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

Transit Workers Strike in Toronto

On Friday evening, workers at the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) walked off the job in a legal strike. Earlier in the day, the workers had, by a 65% to 35% margin, rejected the tentative contract reached at the end of last week. There are many who are angry and frustrated that the workers walked out, but those same people who are angry don't seem to appreciate that TTC workers are also angry and frustrated. They are frustrated that the TTC has done nothing to act on the complaints of the workers about personal safety when doing their job, and that the TTC seems unwilling to give the workers job security, so that they know their jobs will not be contracted out.

Contrary to the usual "greedy workers" meme that comes out of the usual capitalist sources, this strike isn't about money. It is about security, both personal and professional. These workers haven't walked off the job to try to get more money out of the city (and thus by proxy out of the populace). They have walked out to make sure that the city doesn't outsource their jobs, replacing stable and well paying jobs, allowing the workers to contribute to the economy, with unstable, poorly paid contract jobs.

And now the Ontario government proposes to legislate the workers back to work (and to my shame the Ontario NDP has gone along with this), by slapping a fine of $2000/day on any worker who stays off the job. The government implies by taking this action, that the TTC workers are providing an essential public service. Fine, I can go along with that. The hitch is that they want to do that without actually declaring them and essential service. If they were to do that, in exchange for stripping away the right to strike, they would have to replace it with a right to binding arbitration, and they are afraid of where that might lead. This way of handling the issue is conniving and deceitful. If they are an essential service, declare them so and give the right to binding arbitration. If they aren't an essential service, let the negotiation and strike process run its course, and don't legislate and end to the strike.

The members of the Ontario provincial parliament seem intent on squelching the concerns of the workers. They are probably worried that if to many other people realise what the TTC workers are striking about, they might demand job security in their own jobs, throwing the outsourcing craze off the rails. And goodness knows that global capitalism can't have that. Capitalism is, at its very core, exploitation. Capitalists take from the workers what the capitalists have not laboured to earn. And if too many people fought for their job security, that ability to exploit workers, and to pit one against another, would be compromised. That is why this strike is being stomped upon, not any faux concern about the people beyond the possibility that they might not get to work, putting a damper on capitalism for a little while.

I stand with these workers. They have democratically decided to go on strike, and everyone who claims to respect the rights of workers must do the same, and if you live in Ontario, let your MPP know that you don't support this effort to stomp on the rights of workers, and you want them to vote against this bill. Together, the people are strong. Let's make sure that the elected representatives of the people know that.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 266

Conservatives continue efforts to roll back women's rights

Another private members bill that would set the stage to radically roll back a woman's right to choose and to control her own body has been proposed by a Conservative member of parliament, Maurice Vellacott, MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin. Bill C-537 would allow health care practitioners to refuse to participate in a medical procedure that "offends a tenet of their religion."

If a person's religious beliefs prohibit them from offering a certain service, then that person should not get into a profession where they might be required to provide that service. If a person feels that their religion prevents them from giving out the 'morning after' pill, then they shouldn't be a pharmacist. If they can't perform an abortion, or prescribe emergency contraception, then the person shouldn't be a physician. If they can't perform a blood transfusion, they shouldn't practice emergency medicine. This really isn't that complex.

This bill is framed in the context of protecting religious rights, but it should tell you something that Vellacott is the chair of the "Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus" which includes both Conservative and Liberal MPs (but thankfully no New Democrats). This nonsense would allow doctors, who are being paid by the state, to refuse to provide abortions, in effect banning a practice that the Supreme Court of Canada (in R. v. Morgentaler, 1988) said the government could not use the law to ban, because doing that violated the right of women to "security of the person" under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the same philosophy that has seen women left without pharmacists willing to dispense emergency contraceptives in various parts of the United States. It is the philosophy that says that a doctor's dogmatic beliefs are more important that a woman's right to control her body. That is utter garbage and nonsense.

Furthermore, this bill follows hard on the heels of Bill C-484, which would impose extra penalties for killing a pregnant woman since the assault also terminates the fetus. That bill deems the fetus to be a person, since only a person is legally capable of being murdered, setting us back on the road to banning abortion as murder.

