Thursday, April 23, 2009

Good News for Omar Khadr

As the Globe and Mail reports, a federal court has ruled that the Canadian government must seek the repatriation of Omar Khadr from the hell of Gitmo immediately.

No more stonewalling.

No more excuses.

No more fearmongering.

No more pushing the idea that he's guilty before he's even had a fair trial.

No more abandoning a child soldier who has allegedly been tortured while in US custody.

It ends now. Today.

Update:

According to the ruling (.pdf file) the judge decided that Khadr's Charter rights under Section 7 had been infringed.

[8] In his affidavit, Mr. Khadr describes various forms of mistreatment both at Bagram and Guantánamo Bay. For purposes of these proceedings, it is unnecessary for me to make any definitive factual findings about the conditions of Mr. Khadr’s imprisonment. However, there are three significant facts that are relevant to this application and on which there is agreement between the parties.

[9] First, on detention, Mr. Khadr was “given no special status as a minor” even though he was only 15 when he was arrested and 16 at the time he was transferred to Guantánamo Bay.

[10] Second, Mr. Khadr had virtually no communication with anyone outside of Guantánamo Bay until November 2004, when he met with legal counsel for the first time.

[11] Third, at Guantánamo Bay, Mr. Khadr was subjected to the so-called “frequent flyer program”, which involved depriving him of rest and sleep by moving him to a new location every three hours over a period of weeks. Canadian officials became aware of this treatment in the spring of 2004 when Mr. Khadr was 17, and proceeded to interrogate him.

The judge then details the history of Khadr's detention including so-called interviews (i.e. interrogations) by CSIS:

[17] By the spring of 2004, then, Canadian officials were knowingly implicated in the imposition of sleep deprivation techniques on Mr. Khadr as a means of making him more willing to provide intelligence. Mr. Khadr was then a 17-year-old minor, who was being detained without legal representation, with no access to his family, and with no Canadian consular assistance.

Let's not forget that these actions happened under both Liberal and Conservative governments.

Khadr and his lawyers have been looking for justice from our government for years on end, constantly coming up against the political concerns of the parties in power.

[23] Mr. Khadr has launched a number of other proceedings in Federal Court. In 2004, he commenced an action for damages and a declaration that his Charter rights had been infringed.

Justice Konrad von Finckenstein granted him an injunction against further interrogations by Canadian officials, but no further action was taken in the proceedings (Khadr v. The Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 2005 FC 1076, T-536-04).

[24] Also in 2004, Mr. Khadr applied for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Foreign Affairs not to seek further consular access to him. Again, there has been no recent action taken on this file (Khadr v. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, 2004 FC 1145, T-686-04).

It's quite obvious upon reading the ruling that CSIS has a lot to answer for - again - in this case. The judge notes that the sleep deprivation technique used against Khadr was torture, as specified in the CAT (Convention Against Torture) and that CSIS, knowing it had garnered so-called evidence as a result of that torture had no right to hand it over to then be used against him in whatever quasi-judicial proceedings would be invented for Gitmo prisoners.

Additionally, the judge found that the government violated the CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child) on several fronts - including the right not to be tortured.

[63] The CRC imposes on Canada some specific duties in respect of Mr. Khadr. Canada was required to take steps to protect Mr. Khadr from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury, abuse or maltreatment. We know that Canada raised concerns about Mr. Khadr’s treatment, but it also implicitly condoned the imposition of sleep deprivation techniques on him, having carried out interviews knowing that he had been subjected to them.

Our government failed Omar Khadr on a number of levels for far too long.

This ruling is a huge victory for him, his lawyers, his family and Canadian justice.

Update:

Asked about the ruling during Question Period, Harper stated that his government had been following the same policy as the previous government for years. He also said that he would review the ruling to decide if the government would appeal.
 

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Protecting Torturers: Pt 2 - Rahm Makes it (More) Official

Rahm Emanuel on ABC's This Week:



GEORGE: Does [President Obama] believe that the officials who devised the policies should be immune from prosecution?

RAHM: Yeah. What he believes is, look, as you saw in that statement he wrote, and I’m just gonna take a step back, we came up with this and worked on this for about four weeks, wrote that statement Wednesday night after he had made his decision and dictated what he wanted to see, and Thursday morning I saw him in the office and he was still editing it. What he believes it that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided, they shouldn’t be prosecuted.

GEORGE: But what about those who devised the policy?

