Archive for the ‘Human Rights’ Category

Is there such a thing as "Israeli apartheid?"

Posted: January 6, 2011 in Human Rights
Tags:
4

Is there such a thing as “Israeli apartheid” or is that term symptomatic of the “new anti-Semitism” that, according to Israel’s staunchest apologists, is stalking the world? While students in many Canadian universities are now preparing to hold another round of Israel Apartheid Weeks, the question is more than academic.

Recently, the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties (MARL) published a piece by David Matas that condemned the concept of Israel Apartheid Week and argued for its prohibition from Canadian universities. I was offended that a human rights association would be party to an attack on free speech, and less than impressed with Matas’s arguments.

I’m therefore pleased to offer a rebuttal by Howard Davidson. Howard is Associate Professor, Extended Education, at the University of Manitoba and a member of Independent Jewish Voices (Canada). He’s also a vigorous anti-war activist and in my view a real champion of human rights — one who MARL should publish if it wishes to retain its claim to supporting human rights.

Banning Israel anti-apartheid weeks at universities, A Reply to David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel, B’nai Brith

By Howard S. Davidson

“If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
Ehud Barak, Israel’s Minister of Defence, February 2010

“There is no apartheid in Israel,” writes David Matas, senior legal counsel for B’nai Brith. Those who claim otherwise are propagandists, anti-Semites and their fellow travelers who organize events like Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) on campuses in order to advance a malicious “fantasy” contrived to vilify Israel and intimidate Jewish students.

Last year, attempts to ban IAW were rebuked when university presidents asserted the right of students to organize IAWs as long as these events did not violate university policy on maintaining a respectful environment on campuses. Following IAW at the University of Manitoba, President David Barnard reported to the university’s Board of Governors that IAW proceeded without incident. Nonetheless, Matas insists that student forums on Israel and apartheid are intended to foster anti-Semitism and must be banned.

In a presentation to the Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, on 21 October 2010, subsequently published by the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties,[1] Matas argues that the “charge of apartheid against Israel is one of a barrage of anti-Zionist accusations levied against Israel. Anti-Zionism by definition is rejection of the existence of the Jewish state. That rejection is the denial of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.” He goes on to state, “The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is connected to anti-Semitism both in substance and in form.”

These are serious accusations made in defence of a dangerous undertaking. If they are false, they represent a threat to a democratic society that cherishes freedom of expression and the right to peaceful dissent. The matter comes down to this: Is discussion of Israel and apartheid a legitimate topic of political and academic discourse or is it, as Matas claims, a “fantasy” perpetuated to incite hatred against Israel? For Matas Israel and the Jewish people are one, therefore, any unfounded criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.

Given the gravity of his argument and his rich legal experience, one should expect a thoughtful presentation of his position. Instead, he offers up a ruse: hiding from view the legitimate discourse on Israel and apartheid. In fact, far from being a malicious “fantasy,” the subject is a matter of discussion and grave concern for Israeli leaders and academics in and outside Israel.

Because apartheid regimes have proven to be untenable, to say nothing of immoral, the threat of becoming an apartheid state invites disaster. Oren Yiftachel, professor of Political Geography, Ben Gurion University, has called this “creeping apartheid.”

“The [Gaza] disengagement has indeed made a significant difference to the political geography of Israel/Palestine, but a close examination reveals not a crossing of the watershed toward ending Israeli colonialism in favour of a two state solution but, rather, an Israeli policy of ‘oppressive consolidation,’ a ‘politics of suspension,’ and a perpetual probability of mutual violence. These have combined to create a political geographic order best described as ‘creeping apartheid.’”[2]

Israel’s current minister of defence and former prime minister, Ehud Barak, has warned Israelis, “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic…. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”[3]

Barak’s fears were also expressed by Israel’s previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert: “If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.”[4]

This view was stated by John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Distinguished Service Professor, Political Science, University of Chicago. Mearsheimer co-authored with Stephen Walt The Israeli Lobby. I am certain that Matas vehemently disagree with Mearsheimer’s analysis of the lobby; however, he cannot paint Mearsheimer as an anti-Zionist, anti-Semite, or someone seeking to incite intimidation and hatred. If Matas read reviews of The Israel Lobby in Foreign Affairs (e.g., L. Carl Brown, September/October 2006) or Dmitri K. Simes’ article in the National Interest, [5] he knows about Mearsheimer’s pro-Israeli credentials. Mearsheimer wrote in the American Conservative:

