Cuba: really an island prison?

Here is my response to Theo Caldwell's column on Cuba and Canada's relationship and tourism to said country.

"Dear Theo, I look forward to reading your next article on the Chinese dictatorship and an equally strong exhortation to the Canadian public and government to not only sever trade relations but to also boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics, an act of appeasement that gives me the shivers.

Or, if not, here is my actual comment. I am disappointed, but sadly not surprised by Theo's article.

It is the venom with which Castro's regime is discussed by many ideologues (neoliberal, neocon) that I do not trust. If that level of vitriol were equally directed at other dictatorships I would find it easier to accept - it's the adjectives that get to me.

Generally, dictators who have allowed liberal market policies and have repressed ideologies that the ruling classes find offensive have been tolerated if not embraced. On the other hand, Castro has always been vilified and targeted. What I am trying to say is that ill treatment of one's populace has rarely been a criteria for trade policies and Canada has cozied up to regimes that are far worse than Castro's.

I'd just like to see the same standards applied across the board - not just to countries who are so resource poor that all they have to offer is a warm beach.

Having said that, I agree with you. Cuba is not at the top of my list for warm holidays. As a matter of fact, the whole "sunny holiday to desperately poor nations" obsession of Canadians leaves me cold."

I'm still reeling from the idea that I joined the forums at The Post, but one does what one must to join the conversation.

It makes me so sad...

To realize that I live in a world where people are treated like this (and, of course, much worse)...

This photo was taken way back on January 25th at the border crossing between Gaza and Egypt.

The crossing has since been re-opened in a more controlled way but not without a lot of violence. Plus, Israel is now thinking about building a border wall to separate itself from Egypt.

I really wanted to write something pithily observant here but anything would be too trite. It makes me glad I live in Canada.

I just want to remember how grateful I need to be.

Stating a bit of the obvious...

In case you've missed it, Israel has closed the borders into Gaza meaning that no supplies (including humanitarian aid) have been entering the Palestinian territories for the past 5 days...

"Meanwhile, John Dugard, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, also released a statement on Friday saying that recent Israeli actions in Gaza violated international treaties.

“The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a Government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel’s respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process,” he said in a press release.

Mr. Dugard said the actions violated the strict prohibition in the Geneva Conventions on collective punishment and one of the basic principles of international humanitarian law – that military action must distinguish between military targets and civilian targets.

Mr. Dugard, who serves in an unpaid and personal capacity, reports to the UN Human Rights Council, which will hold a special session this Wednesday – at the request of the Group of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – to consider and take actions on “human rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions in the occupied Palestinian territory,” including Gaza and the West Bank town of Nablus." (from the UN Daily Digest on 21 January 2008)

Violating international treaties? Violating the Geneva Conventions? Ya think? Dear, dear me oh my. I think it is time for this occupation to end.

The Hypocrisy of Modern, Liberal Civil Society

I finished Stephen Hopgood's article, "Reading the Small Print in Global Civil Society" (Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2000. 29(1): 1-25) today and he raises some interesting concerns about the displacement of morality and virtues from discussions in civil society to a position of sub-text that underlies the more acceptable "rights" discussion occurring in the world today. The idea is that back in the 1800s and early 1900s, in order to be a citizen and acquire the rights of that position, one would have to meet certain criteria of civilization. Those criteria would include certain moral values, in the United States these would mostly be the Protestant virtues of "industry, piety, parsimony, and self-reliance" (16).

Today, it is accepted that it is incorrect to expect everyone to have the same values so instead we talk about universal human rights. The trouble is that within this distribution of rights is the assumption of a certain moral basis - instead of openly constructing societies with the same moral basis, liberals now try to sneak them in the back door, at least, according to Hopgood.

It makes me wonder if there is any chance for a truly open space of discussion (or discourse) to exist. If we all bring our own moral choices to the discussion, how can we remain open to what others will say? Moreover, if global power elites insist that all those included in the discussion have the same sets of values, how will we ever move past the ideas that divide us? How can we come up with truly universal rights when only a select group of people with similar values is allowed to participate in the discussion?

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.)

Schreiber

Okay, I just had to put my two cents in on this one.

