4 Nov - Blogs Pursuing a Reality Based Media

Image via Wikipedia

The Galloping Beaver

A tail dragging romp through the swamps of the world

the stupidity

THE LA TIMES has an obituary written by Claire Noland, that details the life and times of Qian Xuesen, who died at the ripe old age of 98.

So, who was Qian Xuesen, and why should you care?

He was one of the founders of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in California, that did the early ground-breaking research in American rocketry — and a victim of the McCarthy paranoia. Deported in 1955 on suspicion of being a Communist, the aeronautical engineer educated at Caltech became known as the father of China's space and missile programs.

( Flogging Islamofascism and 'violence of Islam' should have similar fruit.

Luke 6 : 42

How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

6:37-49 All these sayings Christ often used; it was easy to apply them. We ought to be very careful when we blame others; for we need allowance ourselves. If we are of a giving and a forgiving spirit, we shall ourselves reap the benefit. Though full and exact returns are made in another world, not in this world, yet Providence does what should encourage us in doing good. Those who follow the multitude to do evil, follow in the broad way that leads to destruction. The tree is known by its fruits; may the word of Christ be so grafted in our hearts, that we may be fruitful in every good word and work. And what the mouth commonly speaks, generally agrees with what is most in the heart. Those only make sure work for their souls and eternity, and take the course that will profit in a trying time, who think, speak, and act according to the words of Christ. Those who take pains in religion, found their hope upon Christ, who is the Rock of Ages, and other foundation can no man lay. In death and judgment they are safe, being kept by the power of Christ through faith unto salvation, and they shall never perish. )

Israel’s European Lobby

 In their 2006 article “The Israel Lobby,” John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt famously assert, “Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.” Having for decades successfully steered policymaking in Washington in a pro-Israel direction, Israel’s American Lobby has more recently turned its attention to Europe. Despite its brief presence in Brussels, it appears to have already had marked success in influencing the nascent foreign policy of the European Union.

One of the most important of the more than 60 organizations that make up “the Lobby” is the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Jeff Blankfort, an American Jew who is one of the Lobby’s most trenchant critics, described the AJC as “the Lobby’s unofficial foreign office.” Extending its global diplomatic mission, the AJC opened an office in Brussels in 2004. Since then, according to Blankfort, it has held weekly meetings with a high official or the chief of state of EU member states. The meetings seem to be having the desired effect. As Blankfort wrote in 2006, “Over the past year the EU has moved away from relative support for the Palestinians to adopting one position after another reflecting Israeli demands.”

Noam Chomsky: no change in US 'Mafia principle'
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/8871

As civilised people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see the back of former US president George W. Bush, top American intellectual Noam Chomsky warned against assuming or expecting significant changes in the basis of Washington's foreign policy under President Barack Obama.

During two lectures organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving doctrines behind US foreign policy since the end of World War II.

"As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style," said

"But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a different story," he added.

"There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world," explained Chomsky.

Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of US foreign policy during the period of its global dominance is what he termed as "the Mafia principle."

"The Godfather does not tolerate 'successful defiance'. It is too dangerous. It must therefore be stamped out so that others understand that disobedience is not an option," said Chomsky.

Because the US sees "successful defiance" of Washington as a "virus" that will "spread contagion," he explained.

Iran

The US had feared this "virus" of independent thought from Washington by Tehran and therefore acted to overthrow the Iranian parliamentary democracy in 1953.

"The goal in 1953 was to retain control of Iranian resources," said Chomsky.

However, "in 1979 the (Iranian) virus emerged again. The US at first sought to sponsor a military coup; when that failed, it turned to support Saddam Hussein's merciless invasion (of Iran)."

"The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions and other means," said Chomsky.

"The US continued, without a break, its torture of Iranians," he stressed.

Nuclear attack

Chomsky mocked the idea presented by mainstream media that a future-nuclear-armed Iran may attack already-nuclear-armed Israel.

"The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth -- unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated along with them," said Chomsky, stressing that this is not the case.