The Conservatives are being cagey on how they push this radical patriarchal and misogynist agenda. It is being done through private members bills, not government bills, so in the next election campaign Harper can claim his government had nothing to do with it. This is very important, because the majority of Canadians think this issue is settled, and that a woman has a right to choose. The Cons want to roll back a woman's rights, and want to take our society back to some twisted 1950s ideal, where everyone is white, everyone is straight, everyone is Christian, people don't have sex until they are thirty and a woman stays in the home, with a martini for her husband at the end of the day. That's not my Canada, and I sure as hell know it isn't any Canada I want to see. We have to remember that women's rights are human rights. If the Cons take rights away from one group, it is only a matter of time until they are taking them away from everyone else.

To everyone reading this in Canada, I encourage you to get in touch with your MP and let them know that you oppose this bill and bill C-484, and that you want them to vote against both bills. Tell your friends, make noise, be heard. Don't let the Conservatives take rights away in the dark and in silence.


Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 271

Justice Michel Bastarache to Retire

The Supreme Court of Canada has announced that Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache, a puisne justice of the Court, will retire at the end of the spring session. Bastarache J has sat on the court since 1997, and is (aside from Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin) the most senior judge of the Supreme Court. Bastarache J was the judge from the Atlantic provinces, and as such his successor will have to be drawn from the Atlantic provinces. I hope that Harper does not follow the model of the American right and appoint a partisan to the Supreme Court as he has done with some of the Provincial Courts of Appeal.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 285

Former Vancouver Police Complaints Commissioner Was Reluctant to Investigate

The Vancouver Sun is reporting that the former Commissioner of the Vancouver Police Complaints Commission Don Morrison didn't launch investigations unless there was a media outcry. You can find the Sun story here. This story is based on testimony of Matt Adie, the former Deputy Commissioner.

This kind of thing illustrates the central problem with watchdogs that are also lapdogs. The RCMP Complaints Commission is no different. I can't remember the last time it came back with a ruling that there had been wrongdoing on the part of the police.

"It is my perception that it would be extremely unlikely that Commissioner Morrison would order a public hearing against the Vancouver police unless the matter was in the media and there was very little other option," said former OPCC deputy commissioner Matt Adie.

This was Adie's explanation for why Morrison refused to order an public hearing into the death of Frank Paul, a homeless, alcoholic, aboriginal man who died in December 1998 after being dumped while stupefied with alcohol in a cold, wet downtown alley by Vancouver police.

This is horrifying. If a situation like that one doesn't qualify for an investigation, what does? I would absolutely love to see a citizen of Vancouver slap a misfeasance of public duty suit on Morrison for this.

We need a proper, civilian run, independent oversight process for police from the smallest municipal police force to the RCMP. For too long the police have been functionally above the law, whether it be the summary execution by Taser of Robert Dziekanski, or the murder of Neil Stonechild by the Saskatoon police, nothing is ever done, or if it is done it's far too late. Frankly, I have come to the opinion that the police as an institution are so hopelessly corrupt and morally rotten that the whole lot should be scrapped and we should start from scratch. I know this isn't practical, but it needs to be done somehow.

We also need to make sure that the police are not able hold their inquiries in secret. A democracy thrives on the availability of information to citizens The police must be made to let in the light, and to allow the people to scrutinize their behaviour. If they have done nothing wrong, as they claim, they have nothing to hide. No structure that fears the light of day has any business surviving in a democracy.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 289

Lukiwski Drama Continues

The controversy continues to swirl around Tom Lukiwski, homophobe par excellence. He continues to assert that the vile insults heaped on the LGBT community no longer represent his views. Bull. I'd be more convinced if he actually, say, repudiated his votes on same-sex marriage, and the motion to reopen SSM. In the era of polite homophobia, bigots for the most part close their mouths and work quietly to undermine the rights of those they hate. Lukiwski expressed his hatred for gays and lesbians when he voted against equal rights on the Civil Marriage Act and on the motion to reopen it. Shame on him. Unless you support equal rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation, religion, race, sex, gender identity, ethnic origin, creed and so forth, guess what, you're a bigot. You may not think so, but if you think it's okay for the government to racially profile Muslims and Arabs, then guess what, you're a bigot. If you think it is okay to deny equal access to the institution of civil marriage to LGBT folks and fob that group of society off with "separate but equal" civil unions, you're a bigot. If you think the native people should shut up and stop whining, guess what, you're a bigot. If you think women don't deserve to control their own bodies in all respects, you're a bigot. And hey, surprise, all of these things can be found in the two parties with a realistic chance of forming a government in Canada. The Conservatives (until they got elected) would take these positions openly. The Liberals would take them behind the collective back of the people. Some of these positions have even turned up in the NDP to a distressing extent. It's not as bad in the NDP, but it sure as hell is more disappointing.