Please, please, please extradite him to Germany. Please, for our country's sake. The man has played our legal system like a pro and made us look like a bunch of chumps.

Just send him away.

I don't care whether there were unscrupulous business dealings. I really don't. I mean, $300,000? Our government wastes that much on letterhead, much more on fancy golf balls. Who cares what Mulroney did almost 20 years ago?

There was far more money wasted canceling the Airbus deal and the damage it did to our international reputation... how is this going to help?

And now, Schreiber says he won't co-operate if he gets extradited. He is issuing threats and attempting to hold my government and my justice system hostage to his rantings.

Send him home.

He has been fighting extradition for 8 years. Eight! It is so embarrassing.

Don't waste millions more on a public inquiry that is likely going to find - oh, what a shock! the guy was pulling out any desperate accusations he could to remain out of the reach of the German legal system...

where maybe there's a hope in hell he'll actually get convicted of something.

sigh.

The Genocide Olympics

Oh boy... it's been a long time since I've posted and I have very little time right now - I have to go grab lunch before the next session starts but I think I've found a new way to fight for something I care about. What do we know about a movement to have Canada boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics which is lately receiving the moniker The Genocide Olympics. Mia Farrow has been super-active in this area and has done a great job raising awareness.

I'm at a Conference on the Prevention of Genocide this weekend - one of the speakers has already tried to chase me away from studying in this field - too depressing he says. I guess he won't be my PhD advisor. ;-P

5 More Reasons to Boycott Goods from China

Ah Friday! Time to wind down with one more rant for the week. Here are 5 Reasons to boycott Chinese goods - just off the top of my head.

5. Questionable safety standards in manufactured goods that have resulted in several recalls. 'Lead makes everything look and taste better.'

4. Massive environmental degradation. 'Wow! It's so much cheaper to produce goods when we can just dump the waste into the river.'

3. Illegal fishing vessels in international waters. 'So what if the UN made drift nets illegal 15 years ago - they still work for us!' or 'Mmmm... this canned tuna is dolphin-y goodness.'

2. Human and workers rights violations on a grand scale. 'If our people don't like the Olympics we have ways of keeping them quiet.'

1. China's support and enabling of the military junta in Burma. 'Hey, their government actually makes us look pretty darn good, plus we get cheap oil!'

Here's a bonus one: when you support manufacturing somewhere else you help destroy Canada's remaining manufacturing sector. Buy Canadian! Be proud.

On a slightly different topic, here is a hopeful piece on the demonstrations from CBC this morning. If it has moved to the archive it is titled 'Conflict Getting Worse' and is Sept 28, 2007.

Where to begin?

I don't even know how to express the awful feeling in the pit of my stomach when I hear the daily report from CBC about the worsening situation in Burma. Dozens of monks and nuns have been beaten/arrested/shot. Mass arrests were last nights attempt to keep the people from marching - but it didn't work. They were out there again today and the latest reports have 11 wounded and 9 dead, including, possibly, a foreign journalist.

The military junta is trying to restrict bandwidth to prevent pictures and reports from 'leaking' out of the country.

The military junta is going to crack down. There is going to be a massacre. And we are watching. It hurts me.

I always thought that if I was about to witness innocent people being slaughtered that I would surely throw myself in front of the guns.

But now I sit and watch. Does it matter that they are far away around the world? Not to me - but how do I help when I can't get there.

Please visit www.avaaz.org and sign the petition. Write Stephen an email. The Security Council is having emergency meetings, let's hope that it gets better.

My email to Stephen...

Dear Sir,

I am sorry to hear that your speech at the UN was not so well received but perhaps you can earn some points for Canada by bringing up this issue during your stay in New York.

There are hundreds of thousands of monks and pro-democracy believers, marching through the streets of Myanmar/Burma, demanding freedom from the oppressive military junta. Last time they tried this, thousands were killed. Please don't let it happen again.

Please say something to support them, please say to the UN that these people deserve our attention. They are desperate for democracy and they have suffered long enough.

Don't let your stated commitment to protecting and developing democracy in other countries ring hollow. Prove that you truly support the freedom of the soul and the body.