“…there is not going to be a two-state solution. Gaza and the West Bank will become part of a greater Israel, which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Israelis and their American supporters invariably bristle at this comparison, but that is the future if they create a greater Israel while denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land.” [6]

Others claim that Israel has already become an apartheid state, the position taken by organizers of Israel Apartheid Week and shared by Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli Minister of Education under Yitzhak Rabin. Aloni wrote, “The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies.” [7]

I could quote others who agree. For the sake of brevity I’ll leave it with this comment by Baruch Kimmerling (deceased), formerly Distinguished Research Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto and George S. Wise Professor of Sociology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem:

“… Israel ceased being a true democratic state and became a Herrenvolk democracy. This term, coined to describe South Africa under Apartheid, describes a regime in which one group of its subjects (the citizens) enjoys full rights and another group (the non-citizens) enjoys none. The laws of Israel have become the laws of a master people and the morality that of lords of the land.” [8]

A search of the University of Manitoba library catalogue brings up 17 titles on Israel and apartheid. It is reasonable to assume this would be true of other university libraries. Thus, students are free to research the subject but presidents are being asked to prevent students from organizing discussions on the topic. Or would Matas seek to have these books removed from the libraries on the ground that they are not on a legitimate topic but are propagating a malicious fantasy?

In a democracy Matas is welcomed to express a different opinion (a freedom he would deny to others). That said, he should think twice about claiming that those who believe apartheid in Israel is a clear and present danger are nothing more than anti-Semites.

The only evidence he offers to prove there is no apartheid in Israel is to dismiss any comparison with South African apartheid. As we have seen in the statements quoted here, the South African comparison is frighteningly valid.

Matas contrives his proof by defining apartheid in the narrowest possible terms (i.e., “the denationalization of blacks”). Since Palestinians have not been denationalized there is no apartheid. He neglects to mention a more authoritative definition of apartheid than his own, one provided by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ICC defined apartheid as a crime against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” [9] Do South Africans think this describes the situation in the occupied territories?

Archbishop Desmond Tutu thinks it does. Other leading South Africans expressing the same opinion are Breyten Breytenbach, John Dugard, Antjie Krog, Mahmood Mamdani, and Barney Pityana. It is the conclusion of a report on Israel’s practices in the occupied territories by the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, South Africa’s statutory research agency:

[D]iscriminatory treatment cannot be explained or excused on grounds of citizenship, both because it goes beyond what is permitted by ICERD [The Apartheid Convention] and because certain provisions in Israeli civil and military law provide that Jews present in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories] who are not citizens of Israel also enjoy privileges conferred on Jewish-Israeli citizens in the OPT by virtue of being Jews. Consequently, this study finds that the State of Israel exercises control in the OPT with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid. [10]

Stating that Israel is (or is becoming) an apartheid state names an impending/horrific state-of-affairs that calls for the immediate end of occupation and respect for Palestinians’ right for self-determination. It is clear from the range of statements cited here that an extensive discourse has emerged on Israel and apartheid.

It is my hope you will become familiar with this discourse and use that knowledge to challenge the ruse being used to convince university presidents to ban Israel Apartheid Week. Freedom of expression and the tradition of dissent make up the life blood of a democratic society.

Howard S. Davidson is Associate Professor, Extended Education, University of Manitoba and member of Independent Jewish Voices (Canada). He can be reached at ijvwinnipeg@gmail.com.

Notes:

[1] The article by David Matas may be seen at http://www.marl.mb.ca/content/hate-speech/banning-israel-anti-apartheid-weeks-universities-david-matas

[2] Yiftachel, O. ( 2005). Neither two states nor one: The disengagement and “Creeping Apartheid” in Israel/Palestine. The Arab World Geographer/Le Géographe du monde arabe Vol. 8, No 3, 125-129. Retrieved 16 November 2010 http://www.geog.bgu.ac.il/members/yiftachel/new_papers_eng/Yiftachel%20in%20Arab%20World%20Geographer.pdf

[3] Quoted in “Barak: make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid,” Guardian, 03 February 2010. Retrieved 16 November 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/barak-apartheid-palestine-peace

[4] Quoted in “The two state solution, or Israel is done for,” Haaretz, 09 November 2007. Retrieved 17 November 2010. http://www.haaretz.com/news/olmert-to-haaretz-two-state-solution-or-israel-is-done-for-1.234201

[5] Simes, D. K. (2006). Unrealists. The National Interest, 84(Summer), pp. 5 – 10.

