An article from the Sunday, October 28, 2007, Toronto Star, Comment section, page 22, provides a plan to tackle poverty by solving the housing crisis in Canada:
A 3-POINT STRATEGY FOR BETTER HOUSING
War on poverty: Housing: One of an ongoing series of articles and editorials about poverty in Canada and how to combat it.
Canadians really didn't need a United Nations envoy to tour the country and announce that Canada urgently needs to tackle its affordable housing crisis. The signs of it are everywhere, from homeless beggars on the streets of Canada's major cities to overcrowded shelters and rotting public housing buildings.
But the visit last week by Miloon Kothari, the UN's special rapporteur on adequate housing, did shine a spotlight on the shocking lack of affordable housing in a country as rich as Canada. Successive federal and provincial governments have pledged to address the problem, but all have fallen far short of meeting the growing demand for reasonably priced housing for low-income families and individuals.
What is lacking is a co-ordinated federal-provincial housing strategy, in effect a national plan that would ensure every Canadian has a decent place to call home.
Such a blueprint must take a three-pronged approach: new construction of affordable homes, rent subsidies and renovation of existing homes.
The three areas need to be tackled together, not in isolation or in any prescribed order. Rather, a holistic approach is best suited to addressing the problem.
As a key leg of the three-pronged strategy, it is imperative that Ottawa kick-start a renewed national housing program with a goal of building up to 200,000 affordable and co-operative housing units over the next 10 years. The homes are needed in cities, rural areas and native reserves.
Ottawa effectively got out of the affordable housing sector when it downloaded the area to the provinces. Because of that, only a few major programs have been funded. The result is that in the past decade, fewer than one new affordable rental unit has been built for every 100 new homes. And overall rental construction is lagging. Across Ontario, up to 12,000 new rental apartments are needed annually, three times what has been built each year between 2000 and 2005.
The consequences are felt most acutely in the Greater Toronto Area where only 2,000 new affordable rental units have been built in the past five years, while more than 67,000 people remain on waiting lists.
The second leg of the strategy should be a greatly expanded rent supplement program. Obviously, new affordable housing cannot be built fast enough to meet existing demand. That's why paying subsidies to put low-income residents into vacant rental units is necessary. While some housing advocates view rent supplements as a short-term measure that does not solve the overall problem, such subsidies do provide temporary support and needed housing for those in desperate need.
Currently, a family of four receives a shelter allowance of only $544 to cover rent. However, the average market rent in Toronto has risen to $1,052 for a two-bedroom apartment. During the recent election campaign, Premier Dalton McGuinty promised a new $100-a-month rent supplemennt program to help 27,000 Ontario families. That is a welcome first step, but it should only be an initial step. More assistance will be needed because McGuinty's plan will still leave thousands of families scrambling for help to pay their rent.
The third part of the strategy would be a major commitment to renovate public housing that is aging and falling into disrepair. In Toronto alone, the city's 58,000 units of public housing require an estimated $300 million in repairs. Many of those buildings are now more than 50 years old, with plumbing that leaks and ceilings that are cracked.
The preferred way to deal with this issue is for Queen's Park to upload the cost of renovations. When the Conservative government under Mike Harris downloaded the cost of social housing to municipalities in 2001, it refused to give the cities the money needed to deal with repairs. McGuinty should make reversing this policy the first priority of his re-elected government.
Together, these measures would form the basis of a federal-provincial affordable housing strategy that would go a long way toward helping the neediest among us - those who cannot work, single parents and the working poor - have a better life.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Consumerism Versus Community and Democracy
From Alternet, November 28, 2007, an article by Terrence McNally about the destructive nature of unrestrained consumerism:
CONSUMER-DRIVEN ECONOMY IS KILLING OUR DEMOCRACY
By Terrence McNally, Alternet. Posted November 28, 2007.
Americans are split between wanting low prices and opposing the corporate behaviors that make them possible.
Here's a quick quiz. Do you love bargains? Do you enjoy the power and convenience of shopping online for the best deals on electronics or travel or anything else? Do you favor cutthroat corporate competition that devours small, local businesses? Do you applaud the sweatshop labor it takes to produce your sweatpants for less?
Feeling schizophrenic, yet?
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich believes we are all suffering from this split agenda -- as consumers we want low prices, while as citizens we may oppose corporate behaviors that make them possible. And he believes -- at least on a national scale --our citizen selves are losing.
Shoppers are elbowing citizens out of the public arena. The last three decades have seen the emergence of a supercharged capitalism fueled by open markets and cutthroat competitiveness. According to Reich, "supercapitalism" is overwhelming government with lobbyists and money, while citizens are dazzled by the promise of previously unimaginable riches and consumer choices.
In his new book, Supercapitalism, Reich tackles the big question: Can democracy survive in this environment?
Professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, Reich served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He is co-founding editor of the American Prospect, and his weekly commentaries on public radio's "Marketplace" are heard by nearly 5 million people. He is the author of eleven books, including The Work of Nations, The Future of Success and his latest, Supercapitalism.
Terrence McNally: In Supercapitalism, you describe the almost golden age of the '50s and '60s. What are some things you value from that period that your sons will never experience?
Robert Reich: Well, stable jobs. My father was a retail merchant. He had a little store that catered to factory workers and their families, and those factory jobs were pretty stable. People typically stayed with the same company for 40 years. I'm not sure we should or can go back to those days, but job stability was a value that people held very dear. These days nobody knows whether they're going to be working for the same company next week, next year or tomorrow.
There's the issue of inequality. In the '50s and '60s, the "almost golden age," we had less inequality of income and wealth than at any time before or since. I'm not saying everybody's income necessarily has to be the same, but inequality is bad for society and bad for democracy.
TM: You're not in any way saying that we can return to that age?
RR: No, and I don't think we should. I call it "the not quite golden age," because a lot of things were wrong with our society. African-Americans were still relegated to second-class citizenship. We passed a civil rights act and a voting rights act, but we still had a long way to go. Women were blocked from most professional careers. The environment was more polluted. We passed the Environmental Protection Act of 1975 and made progress on that. Joe McCarthy and the communist witch hunt of the 1950s scarred American politics. The CIA was up to no good abroad. I don't want to paint this era as a wonderful place we should necessarily go back to, but it's important to understand that our democracy, although far from perfect, was trying to grapple with all of those problems.
When people were asked in opinion polls, "Do you think that our system is working in your interest and in the interest of things you believe in?" the vast majority of Americans between 1945 and 1975, said "Yes." These days it's just the reverse. In most polls, when asked that same question, "Do you think that the democratic system is working in the interests of average Americans like you?" anywhere from 68 to 75 percent of Americans say, "No, it's working for the big guys."
TM: In his recent book, Deep Economy, Bill McKibben looks at whether our gains in material possessions since the '50s and '60s have made us happier. According to polling, people are not as happy now as they were then, and he believes it's because they've paid too high a price in the loss of community.
RR: As consumers and investors, we've made great progress over the last 30 years -- if you put quotation marks around the word "progress." We have access to a much greater range of choices. We get better products, more gadgets, more bells and whistles. We comparison shop like mad on the internet. We're getting great deals, and those great deals have become progressively better. But as citizens, we are doing arguably worse and worse, because we have fewer and fewer ways of expressing the values and goals we share with other people.
TM: There were two surprises for me in this book. First, despite the title, it seemed to me the subject of this book is democracy. Second, you seem to say that campaigning for social and environmental responsibility from corporations is either a distraction or a failed strategy.
RR: Yes on both counts. Let me explain briefly.
I don't think we can separate capitalism from democracy. If capitalism is working well and democracy is working poorly, democracy is working poorly in part because capitalism is working so vibrantly. Capitalism has overrun democracy. In the 1940s, '50s and '60s, we talked about "democratic capitalism" with a small "d." We talked about it very proudly -- to ourselves and to the world -- as the alternative to Soviet communism.
Secondly, your point about corporate social responsibility -- a very important theme in the book is that corporations are not people. They are just contracts, they are just pieces of paper. And it's a fallacy to treat them as people, whether it's giving them constitutional rights or the right to engage in our political process, or treating them as people in terms of requiring or assuming that they can be moral.
It's kind of an anthropomorphic fallacy, and it's very dangerous. Corporate social responsibility is a nice idea, but corporations will not be socially responsible, if by socially responsible we are suggesting that they sacrifice consumer deals and investor returns. They won't.
TM: Though they may do things that can be described as socially or environmentally responsible, we should not expect them to do these things unless they are also profitable ...
RR: Exactly. It's a distraction from politics to push companies to be socially responsible when it runs counter to their bottom line.
For example, I dislike Wal-Mart's hiring practices very strongly, and I dislike that Wal-Mart pays rock bottom wages. I could go on against Wal-Mart for a long period of time.
I'm sympathetic with people who are climbing on the anti-Wal-Mart bandwagon, but it seems to me the one productive thing we can do is to make things so hot for Wal-Mart that they have to recognize a union.
Don't expect Wal-Mart to suddenly become more moral. Wal-Mart is a piece of paper, it's a contract. Wal-Mart has consumers who love the good deals they can get, and it has investors who want the highest possible return. Wal-Mart is not going to do anything that hurts its bottom line.
TM: It seems to me we're talking about two big problems in this book. One is the power and influence of corporate money on politics. The other is the social and environmental consequences of corporate behavior. It looks to me like we can't hope to solve the second till we solve the first.
RR: People may disagree on what the problem is. I've talked to a lot of conservatives who say the biggest problem we face with our market economy is the coarsening of our culture, the spewing forth of sex and violence from the media. I don't want to get into a debate about what is the biggest problem. Let's just all agree that companies are not going to change their ways because we are yelling at them to do so. They spew out sex and violence because there are consumers who love sex and violence, and investors make a high return on sex and violence. So the real issue is, what kind of laws and regulations do we have to constrain the market?
