A reflection and news review on the denial of refugee status to war resister Jeremy Hinzamn and how to deal with the issue in Canada.

There have been quite a number of stories about the US army deserter that applied for refugee status and was turned down earlier this week. I did a review through the Toronto Star and found a number of articles. If you are interested in following the case more in depth (as i was) here is a set of stories (partial and complete depending on the story repetition involed) as well as a discussion (by moi of what i think is important and what i think we should do. For those that are interested the stories i'm looking at are:

• Canada must deny refugee status to U.S. soldier
• Deserters await their fate
• U.S. deserter denied asylum
• Canada should put out the welcome mat

This story is different (generally) from the others in that it has a very different tone than the others. There are many who agree that Jeremy Hinzman and other US soldiers doesn't fit the traditional idea of a refugee (and the stories deal with this) but this one's tone was different. Even i talked in my earlier post about why i felt Hinzman has a weaker case out of the two i know of. But having difference around is important and since i'm going to be listing the other stories that are mainly positive i thought I'd give this article full space, not cut it up:

Canada must deny refugee status to U.S. soldier

RONDI ADAMSON
Mar. 24, 2005. 01:00 AM

You could randomly grab someone off any street in t Sudan, and be fairly certain that person would make a better refugee than Jeremy Hinzman. Hinzman is one of six American soldiers (as far as we know) who have deserted to Canada in the past two years.

All voluntarily joined the army and then balked at facing the consequences of that decision. All have found a haven, one hopes only temporary, in the doughy, sanctimonious arms of their northern neighbour.

Hinzman found a lawyer — a draft dodger who came to Canada years ago — and applied for refugee status. The decision regarding Hinzman's claim will be announced today, and whatever it is, it will send a message to other potential deserters.

Refugee status is meant for people whose lives would be threatened upon return to their own country, either through execution or persecution. Nothing at Hinzman's three-day refugee hearing, which I attended in December, indicated he had reason to fear either upon return to the United States.

And the testimony of Jimmy Massey, an Iraq war veteran —sent home from Iraq suffering depression and post-traumatic stress — succeeded only in showing us that war is ugly.

My cab driver on the second day of Hinzman's hearing had a lot to say when I told him where I was going. He was from Iran. He really was a refugee. He joked with me about coming in to testify, but he had to make a living.

Hinzman has not had to worry about making a living in Canada.

Since his arrival, he and his wife and son — like Brandon Hughey, another deserter in Canada — have been staying under the aegis of Quakers and enjoying the naïveté of their adopted land.

Well-known Canadian personalities have helped raise money for Hinzman and Hughey, commended them on their "bravery" and signed petitions asking they be allowed to stay. Flattering profiles of "the boys" have appeared in Canadian media.

I do feel for the boys. Fulfilling a contract, or keeping a promise made, is often more unpleasant or difficult than simply signing that contract or uttering that promise. And I would never want to be a soldier. That's why I never joined the army.

And while I'm sure there are other Canadians who believe the boys should be booted home, to face court-martial and perhaps a light sentence in a military prison (and possibly a book or movie deal), not many of them are members of the chattering classes.

Which brings me to another of Hinzman's concerns — that he will face "social persecution" if he is sent home. I know that one well, and it's no fun. Try being Canadian and supporting the war in Iraq.

At the hearing, it was clear it was widely assumed one supported Hinzman. "This is a complicated case," one reporter said to me. How? I wondered.

"I don't like Bush," said someone else, looking grim. What on earth does that have to do with it? This is not about George Bush.

In 2005, Hinzman may be a lot of things — a frightened young man, a shirker, a pacifist — but one thing he is not, is a refugee.

Someone at the refugee board, speaking off the record, told me he considered hearing U.S. cases a waste of time. That was refreshing.

But even if Hinzman's claim is rejected, he can appeal and stay here forever. Given continuing attacks on U.S. soldiers — none of whom ran to Canada — in Iraq, soldiers making sacrifices to provide a democratic future to people who have only known dictatorship, it would behove Canadians to think about who really deserves what we have to offer.

Deserters await their fate

Ruling may give hope of asylum to U.S. war resisters
Among the latest arrivals: a soldier, wife and four kids
ALBERT NERENBERG
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Mar. 24, 2005. 01:00 AM

When Private First Class Joshua Key was shipped to Iraq, the American combat engineer believed he was doing the right thing.

"I left for Iraq with a purpose, thinking this was another Hitler deal," he said in an interview last weekend. "But there were no weapons of mass destruction. They had no military whatsoever. And I started to wonder."

He served eight months in Iraq before going AWOL. Key arrived in Toronto a little more than two weeks ago, with his wife and four young children.

Asked what led him to desert, he says: "The atrocities that were happening to the innocent people of Iraq. I didn't want to be part of it no more. I came home and I deserted."...

....Key, 26, says he served in Iraq with the 43rd Combat Engineering Company, which was deployed in April 2003 to what would become some of the fiercest areas of conflict. Over eight months, Key's unit served in Fallujah, Ramadi and Baghdad.

Despite being trained as a welder, he says, he spent most of his time patrolling the streets and blowing the doors off homes before rushing in on raids.

"I was in combat the entire time I was there," said Key, who is from suburban Oklahoma City.

Back at the 43rd's base in Fort Carson, Colo. for leave in December 2003 the Keys — Joshua and wife Brandi — decided he wasn't going back. They moved with their three children to Philadelphia, where they thought they could hide. Key also got in touch with Toronto lawyer Jeffrey House, who represents Hinzman and a handful of other deserters

They kept a low profile there for a little more than a year. Two months ago, daughter Anna was born. And on March 8, the family got into a minivan and drove across the border at Niagara Falls. Key said the crossing was "nerve-wracking," as they told border officials they were visiting friends.

On a sunny afternoon last Saturday, the Key family resurfaced at an anti-war rally at Nathan Phillips Square. At one point, the whole family, including sons Zackary, 6; Adam, 5; and Phillip, 2; were brought on stage with several other AWOL soldiers, to the cheers of a crowd of about 1,500. Ex-soldier Darrell Anderson, 22, of Kentucky, lifted Zackary up as the crowd roared.

"The boys don't know what's going on," their mother said later. "All they know is they're in a new place with a lot of snow."


The Keys are being supported here by the War Resisters — a coalition of anti-war groups — and lawyer House.

A Wisconsin native who came to Canada in 1970 as a Vietnam War draft dodger, House says he is representing eight U.S. military deserters in Canada. He believes the total, counting those who aren't taking the legal route, may be 100...

....Anderson, whose unit is featured in the coming feature documentary Gunner Palace, was injured by a roadside bomb and awarded a Purple Heart, but has said he decided to desert after he realized army policies would probably result in him shooting innocent civilians at roadblocks.

Brandi Key said she was unable to watch television while her husband was in Iraq. "I was afraid of the news," she said....

....The kids don't understand the big picture, but do know something has changed, Brandi said.

"They know their father isn't a soldier any more," adds Josh. "They still ask: `Is dad going to leave us again?'"

He pauses. "I plan on never leaving my kids again."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Nerenberg is a documentary filmmaker and founder of Trailervision. He has been monitoring U.S. military deserters in Canada for a National Film Board documentary, Escape to Canada.

Here we are beginning to get into the differences in the cases. And the differences (or time of the number of people or beliefs in Canada) may make a difference. What do you do if you feel that what are being asked to do is immoral. Its nice to say you should just follow what your country says, but who defines if its right or wrong? There are times when people think that soldiers should not follow their orders.

I think another big issue here (which doesn't show in these articles all that much) is that while soldiers are not being drafted they are effectively being kept in by a back door draft. What this means is that they aren't being allowed to leave when they would normally be. So if you follow the idea of the first article if your contract says you are leaving the 29th of April and then has some stuff in tiny print and they make you stay longer is that fair? Its what you do in a time of war, yes. But is that not a draft then? Because when its happened in Canada its usually happened after people were drafted. For example i think some soldiers from the Second World War (where we had a draft) were called up to Korea in this manner. But it was generally accepted as having been part of the draft (or at least i would have seen it that way). I suppose there could be other ways of looking at it. But it isn't all black or white sometimes. Which is what i think makes the different cases, well different.

I have a post to the immediate story that came out after Hinzman was denied refugee status already in http://politicagrll.blogspot.com/2005/03/us-soldier-denied-refugee-status-in.html. Its from CBC news and has the basic facts as well as my comment. It doesn't seem worth going over it exactly so scroll down a little and look or follow the link (i'm loath to repeat the same content but i wanted to follow this up further as it interests me, i think its important and I've found some other stories now, some from the same day and some since.

This one gets down to some of the brass tacks as to why Hinzman was rejected and also to why there is controversy. How interested was the US in really making sure that things like Abu Ghraib didn't happen. There has been a lot of argument on that and why it happened and when the US government could have stopped it versus when it did. Even if the government didn't want it to happen (which people debate) it does seem that previous policies such as not giving prisoners in Guantanamo Bay Geneva Convention Rights of war opponents had an effect on how people in Abu Ghraib were treated because soldiers were (at the best interpretation) mixing up the fact that there were different rules in different places. No i haven't blogged on this one because i haven't been here that long. But I've read a lot about it and that is part of my interpretation and certainly one you come across. I'm going to focus on that part of this article. Most of it is repeat otherwise although follow the link if you want to read the rest of the story:

U.S. deserter denied asylum

Board says former paratrooper not legitimate refugee
Loss of innocent lives in Iraq war called `regrettable'
TRACEY TYLER
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER
Mar. 25, 2005. 09:09 AM


....Hinzman is "an intelligent, thoughtful young man with an inquisitive mind," but does not qualify for refugee status because he hasn't shown a "well-founded fear of persecution," or that he would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment if returned to the U.S. for court-martial, Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator Brian Goodman ruled yesterday.

Instead, the former paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division would be sent back to a democracy that offers its citizens due process of law and a "sophisticated" military justice system, and is not a person in need of protection, he said in yesterday's 70-page decision.

Goodman also found Hinzman was not a conscientious objector because he was not, for political or religious reasons, opposed to war in all forms. He dismissed refugee claims filed by Hinzman's wife, Nga Thi Nguyen, and their son, Liam, 2.