Please.

Something important is happening in Burma

If you dig through the National Post you can find it on Page A18. There are protests happening in 'Myanmar' or Burma as it was called before the military junta took over decades ago.

The revolt in 1988 was viciously put down by the military and thousands were killed.

Since the middle of August, there have been more and more protests.

Today there are 40-60,000 monks - that's right, monks - leading protests of civil leaders, students and others demanding democracy. Marching through the streets of Rangoon and other towns. Hundreds of thousands of people rising up and demanding democracy. Literally risking their lives for freedom. Literally, of course, because the government has promised to crack down on the marches. And when they say crack down they mean with bullets, not with flowers.

Visit avaaz.org for more information and to lend you name to a petition to the UN Security Council. While Ahmadinejad is mistreated in New York as the U.S. marches to war against Iran, this issue is ignored. While the U.S. and Canada pick and choose their targets (based on uncooperative governments, I suppose) the very real dictatorship in Burma has been unopposed for decades. DECADES!

To learn more about this issue and one of my favourite people on Earth, here's the link to Wikipedia for Aung San Suu Kyi.

If you have a bit more time, please send an email to Stephen Harper, he just happens to be in New York this week making an ass of Canada before the UN. Maybe he'll enjoy an email or two.

Pay attention - the monks are leading the way. It probably won't hurt to send them your prayers.

Canada's 'No' Vote

Okay, I confess - I'm still steamed about Canada voting NO to the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the UN.

Here are some worthy quotes (snipped from September 13, 2007):

In a statement released by his spokesperson, Mr. Ban described the Declaration’s adoption as “a historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories and are resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all.”

{But, obviously Canada is not yet ready to reconcile our painful history which has become our disgraceful present.}

He called on governments and civil society to ensure that the Declaration’s vision becomes a reality by working to integrate indigenous rights into their policies and programmes.

{This is where we, as citizens, can make a huge difference - more to come, I promise.}

Ms. Arbour noted that the Declaration has been “a long time coming. But the hard work and perseverance of indigenous peoples and their friends and supporters in the international community has finally borne fruit in the most comprehensive statement to date of indigenous peoples’ rights.”

{How cool is she?! Yeah for Louise Arbour, the coolest Canadian at the UN, especially when Stephen Lewis is on vacation. For those who don't know, she is the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN.}

Ambassador John McNee of Canada said his country was disappointed to have to vote against the Declaration, but it had “significant concerns” about the language in the document.

The provisions on lands, territories and resources “are overly broad, unclear and capable of a wide variety of interpretations” and could put into question matters that have been settled by treaty, he said.

{grrrrr... Maybe if we had paid any attention to the promises we made in our treaties we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. Maybe if we hadn't lied to our treaty partners, almost right from the beginning and treated them as less than human, right from the beginning we wouldn't be here. Maybe if we hadn't tried to force them to assimilate this Declaration wouldn't be necessary. Maybe if our government had finally grown the courage necessary to rectify past mistakes this wouldn't be needed. But, of course, we still suck and that is why this Declaration is so important.}

Boo Canada.

Quick Notes

The CBC is so much fun early in the morning.

I must, must, must own music by this man, Marcel Kahlife, he is fantastic. Excellent grooving music. The song was Aqasim. Thank you Metro Morning.

Also, the theme music for RadioPrague is super-cool. If only I knew how to find it.

Poor, poor OJ Simpson - the man is obviously not right.

Oh, it is so about time: Blackwater is booted from Iraq. But who will act as the fists in Bush's war now.

Finally, Microsoft has been slapped by the European courts and is deciding whether or not to appeal the ruling - it may mean that you won't get Media Player next time you buy a new computer. Will Microsoft have to revamp their entire software packaging operations?

Yeah for Indigenous Rights, Boo for Canada

Have I mentioned that Harper makes me feel kindof sick to my stomach. Here then we have a hooray! for human rights trumping the invested corporate interests of big business in Canada, which Harper so devotedly represents.

THE DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WAS OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED TODAY BY THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Yeah! Here is a report by the CBC. Notice that there were 4 countries who voted against the declaration: Canada (I am so embarrassed), Australia, the United States and New Zealand. Hmmm... I wonder what could have happened to make them vote 'No!'

