5.16.2010

toronto in late june: organize, connect, listen, march

shout out june 25 toronto


One of the reasons wmtc5 is in late August is that June will be crazy in Toronto. The 2010 G20 Summit will be in town, and a beehive of activity is taking place around it, to protest, respond to and counter the official agendas.

I've never lived in a G8 or G20 Summit city, and I've never traveled to one to join protests or alternative agendas, so for me personally this is an exciting opportunity. I'm very excited about the June 25 Shout Out For Global Justice event; I'm especially looking forward to hearing Vandana Shiva and Pablo Solon.

* * * *

From June 18-20, "The People's Summit" will meet to discuss an alternative global agenda.
The actions and policies of the G8 and G20 have significant impacts on millions of lives the world over, and with this, comes an opportunity for us - community organizers, activists, non-governmental organizations, independent media, workers, impacted communities, artists – the people – to work together to educate, empower and ignite the positive change we would like to see in our world.

We converge in Toronto from June 18th – 27th to create a space where diverse local and international movements can democratically organize to advocate and educate on behalf of global justice. The People's Summit is happening from June 18th-20th, and will be followed by a week of autonomous actions throughout Toronto in the lead up to the arrival of the G20 Leaders on June 26th.

The week of action and education culminates in "Shout Out For Global Justice," on Friday, June 25, at Convocation Hall. The evening is jointly sponsored by a coalition of civil society and activist groups, and features:

  • Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians and chairs the board of Washington-based Food and Water Watch.

  • Leading environmental justice activist and author Dr. Vandana Shiva, founder of Navdanya

  • Pablo Solon, Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations and lead negotiator for Bolivia at the December 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen

  • Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!

  • John Hilary, executive director of War on Want, which campaigns for human rights and against the root causes of global poverty, inequality and injustice.

  • Journalist, columnist and author Naomi Klein

  • Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers and Vice-President of the AFL-CIO.

    The following day, Saturday, June 26, there will be a massive march and rally in Toronto.

    For more information on any of this, here are some good links:

    G8/G20 Toronto Community Mobilization

    Resist G20 on Facebook

    The 2010 People's Summit

    Shout Out For Global Justice

    Shout Out For Global Justice on Facebook
  • 5.15.2010

    jessica watson returns to sydney

    You may not remember Jessica Watson's name, but you should never forget what a 16-year-old girl is capable of.
    Australian teen completes round-the-world sail

    SYDNEY – A 16-year-old Australian who spent seven months at sea in her pink yacht sailed across the finish line of her round-the-world journey Saturday, becoming the youngest sailor to circle the globe solo, nonstop and unassisted.

    Thousands of spectators erupted into cheers as Jessica Watson sailed into Sydney Harbour, the finale to an epic adventure in which she battled 40-foot (12-meter) waves, homesickness and critics who said she'd never make it home alive.

    "She said she'd sail around the world, and she has," a tearful Julie Watson said as she watched her grinning daughter cruise past the finish line from a nearby boat. "She's home."

    Watson docked at Sydney's iconic Opera House. The teenager burst into tears and gasped in relief as she stepped off the yacht and into the arms of her parents, whose decision to let their daughter attempt the feat was called an act of insanity by critics.

    She hung onto her father and brother as she walked slowly and tentatively along a pink carpet rolled out in her honor — her first steps on land in 210 days. Fans screamed and waved as she walked by, many wearing pink clothes and holding pink flags in a nod to her 34-foot (10-meter) yacht, Ella's Pink Lady.

    "People don't think you're capable of these things — they don't realize what young people, what 16-year-olds and girls are capable of," Watson told the raucous crowd. "It's amazing when you take away those expectations what you can do."

    Watson, from Buderim, north of Brisbane in Queensland state, sailed out of Sydney on Oct. 18 despite protests by critics that she was too immature and inexperienced for the treacherous journey. Her parents maintained that she was well-prepared and noted she has been sailing since the age of 8.

    The story has some great details of her voyage. Watson insists she's not a hero, but I hope she is an inspiration.

    5.14.2010

    thoughts on her majesty's loyal opposition, such as it is

    A funny thing happens whenever I write about the Liberals or the NDP on this blog.

    When I criticize the Liberals, someone comes along to say the Libs are really not that bad, the media is against them, Ignatieff is the best they have (goddess help us!), I'm overlooking some key bit of strategy, it's all Harper's fault, or some other excuse.

    When I criticize the New Democrats, someone stops by to accuse me of supporting the Liberals! When I was angry that the NDP propped up the Conservatives, a commenter said, "Why don't you just admit you're a Liberal partisan and get it over with?" A Liberal partisan? Obviously you don't read this blog - ever. As much as I loathe the Harper Government, I credit a good deal of their political success to the horrifically inept Liberals. If the Liberals were any kind of opposition, Harper would be a thing of the past by now. The Conservatives are vulnerable on so many fronts. Every week they create another opening for their own defeat. Yet... nothing.

    Years ago, when I would vent my outrage at the Cheney administration, trolls would stop by to rag on John Kerry. What, you thought I was a Democrat?

    Here's the thing. I don't have a party. The New Democrats are the party in Canada that are closest to my values, and I'm damn glad they exist. If a similar, viable party existed in the US, rather than a few representatives tolerated at the progressive fringe of the Democrats, things might have been different there. I have no doubt I'll vote NDP as soon as I'm able.

    However, I don't think in terms of parties. I think about issues, and values, and how we can achieve a more just society. When that work involves Members of Parliament, any MP who will help us achieve our goals is welcome in my book. Any one who doesn't is the opposition.

    I wish the NDP would recover its socialist roots. I absolutely reject the so-called wisdom that claims everyone must shift rightward in pursuit of the mythical centre. Follow that illogic, and you end up with the Democrats, a party whose actual policies are usually indistinguishable from the Republicans they claim to oppose.

    A Liberal Party that tries to out-conservative the Conservative is a loser out of the gate. If people want conservative, they'll vote Conservative. And an NDP that chases the tail-end of the Liberals is a waste of seats. But an NDP that speaks to core values of labour, peace, environment and justice speaks to people the other parties have abandoned.

    (I'm not including the Bloc Québécois in this discussion, but I admire much about the Bloc's platform, and I see them as allies in our struggle in many respects.)

    Right now the NDP is all we have. That party is doing all the heavy lifting of opposing the destructive, reactionary, radical-right policies of the Harper Government.

  • The NDP passed the Climate Change Accountability Act, their private member's bill that is Canada's only federal climate-change legislation, and the only attempt to hold government accountable for action on climate change.

    The big obstacle to the bill's passage, obviously, will be the Conservative-controlled Senate. If you haven't done so already, add your voice to the long list of Canadians who want to see this bill become law: sign here.

    All Conservative MPs voted against this bill.

    I have it on good authority that Michael Ignatieff opposed Bill C-311 and was going to vote against it. A strongly-worded letter from David Suzuki changed his mind. While the outcome was positive, this tells us more about the Liberals values.

  • NDP Agriculture Critic Alex Atamanenko (BC-Southern Interior) tabled Bill C-474, aimed at protecting Canadian farmers and consumers from harm from genetically engineered crops.

    Bill C-474 just passed second reading. The Liberals did support this bill, but neither Ignatieff nor Ralph Goodale, who represents farmers in Saskatchewan, voted. Both are pro-GMO. Bill C-474 now goes to the Agriculture Committee for study and amendments - and a major fight from the biotech industry.

    Two Conservative MPs broke with their party to support this bill: Ron Cannan (Kelowna-Lake Country) and James Lunney (Nanaimo-Alberni).

    Atamanenko is a really good man, deeply committed to justice on many fronts, including peace and the inclusion of US war resisters in Canada.

  • The NDP is carrying the ball opposing Bill C-11, the Government's anti-refugee bill disguised as a "reform" of Canada's refugee system. Liberal immigration critic Maurizio Bevilacqua, soon to leave the House of Commons to run for Mayor of the City of Vaughan, argues on behalf of the bill nearly as strongly as Jason Kenney. Any Liberal opposition to this unjust bill comes mainly from Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park). NDP Immigration Critic Olivia Chow has vowed to do everything in her power to slow the rush to passage, insisting on real debate and many amendments. That is, democracy.

  • This week, Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) tabled Private Member's Bill C-389, a historic call to update the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression. Bill C-389 would bring explicit human rights protections for transgender and transsexual people. More about this important bill here, and a report on the first hour of debate here.