Chomsky further explained that the presence of US anti-missile weapons in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, and not for self-defence, as it is often presented.

"The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But ...the purpose of the US interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a US or Israeli attack on Iran -- that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent," said Chomsky.

Iraq

Chomsky reminded the audience of America's backing of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during and even after Iraq's war with Iran.

"The Reaganite love affair with Saddam did not end after the (Iran-Iraq) war. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States, then under George Bush I, to receive advanced weapons' training," said Chomsky.

This support continued while Saddam was committing atrocities against his own people, until he fell out of US favour when in 1990 he invaded Kuwait, an even closer alley of Washington.

"In 1990, Saddam defied, or more likely misunderstood orders, and he quickly shifted from favourite friend to the reincarnation of Hitler," Chomsky added.

Then the people of Iraq were subjected to "genocidal" US-backed sanctions.

Chomsky explained that although the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was launched under many false pretexts and lies, was a " major crime", many critics of the invasion - including Obama - viewed it as merely as "a mistake" or a "strategic blunder".

"It's probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad," he said

"There's nothing principled about it. It wasn't a strategic blunder: it was a major crime," he added.

Chomsky credited the holding of elections in Iraq in 2005 to popular Iraqi demand, despite initial US objection.

The US military, he argued, could kill as many Iraqi insurgents as it wished, but it was more difficult to shoot at non-violent protesters in the streets out on the open, which meant Washington at times had to give in to public Iraqi pressure.

But despite being pressured to announce a withdrawal from Iraq, the US continues to seek a long term presence in the country.

The US mega-embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama, noted Chomsky.

Optimism

Chomsky stressed that public pressure in the 'West' can make a positive difference for people suffering from the aggression of 'Western' governments.

"There is a lot of comparison between opposition to the Iraq war with opposition to the Vietnam war, but people tend to forget that at first there was almost no opposition to the Vietnam war," said Chomsky.

"In the Iraq war, there were massive international protests before it officially stated... and it had an effect. The United Sates could not use the tactics used in Vietnam: there was no saturation bombing by B52s, so there was no chemical warfare - (the Iraq war was) horrible enough, but it could have been a lot worse," he said.

"And furthermore, the Bush administration had to back down on its war aims, step by step," he added.

"It had to allow elections, which it did not want to do: mainly a victory for non-Iraqi protests. They could kill insurgents; they couldn't deal hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Their hands were tied by the domestic constraints. They finally had to abandon - officially at least - virtually all the war aims," said Chomsky.

"As late as November 2007, the US was still insisting that the 'Status of Forces Agreement' allow for an indefinite US military presence and privileged access to Iraq's resources by US investors - well they didn't get that on paper at least. They had to back down. OK, Iraq is a horror story but it could have been a lot worse," he said

"So yes, protests can do something. When there is no protest and no attention, a power just goes wild, just like in Cambodia and northern Louse," he added.

Turkey

Chomsky said that Turkey could become a "significant independent actor" in the region, if it chooses to.

"Turkey has to make some internal decisions: is it going to face west and try to get accepted by the European Union or is it going to face reality and recognise that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?," said Chomsky.

The Europeans "keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU," he explained.

But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, which opposed the invasion.

But 'New Europe' was led by Berlusconi of Italy and Aznar of Spain, who rejected the views of their populations - which strongly objected to the Iraq war - and preferred to follow Bush, noted Chomsky.

So, in that sense Turkey was more democratic than states that took part in the war, which in turn infuriated the US.

Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to take part in the US-Israeli military exercises.

Fear factor

Chomsky explained that although 'Western' government use "the maxim of Thucydides" ('the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must'), their peoples are hurled via the "fear factor".

Via cooperate media and complicit intellectuals, the public is led to believe that all the crimes and atrocities committed by their governments is either "self defence" or "humanitarian intervention". 

 thwap's schoolyard

Monday, November 2, 2009

From That Link ...

Earlier post today provide a link to the Special Committee on Canada's Mission in Afghanistan. I've just started reading it and thought I'd share Paul Dewar's grilling of Stockwell Day:

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister.

