ticket for me and cannot - make that will not - cancel another. I was supposed to call from the parking lot. I told the agent that I tried, but couldn't get through. She said that's not possible because it's an automated, 24-hour number. I was supposed to leave a message. I heard no opportunity to leave a message.

The agent informed me that she could reduce the ticket from $42.61 to $30, and hold that amount for one week. After that, it will become an unpaid ticket at $74.15.

I offered to pay for the cost of parking, which was $5.00, but she said she can't do that (and acted like I was insane for suggesting it).

I have contacted the Toronto Parking Authority. They have no jurisdiction over Impark, a private company, so I asked for the name of the agency that oversees private parking companies. Presumably Impark is awarded a contract by the City of Toronto, so there must be some oversight. The Toronto Parking Authority said to their knowledge there is no oversight agency.

I'm not paying $30 for $5 parking, which I tried to pay in the first place, because this company's meters are not properly maintained.

Any ideas on what I can do?

uk war resister to be court martialed on friday: one last chance to help him

Sign the letter in support of UK war resister Joe Glenton.

Joe Glenton, the first UK war resister to speak out publicly against the occupation of Afghanistan, will be court martialed this Friday. His support campaign in London will be delivering letters of public support to the Ministry of Defense. Here's one last chance to put your name on the letter.

Glenton faces court martial and possibly two years in jail for going AWOL. Meanwhile, the UK Ministry of Defence estimates that 17,000 soldiers have gone AWOL since 2003.

So why pick on Joe Glenton? Because Glenton, a veteran, has spoken out against the war in Afghanistan. He's made it clear that his refusal to re-deploy is based on opposition to the unjust occupation.

Glenton was jailed in November 2009, then released on condition that he no longer speaks publicly against the war. His wife and his mom have continued to speak on his behalf. And we can speak for him, too.

Tomorrow and Friday, March 4 and 5, actions will take place in the UK, the US and several EU nations in support of Glenton. There isn't much notice, but there's one thing you can do right now to lend your support: sign the model letter. Peace activists in London will deliver it tomorrow, the day before Glenton's court martial.

More from Joe:

jason kenney is a magician, makes gay people disappear

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney has been at it again. He's been re-writing Canadian history, and this time he set his sights - or should I say his blinders - on gay and lesbian Canadians.

It's not the first the man MP Olivia Chow calls the Minister of Censorship and Deportation has rewritten Canadian history to conform to the Harper Conservatives' vision of Canada.

First Kenney's CIC removed from its website all reference to Canada's proud history of welcoming draft resisters and military deserters during the Vietnam War. Then they re-wrote the Canadian Citizenship Guide to emphasize military conflict and no longer characterize Canada as "a nation of peace".

In fact, it's the former change, regarding Vietnam War deserters, that caused a member of the War Resisters Support Campaign to file an Access to Information request, which in turn led to our discovering how closely the Harper Government follows our campaign. If you said they are obsessed with war resisters, you'd not be far from the truth.

Now it's been revealed that Kenney erased from the Citizenship Guide something all good and just people love about Canada: the country's policies of tolerance, inclusion and equality. Kenney opposed same-sex marriage and has made no secret of his contempt for gay rights. So he fashioned some of Canada's official documents to reflect his own views.

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney blocked any reference to gay rights in a new study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship, The Canadian Press has learned.

Internal documents show an early draft of the guide contained sections noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005.

But Mr. Kenney, who fought same-sex marriage when it was debated in Parliament, ordered those key sections removed when his office sent its comments to the department last June.

Senior department officials duly cut out the material - but made a last-ditch plea with Mr. Kenney in early August to have it reinstated.

"Recommend the re-insertion of the text boxes related to ... the decriminalization of homosexual sex/recognition of same-sex marriage," says a memorandum to Mr. Kenney from deputy minister Neil Yeates.

"Recommend the addition of 'equality rights' under list of rights. Had noted earlier that this bullet should be reinserted into the list as a means of noting the equality of all based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc ..."

In the end, however, Mr. Kenney's view trumped that of the bureaucrats. The 63-page guide, released with fanfare last November, contains no mention of gay and lesbian rights.

This is infuriating, both in substance and in symbol. Canada's guide for prospective citizens should proudly highlight equal marriage, to welcome all the gay couples who have chosen Canada as their home, and to emphasize what is best about this country. Perhaps equally important, members of the Conservative government should not be allowed to define Canada according to their own personal beliefs.

Because I am an applicant for citizenship, I have received both the old Citizenship Guide, put out by a Liberal government in 1997, and the new guide published by the Kenney-Harper gang. For some time now, I've been planning to conduct a detailed comparison of the two guides and write about it for wmtc. In order to do a thorough job, I'll have to wait until my school term ends. But it will be a priority for late April or early May. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, don't forget to tell the CIC how you feel about this revelation.

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

war resister marc hall forcibly deployed to iraq

Volunteer army my ass. From Veterans for Peace:

Two weeks ago, you signed an email to the Army to support Spc. Marc Hall in his struggle to remain in the United States for his court martial for allegedly threatening military officers in a protest rap song he wrote.

Attorneys for Marc had filed a petition with the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Georgia on February 14 in an attempt to stop the Army from transferring Marc to Iraq. The petition was denied by a Georgia Federal Court.

Marc did fly out of Georgia to Iraq this weekend. According to his military defense JAG, Marc was flown from Hunter Army Airfield headed to Balad, Iraq. From there he will be transported to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait.

Marc's military JAG was formally notified yesterday that he will be appointed to the upcoming Article 32 Investigation in either Kuwait or Iraq.

He reports that the Army is going forward with a General Court Martial which will subject Marc to years in prison and a dishonorable discharge. The Army is now citing 11 violations of Article 132 going into the Article 32 hearing.
The Army set March 6 (a week from now!) for the Article 32 hearing, "even though neither Hall nor I are in country yet," explained the JAG. This is basically an Army tactic to force the defense to ask for a delay (which will be granted). Marc will now be parked in a Kuwait jail on the Army's timeline as the Army can now declare that they offered a "speedy trial"--but the defense declined.