Tom Lukiwski is the poster boy for the new age of polite bigotry. His voting record shows that he still hates gays and lesbians, but he knows now that he can't say what he really feels. Some on the right call this the political correctness police and call those who stand up to bigoted statements "humourless". That's ridiculous precisely because these same people will turn around and scream bloody murder if any ridicule or hatred is turned back around on them, on their institutions. They demand that others be tolerant of their intolerance. I say fuck that.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 290

Big Surprise - Conservatives are Homophobes

Surprise, surprise. Turns out Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski is a homophobe and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is a racist and a sexist. Who would have expected that from the political heirs of the Reform Party?

The Saskatchewan NDP discovered a tape from 1991 left behind in the Official Opposition offices in the Sask. legislature, that shows a forty year old Lukiwski saying that "there's A's and there's B's. The A's are guys like me. The B's are homosexual faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases.” Disgusting homophobic trash. But frankly not that unexpected from the bigoted dinosaurs of the Conservative Party of Canada.

As for Wall, he put on a fake Ukrainian accent and pretended to be Roy Romanow (the Sask. NDP leader of the day, who is of Ukrainian heritage) and then he made sexist fun of the Sask. Liberal leader of the day. All of this coming just days after Wall got himself worked up into a hypocritical lather about David Ahenakew (I don't excuse Ahenakew, what he said was repulsive).

Interestingly, this would never have come to light if the electorate of Saskatchewan, in a short sighted and self-destructive desire for change hadn't turfed the Sask. NDP just as the job market and economy were picking up. Apparently the Saskatchewan Party either doesn't think that homophobia, sexism and racism are important to cover up in their staffers, or they are criminally stupid and too dumb to clean out their files on the way to their new offices.


For those interested in watching the video for themselves, the relevant stuff by Lukiwski is at the end of this clip from the CBC. I haven't been able to find the stuff by Brad Wall yet.





This is yet another in a long stream of examples of Conservative/Alliance/Reform bigotry towards LGBT folks, and towards immigrants. Speak up, everyone who is surprised that Conservatives are once again shown to be haters. *Crickets*

Now, Lukiwski has apologized for this stuff, saying that it no longer represents his views. I would find it easier to believe if he didn't sit in the caucus of Canada's "we hate everyone who isn't white and male" party. After all, he has been given the opportunity to show his supposed changed views by voting for measures to give equal rights to LGBT folks, and has not done so. He voted against equal marriage in 2005, and he voted to re-open the equal marriage debate in 2006. He also has voted for Conservative budgets that have slashed funding for programmes that supported women's equality efforts, and is backing the changes to the immigration act that would allow the Immigration Minister to, by fiat, reject any immigrant arbitrarily. And given the Reform-Conservative history of being anti-immigrant, this is a Very Bad Thing. Lukiwski has shown no objective evidence of his supposed changed views, and we have only his word that he has changed them. I for one, don't believe him for a minute. He isn't sorry he said it, or that he held (and most probably still holds) such abhorrent views. He is sorry he got caught.

Lukiwski ought to resign his seat. Haters shouldn't (but unfortunately do) have a place in the House of Commons. If he won't resign, the Conservatives ought to (but, of course, won't) give him the boot from their caucus. Canadians everywhere, of every sexual orientation, sex and race should be up in arms, calling for Lukiwski's resignation, along with Brad Wall's. These people are below pond scum.

This is a classic example of why Harper is so desperate to keep a muzzle on his MPs, with some duct tape added for good measure. If he didn't we would be hearing about comments like this every other week, rather than every other year. Remember Cheryl Gallant who said abortion is like beheading hostages in Iraq? Or Randy White who said he would like to re-criminalize homosexuality? Or any of half a million things said by Conservative/Canadian Alliance/Reform MPs over the years? These people are haters through and through. Scratch a Conservative, find a bigot.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 291

Toronto City Council Chickens Out

I am mightily pissed off at the Toronto city council. To set up the background, over the last year, decals of yellow "support the troops" ribbons had been attached to the ambulances and fire engines of the city. They were of a pretty good size and highly visible. I found this disturbing, because while the sentiment of "support the troops" is itself reasonable, it has been twisted by the right-wing into "support the troops, don't question the mission." The way I support the troops is by wanting to bring them back, so they stop dying. We are involved in a war of aggression in Afghanistan, and we have no place being there. Yet these stickers suggest that the city of Toronto, and by proxy all of its citizens, support the occupation of Afghanistan, but that could not be further from the truth. Further more, these decals have no place on civic vehicles, which must be construed as representing all the members of the community. For them to display such opening jingoistic, war-mongering, messages is to discount the views of members of the populace that don't support this war. For those that would like to see things in the opposite manner, who would say that the lack of decals means that the city would be endorsing the slaughter of Canadian soldiers is in no way true. Beyond the fact that Canadians against the war are calling for the immediate and safe withdrawal of troops, the lack of decals simply expressing the neutrality of the civic structures and services, which is as it should be.