    Bill Siksay was the first Member of Parliament to call for the support of US war resisters in Canada, long before the Liberals were on side. He's a stalwart supporter of everything we stand for.

  • NDP Environment Critic Linda Duncan (Edmonton-Strathcona) has tabled a ground-breaking Private Member's Bill calling for an Environmental Bill of Rights. Bill C-469 would bring Canada in line with more than 130 other countries that recognize the importance of citizens' input into the health of their local environment, and protection for environmental whistleblowers. The bill had its first hour of debate last week.

  • I've already blogged about my admiration and support for Bill C-232, tabled by New Democrat Yves Godin (Acadie-Bathurst) to bring the Supreme Court of Canada in line with all the other federal courts, requiring bilingual justices.

  • The Liberals made a complete mess of opposing the Government's international maternal health initiative. That's been blogged to death; I don't need to elaborate on it here. I'll only add that my own MP, Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East-Cooksville), was one of four Liberals who did not vote for her own party's motion calling for the inclusion of contraception and abortion in the initiative.

    Guarnieri was absent from that vote, and she voted in favour of Ken Epp's anti-choice bill in 2008. If Guarnieri opposes abortion, that's a matter for her own conscience. But in opposing abortion rights, she should scuttle over to the Conservatives where she belongs.

  • The Liberals are spending a lot of time and effort on the Gun Registry, which I think is a very minor issue. I do think firearms should be registered, but the whole commotion over long-gun registry is purely political posturing. The Conservatives can play to their rural base while the Liberals can appear "tough on crime". Neither stance effects anyone very much. Farmers can register their long guns without great hardship, and registering long guns accomplishes very little.

    Any party that is serious about reducing crime should be focused on fully funding education, slashing tuition fees, providing quality day-care for children of working parents, and guaranteeing good jobs in Canadian communities. That's how you reduce crime: by giving young people a future.

  • On the war resisters front, I must acknowledge significant support from all three opposition parties. The Campaign never could have gotten this far without the guidance and steadfast commitment of NDP Immigration Critic Olivia Chow and every New Democrat Member of Parliament. Olivia is our rock. Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park) is sponsoring Bill C-440 in support of US war resisters in Canada, and is working hard to ensure its passage. Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre), an unfailing supporter of US war resisters, traveled on his own dime to San Diego, along with Olivia Chow and a Campaigner, to visit war resister Robin Long in prison. Many other MPs from all three opposition parties have gone out of their way to support war resisters and tell the government to Let Them Stay.

    * * * *

    Michael Ignatieff is a stunningly incompetent leader. Anyone who thinks that statement needs to be backed up by evidence should look elsewhere: I'm stating it as an indisputable fact. But even beyond Ignatieff's shallow incompetence, I find little in the Liberal party to recommend it. They appear to stand for anything and nothing.

    I watch Question Period almost every day and I scan the both the Liberals' and the NDP's websites regularly. Other than strategic voting in certain targeted ridings - like what the Catch 22 Harper Conservatives campaign is focused on - I honestly can find no reason why any progressive person would ever vote Liberal.
  • today in halifax: greeting jason kenney

    Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was in Halifax this morning to promote the government's anti-refugee bill. Some folks from No One Is Illegal Halifax were there to greet him.



    From No One Is Illegal:

    Refugee Reforms will hurt refugee claimants - Migrant justice activists protest Bill C-11

    HALIFAX -- Early this morning, migrant justice activists dropped a banner reading "Status for Refugees: No to Bill C-11" from the Cogswell interchange, in protest of the refugee reform bill currently being debated in parliament. The protests came in response to a visit by Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney, who is responsible for the proposed reforms.

    "Already people are falling through the cracks in the refugee system and are deported to unsafe situations" says Jane Kirby, a member of No One is Illegal-Halifax. "These reforms will only impose further hardship on those who are fleeing unsafe situations".

    The proposed reforms would create a two-tier system for refugee claimants based on their country of origin, limit the availability of mechanisms like the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment and Humanitarian and Compassionate applications to refugees, and process claims so quickly as to deny refugees adequate preparation.

    "It's the people who face real risks who will suffer most from these 'fast track' reforms. It makes it harder to be accepted as a refugee in Canada, which is already difficult", says David Parker of No One is Illegal, who also criticizes the streaming of refugee claimants based on their country of origin, such that those from so-called safe countries would be denied appeal and have their claims fast-tracked. “This erodes the whole concept of justice by allowing non-judges to determine a refugee's risk not based on the individual, but based on origin. This is discrimination, and is unacceptable for a country that claims to uphold human rights”.

    Critics also disagree with Kenney's claim that these reforms are necessary to combat “abuse and a backlog” in the refugee system. “This backlog was created by Kenney and the Harper government when they delayed appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board in 2006 and 2007”, says Kirby, a member of No One is Illegal-Halifax. “Kenney created this crisis and cannot be trusted to fix it. Refugees should not be punished for Kenney's mistakes”.

    Grassroots activists across the country have called for Jason Kenney's dismissal. He is best known for his appointing of a known anti-gay activist to the Immigration and Refugee Board, his barring of British MP George Galloway from Canada because of his support for Palestine, and for his frequent inflammatory and anti-immigrant comments. He has also overseen the largest immigration raids in Canadian history, including a large raid in a mall in West-End Toronto earlier this week.

    In December 2009, Kenney cut the number of refugees accepted in Canada from 29,000 to 12,000. Although Kenney claims that the new refugee reforms would add 2500 new spaces for refugees in Canada, 2000 of these would have to be privately funded. Even with these additions, this still represents a 14,500 person cut in the number of refugees accepted.

    “So many people are denied refugee status who actually deserve it and need it”, says Parker. “Federal immigration fails to take seriously the real risks these migrants face: The risks they faced just to get here to Canada, and the real risks they face if returning”.

    In Halifax this past March, a man from Eritrea committed suicide upon hearing that his refugee claim was rejected. In December 2008, a young woman was murdered within months of being forced to return to Mexico, after applying for asylum in Canada twice. This came as Kenney was imposing visa requirements on Mexicans, claiming that they were bogus.

    “These stories are not that uncommon”, says Kirby. “We should be putting the needs of people first, and opening our borders to immigrants and refugees, not closing them”.

    today in vancouver: greet jason kenney

    Good morning, CIC spy. I asked the Vancouver chapter of the War Resisters Support Campaign if they wanted me to post this. They said, sure, you're invited, too.

    + + + +

    War Resisters Support Campaign - Vancouver

    CALL TO ACTION!

    Minister of Immigration who called War Resisters "bogus refugees" - Jason Kenney - will be in Vancouver this afternoon.

    He will be hosting a "roundtable discussion on immigration reform". That would be the heinous Bill C-11 that was introduced on March 30, 2010.

    Media have been invited for a photo opportunity and media availability following the roundtable. We're going to join them.

    What: Greet Immigration Minister Jason Kenney

    When: Friday May 14, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    Where: CIC Regional Headquarters, 800 Burrard St, Vancouver, 2nd floor boardroom

    How: Bring signs, noisemakers, any creative communication tools you can think of

    [For more information, email me for contact numbers.]

    War Resisters Support Campaign Vancouver

    5.13.2010

    more info please: can you tell me why cic is monitoring a private citizen's blog?

    From friend and reader Matthew Bin, who posts here as M@, to his Member of Parliament:
    Dear Terence,

    I apologize for dropping two e-mails in your inbox on one day, but a situation has arisen that, with respect, deserves an answer.

    Last summer, I sent an e-mail (copied below) to your office, asking if you could tell me why CIC, with its apparently insufficient resources, is monitoring a private citizen's blog. I received a call from a member of your staff a few weeks later, asking me to confirm that I am actually a constituent in Oakville, and I assured him that I was. He told me that I would receive a reply soon, but to date no reply has been forthcoming.

    I would like to hear your comments on a related situation reported by the same blogger today. The story is described in full at the following URL:

    http://wmtc.blogspot.com/2010/05/hello-cic-nice-to-see-youre-still.html

    I will provide a short summary so that you don't need to pore through the whole thing: the blogger in question asked a rhetorical question about which citizenship guide she ought to be reading to prepare for her upcoming citizenship exam, since there was a much-publicized update to the guide published recently. Her partner subsequently received a call from a CIC representative, at his place of work, to answer the question.

    Although I understand that you must receive many requests for information every day, and I imagine the workload to respond to them must be quite extensive, I must insist upon receiving an answer to my questions around this situation:

    - Why is the CIC spending such time and resources to monitor a private citizen's blog?