In the first decades of the 20th century, we enacted laws against child labor and laws that said the 40-hour work week will be the norm and above that is overtime. We've since enacted laws with regard to workers' safety, laws against discrimination at work. So if we're unhappy about the social consequences of our current supercapitalist economy, then we've got to work through politics and pass legislation. To do that, we've got to rescue democracy from the supercapitalism that is now overwhelming it.
TM: How are we going to pass needed regulations when the corporate dominance of democracy makes passing such legislation harder than ever?
RR: We need to wall off democracy. We say highly competitive supercapitalism, that's fine for the private sector where we're going to be consumers and investors. We recognize the cognitive dissonance between the part of our heads that's a consumer and an investor and the part that may be a citizen. We're going to wall all of that off -- in order to address the trade-offs and have a democracy that is not going to be engulfed by the lobbyists and money coming from supercapitalism.
How are we going to ever get to that point and rescue democracy? The system is not going to reform itself from the inside.
Stop trying to get corporations to be socially responsible. Stop trying to achieve any particular social objective like global warming or a national healthcare system ... Put all of our efforts into a citizen's movement for democracy. That would include the public financing of campaigns and would require any network, any broadcaster using the public airwaves to provide advertising for all candidates.
We have a long list of what we all know democracy needs in order to be shielded from supercapitalism. I actually offer one additional idea to that list that I think is important and useful.
Each candidate sets up a blind trust that receives all political contributions, so that no candidate can ever know who contributed what. Once all political contributions become anonymous, I would predict a substantial drop in contributions, because there can no longer be any quid pro quo.
TM: You may still be inclined to give a candidate money based on past record or on current promises, but the candidate won't know it, so no strict quid pro quo would happen.
You say corporations are just pieces of paper, that you can't expect them to serve anyone but shareholders. Is this as true in other cultures?
I've heard that in Germany, for instance, the customer is rated higher than in America and that in some of the European countries, the employee's rated higher. Is that true, and is it becoming less true?
RR: It used to be true. In large companies Germany still has a separate board that's supposed to represent other stakeholders, including employees. Japan has until quite recently had a fairly egalitarian pay structure, but that's being eroded by the power of American supercapitalism.
Money is now global. Investors are now demanding high returns wherever they are around the world. These days if a company in Germany wants to sacrifice shareholder returns for the sake of employee benefits, global capitalists say, "No, you can't do that." There's an irony here -- there are people inside our pension plans trying to get the highest return for us by putting pressure on Germany and other countries to reduce the extent to which those companies cater to employees or other stakeholders.
TM: In the U.S., has the shareholder always been in the paramount position with any other stakeholder a distant second?
RR: Yes, but look again at what I talk about as the not quite golden age, the period 1945 to 1975, when 35 percent of Americans were unionized in the work force -- you had industrywide bargaining, you had pluralist interest groups and regulatory agencies. You had political parties that were not just sump pumps for campaign financing but were political organizations that reached down to the community level. In those days corporate investors were not kings, consumers were not kings. The power was divided in a way that gave us much more say as citizens.
TM: At the time, even if a corporation wanted to focus on shareholder return, they couldn't ignore the power of the unions.
RR: Exactly.
TM: I've been saying since the 2004 election that we need a Restore Democracy Trifecta: media reform for a more informed democracy -- stop (and reverse if possible) media consolidation, offer less false balance (i.e., global warming skeptics are equal to global warming scientists) and more statements of fact. Campaign reform -- public financing, free TV time. Election reform -- transparent, accurate, inclusive and verifiable.
If all progressives got together, campaigned for those three things and succeeded to a meaningful extent, only then would they have a realistic chance to get environmental, healthcare, education, civil liberties or whatever legislation passed. Is that basically in sync with what you're saying?
RR: Absolutely. I keep telling progressives who have particular issues they want to advance [that] nothing is going to happen on your issue or any other progressive issue unless you get together with everybody else who wants change and rescue democracy first.
TM: In some sense you're saying we could nibble at the problem, we could hit a few singles, steal a base, sacrifice -- or we could go for the home run. The home run is to restore democracy, and let the chips fall where they may.
How is that going to happen? In working on this book, you must have talked to Public Campaign, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, etc. Do you feel there is the energy, the interest, the passion in an election year for people to actually go there?
RR: There are three steps.
Step No. 1: Buy my book.
Step No. 2: Don't be cynical. I think cynicism about politics and our democracy is one of the most corrosive things that we have to deal with. A lot of people use cynicism as an excuse for not taking action. They say nothing will change, the big guys are in charge, I'm not going to get into politics, I'm going to look at my own little community and work there. That's fine. I respect that. But if people are motivated by cynicism to not roll up their sleeves and do something that rescues democracy, then we are all in deep trouble.
Step No. 3: This is the most important. We have had in America social movements that have produced tremendous change. I'm thinking of the suffragettes and others in the first decades of the 20th century, all the way through civil rights and the environmental movement. The anti-war movement during Vietnam. These were successful movements. Now why can we not have a citizens' movement to rescue democracy?
TM: It seems to me when people look at Katrina, when they look at the healthcare issue, when they look at education ... I'm talking about everyone in America who has an impulse to take action -- Boy Scouts, PTAs, seniors ... Why not take this on with no regard for the particular partisan policy that might follow, but just go for democracy?
RR: And the beauty of this is, it transcends ideological lines. I mean, we all believe in democracy. Regardless of what we want democracy to accomplish, we want democracy to work.
Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org).
CONSUMER-DRIVEN ECONOMY IS KILLING OUR DEMOCRACY
By Terrence McNally, Alternet. Posted November 28, 2007.
Americans are split between wanting low prices and opposing the corporate behaviors that make them possible.
Here's a quick quiz. Do you love bargains? Do you enjoy the power and convenience of shopping online for the best deals on electronics or travel or anything else? Do you favor cutthroat corporate competition that devours small, local businesses? Do you applaud the sweatshop labor it takes to produce your sweatpants for less?
Feeling schizophrenic, yet?
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich believes we are all suffering from this split agenda -- as consumers we want low prices, while as citizens we may oppose corporate behaviors that make them possible. And he believes -- at least on a national scale --our citizen selves are losing.
Shoppers are elbowing citizens out of the public arena. The last three decades have seen the emergence of a supercharged capitalism fueled by open markets and cutthroat competitiveness. According to Reich, "supercapitalism" is overwhelming government with lobbyists and money, while citizens are dazzled by the promise of previously unimaginable riches and consumer choices.
In his new book, Supercapitalism, Reich tackles the big question: Can democracy survive in this environment?
Professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, Reich served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He is co-founding editor of the American Prospect, and his weekly commentaries on public radio's "Marketplace" are heard by nearly 5 million people. He is the author of eleven books, including The Work of Nations, The Future of Success and his latest, Supercapitalism.
Terrence McNally: In Supercapitalism, you describe the almost golden age of the '50s and '60s. What are some things you value from that period that your sons will never experience?
Robert Reich: Well, stable jobs. My father was a retail merchant. He had a little store that catered to factory workers and their families, and those factory jobs were pretty stable. People typically stayed with the same company for 40 years. I'm not sure we should or can go back to those days, but job stability was a value that people held very dear. These days nobody knows whether they're going to be working for the same company next week, next year or tomorrow.
There's the issue of inequality. In the '50s and '60s, the "almost golden age," we had less inequality of income and wealth than at any time before or since. I'm not saying everybody's income necessarily has to be the same, but inequality is bad for society and bad for democracy.
TM: You're not in any way saying that we can return to that age?
RR: No, and I don't think we should. I call it "the not quite golden age," because a lot of things were wrong with our society. African-Americans were still relegated to second-class citizenship. We passed a civil rights act and a voting rights act, but we still had a long way to go. Women were blocked from most professional careers. The environment was more polluted. We passed the Environmental Protection Act of 1975 and made progress on that. Joe McCarthy and the communist witch hunt of the 1950s scarred American politics. The CIA was up to no good abroad. I don't want to paint this era as a wonderful place we should necessarily go back to, but it's important to understand that our democracy, although far from perfect, was trying to grapple with all of those problems.
When people were asked in opinion polls, "Do you think that our system is working in your interest and in the interest of things you believe in?" the vast majority of Americans between 1945 and 1975, said "Yes." These days it's just the reverse. In most polls, when asked that same question, "Do you think that the democratic system is working in the interests of average Americans like you?" anywhere from 68 to 75 percent of Americans say, "No, it's working for the big guys."
TM: In his recent book, Deep Economy, Bill McKibben looks at whether our gains in material possessions since the '50s and '60s have made us happier. According to polling, people are not as happy now as they were then, and he believes it's because they've paid too high a price in the loss of community.
RR: As consumers and investors, we've made great progress over the last 30 years -- if you put quotation marks around the word "progress." We have access to a much greater range of choices. We get better products, more gadgets, more bells and whistles. We comparison shop like mad on the internet. We're getting great deals, and those great deals have become progressively better. But as citizens, we are doing arguably worse and worse, because we have fewer and fewer ways of expressing the values and goals we share with other people.
TM: There were two surprises for me in this book. First, despite the title, it seemed to me the subject of this book is democracy. Second, you seem to say that campaigning for social and environmental responsibility from corporations is either a distraction or a failed strategy.
RR: Yes on both counts. Let me explain briefly.
I don't think we can separate capitalism from democracy. If capitalism is working well and democracy is working poorly, democracy is working poorly in part because capitalism is working so vibrantly. Capitalism has overrun democracy. In the 1940s, '50s and '60s, we talked about "democratic capitalism" with a small "d." We talked about it very proudly -- to ourselves and to the world -- as the alternative to Soviet communism.