The city had decided that after a year the decals were to come off, especially because some members of council had become concerned about exactly what I explained above. The councillors had gotten to the point of voting to have them removed, with most of the council on side and only the ridiculous reactionary Frances Nunziata putting up a real objection. Yet, two days ago, after the deaths of three more Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, the council (on the initiative of Mayor David Miller) voted to leave the decals on the vehicles. Shame on them for caving.

Supposedly, there has been a great wave of protest from around the country, but this wave has been whipped up by the right-wing press (Toronto Sun, I am looking at you) as well as conservatives in the 905 belt surrounding Toronto, who are not citizens or tax-payers in Toronto. As a result of this faux-fire-storm, Mayor Miller proposed a motion that the decals would remain on the vehicles., and it was unanimously passed by all of those present (six councillors were not present, three of whom deliberately abstained and three of whom were away on other business but said they would have voted for the motion). This is a city council that is supposed to be dominated by progressive politicians. These politicians have no business calling themselves progressive if they are willing to have decals that support a belligerent, aggressive and imperialistic war attached to city vehicles. If they don't have the guts to stand up to a wave of complaints from people who have no stake in Toronto, then they are not standing up for their citizens, who elected them for their leftist positions, expecting leftist government, and yet all we have here is placation of the ravenous, foaming-at-the-mouth reactionary crowd. For shame.

If these politicians will not even stick by the philosophy on which they were elected, and if they chose to put the views of non-residents ahead of the views of their electorate, they have no business representing us. Any "progressive" councillor who voted for this measure has a lot of explaining to do, if they want to get the votes of their electors back. Every one of them, from David Miller on down, needs to explain why we should believe anything they say when they are running for office.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 582

Sarkozy wins French Presidency

Sucks to be French today. Nicholas Sarkozy, the ultra-Conservative former interior minister has been elected to the French presidency by a vote of 53%-47% over Segoline Royal, the candidate of the Socialist Party. Sarkozy is the one who referred to immigrants (and in particular those living in the suburbs of Paris) as "scum." Not exactly a good attitude for someone who will be governing France for at least the next four years.

Sarkozy is also disturbingly close to George W. Bush on issues of foreign policy and civil rights. While I may not have agreed with Jacques Chirac on most issues, he was at least a strong voice opposing the idiocy of the foreign policy of the U.S. government in Iraq. Sarkozy cannot be counted on to do the same.

Sarkozy has announced his resolution to destroy a significant part of the fabric of the French social security net, including reducing state pensions and lengthening the work week. France is finally coming in for the kind of neoliberal garbage government that those of us in North America, many parts of Europe, much of Africa, much of Latin America and in Oceania have suffered through for two decades. It is too bad that the French did not learn the lessons of economic disaster brought on by neoliberal idiot economics and of right-wing governments with authoritarian tendencies:

1. Jobs, fleeing to South and South-East Asia as a result of trade "liberalization."
   
2. Dramatically increasing gaps between the rich and the poor as low-decile incomes stagnate or fall and high-decile incomes soar into the stratosphere.
   
3. Security states, where the most basic of human rights and civil liberties can be sacrificed on the altar of Security, a demon insatiable for the freedoms that define a democracy.
4. Social programmes and safety nets torn to ribbons in the quest to get rid of "fat" in the system, and in the never ending search for "efficiency".

Today, the French public chose to inflict this on themselves. For their sakes, I hope that the next four years go by quickly.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 629

New Green Plan

The Harpokon government released its new green plan the other day. And it is a bag of worthless crap. The key things to know are these:

1. The target it aims for is a 18% reduction in GHGs by 2010. The key problem here is that this is an 18% reduction from 2006 levels, not from 1990. Given the extent to which GHG emissions have risen since 1990, this does not even get our emissions back to our 1990 levels, let alone below them, as envisioned by the Kyoto Accord.
2. Instead of a hard requirement for emissions reductions, companies will be allowed to make "intensity" reductions, meaning a reduction in the GHGs emitted per unit of production. This means that if a company reduces emissions intensity by 25% yet increases production by 50%, emissions will rise 12.5%, instead of falling at all.