    - Why is the CIC looking up that citizen's personal information to contact them -- at a place of work, no less! -- in response to the content of that blog?

    If it is not within your office's power to respond to these questions, I would very much appreciate it if you could refer me to the appropriate person or office who can do so. Again, I would be happy to receive your call at xxx, or to meet with you at your office at your convenience.

    Thank you again for your time.

    Sincerely, etc.

    [earlier email]

    Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:58 PM
    Subject: CIC monitoring of war resister activities
    To: Young, Terence - M.P.

    Mr Young,

    We met back in January to discuss the issue of American war resisters in Canada. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue, and I think we had a good understanding of each other's position by the time the meeting ended.

    I was very disappointed to see you vote against the Citizenship and Immigration Committee's motion on March 30. However, you can imagine that I was happy to see parliament pass a motion, for a second time, recommending that war resisters be allowed to stay in Canada.

    However, a serious issue has come to light today, one that goes far deeper than any disagreement on a government's policies or actions. Documents acquired through an Access to Information Request have revealed that CIC personnel have been closely monitoring the activities of the resisters movement, including postings on a private citizen's blog. This information has been posted on that blog, at the following URL:

    http://wmtc.blogspot.com/2009/07/internal-documents-show-harper-govt.html

    I'd appreciate an explanation -- whether you can provide it, or direct me to someone who can -- for why government resources are being expended this way, and why the online postings of citizens who disagree with current government policy are driving the actions of a federal department. This appears to be an egregious and politically-motivated waste of departmental resources -- especially in light of the immigration and refugee processing backlog that CIC has repeatedly mentioned in recent months.

    I would very much like to know your thoughts on this matter. I can be reached by e-mail or by phone at xxx, or I can come in to meet with you at your convenience.

    I look forward to hearing from you soon.

    Sincerely, etc.

    The relevant part of the response thus far:
    I've faxed the details of your inquiry to the MP Enquiries Division at Citizenship & Immigration Canada with a request for them to investigate. It usually about 48 hours before we hear back from them. At that time I may receive further instruction to pursue the inquiry through a different CIC avenue.

    I'll get back to you once I have some concrete information.

    If you're not up to speed on this craziness, please see this post, which contains links to the back story.

    5.12.2010

    action alert: please email liberals about c-11 refugee bill

    From the Canadian Council for Refugees:

    Urgent action request - C-11

    Yesterday the CCR met with a number of Members of Parliament in Ottawa about C-11, as well as appearing before the Standing Committee. We identified an urgent need to press the Liberal Party to take a strong position in favour of refugee rights. It appears that the Party will be discussing what position to take in the next couple of days: the two competing currents of opinion are 1) a rights-based position that rejects unacceptable aspects of the bill, and 2) a compromise position that seeks only a few minor amendments to Bill C-11.

    We believe that it is important that the Liberal Party hear that many people are concerned about this bill and are looking to the Liberals to take a strong position.

    Please send an email message, preferably TODAY (12 May) or TOMORROW (13 May) to the Leader of the Opposition, Michael Ignatieff, with copies to the Liberal members of the Standing Committee (Maurizio Bevilacqua, Denis Coderre, Jim Karygiannis).

    Addresses are:
    Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca
    Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca
    Coderre.D@parl.gc.ca
    Karygiannis.J@parl.gc.ca

    Suggested message:

    Dear _____:

    I am writing about Bill C-11, the refugee reform bill. I am deeply concerned that the bill has elements that may lead to refugees being denied the protection they need.

    The bill is being pushed through committee at an extraordinarily fast pace, despite the importance and complexity of the issues, and the fact that there was no broad public consultation on the bill prior to tabling. Why the haste? Why is the Liberal Party not demanding that Parliament take the time necessary to study this bill carefully?

    I am also concerned that we have yet to hear clearly from the Liberal Party that you will not compromise on refugee rights and that you will take a strong position that ensures that any bill passed fully conforms to Canada's international human rights obligations. In particular, I would like to be assured that the Liberals will not vote for a bill that accords different rights to refugee claimants based on country of origin.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely, etc.

    + + + + +

    For more about Bill C-11 and why people concerned with justice are so upset, go here.

    more context for wikileaks video: "in boot camp we trained with songs that joked about killing women and children"

    From TheRealNews, an interview with Josh Steiber, US veteran who was in the company involved in the now-famous Wikileaks video.



    Steiber talks about the links between nationalism and religion, and how soldiers are taught to dehumanize in order to kill. He echoes everything I've heard from Jeremy Hinzman, Chuck Wiley, Phil McDowell, Joshua Key and other war resisters.

    Please watch and share. And please support Bill C-440, because supporting military resisters is a concrete way to support peace.

    what i'm reading: scott orton and kevin baker, two important articles in harper's

    After finishing Northern Passage, I read two stories from older issues of Harper's magazine, each important and enlightening in different ways. I had half-read and skimmed these stories while I was in school, but finally went back and read them both entirely. I've blogged about these before, but I want to highlight both stories again.

    In "The Guantánamo "Suicides": A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle," Scott Horton uncovers the apparent torture and murder of three prisoners at the US concentration camp, and the subsequent cover up of the crimes. It's a brilliant piece of investigative journalism, and a eye-opening, sickening view into what the US has become.

    Harper's, a nonprofit organization that needs our subscription dollars to do its great work, has made it available for free here. Orton concludes:
    Nearly 200 men remain imprisoned at Guantánamo. In June 2009, six months after Barack Obama took office, one of them, a thirty-one-year-old Yemeni named Muhammed Abdallah Salih, was found dead in his cell. The exact circumstances of his death, like those of the deaths of the three men from Alpha Block, remain uncertain. Those charged with accounting for what happened—the prison command, the civilian and military investigative agencies, the Justice Department, and ultimately the attorney general himself—all face a choice between the rule of law and the expedience of political silence. Thus far, their choice has been unanimous.

    Not everyone who is involved in this matter views it from a political perspective, of course. General Al-Zahrani grieves for his son, but at the end of a lengthy interview he paused and his thoughts turned elsewhere. "The truth is what matters," he said. "They practiced every form of torture on my son and on many others as well. What was the result? What facts did they find? They found nothing. They learned nothing. They accomplished nothing."

    The second story brings some perspective to the discussion of why things continue the way they do. It's a history of progressive politics in the US by historian and novelist Kevin Baker: "The vanishing liberal: How the left learned to be helpless".

    I was especially interested in this article because of an email conversation I had with the author a while back. He was excited and hopeful about the 2008 election, and felt the US would soon start to get back on track. I was surprised that someone as knowledgeable about US history and politics would buy into that trope. After reading his excellent story, I wondered if Baker's hopeful expectation was more wishful thinking than serious belief.

    It's quite a brilliant piece, and I hope you'll read it. The entire text is posted here. Baker begins:
    In the first day of December last year, Barack Obama stood before the assembled Corps of Cadets at West Point and announced his decision to send another 30,000 troops to the war in Afghanistan. The president's nationally televised address was, in many ways, the most honest speech made to the American people by their leader in a generation. Obama conceded that our client state in Afghanistan "has been hampered by corruption" and "has moved backwards." He told us he had rejected "a more dramatic and open-ended escalation" of the war because that would require setting "goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests." He called on the nation to restore "the connection between our national security and our economy," since "our prosperity provides a foundation for our power," which means therefore that "our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own."

    It was as if the president were walking back half a century of American overreach and hubris in foreign affairs, back past John F. Kennedy's inaugural declaration that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Now Obama was finally conceding that there were limits. It was an argument in the very best tradition of American democracy: educational, unshirking, and honest; grounded in history; cognizant of physical realities and limitations but no less cognizant of humane and democratic principles. Had Obama delivered these words soon after he took office, as a prologue to making a major change in our foreign and military policies, they would have justified every hope his liberal supporters had for him.

    Instead, of course, these words were merely a coda, a belated attempt to reassure us that the policy of escalation Obama had just announced was nothing of the sort. The decision stood: 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. After stating the case for standing down in the most deliberate, accurate, and insightful words possible, our president went ahead and did the wrong thing anyway.

    How could this be? It was the question that Obama's most fervent supporters had been asking themselves for months, as their candidate discarded almost every vision of a new America, a new world, that he had described during his campaign. By the time of his West Point speech, health-care "reform" had already been transformed into yet another scheme to transfer wealth to the richest corporate interests in the country. The stimulus program had been botched, the promised money delayed and diverted from badly needed public projects into unhelpful tax cuts. The banks had been bailed out but not the people, and any significant proposals for repairing our infrastructure, addressing climate change, re-regulating the financial markets, or rebuilding New Orleans were generally acknowledged to be dead letters.