More about Marc Hall at Stop Loss Music.

u.s. peace activist enters canada, world keeps turning

Colonel Ann Wright has crossed the border into Canada.

Canada's security continues unchanged.

You may recall that celebrated peace activist and war resister Ann Wright has been denied entry into Canada several times, part of the Conservative government's lock-step with the US and its general contempt for peace activists (and peace!).

Yesterday, with the help of letters of support from MPs Joe Comartin, Brian Masse, and Bob Rae, Wright managed to get here.

She'll be speaking tonight at the International Student Centre at the University of Toronto, sharing the podium with war resister Patrick Hart and some others; details here.

opposing israeli apartheid is not anti-semitism, but govt censure of free speech is censorship

From Corvin Russell at Rabble:

This year marks the sixth anniversary of Israeli Apartheid Week. Started as a small event at the University of Toronto, the annual week of educational events has grown to include over 40 cities around the world, and has played a major role in building a global anti-apartheid movement. As a result of its success, some university administrations in Ontario have stepped up repression of student activists who organize IAW. They have attempted to deny room bookings for the event and ban student activists from displaying posters, or even from using the words "Israel" and "apartheid" together.

In political and media spheres, a coordinated strategy of McCarthyism now attempts to shut down all criticism of Israel's violent, racist regime by branding such criticism as anti-semitic. At the federal level, a self-appointed pseudo-parliamentary inquisition composed of pro-Israel MPs, called the "Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism", has been staging a charade of public hearings as a prelude to the issuance of its foredrawn conclusion: namely that factual criticism of Israel's human rights record and violations of international law - including many UN resolutions; the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid; and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which makes apartheid a crime under international law - is a form of anti-semitism.

This past week in the Ontario Legislature, Conservative MPP Peter Shurman tabled a motion to condemn Israeli Apartheid Week, arguing that it constitutes something "close to hate speech".

. . . .

While this motion would have no legal effect, it will lend power to the campaign of McCarthyism on the issue. Whether or not you agree with the appropriateness of the term apartheid in describing Israel, it is hard to disagree that a reasonable debate can be had about it. After all, South Africans must know a thing or two about apartheid, and South Africa's Congress of Trades Unions; the South African Human Sciences Research Council; leaders of the anti-apartheid struggle like Desmond Tutu and Ronnie Kasrils; and the racist architect of South African apartheid, prime minster Hendrik Verwoerd, all agree: Israel is an apartheid state. A former Israeli Education Minister and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak also agree. It is, at the very least, a reasonable subject of debate. And only in Canada is our right to freely debate it called into question at the highest levels of political power. Nowhere else in the world. Not in the United States, not in Israel, not in Europe. Only in Canada.

It's time to name this growing threat to democracy for what it is.

Go here for links and quotes.

best of wmtc 2009, the long list

No wonder I think this blog has fallen off a cliff. I had really a good year last year.

Here are my and Allan's candidates for best of wmtc 2009. Perhaps this is too many for a sidebar widget, it may look unseemly. On the other hand, it's good to remind myself that I can write, and I do write, and I should just keep on keeping on.

thoughts on privilege

blog for choice day: providing a safe haven

jeremy hinzman appeal hearing through a campaigner's eyes

why not let them stay? current conservative arguments demolished

an atheist defends theists, part two

we all must support striking city workers

non-recyclable plastics and the dilemma of organic lettuce

internal documents show harper govt obsessed with war resisters

from the archives: on being childfree

you can't find inner peace in a bottle (of iced tea)

have you hugged a man today?

are my hands clean, and can i stand to get them a little cleaner

on becoming a writer, part three (with links to parts 1 and 2)

"the gray area": in which i am detained, harassed and threatened at the border

why i can't watch the olympics anymore

threatened animals in my inbox: please give three clicks

I have three recent emails about animals that are threatened with almost to the point of extinction because of human selfishness and stupidity.

Sometimes I'm amazed that humans aren't past this by now, that trophy hunting hasn't been discarded as the insane ignorance of a bygone era. But then, our species is still killing each other en masse, and seems intent on trashing the only home we will ever know. So what makes me think humans would learn to stop destroying other species.

For each animal - grizzly bears, beluga whales and bobcats - there's a simple action you can take to add your voice in protest. Please click.

From the David Suzuki foundation:

Grizzly bears are at risk of disappearing or are already extinct in many parts of the world. British Columbia's wilderness provides one of the last global safe havens for these bears. Sadly, trophy hunting is threatening their ability to survive here – including hunting in provincial parks, where most people expect grizzlies to be protected. The government can change this by banning sport hunting across the province and turning provincial parks into true sanctuaries for threatened wildlife.

Join an international network of groups – representing more than 15 million members and constituents from over 40 countries – calling on the B.C. government to end the slaughter of bears for sport.

With your help, we can maintain B.C. as one of the last safe havens for grizzlies and save these iconic bears from disappearing. Click here to tell Premier Gordon Campbell and Minister Barry Penner to ban the sport hunt and protect B.C.'s bears!

From the NRDC:

Industry giants are pressuring the Obama Administration to abandon endangered beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska. We need your urgent action to help protect these rare whales from extinction.

Please tell the National Marine Fisheries Service to finalize its proposal to designate an area of more than 3,000 square miles as critical habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whales.

Cook Inlet belugas live in one of the most populated and industrialized regions in Alaska. Their health and habitat is continuously threatened by the devastating effects of development and pollution.

In fact, this genetically distinct population of beluga whales has plummeted in number from 1,300 in the 1980s to fewer than 400 today.

Following years of advocacy by NRDC and others, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed designated critical habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whales under the Endangered Species Act this past December.

Without these habitat protections, which are backed by decades of scientific research and data, Cook Inlet beluga whales could be wiped out forever.

Yet powerful industries are falsely claiming that designating critical habitat will hurt local development.