[6] Mearsheimer, J. (01 August 2010). Sinking Ship. American Conservative. Retrieved 17 November 2010. http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/aug/01/00010/

[7] Article appearing in Yediot Acharonot, cited and translated from Hebrew in The Scoop, from Middle East News. Retrieved 15 December 2010 Service http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0701/S00070/shulamit-aloni-there-is-apartheid-in-israel.htm

[8] Kimmerling, B. (2006). Politicide: The real legacy of Ariel Sharon. London: Verso, p. 39.

[9] Quoted from the Wikipedia web page. Retrieved 24 December 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

[10] Middle East Project of the Democracy and Governance Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa. (May 2009). Occupation, colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law, p. 22 . Retrieved 16 November 2010 http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Document-3227.phtml

Mohamed Harkat’s secret trial threatens us all

Posted: December 10, 2010 in Human Rights
Tags: , , ,
19

Mohamed Harkat and wife Sophie at a press conference in Ottawa, Dec. 10, 2010. Photo: Sean Kilpatrick

I don’t know whether Mohamed Harkat is a terrorist or not. Neither do you. How could we? Harkat was convicted in a secret trial, based on secret “evidence” provided by shadowy sources who will remain unknown to Mr. Harkat and the rest of us unless we overturn the unjust, draconian laws that made this travesty of justice possible.

Yesterday Federal Court Justice Simon Noel upheld the security certificate issued against Mohamed Harkat in 2002, opining that ” . . . although the danger associated to Mr. Harkat has diminished over time, he still poses a danger to Canada, but at a lesser level . . .” This decision makes it possible for Immigration Canada to deport Mr. Harkat to his native Algeria where he would face imprisonment and torture, if not death.

A security certificate according to Public Safety Canada is a document issued by the immigration minister to force the “removal from Canada of non-Canadians who have no legal right to be here and who pose a serious threat to Canada and Canadians.”

Under the legislation governing security certificates (Bill C-3), courts are permitted to consider secret information in closed sessions. The defendant is not permitted to see this information or to question it. “Special advocates,” appointed by the minister who issued the certificate, are allowed to see the secret information, but they are not allowed to disclose it to the defendant or his lawyer. (See this in-depth analysis of security certificates.)

This process is such an egregious violation of the principle of natural justice it boggles the mind that we allow it to exist. Under Canadian law, citizens are allowed to face their accusers in open court, to have ALL of the evidence laid out before them, to cross-examine witnesses, and defend themselves. They are considered innocent until they are proven guilty in a fair and transparent process. The security certificate process violates all of these principles and should outrage any Canadian who believes in human rights.

This process should also make citizens fear for their own safety. We are next, as the Combating Terrorism Act, which passed second reading this fall, makes clear. This act, which applies to ALL OF US, provides for warrantless arrests, compulsory testimony and 12-month preventive imprisonment of people suspected of planning terrorist acts. It is the perfect companion to the practice of allowing courts to rely on “evidence” provided by anonymous spooks hiding beneath the cloak of “national security.”

Mohamed Harkat is continuing his eight year struggle for a fair hearing. Visit his site and read his story. It is one that should concern all Canadians.

Peace Alliance Winnipeg challenges NDP minister on double standard regarding Israel and Palestine

Posted: December 3, 2010 in Human Rights
Tags:
2

This, just in, from Peace Alliance Winnipeg . . .

Today Peace Alliance Winnipeg sent a letter to Christine Melnick, Manitoba’s Minister of Water Stewardship, expressing concern over remarks attributed to her in the Winnipeg Jewish Review that indicated it was unacceptable for the Brandon NDP Women’s Association to endorse the Winnipeg speaking engagement of George Galloway. If you wish to express your opinion to Minister Melnick, her email address is minwsd@leg.gov.mb.ca. We would appreciate it if you would send a copy to Peace Alliance Winnipeg as well.

December 2, 2010

The Honourable Christine Melnick
Minister of Water Stewardship

Dear Ms. Melnick,

I am writing to express the concerns of Peace Alliance Winnipeg with regard to a statement attributed to you by Ms. Rhonda Spivak in her recent Winnipeg Jewish Review article entitled “Brandon NDP Women’s Association Endorses Galloways Speech in Winnipeg Nov 26.” The article can be found at [link to article].