    Now, with the president's decision on Afghanistan, our foreign policy settled back into its familiar pattern of endless war for unknown purposes. To people who had been clamoring for real change in how we work and consume, how we live in the world and with one another, this retreat to the failed policies of the recent past was stunning. No other president in our history had so thoroughly spurned his political base in so short a time.

    He then takes a historical view on where liberal America came from, what it did, who attacked it and how, how it chose to surrender, and where it stands, or doesn't, now. He concludes:
    Who will challenge this shining fortress upon a hill? The right-wing pseudo-Populists who have devoured the Republican Party may win some victories in the short run. But the Tea Party and its fellow travelers have already become a jointly owned subsidiary of News Corp. and the likes of Dick Armey's FreedomWorks lobby. (To understand just how fraudulent the movement is, one need only look at the $549-a-seat price tag for tickets to its first convention, and the $100,000 speaker’s fee paid to Sarah Palin. So much for box socials and sing-alongs.) Right-wing Populism is anyway inherently contradictory, a demand that the state recede to a size that will leave its citizens utterly defenseless against the gigantic forces at loose in the world today. . . .

    Coming to power when he did, with the political skills and the majorities he possesses, Barack Obama squandered an almost unprecedented opportunity. But it is increasingly clear that he never intended to challenge the power structure he had so skillfully penetrated. With the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations are, once more, people, American democracy has snapped shut again — the great, forced opening of the past 130 years has ended. There is no longer any meaningful reformist impulse left in our politics. The idea of modern American liberalism has vanished among our elite, and simply voting for one man or supporting one of the two major parties will not restore it. The work will have to be done from the ground up, and it will have to be done by us.

    If you're interested in history and politics, I hope you'll take the time to read the whole piece. There's a lot to be learned. And not just for USians: Canadians who believe the Liberals and NDP should consolidate, or who think the New Democrats should continue tacking to the centre "to keep up with the times," could learn a few things, too. Those of us who know that's the wrong direction can learn more about why.

    Kevin Baker and I might disagree on what rebuilding from the ground up might mean, but that's not important right now. It's understanding the need for a complete rebuilding that matters.

    choosing canada: how can self-imposed exile not be seen as resistance?

    In his book Northern Passage, John Hagan writes of an ongoing debate within the Vietnam-era peace movement over whether Americans who went to Canada should be considered war resisters. Many in the peace movement said they were not, agreeing with Richard Nixon and other right-wingers who claimed the Americans in Canada were motivated solely by cowardice and self-interest - the desire to not die in the jungles of Southeast Asia. True war resisters, they said, refused to serve and went to jail if they had to.

    I've heard echoes of this in our current battle to persuade Canada to allow the war resisters to stay. Some supposedly progressive people have said that "hiding out in Canada is not the answer" - which in turn reminded me of snarky comments about my own choice to leave the US. If I cared, said some US progressives, I would "stay and fight".

    First of all, I believe everyone is motivated at least partially by self interest. Not wanting to die in someone else's war is a perfectly good reason to do whatever you must to avoid it.

    Conversely (although less urgently), USians who chose to "stay and fight" are comfortably living their lives. Chances are they never seriously considered selling their homes, quitting their jobs, leaving their friends and family, and starting over in a different country. If they did investigate leaving the US - not in a passing, abstract way, but as a real possibility - and decided against it, did they remain because they are so dedicated to their activism that they simply couldn't leave? Or did they stay because it was the right choice for their own lives? I think "stay and fight" more likely means, "I'm staying anyway, and I'll also keep fighting", not "I'm staying so that I can fight". The "stay and fight" line also betrays an unsurprising UScentricism. The struggle for social justice happens everywhere.

    In the case of AWOL US soldiers, it's difficult - no, it's impossible - for me to understand their choice to come to Canada as anything but resistance. I agree with the person in Northern Passage who said, "Anybody who removes their body from the war machine is by definition a resister, and had to be respected as such." The US war resisters now in Canada were part of a killing machine, or slated to become so. They physically and permanently removed themselves from that machine. They resisted in the most direct way possible.

    Everything I've heard about what happens to soldiers who try to resist from within the military confirms my view. Soldiers who question orders or speak up about the terrible abuses they see are "smoked" - physically, verbally and psychologically assaulted. Their lives are made a living hell. They may also be court martialed and jailed. I admire people who go this route. It takes enormous courage. But it cannot be considered more of a resistance than walking away altogether.

    None of the war resisters in Canada made their choice lightly. How could they, when it likely means they will never be able to return? Not just return to their original country, but to their town and their family. Some families will visit in Canada, but many are limited by poverty, and others have shunned their children for the choice they made. If there is self-interest involved, it's the desire to avoid prison time and having their futures wrecked by a dishonourable discharge, for the crime of following their conscience.

    Going to prison for one's belief requires enormous courage. But jail silences the resister. In Canada, resisters are making an invaluable contribution to the peace movement - as everyone who has heard a war resister speak can confirm. When war resister Chuck Wiley speaks at events, if people ask why he didn't just refuse to follow illegal orders and go to jail, why he came to Canada instead, he asks in return, "How many soldiers in prison can you name? How many have you heard speaking out against the war?" When the audience draws a blank, Chuck says, "That's why I'm in Canada. So I can tell people what's happening over there."

    Resistance, like all activism, takes many forms. Our allies in Courage To Resist have the right idea: support resistance in whatever form it takes.
    In the past few years, tens of thousands of service members have resisted illegal war and occupation in a number of different ways — by going AWOL, seeking conscientious objector status and/or a discharge, asserting the right to speak out against injustice from within the military, and for a relative few, publicly refusing to fight.

    While there are those who would like to dismiss war resisters as "cowards," the reality is that it takes exceptional courage to resist unjust, illegal, and/or immoral orders. For many resisters, it was their first-hand experiences as occupation troops that compelled them to take a stand. For others, "doing the right thing" and acting out of conscience began to outweigh their military training in obedience. . . .

    Those who decide to resist while in the military have powerful stories to tell about how they came to the decision to take a stand. Courage to Resist makes a special effort to work with resisters to tell their stories, in their own words and from their own unique perspectives. . . .

    Progressive people who don't support military resistance are missing the big picture. More way back here: "moral illogic: supporting peace, but not war resistance".

    5.11.2010

    people saying no to war, 1917 edition

    Last week while waiting for Question Period to begin, I happened to see a CPAC video about the Canadian federal election of 1917, also called the "Conscription Crisis of 1917".

    As the Great War in Europe brought massive death tolls, people (rather understandably) stopped volunteering. I love how this Wikipedia article puts it: "After the Battle of the Somme, Canada was in desperate need to replenish its supply of soldiers; however, there were very few volunteers to replace them." Hmm yes, after more than a million lives are wasted in one freaking battle, it might be just a tad difficult to convince yet more living people to fall into formation. Britain and Canada needed to force young men to serve. The propaganda machine was cranked up, but Quebec wasn't buying.

    If you're curious, you can go here and click on "the 1917 federal election".

    Seen more from Quebec's point of view, we have this video on YouTube.

    Both are relatively short and very interesting.

    I've read a lot about World War I, not military history - not exactly my thing - but mostly historical novels. Many draw unmistakable parallels to our own time - nationalist propaganda, war profiteering, imperialism, the dehumanization of peoples to construct enemies. Also great resistance - to imperialism, to conscription, to nationalism, and to capitalism. I find myself returning to those examples again and again. Allan's book also takes place during World War I, and through his research, we both became interested in the political climate of that era.

    The powers that be in Canada like to wave the flag around the Battle of Vimy Ridge, another bloodbath of unimaginable proportions that they claim forged Canadian national identity. It's useful to remember that - even then - not everyone played along.

    (Thank you again, Howard Zinn.)

    pots and kettles to spare: china tells off u.s. on human rights

    When I wrote about my personal boycott of the Beijing Olympics because of China's hideous human rights abuses, several readers (at Common Dreams, not on wmtc) said some version of "But the U.S. does it, too!"

    To which I can only say, "And...?" The undeniable existence of the US's many human rights abuses does not negate any other country's own long list. And vice-versa.

    With that in mind, I read with interest China's 11th annual report on the US's human rights record.
    "As in previous years, the (U.S.) reports are full of accusations of the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China, but turn a blind eye to, or dodge and even cover up rampant human rights abuses on its own territory," said the Information Office of the State Council in its report on the U.S. human rights record.