RAHM: Yeah, but those who devised the policy, he believes that they were uh should not be prosecuted either. And it’s not the place that we go — as he said in that letter, and I really recommend that people look at the full statement — not the letter, the statement — in that second [to last] paragraph. This is not a time for retribution. It’s a time for reflection. It is not the time to use our energy and our time in looking back and in a sense of anger and retribution. We have a lot to do to protect America, but what people need to know: This practice and technique, we don’t use anymore. He banned it.

This doesn't surprise me at all but it has come as quite the sideswipe to Obama supporters who believed that he would eventually...sometime...when he wasn't busy...later...get around to actually holding somebody responsible for these horrendous acts.

There's no denying now that Obama's not interested in doing so at all.

The latest reasoning from those starry-eyed supporters (as spied over at Daily Kos? Maybe Obama doesn't want prosecutions but (somehow miraculously) AG Holder will defy him and go ahead with prosecutions anyway.

Obamafiles, meet reality. Justice means never having to say you're guilty.
 

Friday, April 17, 2009

Protecting Torturers

Along with the release of partially redacted Bush administration torture memos in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on Thursday, Obama made the following statement (in part):

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Going forward, it is my strong belief that the United States has a solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security. This is an extraordinarily important responsibility of the presidency, and it is one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political concern. Consequently, the exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

The United States is a nation of laws. My administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

The United States has been and continues to be a nation that skirts the laws. And if letting torturers get away with war crimes is one of that nation's "ideals", I expect to see pardons of those who were convicted of the Abu Ghraib torture atrocities from the Obama administration sometime soon.

Outrage mixed with many simply failed attempts to rationalize Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA perpetrators have been sprinkled through the so-called 'progressive' American blogosphere since Thursday in response to this "news". Well it's not news, for one thing.

Leon Panetta was quite clear during his confirmation hearing that his opinion matched that of Obama's when it came to this matter ie. no prosecutions. And what could possibly justify this position?

(Panetta) Having said that, I also believe as the president has indicated that those individuals who operated pursuant to a legal opinion that indicated that that was proper and legal ought not be prosecuted or investigated and that they acted pursuant to the law as it was presented to them by the attorney general.

Not only that, Obama's DOJ will be more than happy to defend you from prosecution too. So, the bottom line is that if some government lawyer writes a rationale that flies in the face of the law, the US constitution and international treaties, your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to act like an imbecile, pretend that you're not breaking any laws and just follow orders because, when push comes to shove, the US government has your ass covered.

Hopeyness is dying on the vine as Naomi Klein skillfully observes. Even Obama's new dog, whatever Michelle is wearing today and/or Obama's visit to Latin America aren't providing the much-needed escapism in the face of this pesky torture stuff.

It's been quite an interesting exercise to watch those who railed against torture while Bush was in office suddenly do an about face and support Obama's refusal to carry out his treaty obligations to prosecute the offenders.

Ironically, back in 2005, Bush said this:

"The only thing I issued was, don't torture. That's the policy of the government," he told a Knight Ridder reporter. "And we don't torture. And if there is torture, we will bring people to account."

And they did. At least as it applied to Abu Ghraib. (Stunning contrast, I know. But somebody had to point it out.)

The new Democratic president, on the other hand, has absolutely no interest in prosecuting anyone for torture and his people may have had something to do with Spain's AG refusing to prosecute the Bush 6.

Obama said he had not had direct contact with the Spanish government about the case but "my team has been in communications with them."

What do you suppose his team had to say about those prosecutions? Go right ahead?

And if you think you'll just hang onto that hopeyness because Obama might actually go after the Bush 6 himself some day, think again. The Bush administration, enabled by numerous Democrats and now sanctioned by this president, ensured that those in command remain untouchable.

The strikes against Obama keep piling up and it ought to be very clear that he will not be the champion of human and civil rights some made him out to be. He is not the second coming of Lincoln or MLK, after all. (Surprise!) Au contraire, political viability is at the top of his priority list.

For someone who touted himself as a Washington outsider who was going to bust in and change the place, (so he said, anyway), his actions to this point have shown that he's just decided to pull up the most politically comfortable chair in town while holding court just like every other politician there. He will not sacrifice his political career for something as apparently inconsequential as the rule of law or human rights. That is not going to change.

Mr "post-racial" and "post-partisan" is now also Mr "post-torture prosecutions". For someone who's already written not one, but two autobiographies in his short life, isn't it kind of odd that he excuses away his unpopular political actions by insisting it's better to look forward all of the time? Just how long does he think that attitude is going to keep him propped up?