In that article, you appear to disapprove of the decision of the Brandon NDP Women’s Association to endorse the George Galloway meeting and your statement: “I want to ensure people that the Manitoba NDP is taking this incident very seriously and are already looking into the matter” seems to imply some action may be taken against the Association for its decision.

I am writing to you out of concern for two very basic concepts – freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

I am not aware of any policy of the provincial NDP prohibiting its members or organizations from engaging in or otherwise supporting events such as the one the Peace Alliance Winnipeg hosted on November 26. That event, as you know, featured Mr. George Galloway and we extended an invitation to all MLA’s, the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to attend and hear his views.

You did not avail yourself of the opportunity and yet, in Rhonda Spivak’s article, the clear and unmistakable impression is that you found the meeting inappropriate for support by members of the NDP. Without knowing the content of Mr. Galloway’s remarks, you were quick to issue statements against the Brandon NDP Women’s Association.

Over 400 people attended the meeting. The audience was comprised of people from every background including Jews, Arabs, Muslims and First Nations. They heard, as you could have, George Galloway’s impassioned denouncement of racism, his support for justice for the Palestinian people and his refutation of the slanders of his support for terrorism. They were able to draw their own conclusions – as you could have.

Considering that you and several of your colleagues attended a rally held on Jan. 8, 2009 at the Asper Centre in support of “Operation Cast Lead” your quick condemnation of George Galloway without hearing him is indeed a double standard.  “Operation Cast Lead” resulted in international condemnation of that action by none less than the United Nations and its Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict headed by Justice Richard Goldstone.

The Goldstone Report can be found at [link to report].

Mr Galloway was right when he said in his speech that the struggle of the Palestinians has faced enormous distortions in the media and through official policy. Your actions are another example of this, as were those of Nancy Allen this past summer when she reacted to a complaint by B’nai Brith to a question on a provincial examination.

Mr. Galloway’s international stature and knowledge of the issue is such that his tour of Canadian cities was bound to break through the campaign of disinformation. No doubt some found this threatening to official policy of support for a system of apartheid. What is disturbing is that NDP policy now seems to embrace unquestioned support for every action by Israel and condemnation of any action that is critical of Israeli policy.

Notwithstanding whatever you perceive to be the interests of the NDP and, it follows, the Provincial Government on this matter, your position is indefensible as a matter of freedom of conscience and free speech. Closed minds, hyperbole and jingoism are the greatest barriers to peace. This is exactly how Canadians have become mired in a war in Afghanistan that they do not want and have ensured that the people of Afghanistan will not be better off. We should all learn from that tragic mistake before we become mired in a conflict in the Middle East. Mr. Galloway warned of that as well.

We would appreciate hearing your views on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Glen Michalchuk, Chair
Peace Alliance Winnipeg

Setting the Winnipeg Jewish Review straight on its Galloway editorial

Posted: December 1, 2010 in Human Rights
Tags:
13

A recent editorial in the Winnipeg Jewish Review could leave the impression that the Brandon and District Labour Council is rethinking its endorsement of the Nov. 26 speaking engagement, in Winnipeg, of George Galloway. This would be the wrong impression. The event, organized by Peace Alliance Winnipeg, drew an audience of more than 400 and was endorsed by 15 organizations, including the BDLC.

On Nov. 17, the BDLC passed a motion saying it would pay for tickets for any members who wished to attend, that it would contribute $100.00 to Peace Alliance Winnipeg, and that it would  send a letter with the donation stating the BDLC position on the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. Had something changed?

Because I am a member of PAW and helped organise the event, I was concerned by the implications of the WJR editorial. I asked Peace Alliance Winnipeg chairperson Glenn Michalchuk to clarify the situation. Michalchuk said he spoke with the BDLC about the WJR editorial and was assured that nothing had changed. Said Michalchuk:

“The BDLC reaffirmed, to me, its support for holding the Galloway event. In line with the resolution they passed, they will be sending a cheque for $100 and a letter that outlines their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Why is this issue worth wrting about? On one level, it’s fairly straightforward: an editorial in an online journal implies something that is not factual and leaves the reader imagining that Peace Alliance Winnipeg misrepresented the views of one of the organizations listed as an endorser of its event — we need to set the record straight.

On another level, it’s because I want to encourage readers to go to the Winnipeg Jewish Review and learn something of its perspective on the world, especially to what appears to be its unconditional support for the actions of the State of Israel against the Palestinian people and its apparent unwillingness to consider alternative viewpoints.

There can be no real progress towards peace anywhere unless we are open to the views of those with whom we disagree, even it it seems that they are closed to information that challenges their world view.

