How can any of us believe we have the right to preach justice to other countries?
Why should they take us seriously?
How can any of us feel secure that if we ever face judgment, we will be treated fairly?
Who are these bastards with the power to ignore their own laws?
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
...
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee. - John Donne
Megalomaniacs in power, Canada and the US. We are so far from home. These monsters must be leashed.
Zinck said she began writing to Khadr in November 2008 because her Christian faith asks people to comfort those in need, including prisoners.
In his letters, Khadr expresses his gratitude to Zinck "to know I am not alone now," and discussed the books he read, including Great Expectations and Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson. He often signed off saying he hoped to meet Zinck and possibly attend the small Christian college in Alberta. In one of his last letters in April of this year, Khadr wrote a page on his thoughts about the book, A Long Way Gone, Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah.
Because I'd like to invite their spirits this samhain to kick some ass and remind certain elected Liberals that they are supposed to stand up for the values they mouth.
Have a safe samhain.
And via Sister Sage, here is a protection from evil spell to stave off rabid creatures as you wander amid the uncertain rabid madness that is creeping throughout our couutry -
I hope everyone who hasn't yet done so watches this 4 part talk given by Omar Khadr's lawyer. He is very credible and what he tells us is horrible, not only for what was done to Omar Khadr, but because two democratic countries that claim to oppose torture and brag about supporting human rights were complicit in this.
In an earlier post, I said I wasn't going to comment on Omar as a person - then, at least. After watching this...well, as I said...speechless. And very, very sad that my country is part of this outrage.
“The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act has strengthened protection for public servants. I am confident that the Public Sector Integrity Commission continues to be a safe and independent agency for public servants to bring concerns about wrongdoing in the workplace without fear of reprisals,” Day said in statement to the Hill Times.
It's Eva Cassidy's last performance, given to a group of her friends. She knew she was dying, and it sounds like a sad, wistful farewell to all she loved.
I really miss Mentarch’s thoughtful posts on how our governments’ actions affect us not only nationally, but globally as well. He would probably have a lot to say about Bill C-300 (An Act Respecting Corporate Accountability for Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries), how two (or three, if you want to point fingers and include the four NDP who didn’t vote) parties contributed to its demise, and what impact this will have nationally and globally.
We have come to expect the Harper government to place corporate interests above the environment, human rights, developing nations, and people near or below the poverty line. They believe governments should not regulate industry and they continue to perpetuate the ridiculous myth that corporations, given the freedom to do as they please, will display a social conscience.
To watch the Liberals defeat their own private member’s Bill by abstaining in numbers large enough to make sure it dies is frightening. That means that the only two parties that currently have enough support to win even a minority are not seriously concerned about regulating greed-driven organizations that abuse human rights, have no regard for the environmental damage they cause unless bad publicity affects their profits, and let as little money as possible filter down to taxpayers.
In this case, it was more than failure to show concern on the part of the Libs and CONs. Both made sure the Bill would not pass, telling us beyond any doubt that both parties would rather please the money-men who already control so much they are far from vulnerable than protect not only those who cannot protect themselves, but average people as well.
Both parties distorted the truth about this Bill and what it means to industry, showing us that they are both willing and able to lie for their masters – the large corporations.
What does that do to the value of our individual vote, then? If our elected representatives will lie to their constituents to help line the pockets of the very organizations that use and abuse voters, then that system is a corrupt, secretive, seriously off-balanced and unfair one wearing a cheap mask that sort of looks like democracy. Who then speaks for the people who can’t spend millions lobbying for their own interests? Who votes on their behalf? And the longer such sell-out parties, parties that lie to those they are supposed to work for, the more power shifts to corporations as they get richer, more powerful, more dug in, and more arrogant in the knowledge that they will never seriously be held accountable.
So what do the CONs and Libs think will happen as populations keep rising on a planet where resources are dwindling and corporations, unchecked, devastate yet more land? What do they think will happen as the people whose rights are tromped on see the abusers getting wealthier at their expense? We’ve seen this over and over in history. Governments and corporations may consider those they deceive, suppress, and ignore as mindless masses, but every individual in those masses has a stomach and gets hungry. Each one needs a safe place to live. Each one has a dream of some sort of future for themselves and their family. And each one has some sense of what they view as fair and just.
Their numbers grow along with population growth and wealth goes into fewer hands. Pressure builds, and most of us realize what happens when pressure increases in a closed system.