And just like those of us who screamed for impeachment were pushed to the back of the so-called 'progressive' bus by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Dem party online faithful (and operatives), we might as well get used to sitting in the crappy seats for a whole while longer. Because, just as Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini, Joseph Stiglitz and others have been excommunicated by those Democrats who have complete faith in the financial gospel according to Obama, Geithner, Summers and the rest of the Goldman Sachs hacks now in government, you can expect to be keeping company with those radical, fringe lefty groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Human Rights Watch if you believe all torturers and those who gave the orders and legal justifications should be prosecuted.

I know who I'd rather be sitting with. How about you?

Related:

You can read the actual memos here.

The Red Cross Torture Report: What It Means
 

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Bailing out an alleged SA apartheid enabler?

Talk of a possible bankruptcy filing by General Motors has been rampant in the US and Canada lately. And this news seems to provide a huge nudge in that direction as GM will now face increasing legal fees and settlement payouts if these South African apartheid victims win their case.

US court allows apartheid claims

A United States judge has ruled that lawsuits can go ahead against several companies accused of helping South Africa's apartheid-era government.

IBM, Ford and General Motors are among those corporations now expected to face demands for damages from thousands of apartheid's victims.

They argue that the firms supplied equipment used by the South African security forces to suppress dissent.

The companies affected have not yet responded to the judge's ruling.

'Wilful blindness'

US District Judge Shira Scheindlin in New York dismissed complaints against several companies but said plaintiffs could proceed with lawsuits against IBM, Daimler, Ford, General Motors and Rheinmetall Group, the Swiss parent of an armaments maker.

"Corporate defendants accused of merely doing business with the apartheid government of South Africa have been dismissed," she said.

The plaintiffs argue that the car manufacturers knew their vehicles would be used by South African forces to suppress dissent. They also say that computer companies knew their products were being used to help strip black South Africans of their rights.

Can we as citizens actually be comfortable knowing that part of the GM bailout money is going to defend these allegations?

Further:

The US and South African governments supported the companies' efforts to get the complaints dismissed.

They argue that the legal action is damaging to international relations and may threaten South Africa's economic development.

Weak, weak excuses in defense of horrendous human rights violations. And can you imagine how many heads will explode when/if the Obama administration publicly stands behind these companies? How will his supporters possibly defend that?

Scheinlin dismissed a number of claims against several of the companies and made the following rulings on the Ntsebeza and Khulumani cases. The judge:

• found the plaintiffs in Ntsebeza adequately pleaded that Daimler, Ford and General Motors aided and abetted apartheid, torture, extrajudicial killing and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment -- in part because their security personnel were "intimately involved" with the torture and inhuman treatment of several plaintiffs and also because the companies provided the military equipment and trucks used by the South African Defense Forces and the special branch for attacks on protesting citizens and activists;
link

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Obama: Failing To Deal With Torture

While I was watching Black Money on Frontline Tuesday nite, one particular part of the Saudi/British government relationship around the BAE scandal stuck out for me. To get the Blair government to drop the investigation into BAE, the Saudis threatened to withdraw their support in the GWOT. It worked.

That tactic sounded very familiar...

The US has threatened to withhold intelligence from the UK if evidence of the alleged torture of a British resident [Binyam Mohamed] held at Guantánamo Bay is made public.

Details of how the “terrorist” detainee was allegedly tortured — and what UK intelligence services knew about it — must remain secret because of the American threats, the High Court ruled yesterday.

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said lawyers for the Foreign Secretary had told them that the threat by the US still applied under President Obama. Oppostion [sic] MPs accused the Government of giving in to blackmail.

Plus ca change... These politicians play with peoples' lives every single day. What's a few dead Brits when there are major scandals to cover up?

The US government had previously [under Bush] tried to buy Mohamed's silence with a sham plea bargain that would have forced him to stay silent about his torture. He refused.

Whatever happened to Mr Mohamed is something no US administration - Republican or Democrat - wants revealed to the public. In fact, the latest attempt to quash justice in this matter is even more bold:

Guantanamo Attorneys Face Possible Prison Time for Letter to Obama Detailing Client’s Allegations of Torture

Attorneys Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour could face six months in a US prison because of a letter they sent to President Obama explaining their client’s allegations of torture by US agents. Smith and Ghappour represent Binyam Mohamed, the British resident recently released after seven years in US custody, where he claims he was repeatedly tortured, first in a secret CIA prison and later at Guantanamo

Tell me if this makes sense to any of you:

AMY GOODMAN: Officials from the Department of Defense who monitor and censor communication between Guantanamo prisoners and their lawyers filed a complaint against Mohamed’s lawyers for “unprofessional conduct” and for revealing classified evidence to the President.

