From Dark Star Safari by Paul Theroux while in Malawi: "I sketched out my theory that some governments in Africa depended on underdevelopment to survive - bad schools, poor communications, a feeble press, and ragged people. The leaders needed poverty to obtain foreign aid, needed an uneducated and passive populace to keep themselves in office for decades. A great education system in an open society would produce rivals, competitors, and an effective opposition to people who wanted only to cling to power."

And then in conversation:

Anne: "I have my doubts sometimes. I say to my mother, 'What if we just upped and left? All of us. Every last one.'"
Paul: "What do you think would happen?"
Anne: "Then the people here would have to think for themselves. They'd have to decide what's best for them - what they want. No one would influence them. Maybe they would say they wanted education - and they'd have to do the teaching."

"I wanted to see some African volunteers caring for the place - sweeping the floors, cutting the grass, washing windows, gluing the spines back onto the few remaining books, scrubbing the slime off the classroom walls. Or, if that was not their choice, I wanted to see them torch the place and burn it to the ground and dance around the flames, then plow everything under and plant food crops. Until either of those things happened, I would not be back... I did not feel despair at having been prevented from [teaching], but rather a solemn sense that since only Africans could define their problems, only Africans could fix them."

Interesting perspective.

Canada's Woeful Performance in Bali

Canada has twice been awarded the daily Fossil award by the Climate Action Network this week in Bali.

Understandable. Our government has embarrassed us in front of the world with their false concern about climate change. From one side they speak of Canada's commitments while from the other they work to sabotage the attempts by the rest of the world to actually do something. To do something now. Before 2020. Before the next election cycle. Our national short-sightedness is disheartening, to say the least.

Here is a link to sign a petition specifically for Harper and newspapers across Canada. Please sign and add your name to the (hopefully) huge list of people in Canada who actually care about our global reputation, not to mention the relatively minor issue of the catastrophic damage being caused by climate change.

I am stunned that people still vote conservative.

But I guess what really upsets me most is what the conservative position says about the character of Canadians. Are we really a nation that gives up so easily? My understanding is that when the Harper government took power they were faced with a difficult decision on what to do about Kyoto. After years of neglect by the Liberal governments - who pretended to care while doing basically nothing - it looked almost impossible for Canada to meet its commitments under the Kyoto agreement. I appreciate that.

But instead of saying "Gee, Canada's international reputation is on the line - we had better buckle down and do some pretty amazing things here to do the best we can to meet our national commitments. But it's okay, we know that Canadians are totally amazing and we can come together as a country and do what needs to be done."

They said, "Gee, Canada's international reputation is on the line - we had better back out of a legally binding agreement and postpone taking any action until long after our government's term will be over. That way we won't have to do anything and we'll be able to blame it on the Liberals."

Shame on them. And shame on us for letting them get away with it.

I believe that Canadians can do amazing things and that we can help lead the world - but we certainly won't with the government we have now.

It is time for a different type of politics.

A few more sites of interest:

David Suzuki (the Nature of Things) calls the government's spin on climate change "humiliating" and "ludicrous".

The former editor-in-chief of CBC news discusses the damage done by Canada's climate policy to our international reputation.

This is a report from CTV on Canada's performance (or lack of) at the conference so far.

The Fossil of the Day Award site.

Bombing Civilian Media Targets

According to yesterday's UN News Service, "Sri Lankan army planes struck the Voice of Tigers radio station near Kilinochchi in the north of the country on the afternoon of 27 November, killing five of the station's staff and reportedly more than five other people". “Regardless of the content of the broadcasts aired by the Voice of Tigers, there can be no excuse for military strikes on civilian media,” said Koïchiro Matsuura (head of UNESCO). “Such action contravenes the Geneva Convention which requires the military to treat media workers as civilians.” Mr. Matsuura stressed that “killing media personnel is not going to help reconciliation” and urged urge the authorities “to ensure respect for the basic human right of freedom of expression".

[deep breath]

So I was wondering - what type of content do they broadcast? Because my first thought was of the radio station in Rwanda that worked so hard to incite and direct the genocide in 1994, including providing locations of weapons and Hutu and Tutsi targets. Literally, broadcasts would provide addresses and license plates and encourage the militia to pay them a visit. I remember reading Shake Hands with the Devil and Dallaire's agony that he could not stop the hate spewing from RTLM. (Check out the first link in this paragraph for a quick introductory article to the conflict around press freedom v. hate crimes from the Columbia Journalism Review.)