Hinzman's lawyer, Jeff House, who represents seven other American deserters, said he will ask the Federal Court of Canada to review the ruling. Goodman did his "level best," he said. "But I think there is a deferential attitude towards the U.S. government that is out of place."

In assessing Hinzman's claim, Goodman said his role doesn't involve making judgments about U.S. foreign policy. But he did have to decide whether military action in Iraq was condemned by the international community for violating the basic rules of human conduct.

Hinzman argued that's pretty much how the world sees it and that punishing him for walking away from such a war would amount to persecution.

But simply disagreeing with the U.S. government's reasons for war isn't enough to ground a refugee claim, Goodman said.

Hinzman failed to establish that, if deployed to Iraq, he would have been complicit in military action denounced by the rest of the world or that the U.S., as a matter of "deliberate policy" or "official indifference," required its soldiers in Iraq to engage in widespread violations of humanitarian law, he said.

That doesn't mean there have not been "serious" international human rights violations, such as the beating and chaining of naked prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, Goodman conceded.

But there was no evidence the U.S. military was "indifferent" to alleged abuses by its soldiers. And it investigated and disciplined such behaviour, he said.

It was "certainly possible," he said, that if Hinzman had gone to Iraq, he too could have been involved in some of the same "activities" described by former U.S. Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey, who testified in support of Hinzman's claim at a refugee hearing in December.

Massey estimated members of his unit killed 30 innocent Iraqis in one 48-hour period, including unarmed protestors.

Most of those killed, however, were in vehicles that failed to stop for military checkpoints, despite being given ample warnings, Goodman said. "While loss of life and, in particular innocent lives, should be minimized at all times, it is regrettably virtually impossible to eliminate loss of civilian life during times of armed conflict," he wrote. "Unfortunately, there will always be the collateral damage associated with the fog of war."

According to the U.S. military's manual for court-martial, desertion in a "time of war" can be punishable by death. But recent cases suggest Hinzman would likely be sentenced to between one and five years in prison, be dishonourably discharged and required to forfeit his pay.

WITH FILES FROM MEGAN OGILVIE AND CANADIAN PRESS

Finally this weekend in an article from Thomas Walkom there is a totally different approach. I liked this article because it does try to deal with the fact that Canada has taken war resisters before and that many Canadians are sympathetic to the case without having to look at another way of defining "refugee" which is really the big problem here. I've written about Harkat earlier in the blog (just a little ways down) and its obvious to me the cases aren't the same.

Harkat will likely be killed if he is sent back to Algeria. So how do we bring these difference together and still maintain a refugee status that is refugee status. I think this article is worth thinking about seriously. It may not have all the answers but it has some of the questions i think.

It looks at the old idea of defectors and how that category could possibly be used (therefore not decreasing what a refugee is or giving a US soldier an easier time getting refugee status than someone who is likely to be killed.) Or simply modifying the landed immigrant policy back to what it was in the past to allow for immigrants with skills from all different countries (including war resisters) to immigrate.

Canada should put out the welcome mat

Let American war deserters apply for immigrant status
THOMAS WALKOM
Mar. 26, 2005. 12:06 PM

By any normal measure, Jeremy Hinzman is no refugee. The 26-year-old American does not face persecution if he returns to the United States. He faces court martial and, probably, jail for deserting his regiment in late 2003 just before it was deployed to Iraq. But that is not quite the same thing.

He is not likely to be prosecuted in the U.S. for his political or religious beliefs. He does not face torture. These are the criteria to qualify as a refugee under the United Nations convention that Canada follows

His lawyer, Jeffrey House, argues that Hinzman was being asked to participate in an illegal war (the invasion of Iraq) and that under the U.N. convention this, too, should allow him to qualify as a refugee.

But even that is not entirely convincing. By the time Hinzman was ordered to Iraq, the U.N. had granted the U.S.-led invaders of that country an imprimatur of respectability.

In any case, the point was moot since the immigration officer adjudicating the case refused to let House raise the argument.

Yesterday, to the surprise of few, the adjudicator ruled that Hinzman does not qualify as a refugee and must return home.

The case is being appealed to Federal Court. But I suspect there are few Canadians who truly believe that Hinzman fits the definition of a U.N. convention refugee.

That having been said, there are good reasons why he should be allowed at least the chance to stay.

The main one is that he would probably make a good citizen. Canada did well in the 1970s, when the last flood of war resisters — both draft dodgers and deserters — came across the border. Some went home eventually, but a good many — including House — stayed on.

Most integrated themselves easily and loyally into their adopted country.

Some became quite well-known, and well-respected, figures in Canadian society. Others pursued slightly more disreputable occupations in the media (no, I'm not one).

These draft dodgers and deserters did not come as refugees. They did not have to. In those days, foreigners were able to apply for landed immigrant status once they were in Canada.

House, for example, recounts how he crossed the border, applied to live here and within weeks — after a medical check — got his papers.

Hinzman would have done the same but for one thing. Since 1976, foreigners wishing to immigrate to Canada have been required to apply from outside the country.

For deserters, this is a non-starter. It would significantly increase their chances of getting nabbed.

So, here's an idea. Let's stop bending the very valuable category of U.N. convention refugee into pretzel shapes in order to accommodate people who realistically do not qualify. Let's create new categories instead for people like Hinzman.

During the Cold War, for instance, Canada created a special category for immigrants from Communist countries. We called them defectors and they were almost always allowed in.

So let's consider Hinzman and other U.S. deserters to be defectors from George W. Bush's America. Most Canadians don't agree with his war in Iraq and neither does the federal government. Why not follow through?

Let's allow these defectors to apply for permanent resident status — not as refugees but as immigrants — after they've crossed the border.

And then let's apply the same standards we would for any other immigrant: Do they have useful skills? Do they pass security checks? Are they free of criminal records?

If these standards were applied to Hinzman and his wife, social worker Nga Nguyen, they would almost certainly be accepted. So, why don't we let them make their case as potential immigrants? We can only win.

Looks like we might have a snap election on our hands in Canada. All four Parties in Parliament are Playing Chicken with Each Other.

It appears that there may be an election very soon in Canada. For those who are Canadian i'm explaining this more in full for an international crowd.

Our current government is a minority government. If you are from Europe (perhaps with the exception of the UK) the response to that is likely "yah what is your point?".

In Canada minority governments are fairly unusual. And they have been even more unusual than before lately. We haven't had a minority government since 1979-1980. 25 years. That government lasted for about 200 days. I must say this government has lasted longer (about 7-8 months) but if it does go down over this budget, a lot sooner than i would have thought.

Because we don't have minority governments in Canada very often they are unstable. Using the First Past the Post (whoever gets the most seats in a riding or area) system distort voting. The minority government 25 years ago is thought pretty much to be an accident. Everybody thought "i'm going to vote differently to protest but it won't really make a difference" but it did.

This minority government was expected. In fact polls were showing that a lot of people wanted a minority government and weren't going to be happy with much of anything else. Also there were changes to the electoral funding that put the two parties that are most likely to form the government at at disadvantage in a snap election for two reasons

• 1. The system is new and for established parties the funding was given out based on what they thought the vote for each party would be. Both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party ended up owing money. The New Democratic Party (NDP) the Bloc Quebecois an the Green Party (which had never had funding before) gained above what they were given (and hence were given more money to make up the difference. So at the moment two of the parties are in effect owing money.


• 2. The new system puts the funding into public hands. In fact it closely copies a system of funding that Quebec brought in over 20 years ago in a bid to make elections fairer. Neither unions nor businesses can donate more than a small amount towards elections or parties anymore. Now that effects parties in different ways. The NDP did get funding from labour and unions but nowhere near as large a percentage as the Conservative Party or Liberal Party did from business. And for every vote each party is now give $1.75 in funding each year from the public purse to also make up for this. There were other changes but these were the big one's.

The thing that is weird is at this point there has only been one period where the quarterly part of the $1.75 has gone out, maybe two (first one was in January and i think it will be four times a year. I don't remember though. You add to that the fact that the Liberals and the Conservatives owe money from the last election and other factors and it seemed like this government would likely last a decent period. The minority in 79-80 might have been unstable, but there have been stable minority governments in Canada federally in the past. Not for as long as majority governments often, but for a few years.

In our parliamentary system there are various things the government needs to get passed or else there is a vote of confidence. Theoretically if a government looses a vote of confidence the cabinet could step down and the same party could for another government. In practice it means an election. The only exception is right after an election when the party that is the next most likely to form a government will get a chance if they think they can (and the first party to get a chance in a minority situation isn't the one with the most seats but the one that was the government before but if there is obviously no point they won't try).

If you go through the articles linked and below you will see that all four opposition parties in parliament are currently saying they will vote against part of the budget bill. Which is one of the biggest confidence bills. Now maybe things will calm down, but its strange to see 4 parties playing chicken with each other. I can see why the Liberals might want an election,the Tories too. Maybe I'll launch into that soon. For now i wanted to write what i did and provide some links.

Tories threaten to force election

By GLORIA GALLOWAY
Friday, March 25, 2005 Updated at 2:55 AM EST
From Friday's Globe and Mail


Ottawa — Opposition Leader Stephen Harper threw down the gauntlet to the Liberals yesterday, saying a controversial environmental provision must be removed from a budget implementation bill or the country will go to the polls.

If the Liberals are willing to let the minority government fall over a move to bring greenhouse gas emissions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, something the Conservatives say would amount to a carbon tax, “well, then, we'll have an election,” Mr. Harper said.

“We make our decisions here based on what we think is in the best interest of the country, but obviously I've said the country is ready for an election at any time.”

The provision was included in the omnibus budget implementation bill introduced in the House of Commons yesterday after what sources described as heated debate within the Liberal cabinet over whether it is a good time to test Conservative resolve. Mr. Harper and the rest of his caucus are enjoying renewed confidence after a successful policy convention last weekend.

The fact that the Liberals were willing to take the gamble knowing that the Conservatives would oppose the confidence bill — and knowing that the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats have said they would vote against the legislation — had some backroom observers suggesting that the Liberals were engineering their own defeat.