Excuse me? As the president, is he not allowed to view classified evidence? Anyone?

AMY GOODMAN: The memo the lawyers sent to Obama was completely redacted except for the title. It had urged the President to release evidence of Mohamed’s alleged torture into the public domain. Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour have been summoned before a D.C. court on May 11th.

Did his virgin eyes burn when he read the memo title? Is a redacted memo some sort of national security threat? Am I missing something?

And while all of you Obama maniacs are slapping each other on the back since he announced he was going to close down Gitmo (while you weren't busy checking out the latest dress Michelle was wearing), perhaps you can explain to me what right Obama's Pentagon had to fire Canadian Gitmo prisoner Omar Khadr's lawyer last week? That decision was reversed by a military judge on Tuesday but:

Omar Khadr's U.S. military defence lawyer is stuck in limbo after his superiors attempted to remove him from the Canadian's case, an attempt a military judge subsequently shot down.

As a result, Lieutenant-Commander Bill Kuebler is still Mr. Khadr's assigned counsel, but has been shut out of his Washington office while his boss, chief defence counsel Air Force Colonel Peter Masciola, asks a judge to reconsider his decision.

LCdr. Kuebler was fired last Friday following a long-standing feud with Col. Masciola.

LCdr. Kuebler argued that his boss did not have the authority to dismiss him. On Tuesday, Colonel Patrick Parrish, the judge in the Khadr Guantanamo Bay case, agreed, overruling the dismissal.

Kuebler has been a tireless advocate for Khadr and has had to fight the Pentagon every step of the way - a Pentagon that is terrified that evidence of alleged torture in this case as well will come to light.

Can you see a pattern here? So early in the Obama administration? Is there any indication that anything beyond lip service will be paid to these torture allegations? Let's not forget that all through his 2 year campaign while Bush was still in office doing who knows what with suspects' human and civil rights around the world, Obama repeated the zombie-patriot mantra "The US does not torture".

If that was true then and if it's true now, then what is he trying to hide?

Related:

Glenn Greenwald - There are no excuses for ongoing concealment of torture memos

Red Cross says doctors helped CIA "torture"

Ray McGovern - After Torture, Resurrection

CCR - D.C. Circuit Court Decision Refuses to Allow Advance Notice Before a Guantanamo Detainee is Transferred; "The Court held that it could not test the Executive’s promise not to transfer someone to a country where he could be tortured."
 

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Alberta's Deficit Budget

It's official. After 16 years of surpluses, Alberta's government will run a $4.7 billion deficit.

It seems whoever's in charge of updating the Alberta Finance site was having a bit of a nap since it took them almost half an hour to actually post Budget 2009 information after the 3 pm embargo was lifted.

Be that as it may, here are some of the so-called highlights:

* $23.2 billion over three years to build health facilities, schools, and roads – includes funding for carbon capture and storage, and GreenTRIP.
* 3.7-per-cent increase in operating spending to address population growth and inflation.
* Priority areas of health, education, advanced education, seniors and children services account for 75 per cent of the operating increase.
* Taxes remain lowest in Canada; tobacco tax increases and liquor markup is raised.
* Forecast $36.4 billion in spending in 2009-10; $31.7 billion in revenue.
* $4.7 billion deficit forecast for 2009-10; surplus forecast in 2012-13.
* $2 billion in fiscal corrective actions to be taken in 2010 if situation does not improve beyond forecast.
* New fiscal framework allows for transfers from Sustainability Fund to offset deficits.

(Pssst...read the fine print.)

Tories will hate all of the spending but they'll still keep voting these jokers in decade after decade anyway because they're too scared to try something new. Some of them are even talking up a new Ralph Klein revolution. If you survived the last one here, you'll know just how insane that was. I don't know why, considering the absolute global failure of Father Knows Best conservative economic philosophy, the majority of Albertans support the status quo. Riches rot the brain. That must be it.

And liberals? Well, nobody listens to us anyway and the Alberta Liberal Party is busy begging for donations for office rent and staff while the NDP has no response to the budget on its site either. When will these parties wake up and smell the immediacy of the internets? Their members do perform well in the leg - holding the over-bloated egos of the tories to the fire - but they're truly lacking in stoking up some much-needed left-wing populism in this province. Where's our revolution?

As for me, as an AISH recipient, I have to breath a huge sigh of relief for the $100/month increase I'm getting. Now if only I wasn't spending 60% of my income on rent.