See also:

Manitoba NDP witch hunt regarding party members' support of George Galloway's Winnipeg visit?

Posted: November 29, 2010 in Human Rights
Tags: ,
8

Is the Manitoba NDP preparing a public witch hunt, or at least a private spanking, of members who attended George Galloway’s Nov. 26 speech in Winnipeg? That certainly is the impression left by an article by Rhonda Spivak in the Winnipeg Jewish Review entitled BRANDON NDP WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION ENDORSES GALLOWAYS SPEECH IN WINNIPEG NOV 26.

In the article, Spivak trots out all the shop-worn distortions of Galloway’s anti-war and anti-Zionist activities and quotes Manitoba’s Water Stewardship Minister Christine Melnick as saying:

“It is important to know that this issue was not brought before Greg Selinger, the Leader of Manitoba the New Democratic Party nor the Manitoba NDP Provincial Council. This action is neither sanctioned nor endorsed by either the Premier or the Manitoba NDP. The NDP Brandon Women’s Association does not represent the Manitoba NDP on this issue . . .

“I want to ensure people that the Manitoba NDP is taking this incident very seriously and are already looking into the matter.”

For those unfamiliar with Manitoba NDP code, “taking this incident very seriously” is code for “someone’s gonna pay.” It’s the same language used by Education Minister Nancy Allan after B’nai Brith complained about a provincial high school examination question. The offending question — “Explain whether or not you think people in the entertainment industry have a responsibility for making the world a better place?” — was asked with reference to an essay entitled “Over the Rocks and Stones” by pop star Chantal Kreviazuk. Among many other things totally unrelated to questions of human suffering, Kreviazuk’s essay describes the struggle for life of a badly injured Palestinian boy and his family’s pain. An objective reader would be hard pressed to find evidence that hatred of Israel was being promoted.

Allan’s eagerness to roll over for B’nai Brith was widely ridiculed; even the Winnipeg Free Press editorial board, normally a perennial cheerleader for all things zionist, concluded that Allan had been too easily stampeded, that she should “respond rationally” in situations like this and “let the department do its work free of political meddling and public nitpicking.”

Back to the present. I’ve heard that functionaries in the Brandon Cabinet Office were not amused by the uppity women who endorsed Galloway’s event. Whether this goes farther remains to be seen. Surely if the NDP heavyweights start trying to muscle Seymour and others over their attendance at the Galloway meeting, it will be time for them to remove the word “Democratic” from their party’s name. Ditto for “New” which is really shop-worn after all these years.

Readers who share my outrage are encouraged to express themselves in a polite, but assertive reminder to Minister Melnick that Canada remains a free country where all, even NDP members, are entitled to the freedoms associated with a democracy. You can write to her at minwsd@leg.gov.mb.ca.

George Galloway: video of his Winnipeg speech

Posted: November 28, 2010 in Afghanistan, Human Rights, Peace, War, Winnipeg
Tags: , ,
4

Go to the Playlist

Over the past 2 weeks, George Galloway spoke to packed halls from Halifax to Yellowknife. Winnipeg was no exception, with more than 400 people crowding into the Broadway Disciples United Church on Nov. 26 to hear Galloway’s passionate plea on behalf of Free Speech, Free Afghanistan and Free Palestine.

Galloway repeated his pledge to donate “every cent” of the compensation he expects to result from his defamation suit against the Canadian government to the Canadian anti-war movement. He also announced plans to launch a Canadian wing of Viva Palestina, in Calgary, next year. Viva Palestina is a registered UK charity that Galloway helped found that has raised millions of dollars in humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza.

Galloway is a frighteningly talented orator. It is easy to understand why Immigration Minister Jason Kenney would want to keep him out of the country. He spoke knowledgeably, passionately, with great warmth and biting wit, without notes for just over an hour. (My favourite example of his savage wit was a passing reference to Harper and Ignatieff as “Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum . . .two cheeks of the same backside” — but I digress.)

Here are only a few of the highlights.