They speculated that Prime Minister Paul Martin, who ignored all questions on the issue after a cabinet meeting yesterday, would rather have an election soon on an environmental matter than wait for a potentially devastating report that could come next fall from the Gomery commission reviewing the sponsorship scandal.[my emphasis]....

....The mammoth bill introduced in the House of Commons yesterday must go through second and third reading and be debated at a parliamentary committee before it can become law. Liberal House Leader Tony Valeri said he hopes to have it passed by the end of the spring.

It could be amended to remove the offending provision before it is put to a final vote.

The bill contains a wide range of measures, including equalization payments for eastern provinces, an extension of the jurisdiction of the auditor-general to examine foundations receiving federal funds, and $100-million to halt the spread of the pine beetle in British Columbia and Alberta....

....But the CEPA provision wasn't mentioned in the budget released last month that the Conservatives said they would not defeat, Mr. Harper said.

“We will not be intimidated into supporting a provision that is so dangerous,” he said. “This is an attempt to get unlimited power to declare any element of the Kyoto plan to affect any industry to impose multimillion-dollar fines on any basis without any parliamentary approval or discussion whatsoever and it is completely unacceptable.”....

....Some Liberals said yesterday that a deal would be struck to end the standoff, but it was unclear whether that meant they would back down and take the clause out of the bill, or whether they believed the Conservatives could be forced to compromise.

In the meantime, NDP Leader Jack Layton accused the government of playing games with the environment.

“Canadians don't particularly want an election,” he said. “Canadians want us to get down to getting the work done. We're prepared to do that, but when we see this kind of game playing with budgets, it makes it very difficult.”

But Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said he was not afraid of an election because he would have no problem explaining his position to Quebeckers. Mr. Duceppe is not satisfied with a number of provisions in the bill, including the portion on the CEPA.

“First of all it's not enough on Kyoto. We don't know the plan, we didn't discuss the plan first of all. Secondly, I mean there's nothing on employment insurance, there's nothing on the fiscal imbalance,” Mr. Duceppe said. “I'm ready to have an election any time if this is what they want,” he said.

With a report from Daniel Leblanc

Now i hadn't thought of the Gomery report coming out as a reason for the election before i read this. But actually it makes some sense. The Gomery report will be on the Sponsorship Scandal. Its a huge large thing that would be difficult to explain from start to finish so i will refer you to their indepth page. They have terrific indepth pages. During the election my computer was broken for half the election. I was able to read every story they had written on it AND commentary AND links from there. Also it includes some radio and TV clips. So try reading CBC News Indepth: Federal Sponsorship Scandal to get a better idea. The pages start simple and if you want more indepth you can go from there (ie you aren't hit with all the stories lined up and no idea).

The next article is from the Toronto Star. The differences in the stories are quite striking but i guess that is what you get in the difference from a centre newspaper and a mild right wing one (by Canadian Standards). The Globe Charges unless you erase its cookies all the time so i don't spend much time there (i'm on dialup and use tabs extensively), but i did get this story. This is story from the Toronto Star

Battle over new budget bill could lead to snap election

Opposition parties threaten defeat
Harper dislikes Kyoto-linked plan

TONDA MACCHARLES
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—A standoff is building on Parliament Hill over a budget measure to enforce new greenhouse-gas emission standards. The three opposition parties vow to defeat it, a move that all acknowledge could trigger a snap federal election.

The environmental measure was tucked into a bill tabled yesterday to implement parts of the budget plan, along with myriad other measures, and it set opposition parties howling.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper slammed Prime Minister Paul Martin for trying to sneak in a Kyoto plan — "amendments that would give the government unlimited power to implement Kyoto without ever bringing a plan to Parliament."

"This is a back-door manoeuvre to give the government a blank cheque," Harper told Martin in the Commons. "It is a dangerous way of proceeding. It will certainly not have the support of this party."

Martin did not address the question, but outside the Commons, Environment Minister Stéphane Dion said the Liberal government is not picking a fight. "It's a good policy. And it is in the budget plan, page 191."

Right now, the government says the whole package is a matter of "confidence" — an issue the government could fall on — but if the opposition parties stand firm, the Liberals have two choices: drop the measure or go to an election over it.

Dion said the full plan for Canada to meet its Kyoto commitments to reduce greenhouse gases will be introduced soon, and opposition parties clearly know "the consequences" of voting against the measure: to go to an election.

Dion suggested the issue would be easy to pitch to voters.

"I don't want to go to an election, but if one day we have to ... if we say to Canadians, `Don't you think Canada should do its share for climate change? Don't you think Canada should do its share for Kyoto?' Obviously, I will be very pleased to do that because I know Canadians at a very large rate disagree with the Conservative party about that."

Harper, fresh off a successful policy convention last weekend and an 84-per-cent vote backing his leadership, talked tough outside the Commons. "This is clearly not in the national interest and unless it is removed we will not support this piece of legislation," he said.

In the budget speech, the government pledged to spend $5 billion over the next five years to meet its "green economy" promise. Now it proposes to amend an existing law, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to list carbon dioxide gas as "toxic" so that emissions by large industrial polluters can be regulated.

Conservative critic Bob Mills said it was just a way to bring in a "carbon tax" on manufacturers.

Outside the Commons, the other two federal party leaders — who support the Kyoto Protocol — weighed in with threats to defeat the measure, too.

"First of all it's not enough on Kyoto," said Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, who said he'd have no problem explaining his stand to Quebecers.

Duceppe is widely believed to be itching to go to the polls to take advantage of Liberal weakness in Quebec, where the sponsorship scandal is hurting them.

"The Liberals will have a lot of problems explaining to Quebecers there's nothing on the fiscal imbalance, with a gift to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. There's nothing on employment insurance. It's not enough on Kyoto. I'm ready to have that election any time if this is what they want."

NDP Leader Jack Layton voiced his opposition to the budget measure and slammed the Liberals for trying to tack on environmental measures to the budget bill.

"We're going to vote against what's been put on the table. No question about it," Layton told reporters. "The Liberals are playing games with the environment. Paul Martin doesn't care about the Kyoto plan. He cares about playing politics and that is what's going on here."

Asked whether it was an issue he'd be ready to fight an election over, Layton said Canadians are in no mood for another vote less than a year after the last one.

"Canadians want us to get down to getting work done. We're prepared to do that," he said. "But when we see this kind of game-playing with budgets it makes it very difficult."

Harper, in an interview with CBC Newsworld's Politics, called the measure "ludicrous" and "dangerous."

"The bottom line is ... the government wants the power to determine at any moment, without reference to Parliament, that any substance in the country could be regulated and massive penalties could be imposed for that substance being produced, or emitted or existing, regardless what the substance is," he said. "If they have a Kyoto plan, they can bring it to Parliament and we'll debate it and vote on it."

So it looks like we will be in for interesting times. And that stories on the budget are once again becoming important, when it looked like it would pass without a problem having made it through first reading. P

To whoever it is in California who keeps on looking up my handle

Hi,

I know you are out there. I think you might be interested because from what i can tell I've showed up both on keyword searches you've done in two search engines. So what i'm guessing is that you like my blog and that is terrific. So you want to see what else I've written or where i comment perhaps (and actually i do but it hasn't made the engines yet it seems, maybe i don't do it enough?).

Anyway I'd just as soon you write me if you had any questions regarding who i am or where i turn up. Or for whatever other reason you are looking me up. I take it as a compliment, but it feels weird too. I now have an email address in the profile (what the heck) at politicagrll@intergate.com.

As for your privacy. I can tell about what city you come from and your ISP. Its comes with the statistics program i use. It doesn't tell me who you are. I use the program to keep track of stuff that would help the blog. Such as what key words interest people, what type of browser they are using, operating system etc. Oh and the cool part is i can tell what countries folks come from (75% are Canadian or US but the other 25% is interesting to watch too). I don't necessarily follow it (i got a lot of searching on the RCMP but so far i only have one other entry i want to make and not many people search for Linda McQuaig but i put up her stuff anyway).

First this is a new blog. So i don't have all that many repeat customers from what i can tell yet. A few, which is nice, not many. From what i can tell i get the most reading if i put up an article at about 8pm my time. I guess more people are on and it flashes at the bottom of the "newly updated". Sure i get other folks in searches, but this is the big way my readership increases. New people checking me out and maybe they will come back. So i'm going to start putting up stuff at closer to that time, even if i write it earlier in the day (which i tend to). Its just nuts and bolts stuff.

Anyway if there is just something you want to ask or whatever why not give me a write at my email address now that it is available. Or anyone else can write me too. I don't mind people searching where i've written (a nice compliment) but i did want to see if i could answer a question you were searching for an answer for. It could be a lot easier that way.

Thanks,
Politicagrll

US Soldier denied refugee status in Canada

This is a really disappointing decision. From what i know there are currently two men in Canada that are seeking refugee status over the war. From what i hear a fuller covering of this case says that Hinzman joined the army to get money to go to college.

I believe the second case is of a man who was out of the army/almost out with no time left to go to Iraq but got caught by the back door draft (where they are "extending contracts" without giving anyone a choice. That person was National Guard).

I'll likely look it up or it will be in the news tomorrow. Disappointing though. We took people who didn't fight in the Vietnam war why not now? And who would want to move their whole family out of the US with no ability to go back to visit family for some small reason. I will admit though that the second case seems stronger, as he was out of the army effectively by when he would have been in Iraq and national guard i'm pretty sure.

People will be keeping an eye on this one i can tell you. I'll put up more on it when there becomes more of a written story. If you follow the link to the story there is a radio bit that you can access on the page about the story. Just trying to get the story out as soon as possible. CBC is accurate and is updated fast. P

No refugee status in Canada for U.S. soldier

Last Updated Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:13:10 EST
CBC News

TORONTO - An immigration panel in Toronto has denied refugee status to a former paratrooper who fled the United States to evade the war in Iraq.

The Immigration and Refugee Board members said Thursday that Jeremy Hinzman, 26, hadn't convinced them that he would be persecuted if he returned to his native land.
Hinzman faces a court martial if he goes back and could be sentenced to five years in jail as a deserter.

The board also denied asylum to Hinzman's wife and pre-school son.