Related:

Budget 2009 site

The Calgary Herald has extensive analysis.
 

Monday, April 06, 2009

Runaway Canuck Cessna Scares the Yanks

Oh please let this be Stephen Harper trying to flee to claim refugee status in the US. Please?

(I'm sure the Heritage Foundation would sponsor him.)

A federal law enforcement official told CNN the pilot is a naturalized Canadian citizen, but declined to give his name or country of origin. The source said the pilot was a flight school student for a "brief" period and only clocked a few hours of flight time.

Canadian officials have received some information that the pilot is "not a happy individual," the official said.



 
 
That sounds a lot like Steve, I'd say.
 

Update: They got the guy. It wasn't Steve. Damn.
 

Friday, March 27, 2009

Redux: The Politics of Powerlessness

Fellow Canadian blogger Polly Jones e-mailed me earlier this month because she wanted to direct a friend of hers to a post I'd written some time ago about political activism and trauma.

After rereading that post that I'd written 2 years ago this month, I've decided to post it again because so many more people all over the world are openly experiencing the raw depths of trauma these days due to the global recession (and because I've been too exhausted to post much of anything else lately. Sorry!).

As we try to deal with this new reality and join with others in the fight for economic justice (in whatever form that may take for each individual), I think the ideas that I expressed in 2007 are just as relevant and might be helpful to some who may feel a bit alone and powerless.

Without further adieu... here it is, unedited (except for spelling corrections), and I want to thank Polly for reminding me of it. (Maybe it's exactly what I needed to read today.)

The Politics of Powerlessness

There are many times when the personal and the political cross paths in life, leading us to seek answers to deal with individual and/or collective grievances. Less seldom though comes the opportunity to quickly understand the roots and solutions in a way that's immediately helpful and enlightening - allowing you to think outside of the box by realizing a paradigm shift that's actually practical and useful.

I was lucky enough to have one of those moments today.

The idea of writing about the politics of powerlessness struck me after posting what should have been a rather benign personal admission on my blog yesterday in reaction to Budget 2007.

I wrote:

I hesitate to add this because some might think it's selfish or that I'm unable to see the impact on society of some of the larger measures announced but, as a mid-40s woman on permanent disability living well below the poverty line, there's nothing I can see in these announcements that will have a directly positive impact on my daily life or standard of living. It's been that way every year for a long time now. I think too many of us are too often forgotten...

Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that, as a poor person, I could write something like that without being attacked for it. You see, the only people who have the right to comment on government budgets are those in the business community, the middle class, CEOs, financial consultants, politicians and anyone who pays taxes. They are the acceptable spokespeople who have that right in this society. If you are poor and sick, somehow you forfeit that right and any comment coming from you constitutes whining and ingratitude, especially if you live on a social assistance program provided by the government (regardless of how pathetic the amount may be.)

That attack came in the form of insults from someone who knows me personally - someone who hasn't said anything they included in their now deleted comment to me in real life. Someone who is in a position of power over me. That is being dealt with privately.

I was already feeling crushed by powerlessness last nite after writing about the 4th anniversary of the Iraq war - a war that those with governmental power seem in no mood to end anytime soon. I'm a strong person. I'm also antiwar. I had thought that when the Democrats regained power, they would move as quickly as possible to use the power that they had in every way they could to end that illegal and immoral war. They haven't. So, when insult was literally added to a pre-existing injury on Monday nite - that feeling of despair was compounded. It was agonizing. Yes, I do have weak moments. We all do.

That brought the intersection of politics and powerlessness that I've grappled with the last 24 hours.

In the Budget 2007 thread, one of my regular, invaluable and very knowledgeable commenters named Scotian expressed exactly what I was feeling:

I can relate, oh how can I relate. While my medical condition is different than yours the overall similarities you and I both experience in the referenced quote above is basically identical. To look at me one would not know aside from the fact I walk with a cane that I had much wrong with me since all the damage is to the soft tissues and the nerves and circulatory system. I just love when people start trying to tell me they know how I feel because they had a surgery, or some minor long term disorder, why is it some people feel the need for pissing contests as to who has suffered the most pain or is the most impaired/disabled/etc? I mean really, what is up with that? I am sure you know of exactly what I am referring to in your own life.