You may or may not know (but now you will) that I am taking a Seminar on Indigenous Peoples in IR this semester. Here is my favourite quote so far from the textbook: "Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian department." This was said by Deputy Superintendent-General Duncan Campbell Scott in 1920 (Leslie and Haguire 1978:115 in Niezen "The Origins of Indigenism" 2003:31).

No, I guess we don't have anything to apologize for. Nothing at all.

Excuse me while I go curl up in a ball and weep.

Clearing up that whole treason thing... a little

Not that I regret my morning post or anything, but I thought it might be a good idea to actually look up what it means to be treasonous in Canada. From our legal description (included below), the only treasonous way to overthrow the government is through force - nothing is written about undermining Canada's sovereignty until the country crumbles. So, our PMs are off the hook.

There is also a lovely prohibition about attempting to kill the Queen. Fabulous. We are *so* 21st century. Of course, that means that there is nothing treasonous about attempting to kill the PM. Which I would never advocate - I'm just trying to make blatantly obvious that this law is stupidly out-of-date.

or is it...

Here's the problem: I love Canada. I love Canada a lot. I love being Canadian and I am proud to be Canadian.

or at least I used to be. Now I'm wondering what it means to be Canadian. Is there a Canada at all? Are we still just a silly little dominion in the crumbled British Empire, asserting loyalty to a royal family an ocean away while neglecting our own citizenry and sovereignty?

or was there a brief period mid-twentieth century where maybe we did have an independent identity, where Canada built its reputation and stood for something.

and then we became part of the American Empire. Maybe we should change the law to make it treasonous to plan to assassinate the President of the US.

BTW, I don't like using the word assassinate, its done enough damage already hasn't it?

Shouldn't it be treason to attempt to kill our own head of state, our own PM? If we were a real, independent country, free and proud, wouldn't that be treason?

--V

From the Canadian Criminal Code:
PART II
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Title: Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person

High 46. treason

46. (1) Every one commits high 46. (1) treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

46. (2) Treason

(2) Every one commits 46. (2) treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high 46. (2) (c) treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high 46. (2) (d) treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Okay, one more Harper rant

I'm not sure exactly what constitutes treasonous behaviour but I'm taking a course called "Diplomacy" and while I was doing the first readings last night I started thinking about supreme interests. You see, the supreme interest of a nation is its survival as a sovereign state. To be sovereign means that a state is able to act in its own interests both internationally and domestically.

So, I began to wonder if various prime ministers we have had over the last 20 or 30 years have compromised the integrity of Canada to the point that our continued existence as a *sovereign* state is jeopardized. Did Brian Mulroney compromise this ability with the signing of NAFTA and the inclusion of the proportionality clause that dooms us to be forever beholden to American needs instead of our own? I'm sure that Chretien and Martin furthered the process while in power, but not particular instance pops to mind. Certainly signing on to the Kyoto protocol and then doing nothing for several years was against our national interest and severely damaged our international reputation - the consequences of which are still to be seen.

But my mind drifted most to Harper and his affection for big business and especially big oil. I know that he loves Alberta - but does he love Canada? I'm sure his answer would be yes but how is that demonstrated? Does encouraging deep integration with the US and the actions of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives show a love of Canada? To me it is betraying our supreme interests, it threatens our very survival as a sovereign state. I think that that is treason.

Am I in so much trouble?

ahhhhh... Imperialism lives on

Harper - the man actually makes me nauseous. I hate that he represents the way a 'typical' Canadian thinks - I always pray that it isn't true but I am yet to be convinced.

You may wonder what I'm blabbing about today. Today, I love the hypocrisy of Canada. All over the world we trumpet the human rights of indigenous peoples - but when it comes time to stand up for them at the United Nations our country runs and hides. Harper/Howard are having a wonderful time in Australia, dreaming up ways to say that they want to help stop climate change but do nothing and that they respect human rights but are planning to actively oppose a tremendous opportunity to support those most in need of protection.