"Removal to the U.S. would not subject them personally to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment," the board said in a statement.[emphasis mine]

"There are no substantial grounds to believe that their removal to the U.S. will subject them personally to a danger of torture."

Hinzman's lawyer, Jeffry House, said he would ask the Federal Court to review the decision.

"It's a disappointing decision," House told CBC Newsworld.

"[But] he feels that, in the long run, he will be successful with this case."

Hinzman is seen as a deserter by the American military, but his supporters say he is a war resister who should be given refugee status in Canada.

He enlisted in the U.S. army three years ago as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division. He deserted last year, rather than go to Iraq, and moved to Canada with his family.

During a three-day hearing before the immigration board in December, Hinzman said he sought refugee status because he opposed the war in Iraq on moral grounds and thought the U.S. invasion violated international human rights.

The panel decided that Hinzman was not a conscientious objector.

Major Developments in Canada's Secret Trial Cases about Mohamed Harkat, others in Canada and the Security Certificate Process and Problems

Well i'm on a mailing list (i just joined actually after seeing the ruling this morning although i knew the organization, usually i checked out the web site ---its against the war and holds rallies) i joined because i wanted to hear when things WERE happening as opposed to after which was what was often happening. It doesn't seem all that busy so far and well i'm good at erasing if need be. Also i guess the fact that i missed the protest on the 2nd anniversary of the invasion of Iraq got me thinking. I thought it was another protest and hadn't thought of the date as special (or i couldn't figure out why anyway). If I'd known (or better yet made the obvious connexion) i would have likely gone.

I didn't make it out around supper. Not feeling all that great. Wasn't really feeling up to being with all those folks. Most of them i don't know well, but i know some well and a fair amount casually. I felt up to protesting but not up to dealing with people this afternoon (ever have days like that) plus i know there will almost positively be something soon with more notice (for folks like me who aren't/weren't on the lists i only realized about the supper one from a memory of we are going to do this if there is such a ruling from another time on the website). I barely made it to my other commitments for the day. I'm supposed to see a friend i haven't seen since Christmas this weekend. We have a date set but we are keeping it open in case the day we chose turns out to be the protest day i would see coming.

I did get this from the list (although its from yet another list. The tone is obviously different from my tone, but i think it makes my point and has all the facts together in one place, which is better than what i have at the moment. And having a different feel now and then is good for a site.

I did put this through a text editor (it was already non html by the time i got it to try and get rid of the funny spacing of the lines, but (at least in the Firefox view) it has continued with not every line going all the way. Sorry folks but i'm not exactly sure where its going wrong although there are some different annomolies in preview. However it still seems readable to me, its how i read it originally. I notied the post just before was a problem. I might have to move away from that text editor or figure out what the problem is . OTOH i have one that works fine this one was just a bit faster to use.

More importantly i think it makes its point very well. Even if the tone is somewhat annoying (and it is for me at times) its a good piece of work and i would suggest that if you are Canadian or if you are concerned about the deterioration of people rights since 9/11 (including the Patriot Act which has taken away even more rights than we have lost in Canada) that you read it.

Its also got a good section on why you can't (almost ever) return people to countries where they will get tortured. It includes a much larger part of the text than is usually produced from a Supreme Court ruling on it---which puts it in a much better focus than how the government is putting it.

I encourage folks to read this. I think it makes its point very well. And it covers the cases of other people in Canada as well who are under these "security certificates". It makes its points well.

Also there are some very interesting points about the timing of the rulings. This one occurs just as the Prime Minister is going to meet with Bush and so on. I hadn't kept track of the dates. I'm glad someone did.. Usually with something this long i wouldn't put it all up. This time i will.

Major Developments in Canada's Secret Trial Cases
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:28:47 -0500


(feel free to forward and reproduce)

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:

Just Another Busy Day in the Land of Secret Trials

Mahmoud Jaballah Wins Judicial Review on Deportation to Torture;

Security Certificate Upheld in case of Secret Trial Detainee Mohamed Harkat;

Bail Hearing Continues for Secret Trial Detainee Mohammad Mahjoub;

Security Certificate Hearing for Secret Trial Detainee (now under house
arrest) Adil Charkaoui Suspended Pending new Protection Decision;

Hassan Almrei marks 41 Months, Six Days in Solitary Confinement in Toronto
Detention Facility


March 23, 2005--It was just another busy day in the land of secret trials
yesterday. In a Toronto courtroom, eloquent arguments were heard in calling
for the release on bail of secret trial detainee Mohammad Mahjoub, held
without charge on secret "evidence" almost five years in a Toronto
detention facility. Government lawyers pressed their case to deport him,
knowing full well the torture or death which awaits him if returned to
Egypt. The hearing is set to conclude April 22, with a decision hopefully
within a month or two afterwards.

Meanwhile, the secret trial security certificate against Algerian
refugee Mohamed Harkat, held since his arrest on International Human Rights
Day, December 10, 2002, was upheld on the basis of secret evidence. This
will mean further jail time, and more court time, arguing that he, like
Mahjoub and the other detainees, should not be deported given the cruel and
unusual treatment which would be their fate.

Harkat's case has had a number of "too coincidental to be
coincidental" coincidences. His arrest was timed to appear in the papers
the day that then-Solicitor General Wayne Easter went to Washington D.C. in
2002 to tell the Yankees how well Canada was doing in the "war on terror."
And yesterday's decision is perfect timing for Prime Minister Paul Martin
who, in meeting today with George W. Bush, is perhaps throwing the Harkat
decision as a bone to the "Pissed-that-y'all-didn't-join-us-in-star-wars"
President.

The Harkat decision came one day after the security certificate
hearing for Montrealer Adil Charkaoui was suspended pending a new
determination on his application for protection from deportation to
torture. The original decision of the federal government -- to deport
Charkaoui to torture in Morocco -- was suddenly withdrawn two weeks before
a planned judicial review of the decision, perhaps based on the fear that a
judge would find that this decision, like two others before it in related
cases, would be deemed unlawful and unreasonable.

During the Monday Charkaoui hearing, further CSIS malfeasance came
to light (in this case, CSIS claims that the so-called "millennium bomber,"
Ahmed Ressam, had fingered Charkaoui as being in an overseas "training
camp." As was revealed Monday, Ressam could not have identified Charkaoui
overseas because Ressam himself was not overseas; Ressam was in fact in
Montreal at the alleged time, stealing computers and wanted by Montreal
police. Ressam is currently detained in the U.S., trading "information" for
a reduced sentence.) It's one more piece of the bulging CSIS portfolio of
unacceptable negligence (as was found in the Air India case), untruths, and
reliance on information gleaned from torture and jailhouse snitches.

As March 22 came to a close, some good news arrived at Metro West
Detention Centre for Mahmoud Jaballah, held without charge or bail since
August, 2001. In a stinging rebuke to the Canadian "secret trial and
deportation to torture" bureaucracy, Federal Court Judge Andrew MacKay has
called the decision to deport Mahmoud Jaballah to torture in Egypt "not
lawfully made" and "was patently unreasonable based upon a finding of facts
made without appropriate regard to all of the evidence and circumstances of
the case."

It is the third such decision in which the immigration minister's
decision to deport to torture has been labelled "unreasonable," "unlawful"
and, in one instance, "perverse" by federal court judges. Similar decisions
were reached in the cases of secret trial detainees Mohammad Mahjoub and
Hassan Almrei, and the government, perhaps sensing a real embarrassment on
its hands, has withdrawn its deportation decision in the case of Adil
Charkaoui just two weeks before a judicial review would likely have
resulted in a similar setback.

It is also good news for secret trial detainee Mohamed Harkat of
Ottawa, whose security certificate was upheld yesterday as "reasonable" in
a 75-page decision by Judge Eleanor Dawson. While the certificate being
upheld kicks into motion the deportation process, Harkat must also undergo
a risk assessment, and will likely benefit from these precedent cases which
are ultimately testing the legality of deportation to torture, a fate which
likely awaits him if returned to Algeria.

It is increasingly important to note that the upholding of the
certificate does NOT provide proof that Harkat poses a risk to national
security. All it means, in the end result, is that the Judge found
"reasonable grounds" to believe that the signing ministers had "reasonable
grounds" to sign the certificate. It's a very low threshold (nothing like
the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold in the Air India case).

In the Jaballah decision, MacKay seems perturbed by the ease with
which decisions are now being made by the Canadian government to deport to
torture, despite our signatory status to the Convention Against Torture,
which prohibits such a practice. He notes, with a fairly disapproving tone,
that a decision by the immigration ministry's pre-removal risk assessment
branch that Jaballah faces "a risk of death or torture if he were returned
to Egypt" was "accepted, with some apparent reluctance, by the Minister's
delegate who determined on December 30, 2003 that Mr. Jaballah's
application for protection should be refused."

It is quite disturbing to read that such a hearing would even be
taking place, as MacKay notes "both parties [i.e., government and Jaballah]
accepted that there is no longer any question that there is substantial
risk of death or torture faced by Mr. Jaballah if he were returned to
Egypt."

As in the Almrei and Mahjoub cases, MacKay found that the the
immigration decisionmaker in Jaballah's case did NOT have all the relevant
information necessary to make an assessment of Jaballah's alleged risk to
the security of Canada. In a subtle jab at the political bias in the
decision making, Mackay also notes that the minister's delegate quotes only
a part of the Supreme Court of Canada "Suresh" decision (which talks of
"exceptional circumstances" that would justify deportation to torture).

In an interesting analysis, Mackay finds that the oft-abused
quotation allowing such exceptions has perhaps been overblown because of
what he calls a simple clerical error in mistakenly assigning a paragraph
number to the citation. "The effect may be to give undue emphasis to the
Supreme Court's acknowledgement that the possibility is not excluded, in
exceptional circumstances, of deportation to face torture." He also finds
that the Minister's delegate, in quoting the Suresh decision, "omitted
words which, in my view, provide context for the passages quoted. The words
omitted are these:

"The Canadian rejection of torture is reflected in the international
conventions to which Canada is a party. The Canadian and international
perspectives in turn inform our constitutional norms. The rejection of
state action leading to torture generally, and deportation to torture
specifically, is virtually categoric. Indeed, both domestic and
international jurisprudence suggest that torture is so abhorrent that it
will almost always be disproportionate to interests on the other side of
the balance, even security interests."