In class, we've been examining how all institutions and ideas that seem 'natural' or rock-solid are actually constructions of humanity and history. The idea that we create our own reality has got me questioning some pretty fundamental features of modern society. That idea, combined with the Sri Lankan bombing got me thinking. If a radio station was partaking directly in activities that compromised the safety of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people would it be just to bomb it? Or is it always wrong?

Matsuura argues that the bombing contravenes the Geneva Convention because media workers are to be treated as civilians. But do media workers negate that protection when they act as conduits for government or militia information that results in other civilians being killed? To put it bluntly: If you could save 10,000 people by killing 2 would it be just? Which I guess comes down a question of the ends justifying the means.

Just wondering.

(This post is in way meant to condone the actions of the Sri Lankan government. I have no information as to why the government decided to bomb the radio station and I will assume until shown otherwise that it was an incredibly wrong thing to do. Murder is wrong. Especially state-sponsored murder. Which is what bombing civilians is - murder. Plus, it turns out that this is not the first time the Sri Lankan government has bombed a Tamil radio station, they also did it last year. Here is the press release from Reporters Without Borders on the bombing with an emphasis on the importance of protecting the freedom of the press. This post is merely a very brief inquiry into the limits of protection afforded to media personnel in the extreme case where they are promoting crimes against humanity.)

The U.S. is no safe haven for refugees

Last week a Canadian judge ruled in favour of the Canadian Council on Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches and Amnesty International in a case brought against the Canadian government regarding the Canadian-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) that forces refugees to apply for status in the first country they arrive in. According to the Globe and Mail, the judge has ruled that this agreement puts Canada in breach of our international obligations (because of course Canada has signed the refugee convention, we sign everything). Specifically, it violates our commitments under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the UN Convention Against Torture.

According to the decision the judge decided against the STCA because the U.S. treats refugees so abysmally that we can not legally force refugees to stay there. There was also the whole shipping people off to countries for torture aspect of the U.S. system as well. (BTW, if there are any legal wonks out there reading, the link above will take you to the federal court decision in its entirety which is nicer than relying on the newspaper reports. If you just want to read the outcome, skip down to Section IX. Conclusions.)

Justice Michael Phelan also criticized the Canadian government for not fulfilling its commitment to review the agreement "despite both the significant passage of time since the commencement of the STCA and the evidence as to U.S. practices currently available". Once again, our government is letting things slip through the cracks while they act like a bunch of dilettantes (see any post relating to Kyoto or Schreiber).

Who does this affect most? For Canada, it will have the greatest impact on refuge seekers from Latin America who travel overland - since 2004, we have been able to turn them away at the border but if the STCA is overturned we will have to let them in.

If this ruling destroys the agreement (and opinions seem to be leaning that way) then they will be allowed through the U.S. and into Canada. Both parties have until 14 Jan 2008 to file their appeals.

Thought you might like to know.

It will be interesting to watch the international fall-out from Canada declaring again (through the proxy of its court system, of course) that the U.S. is a human rights violator.

Schreiber - the saga onwards

So Schreiber had his extradition postponed so that he could once again appear before our Parliamentary Ethics Committee and make them all look like a bunch of fools - again.

At what point do we just cut our losses and remember this old phrase:

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

or W's version (plus more Bush witticism's):

Fool me once, shame on [pause] shame on you.
Fool me [pause] you can't get fooled again.

We seriously need to extradite this man (oops, that would be Schreiber, not Bush, we can't extradite him).

Canada's Integrity = My Integrity

Here's the thing - I am passionate about Canada, I love being Canadian and I proudly identify myself as Canadian wherever I go.

Here's the problem - if Canada is my country (and as a democracy there is no way I can get out of taking responsibility for it and ownership of it) then when Canada does something that violates its integrity, it violates my integrity.

Well, I'm pretty partial to my integrity and I don't like having it screwed up by my government. (Shockingly, this is not a Kyoto tirade.)

And it is being screwed up, has been messed up and is increasingly being lost. Canada has the interesting distinction of being the country who has signed the most international agreements and is part of the most international organizations - that means that we are the world's most committed country to international relations.

So when we break our commitments, we lose integrity. Today I'm a little upset about our arms trade - did you know that we are in the Top 10 and possibly in the Top 5 of the world's largest arms suppliers. I say possibly because Canada has not kept accurate records and reporting for the last several years. Our transparency rating on arms sales is now placing us just above Iran. Seriously, how embarrassing.

The worst part is that the arms we do produce quite often end up being used by states against their own civilian populations. So now, not only do I live in a country that is a major arms supplier, I am also complicit in egregious state-committed human rights violations. Fabulous. That is a definite compromise of my integrity.

I am so not voting Liberal or Conservative.