    The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2009 was in retaliation to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009 issued by the U.S. Department of State on March 11.

    The report is "prepared to help people around the world understand the real situation of human rights in the United States," said the report.

    The report reviewed the human rights record of the United States in 2009 from six perspectives: life, property and personal security; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; racial discrimination; rights of women and children; and the U.S.' violation of human rights against other countries.

    It criticized the United States for taking human rights as "a political instrument to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, defame other nations' image and seek its own strategic interests." . . .

    "At a time when the world is suffering a serious human rights disaster caused by the U.S. subprime crisis-induced global financial crisis, the U.S. government still ignores its own serious human rights problems but revels in accusing other countries. It is really a pity," the report said.

    Here are some excerpts from Human Rights Record of the United States in 2009, from the government of China. I included only a few examples under each category, but there are many more, all sourced and cited.

    + + + +

    I. On Life, Property and Personal Security

    Widespread violent crimes in the United States posed threats to the lives, properties and personal security of its people.

    In 2008, U.S. residents experienced 4.9 million violent crimes, 16.3 million property crimes and 137,000 personal thefts, and the violent crime rate was 19.3 victimizations per 1,000 persons aged 12 or over, according to a report published by the U.S. Department of Justice in September 2009 (Criminal Victimization 2008, U.S. Department of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov). . . .

    The United States ranks first in the world in terms of the number of privately-owned guns. According to the data from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), American gun owners, out of 309 million in total population, have more than 250 million guns, while a substantial proportion of U.S. gun owners had more than one weapon. Americans usually buy 7 billion rounds of ammunition a year, but in 2008 the figure jumped to about 9 billion. . . . In the United States, about 30,000 people die from gun-related incidents each year (The China Press, April 6, 2009).

    Campuses became an area worst hit by violent crimes as shootings spread there and kept escalating. The U.S. Heritage Foundation reported that 11.3 percent of high school students in Washington D.C. reported being "threatened or injured" with a weapon while on school property during the 2007-2008 school year. . . .

    II. On Civil and Political Rights

    In the United States, civil and political rights of citizens are severely restricted and violated by the government.

    The country's police frequently impose violence on the people. . . . According to the Amnesty International, in the first ten months of 2009, police officers in the U.S. killed 45 people due to unrestrained use of Taser guns. The youngest of the victims was only 15. From 2001 to October, 2009, 389 people died of Taser guns used by police officers (http://theduckshoot.com).

    Abuse of power is common among U.S. law enforcers. . . . In major U.S. cities, police stop, question and frisk more than a million people each year - a sharply higher number than just a few years ago (http://huffingtonpost.com, October 8, 2009).

    Prisons in the United State are packed with inmates. According to a report released by the U.S. Justice Department on Dec. 8, 2009, more than 7.3 million people were under the authority of the U.S. corrections system at the end of 2008. . . . The basic rights of prisoners in the United States are not well-protected. Raping cases of inmates by prison staff members are widely reported. . . . The New York Times reported on June 24, 2009 that according to a federal survey of more than 63,000 federal and state inmates, 4.5 percent reported being sexually abused at least once during the previous 12 months. It was estimated that there were at least 60,000 rapes of prisoners across the United States during the same period (The New York Times, June 24, 2009).

    Chaotic management of prisons in the United State also led to wide spread of diseases among the inmates. According to a report from the U.S. Justice Department, a total of 20,231 male inmates and 1,913 female inmates had been confirmed as HIV carriers in the U.S. federal and state prisons at yearend 2008. . . . A report by the Human Rights Watch released in March 2009 said although the New York State prison registered the highest number of prisoners living with HIV in the country, it did not provide the inmates with adequate access to treatment, and even locked the inmates up separately, refusing to provide them with treatment of any kind. (www.hrw.org, March 24, 2009).

    While advocating "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press" and "Internet freedom," the U.S. government unscrupulously monitors and restricts the citizens' rights to freedom when it comes to its own interests and needs.

    The U.S. citizens' freedom to access and distribute information is under strict supervision. According to media reports, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) started installing specialized eavesdropping equipment around the country to wiretap calls, faxes, and emails and collect domestic communications as early as 2001. The wiretapping programs was originally targeted at Arab-Americans, but soon grew to include other Americans. The NSA installed over 25 eavesdropping facilities in San Jose, San Diego, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Chicago among other cities. The NSA also announced recently it was building a huge one million square feet data warehouse at a cost of 1.5 billion U.S. dollars at Camp Williams in Utah, as well as another massive data warehouse in San Antonio, as part of the NSA's new Cyber Command responsibilities. . . .

    After the September 11 attack, the U.S. government, in the name of anti-terrorism, authorized its intelligence authorities to hack into its citizens' mail communications, and to monitor and erase any information that might threaten the U.S. national interests on the Internet through technical means. The country's Patriot Act allowed law enforcement agencies to search telephone, email communications, medical, financial and other records, and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting foreign persons suspected of terrorism-related acts. The Act expanded the definition of terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which law enforcement powers could be applied. On July 9, 2008, the U.S. Senate passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008, granting legal immunity to telecommunication companies that take part in wiretapping programs and authorizing the government to wiretap international communications between the United States and people overseas for anti-terrorism purposes without court approval (The New York Times, July 10, 2008).

    Statistic showed that from 2002 to 2006, the FBI collected thousands of phones records of U.S. citizens through mails, notes and phone calls. In September 2009, the country set up an Internet security supervision body, further worrying U.S. citizens that the U.S. government might use Internet security as an excuse to monitor and interfere with personal systems. A U.S. government official told the New York Times in an interview in April 2009 that NSA had intercepted private email messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by U.S. Congress the year before. . . .

    The so-called "freedom of the press" of the United States was in fact completely subordinate to its national interests, and was manipulated by the U.S. government. According to media reports, the U.S. government and the Pentagon had recruited a number of former military officers to become TV and radio news commentators to give "positive comments" and analysis as "military experts" for the U.S. war in Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to guide public opinions, glorify the wars, and gain public support of its anti-terrorism ideology (The New York Times, April 20, 2009). . . .

    III. On Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

    Poverty, unemployment and the homeless are serious problems in the United States, where workers' economic, social and cultural rights cannot be guaranteed.

    Unemployment rate in the U.S. in 2009 was the highest in 26 years. The number of bankrupt businesses and individuals kept rising due to the financial crisis. . . . In September, about 1.6 million young workers, or 25 percent of the total, were jobless, the highest since 1948 when records were kept (The Washington Post, September 7, 2009). In the week ending on March 7, 2009, the continuing jobless claims in the U.S. were 5.47 million, higher than the previous week's 5.29 million (http://247wallst.com, March 19, 2009). . . .

    The population in poverty was the largest in 11 years. . . . From August 2008 to August 2009, more than 90,000 poor households in California suffered power and gas cuts. A 93-year-old man was frozen to death at his home (http://www.msnbc.msn.com). Poverty led to a sharp rise in the number of suicides in the United States. It is reported that there are roughly 32,000 suicides in the U.S. every year, nearly double the cases of murder, which numbered 18,000 (http://www.time.com). The Los Angeles County coroner's office said the poor economy was taking a toll even on the dead as more bodies in the county went unclaimed by families who could not afford funeral expenses. A total of 712 bodies in Los Angeles County were cremated with taxpayers' money in 2008, an increase of 36 percent over the previous year (The Los Angeles Times, July 21, 2009).

    The population in hunger was the highest in 14 years. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported on Nov. 16, 2009, that 49.1 million Americans living in 17 million households, or 14.6 percent of all American families, lacked consistent access to adequate food in 2008, up 31 percent from the 13 million households, or 11.1 percent of all American families, that lacked stable and adequate supply of food in 2007, which was the highest since the government began tracking "food insecurity" in 1995 (The New York Times, November 17, 2009; 14.6% of Americans Could Not Afford Enough Food in 2008, http://business.theatlantic.com). The number of people who lacked "food security," rose from 4.7 million in 2007 to 6.7 million in 2008 (http://www.livescience.com, November 26, 2009). About 15 percent of families were still working for adequate food and clothing (The Associated Press, November 27, 2009). Statistics showed 36.5 million Americans, or about one eighth of the U.S. total population, took part in the food stamp program in August 2009, up 7.1 million from that of 2008. However, only two thirds of those eligible for food stamps actually received them (http://www.associatedcontent.com).