These two things are what make the plan exactly what Al Gore described it as, "a complete and utter fraud." It is designed to allow industry proceed on as before, making a further mess of our world.

By making these pathetic half-steps towards reducing our GHG emissions, we are essentially letting the big emitters of the world (U.S., China and India) off the hook. After all, if a rich, first world, state like Canada is unwilling to bite the bullet and take the necessary measures, why should China or India feel obliged to do so with much more meagre resources?

If the Conservatives think that this will get the public on-side, I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that it won't happen. All of the respected voices of the environmental movement (from Al Gore and David Suzuki on down) are calling bullshit on this so-called plan. I am so tired of this and I am so angry.

There is a problem, and it needs fixing now. And the fixing won't come from tinkering around the edges. We need to make major adjustments to the way we live, and they need to be made soon. There is still a very limited amount of time to phase in these changes, but if we wait much longer we are going to hit a wall and be forced to change by the fact that we will be facing an existential crisis.

The first good step to fixing this would be for the three opposition parties (NDP, Liberals and Bloc) to put every ounce of pressure available to them on the government to bring bill C-30 (the amended Clean Air Act) back to Parliament. It has important measures in it that would be very helpful. NDP leader Jack Layton has sent an open letter to the leaders of the other two opposition parties asking them for help, and hopefully the three parties will work together to make something happen.

We are running out of time.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 637

Canadians Sending Afghans to Torture

Thanks to some excellent investigative reporting by the Globe and Mail, it has come to light that the Canadian government has been knowingly handing over Afghan prisoners of war to face torture in prisons run by the Afghan government. Not only did senior commanders on the ground clearly know about it, but the political leadership in Ottawa has been clearly demonstrated to be in the know as well.

Afghan prisoners report being beaten with bundles of wire, choked/asphyxiated, made to stand naked outside overnight in sub-zero temperatures and other inhuman and cruel treatment. I don't think any reasonable person could argue that this does not constitute torture. The fact that Canada knew about this and continued to hand prisoners over to Afghan torturers places Canada clearly in violation of our responsibilities under the Third Geneva Convention and under the Anti-Torture Convention. Canada has broken international law by handing these people over, knowing that they would be tortured for information. We have become a criminal state.

Under the Third Geneva Convention (available here) the detaining power (that is Canada) remains responsible for the well-being of prisoners of war transfered to another power (in this case Afghanistan). In the case of inhumane treatment by the power to which prisoners have been transfered, the detaining power has a responsibility to either take substantive action to fix the situation or to take the prisoners back. The Canadian government has done neither of those things. That means that Canada has violated the international laws of war, and thus has committed war crimes.

Additionally, the government is making a conscious effort to brush off the torture of these people. The government suggests that they are all Taliban fighters and thus their complaints cannot be believed. The government calls the reports "rumours." The government response to this is so wrong.

1. These people have not been tried or convicted of anything. Anything at all. So to call them Taliban is to violate the presumption of innocence that should be afforded to all people.
   
2. Even if they are Taliban fighters, it does not mean that their complaints of torture are necessarily false or that they deserve to be tortured.
   
3. The minimization of the reports of torture as "rumours" makes clear that the government does not plan to investigate them with any vigour.

No-one deserves to be tortured. It is ethically wrong to inflict pain and possibly death on someone else in search of information. Nothing gives us the right to say that we should be allowed to decide whether or not a particular faces torture. We have a responsibility to stop torture wherever or whenever we encounter it.

Torture is wrong, and we cannot countenance, condone or tolerate it by any state or actor, be they allied or opposed to the Canadian government. Now is manifestly the time to stand up for reason and justice in a world rapidly spiraling downwards.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 640

A Horror in Virginia

Yesterday, a man killed 32 people at Virginia Tech, apparently with two handguns, before killing himself. This is a horrible crime and my sympathies go out those who were injured, and to the families and friends of the injured and the dead. My sympathies also go out to the family of the shooter. It must be horrible to lose a son or brother in such a manner, knowing that they had done such a repugnant thing. I totally condemn this crime, and it makes me think of a few different things.