A fairly important omission, but nonetheless one which is regularly
made in the rush to deportation to torture.

MacKay also deals with Jaballah's argument that consideration
should be given to the best interests of his six children, two born in
Canada, one in Pakistan, three in Egypt, "There was no consideration that
one of those children, born in Pakistan, may have no status in Egypt,"
MacKay writes, adding, "Whatever their status in Canada, simply to
conclude, as the decision does, that Mr. Jaballah's 'proposed deportation
from Canada would not deprive his children of his emotional and financial
support any more than his current detention has,' implicitly ignores the
substantial risk of death or torture facing Mr. Jaballah if he be deported
to Egypt, and the effect that may be expected to have upon his family
members, including children born in Canada or in Pakistan....Simply put the
decision, in my opinion, does not adequately take into account the best
interests of any of Mr. Jaballah's children, who would be directly affected
by a decision that he is, or is not, a person in need of protection at this
time."

MacKay also finds that in the determination of alleged risk to
Canada, "there is no reference to circumstances facing Canada or its
security, other than the [unsupported] conclusion that it is endangered by
Mr. Jaballah's presence in Canada." Again, it appears to be a political
decision based on fear, racism and the unjustified labelling of Mr.
Jaballah, not on any factual basis.

MacKay closes his reasons by reminding us that for a decision to be
lawful, it must be made within the law. With that obvious-sounding caveat
(which nevertheless appears to elude the immigration ministry), Mackay
concludes with a cautionary note about the need to canvass the issue of
"the full implications of Parliament's inclusion of paragraph 3(3)(f) of
the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] that 'this Act is to be
construed and applied in a manner that...(f) complies with international
human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory."

As the Jaballah protection decision is remitted for a new
determination, it is hoped that years of litigation will not be required to
further battle the question of deportation to torture, and that finally,
someone within the ministry will make a decision based not on Islamophobia,
CSIS pressure, or plain old-fashioned racism, but on the law, which, as
MacKay states, is clear: Canada's immigration decisions MUST comply with
international human rights instruments to which this country is a party. We
are a party to the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits return to
torture. The Secret Trial Five are facing a substantial likelihood of
torture if returned. So put an end to these horrible proceedings to deport
to torture, provide protection, and release the remaining four on bail.

For Hassan Almrei, yesterday was a relatively quiet day in his 9 X
12 solitary confinement concrete cell, his home since October, 2001. No
court decisions, no media frenzy, just another day in the land of secret
trials, awaiting word on whether Canada will come up with a new decision to
deport him to a fate even worse than that which awaited Maher Arar in
Syria. Hassan is also appealing his denial of bail to the Supreme Court;
the Federal Court of Appeal recently declared it "premature" to label his
three and a half years of detention without charge indefinite detention.

Demonstrations are scheduled in Toronto and Ottawa today at 5 pm to
protest the Harkat decision; a major march against secret trials takes
place this Saturday in Montreal.

Also on the drawing board is "24 Hours Against Torture," a
round-the-clock vigil at Immigration Minister Joe Volpe's office to secure
his commitment to end deportation to torture. On Monday, April 4, Toronto's
Lula Lounge hosts a major benefit for the campaign to stop secret trials,
with readings from Kafka's The Trial by Ann-Marie Macdonald, Nino Ricci,
Avi Lewis, Gordon Pinsent, Charmion King, Heather Mallick, Linda McQuaig,
Bernard Behrens and Stuart McLean. (Tickets available at 416-651-5800). And
on April 22, Monia Mazigh comes to Toronto to join Mona Elfouli and Ahmad
Jaballah for an evening against secret trials at Bloor Street United
Church, 7:15 pm.

To support our ongoing efforts to end secret trials, donations are
gratefully accepted at Homes not Bombs, PO Box 73620, 509 St Clair Ave.,
West, Toronto, ON M6C 1C0.

Harkat loses bit to quash security certificate -- story and comment

Harkat loses bid to quash security certificate

CANADIAN PRESS
Mar. 22, 2005. 08:34 PM
OTTAWA - A long-awaited court ruling could clear the way for deportation of Mohamed Harkat, an Ottawa man jailed for more than two years as a national security threat.
Today, a Federal Court judge upheld a security certificate issued against Harkat, potentially setting the stage for the refugee's return to his native Algeria.

The decision, which cannot be appealed, effectively becomes a removal order.

Justice Eleanor Dawson, relying on confidential information placed before her, concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe Harkat had "supported terrorist activity" as a member of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network.

"The confidential information comes from a variety of sources," she said in the judgment. "A significant amount of the material information is corroborated."

Dawson also dismissed Harkat's constitutional challenge of legislation that allows Ottawa to issue such certificates.

It wasn't immediately clear if the decision would hasten Harkat's departure. He and several other refugees in similar circumstances are fighting deportation on the grounds that they would face torture in their original homeland.

Immigration Minister Joe Volpe said Harkat can resort to measures ``available to him under Canadian law."

"But we're going to proceed as per our obligations."

Harkat, 36, has been in custody since he was arrested on Dec. 10, 2002, on suspicion of being an Al Qaeda sleeper agent.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service contends Harkat is an Islamic extremist and collaborator with bin Laden's network, which carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The spy service, which watched Harkat for five years prior to his arrest, also argues he supports Afghan, Pakistani and Chechen extremists.

Harkat has denied ever assisting Islamic radicals.

In her ruling, Dawson said the confidential information made it ``clear and beyond doubt" that Harkat lied to the court about several key points, including his association with extremists.

Many details of the government's case remain classified, available only to the court.

Harkat's supporters have complained about the lack of information disclosed by authorities concerning the specific allegations against him.

"Everything was secret," Christian Legeais, a Harkat spokesman, said Tuesday. "With this decision, it just confirms what we always said."

CSIS said Abu Zubaydah, one of bin Laden's chief lieutenants, had identified Harkat as the operator of a guest house in the Pakistani city of Peshawar for extremists traveling to Chechnya. The intelligence service, whose officers interviewed Harkat at least four times over the years, also claimed he had visited Afghanistan, once a hotbed of Al Qaeda activity.

Dawson gave no weight to information provided to the court through Zubaydah, saying she had doubts as to how he had done so. But that point did not affect the outcome of the case.

Harkat flew to Toronto in 1995 from Malaysia using a false Saudi Arabian passport, bought for $1,200 (U.S.). He promptly made a refugee claim based on fear of persecution by the Algerian government.

Harkat won refugee status in February 1997 and applied for permanent residence in Canada the next month.

Settling in Ottawa, he married and worked long hours as a pizza delivery man and gas station attendant to support his family.

In his refugee claim, Harkat acknowledged supporting Algeria's Islamic Salvation Front, or FIS, which was a legitimate political organization when he became involved in the late 1980s. After an Algerian government crackdown on the FIS, Harkat went into hiding.

CSIS contends that when the FIS severed its links with the Armed Islamic Group, or GIA, Harkat indicated his loyalties were with the GIA. The group aims to establish an Islamic state in Algeria through terrorism and to eliminate Western influences.

Harkat's wife, Sophie, has been leading a campaign to free him. She has repeatedly denied her husband has any terrorist links and says her faith in Canada's justice system is hanging by a thread.

She and other supporters were expected to comment on the case Wednesday.

Appearing at a Commons committee Tuesday, Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan defended the use of security certificates.

"There is recognition of the serious implications of using a certificate," she said. "They are used sparingly as, obviously, they should be. They are an extraordinary tool."

There are currently six cases outstanding in which security certificates were issued, five of them since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the minister said. Twenty-seven have been issued since 1991.

By comparison, McLellan said, 10,000 would-be immigrants are removed from Canada each year by other means.

Before i start my post on the topic i want to point out one part of the above decision. The judge ruled that In her ruling, Dawson said the confidential information made it ``clear and beyond doubt" that Harkat lied to the court about several key points, including his association with extremists.

As far as i'm concerned this is not sufficient in order to deport someone who is a successful refugee claimant. Also a bunch of those prior certificates had to be thrown out after the government went after people taking flying lessons. It turned out most were deported for immigration law, but it took forever and nobody really knew what was going on. If they were breaking immigration law then it should be dealt with that way. And not everyone they picked up in that prior raid was deported. They picked up a few extra people by "accident"


A fuller story than the CP one has now appeared, since the ruling was today. Looking at one you will see in the Ottawa Citizen (if you buy one, you can't read it online for free but i believe this is fair use)

Ottawa man a terrorist, judge rules

Harkat is a member of al-Qaeda, poses security risk, judge says; he now
faces deportation to Algeria

Andrew Duffy
The Ottawa Citizen
March 23, 2005


Mr. Harkat hoped an ex-CSIS man's evidence would discredit allegations
against him.

Ottawa resident Mohamed Harkat faces deportation to his native Algeria after
a Federal Court judge yesterday endorsed the government's opinion that he's
a terrorist who poses a threat to national security.

Judge Eleanor Dawson ruled that two federal cabinet ministers made a
reasonable decision in December 2002 when they concluded that Mr. Harkat was
a member of al-Qaeda, the world's foremost terrorist organization.

And she flatly dismissed Mr. Harkat's sworn testimony, during which he
denied any connection to terrorism or the al-Qaeda network, as the work of a
liar.

There is credible, reliable information from a number of independent
sources, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), that
contradicts Mr. Harkat's evidence, the judge said.

"On the basis of the confidential information," she said, "it is clear and
beyond doubt that Mr. Harkat lied under oath to the court in several
important respects."

Based on evidence heard in-camera, the judge concluded that Mr. Harkat lied
when he denied assisting Islamic extremists abroad and in Canada; when he
denied any association with al-Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubayda; and when he
denied travelling to Afghanistan or living in Peshawar, Pakistan.

The ruling means that Mr. Harkat, 36, who has resided in Ottawa since
September 1995, is under an automatic deportation order to his native
Algeria.

A federal immigration officer must now assess whether Mr. Harkat faces a
significant risk of torture if returned to Algeria, a country from which he
fled in 1990 as a political dissident.