In truth, this designation simply helps ensure that new development projects will move forward with safeguards necessary to protect belugas and their habitat.

Please make your voice heard right now.

And from the Humane Society International:

In just a few weeks, delegates from 175 countries that have signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) will meet to discuss more than 40 proposals to increase or decrease protection for internationally-traded animal and plant species.

For the fourth time, the United States is proposing to remove CITES protection for bobcats. Each time before, their proposal has failed or they have withdrawn it in the face of strong opposition. Help us ensure they fail again: Tell the U.S. government to withdraw its proposal to remove international protection for bobcats!

The bobcat, one of only two iconic American wild cat species, is the most heavily traded cat species in the world. More than 50,000 bobcats are trapped and killed each year so their skins, or items made from their skins, can be traded internationally.

Bobcats were first listed on CITES Appendix II because their skins cannot be distinguished from those of other lynx species, some of which are critically endangered. Delisting bobcats would reduce control of the trade in their fur and leave other small spotted wild cats more vulnerable to illegal international trade.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is once again bowing to pressure from trappers who want to sell bobcat skins internationally without any federal or international regulation. We cannot let a small group of people who profit from killing these animals for their skins remove international protection for wild cats everywhere!

Please sign our petition to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar by March 1st, urging him to withdraw this proposal from consideration at CITES.

silver linings in gold medals

I haven't been watching the Olympics, and I don't follow hockey, and I don't care about medal counts.

But it's still pretty cool that Canada beat the US for the gold medal in both men's and women's hockey. Beating the US is always sweet!

walkom: the art of reverse class war: if i don't have something, neither should you

Impudent Strumpet recently asked the David Byrne-esque question, "How did we get here?", later noting that her grandmother, who is probably around my mother's age, could choose not to have a pension because her husband's employment and retirement was so secure. Now, only a generation later, I am probably looking at working as long as I am physically able, then living in drastically reduced and possibly very scary circumstances in my old age.

How, indeed, did we get here?

How the economic prospects for working people deteriorated so much in so little time is a complicated story of globalization, conglomeration, deregulation and monetization of industry on the one hand, with its concurrent deskilling and devaluing of labour on the other.

How we got here is unchecked capitalism: the Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney/Chicago School revolution that has not been reversed or stopped or even slowed.

Thomas Walkom talks a little about how we got here. Thanks to Accidental Deliberations for posting.

Class resentment used to be the preserve of the left. That workers were too poor could be blamed on the fact that bosses were too wealthy. If governments needed money, the preferred solution – rhetorically at least – was to make the rich pay.

These old-style resentments encouraged both Marxist economics (based on the notion that profit is by definition theft) and the progressive income tax system.

Indeed, the entire post-war welfare state was designed to better the conditions of the poor, thereby ensuring that these class resentments didn't get out of hand.

Today, class resentments have been turned on their head. The focus of anger is not the silk-hatted capitalist but his unionized workers, with their job protection guarantees, their pension plans and their good wages.

Increasingly, in the world of media and popular culture, it is not the rich who are blamed for their excesses but the poor – the undeserving welfare recipient, the shiftless single mother, the employment insurance cheat. Resentment has become a potent tool of the right.

This is the context in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is hinting at plans to roll back federal public service pensions.

Forty years ago, the unionization of public servants was generally seen as a good thing.

Unions were on the rise. They had made great gains for their members after World War II and, in terms of pensions, benefits and wages, were setting the standard for the entire workforce.

In that context, and given the growing importance of government workers like nurses, it seemed sensible to encourage public sector unions.

Even if public sector benefits might, at times, appear more generous than those of other workers, the general assumption was that this was temporary, that over time everyone would catch up.

. . . .

The new resentment is based on the presumption that if I don't have something, neither should you. Its aim is not to improve anyone's lot but to cut down to a common level of misery those uppity enough to think they deserve better.

It is pessimistic, antithetical to any kind of common action and angrily passive. It rarely focuses on the bigger questions because it assumes that, at high levels of state and economy, nothing can be done, that the best anyone can hope for is to protect his tiny bit of turf from a marauding neighbour.

It is a form of resentment that suits those in charge. For Stephen Harper's Conservatives, it is a most useful passion. [More here.]

is this blog falling apart? am i falling apart?

I feel like I should apologize to wmtc readers. I've had a marked up-tick in readership lately, for reasons unknown, and I especially feel I should apologize to those folks.

Trust me, new readers. I used to write more. I used to write better. I used to have more interesting observations and things to say and stories I kept track of.

Now I just struggle to keep up.

That's how it feels, anyway.

Before I started graduate school, I already lived with that constant feeling of a rush of information blowing by me, barely keeping up with the news stories and social issues that I care about, not to mention friends' lives and reading for pleasure, and my minimum daily requirement of brainless down-time. You know the feeling. There's too much of everything - too much information, too many options. I always feel like I'm only skimming the surface.

I have my escapes. Baseball, movies, time with friends. Then baseball became another thing to do in front of the computer screen, another time to talk and exchange ideas. Don't get me wrong, I love our Red Sox community and our game threads. But baseball used to be a time to get away from the computer and turn off that part of my brain. No longer. If I'm on the gamethread, I don't get the relaxation and down-time. If I don't thread, I miss my friends. Last season I did some of each. It wasn't much of a solution.

Swimming is another refuge, and now at least I'm back in the pool a couple of times a week. Hiking or walking in the woods is another. Even reading a book or a long article, uninterrupted, and not for school, works. But there's not enough of any of it.

Now school has just exacerbated all of this. Too many events I can't attend, blogs I don't have time to read, organizations I don't have time to join. The constant feeling of not enough time, of not enough depth. Maybe this is why people live on Facebook and Twitter. Life reduced to headlines. For me this news-feed version of life is just not satisfying.

I can't live without this blog, but I'm not doing it justice these days.