First, and as Juan Cole points out, Iraq suffers the equivalent of two Virginia Tech slaughters every day, be it deaths inflicted by occupation soldiers, insurgents or Sufist terrorists (and yes, there is a distinction between them). The people of Iraq must suffer through this kind of horror twice per day. And the violence there is just as random. Whether the people are killed by American use of weapons of mass destruction (e.g. white phosphorus in Falujah), or are near an American patrol attacked by the insurgency or are in a market that is blown up by a suicide car-bomber, they die randomly and meaninglessly. We in the west need to think about this. Western nations are inflicting dozens of deaths every day. No wonder populations around the world are saying "if this is 'freedom,' we don't want any thank you." Can we blame them for rejecting something that has become associated with chaos and meaningless, random, death? The situation in Afghanistan is only quantitatively better, in that less people are dying random, meaningless, deaths every day, but Canadian troops are inflicting random death on people who have done nothing to deserve the harsh occupation that has been imposed on them by an imperialistic NATO.

The second thing the Virginia Tech slaughter has made me think of is the importance of gun control. Throughout the day, I had to listen to idiotic pro-gun activists say that if only, if only, Virginia Tech had not prohibited students from carrying concealed handguns on campus, most of the deaths would have been prevented. This is idiotic on so many levels. Firstly, if the killer had not been able to obtain a gun at all, he would not have been able to kill nearly the number of people that he did. It is simply much, much harder to inflict lethal wounds on a large number people in a short period of time with a knife than it is with a gun. Second, picture this. A number of students were armed with concealed handguns on campus. They hear the shooting start in the lecture hall and draw their weapons to try to hunt down the killer. The police then enter the building, after the shooting is reported, and see one of these students walking around with a drawn handgun looking for the shooter. They are going to assume that the student with the gun is the shooter, in all likelihood, and that student may quite likely then be shot, before the mistake can be sorted out. Third, unless someone is well trained with a handgun, it is easy to miss one's target. In a crowed environment like the lecture hall, they could just as easily hit other students as the shooter.

Gun control is necessary. This is because homicidal maniac control is always going to be harder than gun control. On the street, one can see a handgun and realize, "gee, that's a handgun." What one cannot do is look at a homicidal maniac just walking down the street and realize, "gee, that's a homicidal maniac." It just doesn't work like that.

Furthermore, handguns should be entirely illegal. The only purpose they have is shooting people. Sure, you can do some kinds of recreational shooting with them, but the benefits of making them entirely illegal (i.e. less dead people) would be much greater than the negative impacts on sport shooting.

Horrors like what happened at Virginia Tech make me so sad, because of the number of lives lost that could so easily have been saved.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 648

Budgets

Both the federal government and the government of Ontario brought down budgets in the last week. The federal government has adopted the tried and tested Liberal Party of Canada approach to the budget. Sprinkle a tiny little bit of money to just about everybody, and try to use that to hide honking big corporate tax cuts. Excellent, just what we need. At a time when corporate profits are going off the scale, what they need is another tax cut. All this while money could be used to fight poverty, reduce the debt burden on post-secondary students, fight global climate change, encourage primary health-care, ensure that aboriginals have a decent standard of living or so much more. Jack Layton put it quite well when he said that the federal budget "put crumbs on the kitchen table and a buffet on the board-room table." I'm not surprised, but I had been hoping for more. With the amount of money being thrown around, Jim Flahrety has reduced the expected surplus next year to just $300 million dollars. Remember that number. You're going to hear it again.

The provincial situation is a little bit more positive. The Ontario Liberals have been feeling the pressure from the NDP on the left to do something, anything, for working-class and poor Ontarians. As a result, there is going to be an Ontario Child Benefit for families earning less than $20 000/year phased in over the next couple years. In conjunction with this, the provincial government will stop clawing back the National Child Benefit from families on welfare (though not for three or four years, which is far too long). Thirdly, the government will raise the minimum wage $0.75/hr each March for three years, starting next year. This will bring minimum wage to $10.25/hr by 2010. This is a decent start, but the minimum wage needs to be at least $10/hr now, and it needs to get there now, not in three years. After all, Dalton McGuinty and the other MPs didn't have to wait three years for their fat raises, so why should the lowest income people in this country have to wait for their (rather slim) raises? Also, this provincial budget was balanced, with an estimated surplus of $300 million next year.

Remember that number? That means that at the federal level, Flahrety has reduced the federal government's fiscal situation to the same as a province that has just introduced its first balanced budget in at least 4 years. That means that the slightest downturn in the economy, which will come (it's called the business cycle, folks), we are back to deficits. Good job Harpokons. I hope you're happy.