In an interview with the Citizen in December, Mr. Harkat said he would be
tortured or killed if returned to his homeland and would sooner stay in jail
for the rest of his life than return to Algeria.

Mr. Harkat's lawyer, Paul Copeland, said yesterday he was disappointed with
the decision. "It's depressing," he said. "I had some fond hope that we
might have been successful in establishing that the certificate wasn't
reasonable.

"I still don't know anything about the case and I don't know what she (the
judge) relied on to come to that conclusion."

The ruling relies heavily upon evidence heard in secret.

Judge Dawson concedes that her reasons, like others issued in security
certificate cases, "cannot fully justify and explain a result publicly when
the evidence the court relies upon cannot be disclosed." But the judge
defends the use of that secretive process to protect national security, and
insists that all of the evidence was assessed to determine if it can be
relied upon and can be corroborated by independent sources.

What's more, the judge said, she did not rely on the evidence of Mr.
Zubayda, who was thought by Mr. Harkat's defence team to be a linchpin in
the government's case.

Mr. Zubayda was captured in March 2002 in Pakistan and was later handed over
to U.S. officials, who reportedly tortured him to gain his co-operation.

According to CSIS, Mr. Zubayda identified Mr. Harkat "by description and
activity" as operating a guest house in Peshawar for jihadis travelling to
Chechnya.

Judge Dawson said she could not rely upon Mr. Zubayda's evidence because she
was not told exactly what he said or the circumstances under which he
identified Mr. Harkat.

Mr. Zubayda had been the only informant identified by the court as giving
credible evidence against Mr. Harkat.

As a result, the defence team spent considerable time trying to establish
that Mr. Zubayda had been tortured into giving that evidence.

Mr. Copeland said the experience highlights the "impossibility" of defending
someone against a security certificate: "In these cases, you have no idea of
the case you have to meet, and you have no idea of how to meet it.

"It is a process that is unfair and violates fundamental justice. But the
courts don't seem to agree with me on that issue."

Indeed, Judge Dawson defended the process in her decision, arguing that it
is constitutionally sound and offers fundamental justice to foreign citizens
accused of terrorism.

The judge concluded there were reasonable grounds to find Mr. Harkat is a
member of al-Qaeda who has repeatedly lied to Canadian officials about his
terrorist links.

Mr. Harkat came to Canada in 1995 after five years in Pakistan, during which
time he said he worked as a warehouse manager for the Muslim World League.

But Judge Dawson said there's reasonable grounds to believe Mr. Harkat
travelled to Afghanistan during the early 1990s and developed an association
with Mr. Zubayda, who ran two al-Qaeda training camps.

The judge found that Mr. Harkat was also unbelievable when he described his
relationship with Ahmed Said Khadr, a known associate of Osama bin Laden's
who was once the ranking al-Qaeda member in Canada. (Mr. Khadr was killed in
the fall of 2003 during a gun battle with Pakistani forces after fleeing
Afghanistan.)

Mr. Harkat admitted on the witness stand that he met Mr. Khadr in Ottawa and
travelled with him to Toronto by car. Mr. Harkat claims he met Mr. Khadr
through his roommate, Mohamed El Barseigy, and that he did not converse at
length with him during a five-hour ride to Toronto.

Judge Dawson concluded that testimony was "inherently implausible and
incredible."

Mr. Harkat worked in Ottawa as a pizza delivery man and gas station
attendant, and married an Ottawa woman, Sophie Lamarche, on Jan. 2, 2001. He
trained to drive trucks, but couldn't find work, and was in the process of
obtaining his taxi licence when he was arrested.

Sophie Harkat, who went to visit her husband yesterday afternoon at the
Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, was unavailable for comment yesterday.

But a spokesman for the Justice for Mohamed Harkat committee denounced the
judgment. "It's a sad day for human rights in Canada," said Kevin Skerrett.

In her ruling, Judge Dawson noted that the federal government produced 10
legal volumes of evidence in support of its case against Mr. Harkat, while a
CSIS agent answered hundreds of questions about the material.

Although not revealing the precise manner in which she cross-examined the
CSIS agent, Judge Dawson suggests that she vigorously assessed the quality
of the spy agency's information.

Judge Dawson's decision on the reasonableness of the security certificate
cannot be appealed to a higher court.

No Bail: Government Opposes Release of Bin Laden Ally, page A11

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005

This is an important precident seting case in Canada. We don't have a Guantanamo Bay (the situation i'm going to talk about is very different) BUT we have been breaking the rights of a number of people by keeping them behind bars without letting them know the information that is holding them (or their lawyers know). The judges are just supposed to be impartial.

This has been going on for a while. The law was changed over two years ago (likely longer) in order to permit this.

The number of people even in percentage of population is much lower than Guantanamo and their isn't the same amount of torture (other than being stuck alone and having no idea what the hell is going to happen). Its still unfair and against the law. There is no sentence and you are stuck in jail until it is decided and once its decided you can be deported.

Personally i have no idea if this guy should be sent out of Canada or not. He successfully claimed refugee status which makes the idea of returning him to Algeria to seem on the shall we say very strange side. Yes if you read the articles there are some inconsistencies but frankly i don't trust in a process where a person can't even defend themselves against what there is against them. Yes he can still appeal about not being sent back to Algeria, but i would question whether they really have enough to have held him as long as they have. And if they can't send him back to Algeria they can't keep him in jail forever either...This has been a big issue in the UK recently and it looks like it may eventually become one here.

In a way it comes down to fundamental rights. Say this guy is an Al Qaeda sleeper (an i'm not saying he is). It degrades the rights of all of the citizens and residents of Canada if this type of legal process is used. We loose more in how our rights are changed and the morality and legality of our system by trying cases this way. That is my feeling at least and i think the guy didn't have a decent chance of defending himself. Sure i can read newspaper stories but only one side (the judge) who is talking know all the evidence. Very imbalanced in my view.

There is a protest planned around dinner today and i will be there. I'll be out there because i believe in the fundamental right of people to have a fair trial AND not be sent back to countries where they have already proved they could be persecuted (hence the refugee status). And what is the other solution. Just to keep Harkat in jail without a fair trial. That is wrong too. There are people all the time who commit crimes but get away with it because our legal system requires beyond a reasonable doubt---i don't see why this should be any different. And i do think he's been treated badly, unfairly and unconstitutionally at this point.P

Fixed links in the left sidebar

Some of the links in the left sidebar were not working. It seems i made small mistakes in putting a couple of them on the list---so they didn't connect. I've tried everything i've put up there and its working now (i trust the template to keep track of my past posts links working). Sorry for any inconvinience.P

Union applies to certify Gatineau Wal-Mart -- another Wal-Mart in Quebec looks like it may get unionized!

The UFCW is now trying to unionize a third Wal-Mart in Quebec. I guess if you've been following just the recent news you would think that the only place in Canada where people have tried to unionize Wal-Mart is in Quebec. That isn't the case (if you go through archives at cbc.ca you can read about it). The fact is though that the labour law favours unions more in Quebec than in other provinces at the moment (i believe anyway). The other thing is that Quebec has a unique culture that just believes in more rights for workers. Which would mean that workers might be more interested in being in a union. And they would have better support from the general population. They've been known to boycott in a large way over language issues and stores, and there is already talk of a boycott in Quebec but the union organizers are asking people not to boycott at this time because it would just hurt other Wal-Mart workers. The two features put together would be my guess as to why most of recent organizing has been in Quebec.

I've included an earlier story about a bomb threat at two Gatineau Stores.

So here is the news. It hasn't made it beyond CP or CBC online news yet. When there are some more substantial stories I'll try to add them in.

Union applies to certify another Quebec Wal-Mart

Last Updated Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:05:54 EST
CBC News

HULL, QUEBEC - A union has filed applications to certify workers at a Wal-mart store in Gatineau, Quebec, near Hull.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Canada union tabled two certification applications with the Quebec Labour Relations Commission to represent workers in the main section of the Wal-Mart store in Gatineau, as well as for store's Tire and Lube Express shop.

The same union earlier filed certification applications for three other Wal-Marts in Quebec one in Jonquiére, one in Saint-Hyacinthe, and one in Brossard.

Wal-Mart created a storm of controversy when it subsequently announced that the Jonquiére store would be closed because it didn't make money a claim the union called nonsense.

Wal-Mart has consistently opposed all efforts to unionize its employees. It was found guilty last month of harassing employees during an organizing drive at its store in Ste-Foy, outside Quebec City.

"We salute the courage and the determination of these workers who, despite Wal-Mart's intimidation tactics, are asserting their right to unionize," said Guy Chenier, president of UFCW Canada Local 486.

An attempt to certify a union at a Wal-Mart in Windsor Ontario suffered a setback earlier this month when workers voted against forming a union by a margin of almost three-to-one.

In that case, both union and Wal-Mart management filed unfair labour practice charges, each accusing the other side of intimidation

Union vows to pursue contract at Wal-Mart

CTV.ca News Staff
Sat. Feb 12 2005

....The first part of the story deals with Wal-Mart issues I've previously covered...

Gatineau bomb threats

Police say two Wal-Mart stores in Gatineau, Que., had to be evacuated Friday morning after the stores received bomb threats.

Gatineau police spokesman Sgt. Andre Pellerin says both outlets received a call from a male and they came within 20 minutes of each other.

A male caller apparently warned a bomb would explode before noon, but that deadline passed without incident.

Pellerin would not comment when asked if the caller talked about the store closure in Saguenay.

Masse said the union will continue their efforts to organize workers at other Wal-Mart stores.....

....Also in the House of Commons on Friday, New Democrat MP David Christopherson demanded to know what the government would do to help the Wal-Mart workers.

Christopherson had fiery words about the retail giant.

"They've sent a message to their 70,000 Canadian workers: You don't have the right to organize, you don't have the right to collective bargaining, and you don't have the right to decent wages or hours of work," Christopherson said.

"What is the government going to do protect Canadian workers from corporate bullies."

Federal Labour Minister Joe Fontana says it's out of his hands, because retail business issues fall within provincial jurisdiction.

But he says he will lobby Quebec's labour minister to ensure employee rights are being protected.