I want to start off with your comments about communication and getting the message
out. I want to be precise. In looking over the shop that you chair, the Afghanistan task force, something came up that caused me considerable concern. When I asked officials responsible for training military and police whether they were able to read the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission's report, a wonderful project that we helped fund, they told me they couldn't read it because it was in Dari. I was happy to provide a translation for them.

I looked into this, and I asked an order paper question about translation and the capacity of the task force. You talked about getting the message out, and that's fair enough. What came back was rather stunning to me. Not one person in the PCO, the Afghanistan task force, knew Dari or Pashto. In this country, I'd think we'd be able to find someone—I have. Those six communication assistants in that shop are doing something. From 2006 to 2009, the government spent a total of $4,512 on translation into Dari or Pashto, whereas in this same time period they spent $9.2 million on communications about the war.

I point that out to you because I think there are a lot of deficits. It's about priorities. I don't think we should be spending $9.2 million on getting the message out about the war. We should spend more on translation services. We have a critical role. If we can't even find people to translate the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission's report about torture by the people we're training, we have a problem, Minister.

I will leave that with you as a concern, because you asked for advice. It's not acceptable, from my point of view, and I'd like to know the response. I think it's an area where we have failed.

There's been a lot of attention paid to the transfer of prisoners. I'm going to make a motion to have this committee talk to people about this and bring people before the committee. Are the transfer agreements that the government brought in and we signed onto being followed by Afghan government officials? Are we certain that they're following the procedure we put in place?

(1625)
Hon. Stockwell Day: It's my understanding that they are. I'll get back to you on how we came to that understanding and what gives us that sense of confidence. Then you can judge whether it's a good checking process we have.

On the issue of translation, there actually is a Dari speaker on our task force. This may not have been true when you asked for that information, but there is somebody there now who speaks Dari. Is one person enough? I don't know.

You've raised some good issues on translation. I'll get some information back to this committee, because I know we receive it from other sources. We get the reports of those human rights—

Mr. Paul Dewar: But you understand the disproportionate nature of the numbers.

Hon. Stockwell Day: With respect to communication itself, I'll come back to you with the costs. The cost of printing and distributing these reports—that's got to be fairly significant. There are quite a number of other communication methods that are used. More communication was one of the key recommendations of the independent panel that looked at Afghanistan. In fact, it is the reason we're here today: communication, communication, communication. It was very strong. So I'll get back to you on that.

Mr. Paul Dewar: Fair enough.

I want to get back to the transfer. When the Afghan government releases a prisoner, one of the things that is of concern to all of us is whether we are being notified by the officials. Is that part of the protocol? Are we being notified by the officials when those prisoners are released from jail?

Hon. Stockwell Day: I'll have to get back to you on that. I'm not sure what the notification process is. I don't know whether that would be our responsibility, but—

Mr. Paul Dewar: But we should know.

Hon. Stockwell Day: —let me check on it. I have visited the principal prison under our jurisdiction. I went through pretty well every area of it and talked with a number of the individuals who were kept there.

Mr. Paul Dewar: I appreciate that. Please get back to us. For obvious reasons, this is something I think we should know .

We're training the military, the Afghan National Army, and that's an important job. I've had concerns about the police. I wonder if they know the human rights criteria of their own country, of their own constitution. That's a serious concern, and I've mentioned it before in committee.

I found it very surprising that the AWOL rate for the Afghan army is 10%. Is that your understanding? If so, how is it being dealt with by our military? If 10% of 94,000 men are AWOL, that's quite a significant number. What's our response to that?

Hon. Stockwell Day: Whether it's 10% today or not--I can't say--any rate at all is of concern. Are we going to look at it in comparison to the Canadian Armed Forces, which results show are the best in the world, in a mature parliamentary democracy, with incredible training? We hold this brand-new Afghan army to high standards, but if we expect the same kind of attendance rate, we may be disappointed. So we have to measure it in terms of progress. The number of those being trained and staying are higher than they ever were, but this is fairly new. So it's a concern. It's something we'll work with in our mentoring and training.