On Kenney’s attempt to keep Galloway out of Canada

“As any bookseller could have told Mr. Kenney, any book that you try to ban usually ends up on the best-seller list.”
“Though the offence against me was considerable, the offence against you was much, much more serious, because what it established and what Justice Mosley’s 60-page caning of Kenney — across a 60-page judgement — what was established was that you have a government of liars and deceivers who are planning to take your rights away.”
On racism, Antisemitism and Zionism
“It is unconscionable to exercise freedom of speech to whip up racial or religious hatred – to whip up hatred of people because of what they are – not for what they’ve done, not for what they believe in, but because of who and what they are. That’s called racism.”
“That somehow I might be a hater of Jews, or in other words, a racist, is as absurd as it is insulting and offensive.”
“We are against the racist, apartheid ideology of Zionism and its practise in the apartheid state of Israel.”
“When people campaigned to end communism in Russia it didn’t mean they wanted to end the people of Russia. It didn’t mean they wanted to eliminate the country of Russia.They were against a political ideology which they believed was wrong and harmful. And that’s the spirit in which we say we are against Zionism. We’re not against the Jewish peiople who live in the land they call Israel and we call Palestine. We’re against the idea that there can be an apartheid state created there where the non-Jews are second class citizens and where the state illegally occupies and controls every aspect of the lives of three million Palestinian people living under occupation in the West Bank, in Gaza and in East Jerusalem.”
On Afghanistan
“Has anyone in Canada ever asked the question how come the Afghan army needs quite so much training? For ten years they’ve been trained by the occupation armies that invaded and occupied Afghanistan . . . The cost of training Hamid Karzai’s puppet regime, paid for by western taxpayers including every one of you,  is $1 billion per month . . . with no noticeable improvement in their performance. Nobody’s training the Taliban and they’re doing quite well.”
“Nobody has every successfully occupied Afghanistan. Even Alexander the Great did not succeed in occupying Afghanistan and Stephen Harper is not Alexander the Great.”
“The Afghans are quite good at fighting. They don’t need much training. And they will never accept the foreign occupation of their country. Full stop.”
“We have to get out of Afghanistan, not just because we can’t afford it, not just because our own young men are being killed, but because we’re achieving the opposite of what needs to be done. We’re deepening that swamp [of bitterness], rather than draining that swamp.”
“Bush and Blair and Harper and, I dare say Kenney, are willing to fight to the last drop of other people’s blood and that’s just immoral.”
On Democracy
“I’m not a supporter of Hamas. It doesn’t matter how many times these raving bloggers in Canada or these raving ministers in Ottawa contend it, the judge has already opined on this point and his decision is final.  I’m not a supporter of Hamas but I am a supporter of democracy. And the only people entitled to choose the leadership of the Palestinian people are the Palestinian people themselves. This is surely ABC. I mean how else could it be?
“I don’t like Stephen Harper. I wouldn’t have voted for him. But I can’t pretend that he’s not the Prime Minister of Canada. I can’t appoint somebody else as the Prime Minister of Canada though the vision of Michael Ignatieff just flitted across my mind. Talk about Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Two cheeks of the same backside. I can’t appoint Ignatieff or Layton of anyone else as the leader of Canada. I have to accept the outcome of the elections in Canada.
“Well, as we say we’re fighting for democracy every time we go to war, the Palestinians had democracy. They had an election. It was the only, only, free, democratic election ever held in any Arab country, ever, in all history. It was described by Jimmy Carter, no less, as pristine. Pristine. Chrystal clear. Transparent. Perfect. We just didn’t like the result. So what did we do? We immediately imposed a siege to starve the children of the votes, to punish them for how their parents had voted.
“How democratic is that? That’s hypocrisy, not democracy. But that’s exactly what we did and that siege has now lasted for four long years.”

C-440: War Resisters versus War Criminals

Posted: October 2, 2010 in Human Rights, Peace, War
Tags:
2

Michael Ignatieff and Co. can’t get enough criticism for their desertion of Bill  C-440 to suit me. But let’s not deny the  Tories their fair share of the shame. Against the will of most Canadians, the Tories have conducted a campaign of persecution against American war resisters since coming to power. In their slavish admiration of American imperialism, they ignore important aspects of international law. In their eagerness to crawl into bed with war criminals, they are complicit in some of the most horrendous crimes against humanity of this century.

The Tories spare no effort to prevent war resisters from exercising their right to conscientious objection. Wednesday’s defeat of Bill C-440, to which they unanimously voted “nay” is just the most recent example. Because the War Resisters Support Campaign web site is replete with examples of the Tory pogrom against conscientious objectors, I won’t deal with that here.

Instead, I want to address the standard Tory refrain that war resisters are “cowards” or “deserters” who should shut up, stay in the army and keep killing or rot in an American prison.

