family photos by jnl

Cody
Originally uploaded by JnL

I've mentioned that on most Monday holidays, we've gotten in the habit of meeting friends at a leash-free park. Usually the eight of us - James, Lori, Allan, me, Cobalt, Denim, Cody, Tala - spend the morning together, the humans strolling along watching the canine play.

In May we went to Cherry Beach for the first time, a leash-free park on Lake Ontario. James had his camera, of course, and his photos from the day are now online.

If you go to this set, the photos from that day are at the end; click on "4" on the bottom. They're excellent photos. Enjoy.

"camilo" by state radio

This video is two years old, but for some reason I've never seen it before. A thoughtful wmtc reader passed it on. I found it very moving.

The song is called "Camilo" by the band State Radio.

online again, update to follow

We're back from Stratford and back online. We had a wonderful time and I'll report soon.

I see our friend Mr Kenney has been busy in my absence. I'll be posting on that, too, of course.

across the bridge to will and cyrano

This blog has brought me many riches, first among them, an amazing community and wonderful friends. I can't imagine how much scarier and lonelier our move from New York City to Canada would have been without wmtc - the advice and support, the cheering section, and the very real and lasting friendships we've made through this blog. Before I re-started my activism here, every friend we had in Canada, we first met online.

Blogging has also brought us some fun freebies here and there - books, DVDs, invitations to movie screenings. But for friendship plus freebies, nothing tops this. This morning we're driving to Stratford, Ontario for two plays at the Shakespeare Festival and a little getaway. We're staying at Across The Bridge bed and breakfast, as the owners' guests.

Earlier this year, I received an email from the owners, Eric and Kelly, US-to-Canada immigrants who bought an old house in Stratford and renovated it into a B-and-B. They said wmtc helped them on their immigration journey, and invited Allan and I to stay at Across The Bridge, on the house, so to speak. Wow! We were completely blown away.

After realizing that Kelly and Eric were indeed serious about this generous offer, we checked out the Festival schedule. The challenge was to find two plays we wanted to see on consecutive weekdays. We found Julius Caesar and Cyrano de Bergerac. (Cyrano features Colm Feore, who many people know from a current TV show.) Extra bonus! The plays are during the All-Star Break, so we don't even miss any baseball. Perfect.

I am so looking forward to this. We can't travel this year, which is hard for me, and any change of scenery is very welcome. I'm also theatre-starved, and the Stratford Festival in Ontario has a world-class reputation.

I've been to the Stratford Festival in Connecticut several times, including one of the most memorable theatre experiences of my life, and also to the Royal Shakespeare Company's home in Stratford-Upon-Avon, in the UK. I knew we'd get to the Ontario Festival eventually, and the lovely folks at Across The Bridge gave us the perfect excuse.

Allan and I both re-read Julius Caesar in preparation, something I always like to do before seeing Shakespeare. But I love Cyrano, and am most looking forward to that.

We're heading out this morning; it's less than two hours away. Our weekend dogwalker is staying at our house with the pups.

Sorry CIC, no war resister news to read for a few days. Hope you won't be lonely.

san francisco says let them stay

Oops, this has been sitting in drafts...

On the day of Kimberly Rivera's recent federal court hearing, San Francisco-area activists delivered a petition signed by 6,000 Americans to the Canadian Consulate, calling on the Harper Government to respect the will of Parliament and allow US war resisters to stay in Canada.

Watch the video here.

Photos and information about the San Francisco action is here on Indy Media.

video: jason kenney defends gwb on eve of u.s. invasion of iraq

It's amazing the things you find on YouTube. I have no idea who made this video, but I sure do like it.

Seeing Canada's "Minister of Censorship and Deportation" go after Jean Chrétien is especially interesting on the day the former Prime Minister received such a lofty and rarely bestowed honour from the Queen.

You know, the Jean Chrétien who kept Canada out of the Iraq War? The war that Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney both supported?

Please watch, then let Jason Kenney know you support Iraq War resisters. Let Them Stay!

haliburton forest wolves, photo version

A selection of photos from our trip to the Haliburton Forest Wolf Centre are up.

The post is here, with a few pictures.

Flickr page here.

"the best and the brightest blow it again": july harper's

It might be too late, but if you can get your hands on the July issue of Harper's, I highly recommend reading Kevin Baker's story comparing Obama's presidency to that of Herbert Hoover.

It's not what you might think. Baker - a historian, a terrific writer, and an email friend of mine - paints a portrait of a US president that few of us know: a brilliant, committed, engaged, compassionate activist.

He first came to national attention after the start of World War I, when he led the effort to feed the 7 million people of occupied Belgium and France. He worked for free, donated part of his own fortune to the cause, and risked his life repeatedly crossing the U-boat–infested waters of the North Atlantic. His postwar relief efforts rescued millions more throughout Europe and especially in the Soviet Union; it's unlikely that any other individual in human history saved so many people from death by starvation and want. Questioned about feeding populations under Bolshevik control, he banged a table and insisted, "Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!" In 1920, many people in both major parties wanted to run him for president, but he opted for the Republican cabinet. As secretary of commerce under Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, he was a dynamic figure, tirelessly promoting new technologies, work-safety rules, and voluntary industry standards; he supervised relief to Mississippi and Louisiana during the terrible 1927 floods and advocated cooperation between labor and management.