    The number of homeless has been on the rise. Statistics show that by September 2008, an upward of 1.6 million homeless people in the U.S. had been receiving shelter, and the number of those in families rose from 473,000 in 2007 to 517,000 in 2008 (USA Today, July 9, 2009). . . .

    IV. On Racial Discrimination

    Racial discrimination is still a chronic problem of the United States.

    . . . The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that while African-Americans make up 12 percent of the US population, they represent nearly half of new HIV infections and AIDS deaths every year (The Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2009; revised statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

    . . . . Racial discrimination in law enforcement and judicial system is very distinct. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, by the end of 2008, 3,161 men and 149 women per 100,000 persons in the U.S. black population were under imprisonment (www.ojp.usdoj.gov). The number of life imprisonment without parole given to African-American young people was ten times of that given to white young people in 25 states. The figure in California was 18 times. In major U.S. cities, there are more than one million people who were stopped and questioned by police in streets, nearly 90 percent of them were minority males. Among those questioned, 50 percent were African-Americans and 30 percent were Hispanics. . . . .

    Since the Sept. 11 event, discrimination against Muslims is increasing. Nearly 58 percent of Americans think Muslims are subject to "a lot" of discrimination, according to two combined surveys released by the Pew Research Center. About 73 percent of young people aged 18 to 29 are more likely to say Muslims are the most discriminated against (http://www.washingtontimes.com, September 10, 2009). . . .

    V. On the Rights of Women and Children

    The living conditions of women and children in the United States are deteriorating and their rights are not properly guaranteed.

    Women do not enjoy equal social and political status as men. Women account for 51 percent of the U.S. population, but only 92 women, or 17 percent of the seats, serve in the current 111th U.S. Congress. Seventeen women serve in the Senate and 75 women serve in the House (Members of the 111th United States Congress, http://en.wikipedia.org). A study shows minorities and women are unlikely to hold top positions at big U.S. charities and nonprofits. The study reveals that women make up 18.8 percent of nonprofit CEOs compared to just 3 percent at Fortune 500 companies. Among the 400 biggest charities in the U.S., no cultural organization, hospital, public affairs group, Jewish federation or other religious organization is headed by a woman (The Washington Times, September 20, 2009).

    Women have difficulties in finding a job and suffer from low income and poor financial situations. . . .

    Women are frequent victims of violence and sexual assault. It is reported that the United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan (Occurrence of rape, http://www.sa.rochester.edu). . . According to a report released by the Pentagon, more than 2,900 sexual assaults in the military were reported in 2008, up nearly 9 percent from the year before. And of those, only 292 cases resulted in a military trial. The report said the actual numbers of such cases could be five to ten times of the reported figure (The evening news of the Columbia Broadcasting System, March 17, 2009). Reuters reported that based on in-depth interviews on 40 servicewomen, 10 said they had been raped, five said they were sexually assaulted including attempted rape, and 13 reported sexual harassment (Reuters, April 16, 2009).

    American children suffer from hunger and cold. A report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed that 16.7 million children, or one fourth of the U.S. total, had not enough food in 2008 (The Washington Post, USA Today, November 17, 2009). The food relief institution Feeding America said in a report that more than 3.5 million children under the age of five face hunger or malnutrition. . . . In 2008, nearly one tenth of the children in the United States were not covered by health insurance. It was reported that about 7.3 million children, or 9.9 percent of the American total, were without health insurance in 2008. In Nevada, 20.2 percent of the children were uncovered by insurance (http://www.census.gov, the Washington Post, September 21). . . .

    Children are exposed to violence and living in fear. It is reported that 1,494 children younger than 18 nationwide were murdered in 2008 (USA Today, October 8, 2009). . . .A survey conducted by the U.S. Justice Department on 4,549 kids and adolescents aged 17 and younger between January and May of 2008 showed, more than 60 percent of children surveyed were exposed to violence within the past year, either directly or indirectly. Nearly half of all children surveyed were assaulted at least once in the past year, about 6 percent were victimized sexually, and 13 percent reported having been physically bullied in the past year (The Associated Press, October 7, 2009). . . . According to research of U.S.-based institution and public health media reports, in the U.S., one third of children who run away or were expelled from home performed sexual acts in exchange for food, drugs and a place to stay every year. The justice system no longer considers them as young victims, but as juvenile offenders (The China Press, October 28, 2009).

    Child farmworkers are prevalent. An organization devoted to protecting children's rights disclosed that as many as 400,000 children are estimated to work on U.S. farms. Davis Strauss, executive director of the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, noted that for decades, children, some as young as eight years old, have labored in the fields using sharp tools and toiling amongst dangerous pesticides. . . .

    The U.S. is the only country in the world that does not apply parole system to minors. Detentions of juveniles have increased 44 percent from 1985 to 2002. Many children only committed only minor crimes but could not get assistance from lawyers. Many procurators and judges turned a blind eye on abuse in juvenile prisons.

    VI. On U.S. Violations of Human Rights against Other Nations

    The United States with its strong military power has pursued hegemony in the world, trampling upon the sovereignty of other countries and trespassing their human rights.

    As the world's biggest arms seller, its deals have greatly fueled instability across the world. The United States also expanded its military spending, already the largest in the world, by 10 percent in 2008 to 607 billion U.S. dollars, accounting for 42 percent of the world total (The AP, June 9, 2009). . . .

    The wars of Iraq and Afghanistan have placed heavy burden on American people and brought tremendous casualties and property losses to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in Iraq has led to the death of more than 1million Iraqi civilians, rendered an equal number of people homeless and incurred huge economic losses. In Afghanistan, incidents of the U.S. army killing innocent people still keep occurring. Five Afghan farmers were killed in a U.S. air strike when they were loading cucumbers into a van on August 5, 2009 (http://www.rawa.org). On June 8, the U.S. Department of Defense admitted that the U.S. raid on Taliban on May 5 caused death of Afghan civilians as the military failed to abide by due procedures. The Afghan authorities have identified 147 civilian victims, including women and children, while a U.S. officer put the death toll under 30 (The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 9, 2009).

    Prisoner abuse is one of the biggest human rights scandals of the United States. A report presented to the 10th meeting of Human Rights Council of the United Nations in 2009 by its Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism showed that the United States has pursued a comprehensive set of practices including special deportation, long-term and secret detentions and acts violating the United Nations Convention against Torture. . . . In June 2006, three Guantanamo Bay inmates could have been suffocated to death during interrogation on the same evening and their deaths passed off as suicides by hanging, revealed by a six-month joint investigation for Harpers Magazine and NBC News in 2009 (www.guardian.co.uk, January 18, 2010). A Somali named Mohamed Saleban Bare, jailed at Guantanamo Bay for eight years, told AFP the prison was "hell on earth" and some of his colleagues lost sight and limbs and others ended up mentally disturbed (AFP, Hargisa, Somali, December 21, 2009). . . .

    The U.S. government held more than 600 prisoners at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. A United Nations report singled out the Bagram detention facility for criticism, saying some ex-detainees allege being subjected to severe torture, even sexual abuse, and some prisoners put under detention for as long as five years. It also reported that some were held in cages containing 15 to 20 men and that two detainees died in questionable circumstances while in custody (IPS, New York, February 25, 2009). An investigation by U.S. Justice Department showed 2,000 Taliban surrendered combatants were suffocated to death by the U.S. army-controlled Afghan armed forces (http://www.yourpolicicsusa.com, July 16, 2009). . . .

    The United States has been building its military bases around the world, and cases of violation of local people's human rights are often seen. The United States is now maintaining 900 bases worldwide, with more than 190,000 military personnel and 115,000 relevant staff stationed. These bases are bringing serious damage and environmental contamination to the localities. Toxic substances caused by bomb explosions are taking their tolls on the local children. It has been reported that toward the end of the U.S. military bases' presence in Subic and Clark, as many as 3,000 cases of raping the local women had been filed against the U.S. servicemen, but all were dismissed (http://www.lexisnexis.com, May 17, 2009). . . .

    The United States is using a global interception system named "ECHELON" to eavesdrop on communications worldwide. A report of the European Parliament pointed out that the "ECHELON" system is a network controlled by the United States for intelligence gathering and analyzing. The system is able to intercept and monitor the content of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other digital information transmitted via public telephone networks, satellites and microwave links. . . . .