Nazis, Nuremberg and Numb Tory Memories

Despite their “Conservative” label, the Tories have forgotten important aspects of our shared history, chief among them the Second World War and the trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg in 1945 and 1946. In 1950, the UN International Law Commission codified the legal principles that emerged during these trials. The Tories would do well to acquaint themselves with the Nuremberg Principles because they are key to understanding why American war resisters should be granted sanctuary in Canada.

Principle VI states,

“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”

A “war of aggression” is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense or the sanction of the United Nations. Under the Nuremberg Principles, a war of aggression is a “crime against peace.” The invasion of Iraq, perpetrated by the U.S. and its allies under the guise of protecting the world against non-existent weapons of mass destruction meets the definition of a “crime against peace.”

I have italicized those portions which apply to this invasion, a crime of overwhelming proportions which resulted in the destruction of a nation, the displacement of almost four million people and the death of an estimated 1.3 million. War resisters are refusing to participate in this crime, and who can blame them?

What of the Tory argument that war resisters signed a contract with the U.S. military and therefore should honour their contract (i.e., kill Iraqis in a “crime against peace”)?

Nuremberg Principle 4 provides some guidance. It states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.

In other words, to say your were “just following orders” is no defense. War resisters understand this. They have made a conscientious decision to refuse to participate in this massive crime against humanity. War resisters embody the Nuremberg Principles; most Canadians recognize this and welcome them to our country.

Canada’s obligation to protect refugees

Canada is a signatory to, and therefore legally required to follow, the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. Article 33 says:

“No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular  social group or political opinion.”

If war resisters are not “political refugees” I don’t know who is. There is no question that they face imprisonment if returned to the U.S. because a number of them have been deported and subsequently jailed. It is clear that Canada is in violation of the UN Refugee Convention.

What now?

Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party are committed to deporting every American war resister they can find, regardless of Canadian public opinion or international law. Harper was an early hawk on Iraq, and there is no reason to believe he has modified his position.

Short of replacing them in the next election, we will not resolve this issue satisfactorily.

The situation is further complicated by the actions of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and a small gang of liberal MPs who absented themselves from Wednesday’s House of Commons vote on Bill C-440, thereby dooming it to defeat (143-136). I’m not a Liberal, but I sincerely hope the 57 Liberal MPs who voted for C-440 rouse their party to get rid of him. For more than a few reasons, he’s a liability Liberals can no longer afford.

In the near term, the best we can manage is to provide moral and material support to the War Resisters Support Campaign. That’s plenty enough to keep us busy.

Supreme court Khadr ruling – SHAME!

Posted: January 29, 2010 in Human Rights
Tags:
0

According to the Supreme Court, the federal government violated Omar Khadr’s constitutional rights and that Khadr’s rights continue to be violated. Nevertheless, the court refuses to order the government to do the right thing — seek Khadr’s repatriation from the Guantanamo hell-hole that he has lived in for the past 7 years.

Shame!

Photos of Omar Khadr as a teenager, left, and as an adult, right. Khadr has been jailed for the last seven years in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Photos: National Post.

The conduct of Canadian officials “establishes Canadian participation in state conduct that violates the principles of fundamental justice,” said the court.

“Interrogation of a youth, to elicit statements about the most serious criminal charges while detained in these conditions and without access to counsel, and while knowing hat the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the U.S. prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects,” says the judgment.

The court said theses acts violated section 7 of the Charter of Rights – the right to life, liberty and security of the person. And it said the violation of Khadr’s rights is still ongoing.

The Supreme Court does not believe it has the legal right to intervene in foreign affairs, even when an intervention would force the federal government to defend our constitutional rights.

That is not only Omar Khadr’s loss; it is our loss, as well. It empowers and emboldens Harper and all future enemies of freedom who end up living at 21 Sussex Dr. to continue to attack human rights.

The Khadr case demonstrates the limitations of our legal system. It also makes it clear that, ultimately, justice is a political problem that demands a political remedy.

Resources:

But what will the Mounties learn from the Federales?

Posted: August 11, 2009 in Human Rights
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

Rather that acknowledge that growing numbers of Mexican refugee claimants might be fleeing to Canada for legitimate reasons, Stephen Harper has announced that the Mounties will train Mexican federal police to strengthen their efforts in the “war on drugs.” According to the Winnipeg Free Press: “The Mounties will offer tips on interviewing techniques for entry-level police; mid-level officers will learn about money-laundering, undercover tactics, and child exploitation; and senior officers will hear about crisis management, public relations and dealing with civilian leaders.”