I'm not fishing for compliments, either. If you still like wmtc, I'm grateful, if a bit mystified.

on becoming a writer, the prequel

Some colleagues at my school put together an exhibit called "The First Time: The Book(s) That Turned You On To Reading". They asked students and faculty to name a book that that began their lifelong love of reading.

I didn't submit anything, mostly because I was too busy, but also because I could never choose one book. It will not surprise you to learn that I read constantly when I was a child, and preferred reading to almost anything else kids could do. I don't know what book started me reading, because I can't remember life before reading.

Here, I'm stealing appropriating re-purposing their idea, and thinking of a few books that meant the world to me as a young person, books that I loved and believed in the way only a young reader can. These books did more than make me reader: they made me want to write.

The first has to be Travels With Charley by John Steinbeck, the book that opened my mind to my two greatest passions, or compulsions, or curses: writing and travel. I guess if I had chosen one book for the exhibit, this would have been it, although I was already a confirmed reader before picking it up.

Number two, which I could list first in many respects, is The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton, the book I spent sixth grade with, whose characters felt so real to me that I fantasized about living their lives, yet were so wonderfully foreign and exotic.

It was trying to write like S. E. Hinton that caused me to write for young adults, although I didn't understand I was writing YA until a writing teacher characterized my stories that way. I was in university when I learned S. E. Hinton was a woman. She wrote The Outsiders when she was 17 years old. That Is Not Fair.

Third on the list is A Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle, who I wrote about when she died a few years ago. I read this book so many times, I could practically recite it from memory. Certain mental images from the story remain in my mind to this day.

Next must be Charlotte's Web by E. B. White. "It is not often that someone comes along who is both a true friend and a good writer. Charlotte was both." This is my pick for greatest children's book ever, and one of the greatest books in English, period.

As I think about this, I have to stop at four. I can name dozens more books that I read as a child and young adult, books I loved and would recommend to young readers. But I can't credit any of them with the kind of impact I'm thinking of here. So Beverly Cleary and Laura Ingalls Wilder, Judy Blume and Paul Zindel, Eloise and the From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler, The Black Stallion and Julie of the Wolves, and so many more, I thank you and I love you all.

Your list? Doesn't have to be children's books. Maybe you discovered your love of reading as an adult, or through a magazine, or by hunting down a book after loving the movie. Name your top three, or five, or one.

intellectual freedom in the library, part 2

A few people suggested I post my recent paper for Intellectual Freedom and the Library. I feel a little weird sharing an academic paper, but this atypical assignment does seem appropriate here.

In the first part of the course, we read various articles about the legal and philosophical underpinnings of freedom of expression. We were each assigned one article or book chapter, which we summarized and presented to the class for discussion.

Next, we used those discussions in a paper, where we were asked to "develop an overall philosophical approach to intellectual freedom and freedom of speech", and specifically applied that approach to some situations that typically bring challenges in the library. A "challenge" in this case is a library user questioning the appropriateness of certain material for the library, and asking for its removal.

Unlike most academic assignments, this paper could be written in the first person, as long as it developed a coherent philosophical response to the assigned readings. The goal was to "begin to clarify in your own mind the premises of a personal philosophy of intellectual freedom and freedom of speech, with supporting reasons and arguments".

A central theme of this class is the difference between the US legal and Constitutional approach to freedom of expression and that of other Western democracies, and the inherent conflict that creates for Canadian librarians - another reason it seems appropriate for wmtc. (I explained this a bit further in part one of this post.)

Our second-half assignments are group projects, in which groups of three people research specific areas of library challenges, lead a seminar and discussion on the topic (an entire class worth), then write a paper. My group is pornography, erotica, and obscenity. The other topics are racist hate speech, defamation of religion, sexual orientation, and intelligent design and the scientific process.

So, here's my paper. I've removed the citations or turned them into links where possible.

+ + + +

Freedom of Expression as a Human Right and a Social Need

My philosophical approach to freedom of expression reflects the so-called absolutist view of the United States. I oppose curtailing freedom of expression in almost all circumstances, including hate speech and pornography. In a public library, however, I believe restraints on pornography are justified, not based on obscenity or morality, but for the comfort of the public.

I believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and that it is most important to uphold that right when it feels the least comfortable to do so.

Individuals need freedom of expression

The need for self-expression is an integral part of being human. Freedom of expression is necessary to individual human development, to the development of societies, and to the continuing evolution of human civilization. Although freedom of expression sometimes must be restricted, such as prohibitions against incitement to violence, any restriction should meet strict tests and be applied as infrequently as possible.

On the individual level, I offer my own experience. In Is There a Right to Freedom of Expression? Alexander defines freedom of expression as a right of the listener or reader, as opposed to the speaker or author. My own worldview has been formed by having full access to anything I wanted to read or hear. Sometimes the ideas I encountered confirmed beliefs I already held, and helped me articulate and defend them. In other instances, encountering new ideas changed my beliefs, although not always in the manner the author intended. Without access to those ideas, my growth as a person would have been stunted.

Alexander creates and applies certain theoretical tests which supposedly define human rights, and concludes that freedom of expression is not a human right. Alexander’s view strikes me as intellectual gymnastics that serve more to obfuscate than illuminate. Human rights extend beyond bodily integrity and personal security; they include the freedom to be wholly human. Being human includes the freedom to think and express our own ideas, and to freely encounter the ideas of others. This is only possible if society maintains as full a conception of freedom of expression as possible.

In prisons, police states, or other circumstances under which freedom of expression is severely restricted, people risk sanctions, imprisonment, and even death in order to express themselves and access the expressions of others. In all civilizations, ancient or modern, one finds evidence of the need to create and share artistic expression. The need for self-expression is universal, part of what defines us as human beings. Anything that is so intrinsic to being human must, I believe, be a human right.

Societies need freedom of expression

Unfettered freedom of expression is a positive force for society. Had my own access to ideas been abbreviated, my capacity to contribute to society also would have been curtailed. Yet many of the ideas that have informed my own beliefs were considered subversive and a threat to the social order at some time in history (and, in some communities, still are).