    Conclusion

    The above-mentioned facts show that the United States not only has a bad domestic human rights record, but also is a major source of many human rights disasters around the world. For a long time, it has placed itself above other countries, considered itself "world human rights police" and ignored its own serious human rights problems. It releases Country Reports on Human Rights Practices year after year to accuse other countries and takes human rights as a political instrument to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, defame other nations' image and seek its own strategic interests. This fully exposes its double standards on the human rights issue, and has inevitably drawn resolute opposition and strong denouncement from world people. At a time when the world is suffering a serious human rights disaster caused by the U.S. subprime crisis-induced global financial crisis, the U.S. government still ignores its own serious human rights problems but revels in accusing other countries. It is really a pity.

    We hereby advise the U.S. government to draw lessons from the history, put itself in a correct position, strive to improve its own human rights conditions and rectify its acts in the human rights field.

    + + + +

    Full text here.

    5.10.2010

    hello cic, nice to see you're still reading wmtc

    Well, this is interesting. I've just received proof that someone at the CIC is still reading this blog.

    As you may recall, last summer a member of the War Resisters Support Campaign filed an Access to Information request, seeking to learn why a page about Canada welcoming Vietnam-era war resisters was removed from the CIC website.

    He had to jump through many hoops, but eventually he received thousands of pages, most of them heavily redacted, that showed us how closely the government watches our campaign. And among those pages were emails containing links to this blog! We could clearly see that some CIC staffer was receiving the wmtc feed and reporting on Campaign activities. Even if you remember this, you might want to go back and read that old post: "internal documents show harper govt obsessed with war resisters". After all, I am the "principle blogger" for the "war deserts".

    That was last summer. Fast-forward to a very recent wmtc post, in which I announced that we received a date to write our citizenship exam. I said:
    This says our test is based on the old citizenship guide, but they may be using a form letter that was never updated. An earlier letter I received said our test will be based on the new guide.

    Hm, what to do... Study both? "Before I write the test, could you please tell me if the test is based on the neoconservative wishful-thinking version of Canada, or the progressive wishful-thinking version?"

    That post is dated April 26. On Friday, May 7, Allan had a voice mail waiting for him at work. It was the someone from the CIC, clarifying that we should study the new citizenship guide! What the...??

    I assumed they first had tried to call us at home, but we've changed that phone number, and we must have listed Allan's work phone as the alternate contact. He's only there on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, so we didn't get the message until Friday.

    But how did they know I had a question? They could only have learned that here, on wmtc.

    The caller left a number, and we spoke this morning. She acknowledged that the letter contains old, incorrect information, "because we haven't updated it in the computer yet". (So what are you waiting for?)

    I asked her how she knew about my question, since I hadn't contacted the CIC. She said someone forwarded her an email that had been forwarded "about 10 times" through the Ministry until it found its way to her desk. That email contained a link to "someplace where you were asking people which book you should use, and various people had answered your question, people were talking back and forth".

    I asked if she could forward that email to me, but she said she is not allowed.

    Wow! Not only is someone at CIC still reading this blog - and not just the war resisters posts - but he or she is so involved that she's attempting to help me, while still remaining anonymous. In a way it shows how thorough she is, and in some sense, impartial. But from another angle, it is downright creepy!

    5.09.2010

    kanellos the greek rebel dog

    kanellos the greek rebel dog

    I hope you all know about Kanellos, the Greek Rebel Dog. He's smart, fearless and good-looking. What more can you ask for in a rebel? I just wanted to honour him and his human cohorts on wmtc.

    If you haven't heard about Kanellos yet, Raw Story has it, with more pics.

    needed: a fence to keep out inappropriate disclosures

    Recently my neighbours' dog died. It wasn't actually their dog, it was their daughter's and son-in-law's dog, but Daughter often dropped off H-Dog at her parents' house for daycare. Mr Neighbour especially spent a lot of time with H. Poor H died suddenly, at the dog park. Making it worse for H's parents, their previous dog had also died young. When we lost a dog suddenly, only 8 months after another dog had died, our hearts were unspeakably broken. I can easily imagine how bad they must have felt.

    I rarely see Ms Neighbour. I can count on one hand the number of conversations I've had with her, and none of them lasted more than five minutes. Allan sees her a bit more, because our homes share a front yard and they do the lawn mowing. I can't even call Ms Neighbour an acquaintance, because I don't know her name. (I once asked, but have forgotten.) We are friendly neighbours, nothing more.

    The only reason I knew that H died was because Mr and Ms Neighbour came over with H's treats for our dogs. Allan went over to say thanks and got the story. So the next time I happened to be outside at the same time as Ms Neighbour, I spotted her through the cedars and said, "So sorry about H."

    So Ms Neighbour told me the story of H's death, and how upset Daughter and Son-in-law are. In that context, she said, "The dog was so important to them, because they can't have children."

    Clunk.

    This was completely inappropriate, for so many reasons!

    The pain of suddenly losing a beloved animal needs no further explanation. If the couple had children or not, I would expect the loss to be horrible.

    And not having children requires no explanation! I don't have children. Does this woman assume I "couldn't"?

    And this inappropriate disclosure isn't even her information to give. Why is she sharing this very personal information about her daughter, who I have never even met? Does she tell everyone her daughter and son-in-law can't have children?

    My guess is Ms Neighbour is not comfortable with Daughter's childfree state. It probably requires explanation in her own mind. So she needs a little lag time between thought and speech!

    I didn't say any of this, of course. I said something like, "We also don't have children, so I know how much her dogs mean to her." It was just the first thing I could think of. What I really wanted to say was, "Why the fuck are you telling me that? Does your daughter know you're such an idiot?"

    what i'm watching: one week, my favourite movie of my 2009-10 season

    In my annual movie ratings post, I wrote that my favourite movie of our last Movie Season was "One Week," a Canadian film written and directed by Michael McGowan.

    The IMDB listing is here and you can watch the trailer here.

    The plot is simple; I can relate it without spoilers. A young man, about to be married, learns that he has a very aggressive, usually fatal form of cancer. On a whim, he buys a vintage motorcycle and takes off from his home in Toronto, heading west through Canada.As he travels across Canada, you don't know if he will break off his engagement, or return to Toronto for treatment, or maybe drive west and never return.

    "One Week" is about the ticking clock of our lives. The randomness of human connection. The existential sadness underlying a conscious life, in which death is always implicit.

    Ben, played perfectly by Joshua Jackson, hears his own clock ticking louder than most of us usually do, so his conflicts are suddenly thrown into high relief. But Ben's conflict lurks in all of us, especially if we lucky enough to age. How can we do the things we want to do - how can we live the life we dream of - before our time runs out?

    "One Week" is also about the lure of the road. The urge to take off, to run away, to escape, in conflict with the need for comfort, stability and domesticity. This really hit home. My wanderlust versus my life.

    And "One Week" is also about the magnificent natural beauty, and quirky comedy, that is Canada. Canada is really the co-star of the movie. On a wisp of a budget, the cast and crew of set out by bus, in search of Canada. The characters Ben meets on his trip were cast along the way, so they were able to travel lighter and more flexibly. They found no shortage of beauty and wonder and amusement. The results are stunning.

    Seeing this movie revived my desire to drive from Toronto to the west coast - the longer, all-Canadian route. We're talking about doing it when Tala is our only dog, so I'm in no rush. But I'm going to make it a priority.

    I suspect that if you see "One Week" because of this post, you will say, "I liked it, but not as much as you." This movie spoke to me in a very special way.

    talas on parade

    When I posted this about Jungle Cat World, several people mentioned that our Tala --

    tala cody backyard snow 015

    tala cody winter 09 015

    -- bears a striking resemblance to an Arctic Wolf.

    jcw 085

    jcw-jh-01

    In fact, Allan and I have noticed that Tala bears a striking resemblance to a lot of dogs. White Shepherds are all over the internet, and we love to look at them. Tala is not really a white German Shepherd, she is a very beautiful and Shepherd-Husky mix, but we just love this look.

    Is this Tala? Just look, don't listen!

    Is this Tala singing?

    Or spinning? We totally have to get her one of those pools.

    Was this Tala at five weeks old?

    At 11 weeks?

    This nine-month-old looks exactly like the first picture we saw of Tala. (Yay, there's our girl!)

    Two Talas

    Four Talas

    And finally, some seriously cute Tala puppies.

    current musical obsession



    Also, Grooveshark is just what I've been looking for. I've tried some similar sites, but this is my favourite.