"We had summoned a great engineer to solve our problems for us; now we sat back comfortably and confidently to watch the problems being solved," the journalist Anne O'Hare McCormick wrote of Hoover's inauguration in March 1929, in words that might easily have been used in January 2009. "Almost with the air of giving genius its chance, we waited for the performance to begin."

But Hoover failed to seize the moment and make the necessary radical changes that the circumstances required - exactly what Obama is doing (or not doing) now. The parallels between Hoover and Obama, both in personal profile and career, are compelling and very enlightening.

The online version of this feature is subscription only, but someone who subscribes might lend you their login hint hint, or you can pick up a hard copy at a bookstore. You could worse things with $6 than invest in a Harper's.

Here's a preview.

Barack Hoover Obama: The best and the brightest blow it again
By Kevin Baker

Three months into his presidency, Barack Obama has proven to be every bit as charismatic and intelligent as his most ardent supporters could have hoped. At home or abroad, he invariably appears to be the only adult in the room, the first American president in at least forty years to convey any gravitas. Even the most liberal of voters are finding it hard to believe they managed to elect this man to be their president.

It is impossible not to wish desperately for his success as he tries to grapple with all that confronts him: a worldwide depression, catastrophic climate change, an unjust and inadequate health-care system, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ongoing disgrace of Guantnamo, a floundering education system.

Obama's failure would be unthinkable. And yet the best indications now are that he will fail, because he will be unable — indeed he will refuse — to seize the radical moment at hand.

Every instinct the president has honed, every voice he hears in Washington, every inclination of our political culture urges incrementalism, urges deliberation, if any significant change is to be brought about. The trouble is that we are at one of those rare moments in history when the radical becomes pragmatic, when deliberation and compromise foster disaster. The question is not what can be done but what must be done.

We have confronted such emergencies only a few times before in the history of the Republic: during the secession crisis of 1860–61, at the start of World War II, at the outset of the Cold War and the nuclear age. Probably the moment most comparable to the present was the start of the Great Depression, and for the scope and the quantity of the problems he is facing, Obama has frequently been compared with Franklin Roosevelt. So far, though, he most resembles the other president who had to confront that crisis, Herbert Hoover.

The comparison is not meant to be flippant. It has nothing to do with the received image of Hoover, the dour, round-collared, gerbil-cheeked technocrat who looked on with indifference while the country went to pieces. To understand how dire our situation is now it is necessary to remember that when he was elected president in 1928, Herbert Hoover was widely considered the most capable public figure in the country. Hoover — like Obama — was almost certainly someone gifted with more intelligence, a better education, and a greater range of life experience than FDR. And Hoover, through the first three years of the Depression, was also the man who comprehended better than anyone else what was happening and what needed to be done. And yet he failed.

The story of the real Herbert Hoover reads like something out of an Indiana Jones script, with touches of Dickens and the memoirs of Albert Schweitzer.

. . . .

More frustrating has been the torpor among Obama's fellow Democrats. One might have assumed that the adrenaline rush of regaining power after decades of conservative hegemony, not to mention relief at surviving the depredations of the Bush years, or losing the vestigial tail of the white Southern branch of the party, would have liberated congressional Democrats to loose a burst of pent-up, imaginative liberal initiatives.

Instead, we have seen a parade of aged satraps from vast, windy places stepping forward to tell us what is off the table. Every week, there is another Max Baucus of Montana, another Kent Conrad of North Dakota, another Ben Nelson of Nebraska, huffing and puffing and harrumphing that we had better forget about single-payer health care, a carbon tax, nationalizing the banks, funding for mass transit, closing tax loopholes for the rich. These are men with tiny constituencies who sat for decades in the Senate without doing or saying anything of note, who acquiesced shamelessly to the worst abuses of the Bush Administration and who come forward now to chide the president for not concentrating enough on reducing the budget deficit, or for "trying to do too much," as if he were as old and as indolent as they are.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — yet another small gray man from a great big space where the tumbleweeds blow — seems unwilling to make even a symbolic effort at party discipline. Within days of President Obama's announcing his legislative agenda, the perpetually callow Indiana Senator Evan Bayh came forward to announce the formation of a breakaway caucus of fifteen "moderate" Democrats from the Midwest who sought to help the country make "the changes we need" but "make sure that they're done in a practical way that will actually work" — a statement that was almost Zen-like in its perfect vacuousness. Even most of the Senate's more enlightened notables, such as Russ Feingold of Wisconsin or Claire McCaskill of Missouri or Sherrod Brown of Ohio, have had little to contribute beyond some hand-wringing whenever the idea of a carbon tax or any other restrictions on burning coal are proposed.

. . . .

Franklin Roosevelt also took office imagining that he could bring all classes of Americans together in some big, mushy, cooperative scheme. Quickly disabused of this notion, he threw himself into the bumptious give-and-take of practical politics; lying, deceiving, manipulating, arraying one group after another on his side — a transit encapsulated by how, at the end of his first term, his outraged opponents were calling him a "traitor to his class" and he was gleefully inveighing against "economic royalists" and announcing, "They are unanimous in their hatred for me — and I welcome their hatred."

Obama should not deceive himself into thinking that such interest-group politics can be banished any more than can the cycles of Wall Street. It is not too late for him to change direction and seize the radical moment at hand. But for the moment, just like another very good man, Barack Obama is moving prudently, carefully, reasonably toward disaster.

support antonia zerbisias

Antonia Zerbisias is one of the few good reasons to read the Toronto Star. She's a steadfast supporter of equality, justice and peace, she's a thoroughly independent thinker, and she's a damn good read. I'm not alone in thinking her recent Canada Day piece - "Four things we should be proud of" - was the highlight of that day.