Also remember that if you're a member of the armed forces in Afghanistan, you are a target within your own country. In Canada, when our soldiers walk down the street, they are greeted with respect everywhere they go. In that country, if you're a soldier, your family is at risk and you are at risk.

Mr. Paul Dewar: We're not at war, though, and I guess that's the point. It was reported by Persian BBC a couple of weeks ago that ANA and others are handing over their arms to the Taliban. So this is a critical piece. I'd like to know that we have something in place to track the soldiers we train. If they're going AWOL, where are they going?

(1630)
Hon. Stockwell Day: Remember, this is a culmination of us working with Afghanistan. They have to get to the place where they are controlling their own security and learning the methods and processes. Sometimes it's a simple matter of pay. They're getting paid more than ever, but in some areas of the country, where the narcotics economy is strong, it's pretty easy to buy them away from where they are.

So a 10% AWOL rate is not something a modern-day, sophisticated armed forces could tolerate. But we have to remember that 90% of them are staying on the job under threat of death and their families being slaughtered every day.

Mr. Paul Dewar: But we want to make sure that 10% of them aren't going to the other side. You mentioned Iraq, and that was an issue there. So do we have a strategy to deal with that? If we don't, we darn well should. We could be indirectly fueling the insurgency, and I don't think anyone
wants that.

Hon. Stockwell Day: Clearly these are things that make up part of the overall security matrix. We are seeing a maturing in Afghanistan of their capabilities, not just on the military side but on social development, in virtually every area. But you can't compare it to where we are.

Mr. Paul Dewar: I'm not.

Hon. Stockwell Day: I know you're not, but we have to look at the progress and the fact that they are learning. They are also learning how to go after these types of inconsistencies.

The Chair: You have one minute left, Mr. Dewar.

Mr. Paul Dewar: We want to see the government do more in engaging with other countries in the region. As was mentioned, this war cannot be won through military means, and I think that's pretty clear. So I want to know what the government has done.

Has there been any initiative to talk to countries in the region, like India, Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia, etc.? I think that's something Canada could do, and I certainly encourage you to do that if you haven't.

Hon. Stockwell Day: The entire United Nations force that's engaged there is involved in that type of diplomacy. But Canada specifically has put together a very successful program called the Doha process. We engage and encourage people from Pakistan and Afghanistan to meet and discuss everything from borders to reconciliation. So Canada is very much involved in those types of discussions.

Mr. Paul Dewar: But I'm talking about all the other countries in the neighbourhood. Has there been something of that nature?

Hon. Stockwell Day: From the point of view of diplomacy, discussions are ongoing on a variety of levels.

Mr. Paul Dewar: But are they with those other countries?

Hon. Stockwell Day: Yes. When I was in Saudi Arabia we had discussions about Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia's role, and how they can do more.

Mr. Paul Dewar: But what about the other countries I mentioned?

Hon. Stockwell Day: There are discussions with other countries too.

The Chair: Mr. Dewar, your time is up. Thank you.

Mr. Minister, a couple of issues were raised that you said you would respond to.

Hon. Stockwell Day: I'll get back to you.

The Chair: Hopefully we'll see them.

Hon. Stockwell Day: I appreciate some of the points that have been raised. We'll look into them and get back to the committee.

The Chair: Okay.

We'll suspend for a few minutes while we move in camera.

Yeah, "I'll get back to you on those basic points." Whatever.

Hypocrisy and a Link

Liberal Paul Szabo points out:

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the references that the hon. House leader has made I am familiar with them but I simply want to point out to the House leader and to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the party that brought forward a 200 page manual on how to obstruct the work of committees.