Cheers

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 671

Alberta Takes Another Step Towards Two-Tier Healthcare

The government of Ed Stelmach in Alberta has just decided that people will be able to opt-out of the public healthcare system for three years at a time. The government claims that this is simply a housekeeping measure, to reduce the amount of paperwork people have to do, but it is clearly more than that. To allow people to opt out of a universal healthcare system at all is a bad idea. To let them opt out for three years at a time is even worse.

The point of a universal healthcare system is that everyone pays into the system, and we can all draw on it when we are in need. The education system works exactly the same way. I don't have any kids, but my taxes still go to pay for the education system and I am perfectly happy with that. I haven't been to a hospital for care in close to 10 years, but I still have no problem with my taxes going to support a public, universal, healthcare system. To allow people to opt out of the system is to allow the system to be deprived of resources. And who do you think will opt out? Why the rich. Those that put the most money into the system in the first place through the progressive taxation system. What the government of Ed Stelmach is up to is a covert attempt to let healthcare privatization in through the back door. He should be ashamed of himself, and ashamed of the lies that he is telling to his people and to the rest of the country. If other provinces start doing this type of thing, we are going to be boarding the handbasket to hell in an awful hurry, and we are going to be without a public healthcare system. And we are back to the bad old days, when only those who could afford to pay would get medical care. For shame, Mr. Stelmach. For shame.

Cheers

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 681

A $10 Minimum Wage

There is a campaign underway in Ontario to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr. I think this is an excellent idea, because it simply is not possible for people to live on $8/hr (the current general minimum wage in Ontario) in many parts of the province. If anyone is interested in my living expenses calculations for Toronto related to the minimum wage, leave a comment and I will post more details of my reasoning. Suffice it to say, rents are so high in many cities in Toronto that even working 40 hours per week (and very few minimum or just-above-minimum wage jobs give 40 hrs/wk) will not allow people to live, even if heavy use is made of food banks. Obviously, $10/hr will not allow people to live comfortably, but it is a dramatic improvement on what has gone before and will help people have some degree of stability in their lives.

The Ontario NDP, the Federal NDP, many unions and a vast plethora of community and citizen groups are pushing this effort forward. A good measure of a society is how it treats the most abject of it's citizens. And right now we are treating the poor of our society like crap, to be frank. Raising the minimum wage to $10/hr won't make that better, but it would be a good first step.

Now, the right wing will whinge about how raising the minimum wage like this will cause the sky to fall and cause every small business in Ontario to go out of business. Well guess what; doctor's said that socialized healthcare would cause the end of the medical system and that didn't happen. And business has been claiming that every increase to the minimum wage since the invention of such a thing will have catastrophic effects on business, and the economy has continued much as it ever has, cyclical as always. Frankly, a lot of the business sector is full of shit and not to be trusted on these issues.

Another objection that the right-wing will raise is that most people who earn minimum wage are teenagers living at home who don't need a raise. Nice try. That may be strictly speaking true, but a raise in the minimum wage from $8 to $10 would also help every person making between $8.01 and $9.99 per hour. And that is a lot of people in Ontario alone.

This is a good idea, and the reason the right fights it so strenuously is because they need a demoralized and abjected working class to produce wealth for them. As Ambrose Bierce said:

Corporation, noun: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit, without individual responsibility.

He was on to something there. Capitalists don't care about people, they care about profit. This is to put the cart before the horse in a dramatic manner. People should come before profit.

Cheers

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 688

Opposition Defeats Terrorism Act Provisions

For once, I have something nice to say about the Liberals. They voted the right way on the government motion to extend the arrest-without-charge and compulsory testimony provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. These sections of the Act posed a serious threat to the freedoms of Canadians and should never have been enacted in the first place. What is hilarious is to see the Liberals posturing as the defenders of civil liberties. To hear them tell it, you would never think that they wrote the law in the first place. One Liberal voted in favour of the government motion, notorious right-winger and arch-bigot Tom Wappell. It remains to be seen what, if any, punishment he will face for breaking ranks with the rest of his party.

The Conservatives now think that the Liberals have handed them a club for the next election. Expect to hear an endless repetition of "soft on terrorism" for the next couple of months. What is true is that by finally doing the right thing, the Liberals have proven that once again they are hopeless flip-floppers, following the political winds of the day. The NDP opposed these provisions from the beginning. The NDP was the only one to be concerned that the government was using the threat of terrorism as a means to induce Canadians to accept a diminution of their civil liberties.