Right now Zerbisias is under attack by her employer, because she had the nerve to speak her mind about Bernie Farber and the Canadian Jewish Congress.

skdadl has the whole story, and Andrew Brett at Rabble has a good summary.

As Brett says: "How disappointing to see the Star scapegoat one of its own columnists in order to appease a political lobby organization."

To support Zerbisias, email Kathy English, the Star's public editor at publiced@thestar.ca.

jimmy carter: religion no excuse for inequality

Former US President Jimmy Carter has an excellent piece in today's Guardian, decrying the use of religion as a smokescreen for inequality.

Carter broke with his church over its adherence to a view of women as subservient, and its prohibition against female clergy. He calls on religious leaders everywhere to stop hiding behind sexist interpretations of ancient texts, and recognize the essential equality of all human beings.

This is about as strong a condemnation of the evils of sexism and patriarchy as you'll find in the mainstream. I applaud Carter - a devout Christian - for writing it.

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status ..." (Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

I have been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world.

So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.

At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

. . . .

The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.

Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

Read it here.

freepers caught in the act of being themselves

Speaking of trolls, here's what happens when they own the joint:

Conservative Free Republic blog in free speech flap after racial slurs directed at Obama children

If I were conservative, I'd insist on calling these people something else.

Thanks to Zerbisias.

magnolia and me

They're the bane of the internet, more annoying than a slow connection or an inbox full of spam. Their presence is almost inevitable, and like some energy-based creature from the original Star Trek series, your attention only makes them stronger.

They're trolls, and if you've established an online presence, chances are you've tangled with your share.

When I first started blogging (in July 2004), some American hard-right-wingers found "we move to canada". I never sought them out, but my desire to leave The Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth™ provoked them to angry tirades.

I was called a coward, a "disgusting and vile traitor", a "fascist pig," a "Marxist minion". I was told I'd die in Canada while waiting for health care - or freeze to death, since it snows here 12 months a year. After the Canada-bashing and the U-S-A chest-thumping came the inevitable "good riddance, who needs you". But if I am so unimportant, why were they frothing at the mouth?

In those early days of blogging, I was still developing my own comment policy; when I deleted their spew, I was, of course, accused of censorship. This turned out to be useful, as it led me to articulate to myself why I wouldn't tolerate hateful comments on my blog. Trolls poison the atmosphere, derail constructive conversation, contribute nothing, and ruin everyone's fun. Free speech is a red herring. I defend your right to express yourself, but I'm not obligated to rent you a billboard on my front lawn.

Eventually the Fox-News–style trolls faded away, and a different breed took their place: disgruntled Canadians. This type of troll was best exemplified by someone calling himself GaryStJ. GaryStJ hates Canada, and my admiration for my new country got under his skin.

GaryStJ drove wmtc readers around the twist with circular illogic, trying to prove that Canada and the US are exactly the same. Since same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, doesn't that mean same-sex marriage is legal in the US? Since Canada is at war in Afghanistan, isn't Canada an imperialist superpower, too?

Eventually, out-witted and out-argued, GaryStJ resorted to name-calling of the lowest kind – the kind only delivered behind the shield of anonymity. By that time, we had recognized GaryStJ for what he was: a troll with a big vocabulary.

Banned from my blog, GaryStJ didn't give up. He started appearing at other blogs on which I commented, airing his imaginary gripes about me. He embarrassed himself a few times, then disappeared from my radar screen.

Which is more than I can say for "magnolia_2000". This Canadian man (of that I'm certain) began by posting under half a dozen different names (at the time I didn't know they were all the same person). Finally, he settled on the persona of an admiring female reader. He posted under that disguise for months before flaming out in a barrage of bigotry. He then revealed himself as the keyboard behind all those earlier personas, but retained the female pseudonym. For me it was a relief to learn that wmtc hadn't been attacked by eight different trolls.

Ever since Magnolia announced his multiple personality disorder, it's been nothing but racist, sexist, homophobic filth, plus childish personal attacks, on my blog as well as Allan's. I long ago started using comment moderation, so his comments never appear. Despite that, he has kept up his attacks, off and on, for almost three years.

Think about that. Since Mags revealed himself as a disrupter, I've never posted his comments and never communicated with him in any way. And he's continued his monologue for nearly three years. The expression "get a life" doesn't even make a dent.

* * * *

When I first turned on moderation, Magnolia bragged that he had gained control of my blog. Of course, the opposite was true: I had increased my own control. But was his reaction a clue to his motivation? Is he trying to control me, like a bully, or an assailant?

After that, the frustrated troll tried to bargain with me. "I'm calling a ceasefire. If you remove comment moderation, I promise to leave you alone." This went on for weeks, his posts alternating between threatening – "If you don't take off moderation within 24 hours, I'll make you sorry you ever began this boring stupid blog!" – and plaintive: "Come on, L, I promise I'll stop, you can take it off now...".

Not content to have his erstwhile comments trashed on wmtc, every so often Mags posts about me on other people's blogs, to the bafflement of all concerned. He visits the blogs of select wmtc readers, telling the bloggers I've insulted them and suggesting they reconsider their friendship with me. Then he comes back to my blog to tell me he's done it.