Secondly, your point about corporate social responsibility -- a very important theme in the book is that corporations are not people. They are just contracts, they are just pieces of paper. And it's a fallacy to treat them as people, whether it's giving them constitutional rights or the right to engage in our political process, or treating them as people in terms of requiring or assuming that they can be moral.
It's kind of an anthropomorphic fallacy, and it's very dangerous. Corporate social responsibility is a nice idea, but corporations will not be socially responsible, if by socially responsible we are suggesting that they sacrifice consumer deals and investor returns. They won't.
TM: Though they may do things that can be described as socially or environmentally responsible, we should not expect them to do these things unless they are also profitable ...
RR: Exactly. It's a distraction from politics to push companies to be socially responsible when it runs counter to their bottom line.
For example, I dislike Wal-Mart's hiring practices very strongly, and I dislike that Wal-Mart pays rock bottom wages. I could go on against Wal-Mart for a long period of time.
I'm sympathetic with people who are climbing on the anti-Wal-Mart bandwagon, but it seems to me the one productive thing we can do is to make things so hot for Wal-Mart that they have to recognize a union.
Don't expect Wal-Mart to suddenly become more moral. Wal-Mart is a piece of paper, it's a contract. Wal-Mart has consumers who love the good deals they can get, and it has investors who want the highest possible return. Wal-Mart is not going to do anything that hurts its bottom line.
TM: It seems to me we're talking about two big problems in this book. One is the power and influence of corporate money on politics. The other is the social and environmental consequences of corporate behavior. It looks to me like we can't hope to solve the second till we solve the first.
RR: People may disagree on what the problem is. I've talked to a lot of conservatives who say the biggest problem we face with our market economy is the coarsening of our culture, the spewing forth of sex and violence from the media. I don't want to get into a debate about what is the biggest problem. Let's just all agree that companies are not going to change their ways because we are yelling at them to do so. They spew out sex and violence because there are consumers who love sex and violence, and investors make a high return on sex and violence. So the real issue is, what kind of laws and regulations do we have to constrain the market?
In the first decades of the 20th century, we enacted laws against child labor and laws that said the 40-hour work week will be the norm and above that is overtime. We've since enacted laws with regard to workers' safety, laws against discrimination at work. So if we're unhappy about the social consequences of our current supercapitalist economy, then we've got to work through politics and pass legislation. To do that, we've got to rescue democracy from the supercapitalism that is now overwhelming it.
TM: How are we going to pass needed regulations when the corporate dominance of democracy makes passing such legislation harder than ever?
RR: We need to wall off democracy. We say highly competitive supercapitalism, that's fine for the private sector where we're going to be consumers and investors. We recognize the cognitive dissonance between the part of our heads that's a consumer and an investor and the part that may be a citizen. We're going to wall all of that off -- in order to address the trade-offs and have a democracy that is not going to be engulfed by the lobbyists and money coming from supercapitalism.
How are we going to ever get to that point and rescue democracy? The system is not going to reform itself from the inside.
Stop trying to get corporations to be socially responsible. Stop trying to achieve any particular social objective like global warming or a national healthcare system ... Put all of our efforts into a citizen's movement for democracy. That would include the public financing of campaigns and would require any network, any broadcaster using the public airwaves to provide advertising for all candidates.
We have a long list of what we all know democracy needs in order to be shielded from supercapitalism. I actually offer one additional idea to that list that I think is important and useful.
Each candidate sets up a blind trust that receives all political contributions, so that no candidate can ever know who contributed what. Once all political contributions become anonymous, I would predict a substantial drop in contributions, because there can no longer be any quid pro quo.
TM: You may still be inclined to give a candidate money based on past record or on current promises, but the candidate won't know it, so no strict quid pro quo would happen.
You say corporations are just pieces of paper, that you can't expect them to serve anyone but shareholders. Is this as true in other cultures?
I've heard that in Germany, for instance, the customer is rated higher than in America and that in some of the European countries, the employee's rated higher. Is that true, and is it becoming less true?
RR: It used to be true. In large companies Germany still has a separate board that's supposed to represent other stakeholders, including employees. Japan has until quite recently had a fairly egalitarian pay structure, but that's being eroded by the power of American supercapitalism.
Money is now global. Investors are now demanding high returns wherever they are around the world. These days if a company in Germany wants to sacrifice shareholder returns for the sake of employee benefits, global capitalists say, "No, you can't do that." There's an irony here -- there are people inside our pension plans trying to get the highest return for us by putting pressure on Germany and other countries to reduce the extent to which those companies cater to employees or other stakeholders.
TM: In the U.S., has the shareholder always been in the paramount position with any other stakeholder a distant second?
RR: Yes, but look again at what I talk about as the not quite golden age, the period 1945 to 1975, when 35 percent of Americans were unionized in the work force -- you had industrywide bargaining, you had pluralist interest groups and regulatory agencies. You had political parties that were not just sump pumps for campaign financing but were political organizations that reached down to the community level. In those days corporate investors were not kings, consumers were not kings. The power was divided in a way that gave us much more say as citizens.
TM: At the time, even if a corporation wanted to focus on shareholder return, they couldn't ignore the power of the unions.
RR: Exactly.
TM: I've been saying since the 2004 election that we need a Restore Democracy Trifecta: media reform for a more informed democracy -- stop (and reverse if possible) media consolidation, offer less false balance (i.e., global warming skeptics are equal to global warming scientists) and more statements of fact. Campaign reform -- public financing, free TV time. Election reform -- transparent, accurate, inclusive and verifiable.
If all progressives got together, campaigned for those three things and succeeded to a meaningful extent, only then would they have a realistic chance to get environmental, healthcare, education, civil liberties or whatever legislation passed. Is that basically in sync with what you're saying?
RR: Absolutely. I keep telling progressives who have particular issues they want to advance [that] nothing is going to happen on your issue or any other progressive issue unless you get together with everybody else who wants change and rescue democracy first.
TM: In some sense you're saying we could nibble at the problem, we could hit a few singles, steal a base, sacrifice -- or we could go for the home run. The home run is to restore democracy, and let the chips fall where they may.
How is that going to happen? In working on this book, you must have talked to Public Campaign, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, etc. Do you feel there is the energy, the interest, the passion in an election year for people to actually go there?
RR: There are three steps.
Step No. 1: Buy my book.
Step No. 2: Don't be cynical. I think cynicism about politics and our democracy is one of the most corrosive things that we have to deal with. A lot of people use cynicism as an excuse for not taking action. They say nothing will change, the big guys are in charge, I'm not going to get into politics, I'm going to look at my own little community and work there. That's fine. I respect that. But if people are motivated by cynicism to not roll up their sleeves and do something that rescues democracy, then we are all in deep trouble.
Step No. 3: This is the most important. We have had in America social movements that have produced tremendous change. I'm thinking of the suffragettes and others in the first decades of the 20th century, all the way through civil rights and the environmental movement. The anti-war movement during Vietnam. These were successful movements. Now why can we not have a citizens' movement to rescue democracy?
TM: It seems to me when people look at Katrina, when they look at the healthcare issue, when they look at education ... I'm talking about everyone in America who has an impulse to take action -- Boy Scouts, PTAs, seniors ... Why not take this on with no regard for the particular partisan policy that might follow, but just go for democracy?
RR: And the beauty of this is, it transcends ideological lines. I mean, we all believe in democracy. Regardless of what we want democracy to accomplish, we want democracy to work.
Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org).
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Businesses Could Do More to Stop Child Labour
Here is an article from the Kielburger brothers in the Monday, November 5, 2007, issue of Toronto Star, World section, page AA2, about the issue of child labour:
Firms could do more on child labour
Craig and Marc Kielburger
Global Voices
With allegations of child labour making world headlines last week, Gap has found itself in a familiar spot - doing damage control.
Executives are hitting the airwaves in full force, expressing shock and anger over a British newspaper investigation that found Indian children as young as 10 working in brutal conditions to make Gap clothing.
Blaming an unethical subcontractor, Gap has promised to fix the problem, saying it will ensure that all its suppliers adhere to its employee rights' policies, and firing those who don't.
But while the company's PR machine has been working overtime to minimize damage to its image, they've failed to realize that their response will actually do nothing to help the very children they are pledging to protect.
By singling out and punishing individual subcontractors, Gap is pushing child labour further underground. The factor owners involved will simply fire their child workers - forcing them to find work elsewhere. Desperate for money, they will likely become easy targets for exploitation at much more dangerous jobs.
Child labour is rampant in India. Kids as young as 4 work in industries from brick manufacturing to fireworks production.
The UN says there are as many as 55 million child labourers in India, most working in hazardous conditions for pennies a day.
They are there because of chronic poverty in rural raeas, where parents are often forced to sell one of their children into slavery to keep the rest alive. Many are working to repay family debts.
It's a vicious cycle, and until we tackle the root causes of child labour - from a lack of education to the world's insatiable demand for cheap goods - children will continue ending up in the workforce.
With its response over the past week, Gap is missing an opportunity to prove to the world that it is truly serious about contributing to a systematic solution to child labour.
Why not help the children in its factory get an education? Or hire their parents at a fair wage? With second-quarters sales of nearly $4 billion this year alone, the company could easily ensure these child workers are well taken care of.
Reebok was rocked by similar allegations last decade, and they did just that. The children working in their soccer ball production factories were sent to school and their parents were given employment training. Reebok was celebrated for showing a long-term commitment to its former young workers.
Gap has been in this position before. In 2000, a BBC documentary showed young girls in Cambodia making clothing for them, causing a huge public backlash.
The company responded by implementing strict policies forbiding the use of child labour. With these new allegations, Gap pointed out that it cut ties with 23 of its factories last year alone with incidences of child labour were discovered.
Executives also said that Gap has 90 full-time inspectors who make unannounced visits to the company's suppliers worldwide, looking for rights violations.
But that is not enough.