A week without pain, eh? These days if I work up without feeling any pain I'd be terrified I was dead, it has been my constant companion for so long. Seriously though, I know what you mean. Watching the way these budgets leave people like you and me to fend for ourselves is not exactly a comforting feeling, is it. Like yourself I never asked to be incapable of working/providing for myself, and I hate having to accept "charity" from the taxpayers, but it is either that or literally death for me, so what else I am supposed to do? Yet that is enough for many to brand me as some sort of parasite and a waste of tax dollars, which is one of the reasons I rarely mention my own health issues. It is not worth the grief.

I am so tired of having people tell me I should be so grateful I get to live without working, that I am so lucky. Well, they should try living what I term a standard of existence (not living, that is much better than mere existence) or being a single person living on 7,000 a year or a married person on 12,500 a year and then they can tell me how privileged I am and how lucky I am. Blogging and being able to keep my mind active via the use of the internet is really all I have going for me, and my health is one of the main reasons why I can be so sporadic at Saundrie and indeed overall online. There are days that while I can handle the reading I know better than to write because the pain I am in will infect my work/writing and that to my mind does me no service/favours.

He knows my challenges because they are his challenges too. Reading those words was like reading an echo of my life. We share the same frustrations about those who somehow seem to think they know by osmosis what it's like to live in our bodies on a daily basis. They have no idea. And, you see, we're not supposed to talk about it because a) people think you're just complaining; b) don't want to hear about it; and then c) think they then know regardless about what's going on in our lives based on what they're able to see.

It seems that unless you have a large, visible wound or a tumour you can flash on an x-ray, they simply cannot accept that you might actually suffer from pain and other equally annoying symptoms every day. And, even if we did have those things to show them, they seem to always come up with a story - either theirs (which is not similar) or someone else's (like Lance Armstrong's amazing feats, for examples) as proof that you should just get over it, rise up and live a normal life. You're either a loser or a hero. There is no middle ground. Oh, and the fact that you can write a few words on a blog is apparently proof of your power to have a career in journalism or professional writing. (Little do people know about the agony that intermingles those blog posts).

They're wrong.

The effect that sort of attitude has is the infliction of oppression. That's the broader topic here - that there will always be those with more power who use it to demean and attempt to control others.

As I struggled with this today, I came across a free online book called PowerUnder: Trauma and Nonviolent Social Change by Steven Wineman which I've begun to read because it deals with both of the issues that brought me down: the personal and the political effects of powerlessness.

This is a psychological and political place from which we are incisively aware of the ways in which we have been acted upon, victimized and harmed, but from which it can be difficult or impossible to gauge the impact of our enraged behavior upon others, or even to maintain our awareness of the core humanity of those defined
as Other.

As someone who has closely watched the American big blog scene, I have had several online conversations with people who have been shunned for various reasons as being "other" than. People who are seen as too liberal, too radical, too ideological for thinking that non-violence and an end to war are actually possible. People who don't fall into the privileged, middle-class white man class. Women who have been marginalized and written off as being hysterical. Latinos and African-Americans who have been ignored or horribly slighted and offended. Foreigners, like myself, whose opinions on American politics are unwelcome. Poor people - well, just look at what happened to the people who suffered in NOLA after Hurricane Katrina to figure out how they are seen. You'll notice that they're conveniently invisible again. People of faith, especially Muslims, who have been lumped together in monolithic groups for paranoid, hateful people to loathe and mock as belonging to a death cult.

Others.

And when those others dare to have an opinion, those who need so desperately to maintain the status quo because they believe their very survival depends on it (see the outcry against same sex marriage, for example), the knee-jerk reaction is that they must be suppressed and oppressed to keep the balance of power - a power that destroys cultures.

So, where does all of this come from and what's to be done about it? That's what was on my mind today.

Wineman's short book reminds us that we are all victims of trauma in our lives to varying degrees - yes, even those middle (and upper) class white guys who hold most of the power. We know that there comes a point in life when those who have been oppressed by someone else will either continue to be a victim, will become a perpetrator or will choose to do everything possible to heal. What's harder to distinguish, however, is who will choose (subconsciously or consciously) which path to take.

He uses the example of the effects of what happened on 9/11 as a partial example of how trauma affects people differently. We all saw the outpouring of sympathy from the world bestowed upon America after that horrible day. But we were also witness to how those in power reacted when they decided how to deal with it. (Who knows what previous traumas people like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld might have been playing out once they found themselves with the ultimate power to exact revenge in a situation many felt could have been dealt with as a police action). They launched their wars. They assumed they'd be victorious. They became oppressors. They perpetuated more trauma and powerlessness and refused to allow a terrified American society to heal by continually reinforcing that everyone ought to live in paralyzing fear of the other who might show up to blow up their shopping malls or their childrens' school buses. There was no opportunity to heal - not while America's sons and daughters kept dying for a lost cause in far off countries. So, there was trauma compounded by trauma. And it served a very useful purpose by those who held the power because they were then able to use that oppression to strip away civil and legal rights as they slowly tore up the constitution. The traumatized, the fearful were kept in a convenient state of shock and terror to enable that process. That wasn't an accident.