Mags also has gone through phases of posting under a name that appears similar to mine, telling online friends that our friendship is over. Once I received a flurry of emails – some from people who were fooled, others to alert me to his presence. Allan checked the dates and times of all the comments: Mags had invented eight different names, and posted at nearly two dozen blogs – for eight hours.

Mags' knowledge of me betrays a close, if twisted, reading of my life, from both wmtc and Allan's Joy of Sox. Our Joy of Sox "gamethreads" routinely run to 500 comments or more. Is Mags lurking the entire time, following a rambling conversation during a game he isn't watching? Or does he scroll through the thread later, hoping to glean some nugget of information that he can later try to use against me?

For all his persistence, Mags has never crossed the line from troll to cyberstalker. He's emailed me only once: when, based on some unrelated postings, he feared someone else's harassment might be attributed to him, and he could be facing real – that is, real life – trouble. He was reduced to pleading and whimpering – but he never again contacted me again outside of his rejected comments.

Every so often, Mags swears off me and disappears for a while. But like something you can't completely scrape off your shoe, the stench returns.

* * * *

That this man has too much time on his hands is obvious. But it's more than that. It's pathological.

What drives him?

I've often tried to imagine the mentality that might be at work. Who is this person when he's not online? What drives his obsession? Why does he need to insult me?

I suspect a longing for a secret identity must come into play. Mags can never reveal his hidden hobby to a friend or co-worker; he would instantly expose himself as unbalanced, even dangerous. He can only enjoy this game in secret. Does he fancy himself an online Bruce Wayne?

Since Mags is clearly addicted to trolling, perhaps his anonymous insults serve one of the same functions as all addictions: an anesthetic. In a dull, gray, lonely life, perhaps even a painful one, Mags soothes himself by lashing out at a stranger, choosing a method that protects him from return volleys.

Is his professed loathing of me a disguised form of jealousy? While he constantly tells me how boring and meaningless my life is, I continue to live my interesting and meaningful life, while he spends his evenings writing hate mail under an assumed name.

Is there some profound self-loathing, some essential lack of confidence, that prevents the troll from engaging in normal discourse?

Will this post embarrass him? In the comments I'll reject, he'll be gleeful, declaring victory because his antics inspired this post. But privately, will he squirm to have his sickness laid bare? For that, he would need some awareness that he has a problem, and we don't know if he's reached that stage.

We'll never really know. But I do know this: as soon as I hit "publish post," comment moderation will be very busy.

next stop, barclays

Oh dear. It's finally happened. This was inevitable, but I still find it so sad.

Selling the name of a subway station has been a goal of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for nearly five years. But interest has been low, even for a piece of real estate so recognizable to the public.

So it was with surprisingly little fanfare that the authority announced on Monday that it had finally found a buyer.

If a $4 million deal is approved on Wednesday, the nexus of subway stops at Atlantic Avenue, Pacific Street and Flatbush Avenue in Downtown Brooklyn will add an additional name to its already lengthy title: Barclays.

This may seem odd, since Barclays is a bank based in London with offices in Manhattan, and the only Barclay Street on the city map is not even in Brooklyn. (It's in Manhattan, in the financial district.)

There will, however, soon be a Barclays Center, the sports arena planned as the focal point of the Atlantic Yards project, and the developer, Forest City Ratner, has agreed to pay the transportation authority $200,000 a year for the next 20 years to rename one of the oldest and busiest stations in the borough.

This raises a few questions. An academic might talk of the intersection between public and private space. A straphanger may ask how all those names can fit into one announcement.

And if a company can pay to get its name on any station, a New Yorker might wonder what's next: Coca-Cola Presents 59th Street-Columbus Circle?

The answer is maybe.

. . . .

A few New York businesses contacted on Tuesday said they were not interested in a piece of the underground. Zabar's, the Upper West Side food emporium, said it was not interested in the 79th Street station. Macy's said a sponsorship deal at 34th Street was not in the cards.

And straphangers at the Atlantic Avenue station like Nick Desio, 53, a Citigroup employee who commutes from Long Island, said names were beside the point.

"They can call it anything they want, as long as my train's on time," he said.

internal documents show harper govt obsessed with war resisters

Those of us who actively oppose the policies of Stephen Harper's Conservative Government may sometimes feel government officials are impervious to our criticisms. Those of us who write and call and protest and organize and blog may wonder if the Conservatives are paying even the slightest bit of attention to our efforts.

Today I can definitively say: we are noticed every day, and I have proof.

Good morning, CIC! You might want to get a fresh cup of coffee. You may be here a while.

I now know that there's someone at the CIC whose job it is to read "we move to canada". (And he or she is spelling-challenged.) The Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration is watching the War Resister Support Campaign - and this blog - very closely.

* * * *

I recently wrote about how the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration under Minister Jason Kenney has tried to re-write Canadian history. By removing historical information from the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website, Kenney & Co. have tried to erase a piece of history that many Canadians are justly proud of, but which does not square with their party line. For more background on this, see this post.

When the War Resister Support Campaign became aware of this, volunteer Communications Coordinator Ken Marciniec filed an Access to Information request, asking for all documents relating to the website change, war resisters, "deserters of the armed forces of the United States of America", and so forth.

The Ministry waited the full 30 days afforded to them under the Access to Information Act. Then it filed for a 90-day extension. In response to the delays, Ken filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner. I'll write more about the travails of ferreting out this information in a separate post. It's quite a tale.