The Conservatives also seem to have decided that they will bring in a new act to reinstate the measures that were allowed to expire on Wednesday. Expect it to be a matter of confidence, so that the Conservatives can say after they are defeated that the Liberals (plus the NDP and the Bloc) brought down the government because they support terrorism. It would be about par for the Republican course, and would fit right in with the playbook used by the American right in the last several elections.

All of this should make for more interesting politics in the weeks to come.

Cheers

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 696

A bit of catch-up

Hi everybody. Sorry for the long absence from posting to this blog. A lot has happened in Canada and Canadian affairs that I should catch up on.

First up, the timing of the federal budget. This is the most transparent federal interference in a provincial election that I can recall. The budget (which is sure to be full of goodies for Quebec and claims to have resolved the "fiscal imbalance" between Quebec and the federal government) is a manipulative attempt by Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada to influence the outcome of the provincial election and create the conditions for the Conservatives to grow in the next federal election. It is simply disgusting that the federal budget would be timed for a week before the provincial election. Now, I know some people out there are going to be thinking to themselves: "but the election was called after the budget date was announced, so there can't be collusion." Those people are either willfully deluding themselves or idiots. It's frank, but it's the truth. Anyone who doesn't believe that Harper and Jean Charest were consulting each other on the timing of the budget and the election is seriously gullible. Shame on Harper, shame on Charest and shame on the media who are doing nothing to make this known to Canadians.

Second, the Supreme Court ruling on the security certificate regime. For those that don't know, security certificates are documents signed by the ministers of Immigration and Justice that allow for non-citizens to be held in indefinite detention, with the evidence behind their detention is heard in a sealed court room by a judge of the federal court in the absence of the detained person or their attorneys. These documents have, in recent memory, been used to detain a number of men who, it is suggested, are tied to al-Qaida, though the evidence against them is clearly insufficient to bring them to trial or that is where they would be, rather than rotting in a detention centre in central Ontario. The Supreme Court recently ruled that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (specifically section 11[d]) for detainees to be denied the opportunity to confront the evidence against them. The court gave the government one year to alter the law in order to ensure that it complies with the Charter. This is a good ruling. It does violence to the concept of justice that a person could be imprisoned for the rest of their life without being granted a fair trial and without being able to even know on what grounds they are being imprisoned. Unfortunately, the Court, in it's ruling, suggested that the government adopt a "special advocate" system, similar to what is in place in Britain in which security-cleared lawyers act for the defendant and are able to challenge the evidence on his or her behalf. The key problem with such a system is that the special advocate is prevented from discussing the evidence with his or her client and as such can not bring forward alternate facts or explanations to dispute the arguments of the government. As such, a fair trial is denied and the burden of proof is reversed. In essence, the defendant must prove that he or she is not guilty, rather than the state being forced to prove that the defendant is guilty.

Finally, I come to Afghanistan. The occupation rumbles on, though Stephen Harper has now launched an effort to convince Canadians that we are doing more in Afghanistan than propping up a puppet government made up of misogynistic and homophobic drug dealers while blowing Afghanis in the south into little teensy bits. Now let me be very clear on this point: the Taliban were, are and likely will always be, a nasty group of people committed to making the lives of the people under their rule very, very difficult and generally living in the word of 1007 as opposed to 2007. I do not want to see the Taliban return to power, but it has to be recognized that the Taliban are a potent force in Afghan society and cannot be crushed by force of arms. Ultimately a political, negotiated, solution is the only possibility in Afghanistan. There is still time to end the occupation with a political settlement, but in not that long the occupiers in Afghanistan will cross the same threshold that was crossed in Iraq years ago: the point where the only possibility for withdrawal is a Saigon-style evacuation under fire. Yet Harper is spending $200 million on "development" work in order to convince the Canadian public to back the continuation of the occupation, and (though he won't admit as much) to back the next extension that Harper wants to pass to the mission, namely to 2011. By itself, $200 million in aid to Afghanistan is a good thing. But this aid will be tied to the existing government and will be delivered by agencies that are irrevocably tied to the occupation. If we want the insurgency to stop blowing up schools, we have to stop having them built by the armed forces. The insurgency will rightly see anything built by occupation forces as being a tool of the occupation. I don't know another way to get it done, but funding local groups indirectly through international NGOs might be a good start.

Cheers

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 699