Because according to the CONs, she is still the old fuck's wife.
And if a woman moves to Canada from a country where women aren’t allowed to vote or run for office, does that mean she can’t vote in Canada when she becomes a citizen?
Harper keeps saying he won’t re-open same sex marriage debates, but he is changing our laws through the back door, getting Canadians used to the ideas, altering our very identity as he clearly has been stating he intends.
No one in steve’s party publicly expresses intent to change legislation without clearing it through him first.Enough retired MPs, senators, and insiders have told us so and we have seen what happens to those who oppose him – Bill Casey, Garth Turner, Chong…
So when his CONsorts keep gunning for women’s wombs across the country, there is no doubt fatso wants the abortion issue to come out.He can claim he didn’t open debate,he can claim Canadians want it.He can let his atavistic crew push through some law that opens the door to abortion (giving fetuses same status as Canadians when a woman miscarries due to an attack) then say it’s really a legal argument and he can hardly stop debate.Or hell, just do away with debate at that point.
Death penalty?Oh, no…he won’t go there, he says.But once again, he is trying to change our mindset by picking and choosing which Canadians on death row in another country will be defended by our government.You know, while all people are equal, some just plain don’t deserve equal treatment.
It’s a gut knowledge thing, ya know?Tim Horton type wisdom if you get my meaning.
The CONs play on that gut thing, play on divisiveness, point fingers at “other” until too many fail to look to reason when our laws are modified.
Because by then, too many just think it’s right because it kind of feels right.And for those who in frustration try to protect our rights and freedoms as well as fair and equal systems for all, the systems that had been in place to defend those rights are so eroded and murky that there is less and less hope for sanity to prevail.
Our crime minister has no hidden agenda.It has always been obvious – through his early speeches, his early affiliations, his ongoing actions in politics.
The almighty Economy seems to trump everything here in Canada.Canadians buy into the bullshit that CONs are more fiscally responsible and that The Economy takes precedence over human rights, health care, the environment, the future of our children, decent public services, housing…
But too many Canadians forget that money – especially in a system where wealth resides in the hands of a privileged few – cannot guarantee a safe, healthy environment, equality, care for those in need, separation of church and state, health care for all regardless of wealth, protection of the innocent: things Canadians have long valued above all else.
Scritp is Arabic, but the horror captured speaks in universal language.
I can’t find words right now for this brutality inEgypt. How many of us, soft as we are, raised in a democratic country, would show such courage if our rights were threatened?
This is why we need to value and guard what we have and give what support we can to those who are offering up their lives for principles we hold dear.
“Now we are united. We became brothers in love,” said Mustafa Khalil, (Mustafa Abdul Jalil) chairman of the National Transitional Council.
Well then. That explains this, I guess:
Homa Arjomand of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada said the wives of men who worked under the Gadhafi regime as pharmacists, teachers and other occupations are already being targeted for rape. "According to Shariah law, enemies' wives should be raped and they have started raping these women already," Arjomand said.
Seems that freedom of the Libya nation only applies to half its population. Less than half, in fact since children are chattel as well as women.
(Mustafa Abdul Jalil)urged Libyans (employ) “honesty, patience and tolerance” as the nation moves toward reconciliation.
Except when it comes to women, children, and people you just don’t like. But needing the stamp of legitimacy on their desire to commit horrible atrocities, the interim government simply wipes out all laws and human rights by leaving such things in the hands of the vague interpretation – by men – of a barbaric set of religious laws constructed by men for men.
The top leader of NTCalso reiterated that the Islamic sharia would be the main source of the law of new Libya, and any law contradicts with the Islamic sharia would be suspended.The future of Libya will be created by the Libyan people, Jalil stressed.
So NATO goes in, helps remove a brutal tyrant, and a brutal regime takes over. It is tempting for some people to throw up their hands and say the hell with such countries, you can’t save them from their own ignorance and cruelty, all we are doing is arming them so that they can then use our own weapons against us and continue to violate the human rights of their own citizens.
A part of why we fail is that we approach such countries and cultures with a very patronizing, self-righteous, and ignorant attitude, wrongfully assuming that our ways are the best ways for everyone and that we are somehow entitled to force our values and ways on everyone else.
Another reason – and it’s a big one – why we fail is that our governments – and many of our citizens – freely violate the very same laws they want to impose on others. We talk about fairness, equality, international laws applied to all by all in the same way, but our actions do not reflect those ideals we claim to be committed to.
We pick and choose which cases we will defend, which we will ignore, and whose rights we will violate arrogantly believing in our great, superior wisdom and enlightenment and that this entitles us to bend the rules in a case of the ends justifying the means. But just for us. All those who are not us are law breakers and savages if they attempt to justify their actions as we do.
So what can we do to help further the human rights of other human beings? Bombing the crap out of their country won’t do it, as we have seen over and over. Some other brutal regime can easily move back in and the people whose homes, families, and workplaces we have destroyed will not likely want to embrace our way of life.
The only way to help spread human rights is to start here, at home, and spread out through example and by providing platforms where women, children, an y other suppressed folks, and human rights activists can speak freely and safely.
Why would any people look to Western societies and believe we are free of corruption, we are fair, all are treated equally? We violate human rights, we shape our laws to suit the small percentage of wealthy people, we pick and choose who will be punished, we stifle free speech.
We need to make sure that what we ask of others, we can follow ourselves and rather than tell them these methods produce a happier, healthier population, show them by example, then let them decide. Our governments should keep pressure on other governments to allow access to outside sources of information so that people everywhere have an opportunity to become informed and make decisions on their own behalf.
Rather than bludgeon people into implementing our policies, we should help them gain access to platforms where they can speak freely, exchange ideas, and discuss what policies of their own they would like their government to put in place.
And we should set an example here that separation of church and state is absolute. If we allow any religion to enter into our system of forming policies, laws, and legislation, how can we tell others that their laws must not be based on religious beliefs? That means that here at home, religious based morality cannot be deciding factors in whether or not injection sites should continue, whether or not gay marriage should be allowed, whether or not women have the right to make their own reproductive choices.
RT @BigNickFL: Women's Day, Black History Month...these are morsels thrown to oppressed masses. Their mere existence proves oppression
It's the courageous fight that goes on for equal rights and freedom every day, all over the planet that needs support and recognition...every day, all over the planet.
As Canadians drowse, generally complacent about the increasing attacks by the harper government on free speech in our country, the muzzling of public servants, and the needless censorship of documents, two Pakistinian politicians who fought against such heavy handed control in their country were brutally murdered because they would not stop their fight for human rights.
Both were killed because they strongly opposed the blasphemy law which remains a capital offence.
Politicians who serve the people who elect them, politicians willing to risk their lives for the rights and freedoms of others...
And here in Canada...we should be deeply ashamed.
So the Beowulf Award goes to Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti
Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer
"Taseer showed himself to be a rare politician, willing to risk his life in espousing an unambiguous position against discrimination and abuse," said Ali Dayan Hasan, senior South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch.
Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti
Shahbaz, recently, had stated publicly, "I was told that if I was to continue the campaign against the blasphemy law, I will be assassinated. I will be beheaded. But forces of violence, forces of extremism cannot harass me, cannot threaten me."
Responding to a leaked American cable outlining a 2008 conversation with CSIS director Jim Judd and Eliot Cohen, a senior State Department official, Michael Ignatieff said his party stands behind the court-ordered restrictions.
“I’ll just say this: I’m proud of our Charter, I’m proud of our courts. I’m proud of the fact that there are limits on what agencies and our government can do,” Ignatieff said. “That’s always been our position. We’re a country of freedom. We’re a country of democracy.”
A clear statement, a good statement. Shows respect for the Courts and for Canadians.
But Michael, they’re just words if you don’t back them up with actions.
This is scary shit. It shows clearly where harper wants to take us, and some of those who back him.
It shows what we stand to lose, and it shows the utter contempt and disregard those people who want to take us there have for our civil rights, human rights, and privacy rights.
At what point will more people start asking what, exactly, are we protecting? Certainly not our rights, as they are considered small sacrifices for this vague, ever-broadening term called national security.
Just a brief bit from the article which talks about some of what has comme out of Wikileaks this week:
The dispatch goes on to state that Judd "derided" recent Canadian court judgments that threaten foreign governments' intelligence-sharing with Canada. "These judgments posit that Canadian authorities cannot use information that 'may have been' derived from torture, and that any Canadian public official who conveys such information may be subject to criminal prosecution," the cable says.
Guys! Do you really think there are witches? Do you really believe all those guys (including her own brother) slept with Anne Boleyn? Hey, it must all be true. They confessed, under torture.
Even if these vicious animals who think that torture is just an ok fine tool for us but totally barbaric when others do it, information obtained through torture is unreliable. So Judd can be as full as contempt as he wants for us bleeding hearts who really believe that when we signed agreements opposing torture, we really meant it. You can't win hearts and minds by torturing people as part of a plan to stop those you are torturing from...torturing people.
Judd credited Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government for " 'taking it on the chin and pressing ahead' with common sense measures despite court challenges and political knocks from the opposition and interest groups," according to the document.
Sure, let's just ignore a couple of centuries of carefully, thoughtfully designed law and use that good old fashioned Tim Horton's crowd common sense. I mean, when your goal is to protect rights, fuck rights, eh?
So I ask again: what is it that our rights are being sacrificed to protect?
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.
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.