Finally, CIC released a small portion of the documents that pertain to Ken's request.

The pages he received are numbered up to 1,635. There's no way to know if this constitutes all the documents that are responsive to the request; there very well may be more.

Of the 1,635 pages, 1,338 (81.83%) are missing.

297 pages (18.17%) are included.

And those 297 pages are heavily redacted, some almost entirely blank.

Ken is following up with the Information Commissioner to discover if the unreleased information was properly withheld under privacy laws, solicitor-client privilege, or other legal exclusions from the Information Act. Meanwhile, campaigners and resisters have signed letters authorizing release of any information that pertains to them, so soon privacy will not be an issue. Again, I'll cover this in a separate post at a later date.

So, in keeping with the Harper Government's preference for secrecy and obfuscation over transparency and accountability - hmm, transparency and accountability - where have I heard those words before...? oh right, in Harper's first election campaign - we haven't obtained a lot of hard information.

But we've learned something very interesting: the Ministry is more aware of our actions than we ever knew.

The series of emails released to us follow - step by step, date by date - the entire War Resisters Support Campaign. You can go back through the Campaign calendar, and match up each relevant date - each court hearing, each removal order, each letter-writing campaign - with a flurry of relevant emails among CIC staff.

I have pdf copies of the documents we received, now public. Some are CIC talking points on the war resister files. Some are links to news stories about war resisters. Others are communications about the War Resister Support Campaign, and about this blog.

Here's the relevant text of one email [spelling and grammar unchanged]:

...next week we will probably be receiving a larger share of communications to the department regarding war resistors, as next week has been informally designated 'let them stay week' by the War Resistors Support Campaign.

http://wmtc.blogspot.com/2009/01/january-19-24-let-them-stay-week.html

Nothing has changed as far as positions, etc. but if you feel the need to pass along the heads up to your staff, that would be fine.

A reply to the above:

In light of next week's campaign, I want to circulate these lines as I've removed a ton of old stuff and made a few minor tweaks. Can you please review before I send to directors for approval?

After Jason Kenney prejudiced the entire refugee process by publicly announcing the war resisters were "bogus refugees," the Canadian Council for Refugees released a statement supporting the war resisters. Immediately after that date, this appears in the CIC emails:

As you may know, CCR issued a letter yesterday and sent it to the media today regarding comments Min. Kenney had made regarding war deserters - copy attached. Refugees Branch has drafted a response. Our hope is to send this response to the CCR as well as issue it to the media, so we're trying to quickly consult with several sectors to see if our text raises any concerns.

Please review and provide comments asap today. Apologies for the very short notice and thanks in advance for your help.

The most telling emails show how closely CIC is following this blog.

Earlier this year, the Ministry was coming down hard on one war resister family, trying to prevent them from exercising their right to due process. On March 6, 2009, at 12:20 p.m., I posted a summary of the case.

Twenty-five minutes later - March 6, 2009, 12:45 p.m. - this email was sent within the CIC.

The principle blogger on the war deserts has a fairly technical post about the process for [redacted]. Could I get a fact check of the post in case we need to do some rapid response to this.

The next day, after conferring with the family's lawyer, I revised the post, with the legal details deleted.

On March 9, 2009, select CIC staff received this email.

To follow up: the blog posting was updated by the writer to removing the summary and stating that it was completely inaccurate, so no need for a fact-check on that content now.

I just learned from CBSA that [redacted] CBSA notes that if a further request for deferral is received, which is likely, that deferral will be reviewed by a different officer than the original request by order of the Federal Court.

"The principle blogger on the war deserts"? That's me!

[Note to CIC: the word for primary or main is spelled principal. While I am a principled blogger, I cannot be a "principle blogger". The people I support are "war deserters" not "war deserts". "Resistors" are electronic equipment; people who resist are "resisters".]

Interestingly, the CIC staffer whose job it is to read wmtc is not identified. All other CIC staff in the emails we have obtained are identified in the email headers or by their signatures: name, title, email address, phone number, fax number. It appears that the only person whose identification is withheld is the CIC staffer who reads and reports on wmtc. But we do know this person is in fact a CIC employee who works in Ottawa; that much information from the email signature was left intact.

Who is this mystery reader? Why is her or his name being kept secret?

Names can be withheld for privacy reasons or solicitor-client privilege. But this is a government employee, doing an assigned job. Why can't we know who it is?

More on this as it develops.

[Update. Ken thought wmtc readers might like to see what one of these redacted documents looks like. I've uploaded a pdf page here.]

saskatchewan officials, do your job or give it up

When you're too far right for the Globe and Mail, you know you're well outside the Canadian mainstream. The bigots in Saskatchewan who want to give government officials the right to not marry same-sex couples are more like something from 1955 Alabama than 21st Century Canada.

Saskatchewan wishes to give its marriage commissioners the legal right to refuse to marry gay couples. Imagine a U.S. state, after the last anti-miscegenation laws fell in 1967, granting government officials the right to reject interracial couples. Wouldn't that have continued the discrimination? Or how about giving a bus driver the right to stop driving when a black man or woman sits at the front of the bus. A right accepted so grudgingly - a right from which public officials may opt out - is not truly a right.

The governing Saskatchewan Party seems to know it's on weak ground. Rather than simply passing a law giving marriage commissioners the right to refuse to marry gays, it developed two versions (refusal rights for marriage commissioners employed as of 2004, when same-sex marriage became legal, and refusal rights for all marriage commissioners) and referred them to the province's Court of Appeal for an advisory opinion. Both versions fly in the face of Charter equality-rights protections, but if the government disagrees, it should have the courage of its convictions, rather than inviting unelected judges to write the laws for it.

Even the provincial Department of Justice's own lawyers did not wish to argue for the government's position in court, after they took the contrary position for a previous government, according to Don Morgan, the Minister of Justice. That should have been enough to raise red flags. Of course, Mr. Morgan could have simply fired all the government lawyers. Instead, he sweetly said that "they feel that to argue a different point now ... would be problematic for them." He then went out and retained a lawyer in private practice to handle the case. Mr. Morgan is certainly consistent in backing the right to opt out. (Can people in Saskatchewan opt out of paying taxes?)

This is not, really, about a clash between the religious freedom of marriage commissioners and the rights of gays. Public officials have no right to decline to do their core duties because of religious belief. A public school teacher cannot refuse to teach sex education because of religious objections. A library worker cannot refuse to sign out books that violate her belief system. That is not what is meant by an "accommodation." To destroy the spirit of equality and impartiality in which public services are delivered would be an unreasonable accommodation indeed.

If you work for the government, you have to uphold the laws of the land and citizens' Charter rights. That's really all there is to it. If your antediluvian beliefs preclude you from doing that, you have only one option: quit.

info on emigrating from u.s. to new zealand

This has been sitting in my inbox forever, waiting for a time when I have nothing to blog... only that time never comes. I always have more topics to write about than I can possibly put up.

But several months ago, I told the person who emailed me that I would post this info, so at long last, here it is.

Many USians who emigrate to Canada also consider New Zealand. I've heard it's a great place to live, and we even have friends there, thanks to the internet. But for me, moving to other side of the planet was not an option. I felt it would have been a severing of all ties with friends and family, and that was not my intent.

So I never researched the New Zealand emigration process. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information in this post, only that it's taken directly from an email from a USian who plans to move there.

Some of the process is the same as emigrating to Canada - the point system, the background checks and such. The lottery is different, as is the phone interview. It also sounds like the process is much shorter. I assume that's because fewer people are in the system.

Here is a brief run-down of the immigration process as we experienced it. There are several schemes that NZ offers to gain permanent residency. We applied via the skilled migrant category.

Basically how the process starts with this category is with a points system. You are eligible for points for a number of things such as: age, educational qualifications, work experience outside NZ, work experience in NZ, job offer in NZ, qualifications or work experience in a area that NZ currently has a shortage of.

We got our points for our age (the younger you are the more points), educational qualification, work experience outside NZ, and my qualification (Bachelor degree) was in an area that they are currently short of.

The first step of the process is to submit and Expression of Interest (EOI). This is basically the initial application one which you claim how many points you will get. Then every 2 weeks there is a draw from the pool of applicants. Everyone above a certain point value is selected, but the selection threshold shifts to meet NZ immigration quotas.

After you are selected from the pool of applicants you then have to basically prove that you are entitled to the points you claimed. I had to send in proof of my work
experience and qualifications, along with proof that I was married, FBI criminal background checks, and a medical exam.

You mail all of this off to the immigration service and then they review everything and do some checks on what you are claiming in your application. After this you have to do a phone interview with the case officer basically deciding your fate. This is the last step. They ask you a bunch of questions to gauge your ability to successfully migrate and if you know what you are getting into and have researched in full.

The case officer then makes a final decision and then you get your permanent residency.

This whole process took us about 8 months from the time we submitted our EOI until we obtained our residency. The only real stipulation attached to it is that our residency has to be "activated" within one year of being granted. This means we have to enter NZ within a year from when we got it.

So our status right now is that we are permanent residents, and as long as we enter before that one year is up, will be forever.

If you want to talk to someone who went through this process, I can put you in touch. People find posts years later, so you never know.

report on kim rivera federal court hearing, part two

[Part one here.]

The Crown's rebuttal was short and nonsensical.

The lawyer argued that there is no evidence that war resisters were punished for their beliefs or for being outspoken, citing the negative decision in Dale Landry's case that "a handful of affidavits" does not statistical analysis make. Supposedly there are no hard numbers to prove outspoken resisters are being punished more harshly than ordinary AWOL soldiers.

In the usual dismissive, sarcastic tone that Ministry representatives take in war resister cases, Mr Gold said that naturally those people who were sentenced feel they were punished too harshly, and statements from their spouses or "professional advocates" is not real evidence.

Mr Gold also introduced new evidence from out of nowhere, handing copies of a statement to Alyssa and the clerk. This is not done: lawyers do not see evidence for the first time when they are in a courtroom. Justice Russell asked Alyssa if she was ok with this; she had to shake her head, mystified, and say, "I don't know," since she didn't know what it said.

To Alyssa's point that the PRA officer did not demonstrate that he considered the new evidence, the Crown said, in essence, "Yes he did," without offering any proof.

The Crown claimed Kim's decision to not file a conscientious objector application because she knew it would be no help was "speculative" in nature.

I'm saving the best for last. In response to Alyssa's assertion that the PRA officer did not consider what happened to AWOL soldiers who were sent back from Canada, Mr Gold said she did: right here, where she referenced the case of Mr James Corey Glass.

Corey Glass lives in Sault Ste Marie.

He was never sent back from Canada.

NCF, Allan and I were all staring at each other with our mouths hanging open, whispering, "Corey?? Corey??"

In his general closing remarks, the Crown lawyer claimed that since Kim was denied leave to appeal the negative decision in her Humanitarian & Compassionate Application, this appeal of the PRA should be automatically denied; that the court should not "hypercritically and microscopically dissect" decisions; and that Kim Rivera has already had "more than one turn at bat" (ack, baseball metaphor!) to stay in Canada.

In other words, just take our word for it, the PRA officer did her job properly, you've had your chance, now go away.

* * * *

Alyssa's rebuttal was beautiful. She's a great lawyer and a terrific speaker, but she's at her absolute best in rebuttal. Her attitude is the perfect balance of strength and respect, with just a whisper of sarcasm and disgust.

Alyssa demolished the notion that the court not granting leave to appeal an H&C has any relevance in the appeal of the PRA. Since no reasons were given for the denial of leave to appeal, it was not a comment on the merits of the case. Period.

Indeed, Alyssa showed, Kim Rivera has not had more than one turn at bat, because the issues in her case have not been properly assessed even once.

To the nonsense about Corey, Alyssa responded as if she were brushing off a fly that had landed on her robe. She remarked briefly that using the case of James Corey Glass as proof that the PRA officer examined the circumstances of other AWOL soldiers who were sent back from Canada would seem impossible, since Corey Glass lives in Canada.

Alyssa easily and definitively struck down the idea that evidence of differential treatment is supported only by the opinions of supporters. She showed how the important points being raised are not personal opinions, but facts. Evidence of the resisters' outspokenness was used against them at court martial and their opposition to the war was an aggravating factor in their sentencing. That's why Amnesty International is prepared to consider some of the war resisters prisoners of conscience if they are court martialed and imprisoned.

Alyssa refuted each and every point in a clear and thorough fashion. In her conclusion, she reiterated that the PRA officer "borrowed her analysis from a colleague" without making reference to new evidence, and suggested that if officers are permitted to borrow language from other cases in this way, perhaps "the integrity of the entire decision-making system" is compromised.

* * * *

One more note. After Alyssa's rebuttal, the Crown insisted that the PRA officer citing Corey Glass was relevant, because even though Corey wasn't sent back from Canada, there's evidence about what punishment he received.

What punishment this is or from whom Corey received it is anybody's guess. Corey lives and works in Sault Ste Marie with his wife and Canadian-born child.

report on kim rivera federal court hearing, part one

For those of you who would like a view into the federal court hearing I attended yesterday, here are some details.

Alyssa Manning argued the case before Justice James Russell; Stephen Gold was the attorney for the crown. This was the exact configuration in Jeremy Hinzman's most recent federal court appeal - which is why I find it difficult to be optimistic.

The day of the Hinzmans' hearing, I left court feeling so hopeful. All the facts and proof were on our side. Alyssa performed brilliantly, and the Crown had nothing. In addition, we thought Justice Russell was sympathetic to the war resisters' cases, as he had granted temporary stays and leaves to appeal.

Yet the Hinzman appeal was denied.

To many of us, this speaks to a basic injustice and a bias against the war resisters percolating through the whole system. What can we expect when the Minister himself publicly calls the war resisters "bogus refugees"?

* * * *

Yesterday's hearing was an appeal of the negative decision in Kim Rivera's Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRA).

The hearing began a little oddly. The Crown was trying to exclude some evidence Alyssa had put forward (I don't know what it was). Justice Russell denied the request, saying that Justice Zinn's decision granting leave to appeal was not restricted in any way. The Crown withdrew its objection but called the evidence "quite unprecedented".

Justice Russell then told Alyssa he had "already seen a great deal of this file", and that she didn't need to needlessly repeat herself. He emphasized that she was free to say whatever she wanted and use her time however she thought best, but that she didn't need to re-argue the entire case. He specifically asked for clarification on what he called her "linchpin argument".

Alyssa is arguing that the officer who assessed Kim's PRA did not properly analyze the risk to Kim and her family, because he looked at the wrong part of the process and skipped over the most important part. Not properly analyzing the risk "is fatal" (in legal parlance) to everything that follows - the key issues of state protection and differential punishment. Meaning, if you don't properly analyze the risk, you can't properly analyze the protection offered from that risk.

Justice Russell said he was having trouble seeing the PRA officer's "non-responsiveness" to the risk, and requested Alyssa direct him to it.

Alyssa's central point was that the differential treatment received by war resisters who speak out against the war in Iraq is not adquately measured in the length of the jail sentences some war resisters have received. The differential treatment is seen much earlier, in who is selected for court martial. Most soldiers who go AWOL from the US military are given administrative discharges. Only a handful are chosen for court martial. The deserters selected for court martial are the ones who have been outspoken in their opposition to the US war in Iraq.

This means that a "law of general application," as they say, is being used in a persecutorial manner. It means the war resisters are being punished for their political and/or religious beliefs.

Alyssa showed Justice Russell how the PRA officer failed to address this issue of differential treatment at the selection for court martial stage. Among other evidence, she showed how, in the court martials of war resisters Robin Long and James Burmeister, their speaking out publicly against the war was used as an "aggravating factor" - not only in their sentencing, but in the military choosing to prosecute them in the first place.

The entire risk analysis was conducted on what happens after court martial and conviction - not why the solder is selected for court martial in the first place, which is entirely based upon the soldier's political opinions and beliefs.