Rather than a smooth transition into systems suited to denser populations with fewer resources where we have no choice but to be careful of what we put into our soil, air, and water, we will have a series of bloody outbursts. Some groups will not know who to attack or may be unable to target the ones who are causing their misery, and in frustration, desperation, and anger will lash out at their neighbouring countries or districts, or set their sights on sub-groups within their own communities.
Corporations and governments will encourage this mis-direction of hostilities because they want the masses to focus on something other than the real causes of their suffering. To such governments, losing a few hundred thousand people here and there in lands that cannot sustain them will not be viewed as a big negative.
After that...possibly an alliance between a very few super powers who hold economic control, dividing the planet between them, economically, at least. Whether or not this happens, the smaller outbursts will be followed by global ones and everyone, even the swinishly wealthy corporations lose.
Then, a slow re-building over the bodies of the dead until we start the whole cycle over again because we don’t seem to learn from our past mistakes. Or rather, some of us learn, but the greedy, power hungry few grab opportunities at the expense of those who strive for fairness and equality.
Short sighted, selfish politics practiced by people like Harper and Ignatieff cause long lasting devastation not only to our country, but to the way our species handles situation. Rather than being guided through thoughtful long-term planning that would enhance the lives of all people as equally as possible, those we have given power to through our democratic process are building terrible pressure in a closed system.
These politicians aren’t all heartless. Some actually mean well but reason their way through bad policies by saying to themselves and their members, “just for now, until we get power. Then we’ll do the right thing for all.” But it doesn’t work because the corporations they cater to will still be there when they get that power, and the lobbying will be just as intense. The new opposition will work against positive change, because they will apply the same faulty reasoning of “just for now.”
Meanwhile, every compromise, every sell-out, every bit of justice stepped on to appease the powerful and the rich builds that deadly pressure.
As Gwynne Dyer says in “Climate Wars,” starving people aren’t reasonable.
If you can't stand up for one of your own party's private Bills against a lying sack of shit who misrepresents it, then you're not fit to lead the opposition, let alone the government, Michael.
But it seems the Master Strategist is fronting a brilliant attack:
“Ignatieff MP John McKay has introduced legislation that unfairly targets successful Canadian mining, oil and gas companies – a key pillar of our economy,” Conservative strategists said in a memo to MPs and supporters Tuesday. “If the Coalition has it way, many Canadian jobs will be lost in an industry that contributed $40 billion to Canada’s economy in 2008 and which employs 351,000 workers.”
Wait...it's a good idea to see what McKay's Bill actually involves -
This consternationand controversy is over Scarborough MP John McKay’s bill, C-300, that aims to clamp down on Canadian mining activities in foreign countries. The legislation, which went through committee without any amendments, would allow the government to deny funding of Canadian mining companies found guilty – through investigations initiated by Ottawa – of human rights or environmental violations.
And rightly so. We shouldn't be funding companies that violate human rights or environmental concerns. So why, why, why don't you Liberals just shove the damn thing right back at the CONs showing how they place the dollar before human rights...once again.
Apparently, there are some problems with the bar for complaints being set too low, and there are no penalties to deter false complaints. So, amend the Bill. Is it really that difficult? I doubt that's the problem at all -
"While the principlesare noble, the mechanism for administration is flawed with multiple inadequacies that are not workable," the analysts said. "We believe that if passed, Bill C-300 will have damaging effects to all stakeholders in the resources industry and Canadians as a whole. The impacts will be primarily financial but reputational risk is also high."
That's the heart of the resistance to this Bill. Money and reputation for slack laws must not be sacrificed for a bunch of poor people and their land. Fuck our human rights reputation. It's not like we're currently held in high esteem anyway. In fact, Harper yet again sidelines those who are interested in human rights by trivializing them as “international special interest groups.” You see, mining companies aren't a special interest group because a bunch of rich people own them. They are simply special due to the intrinsic nature of wealth. I'm sure god and the troops are tied in somehow, and law and order, of course. You know, those things that are so sacrosanct that to merely begin a vague questioning thought is treason.
Bill C-300 is a good Bill, Liberals. Amend it, but back it. Show you stand for something, or just step aside so some new party that isn't afraid to stand up for the rights of all can fill in the void.
You listening, Michael? Don't make me dedicate the Backing up song to you.
They are asking themselves more and more why they should keep your dirty secrets.
"The government of Canada has contracting laws, policies and regulations in place. Public servants are responsible for and manage this entire process, including the contract award," said Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose in the Commons.
"If there is any wrongdoing with individuals or contractors they will face prosecution to the full extent of the law, including under the Accountability Act, and taxpayer money will be recouped."
Mmmhmmm...
Then what is the role of the Minister?...Oh...