 

"Wrongs of the Right"

Duncan Cameron has a good editorial, which, while I disagree with certain points (I think Obama is far more right-wing than anyCanadian government), effectively identifies the neo-liberal project for the failure that it is:

Today, 25 years after the election of Mulroney, corporate Canada celebrates 25 years of uninterrupted control of public affairs. As the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has shown conclusively in a series of studies, Canadians are worse off economically than they were before free trade in 1988.
...
The key right-wing idea about government spending is wrong. Program spending is not too big, it is too small. True enormous amounts are wasted on the military and corporate subsidies, but in the main government spending is far from generous, especially for those in need.
Much of what the right has championed has been good for the super wealthy, and corporations. But, rejecting government by discussion, aka democracy, and relying on fictional reason, only
works so long. What the right fears the most is open debate. Bring it on.

This is what the capitalist media can't bring itself to admit. That they've failed. That they'll continue to fail. This is what a culture in denial can't admit to itself and must therefore be forced to confront.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Shorter Brian: It Takes a Battalion of Marines to Protect a Village

But one thing is for sure: the people who write Afghanistan off as ungovernable or unredeemable don't know what they're talking about.

In this district, the war is being waged in the manner sought by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan: The number of troops went from about 100 to 1,100, and they have been countering the insurgency by focusing on improving security for local people instead of hunting down the Taliban.
The result has been a profound transformation, suggesting that after eight years of war the United States still may be able to regain momentum in some areas that had long been written off to the Taliban.

Let's be clear here: After EIGHT YEARS OF FAILURE we're to believe that the United States and NATO have solved all the problems that have bedeviled them the entire time? A corrupt, brutal government? A corrupt, failed, half-assed reconstruction? McCrystal, who went from running a torture chamber in Iraq has said that the USA will switch from killing insurgents to winning "hearts and minds." (Note to shit-heads, "hearts and minds" is an INFAMOUS expression.) McCrystal was appointed in May. In the first six-months of 2009 civilian deaths in Afghanistan have increased, from the same period in 2008. (Searching for that link I saw another link to an older story about how 2008 was the worst year for civilian casualties yet in Afghanistan.)

Look. This isn't even funny anymore. It never was. Brian, Terry, ... you know, real in-the-flesh circle-jerks are more fulfilling, and even if they were public, they'd be less cringe-inducing than the self-righteous crapola you two engage in on a daily basis.

( 'ReConstruction'...too sad : No-Bid unsupervised contracts that produced crap. )

 The Protestors Showed More Maturity Than Elizabeth May

Here's what the Green Party's leader Elizabeth May said about the protesters in Parliament yesterday:

At a press conference, Green Party leader Elizabeth May said it was "heartbreaking" that MPs"laughed" as the young people were removed from the gallery.She said "those were our children we threw out of the House of Commons today....the most responsible young adults in Canada."
May said they were protesting because a climate-change bill was delayed last week in Parliament. "The youth in the galleries showed more leadership than the MPs on the floor."

Really Elizabeth? All the MPs? Even the NDP and the BQ MPs who were trying to pass some important legislation? The ones the protesters where there to support?
May couldn't give credit where credit is due, because the NDP is her party's arch-rival. It was partisanship that prevented her from being honest and from acknowledging the importance of what the NDP was doing. By putting partisan concerns before acknowledging the good that some parliamentarians can do, she herself exhibited gross immaturity.

 Challenging the Commonplace
http://challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Oh, the Compassion!

The wording in the BC Government media release says it all. The new Act, just announced, is intended "to protect homeless in extreme weather." How fortunate that the Act has been put in place in time for the Olympics!

Friday, October 30, 2009

Oh, the Compassion! - Part 2

Here's more about BC's new bill to sweep Vancouver and other cities' streets of layabouts.

The bill says the definition of 'extreme weather' will follow the definitions cities are using in their Extreme Weather Response Plans, but the provincial cabinet can make regulations to adjust the definition.

Criteria in Vancouver include temperatures near zero with rainfall making it 'difficult or impossible for homeless people to remain dry'. Sleet, freezing rain, snow, high winds or temperatures below negative two degrees Celsius also count as extreme weather.

In other words, the BC government can tweak the definition of 'extreme weather' to suit their own agenda-laden purposes, which is what I'd suggested likely in Part 1 of this post.