Those of us who refuse to take that path of revenge, who actually believe in things like the courts (the open courts), justice, human and civil rights, diplomacy, the power of dialogue, the understanding of root causes, the need for peace, the use of reason over might, quickly became the radicals, the traitors, those who gave comfort to the enemy. We became the enemy. The Other.

What Wineman tries to point out in his book is that we all need to recognize our life traumas and how they impact the choices we make every day.

There has been a lot of discord in the American left recently due to tensions surrounding the seeming inability or unwillingness to address the crimes of the Bush administration.

Wineman writes:

Understanding trauma can help us to overcome divisions that chronically plague progressive social change movements. The left has been repeatedly weakened by internal divisions and fragmentation,[16] both in the form of in-fighting within social change organizations and through the inability of different oppressed constituencies to form robust and sustainable coalitions. There are many reasons for these divisions that have nothing to do with trauma. These range from principled ideological differences to unprincipled power struggles; from the complex ways in which multiple oppressions create divisions in our society to the divide-and-conquer strategies utilized by forces aligned with the status quo in the face of unrest and social change activism.

I believe we could benefit from adding trauma to this list, not as a competing explanation but as one that is typically ignored to the detriment of social change movements. If we can recognize that social change movements and constituencies are made up largely of traumatized people, many of the difficulties we encounter dealing effectively with difference and conflict become much more understandable. Internal conflicts blow up and become unresolvable in part because we lack a common language and framework for recognizing the effects of trauma, and lack practical tools for managing the traumatic rage that we all too readily direct at each other.

When trauma is unnamed and unrecognized, its presence – at once palpable and invisible – can cause an enormous amount of damage. We need to develop shared understandings of the politics of trauma that bring awareness of trauma into the room in the same way that feminism has brought awareness of power relations involving domination into the room. By this I mean an awareness that people may carry the effects of trauma – victimization, subjective powerlessness, traumatic rage, and so on – into any situation: any meeting, any organizing effort, any coalition-building project, any conflict.

It is only through the emergence of consciousness and a common language to describe the politics of powerlessness that we can create possibilities to interrupt and counteract the damaging effects of trauma within our social change organizations and movements.

I agree and I think that Wineman's perspective is vital to the success not only of progressive movements but to the advancement of individual healing as well.

The idea of the "politics of trauma" is new to me. Ironic, since I've been dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for over 10 years now. The focus of that healing, however, has been personal and there was a connection missing with relation to how that affected my political dealings and beliefs in a broader sense - except that I always knew that my compassion for powerless people came from a strong, personal identification of that status in my own life due to my personal experiences which I've had to explore and come to terms with.

I'd recommend that others read Mr Wineman's book and ponder how it might apply to the many conflicts we are all trying to deal with in such a hyper-charged political atmosphere. As I've written, he notes that all of us - even those who have power - eventually express various aspects of our lives according to those unresolved or unrecognized traumas that continue to haunt our current decisions and actions. It's not easy to have compassion for people who so obviously abuse their power but if we're going to move ahead with any sort of clarity, we need to at least be able to understand them. That's one of the hardest challenges, next to acknowledging how we express power and powerlessness in our own lives.

I believe that everything happens for a reason - in everything there is a lesson. I'm grateful to Mr Wineman for making his book available free online so I could find it when I sorely need it. It's helped me to find at least a measure of peace. I don't know anything about him besides what I read on his site today. I suspect there are political ideas we disagree about. Regardless, his ideas about trauma and powerlessness have helped me to move outside of myself and my anger and that's been invaluable.

I've also been reading another, older book recently: Skid Row: An Introduction to Disaffiliation by Howard Bahr. As someone who used to work with homeless addicts/alcoholics, I found Bahr's examination of various "skid rows" across America very insightful. Even though much of his data came from decades preceding the 1970s, he writes about disaffiliation and "internal colonialism" in a way that still, unfortunately, applies today. It seems social change in some circles moves at an absolute snail's pace - especially for the invisible people. I doubt anyone would disagree with the idea that a society is judged by how it treats it weakest members. Making the leap to actually rectify the wrongs however is an ongoing struggle of massive proportions. The powerless cannot be continually ignored without consequence. That is the lesson that still needs to be learned.