Had Martin Luther King, Jr. not had access to the teachings of Gandhi, would his own commitment to nonviolence and civil disobedience been as strong? If I had not read King’s words for myself (as opposed to hearing selected excerpts tailored for mainstream audiences), would I understand the connection between social justice and peace as profoundly as I do today? Yet both Gandhi and King were considered by many to be enemies of the state, and were at times subject to censorship and sanction.

One could offer an almost infinite number of similar examples. Without the freedom to express all thoughts and viewpoints, and the right to access the vast storehouse of knowledge and thought, human societies could not progress. Everything from the abolition of slavery to equal rights for women, to action on climate change or an end to war, begins with the exchange of ideas. As one society progresses, it sets an example for others. Without freedom of expression, this is not possible.

Evaluative neutrality, or the "puppies are cute" test

Freedom of expression is most needed for ideas that are abhorrent to the majority and/or disturb the status quo. In fact, I would argue that it is only needed for those ideas. Once an idea is accepted as mainstream, expression of that idea likely needs no protection. The person who says, "Puppies are cute," doesn't need constitutional protection. The person who says, "Puppies make good stew," does. If I say, "The government is doing a great job," the government will not bother me. But if I can't criticize the government without fear of censure or punishment, I suffer as a person, and democracy suffers.

Social progress is made only when people push at the margins of acceptability with ideas that may shock or even repulse the majority. The abolition of slavery was once such an idea. My generation saw South African apartheid dismantled, a revolution brought about by radicals whose ideas the government fought to suppress.

Although I disagree with Alexander on many points, his test of evaluative neutrality is essential to my own view of freedom of expression. If we grant freedom of expression only to ideas with which we are comfortable, that freedom is meaningless.
Sunstein’s concept of reputational cascades, from Why Societies Need Dissent, speaks to this same necessity. Dissent is vital to a free society, yet even within a democracy, the pressure to conform can be very powerful. I will return to this theme when discussing hate speech, below.

Hate speech

If laws protecting freedom of expression exist for the benefit of unpopular speech, it follows that some unpopular speech will be unpopular for good reason. I believe laws that curtail the expression of hate speech are ill-advised in terms of both individual rights and social value.

Regarding individual rights, anti– hate speech laws can be seen as the dominant group’s attempt to limit expression of a minority viewpoint. One society may try to limit speech about socialism, another may try to limit speech about racism. Which strikes us as unjust and which as correct depends on our belief systems. Evaluative neutrality again must be invoked. If it’s wrong to censor peace activism, it's wrong to censor hate speech, and visa versa.

Under Canadian law, hate speech is said to violate the human rights of the offended party. Although I believe freedom of expression is a human right, I do not believe there is a human right to not be offended or insulted. We may wish to create a society where all people are free from insult and offense, but that cannot be mandated. The desire to create such a society does not override the human right of freedom of expression.

From the perspective of society as a whole, laws banning hate speech may have unintended negative consequences, while hate speech itself may indirectly produce beneficial effects. Sometimes unpopular ideas need to be heard because they can improve society – but sometimes they need to be heard because opposition to those ideas can improve society. We should allow even the most repugnant ideas equal access, in order to bring public discourse to bear on them. I believe we should, as the saying goes, combat hate speech with more speech. Fish, in There's No Such Thing as Freedom of Speech... and It's a Good Thing, Too, rejects this concept, but I see it as healthy, necessary, and productive.

Laws prohibiting hate speech are, in my opinion, grounded in wishful thinking, an attempt to deny the existence of reprehensible ideas. At best, these laws apply legal wallpaper over socially unacceptable ideas. The speech may be repressed, but the ideas cannot be, and worse, because of the prohibition, they may stand unchallenged. When hate speech becomes public, we can debate, counter, and denounce.

In "The European Court of Human Rights and Freedom of Expression," Flauss argues that there is no real way to ban such speech. Rosenfeld also points to the seeming impossibility of banning hate speech. In "Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: a Comparative Analysis," he refers to coded messages – expressions intended to denigrate certain groups, disguised in more socially acceptable forms, such as anti-immigration rhetoric couched in concern for the economy, or pseudo-scientific inquiry intended to prove racial inferiority. If the definition of hate speech is too narrow, limiting only specific expressions, the law will be inconsequential. If the definition is too broad, it infringes on too many expressions and activities. This illustrates a central problem with hate speech laws: banning certain forms of racist speech will not eliminate racism.

Canadian hate-speech laws also serve to maintain a fiction that racism, homophobia, and other bigotry is nonexistent, or at least very rare, in Canada. In my opinion, this is not in the best interest of Canadian society. All change begins with awareness and recognition of a problem. How can racism in Canada be reduced, if Canadians don’t confront racist ideas? Further, the prohibition of the expression of certain ideas does not abolish the ideas themselves. Mahoney, in "Hate Speech, Equality, and the State of Canadian Law," links the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard to anti-gay propaganda. Are we to conclude that without homophobic writing and speaking, there would be no homophobia, and no anti-gay violence? This view seems to assume that the expression of a feeling gives rise to the feeling itself, rather than the reverse.

One unintended negative consequence of prohibiting hate speech is the effect such prohibition may have on members of the censored group. In Canada, some people whose views are considered bigoted by the dominant society identify themselves as persecuted, and claim a violation of their own rights. While this may stretch the word “persecuted” beyond reasonable limits, there may be a valid claim of infringement of freedom of expression. In a case like this, banning certain speech may create greater cohesion and group identity within the group. Sunstein’s analysis of ideological extremism, from his Why Societies Need Dissent, is relevant here. The marginalization of minority opinions, group polarization, rhetorical advantage of simplistic views, strong group identity, conflict with the larger society, and other factors Sunstein identifies as reinforcing extremist views may all be enhanced by laws that prohibit hate speech.

The most important argument for prohibiting hate speech is the claim that, historically, written and spoken propaganda have been implicated in conditions that gave rise to genocide. This is undeniably true, and if regulating freedom of expression could prevent the deaths of millions, it would be incumbent on us to enforce those limits. However, although the link between hate speech and genocide is real, basing laws on this association is problematic in the following ways.

- In any case where written and spoken hate speech is implicated in genocide, other conditions also prevailed. Although expression of hate was implicated, those expressions alone are insufficient explanation for ensuing violence.

- In many instances of genocide, the hate speech originated directly from those in power – the dominant group that was either creating law or selectively enforcing existing laws. In such an instance, laws governing hate speech would have had no effect.

- There is a difference between speech and action. Hate speech alone doesn't actually kill anyone. Speech intended to incite violence is already curtailed under "clear and present danger" laws.

- The notion that by outlawing hate speech we can prevent racist violence or genocide is an oversimplification. Banning the dissemination of ideas will not ban the ideas themselves, so the laws will be ineffective.

- Banning speech denigrating members of certain groups can be perceived as privileging those groups, leading to increased resentment of the very groups hate-speech laws seek to protect.

Here again, Sunstein's analysis of reputational cascades and groupthink is applicable. One potential antidote to hate speech is the cultivation of outsider viewpoints – the voice of reason that speaks above the mob. In Canada, we tend to equate hate speech with outlier voices. But when racist viewpoints gain enough traction to lead to violence, they are no longer outliers; the outliers may now be the dissenters. In order to fight the dangerous effects of hate speech, we must cultivate a society where people feel free to speak up.

In the U.S., some forms of hate speech emanate directly from the government. In the military, soldiers are trained to dehumanize and hate people who have been labeled as "the enemy", so that they can inflict damage without the intrusion of conscience and empathy. In my view, that constitutes real and dangerous hate speech, yet there is no possibility of its prohibition.

Further, in some circumstances, hate speech may lead to a positive backlash. Currently in the United States, hate speech directed at gay and lesbian Americans may be contributing to greater mainstream acceptance of sexual orientation, as people reject extremist views and seek a more tolerant position.

Banning certain expressions is an attempt to ban certain thoughts. If we are to live in a free society, we must maintain true intellectual freedom. Freedom of expression is most strongly implicated when applied to ideas distasteful to the majority. In other words, racists have as much right to free speech as people who say “puppies are cute”.

It follows, then, that I believe all ideas should and must be represented in a public library, and that patrons of a public library should have access to the broadest possible range of ideas.

Pornography

Pornography in the library may be the one exception to my hands-off approach to freedom of expression.

For many years, I was involved in the movement against sexual assault and domestic violence. Movement orthodoxy teaches that pornography is a central component in a culture that perpetuates violence against women. I read MacKinnon, Dworkin, and other feminist theorists who oppose pornography. I was not entirely comfortable with these views, but there was little opportunity to challenge them (another example of Sunstein's reputational cascades).

Later in my activist career, I met feminists who regarded access to pornography as an issue of personal freedom and expression of individual sexuality, including for women, and especially for people whose sexual orientation and preferences fell outside the mainstream. While these feminists might agree that certain forms of pornography degraded women, they recognized both the impossibility and the danger of regulating some pornography and allowing others, and felt that a libertarian approach was not inconsistent with feminism. (The underlying theory for these views is often associated with Willis and Bright, but I do not cite either of them as a personal influence.)

Ultimately I came to see anti-pornography laws as a product of lingering Puritanism, and a Victorian view that women need to be sheltered and protected. I concluded that there is no compelling state interest in regulating pornography. I now regard pornography the way I regard any sexual activity between consenting adults: a private matter, not to be regulated by the state.

(It should not need to be said, but somehow must be, that pornography involving children is a special category, and there is a wide range of justifications for maintaining criminal censure against it.)

Despite my belief that the state should not regulate the use of pornography by consenting adults, I believe different rules apply in a public library. Whether a library is a public forum, a limited public forum, or some other designation, it is clearly not private space. The libertarian axiom "what we do in the privacy of our own homes is our own business" does not apply. Just as a public library would not subscribe to pornographic magazines, it should not allow patrons to view pornography on the internet in the library. Without rendering a moral judgement against people who view pornography on the internet, I believe the comfort of the majority of library patrons is more compelling than one person's right to view material better suited to a private setting. I liken this to a prohibition against playing loud music in the library.

Freedom of expression theory vs. practice

My U.S.-based philosophy of freedom of expression refers to the theoretical position articulated in the United States Constitution, not the actual practice of the country.

Supreme Court decisions and other case law cited in articles by Schauer, Zoller, and Rosenfeld attest to the re-affirmation of the absolutist position over many decades. However, having lived in the U.S. for the majority of my life, and standing in opposition to its policies for nearly as long, I am aware of a sizeable gap between the country's Constitution and the rights accorded citizens. Throughout U.S. history, freedom of expression has been curtailed to protect the government from criticism, to prevent citizens from knowing what the government is doing, and to prevent the dissemination of ideas that counter government interests.

While infringements of Constitutional rights such as the Sedition Act, leading to the imprisonment of labour organizer and socialist Eugene V. Debs, are well known, many less celebrated examples occur regularly. In recent years, United States citizens have been arrested for criticizing the Vice President, for flying the American flag upside down, for wearing t-shirt with the words "Give Peace A Chance" in a mall, for holding a sign reading “Honk if you want Bush out”, and dozens of similar examples. In most – although not all – of these cases, the arrested citizen was vindicated in court. However, arrests have an immediate and lasting chilling effect on potential dissent – dissent that is vital to a functioning democracy.

Knowledge of these cases and many similar events have profoundly informed my views on freedom of expression. It may be that my views differ from those of many Canadians because my relationship with government has been different from theirs. I am more concerned with how government might misuse laws that curtail freedom of expression than with any person's supposed right to not be offended.

Conclusion

My personal philosophy of freedom of expression is broad and inclusive. I believe a public library must take the most inclusive view of freedom of expression possible. Evaluative neutrality must apply, and all ideas, including ones we find reprehensible, should be represented.