As the Bill itself suggests, when it comes to staying dry (or warm), 'difficult' isn't the same as 'impossible'. Street people are inventive; given how long many have been on the streets, it's safe to assume they know how to survive in all manner of weather.

Here's the short, and not so sweet, Bill 18 - Assistance to Shelter Act.

Creekside
http://creekside1.blogspot.com

 

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Gordo's fluffer energy task forces

Gordo's four new "greenwash energy advisory task forces" will have just two months to come up with the goods to make running air-conditioners in California the "cornerstone" of BC's renewed green energy revolution.

Monday, November 02, 2009

From the office TARDIS at VANOC

Thanks to the handy Time And Relative Dimensions In Space machine in the downtown offices of VANOC Central, Ron Judd at The Seattle Times received "an entire day's Olympic torch-relay events in great detail before they ever happened."

Naturally the TARDIS was unable to predict every single detail and Judd's copy contained the usual number of space/time anomalies :

Owelympic$ welcomes US forces to Canada

David Charbonneau :

"Exercise Gold will confirm information-sharing and coordination between federal, regional, municipal and private sector organizations and will be largely out of the public eye."

Kash Heed, BC Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General :

"Working with our partners in the federal and local governments, we will ensure these Games are safe and secure for all."

Public Safety Canada :

"The Program includes participants from the federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as emergency services and private sector partners.
Security preparations for these Games, including the Integrated Exercise Program, will leave B.C. and Canada as a whole with a valuable legacy."

Not giving much public credit to the US forces involved in this "valuable legacy", are they?

DND to Commons Defence Committee via David Pugliese at Defence Watch :

Question 1: Exercise Gold, will it involve American forces?

Response: Yes. NORAD is a bi-national command that includes both Canadian and American personnel and equipment. NORAD will be participating in exercise Gold. Various US military headquarters and operations centres will be exercising with Canada Command during exercise Gold, through exercise Determined Dragon (a Canadian Forces exercise) and exercise Vigilant Shield (a US military exercise). In addition, a small number of US military liaison officers will be participating with Joint Task Force Games.

Friday, October 30, 2009
Bill C-300 : In the minefield of the International Trade Committee

Canada is #1 in the world in mining and extractive industries in foreign countries. With over a thousand mining and exploration companies in 100 countries - about 5,000 projects - Canada has well over 50% of the global exploration and mining companies. There have been noises about human rights abuses.

On March 26, 2009, the Cons tabled a policy to deal with corporate social responsibility abroad : a "centre of excellence", a voluntary industry compliance strategy, and a Con-appointed corporate social responsibilty official, Marketa Evans, who will report to the minister of trade once a year. She has no power to investigate abuses if the corps in question do not agree to it.
.
International human rights standards, however, refer to people, not corporations.
Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, attempts to provide a mechanism for dealing with environmental and human rights violations supported or perpetrated by Canadian companies abroad.
.
From the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development :
Oct 8 : A Canadian copper mine in the Philippines was dumping mine waste in the ocean. Its earthen dams broke, inundating villages below with toxic mine waste. Parents of dead children were paid $23 per child.
In Ecuador a Canadian mining company's paramilitary agents issue death threats to local villagers opposed to the mine.
In Tanzania, a Canadian gold mine is leaking cyanide into surrounding rivers.
Norway's government pension fund has dropped its shares in a Canadian mine in Papua New Guinea because it "dumps its tailings and its waste directly into a huge tropical river system".

Oct.20 : A Canadian mining company in Papua New Guinea :

Numerous accounts of rapes show a similar pattern. The guards, usually in a group of five or more, find a woman while they are patrolling on or near mine property. They take turns threatening, beating, and raping her. In a number of cases, women reported to me being forced to chew and swallow the condoms used by guards during the rape.