    5.08.2010

    thoughts on george rekers: rent-boys, homophobia and self-hatred

    By now I'm sure you've all heard about the tribulations of George Rekers, a professional homophobe who has succeeded in outing himself. One always suspects that people who are so militantly anti-gay are themselves gay, but there is seldom evidence to prove it. Rekers was spotted traipsing through Miami International Airport with a young man, the two returning from a ten-day European holiday.

    The younger man, dubbed "Lucien," is being described in most circles as a "rent boy," one who earns a living by selling his good looks and sexual services. The older man, Rekers, has made a career out of telling other people how to live, and attempting to make life miserable for gay people and modern women. With fellow homophobe James Dobson, Rekers is the co-founder of the ultra-right-wing, anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-human Family Research Council.

    When questioned about his relationship with "Lucien," Rekers said he needed the young man "to carry his luggage". So that's what we're calling it now?*

    There can be no reasonable doubt that Rekers knew "Lucien"'s profession before he hired him. Miami New Times:
    In his interview with New Times, Lucien didn't want to impugn his client, but he made it clear they met through Rentboy.com, which is the only website on which he advertises his services. Neither Google nor any other search engine picks up individual Rentboy.com profiles, any more than they pick up individual profiles on eHarmony or Match.com. You cannot just happen upon one.

    The whole episode might be hilarious if Rekers was just some guy who happened to be a homophobe. Homophobe guy "protests too much," we suspect he is deeply closeted, then we discover we are correct when guy embarrasses himself. End of story.

    But Rekers is not just some guy. He is on the front lines of the war against equal rights for LGBT people. More than that, he is a five-star general in the army of bigots marching to deny LGBT people the right to exist.
    For decades, George Alan Rekers has been a general in the culture wars, though his work has often been behind the scenes. In 1983, he and James Dobson, America's best-known homophobe, formed the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based, rabidly Christian, and vehemently anti-gay lobbying group that has become a standard-bearer of the nation's extreme right wing. Its annual Values Summit is considered a litmus test for Republican presidential hopefuls, and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have spoken there. (The Family Research Council would not comment about Rekers's Euro-trip.)

    He has also influenced American government, serving in advisory roles with Congress, the White House, and the Department of Health and Human Services and testifying as a state's witness in favor of Florida's gay adoption ban. A former research fellow at Harvard University and a distinguished professor of neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina, Rekers has published papers and books by the hundreds, with titles like Who Am I? Lord and Growing Up Straight: What Families Should Know About Homosexuality.

    "While he keeps a low public profile, his fingerprints are on almost every anti-gay effort to demean and dehumanize LGBT people," says Wayne Besen, a gay rights advocate in New York City and the executive director of Truth Wins Out, which investigates the anti-gay movement. "His work is ubiquitously cited by lobby groups that work to deny equality to LGBT Americans. Rekers has caused a great deal of harm to gay and lesbian individuals."

    Rekers is a board member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization that systematically attempts to turn gay people straight. And the Huffington Post recently singled out Rekers as a member of the American College of Pediatricians — an official-sounding outfit in Gainesville that purveys lurid, youth-directed literature accusing gays of en masse coprophilia.

    The incident has made me think about what could go on in a man's psyche to cause him to live this way.

    It's bad enough that anyone living in 21st Century North America or Europe should feel compelled to be closeted. We only get one life, and it's very short, and ridiculously fragile. To spend our time on this earth being anyone other than ourselves is just so sad. No excuses about family upbringing or small-town isolation. You can only play that tune for so long. Most of us have to break away from the expectations of our families. It's called growing up.

    It is absolutely tragic that millions of people had to live in the closet through history, and that millions still do in many cultures today. But to live in a place and time when you can be yourself, yet not take advantage of that, and choose to remain so deeply in the closet, is, to me, intensely sad.

    That's bad enough. But to be so deeply conflicted - to be filled with such profound and thorough self-hatred - that you make life miserable for the very people who could be your own community, if only you could release your essential nature - to expend so much time and effort opposing that which you are... That sentence trails off. It's so sad, it defies description.

    But more than sad, it's enraging. You are riddled with issues? You have profound conflict over your own sexuality and identity? Get help.

    Or don't. Live your whole life in the damn closet if you must. But stay the hell out of other people's lives!




    -----
    * H/t The Larry Sanders Show

    5.07.2010

    we movie to canada: annual wmtc movie awards, 2009-10 edition

    I can't believe it's taken me until May to write my annual movie awards post! During school, such things are impossible. After school, there is such a long to-do list.

    A note about my movie life for newcomers or a refresher course for veterans. There are two seasons in Chez L-Sock: baseball season and movie season. Movie season runs from immediately after the Red Sox are no longer playing until Opening Day. We rent everything, usually through Zip, sometimes from pay-per-view. This means we don't see a single movie from April to November. We used to watch movies on any night there was no baseball (off-days and day games), but now on those nights, we sit on our patio, talk, listen to music, drink wine. So we're always at least six months behind everyone else, often closer to a year.

    This past movie season, we saw even fewer movies than usual. For one thing, we were working our way through a six-part Ken Burns feature. And for another... this is embarrassing. We were watching "Dallas"! (I wrote about my thing for Dallas here.) Some nights after school, I was so exhausted that I couldn't even concentrate on a movie. My favourite soap was the perfect relaxation. Then there'd be a cliffhanger, then another, and before we knew it, we had watched three or four episodes in a row.

    Two years ago, I rated the movies I saw according to famous Canadians: comedians for 2006-07, musicians for 2007-08.

    Last year, I rated movies according to my beverage of choice.

    This year, I am honouring (or dishonouring) famous people who left this world in 2009.

    First up, the Howard Zinn.


    Few people have given our world as much, or have meant so much to me personally, as the late Howard Zinn. In keeping, few movies rise to this standard of excellence. These are the must-sees, movies that were as good as they possibly could be.

    One Week
    -- This was my favourite movie this season. I will be writing a separate post about it soon.
    Waltz With Bashir
    Food, Inc.
    Precious
    Doubt


    Next up, the Les Paul.


    Les Paul was a great musician and an unparalleled innovator. Music is very important to me, but social justice comes first. In keeping, these movies don't rise quite to the level of the Zinn; I might have a small criticism here or there. But these are all truly excellent movies that I highly recommend.

    Capitalism: A Love Story
    Polytechnique
    Julie & Julia
    -- I believe this was Allan's favourite movie this season.
    Cairo Time
    The National Parks: America's Best Idea
    -- A separate post about this is also coming soon.
    Star Trek


    In the midway spot, the Bea Arthur.


    Bea Arthur was a talented actor who had a long, rich career, and a life of engagement and activism. It is no slight to be in this third category. These are good, solid movies.

    The Brothers Bloom (borderline Les Paul/Bea Arthur)
    Whatever Works
    Pontypool
    Adventureland
    Sugar
    Bolt
    Bart Got a Room
    The Hangover
    The Navigators
    Tickets (borderline Bea Arthur/William Safire)
    Triumph of the Nerds (borderline Bea Arthur/William Safire)
    -- Documentary about the birth of the home computer industry.
    O'Horten
    Behind The Sun
    Every Little Step
    -- A must-see for theatre fans.
    Adoration
    The Illusionist
    Sin Nombre
    Slumdog Millionaire
    -- I thought I would hate it, but it was all right.
    Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder


    Not dead last, but almost, we have the William Safire.


    As a speechwriter for Richard Nixon and cheerleader for the Iraq War, he was terrible. As a observer of language, he was amusing. These movies won't kill you, but you're better off without them.

    Michael Jackson's This Is It
    RiP: A Remix Manifesto
    Che
    Love & Savagery
    Stone of Destiny (borderline Bea Arthur/William Safire)
    Frost/Nixon
    -- We both liked this a lot more until we learned the middle-of-the-night phone call was fiction. For me this dropped it down a peg; for Allan it killed it dead.*
    Talk To Me
    -- This also lost points for purporting to be history, but actually being mostly fiction.*

    In last place, we have the Oral Roberts.


    Bigot, hatemonger, huckster, con-artist. Don't bother with these movies.

    How to Lose Friends and Alienate People
    My Winnipeg
    -- This also wins the Michael Jackson Award, for being talented and strange, but ultimately a disappointment.
    Anvil! The Story of Anvil
    The Hurt Locker
    Gomorrah




    -------
    * We talk about this a lot. Although Allan is more bothered by it than I am, I generally agree with him. If you want to write history, stick to history. Even when you enhance, edit and embellish, as filmmakers always will, get the basic facts right. Don't blatantly distort. If history doesn't suit your story, then write your own story and call it fiction. But don't write fiction and sell it as history.