This. Is. Awesome.

There are no words to express the awesomeness of this blog post (not mine, obviously, but the one I am linking to):

http://www.1001words.com/2008/09/obama-to-nation-im-outta-here.html

Enjoy!

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).

Robot Overlords...

I, for one, will welcome our new robot overlords! (just wanted to show my support early)

My favourite lines:

Tyrone: Robot overlords don't give Scooter Libby pardons. No rich man can bribe his way out of the robot overlord court. You telling me you don't want to see the robot overlords kick in Dick Cheney's door --
John: I would buy that DVD. The two disc box set, with robot overlord commentary.

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?

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?

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.