The Contracting Authority is the Minister responsible for the department that actually enters into the Crown Procurement Contract. It is either the Minister of the Department that requires the goods or services and enters into the Crown Procurement Contract, or the Minister of a Department that is entering into a Crown Procurement Contract for the provision of goods and services on behalf of another department.
NOTE: Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) enters into Crown Procurement Contracts for other departments requiring goods and/or services and, therefore, is the Contracting Authority.
The Deputy Minister (appointed by the Prime Minister) is responsible for making sure staff are aware of procedures and that procedures are followed, but the Minister is actually responsible for contracts. Any large contracts, especially sole source contracts have to be approved by the Minister.
It really demands a monumental leap into stupidity to believe that a bunch of public servants that Harper has often accused of being Liberal appointees would risk their jobs by messing with contracts to benefit Conservative supporters.
Finally have high speed so I can blog again. Been just too busy these past few months to deal with dial-up after work.
Omar Khadr. I won't discuss whether his trial was fair, and I won't write about whether or not he is guilty. I won't even say how I feel about the young man, because none of those things are relevent to the first human rights violation committed against Khadr by the US and Canada.
1. Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years.
2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to prevent such recruitment and use, including the adoption of legal measures necessary to prohibit and criminalize such practices.
So no escape clause for those who claim Khadr is not covered by the Convention because he wasn't regular army.
Article 7
1. States Parties shall cooperate in the implementation of the present Protocol, including in the prevention of any activity contrary thereto and in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons who are victims of acts contrary thereto, including through technical cooperation and financial assistance. Such assistance and cooperation will be undertaken in consultation with the States Parties concerned and the relevant international organizations.
2. States Parties in a position to do so shall provide such assistance through existing multilateral, bilateral or other programmes or, inter alia, through a voluntary fund established in accordance with the rules of the General Assembly.
Which means Canada should have demanded that the US hand over Khadr, a Canadian, either to Canadian custody for transfer to a group that rehabilitates child soldiers, or seen to it that the boy was immediately transferred by the Americans to such a group.
The Canadian governmentwas under Chretien at the time and was fully aware of Khadr's child soldier status and of its obligation to abide by the Convention.
Canada asked the United Statesnot to send former child soldier Omar Khadr to Guantanamo after he was captured in Afghanistan in 2002, according to a letter released Thursday.
In the document dated September 2002, Ottawa argued that the prison camp in Cuba was an "inappropriate" place for Khadr, a Canadian citizen, because he was just 15 years old at the time.
The letter notes that the U.S. and Canada have laws providing for special treatment of young suspects.
"As such, the Government of Canada believes it would be inappropriate for Mr. Omar Khadr to be transferred to the detention facilities at the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay," the letter said.
The letter also expressed concern over "ambiguity" in early accounts of Khadr's role in the events leading up to his capture. A section that apparently describes the conflict was edited.
Yet Khadr remained incarcerated with adults at Guantanamo for over 7 more years - with Paul Martin as PM, and Bush as president. Next, Harper not only left him there, but did all he could to keep him there while Mr. Change You Can Believe In Obama did nothing to change the fate of the child soldier.
Five leaders of two of the countries that constantly boast about how they stand up for human rights, and the rights of children in particular either turned away from this one case they were responsible for, or actively worked against the Convention.
I'm wondering about this bit (highlights mine):
Article 8
1. Each State Party shall, within two years following the entry into force of the present Protocol for that State Party, submit a report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child providing comprehensive information on the measures it has taken to implement the provisions of the Protocol, including the measures taken to implement the provisions on participation and recruitment.
2. Following the submission of the comprehensive report, each State Party shall include in the reports it submits to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in accordance with article 44 of the Convention, any further information with respect to the implementation of the Protocol. Other States Parties to the Protocol shall submit a report every five years.
Did Canada submit such a report? What did it say? More empty words? And shouldn't Canada be called to account as stated in the Convention it signed? 3. The Committee on the Rights of the Child may request from States Parties further information relevant to the implementation of the present Protocol.
Again - Khadr's guilt or innocence does not deny him the rights of a child soldier, nor do the particulars of his involvement in an attack. That one point comes before all the others, but the Canadian and American governments skipped right over that, counting on its ommission to give some sort of validity to treating him as an adult combattant.
We can't simply apply Conventions, laws, rights, and treaties arbitrarily or case-by-case. That leaves the decision in the hands of our biases and prejudices which in itself is contrary to human rights.
As I said, I won't discuss Khadr's trial, in this post, at least, but Dr. Dawg offers a terrific post on that subject.