The company can instead become a truly responsible corporation by ensuring these child labourers - and any future ones - are not simply rehired somewhere else by providing them and their families with an opportunity to find their way out of poverty.
Now that would be great PR.
Craig and Marc Kielburger co-founded Free The Children, which is active in the developing world. Online:Craig and Marc Kielburger discuss global issues every Monday in the World & Comment section. Take part in the discussion online at thestar.com/globalvoices.
Firms could do more on child labour
Craig and Marc Kielburger
Global Voices
With allegations of child labour making world headlines last week, Gap has found itself in a familiar spot - doing damage control.
Executives are hitting the airwaves in full force, expressing shock and anger over a British newspaper investigation that found Indian children as young as 10 working in brutal conditions to make Gap clothing.
Blaming an unethical subcontractor, Gap has promised to fix the problem, saying it will ensure that all its suppliers adhere to its employee rights' policies, and firing those who don't.
But while the company's PR machine has been working overtime to minimize damage to its image, they've failed to realize that their response will actually do nothing to help the very children they are pledging to protect.
By singling out and punishing individual subcontractors, Gap is pushing child labour further underground. The factor owners involved will simply fire their child workers - forcing them to find work elsewhere. Desperate for money, they will likely become easy targets for exploitation at much more dangerous jobs.
Child labour is rampant in India. Kids as young as 4 work in industries from brick manufacturing to fireworks production.
The UN says there are as many as 55 million child labourers in India, most working in hazardous conditions for pennies a day.
They are there because of chronic poverty in rural raeas, where parents are often forced to sell one of their children into slavery to keep the rest alive. Many are working to repay family debts.
It's a vicious cycle, and until we tackle the root causes of child labour - from a lack of education to the world's insatiable demand for cheap goods - children will continue ending up in the workforce.
With its response over the past week, Gap is missing an opportunity to prove to the world that it is truly serious about contributing to a systematic solution to child labour.
Why not help the children in its factory get an education? Or hire their parents at a fair wage? With second-quarters sales of nearly $4 billion this year alone, the company could easily ensure these child workers are well taken care of.
Reebok was rocked by similar allegations last decade, and they did just that. The children working in their soccer ball production factories were sent to school and their parents were given employment training. Reebok was celebrated for showing a long-term commitment to its former young workers.
Gap has been in this position before. In 2000, a BBC documentary showed young girls in Cambodia making clothing for them, causing a huge public backlash.
The company responded by implementing strict policies forbiding the use of child labour. With these new allegations, Gap pointed out that it cut ties with 23 of its factories last year alone with incidences of child labour were discovered.
Executives also said that Gap has 90 full-time inspectors who make unannounced visits to the company's suppliers worldwide, looking for rights violations.
But that is not enough.
The company can instead become a truly responsible corporation by ensuring these child labourers - and any future ones - are not simply rehired somewhere else by providing them and their families with an opportunity to find their way out of poverty.
Now that would be great PR.
Craig and Marc Kielburger co-founded Free The Children, which is active in the developing world. Online:Craig and Marc Kielburger discuss global issues every Monday in the World & Comment section. Take part in the discussion online at thestar.com/globalvoices.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Elderly and Ill Caregivers Looking After Elderly Ill Family Members
This is a tragic story about an elderly and ill caregiver, looking after an elderly and ill family member, and whether social services failed the two people, from the Friday, September 21, 1007, Toronto Star, Greater Toronto, Social Services, page A6:
WHY DIDN'T ANYBODY SEE FAMILY'S DESPERATION?
Murder-suicide raises questions about services for sick and isolated
Theresa Boyle
Staff Reporter
The day after the murder-suicide of a terminally ill man and his ailing mother, questions are being raised about the availability of support services for seniors, especially those who are sick and isolated.
Gerri Badcock of Neighbourhood Link Support Services, formerly known as Seniorlink, wonders how the family ended up in such a desperate place in their lives.
"How come nobody saw that they might need help?" asked Badcock, a director of the organization.
Pery Grupstein, who used the last name Stein, took his own life and that of his mother, Sarah in her 80s, on Wednesday. Percy, in his 60s, shot his mother and then turned the gun on himself in their apartment at College and Yonge Sts.
Family members, who are also elderly, said yesterday they were "mixed up" about the grim situation and too distraught to talk about it. They spent the day shuffling between the coroner's office and a funeral home. Sarah and Percy will be buried today in Pardes Shalom Cemetery, on Dufferin St.
Percy suffered from terminal stomach cancer and had only months to live. He had previously had quadruple bypass surgery and had survived breast cancer.
His mother used a wheelchair and was completely dependent upon her son, who got her out of bed, bathed her and dressed her. She suffered from diabetes and heart disease.
"How could that person go through a quadruple bypass surgery, breast cancer, stomach cancer and not have somebody notice that he's a caregiver for his om?" Badcock asked.
While heath-care and social service officials interviewed knew nothing of the Grupsteins' personal circumstances, they all said there is an array of services they could have tapped into. At the same time, these officials agreed there are not enough services and said it's not unheard of for isolated seniors to fall through the cracks.
"Your heart just aches for the terrible place that the family had come to in their decision-making, but I don't know what informed their decision-making, but I don't know what informed their decision-making," remarked Frances Lankin, president of the United Way of Greater Toronto.
"I do know that if people don't know how to get access to services that might help them that they can call 211," she added.
The phone service, provided by the United Way and Information Toronto, helps callers access health and social services in the GTA. For example, it can put them in touch with 47 agencies that offer programs for seniors. These services include Alzheimer's day programs, transportation and respite care.
"Whether seniors are physically frail or mentally frail, there are additional supports and services that are necessary to be in place in the community in order to enable them to live at home, with dignity, in as good health as possible for as long as possible. We know that our resources are stretched," Lankin said.
Badcock said it's a sure thing that there are other seniors in the city living in isolation and in need of health and social services.
"This is maybe a wakeup call," she said.
She said it's possible the Grupsteins were worried Sarah would be sent to a nursing home after Percy died.
"A lot of people don't want to even hear that," Badcock continued, noting that they can be stuck in rooms with up to three other residents unless they can afford a private room.
Camille Orridge, executive director of the Toronto Community Care Access Centre, said there are many ways seniors can hook into services available for them. Family physicians and hospitals often refer patients to CCACs, which in turn can assess an individual's needs and hook them up with services as in-home nursing, personnel support and social work.
She pointed out some people choose not [to] use the services.
"It's not always about the system having failed someone," she said.
With files from Michele Henry
WHY DIDN'T ANYBODY SEE FAMILY'S DESPERATION?
Murder-suicide raises questions about services for sick and isolated
Theresa Boyle
Staff Reporter
The day after the murder-suicide of a terminally ill man and his ailing mother, questions are being raised about the availability of support services for seniors, especially those who are sick and isolated.
Gerri Badcock of Neighbourhood Link Support Services, formerly known as Seniorlink, wonders how the family ended up in such a desperate place in their lives.
"How come nobody saw that they might need help?" asked Badcock, a director of the organization.
Pery Grupstein, who used the last name Stein, took his own life and that of his mother, Sarah in her 80s, on Wednesday. Percy, in his 60s, shot his mother and then turned the gun on himself in their apartment at College and Yonge Sts.
Family members, who are also elderly, said yesterday they were "mixed up" about the grim situation and too distraught to talk about it. They spent the day shuffling between the coroner's office and a funeral home. Sarah and Percy will be buried today in Pardes Shalom Cemetery, on Dufferin St.
Percy suffered from terminal stomach cancer and had only months to live. He had previously had quadruple bypass surgery and had survived breast cancer.
His mother used a wheelchair and was completely dependent upon her son, who got her out of bed, bathed her and dressed her. She suffered from diabetes and heart disease.
"How could that person go through a quadruple bypass surgery, breast cancer, stomach cancer and not have somebody notice that he's a caregiver for his om?" Badcock asked.
While heath-care and social service officials interviewed knew nothing of the Grupsteins' personal circumstances, they all said there is an array of services they could have tapped into. At the same time, these officials agreed there are not enough services and said it's not unheard of for isolated seniors to fall through the cracks.
"Your heart just aches for the terrible place that the family had come to in their decision-making, but I don't know what informed their decision-making, but I don't know what informed their decision-making," remarked Frances Lankin, president of the United Way of Greater Toronto.
"I do know that if people don't know how to get access to services that might help them that they can call 211," she added.
The phone service, provided by the United Way and Information Toronto, helps callers access health and social services in the GTA. For example, it can put them in touch with 47 agencies that offer programs for seniors. These services include Alzheimer's day programs, transportation and respite care.
"Whether seniors are physically frail or mentally frail, there are additional supports and services that are necessary to be in place in the community in order to enable them to live at home, with dignity, in as good health as possible for as long as possible. We know that our resources are stretched," Lankin said.
Badcock said it's a sure thing that there are other seniors in the city living in isolation and in need of health and social services.
"This is maybe a wakeup call," she said.
She said it's possible the Grupsteins were worried Sarah would be sent to a nursing home after Percy died.
"A lot of people don't want to even hear that," Badcock continued, noting that they can be stuck in rooms with up to three other residents unless they can afford a private room.
Camille Orridge, executive director of the Toronto Community Care Access Centre, said there are many ways seniors can hook into services available for them. Family physicians and hospitals often refer patients to CCACs, which in turn can assess an individual's needs and hook them up with services as in-home nursing, personnel support and social work.
She pointed out some people choose not [to] use the services.
"It's not always about the system having failed someone," she said.
With files from Michele Henry
Affordable Community Housing
Here is an article in the Friday, September 21, 2007, Greater Toronto, Social Services, Toronto Star, page A6, involving an interview with the head of Toronto's community housing corporation (TCHC):
Derek Ballantyne, the head of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation - you may think of him as the civil service landlord - sat on a park bench and talked about his job.
He knows me as an occasional critic. I know him to be a thoughtful guy.
But I also know that some of those in public housing live in dreadful conditions, and he's the boss. I referred to a recently notorious renter of St. James Town who kept pigions in his apartment; so many pigions, for so long, that the man's rooms were crusted with years of crap, and under the crust was a carpet of roaches.
No one from TCHC sought to gain entry and clean up, at least not until public health got involved; apparently, the right of Pigeon Man to privacy trumped the right of his neighbours to live in healthy surroundings. Or perhaps TCHC staff lacked the will or the initiative to get involved.
Ballantyne was abashed, and quickly to accept responsibility.
"The pigeon story was stupid management. Somebody should have figured it out quicker."
If Pigeon Man was a problem, he offered another: "There is an 84-year-old woman; we've worked with her for two years. She's a hoarder in the extreme. You could barely enter her unit. We spent two years trying to get her to understand that she had to get rid of her things. You couldn't walk in there. It was a health issue, a fire hazard.
"After two years, we moved to evict her. . .for the good of all. We'll rehouse her if she can manage her illness, but she hasn't acknowledged that she has an illness.
"You can say we're heartless SOBs, or you can say we did what we could."
Before I could choose, he added this kicker: "Were it not for the housing we provide, I don't know where a lot of people would live."
Fair point.
"I don't take pride in walking into some of our communities and seeing the state they're in. I get angry. You have to remember, we bring benefit to the city."
His critics pound him on the cost of those benefits; after all, his annual budget is half a billion dollars. "I don't believe there's a more efficient way," he said. "We've compared. We work on clim margins.
"What would be the cost if the support we provide was not there? We house people who earn low wages. Who benefits? The service industry.
The services industry?
He said if you subtract those with are retired, and those who are on disability, the majority of social housing tenants - some 70 per cent - work for a living, and the majority of those are employed in the service industry.
Think about that the next time you go to bankquest or hail a cab.
"European countries are coming to the notion that affordable housing is critical to a healthy society. I lose patience with people who criticize the system without thinking their way through. We have hotels, we have cabs, but what sort of conditions are the workers living in?
Whether conditions in TCHC are good or not, tenants do have some say in the management of their homes: the TCHC board consists of four city councillors, seven citizens and two tenants, and there are tenant reps in each building.
He is not opposed to having more tenants on the board.
He also said, proudly that tenants control 20 per cent of the annual budget, and are closly involved in deciding how much money is spent in their buildings.
A good system?
We'll hear from the tenants next week.
Joe Fiorito usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him by email at: jflorito@thestar.ca .
Derek Ballantyne, the head of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation - you may think of him as the civil service landlord - sat on a park bench and talked about his job.
He knows me as an occasional critic. I know him to be a thoughtful guy.
But I also know that some of those in public housing live in dreadful conditions, and he's the boss. I referred to a recently notorious renter of St. James Town who kept pigions in his apartment; so many pigions, for so long, that the man's rooms were crusted with years of crap, and under the crust was a carpet of roaches.
No one from TCHC sought to gain entry and clean up, at least not until public health got involved; apparently, the right of Pigeon Man to privacy trumped the right of his neighbours to live in healthy surroundings. Or perhaps TCHC staff lacked the will or the initiative to get involved.
Ballantyne was abashed, and quickly to accept responsibility.
"The pigeon story was stupid management. Somebody should have figured it out quicker."
If Pigeon Man was a problem, he offered another: "There is an 84-year-old woman; we've worked with her for two years. She's a hoarder in the extreme. You could barely enter her unit. We spent two years trying to get her to understand that she had to get rid of her things. You couldn't walk in there. It was a health issue, a fire hazard.
"After two years, we moved to evict her. . .for the good of all. We'll rehouse her if she can manage her illness, but she hasn't acknowledged that she has an illness.
"You can say we're heartless SOBs, or you can say we did what we could."
Before I could choose, he added this kicker: "Were it not for the housing we provide, I don't know where a lot of people would live."
Fair point.
"I don't take pride in walking into some of our communities and seeing the state they're in. I get angry. You have to remember, we bring benefit to the city."
His critics pound him on the cost of those benefits; after all, his annual budget is half a billion dollars. "I don't believe there's a more efficient way," he said. "We've compared. We work on clim margins.
"What would be the cost if the support we provide was not there? We house people who earn low wages. Who benefits? The service industry.
The services industry?
He said if you subtract those with are retired, and those who are on disability, the majority of social housing tenants - some 70 per cent - work for a living, and the majority of those are employed in the service industry.
Think about that the next time you go to bankquest or hail a cab.
"European countries are coming to the notion that affordable housing is critical to a healthy society. I lose patience with people who criticize the system without thinking their way through. We have hotels, we have cabs, but what sort of conditions are the workers living in?
Whether conditions in TCHC are good or not, tenants do have some say in the management of their homes: the TCHC board consists of four city councillors, seven citizens and two tenants, and there are tenant reps in each building.
He is not opposed to having more tenants on the board.
He also said, proudly that tenants control 20 per cent of the annual budget, and are closly involved in deciding how much money is spent in their buildings.
A good system?
We'll hear from the tenants next week.
Joe Fiorito usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him by email at: jflorito@thestar.ca .
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
United Nations Day for the Eradication of Poverty
An editorial about the eradication of poverty in the Wednesday, October 17, 2007, Toronto Star, Comments section, page AA6:
ACTION NEEDED ON POVERTY
Around the globe today, millions of people will join rallies as part of the United Nations' International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Across Canada, there will be more than 300 events, including a major rally in Toronto at Metro Hall where social activists, union members and others will urge federal, provincial and municipal politicians to do more to eliminate unacceptable poverty levels in our midst.
Many of the participants are members of the 25 in 5 Network, a coalition of community representatives from a cross-section of Ontario society who, like the Star, are urging the provincial government to commit to reducing poverty by 25 per cent in five years.
Premier Dalton McGuinty has promised to develop a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy within a year, complete with indicators and measures to address child poverty. The pledge is welcome, but needs to be fleshed out with specific targets. And such a plan must contain measures that will help the poorest among us, such as by raising social assistance rates and building more affordable housing.
One of the first steps that McGuinty should take is to decide how his government will develop the strategy. Among the key questions:
How will the process of consultations be handled? Will there be a special commission set up to oversee the work? Will an existing ministry be in charge? Who within cabinet should be leading the effort?
At the same time, McGuinty should press Ottawa to reform the Employment Insurance system so more workers who lose their jobs qualify for benefits. Currently, only 26 per cent of unemployed Torontonians can collect benefits, down from 80 per cent some 25 years ago.
Some measures are urgently needed in Ontario where 1.3 million people are living without the basics for a decent life, namely healthy food, quality housing and living wages. Regrettably, a disproportionate number of those living in poverty are single parents, the disabled who cannot work, aboriginals and new immigrants.
At the federal level, much remains to be done. One of the major priorities should be for Ottawa to work with the provinces to adopt an affordable national child-care program to replace the one scrapped by the Conservative government when it came to power.
The federal government should also look to increase its foreign aid commitment to help fight poverty worldwide.
The time for piecemeal solutions to poverty problems is past. What is needed is a comprehensive plan of action, backed with an adequate budget, that brings together all of the promises, policies and programs that are needed to put an end to this poverty disgrace.
ACTION NEEDED ON POVERTY
Around the globe today, millions of people will join rallies as part of the United Nations' International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Across Canada, there will be more than 300 events, including a major rally in Toronto at Metro Hall where social activists, union members and others will urge federal, provincial and municipal politicians to do more to eliminate unacceptable poverty levels in our midst.
Many of the participants are members of the 25 in 5 Network, a coalition of community representatives from a cross-section of Ontario society who, like the Star, are urging the provincial government to commit to reducing poverty by 25 per cent in five years.
Premier Dalton McGuinty has promised to develop a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy within a year, complete with indicators and measures to address child poverty. The pledge is welcome, but needs to be fleshed out with specific targets. And such a plan must contain measures that will help the poorest among us, such as by raising social assistance rates and building more affordable housing.
One of the first steps that McGuinty should take is to decide how his government will develop the strategy. Among the key questions:
How will the process of consultations be handled? Will there be a special commission set up to oversee the work? Will an existing ministry be in charge? Who within cabinet should be leading the effort?
At the same time, McGuinty should press Ottawa to reform the Employment Insurance system so more workers who lose their jobs qualify for benefits. Currently, only 26 per cent of unemployed Torontonians can collect benefits, down from 80 per cent some 25 years ago.
Some measures are urgently needed in Ontario where 1.3 million people are living without the basics for a decent life, namely healthy food, quality housing and living wages. Regrettably, a disproportionate number of those living in poverty are single parents, the disabled who cannot work, aboriginals and new immigrants.
At the federal level, much remains to be done. One of the major priorities should be for Ottawa to work with the provinces to adopt an affordable national child-care program to replace the one scrapped by the Conservative government when it came to power.
The federal government should also look to increase its foreign aid commitment to help fight poverty worldwide.
The time for piecemeal solutions to poverty problems is past. What is needed is a comprehensive plan of action, backed with an adequate budget, that brings together all of the promises, policies and programs that are needed to put an end to this poverty disgrace.
Hate Crime: Gay Man Assaulted by Canadian Soldiers
It seems unbelievable that people are still being attacked for their sexual orientation and even more so when the attackers were Canadian soldiers in Amsterdam. Amsterdam is not a third world city, and Canada is not a third world country.
The only consolation is that the two men were jailed, but I'm sure the person who was attacked would have preferred that it had never happened in the first place.
From the World section of the Wednesday, October 17, 2007, Toronto Star, page AA4:
Netherlands
CANADIAN SOLDIERS GUILTY IN ATTACK ON GAY MAN
A Dutch court yesterday jailed two Canadian soldiers due to be posted to Afghanistan for an assault on a gay man in Amsterdam.
Eric Wright was sentenced to five months in jail and ordered to pay 6,000 euros ($8,300) in damages and Ryan Dowie was given 45 days in jail. The two men, both aged 22 at the time of the incident, were arrested following a brawl in May in which a 28-year-old man was hospitalized with serious injuries.
The only consolation is that the two men were jailed, but I'm sure the person who was attacked would have preferred that it had never happened in the first place.
From the World section of the Wednesday, October 17, 2007, Toronto Star, page AA4:
Netherlands
CANADIAN SOLDIERS GUILTY IN ATTACK ON GAY MAN
A Dutch court yesterday jailed two Canadian soldiers due to be posted to Afghanistan for an assault on a gay man in Amsterdam.
Eric Wright was sentenced to five months in jail and ordered to pay 6,000 euros ($8,300) in damages and Ryan Dowie was given 45 days in jail. The two men, both aged 22 at the time of the incident, were arrested following a brawl in May in which a 28-year-old man was hospitalized with serious injuries.
Racism and Hate Crimes in the U.S.
From page AA and AA4 of the World & Comment section of the Toronto Star, Wednesday, October 17, 2007, an article about the racist noose incidents in the U.S.:
NOOSE INCIDENTS SPARK OUTRAGE
African Americans blast U.S. congressional hearing over lack of action on discrimination, hate crimes
Tim Harper
Washington Bureau
Washington - Generations of racial hatred, injustice and outrage over the historic treatment of black Americans spilled onto the floor of a Congressional committee hearing room here yesterday.
Emotions were stripped bare as Democratic legislators probed the inequities of the justice system in the tiny Louisiana town of Jena and African Americans spoke of the sordid history of the noose, one of the most potent symbols of hate in this country.
Although the hearing was convened to deal with the expansion of hate laws in the U.S., it centred on the treatment of black defendants in Louisiana known as the "Jena Six" and a sudden proliferation of incidents involving the noose, symbol of the more than 3,000 lynchings of blacks in this nation from the late 1800s to the 1960s.
"Nooses were used for one thing and one thing only," said Charles Ogletree, the director of Harvard Law School's Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice.
"In the history of this country, (they were) used ... to lynch black women and men. I hope we don't bury the history that comes with what this symbolizes. This is one of the most destructive, mean-spirited, racist examples of individual behaviour."
Racial tensions began rising in Jena more than a year ago after a black student sat under a "white tree" and three white students later hung two nooses from the tree.
The white students were suspended form the school, but six black students were later charged under the state's justice system following a fight sparked by the noose incident the following December.
One student, Mychal Bell, was unexpectedly sent back to prison last week during what he expected to be a routine hearing after a judge determined he had violated the terms of his probation for a previous conviction.
Since 20,000 civil rights activists descended on the town last month to protest what they believe to be two systems of justice in Louisiana, a spate of noose incidents have been reported.
One was dragged from the back of a truck in Jena the night of the demonstration, another was placed near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in New York, another at a Long Island police detachment and one was found dangling form the office door of a Columbia University professor.
Still more incidents have been reported in North Carolina, Maryland, Connecticut and California.
Nooses "don't just hurt the three or five or seven black children under the tree," Ogletree said. "It hurts all of us, every single one of us."
Much of the anger from witnesses and black Democrats was a lack of a response to the situation in Jena from the Bush administration and the failure of the federal justice department to right the wrongs of he Louisiana system.
One black Democratic legislator assailed a black U.S. attorney for inaction on the case, drawing shouts and applause from the room, and a Republican accused civil rights leader Al Sharpton of sowing racial disharmony in the United States.
Some spectators began chanting for the House judiciary committee to subpoena the prosecutor in the case, Reed Walters.
Sharpton told the committee there are Jenas everywhere in the United States.
"We have not heard one federal response," he said. "It is almost like the national government is not watching the country while we're watching nooses on the news every night, while we're watching hate crimes.
"The justice department, at the behest of this committee, needs to step into Jena and the Jenas of this country and establish that the federal government is still in charge and the states did not win the Civil War."
Sharpton and others said hate laws should be expanded to include juveniles. The white students in Jena were not prosecuted because they were under 18.
Before Sharpton belatedly appeared - his flight from New York was delayed - North Carolina Republican Howard Coble took a shot at the civil rights leader in absentia. "If I were compiling a group of witnesses to encourage the diminishing of racial disharmony, I don't know that Mr. Sharpton would have made my cut," Coble said
Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Democrat from Texas, lashed out at federal officials for not intervening and restoring justice in Jena.
"Shame on you, she said, reserving most of her venom for Donald Washington, the black U.S. attorney for the Jena district.
"As a parent, I'm on the verge of tears," she said.
"Why didn't you intervene? These broken lives could have been prevented if you had taken the symbolic responsibility that you have, being the first African-American appointed to the (Louisiana) western district.
"I don't know what else to say. I am outraged."
Washington defended himself, saying he did intervene, but is restricted by the law.
"I, too, am an African-American and I was very offended by what I heard (in Jena)," he said.
"I am a child of the '60s, of the desegregation era. My mother marched, I'm sure like your parents did, in the 1960s when Martin Luther King was urging African-Americans to get out and march for their rights."
NOOSE INCIDENTS SPARK OUTRAGE
African Americans blast U.S. congressional hearing over lack of action on discrimination, hate crimes
Tim Harper
Washington Bureau
Washington - Generations of racial hatred, injustice and outrage over the historic treatment of black Americans spilled onto the floor of a Congressional committee hearing room here yesterday.
Emotions were stripped bare as Democratic legislators probed the inequities of the justice system in the tiny Louisiana town of Jena and African Americans spoke of the sordid history of the noose, one of the most potent symbols of hate in this country.
Although the hearing was convened to deal with the expansion of hate laws in the U.S., it centred on the treatment of black defendants in Louisiana known as the "Jena Six" and a sudden proliferation of incidents involving the noose, symbol of the more than 3,000 lynchings of blacks in this nation from the late 1800s to the 1960s.
"Nooses were used for one thing and one thing only," said Charles Ogletree, the director of Harvard Law School's Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice.
"In the history of this country, (they were) used ... to lynch black women and men. I hope we don't bury the history that comes with what this symbolizes. This is one of the most destructive, mean-spirited, racist examples of individual behaviour."
Racial tensions began rising in Jena more than a year ago after a black student sat under a "white tree" and three white students later hung two nooses from the tree.
The white students were suspended form the school, but six black students were later charged under the state's justice system following a fight sparked by the noose incident the following December.
One student, Mychal Bell, was unexpectedly sent back to prison last week during what he expected to be a routine hearing after a judge determined he had violated the terms of his probation for a previous conviction.
Since 20,000 civil rights activists descended on the town last month to protest what they believe to be two systems of justice in Louisiana, a spate of noose incidents have been reported.
One was dragged from the back of a truck in Jena the night of the demonstration, another was placed near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in New York, another at a Long Island police detachment and one was found dangling form the office door of a Columbia University professor.
Still more incidents have been reported in North Carolina, Maryland, Connecticut and California.
Nooses "don't just hurt the three or five or seven black children under the tree," Ogletree said. "It hurts all of us, every single one of us."
Much of the anger from witnesses and black Democrats was a lack of a response to the situation in Jena from the Bush administration and the failure of the federal justice department to right the wrongs of he Louisiana system.
One black Democratic legislator assailed a black U.S. attorney for inaction on the case, drawing shouts and applause from the room, and a Republican accused civil rights leader Al Sharpton of sowing racial disharmony in the United States.
Some spectators began chanting for the House judiciary committee to subpoena the prosecutor in the case, Reed Walters.
Sharpton told the committee there are Jenas everywhere in the United States.
"We have not heard one federal response," he said. "It is almost like the national government is not watching the country while we're watching nooses on the news every night, while we're watching hate crimes.
"The justice department, at the behest of this committee, needs to step into Jena and the Jenas of this country and establish that the federal government is still in charge and the states did not win the Civil War."
Sharpton and others said hate laws should be expanded to include juveniles. The white students in Jena were not prosecuted because they were under 18.
Before Sharpton belatedly appeared - his flight from New York was delayed - North Carolina Republican Howard Coble took a shot at the civil rights leader in absentia. "If I were compiling a group of witnesses to encourage the diminishing of racial disharmony, I don't know that Mr. Sharpton would have made my cut," Coble said
Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Democrat from Texas, lashed out at federal officials for not intervening and restoring justice in Jena.
"Shame on you, she said, reserving most of her venom for Donald Washington, the black U.S. attorney for the Jena district.
"As a parent, I'm on the verge of tears," she said.
"Why didn't you intervene? These broken lives could have been prevented if you had taken the symbolic responsibility that you have, being the first African-American appointed to the (Louisiana) western district.
"I don't know what else to say. I am outraged."
Washington defended himself, saying he did intervene, but is restricted by the law.
"I, too, am an African-American and I was very offended by what I heard (in Jena)," he said.
"I am a child of the '60s, of the desegregation era. My mother marched, I'm sure like your parents did, in the 1960s when Martin Luther King was urging African-Americans to get out and march for their rights."
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Deb Matthews: A Poverty Warrier
From the Wednesday, October 31, 2007, Toronto Star, Canada section, page A14, is an article about the new Children and Youth Services Minister, Deb Matthews:
A NEW WARRIOR TO FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
Matthews heads group that will carry out election promise to introduce poverty-reduction targets
Kerry Gillespie
Queen's Park Bureau
She has her own ministry, but Deb Matthews, children and youth services minister, will be spending much of her time bending other ministries to her will to get what she needs.
There are more than a million Ontarians living in poverty and nothing less than the co-operation of a variety of government departments will be enough to cut that number, said Matthews, who heads a new anti-poverty committee.
"We do have a problem with poverty in this province," Matthews said yesterday. "We've got a challenge, there's no question about it, but we're up to it."
The first job of the cabinet committee on poverty reduction will be to carry out Premier Dalton McGuinty's election promise to introduce firm poverty-reduction targets - within a year - so the government can be measured on its progress.
Poverty reduction "involves education, it involves health, it involves community and social services, it's (children and youth services), it's housing, it's very multi-dimensional. The solutions are going to require co-operation," she said.
Matthews, former president of the Ontario Liberal Party, said she's up to the task of wrangling the various ministers needed to do the job.
Poverty and community groups that have worked with her are equally confident.
"This is what she went into politics to do," said David Pecaut, chair of the Toronto City Summit Alliance, a coalition dedicated to improving life in the city. Matthews, first elected in 2003 in London North Centre, has a Ph.D. in social demography.
She led a series of province-wide consultations on income security and social assistance, was involved in a task force studying working adults living in poverty and McGuinty has credited her for coming up with the new Ontario Child Benefit, which provides assistance to all low-income families.
"She has seen the challenges of what it's going to take to put together an interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral program because you can't tackle poverty with only one instrument," Pecaut said.
Other committee members will be announced in the coming weeks.
Matthews is one of nine women in cabinet, a decision commended by Equal Voice, the non-partisan group that wants to increase the number of women in politics.
Still, the group noted that's the same number in his expanded 28-member cabinet as there were in the previous 27-minister cabinet.
"When you run more women, as the Liberal Party did this fall, you have more women to choose from," said Equal Voice co-founder Rosemary Speirs, a former Toronto Star political reporter.
Other women appointed are: Education Minister Kathleen Wynne; Revenue Minister Monique Smith, Culture Minister Aileen Carroll; Health Promotion Minister Margaret Best; Economic Development and Trade Minister Sandra Pupatello; Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky; Community and Social Services Minister Madeline Meilleur and Natural Resources Minister Donna Cansfield.
With files from Robert Benzie and Rob Ferguson
A NEW WARRIOR TO FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
Matthews heads group that will carry out election promise to introduce poverty-reduction targets
Kerry Gillespie
Queen's Park Bureau
She has her own ministry, but Deb Matthews, children and youth services minister, will be spending much of her time bending other ministries to her will to get what she needs.
There are more than a million Ontarians living in poverty and nothing less than the co-operation of a variety of government departments will be enough to cut that number, said Matthews, who heads a new anti-poverty committee.
"We do have a problem with poverty in this province," Matthews said yesterday. "We've got a challenge, there's no question about it, but we're up to it."
The first job of the cabinet committee on poverty reduction will be to carry out Premier Dalton McGuinty's election promise to introduce firm poverty-reduction targets - within a year - so the government can be measured on its progress.
Poverty reduction "involves education, it involves health, it involves community and social services, it's (children and youth services), it's housing, it's very multi-dimensional. The solutions are going to require co-operation," she said.
Matthews, former president of the Ontario Liberal Party, said she's up to the task of wrangling the various ministers needed to do the job.
Poverty and community groups that have worked with her are equally confident.
"This is what she went into politics to do," said David Pecaut, chair of the Toronto City Summit Alliance, a coalition dedicated to improving life in the city. Matthews, first elected in 2003 in London North Centre, has a Ph.D. in social demography.
She led a series of province-wide consultations on income security and social assistance, was involved in a task force studying working adults living in poverty and McGuinty has credited her for coming up with the new Ontario Child Benefit, which provides assistance to all low-income families.
"She has seen the challenges of what it's going to take to put together an interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral program because you can't tackle poverty with only one instrument," Pecaut said.
Other committee members will be announced in the coming weeks.
Matthews is one of nine women in cabinet, a decision commended by Equal Voice, the non-partisan group that wants to increase the number of women in politics.
Still, the group noted that's the same number in his expanded 28-member cabinet as there were in the previous 27-minister cabinet.
"When you run more women, as the Liberal Party did this fall, you have more women to choose from," said Equal Voice co-founder Rosemary Speirs, a former Toronto Star political reporter.
Other women appointed are: Education Minister Kathleen Wynne; Revenue Minister Monique Smith, Culture Minister Aileen Carroll; Health Promotion Minister Margaret Best; Economic Development and Trade Minister Sandra Pupatello; Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky; Community and Social Services Minister Madeline Meilleur and Natural Resources Minister Donna Cansfield.
With files from Robert Benzie and Rob Ferguson
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Social Activism: Getting Children Involved
From the Thursday, October 18, 2007, special Making a Difference>Me to We section of the Toronto Star, is an article about a child becoming involved in activism in her society:
Sowing the seeds of social activism
Bob Benvie
Me to We Volunteer
Catherine McCauley has seen how the smallest of acts can make a profound difference in the way a young person sees the world.
Not long ago, her family heard that city politicians had made a deal with a developer to renovate an old dance hall on the waterfront, where 6-year-old daughter Renee and husband David love to ride their bikes. To accommodate a parking lot next to the dance hall, several large, old willow trees would be chopped down. On one of their rides, Renee asked her father about a group of citizens who had set up tables and a petition at the site. David said politicians intended to cut down the trees and that people unhappy with this prospect were letting them know.
Renee insisted they show support, so David signed the petition. The city eventually backed down.
Catherine says Renee still talks with pride about how she helped save what she affectionately calls "our trees."
Seeing the effect of their actions inspires kids to social action. Research also shows socially active youth have better grades, higher academic aspirations and make informed choices about substance abuse.
Sowing the seeds of social activism
Bob Benvie
Me to We Volunteer
Catherine McCauley has seen how the smallest of acts can make a profound difference in the way a young person sees the world.
Not long ago, her family heard that city politicians had made a deal with a developer to renovate an old dance hall on the waterfront, where 6-year-old daughter Renee and husband David love to ride their bikes. To accommodate a parking lot next to the dance hall, several large, old willow trees would be chopped down. On one of their rides, Renee asked her father about a group of citizens who had set up tables and a petition at the site. David said politicians intended to cut down the trees and that people unhappy with this prospect were letting them know.
Renee insisted they show support, so David signed the petition. The city eventually backed down.
Catherine says Renee still talks with pride about how she helped save what she affectionately calls "our trees."
Seeing the effect of their actions inspires kids to social action. Research also shows socially active youth have better grades, higher academic aspirations and make informed choices about substance abuse.
Education and Poverty
From World Vision's Winter 2007/08 Childview, The Magazine for Child Sponsors, pages 11-12, is a story about a young girl from Bangladesh and what her education, made possible by a sponsor from Manitoba, Canada, meant in her life and those she was able to reach through her education:
EDUCATION GAP
Poverty and gender disparity nearly kept Sheuli Som from getting an education. Today the former sponsored child in Bangladesh holds a university degree
By Heather Buchan
Sheuli Som
Netrokona District, Bangladesh
Sheuli Som recalls a terrifying night in 1988 as an eight-year-old; she and her sister and brother sat huddled together in the dark at the side of a rural highway in Bangladesh crying in fear. Earlier that day, a flash flood had engulfed their village in Netrokona District and Som's parents sent their three children in a neighbour's boat to higher ground where they would be safe.
"We didn't know where we would go or when we would meet our parents," she remembers. Eventually, Som and her siblings reunited with their parents, but her family lost everything in that flood, including her home. Her father also lost his job as an agricultural labourer -- the family's only source of income.
Although devastating, the floor was a temporary hurdle that Som and her family managed to get over. They relocated, constructed a new home and slowly rebuilt their lives. But the poverty the family continued to face made it challenging for Som to attend school and overcome Bangladesh's high illiteracy rates.
As of 2001, the United Nations reports 52.5 per cent of adults in Bangladesh are illiterate, with the majority being women. The gap in rural areas is even greater due to a lack of access to education.
But Som rose to the challenge and beat the odds. She is a 27-year-old assistant teacher who holds an arts degree and is currently completing a master's degree in philosophy. Her sheer dedication to become a teacher, along with her sponsorship through World Vision, have enabled her to realize her lifelong dream. "I had a dream to be higher educated," says Som, adding that she also wanted to become a teacher at an early age.
In Bangladesh, 36 per cent of the population lives on less than a dollar a day, reports UNICEF. Many of Som's community members could barely make ends meet, much less pay for school fees. "Poor families could hardly feed their children, so they would never think of educating their children," she explains.
When Som became a sponsored child two years after the flood, World Vision helped pay for her school fees and provided her with a school uniform, notebooks and other school supplies. Once a month, World Vision staff members visited her home to check on her health and academic progress.
Without child sponsorship, Som says she would have likely been married at a very young age, because her father couldn't afford to send all three of his children to school. UNICEF reports that nearly two out of three Bangladeshi young women are married before the legal age of 18.
A dedicated student, Som studied both before and after school. Year after year, she ranked among the top 10 students in her class. After completing high school, she attended the National University of Bangladesh.
Som remembers receiving her first letter from her Canadian sponsor, Donna Janzen of The Pas, Manitoba, who encouraged her to continue with her education. "I received a photo of [Jensen] with her daughter. She wrote that I am like her daughter," Som says of her sponsor. "It touched me -- a woman who never saw me treated me as her own daughter and supported me. I will never forget her support."
World Vision's influence in Som's life went beyond education. She participated in cultural programs and birthday celebrations. Staff members also developed awareness campaigns about HIV and AIDS prevention and proper sanitation methods in her village.
A world away, in rural Manitoba, Janzen is pleased to know how well Som is doing. "Knowing that my sponsorship somehow made a difference is very gratifying," says Janzen, who appreciated the progress reports and letters she received from Som over the years. "It's nice to know that now that the sponsorship is over, she continues to do well."
What does Som find most rewarding about being a teacher? "It is an opportunity for me to give back to my community," says Som, who today is able to help young girls overcome the same hardships she faced growing up, "because I am contributing towards building a literate generation and nation."
--With files from Amito James Asension
For more information on child sponsorship, go to worldvision.ca
EDUCATION GAP
Poverty and gender disparity nearly kept Sheuli Som from getting an education. Today the former sponsored child in Bangladesh holds a university degree
By Heather Buchan
Sheuli Som
Netrokona District, Bangladesh
Sheuli Som recalls a terrifying night in 1988 as an eight-year-old; she and her sister and brother sat huddled together in the dark at the side of a rural highway in Bangladesh crying in fear. Earlier that day, a flash flood had engulfed their village in Netrokona District and Som's parents sent their three children in a neighbour's boat to higher ground where they would be safe.
"We didn't know where we would go or when we would meet our parents," she remembers. Eventually, Som and her siblings reunited with their parents, but her family lost everything in that flood, including her home. Her father also lost his job as an agricultural labourer -- the family's only source of income.
Although devastating, the floor was a temporary hurdle that Som and her family managed to get over. They relocated, constructed a new home and slowly rebuilt their lives. But the poverty the family continued to face made it challenging for Som to attend school and overcome Bangladesh's high illiteracy rates.
As of 2001, the United Nations reports 52.5 per cent of adults in Bangladesh are illiterate, with the majority being women. The gap in rural areas is even greater due to a lack of access to education.
But Som rose to the challenge and beat the odds. She is a 27-year-old assistant teacher who holds an arts degree and is currently completing a master's degree in philosophy. Her sheer dedication to become a teacher, along with her sponsorship through World Vision, have enabled her to realize her lifelong dream. "I had a dream to be higher educated," says Som, adding that she also wanted to become a teacher at an early age.
In Bangladesh, 36 per cent of the population lives on less than a dollar a day, reports UNICEF. Many of Som's community members could barely make ends meet, much less pay for school fees. "Poor families could hardly feed their children, so they would never think of educating their children," she explains.
When Som became a sponsored child two years after the flood, World Vision helped pay for her school fees and provided her with a school uniform, notebooks and other school supplies. Once a month, World Vision staff members visited her home to check on her health and academic progress.
Without child sponsorship, Som says she would have likely been married at a very young age, because her father couldn't afford to send all three of his children to school. UNICEF reports that nearly two out of three Bangladeshi young women are married before the legal age of 18.
A dedicated student, Som studied both before and after school. Year after year, she ranked among the top 10 students in her class. After completing high school, she attended the National University of Bangladesh.
Som remembers receiving her first letter from her Canadian sponsor, Donna Janzen of The Pas, Manitoba, who encouraged her to continue with her education. "I received a photo of [Jensen] with her daughter. She wrote that I am like her daughter," Som says of her sponsor. "It touched me -- a woman who never saw me treated me as her own daughter and supported me. I will never forget her support."
World Vision's influence in Som's life went beyond education. She participated in cultural programs and birthday celebrations. Staff members also developed awareness campaigns about HIV and AIDS prevention and proper sanitation methods in her village.
A world away, in rural Manitoba, Janzen is pleased to know how well Som is doing. "Knowing that my sponsorship somehow made a difference is very gratifying," says Janzen, who appreciated the progress reports and letters she received from Som over the years. "It's nice to know that now that the sponsorship is over, she continues to do well."
What does Som find most rewarding about being a teacher? "It is an opportunity for me to give back to my community," says Som, who today is able to help young girls overcome the same hardships she faced growing up, "because I am contributing towards building a literate generation and nation."
--With files from Amito James Asension
For more information on child sponsorship, go to worldvision.ca
Rice's Excuse for An Apology Regarding Maher Arar
From the Thursday, October 25, 2007, Toronto Star, Canada section, page A21, here is an article about the lack of an apology regarding the U.S. handing over a Canadian citizen to Syria where he was tortured:
WHAT RICE'S NON-APOLOGY DOESN'T COVER
Thomas Walkom
The most painful element of Condoleezza Rice's admission that the U.S. made mistakes handling the Maher Arar case is how grudging her non-apology is.
Rice, now U.S. President George W. Bush's secretary of state, acknowledged to a congressional committee yesterday that her government blew it when it arrested Arar in New York five years ago and bundled him off to Syria to be tortured for information.
But she didn't apologize for the substantive injustice done to Arar. She didn't apologize for deporting a Canadian citizen to Syria (a country he left as a teenager) rather than Canada. She didn't apologize for her government's role in mistakenly identifying Arar as an Al Quaeda terrorist. Nor did she apologize for the U.S. government's so-called extraordinary rendition program, of which the Arar case was but one example.
And in spite of a judicial inquiry in Canada that concluded Arar was tortured during his year-long imprisonment in a Syrian dungeon, she didn't apologize for that. Indeed, she didn't even acknowledge it, referring instead to "claims" of mistreatment. (This from someone whose own state department regularly publishes reports detailing Syria's use of torture.)
All she did was say that her government erred by not telling Ottawa ahead of time that it was deporting Arar to Syria.
"We do not think this case was handled as it should have been," she told the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee. "Our communication with the Canadian government about this was by no means perfect. In fact, it was quite imperfect."
Which, in itself, is somewhat of an understatement.
As Justice Dennis O'Connor's inquiry into the Arar affair found, the U.S. not only failed to tell Canada it was deporting Arar to Syria, it lied.
On the very day that the removal decision was being made in New York, FBI agents were still telling the RCMP that he would soon be returned to Canada.
In spite of repeated requests for information, the Amercans didn't tell Canada's foreign affairs department they had sent Arar anywhere until two days after he'd been wakened at 4 a.m., hustled into a small plane and flown to the Middle East. Even there, they refused to say where they had sent him.
So, yes, there were some "communications" problems.
But these pale beside the substance of what happened to the Canadian computer engineer courtesy of the Bush government (and, as Canada has acknowledge, the RCMP) -- the savage beatings, the nightmare of being locked up in a rat-infested grave-like dungeon for months on end, the whittling away of hope.
Arar is still recovering.
Yet, as British journalist Stephen Grey details in his book Ghost Plane, the Canadian's experience is not unique. Grey estimates hundreds around the world have been scooped up secretly by American agents as part of Bush's so-called war on terror and flown, without trial, to U.S. proxy states in the Middle East and Europe so they can be tortured for information.
What makes Arar so unusual is that he is one of the few to get out alive and tell his story.
Which, perhaps, is why the U.S. government still feels compelled to discredit him, still keeps him on a no-fly list, still leaks damaging stories about him to the media.
And which is perhaps why Rice's mea culpa yesterday was so grudging. For if Washington were to acknowleddge the full scale of its crimes against Maher Arar, it would have to lay open this whole shameful business.
Thoms Walkom's column appears Thursday and Sunday.
WHAT RICE'S NON-APOLOGY DOESN'T COVER
Thomas Walkom
The most painful element of Condoleezza Rice's admission that the U.S. made mistakes handling the Maher Arar case is how grudging her non-apology is.
Rice, now U.S. President George W. Bush's secretary of state, acknowledged to a congressional committee yesterday that her government blew it when it arrested Arar in New York five years ago and bundled him off to Syria to be tortured for information.
But she didn't apologize for the substantive injustice done to Arar. She didn't apologize for deporting a Canadian citizen to Syria (a country he left as a teenager) rather than Canada. She didn't apologize for her government's role in mistakenly identifying Arar as an Al Quaeda terrorist. Nor did she apologize for the U.S. government's so-called extraordinary rendition program, of which the Arar case was but one example.
And in spite of a judicial inquiry in Canada that concluded Arar was tortured during his year-long imprisonment in a Syrian dungeon, she didn't apologize for that. Indeed, she didn't even acknowledge it, referring instead to "claims" of mistreatment. (This from someone whose own state department regularly publishes reports detailing Syria's use of torture.)
All she did was say that her government erred by not telling Ottawa ahead of time that it was deporting Arar to Syria.
"We do not think this case was handled as it should have been," she told the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee. "Our communication with the Canadian government about this was by no means perfect. In fact, it was quite imperfect."
Which, in itself, is somewhat of an understatement.
As Justice Dennis O'Connor's inquiry into the Arar affair found, the U.S. not only failed to tell Canada it was deporting Arar to Syria, it lied.
On the very day that the removal decision was being made in New York, FBI agents were still telling the RCMP that he would soon be returned to Canada.
In spite of repeated requests for information, the Amercans didn't tell Canada's foreign affairs department they had sent Arar anywhere until two days after he'd been wakened at 4 a.m., hustled into a small plane and flown to the Middle East. Even there, they refused to say where they had sent him.
So, yes, there were some "communications" problems.
But these pale beside the substance of what happened to the Canadian computer engineer courtesy of the Bush government (and, as Canada has acknowledge, the RCMP) -- the savage beatings, the nightmare of being locked up in a rat-infested grave-like dungeon for months on end, the whittling away of hope.
Arar is still recovering.
Yet, as British journalist Stephen Grey details in his book Ghost Plane, the Canadian's experience is not unique. Grey estimates hundreds around the world have been scooped up secretly by American agents as part of Bush's so-called war on terror and flown, without trial, to U.S. proxy states in the Middle East and Europe so they can be tortured for information.
What makes Arar so unusual is that he is one of the few to get out alive and tell his story.
Which, perhaps, is why the U.S. government still feels compelled to discredit him, still keeps him on a no-fly list, still leaks damaging stories about him to the media.
And which is perhaps why Rice's mea culpa yesterday was so grudging. For if Washington were to acknowleddge the full scale of its crimes against Maher Arar, it would have to lay open this whole shameful business.
Thoms Walkom's column appears Thursday and Sunday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