One exception to which I assent is the viewing of internet pornography in a public library. As a public place, the library is an inappropriate forum, and the comfort of the majority must take priority. However, I do not support laws banning the making, sale, or distribution of pornography involving only consenting adults.

Freedom of expression is a right of all people, and essential of a society is to be just and democratic.

+ + + +

guantanamo reunion links

A while back, I posted "army suicides, prisoner "suicides": suffering on both sides of the barbed wire".

In that post, I mentioned a former US guard at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp who contacted two former prisoners, and the relationship that developed between them. I didn't have a link to the BBC story at the time, but a reader kindly sent it: Part One: The Guard's Story and Part Two: The Reunion.

Thank you, Frances!

a mantra

The pioneers of a warless world are the young men and women who refuse military service.

Albert Einstein

nato: murdering children may be ill-advised

Another redsock guest post, with thanks from me as I alternate between buried and exhausted. - L.

Just after New Year's, Laura posted a news article about troops in Afghanistan dragging innocent children from their beds, handcuffing some of them, and then murdering them at close range.

Eight of the 10 victims were between the ages of 11 and 17. Surviving members of the family talk about the night of the assault here.

At the time, "a senior NATO insider" claimed the night raid "was conducted against an IED cell that Afghan and US officials had been developing information against for some time". As soon as the story was reported, it was clear that the statement was horseshit -- and now NATO is admitting it was horseshit.

Does NATO actually say it was a mistake? They are not sure. It was probably a mistake.

Knowing what we know now, it would probably not have been a justifiable attack.

No words could lessen the rage and hate and fantasies of revenge that I imagine that family must have towards the invaders and destroyers of their country. But to actually bother making a statement, then say, in effect, "I suppose murdering those children was not the best idea we've ever had"... If that's the best you can do, then shut the fuck up.

NATO is keeping quiet about which country's (or countries) troops committed these murders. There has been no indication that Canadian soldiers were involved. But that really doesn't matter. The entire military occupation of Afghanistan is a crime against humanity -- and Canada is, at the very least, an accessory to ongoing war crimes.

Increasing numbers of Canadians know that. And Stephen Harper knows that the more Canadians learn the truth, the greater those numbers will be. That's why he shut down Parliament rather than let the truth come out.

It's time for every single soldier to get out of that country now.

two peace and war-resistance events in toronto

This Tuesday, March 2, Colonel Ann Wright will speak at "Resistance Across Borders," co-sponsored by Code Pink Toronto, The Council of Canadians, Science for Peace and Voice of Women. Also speaking will be Patrick Hart, a US Army veteran and Iraq War resister.

As you probably know, Ann Wright is a retired US Army colonel and US State Department official. After a distinguished military career, she publicly resigned her positions in protest of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. She now has a distinguished career as a peace activist.

You may also recall that Wright has been refused entry to Canada on more than one occasion. We hope to see her in Toronto on Tuesday night. If border control won't lower the drawbridge, Wright will speak to the gathering via video link.

Patrick Hart lives in Toronto with his wife Jill and their son. The Harts are one of several families at high risk for deportation if the the Harper Government continues to ignore the will of the people.

Where: International Student Centre, Cumberland House, Room 102, 33 St. George Street, University of Toronto

When: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 7:00 p.m.

Also, on Friday, March 19, there will be a dinner and fundraiser for the War Resisters Support Campaign. More details to follow, but if you're a supporter in Toronto, please mark your calendar!

support bill c-440 postcard campaign: your help wanted

I've been quiet on wmtc about the War Resisters Support Campaign lately, because I wasn't ready to tell the CIC what we're up to. But now it's time to reveal our plans and enlist your help.

As you I hope you know, the current focus of our campaign is on Bill C-440, the private member's bill that would allow Iraq War resisters to apply for permanent residence in Canada. Private member's bills survive prorogation, and it's possible C-440 may get a second reading in the next session of Parliament.

Whether or not that happens, we want to make visible the very strong, broad support that exists clear across Canada for allowing US war resisters to stay in this country. To that end, we are on a massive postcard drive. (Find the typo!*)

Through our supporters all over the country, we've already distributed 4,500 of these cards. While we wait to receive the signed cards in return, we're doing a second printing.

Can you help? We're asking all our supporters to not just sign a card (very good) but also take responsibility for getting more cards signed (even better). Bring a small batch to an activist meeting, to school, work, your place of worship... your curling club, your next lunch date... wherever. Make a pitch, have people sign the cards on the spot, then collect the cards and return them to me or to the Campaign.

Every card counts. Can you take 10 cards? 5? 30? Let me know how many and where to send them. Email me or the campaign with your name, address and how many cards you want.

Dig in, folks. It's easy to do and it will make a difference.

SUPPORT BILL C-440! LET THEM STAY!



------
* But don't tell me about it. I know where it is.

cool librarians and why we need them

I'm trying to focus on my school work, an endeavour at which I've had very little success for the past week or so. While I'm not creating original content writing, please read this librarian-related story from Salon. Jed Lipinski interviews Marilyn Johnson, the author of This Book is Overdue!: How Librarians and Cybrarians Can Save Us All.

Behold the stereotypical librarian, with her cat’s-eye glasses, bun and pantyhose -- a creature whose desexualized persona and desire for us to be quiet has fueled generations of wild sexual fantasies. But there's bad news for those of you with a shushing fetish; as Marilyn Johnson explains in "This Book Is Overdue!: How Librarians and Cybrarians Can Save Us All," the uptight librarian is a species that's rapidly approaching extinction.

A new generation of young, hip and occasionally tattooed librarians is driving them out. They call themselves guybrarians, cybrarians and "information specialists," and they blog at sites like The Free Range Librarian and The Lipstick Librarian. They can be found in droves on Second Life, but also outside the Republican National Convention, dodging tear gas canisters and tweeting the location of the police.