As I'm fond of saying: compassion is not a vice.

Related: For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence by Alice Miller. Excellent book.
 

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Your Neighbourhood Toxic Waste Dump

Yanks, do you know exactly what's in your neighbourhood? Besides the homes, stores and people, I mean?

Well, there's a handy little online service you should be very interested in. Brought to you by the EPA, it has a friendly, innocuous enough name: EviroMapper for Envirofacts. So, let's enter a zip code for, say, a few blocks in Buffalo, NY to see what we come up with.

Take a minute to have a look at that map.

I'll bet you never imagined so many hazardous waste sites could be located in such a concentrated, residential area. No. Neither did I.

I found the link to that site in a book I'm currently reading, The Autoimmune Epidemic, by Donna Jackson Nakazawa. It was recommended to me by a young mother I met recently who has Sjorgens when she found out that I have lupus (and fibromyalgia). The book is an eye opener so far - no doubt about that.

What's the connection between autoimmune disorders like lupus and hazardous waste sites, you ask? This 2007 article in The New Scientist, Lupus cluster at oilfield points finger at pollution, offers an example of the growing concerns:

An alarmingly high number of people living in houses built on top of a disused oilfield in New Mexico have been diagnosed with the autoimmune disease lupus. It is the latest in a growing number of lupus clusters near polluted areas, and points towards the environmental triggers for this complex disease.

When someone has lupus their immune system turns against them, attacking their own tissues, which can lead to joint pain, organ failure and even death. In the US, it is much more common in women and minority groups, especially African Americans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, estimates that the incidence of the disease has tripled in the past 40 years.

Pollutants seem to be the cause of lupus in people on a housing development in Hobbs, New Mexico, built in 1976 on land that was an active oilfield until the late 1960s. The community noticed an unusually high rate of lupus and contacted James Dahlgren, an environmental toxicologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dahlgren and his colleagues compared the prevalence of lupus in the Hobbs development to its prevalence in the general population and found that the rate of lupus in the Hobbs population was 30 to 99 times higher than estimates for the general population. "The rate is astronomically high," says Dahlgren. "It's a true cluster." All the cases in Hobbs occurred in several blocks of houses built on top of a waste pit.

As an Albertan, I have to wonder aloud if any such findings have been uncovered or even investigated in this oil-rich province.

The article also addresses what the residents of that Buffalo neighbourhood mapped above had to deal with - the case is more thoroughly outlined in the book by Jackson Nakazawa.

Other clusters of lupus have been documented in people exposed to industrial emissions, solvents and pesticides for a long time. A study under way in Buffalo, New York, has recorded 92 cases of lupus in an area near a lead-smelting plant that closed in the 1980s. Lead, mercury and arsenic are among the pollutants found at the site, says Edith Williams, a project coordinator for the study.

Behind each one of those numbers is someone like me who has had to deal with multiple, seemingly unrelated symptoms - several debilitating on their own - for years or even decades as I did. In my case, the diagnosis of lupus came by accident when, concerned about a small lump I'd found in my neck, my doctor sent me for a blood test that signaled lupus - a disease that, at that point, I knew absolutely nothing about even though it was clear to the rheumatologist I saw after the diagnosis that I had symptoms going back to my teen years.

There still is no definitive cause for lupus and there is no cure. But research is definitely pointing to genetic and/or environmental factors. Yet, as Jackson Nakazawa notes on her site:

The fact that the average American woman is eight times more likely to have autoimmune disease than breast cancer

Think about that when you see all of the advertizing coming at you from every direction these days to find that elusive cure for breast cancer (my best to all of you affected by cancer) while comparing that to the absolute silence about diseases and disorders most likely caused by environmental factors.

A political issue?

Absolutely no doubt about it.

Especially when there are corporations to protect from public scrutiny (<< must read news about the oilsands polluter, Suncor).

What can you do? Support research. Get involved. Make noise. Help someone who's sick. Rail against the polluters. Buy (authentic) organic. Live green. Learn more.

Protect yourself and your loved ones.

At the very least - care.

(On a personal note, I've just been too exhausted to blog lately and the daily depressingly dry economic news hasn't exactly been a motivator either. zzzzzzzzzzzzz... And I've been rather disgusted with the corporate sector lately, to say the least.)


Related:

Environment Canada's Chemical Substances site. No handy map feature there.

The NIH's list of Environmental Diseases from A to Z. (Oh, look. There's lupus.)

A link from that NIH page goes to several article links on Environews.