Wal-Mart is the largest retail operator in the world. In Canada alone it operates 256 stores and six Sam's Clubs which employ more than 70,000 employees.

For several days now, Wal-Mart has insisted it is closing the store because it's not making money.....

Linton says his organization wants answers.
...."Let Wal-Mart prove to the Quebec Labour Commission that this store is not profitable," he told CTV.ca."

"It seems kind of funny that the one store that is organized in their empire is the only one not making money and they're prepared to shut it."

With a report from CTV's Genevieve Beauchemin and files from The Canadian Press

Wal-Mart stores evacuated after bomb threat

Last Updated Feb 11 2005 01:45 PM EST
CBC News

GATINEAU, QUE. Police say two Wal-Mart stores in Gatineau, Que., had to be evacuated Friday morning after they received bomb threats.

A police spokesperson says both stores received a call from a man, and they came within 30 minutes of each other.

He says the caller warned a bomb would explode before noon, but that deadline passed without incident.

The threats come on the same day unionized Wal-Mart workers in Quebec announced they would take the company to court over its plans to close its store in Jonqière, one of the first Wal-Mart stores to be unionized in North America.

From my point of view i can see why the unions get so frustrated with Wal-Mart. I've got a number of posts about Wal-Mart if you go back into what I've written. They have always annoyed me and how they are treating workers that want to organize (who in my opinion and many other are treated badly) annoys the hell out of me.

I suppose i should be clear on where I'm coming from. I do not and i have not ever worked for a Wal-Mart (and I've only been in one a few times because i don't like most of the policies they have---i go elsewhere for my cheap stuff). I don't work for a union either. I'm just someone who is annoyed at Wal-Mart and how they deal with a whole bunch of things particularly their staff. And how they treat their staff would likely have to improve with a union. If i had been blogging when there was an attempt in Ontario to unionize a McDonald's i would have covered it as well. But at the moment its Wal-Mart and success (or failure) in organizing Wal-Mart will have an impact on unionization across the country. People keep trying here (Canada has always had a larger percentage of the working population unionized). If Wal-Mart can be unionized in Canada its better for Canada, but its also likely better for staff in the US who work for Wal-Mart and perhaps other similar stores. And i am a big supporter of unions. Especially when you hear about what working at Wal-Mart is like and how much people get paid (there have been documentaries, nobody slipped me secret info how many saw the documentaries) and i know of (the at least one i know of) current class action suits against Wal-Mart in the US (the one i know about is one is about women being discriminated against in promotions) i don't like how they do things. P

A New Template -- Why i made the decision to change my template.

I don't think i have many regular (if any) new readers yet. If i do you will find that I've changed the template. This is why its a good idea to change the template now if i was going to have to change it. I liked the other template but it was more complicated to run. The other problem was that a lot of the changes i had made on the CSS didn't show up on Firefox, but definitely showed up with Explorer, making it look unprofessional. I may eventually go through the template line by line with another copy but i think this template (or something similar) will more likely suit the style of the blog. I was thinking of moving to blockquotes for article quotes. With the way this one works i won't be, but it can produce normal text after one of my boxes so they should work out OK (instead of producing weird effects. I was concerned it had to do with the code for the box but couldn't see how as its pretty basic in how it affects fonts).

So a new look. Also I'm using a using (at least for now) a new (to me) program for editing the html stuff before i put it up on the blog (aside from giving you more control it saves a ton of time off of writing it on blogger). This one looks like it might be more friendly than the previous one i was using. At least in some ways. The choice may go back and forth as i try to get used to the new one, but it shouldn't make any real difference in how the page works from what i can see. I'm still cutting and pasting material I've already put the html in for from a text editor. But you never know, so it could be part of a change that might go back and forth.

Aside from that i continue to go on doing what i wanted to do with the blog. I think now it will be easier to achieve though. A good template (after I've fiddled with it---if you look on the left you will see I've already put my own links up again, it was a cut and paste thing once i found the right spot in the new template) can help make it easier to keep track of what is going on and reading the material. I really like the scribe template but

• I wasn't that sure it was suited to the political blog with the way it looked in IE


• There were major differences between how it showed up in IE and Firefox, which would just have created even more work. Part of that difference is stuff i have turned off on Firefox, but i don't think my settings on Firefox are all that different from Average.

Some of it is still different (i have images of certain types turned off) but it now matches much better between the browsers. I think I'll still get in to the habit or crosschecking it, but it will make it a lot less of a problem.

On Wolfowitz as World Bank President --- Why The West is Always in the Saddle

I did my degree in political science. I'm only getting into this to make a point. At my university the program was basically split into three categories (from there it was subsets). Canadian, International Relations and Comparative.

I took all of 1/3 of a course of International Relations and one that was slightly that way as a fourth year seminar. Why? Because i immediately realized i hated it. The first year course different depending on the prof. They were all to teach Canadian political science and then international relations OR comparative political science. And i realized from that short amount i hated it.

Why? Because it was the type of political science that in the end says the IMF is doing good things and there is no problem with the international bank.

Now i'm sure that is too broad a way of looking at it. But at 19 it appeared that way, and it would likely have taken a long time to get beyond that as all we did the first year was study the types of international institutions without looking at problems they might have.

Now i did a fair amount of comparative and i learned about these from a different perspective, the type that was missing (generally comparative at least at my school came that way and when it didn't i did left wing papers whenever possible and learned the right wing stuff i needed for the course). Of course if you do enough study in IR you will end up at this point.But it will take you a lot longer and it will be more frustrating i think.

And just as a side comment. Anyone who thinks you can get through a Political Science program without still having to study with prof's that have viewpoints they disagree with (left right whatever) either went to a bad school or wasn't paying enough attention. Although you can generally choose you paper topics at least.

Paul Wolfowitz has been put forward by Bush to lead the World Bank. I (and many other people) are horrified. I did find this article had a different take----i don't really think i agree with it, but it is one that leaves room for discussion instead of just going "good" or "bad". And i think that is important. So i thought i would put it up for people to look at. I should note i find this more often in British and French newspapers (France and Quebec) than Canada or the US. One of the reasons i keep reading them.

Why the west is always in the saddle

Larry Elliott
Monday March 21, 2005
The Guardian

George Bush is sitting in the Oval Office. The time has come for the United States to exercise its right to choose the next president of the World Bank. "Who would really get under the skin of the bleeding-heart liberals," thinks the president. "Dick Cheney would do the trick but I need him as vice-president. But Paul Wolfowitz is at a loose end. He'll do."

Who knows how Bush came to plump for Wolfowitz. But the idea that the neo-cons' neo-con should be parachuted into the bank was seen as a deliberately provocative gesture, and not just by the usual suspects in the aid agencies. European governments are unhappy and most of the bank's staff are spitting blood. Clare Short summed it up: "This is really shocking. It's as though they [the Americans] are trying to wreck our international systems," the former development secretary said. "They have nominated a man with no record on development, who drove the Iraq war and, in the Pentagon, was responsible for Iraq after the war - and that is a complete and absolute disaster, the worst post-conflict situation we have had in the world for a very long time." [my emphasis and how i feel]


Within minutes of the White House's announcement, a stop Wolfie campaign was in full swing. Opponents said he would jeopardise the pro-poor agenda of the current head, James Wolfensohn; that the bank could kiss goodbye to deeper involvement in the economic reconstruction of the wider Middle East and that the bank will do global outreach for Bush's trickle-down theories of economics.

Although the French and the Germans reacted icily and the bank's executive directors will take the unusual step of interviewing Wolfowitz, the Europeans are unlikely to face down the Americans on this issue. Bush has only just returned from his European charm offensive and on both sides of the Atlantic there is a desire for rapprochement after the diplomatic cold war over Iraq.

Moreover, the Europeans are not exactly well placed to adopt the moral high ground. Europe accepted Barber Conable, a little-known congressman with zero experience, when he was dragged out of retirement to run the bank by Ronald Reagan in the mid-1980s (with disastrous consequences, it should be said). Unlike some of the pygmies who have ended up running the world's biggest development organisation, Wolfowitz is a man with a long record in public life, including a spell as ambassador to Indonesia, one of the most important developing countries.

So, get used to the idea: Wolfowitz is going to the bank. Are there any reasons to be optimistic about this? One interpretation is that it shows Bush is serious about development. Plumping for an anonymous party hack would have been taken as evidence that the administration was turning its back on a multilateral approach to poverty and was concentrating all its efforts on fighting terrorism. The fact is, much of the pressure on Bush to do more for Africa has been coming from the political right in the States, and plenty of money has been allocated for development (if not spent).

A second reason for guarded optimism is that Wolfowitz has been a strong advocate of debt relief for Iraq, lobbying the international community to give the post-Saddam regime a fresh start. This may make him more amenable to Britain's plan for 100% multilateral debt relief for the world's poorest countries.

There is also a precedent for Wolfowitz's appointment. The last president of the World Bank to emerge from the Pentagon was Robert McNamara in the 1960s, and he has gone down as one of the presidents who really made a difference. McNamara, of course, was the defence secretary who presided over the American build-up in Vietnam, but he went native at the bank. By the time he left the Pentagon, McNamara had already expressed deep concern about what was happening in Vietnam and, in any case, could never have been described as a true hawk.

Despite all this, it is easy to conjure up a nightmare scenario for a Wolfowitz-led bank. Bush has never been the greatest fan of the bank, and Wolfensohn (a Bill Clinton choice) has faced constant sniping from the White House. At various times, the administration has let it be known that the bank should be slimmed down, that it should cease its lending to middle-income countries and that it should turn its loans to poor countries into grants, thereby eroding its financial base. Wolfowitz, according to this scenario, is Bush's hatchet man.

Carve-up


An alternative, but equally downbeat view, is that Bush is frustrated by the bank's soggy approach to development and wants to turn it into a bastion of neo-con thinking, with future financial assistance more closely linked to democracy. The bank will, therefore, become an instrument of American foreign policy, or rather, a more overt instrument of American foreign policy, since the idea that the White House has never had a big say in what the bank does is utterly fanciful.