It’s a cheap announcement: only 400,000 loonies have been allocated for this program, but it’s a useful one for Harper because it helps perpetuate the myth that Mexico is just like Canada — poorer, perhaps, but fundamentally democratic — and in no way a legitimate source of refugees.

However, it is no coincidence that refugee claims have grown at a time of escalating drug war violence and a marked increase in human rights violations by Mexican police and military forces.

According to the CBC, “Mexico is now the No. 1 source of refugee claims, with the number almost tripling to more than 9,400 since 2005 . . . The figure represents one-quarter of all claims made. About 90 per cent of the claims are rejected.”

In February 2009, Amnesty International reported that:

  • Mexico has so far failed to explicitly recognize the status of international human rights treaties in its Constitution.
  • The authorities have yet to hold anyone to account for the 100 killings and 700 enforced disappearances that took place between the 1960s and 1980s.
  • Mexican federal, state and municipal police officers implicated in serious human rights violations, such as arbitrary detention, torture, rape and unlawful killings, particularly those committed during civil disturbances in San Salvador Atenco and Oaxaca City in 2006, have not been brought to justice.
  • The military justice system continues to try cases of human rights violations despite international human rights standards insisting these should be tried in civilian courts.
  • The number of reports of abuses such as arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment, sexual violence and unlawful killings by security officials has increased during security operations to combat violent criminal gangs.
  • Human rights defenders, particular those in rural areas, often face persecution and sometimes prolonged detention on the basis of fabricated or politically-motivated criminal charges.
  • Indigenous and other marginalized communities sometimes face harassment for opposing development projects affecting their livelihoods.
  • Irregular migrants in transit in Mexico routinely face ill-treatment by state officials as well as sexual and other violence at the hands of criminal gangs.
  • Despite advances in legislation to protect women from violence, implementation is weak. Reporting, prosecution and conviction rates for those responsible for domestic violence, rape and even killings of women remain extremely low. Two years after the adoption of the 2007 General Law to prevent violence against women, two states have not even introduced legislation to enforce it.
  • Poverty and marginalization continue to deprive many rural communities, particularly indigenous peoples, of the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to development, in accordance with their own needs and interests.

You can get the entire report here.

It sounds to me like there are plenty of good reasons why someone might claim to be a Mexican refugee.

Meanwhile, education is a 2-way street. I wonder what the Federales will teach our taser-wielding Mounties.

Armed men surround the mainly Mixtec community of Santo Domingo Ixcatlan, Oaxaca on December 3, 2008. The attackers were working for a local political boss who stood to profit from the sale of communal lands. For months, the group threatened those who opposed the sale and killed three of them in April 2008. Photo credit: Private/Amnesty International. Read more.

Speaking at the University of Southern California in April 2009, Mexican senator and human rights activist Rosario Ibarra presents a lecture on forced disappearances (the state’s covert persecution, apprehension and execution of individuals for political reasons) in Mexico, and on her work to promote human rights and freedom.

June 26 – Global Action Solidarity Day for Justice for Iranian Workers

Posted: June 19, 2009 in Human Rights, In Solidarity
0

Four global union organisations representing over 170 million workers have called a worldwide action day on June 26 to demand justice for Iranian workers. Demonstrations will take place outside Iranian embassies and consulates to protest the ongoing denial of rights and arrests of trade unionists within the country.

The ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation), EI (Education International), ITF (International Transport Workers’ Federation), IUF (International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations) are forming a coalition for the event, which is the latest move in an ongoing campaign to secure justice and trade union rights inside Iran. Amnesty International has backed this campaign.

They are calling for:

  • The immediate and unconditional release of all imprisoned trade unionists including Mansour Osanloo, Ebrahim Madadi and Farzad Kamangar;
  • Unconditional recognition of all independent workers’ organisations in Iran and reinstatement of workers who have been disadvantaged as a result of their support for these organisations;
  • Ratification of core ILO Conventions on freedom of association and the right to collective bargain by the Iranian government;
  • Conclusion of collective bargaining agreements between the independent unions and the relevant employers.

This campaign, which has been ignored by the mainstream media, might be lost in the coverage of the popular opposition to the fraudulent June 12 election that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power. That would be a shame. Whether Ahmadinejad retains his grip on the presidency or not, Iran’s sordid record of human rights abuses will continue without fundamental changes.

Find out what you can do at Justice for Iranian Workers.

Older Entries
Newer Entries