There was a lengthy exchange between the judge and the lawyer, and the judge had some trouble understanding Alyssa's point. We observers were bursting! We were all dying to yell out the answer. Alyssa rephrased and repeated herself over and over, and finally Justice Russell understood: an administrative discharge means a soldier is not being court martialed. Ah-ha! We all smiled and breathed a sigh of relief as Alyssa could move on.

* * * *

Remember, a Refugee officer cannot simply render a negative decision. He or she must state the reasons for the decision, referencing and refuting the claimant's evidence. So a large portion of Alyssa's case is demonstrating how the PRA officer erred in not examining the evidence or holding the evidence to the proper tests.

For example, the PRA officer didn't look at evidence of what has happened to other former soldiers sent back from Canada - the "similarly situated persons" which are so important to refugee claims.

Alyssa said that considering this was the main point of Kim's argument, it was a "glaring omission" on the part of the PRA officer.

My notes on this are copious. If I wrote them out here, it would be numbingly repetitively to read. But in court, demonstrating the same idea multiple times with all different evidence and examples is making your case as thoroughly, methodically and rigorously as possible. I imagine Alyssa beginning with a cube full of interlocking parts, like an architecture building set. From the cube, she unpacks each piece, attaching it to the previous piece, fitting them together with slots and pegs, building higher and wider and stronger, until there's an elegant structure in front of us - vast and solid and indisputable. It's wonderful to observe.

* * * *

Alyssa demonstrated how the PRA officer didn't address new evidence of deserters being persecuted through selective prosecution, evidence from the cases of resisters who came to Canada and who were outspoken (Robin Long, James Burmeister, Ivan Brobeck), other resisters who were outspoken and then cherry-picked for prosecution (Stephen Funk, Camilo Mejia, Augustin Aguayo, Kevin Benderman), and in fact ignored much of the evidence that is central to Kim's case. Alyssa argued that a blanket statement - something like, "we find there will be adequate state protection" - is not adequate when there exists so much contradictory evidence.

The PRA officer also misconstrued and misinterpreted one of the laws pertaining to court martial. You may recall from an earlier case that the Crown characterized Article 15 of the UCMJ as a "dispute resolution mechanism," which brought gales of guffaws and "WTF?"s from wmtc readers who have military experience. Article 15 is non-judicial punishment; it means (roughly speaking) you will receive a sentence without a court martial.

Similarly, the PRA officer in Kim's case said Kim would be afforded an Article 38 investigation. First of all, Alyssa said, it's not Article 38 - they must mean Article 32. Secondly, the PRA officer completely misconstrued Article 32. It is a preliminary hearing to decide which type of court martial will be used, depending on the evidence. In terms of who is selected for prosecution and punishment, it's completely irrelevant.

One eye-opening moment came when Alyssa showed that some of the wording in Kim's PRA decision was identical - word-for-word! - to some paragraphs in Dean Walcott's and Jeremy Hinzman's decisions. So the Refugee Board is using cut-and-paste templates for decisions that profoundly and permanently effect the course of a family's life?

Alyssa invited Justice Russell to review the wording in several paragraphs - and not just incidental paragraphs, but wording relating to crucial aspects of the case.

So, Alyssa proved, not only did the PRA officer misconstrue the meaning of the process Kim would be subjected to, not only did he fail to analyze the risk at the proper step, not only did he not adequately provide his reasons for the negative decision, and not only did he fail to address new evidence in the claim, his reasons were provided by way of boilerplate language that demonstrates his inattention to the details of this case.

Finally, Alyssa addressed the PRA officer's finding that Kim Rivera did not file a conscientious objector application. She produced a letter from Amnesty International showing that CO applications have had absolutely no bearing on similar cases. War resisters who filed CO applications were re-deployed to Iraq while their applications were pending. (This is one of many reasons conscientious objector applications are a farce.)

* * * *

Next, the Crown's response and Alyssa's rebuttal.

cupe workers on strike for us all (wmtc in the mark)

This has been running for a few days, but I forgot to share. My essay on supporting the striking CUPE workers, from The Mark:

On Strike for Us All, taken from this (longer, more activist) post.

You can also see it, for now, on The Mark's front page.

robin long released from prison today!

Today, at long last, war resister Robin Long becomes a free man. Or perhaps I should say, Robin will be released from military prison. Because in a very real sense, Robin has been a free man all along, because he followed his conscience.

During the year he has been in prison (he is being released slightly early for "good behaviour"), Robin has received a lot of support from peace activists in San Diego, and from Veterans for Peace and Vietnam Veterans against the War. It's remarkable and so wonderful how the peace community embraced Robin, making sure he had visitors and morale support, and providing financial support both to Robin and his former partner (Robin's child's mother).

Nevertheless, Robin leaves prison with a long road ahead of him, and with few resources. In other words, he's flat broke.

Robin has been punished harshly for his opposition to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. His principles have been tested in a way few of us will ever experience. It's my privilege as a peace activist to help him.

If you would like to make a contribution to Robin Long, to help him get started in the next phase of his life, you can send a cheque to:

VVAW
PO Box 2065, Station A,
Champaign, IL 61825-2065
Write "War Resister Fund / Robin Long" in the memo line.

If you do send a cheque (or check if you're USian), please email vvawinc@vvaw.org and let them know money is on the way. If you'd like to contribute but can't do it yet, email to say you are pledging a donation and will send it at whatever time.