At root, the problem is not Bush but the scandalous way in which the top jobs in the global institutions are carved up by the developed world. The system, which has been in force since the end of the second world war, works like this. The United Nations, in theory the premier international body, never has an American or someone from one of the bigger European nations at its head. There is no need, because real power resides in the security council, where the US, Britain and France have a veto. The bank and the International Monetary Fund have voting structures that depend on the size of a country's shareholding, with the US the largest at around a quarter of the voting rights, and the G7 as a whole wielding around 70% of the clout. Every managing director of the fund has been a European; every president of the bank an American. Despite the fact that the two institutions spend most of their time advising, lending to and dictating to developing countries, the rest of the world does not get a look-in.

Reform of this cosy little cartel is long overdue. It is quite scandalous that these jobs, which are deeply significant for the stability of the global economy and for progress in eradicating poverty, should be subject to a great power carve-up, rather than being decided on competition and merit. The British government's white paper on globalisation in 2000 made this point, as did Tony Blair's Commission for Africa report, released only 10 days ago.

If ever there was time to make a principled stand, it is now. A statement from Tony Blair or Gordon Brown saying that Wolfowitz is unacceptable on grounds of openness, transparency and democracy is what is needed, but the signs are not hopeful. When the news broke on Wednesday, the Treasury took refuge in the fact that it was budget day to excuse the fact that it had nothing to say about Wolfowitz's nomination. Jack Straw's comment that Britain looked forward to working with Wolfowitz if he got the job hardly encourages the belief that Britain was going to take a principled stand.

The Europeans have only themselves to blame. They insisted on the right to fill the vacancy at the fund last year, and now Bush is having his turn. The result, regrettably, is that the bank and the fund risk being run by people who might not be the best available choice for the job.

What's more, the carve-up by America and Europe has knock-on effects elsewhere. The World Trade Organisation, for example, is looking for a new director-general and has four possible candidates - three from developing countries and one from the developed world, the former European trade commissioner Pascal Lamy. In an open meritocratic system, Lamy would get the job. But with a Spaniard at the fund and an American at the bank, the likelihood is that developing countries will insist that they should have the WTO. And who, frankly, can blame them?

I hope you have read through to the end of the article. I find that it does exactly what i would like this blog to (if not exactly what i would agree with). Its looking at Wolfowitz's nomination from a different viewpoint. And at least its not all negative. That's why i put it in today.

And it had a bonus. I knew all the British spelling in the article would be correct so i didn't have to look it up and i've increased my dictionary! P

Pimp to Poison Mozart at Bolshoi ---How much say should government get over arts in government funded institutions?

I found this a very interseting story. Freedom in the arts is often a big issue. How far do you let a national gallery go in its displays (in Canada we had a meat shirt display for a few months until it rotted away but it was controversial). What i find interseting here is how far up in society the controversy has gone. Its not like there was this big fuss about anything in art i can remember here recently, but then it hasn't been all that long either. The closest i would remember would be when the National Gallery paid millions for a abstract called "Voice of Fire" years ago or when it had a piece of art that was made out of meat that was a shirt more or less and stayed until it decomposed (it was planned to be taken out by then). The Voice of Fire wasn't Canadian, cost millions and consisted of three panes with different colours of paints. At least the meat shirt was. Still it didn't seem to get this mean. I think part of how you decide on the freedoms in society is by what is put on/bought in galleries or theatres that are nominally funded by the government. I mean the CBC is a Crown corporation, but i wouldn't ever want the government getting a big say in the shows (they do get more say than they should through funding even though its supposed to be a bit more distant than most Crown corporations because its media).

Although to give them credit they are at least arguing over it not getting rid of the show yet.

I guess i also find the story of the opera kinda neat. I might go to see it if it came here...if i could get over the fact it wasn't in English or French (so that i wouldn't understand it at all...i understand other opera folks do this all the time though). P

Pimp to poison Mozart at Bolshoi

Protestors label opera 'vulgar and pornographic,' but edgy show will go on, complete with composer clones

MICHAEL MAINVILLE
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Mar. 20, 2005. 08:15 AM

Russia's famed Bolshoi Theatre is having one of its stages transformed into one of the dingiest, most unsavoury places in Moscow — a public square and train station hub called Komsomolskaya Ploshchad.

There, amid the drunks, prostitutes and petty criminals, Mozart will fall in love with a hooker and fellow composers Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky and Verdi will be poisoned by a pimp.

Rosenthal's Children — the first new opera to premiere at the Bolshoi in more than a quarter-century — has unleashed a storm of controversy ahead of its opening on Wednesday.[emphasis mine]

Its edgy, post-modern libretto has been condemned as "vulgar and pornographic" by members of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, who have launched a parliamentary inquiry into the production.

Protestors rallied outside the Bolshoi last week, demanding that the opera be banned from the theatre.

Attempts to stop the production have triggered charges of Stalin-style censorship from members of Moscow's arts community, who point out that few of those protesting have read the libretto and no one has seen the production.....

....Set to music by avant-garde composer Leonid Desyatnikov, the libretto for Rosenthal's Children was written by Vladimir Sorokin, one of Russia's most controversial authors.....

....About 150 members of Moving Together, a youth group allied with President Vladimir Putin, protested outside the Bolshoi last Monday, demanding the opera not be staged. They carried signs calling Sorokin a pornographer and threw copies of his books into a giant model of a toilet erected outside the theatre. ....

Russia's lower house of parliament, the state Duma, voted overwhelmingly this month to launch an inquiry into the production. Lyubov Blizhnaya, a United Russia MP and one of those conducting the investigation, said that, as one of Russia's top cultural institutions, the Bolshoi must be careful about what it presents.

"What's at stake here is the reputation of the Bolshoi as a theatre known for its high-quality artistic productions, both in this country and around the world," she said.

"This kind of profanity has no place at the Bolshoi."

Blizhnaya denied accusations of censorship and insisted the government should have a say in how the theatre is run.

"The Bolshoi is a state institution, funded from the federal budget, and we have a right to question how that money is spent."

The government recently approved a $1 billion (U.S.) renovation plan that will see the Bolshoi closed from July until early 2008. The column-fronted, 170-year-old building near the Kremlin has not had a major facelift since 1856. Much of its electrical wiring, which hangs in bundles from the walls, dates from the 1940s.

Rosenthal's Children will be performed in a new building next to the theatre, the Bolshoi's so-called New Stage, which was built to house performances during the renovation.

The opera tells the story of clones of the five famous composers created by a Jewish-German geneticist, Alex Rosenthal, who fled Germany for the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

With help from Stalin, Rosenthal sets up a secret laboratory to create clones to be used as labourers and soldiers. A music lover, he creates the composer clones for himself.

The laboratory is shut down after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Rosenthal's death. Left homeless and penniless, the clones resort to busking at Komsomolskaya Ploshchad.

Mozart falls in love and marries a prostitute named Tanya, but her pimp, angry that she's no longer turning tricks, poisons her and the entire group.

Only Mozart survives and the opera ends with him lying in a hospital bed, haunted by the voices of Tanya and his fellow composers.

"With this work, we wanted to prove that the modern opera does exist, that the genre hasn't died and been covered in mould," Sorokin told the newspaper Novy Izvestia.

"This is not an insult; it is a wish to prolong the classical tradition."

MPs investigating the opera will attend the premiere before submitting a report to the Duma next week. The government has no power to dictate what productions the theatre presents but can take steps to remove the theatre's management.

Bolshoi director Iksanov says he isn't worried about losing his job.

"This is an idiotic position taken by a few people, not by the government," he says. "And who knows, maybe they will be enlightened after seeing the performance."

McQuaig article : Now matter how painful rule of law must prevail

Today is Sunday so here is the Linda McQuaig article of today. It is about the Air India case and the rule of law relating it as well to 9/11. Interesting piece i think.P

Linda McQuaig says no matter how painful, the rule of law must prevail

Mar. 20, 2005. 01:00 AM
Toronto Star


The more horrific the crime, the more justice seems to call out for punishment. Punishing the right people and following the niceties of the rule of law often seem to get lost in the rush to "hang 'em high."

Certainly, this appeared to be the case last week amid the din of outrage over the dramatic acquittals of two men in the Air-India bombing case.

To many, the fact that 331 people lost their lives seemed sufficient grounds to warrant convictions, regardless of the lack of evidence. The acquittals were therefore taken as a sign that the system didn't work.

A full-page spread on the front of The Globe and Mail identified the two acquitted me as "Not Guilty," while identifying the 331 victims as "Innocent," the idea being that while the accused may have gotten off, they didn't deserve to be classified as "innocent." So much for that quaint adage "innocent until proven guilty."


Discarding other apparently outdated notions — like the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured — are the hallmarks of our time, with our increasing willingness to compromise our most basic legal and democratic principles in order to have a freer hand in fighting the "war on terror."

As Cofer Black, former CIA counterterrorism chief, told the U.S. Congress: "There was a before 9/11 and an after 9/11. After 9/11, the gloves came off."

This lawless mentality, particularly rampant in Washington, has also seeped into Canada, where non-citizens can now be held, and are being held, under security certificates that strip them of their legal protections.

Last week there was pressure for Canada to move further down this road.

In a front-page report, the National Post featured a relative of an Air-India victim praising Israel for hunting down and killing the perpetrators of the 1972 terrorist attack at the Munich Olympics, and George W. Bush for his declaration of war on terrorism after 9/11.

By contrast, Canada's response to the Air-India terrorism was described as "apathetic and indifferent."

Of course, there was plenty of incompetence on the part of Canadian police and intelligence officials in this case, with agents destroying hours of wiretap evidence and failing to act even after overhearing a militant under surveillance explode a test bomb just days before the Air-India bombing.

But the Canadian court system appeared to function well, refusing to "take the gloves off." Justice Ian Bruce Josephson apparently managed to weigh the evidence dispassionately, despite the enormous pressure for a guilty verdict.

This suggests that the verdict was based on the rule of law — which is essential to the functioning of our democracy.

The real test of our commitment to the rule of law isn't our willingness to adhere to it in prosecuting the easy cases, the ones where no one has really been hurt, but rather to stick to it in the really hard cases, where the suffering of the victims is immeasurable and the public desire for revenge is fierce.

And, as cases go, they don't get much harder than this one.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca.