International Treaty to Ban Cluster Bombs Agreed

Diplomats representing one hundred nations, meeting in Dublin, Ireland have agreed to a treaty that would ban the stockpiling or use of cluster bombs. These bombs maim and kill many innocent civilians, and scatter unexploded bomblets across war zones, that may detonate and destroy a life years after the bombs were dropped. Most recently, these bombs were deployed during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and see continuing use in the occupation of Afghanistan. These bombs are weapons of terror, just as much as land mines are. I congratulate these one hundred nations on making this agreement, a worth heir to the anti-land mine treaty of the 1990s. Hopefully, this treaty will reduce the number of civilians who are killed in wars. Of course what would be better is to prevent wars in the first place, but until that happens we have to settle for banning the most hideous weapons of war.

But not all countries that produce, stockpile and in some cases have used these weapons are onside. The most notable holdouts are China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel and (surprise!) the United States. Shame on them. They persist in creating a legacy of fear and death for the people of the countries they attack, or for the victims of the countries to whom they sell cluster bombs.

I sincerely hope that the Canadian government has signed onto this treaty, but knowing Harper's craven boot-licking attitude to the Bush administration, Canada probably opposed the deal, simply because the Americans said so. We need an election.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 238

Equal Marriage in California

California has, today, become the second American state to allow equal marriage for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. In a 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court overturned the statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The reasons of the Majority, written by Chief Justice George, contain several clear explanations of why LGBT folks are entitled to equal rights, and why "separate but equal" civil unions/domestic partnerships just don't cut it. First the Chief Justice had this to say:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

He added this:

Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

Those two excerpts from the decision eloquently make the case for equal marriage.

The forces of acceptance have won the battle, but the forces of bigotry and hatred haven't yet given up the war. They have one last play: an attempt to change the constitution of California to return to unequal marriage. This attempt will likely be on the ballot in California in November. If that battle is won, then it will truly be a time to celebrate.

That is not, of course, to play down the incredible victory that today's ruling represents. Thousands, if not millions, of Californians will be able to marry the person they love now, and that is certainly a cause for joy.

I salute the judges of the California Supreme Court for coming to the right decision, and I hope that the people of California will see fit to reject the ballot initiative to entrench bigotry in California's constitution. For anyone interested in reading the decision, the following link will take you to the PDF version of the ruling.


Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 251

Police Tase Eldery Kamloops Man Three Times

This one just has me boiling. On Saturday Frank Lasser, an eighty-two year old man who was lying in a bed in the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops with an oxygen/breathing apparatus, was tased by the RCMP because he was supposedly delirious and wielding a "three inch pocket knife." This on it's own is bad, but is unfortunately rather usual given the culture of systematic police brutality. Today, more details emerged. It turns out that police tased this elderly man three times. According to Lasser's account to the CBC, as soon as the three RCMP officers arrived, he was immediately tased because the police had "more important work to do on the street" that night.

This is absolutely outrageous. First off, this guy was 82 and in the hospital after having had a heart bypass. And yet the RCMP is asserting that he posed a deadly threat to the lives of the officers, no different than a 20 year old man. Somehow, I think an 82 year-old in a hospital for heart surgery is going to lack the strength to overcome three RCMP officers and then do any kind of damage with a blade of what sounds like a Swiss Army knife. What is the RCMP teaching its officers these days? Are they not teaching them how to use intermediate levels of force or non-violent conflict resolution? Lasser is a former prison guard and has asserted that three officers could easily overcome a person of his age and in his condition. I'm inclined to agree, and it seems only logical to believe. That they didn't speaks to a culture of violence in the RCMP.

Not only was he tased, but he was tased three times. Imagine the damage that three shocks of 50 000 volts can do to a person. Even if one shock was possibly called for, there is absolutely no way that three shocks would be justified. What if Lasser hadn't had his heart bypass yet? He would probably have entered cardiac arrest and possibly died. The police have become lethal weapons in their own right.

Once again, I call for proper civilian oversight of the police. Oversight that isn't afraid to call a spade a spade or to come down on officers who betray the trust placed in them by society. Lets bring democracy to the police. It can be done if the will of the people is strong enough and clear enough. Don't let the naysayers and the authoritarians tell you no, that the police are just fine as they are. Don't let them tell you it's too hard, or not worth the fight. Don't let them tell you it can't be done.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 257

Tragedy in Burma

The tragedy continuing to unfold in Burma in the wake of Cyclone Nargis is absolutely heartrending. It seems that as of today, the estimated death toll is 100 000, with the capacity to go much higher. That 100 000 is 80% of the number that died in the Boxing Day tsunami disaster that struck the entire coast of the Indian Ocean. It is equivalent to killing one in three people living in Halifax. Put another way, this is roughly 33 Hurricane Katrinas rolled into one. And those are just the people killed from the immediate effects of the storm. Given the horrendous delays that the Burmese junta is creating by denying visas to aid workers from the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent, tens of thousands more people are going to die from starvation and disease, since there is no food, no drinking water and no shelter. To get an idea of how bad the devastation is, take a look at the following satellite pictures from NASA.


The first picture shows the Irrawaddy delta area of Burma (where the cyclone came ashore) on April 15, prior to the storm. The second shows the same area on May 5, three days after the cyclone struck. As I'm sure you can see, a huge area of the delta, including much of the land around the capital city of Yangon is under water. Reports suggest that 95% of buildings in the affected areas have been knocked down by the storm surge. The rivers in the area that provided drinking water are full of mud and human waste, becoming unsuitable for drinking. Food supplies and crops have been swept away, so there is nothing to eat. As the bodies of the dead rot, the water will be tainted by disease, spreading to the survivors.

This is a disaster on a scale not seen possibly since the Bhola Cyclone in 1973 that killed between 300 000 and 1 000 000 people in what is now Bangladesh. The government of Burma (a tyrannical military dictatorship) is making the situation worse by misappropriating and misdirecting the aid, getting it only to their political supporters. The only possible good thing that might come of this storm is if the regime is so debilitated, and the people so outraged by the government handling of the storm, that the military regime is brought to an end.

My thoughts are with the people of Burma as they face this horrible time.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 258

Nelson Mandela on American Terrorist Watch List

So it seems that the US has the first black president of South Africa on its terrorist watch list. That was brought up today in hearings before the US Senate, in which Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice confirmed that since the apartheid government of South Africa designated the African National Congress as a terrorist group in the 1970s, Mr. Mandela has required a special waiver to come to the United States. Let's not forget who this man is. He was a leader of the ANC for many years in the struggle to free black South Africans from the oppressive rule of the white minority. This man was jailed for 27 years for his role in the ANC, after being released from prison he went on to become the first black president of South Africa, and to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. The fucking Nobel Peace Prize, and the US says he's a terrorist. Just bloody brilliant.

This story illustrates the idiocy that is terrorist watch lists. You know the ones, where people who have never been convicted of anything, or even told they are under investigation, turn out to be on lists that keep them from flying, or visiting certain countries and so on. In this age of paranoia about terrorism, when the government would like us to believe that terrorists lurk under every rock and behind every tree, we need stories like this to remind us that these lists make no sense. People wind up on these lists because they are political opponents of their governments. Hell, if he was alive today, Ghandi would probably be on an American terrorist watch list. The American founding fathers would be on the watch list too, since they used guerrilla tactics to win their war of independence.

Terrorist watch lists are simply another means of controlling the population. There is no independent control of these lists. There is no one making sure that a person is not listed simply because they are political opponents of their government. As Michael Moore pointed out, the resources of the American state were used to infiltrate and spy on a peace group called Peace Fresno. No one can have reasonably thought that a group of peace activists in Fresno were a threat to the national security of the United States.

We must be vigilant. We must guard our rights, both political and human, from theft by the security state. Cases like that of Nelson Mandela help to remind us of the danger that the state, uncontrolled by citizens, poses to liberty. In memorable words published (though not written) by Benjamin Franklin, "he who gives up a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both." Words to remember.

Days remaining in Bush presidency: 262