Why do we hide? My first thought would be that obviously we want to ensure that our own indigenous peoples to not receive any internationally recognized rights which would help to lift them out of the abhorrent situation in which they find themselves here at home. I guess the other is... wait, I can't think of any other reason to not support the General Assembly resolution that will come up for a vote at the United Nations on September 13, 2007. That's only two days away!

Oh, maybe it's this phrase from the preamble: "Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the rights and characteristics of indigenous peoples, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources, which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies,"

If the resolution passed, our own aboriginal populations might then have a better defense against large corporations walking in to their lands and developing them for royalties that amount to a pittance. Or maybe they would ask for Toronto back. It weighs on my conscience to know that our wealth was built on a genocide. Weighs heavily.

Here is a nice site to learn more. You may want to read the Amnesty International open letter to Howard and Harper. Maybe I'll write a letter to my MP (I haven't heard from Belinda for awhile), or maybe to the Foreign Affairs Minister (who's the new one again? oh right, the Industry guy.).

Don't even get me started on Harper participating and 'leading' at an APEC conference on climate change. ack.

The Amazing Ms. MacMillan

Thanks to Dr. K. for telling me about this little news nugget.

Page A1 of the Globe and Mail on August 29, 2007 has a story about a controversy at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.

The dispute is between historians and a veteran's group. The topic is the bombing and fire-bombing of Dresden and other German cities towards the end of World War II. Margaret MacMillan is one of the historians on the four-person panel assembled to review the wording.

'The fight over the 67-word panel, titled An Enduring Controversy, erupted shortly after the Canadian War Museum opened in May, 2005. A group of veterans objected to its saying that "the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested," and to its contrasting 600,000 dead with the statement that "the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war." '

One of the bomber veterans responded by saying that, "I took offence that we were just helter-skelter bombers. We always had justified targets."

Yes, and the precision of the bombing runs is amply documented. bwahahahaha
Dresden burned to the ground. Firebombing is not something that can be targeted. It's a fire for heaven's sake. Total destruction. The same tactic was used in Japan, before the nuclear bombs were dropped. Firebombing is just about as effective when the city is made of wood - as cities tended to be in 1945. Estimates for the number of people killed in the firebombing of Dresden range from 35,000 to 100,000.

It's a war crime. Specifically, under Principle VI(b) of the Nuremberg Principles: "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" or maybe targeting civilians, item (c).

I got into a fight with my first IR prof earlier this summer over the topic of post-modernism. One of the other students asked if it was impossible for us to fairly judge the war crimes of others when we were imposing our own moral code on them and that in a post-modernist system their morality might well be completely different. I argued that "Yes, it is incorrect to assume that *our* morals are the correct morals and moreover that we are incredibly hypocritical because we will accuse others of war crimes but that if we the imperial, capitalist powers commit an act it is 'good' but that if someone else does it, it is 'bad'.

We may not be able to impose our moral standards on others but we should at least try to follow them ourselves.

Funnily enough, this issue was first brought to my attention by The West Wing. Leo is trying to figure out why the U.S. does not agree to the jurisdiction of the World Court and one of his commanders from Vietnam explains that Leo himself committed war crimes as a bomber pilot. If the U.S. agreed to abide by international law, they could then be charged. So, while America insists that others are brought to justice, it neatly sidesteps any charges against itself.

We could do the same except that we have already ratified the International Criminal Code and acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In fact, "Canada became the first country in the world to incorporate the obligations of the Rome Statute into its national laws when it adopted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA) on June 24, 2000. Canada was then able to ratify the Rome Statute on July 9, 2000."

Our soldiers and leaders could be charged with war crimes.

Maybe we should remember that when we are following the U.S. into battle.

Malfeasance in Montebello

Last week at Montebello, near Ottawa in Quebec, the leaders of North America met for a '3 Amigos' summit. There were, of course, organized protests and massive amounts of counter-security. The democratically elected leaders were being protected from the demos who, theoretically at least, elected them. Check out this U-Tube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehubbers%2Eca%2F

These were SQ (Surete du Quebec) officers, in other words, they were cops. Or maybe they were RCMP.