Oct 22 : A tailings dam failure in Guyana in which the Canadian gov refused to hear the suit, a large cyanide spill at the EDC-supported mine in Kyrgyzstan, irreversible damage to local glaciers in Argentina, troops kill artisan miners in Tanzania to make way for a Canadian gold mine. Etc etc through about 30 countries.
Lawsuits are tried in the US courts because there is no opportunity to try them in Canada.

Export Development Canada is a crown corporation export credit agency, providing 8,300 Canadian companies operating abroad, mostly mining companies, with advice and money.
In response to questions about the need for Bill C-300 to safeguard human rights, Jim McArdle, a lawyer for EDC, explained that EDC is concerned that C-300 would force them to yank funding from Canadian corps found to be committing human rights abuses, and this would have a chilling effect on companies considering applying to the EDC for assistance. Despite already having their own CSR (corporate social responsibility) advisory group and a compliance officer, EDC has yet to yank funding from a single Canadian corp for any violation.

Further, McArdle said Canada adopting C-300 would "take Canadian companies out of the game", give other countries an unfair advantage, and likely result in our companies relocating to another country with less stringent rules.
Hey, I guess that's why we're currently #1.

Peter Goldring, Con, suggests that with its emphasis on international human rights standards, this bill "amounts to a limit on Canadian sovereignty."

Kevin Sorenson, Con Chair, suggests Bill C-300 would pave the way for "frivolous lawsuits"

CIDA : Not our job to handle complaints!

Deepak Obhrai, Con, says the definition of what precisely constitutes a human right is very open to misinterpretation and will hurt our mining companies.

Tell you what, Deepak, let's just start off by dealing with the raping, killing, and displacing of brown people in the way of our profits and work back from that.

Another concern voiced was that the media would carry stories of abuses as soon as investigations began, thereby putting a potentially innocent company under a cloud until the issue was resolved. Yeah, just like people.

Every committee has at least one Con whose job is to ask leading questions about how wonderful the Con gov is. This job just requires stringing together a number of non-sequitors in the form of a question. Or not.
John Weston, Con, my MP :

"I would appreciate more specific comments on what the government is doing now. In other words, this is not a government that's oblivious of human rights concerns. We created serious impediments for mining companies, with some of the things we've done in the name of human rights. We're doing that to try to open up the competitive capacity of the mining companies. If you can't do business and you don't pay your taxes in Canada, then we can't maintain our social safety net."

Thanks for that, John.

On April 22, 2009 Bill C-300 passed second reading in the House by a mere 4 votes. With all Cons voting against it, it is now struggling its way through the minefield of the Foreign Affairs and International Development Committee - 6 Cons, 3 Libs, 1 Bloc and 1 NDP. Excellent work from Paul Dewar with Bob Rae looking for the middle ground.

Time to fire off a letter. Over at The Beav I've posted the email addies of the 20 Libs and 7 Dippers who missed the vote last time. They could use a note too

Monday, October 26, 2009
"Good Morning, Afghanistan" 

On Sunday hundreds of Afghan students and protesters shouted slogans against the US, Nato and Afghan government and burned an effigy of the President Obama during a rally in Kabul before attempting to storm the parliament building.

.....

Eric Margolis : Take poor Hamid Karzai, the amiable former business consultant and CIA "asset" installed by Washington as Afghanistan's president. As the U.S. increasingly gets its backside kicked in Afghanistan, it has blamed the powerless Karzai for its woes and bumbling.

You can almost hear Washington rebuking, "bad puppet! Bad puppet!"

The U.S. government has wanted to dump Karzai, but could not find an equally obedient but more effective replacement. There was talk of imposing an American "chief executive officer" on him. Or, in the lexicon of the old British Raj, an Imperial Viceroy.

Washington finally decided to try to shore up Karzai's regime and give it some legitimacy by staging national elections in August. The UN, which has increasingly become an arm of U.S. foreign policy, was brought in to make the vote kosher. Canada eagerly joined this charade.

No political parties were allowed to run. Only individuals supporting the West's occupation of Afghanistan were allowed on the ballot.