Johnson, a former staff writer for Life magazine, and author of "The Dead Beat," a book about the fascinating world of obituary writing, delights in refuting our assumptions about librarians, while making a rock-solid case for their indispensability at a time when library systems are losing an average of 50 librarians per year. Who else is going to help us formulate the questions Google doesn’t understand, or show non-English speakers how to apply for jobs online, or sympathize with your need to research the ancient origins of cockfighting? Librarians, Johnson argues, are one of our most underappreciated natural resources.

Salon talked to Johnson over the phone from her home in Westchester County, in New York, about the inadequacy of Google, why librarians have so many stalkers, and how a group of Connecticut librarians helped protect your privacy.

How did you know that librarians, not exactly known for their wild personalities, would make such riveting subjects?

My first book, "The Dead Beat," was about obituaries, and during my research I realized that the most engaging obits were about librarians. I once told a writer who was mentoring me that I wanted to write a book about them, and he threw back his head and howled, like, "Are you trying deliberately to stay off of the bestseller list?" But then he told me this great librarian story. That happened over and over. People would laugh, then tell me a fascinating story.

It's worth reading.

afghan war claims its first government

Hooray for progressives in the Netherlands! Canada's opposition parties, take note. You could learn a thing or three.

Worldwide political strains over the war in Afghanistan claimed their first national government this weekend as the Dutch ruling coalition collapsed over the question of whether to withdraw troops this year.

Conservative Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands phoned Queen Beatrix to dissolve parliament yesterday morning after his left-wing coalition partner withdrew from the government in the wake of an all-night debate over a NATO request to extend the presence of 1,600 troops beyond 2010.

Mr. Balkenende's Christian Democrats lost the support of the Labour Party, who have formed an awkward coalition for almost three years. The country's participation in Afghanistan has become an increasingly divisive issue in the coalition, and the Prime Minister's attempt to alter a promise to withdraw in 2010 became the last straw, opposition leaders said.

“Where there is no trust, it is difficult to work together,” Mr. Balkenende said at a news conference after the debate collapsed. “There is no road left for this cabinet to walk.”

An election will be called before May. The result makes it almost certain that the Netherlands will be the first major participant in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization fighting coalition to withdraw from the war, almost a year ahead of Canada's promised withdrawal – a decision that will create a military vacuum in Afghanistan's war-ravaged south after the current surge of 30,000 extra U.S. troops ends.

Canada, over to you.

the personal is political: angie the anti-theist documenting abortion online

Angie the Anti-Theist talks about why she chose to terminate her pregnancy, and, perhaps more interestingly, why she decided to be public about it: here at The Friendly Atheist.

Here's Angie's own blog. She's documenting her medical (by pill) abortion on Twitter, Facebook and through her blog.

From the Friendly Atheist post:

I’m an atheist, children’s rights activist, and happy momma of a 4-year-old boy who makes my world go round. But this week, I’ve been getting called a “killer” a whole lot.

I found out I was pregnant on February 13th. It turned out the birth control I thought I was using didn’t quite work as planned (my IUD had apparently come out and we weren’t using condoms as regularly as I was pretending to myself we were). You can imagine how romantic our Valentine’s conversation was. (I think what I said was, “Let’s go for a twofer — I’ll get an abortion and you get a vasectomy.”)

. . .

When my son was born, I decided I didn’t want any more kids, in part because I’d learned during my pregnancy that I was a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis, a fatal and painful disease (of which my son was fortunately spared). I don’t regret that decision. My son is happiest when he’s getting one-on-one attention from an adult — he has even manipulated the system at school so that he gets to hang out with his teacher while she eats lunch and the other kids nap! I honestly don’t believe siblings are always a blessing, always friends, or always best for a family.

I know that I can be a damn good mom to the one special needs child I have — he had many health problems when he was younger and he is speech delayed and has a short attention span now — but I don’t know if I could be a good mom to two kids, one or both of whom would have special needs. I know my mom had more children than she could afford or care for, and I don’t want to make the same mistake. For his sake, my boyfriend has never wanted children of his own.

For me, getting an abortion was the best decision.

I went to the Planned Parenthood this past Thursday, on a day set aside (for security reasons) for patients having abortions. I found out that I was only four weeks and one day pregnant, meaning I caught this incredibly early — so early, in fact, that surgical abortion isn’t even an option yet. So I chose to have a medical abortion.

. . .

After I put my son to bed, I began #livetweetingabortion on Twitter. Why on earth would I choose to go through something so personal — and controversial — on Twitter? Have I no shame?

No, I don’t.

I don’t feel ashamed of having an abortion.

I believe in a woman’s right to choose, in general for others and in this case for me. Abortion doesn’t have to be justified and it doesn’t have to fit your neighbor’s or coworker’s opinions of a “good enough reason.”

I think “I don’t want to be pregnant” is one of the best reasons there is for having an abortion (along with “I don’t want to be a parent” and “I’ll probably die”).

Angie's project recalled for me Jennifer Baumgardner's I Had An Abortion campaign, but with even more immediacy. I applaud Angie's decision to be public! Brilliant stuff.

Many thanks to James for sending me this.

a quiz: who said this?

Can you guess what this is excerpted from?

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs--expansion of social security--broadened coverage in unemployment insurance --improved housing--and better health protection for all our people.

We favor a comprehensive study of the effect upon wildlife of the drainage of our wetlands.

We recognize the need for maintaining isolated wilderness areas.

[We call for...]

A continuously vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws

Legislation to enable closer Federal scrutiny of mergers which have a significant or potential monopolistic connotations;

Procedural changes in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement.

Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;...

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;

Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public.

Was it...
A. The 2004 Democratic Party platform
B: The 2000 Green Party platform
C: The 1956 Republican Party platform
D: The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

Yes, it's a trick, and you've probably guessed it by now. The answer is C. It's an excerpt from the 1956 Republican Party Platform.

This is the best illustration I've seen in a long, long time of just how far to the right the US centre has moved. Thanks to James, via Ed Brayton, via KOS.