I think there are legitimate arguments to be made for why cops should be undercover in a large demonstration. The best one for me is that there is always a small minority of any large group, especially at protests and demonstrations, who are unstable. These people pose a danger to themselves, to other people in the group and to the respectability of the group as a whole. I fully respect the right of the police to gather intelligence on these people and monitor the situation.

Unfortunately, at this demonstration, that small, unstable minority were the police. As I watched the video I was filled with admiration for the union leader, Dave Coles , who interceded on behalf of the peaceful protesters and forced the 'anarchists' back behind police lines. I seriously doubt whether I would have had even a small portion of that man's courage - those cops were scary and big. The crowd laughed as the 'rioters' were thrown to the ground by police, ripped, and marched away.

Here is a CBC article that covers a little bit more and actually manages to mention *why* the protestors and national leaders were in Montebello in the first place: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/08/22/ot-police-070822.html.

"The Security and Prosperity Partnership pact, signed in 2005, is intended to forge closer trade and security links between the countries."

Many people, and I am certainly one of them, feel that the SPP is the single largest threat to Canada's sovereignty and continued existence as an independent nation. While some might argue that our nationhood is merely a technicality at this point, I like to believe that we still have the ability to make our own decisions, especially on the international stage. That while we must always be mindful of our ginormously powerful neighbour to the south (yes, ginormous is the technical term) that we still have the potential to be a strong mid-power nation. The SPP threatens to rip that all away.

I encourage you to take a gander at Glenn's site: http://hubbers.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/threats-to-our-water.pdf for more information and links on SPP. Then maybe write a letter.

We love Mexico and they love us

I wanted to get something off my chest about Mexico.

In 2006, Mexico overtook England as the favourite international travel destination for Canadians (after the US) with 842,000 overnight trips (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070529/d070529a.htm).

For the past two years, Mexico has also been the largest source country for refugee claimants to Canada.

So, really, we send our tourists there and they send their refugees here. Seems fair doesn't it?

Not really. Personally, I find it disturbing how many Canadians travel to Mexico without a thought as to where they are going. Images of luxurious hotels, beautiful beaches and hedonism at the clubs are absolutely right on target and wonderful but they float deceptively over the reality of life in Mexico.

What is that reality?

According to the Amnesty International Annual Report, 2007 (http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/Mexico)

"There were continuing reports of torture, arbitrary detention, excessive use of force and unfair judicial proceedings, particularly at state level. Serious human rights violations were reported in Oaxaca State in the context of a protracted political crisis. Violence against women remained endemic in many states and the campaign for justice for the women of Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua City continued. Several journalists were killed. Human rights defenders and political opponents in some states remained at risk of harassment or unfounded criminal prosecutions. Measures to prosecute those responsible for systematic human rights violations in previous decades failed. Indigenous peoples in several states continued to face discrimination including in access to basic services, such as health care and education."

This post isn't the thousands of men and women who throw themselves on the mercy of human smugglers every year trying to get out of Mexico. I also won't talk about Mexico City, possibly the largest city on earth, with over 19 million inhabitants. It isn't about the gross human rights abuses and femicide of the maquiladora areas near the Mexican-American border. This post isn't even about the dangers that tourists face when they travel to Mexico.

Nope, this post is about the people who do manage to reach Canada. Many of the claimants are middle class professionals: writers, lawyers, doctors, and engineers who fear persecution or death in Mexico. Some are fleeing homophobia, some spousal abuse, and some are trying to escape from the drug cartels who run their businesses and their local governments with equal ease. These claimants are people like us. People who just want a safe existence, who want a chance to earn money and raise their families without being threatened, disappeared, or killed.

And what do we do? We deny their claims and send them back because there is a reasonable expectation that their government will protect them. Please! Their government is incapable of reigning in the criminals in Mexico and corruption is so rampant that many people are afraid to ask the police for help. And we refuse to help, the Canadian government only accept 28% of the refugee claims made by Mexicans. (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/243329)

Sigh.

Our hubris and ignorance about the world in which we travel is shameful. If you travel, at least learn about your destination first. And don't be surprised when something not-so-nice happens. The world is not really our playground - when will we start acting like it.

Just remember: In Mexico, you are guilty until proven innocent.