As I wrote before the election, it was all a great big fraud within a larger fraud designed to fool American, Canadian and European voters into believing democracy had flowered in Afghanistan. Cynical Afghans knew the vote would be rigged. Most Pashtun, the nation's ethnic majority, didn't vote. The "election" was an embarrassing fiasco.

Ironically, the U.S. is now closely allied with the Afghan Communists and fighting its former Pashtun allies from the 1980s anti-Soviet struggle. Most North Americans have no idea they are now backing Afghan Communists and the men who control most of Afghanistan's booming drug trade."

Saturday, October 24, 2009
The revolution will be YouTubed redux

When Paul Manly's video of union leader Dave Coles confronting three rock-toting undercover Quebec police officers skulking through peaceful protestors at the North American Leaders Summit in Montebello hit YouTube two years ago, then-minister of public safety Stockwell Day dismissed calls for a public inquiry :

"The thing that was interesting in this particular incident, three people in question were spotted by protesters because were not engaging in violence," Mr. Day said.
"They were being encouraged to throw rocks and they were not throwing rocks, it was the protesters who were throwing the rocks. That's the irony of this," Mr. Day said.
Mr. Day added the actions were substantiated by the video that he has seen of the protests.
"Because they were not engaging in violence, it was noted that they were probably not protesters. I think that's a bit of an indictment against the violent protesters," Mr. Day said."

This ridiculous statement ran nightly on TV newscasts alongside footage of the police provocateurs shoving Dave Coles around before sneaking back behind police lines - seen here at left - to jeers from the crowd.

As Dave Coles told CBC's As It Happens :

"I didn't know they were police right away but I knew they were agitators because earlier they had been trying to get the young kids down on the road to cause trouble."

For days after the incident, Quebec Provincial Police denied these were their guys.

Well there was no inquiry and Quebec's Police Ethics Commissioner took till this May, two years later, to clear the officers, but now the Quebec independent police ethics committee will hold hearings to determine whether the officers breached the Code of Ethics of Quebec Police Officers by inciting others to violence.

Dave Coles suspects likely federal involvement may lead to a cover-up :

"This is the big question: Who sent them in? And don't give me some lame excuse that it was a low-level officer "

Good thing we already have the public statements from Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and the QPP on record for the Quebec independent police ethics committee.

 

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Bill C-311 : Inside the Environment Committee

Last week Iggy vowed to make the environment central to the Liberal platform again.
Today the Libs voted with the Cons to delay passage of the Climate Change Accountability Act by granting the Standing Committee on the Environment yet another extension to study it instead of pass it.
As noted by Pogge this morning :

The bill is identical to one that passed final reading last year but died in the Senate when the last election was called. This version has already passed second reading. Layton wants to push it through before the climate change talks in Copenhagen to send a message that Harper and company, who have been quite happy to sabotage international efforts whenever they can, don't represent the majority of Canadians on this issue. So why are the Liberals suddenly withdrawing support from legislation they've supported on five previous votes?

This is the party that signed us on to the Kyoto Protocol in the first place and then spent a decade or more studying implications without actually doing anything. So does this mean they didn't study the implications of this bill the last five times they voted for it?

Good question. Bill C-133 sets long-term targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. It does not prescribe specific measures on how to achieve this ; it just says yes we really mean it this time, not like the other time, and authorizes the government to set penalties for failing to reduce emissions.

Back in April, Lib environment critic and environment committee member David McGuinty pushed to have discussion on the bill deferred until this fall. Then the meetings on Sept 29 and Oct 1 were cancelled because they didn't have a chair. Now they want an extension.

 

 

Related articles by Zemanta

• The DIGNITY Series: Leaving the Reality-Based Community (liveactivecultures.net)
• Germany's Merkel: advocate of strong US ties (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Jim Jones calls a two-state solution a top priority at the first annual J Street conference. (slate.com)
• Iran claims victory in nuclear battle with the West (telegraph.co.uk)
• Baghdad Car Bombs Kill Over 100 (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama's Choice: Failed War President or the Prince of Peace? (hamidandcompany.blogspot.com)
• Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (outsidethebeltway.com)