How TILMA is impacting BC

From the inbox, courtesy Ellen Gould and the Council of Canadians.

This is incredible, a clear example of what happens when a government’s right to try to protect health comes up against the private investors right to profit, the private investors profits win.  This is exactly why we need to be very concerned about the TILMA, and very clear about the ideological roots of it.

Rick Sawa, Council of Canadians

From: Ellen Gould

The BC government has been proposing that junk food be “banned” in 
schools and hospitals as part of the province’s preventatives health
care initiatives.

However, at a meeting on February 14 of the Education Advisory
Committee, a BC committee of school board and teacher representatives 
who meeting periodically with the Minister of Education it was revealed
that because of TILMA, BC will only be seeking voluntary compliance from
companies like Coca Cola.

A CUPE representative asked how the proposed initiative on junk food 
could be done under TILMA. The following are his notes.

The question was:

Given that BC has signed the TILMA agreement with Alberta scheduled to come
into effect in April and that
.    Bans and restrictions on junk food sales would offend provisions 
regarding the limitation of investment, and
.    Even if the promotion of student health were accepted as a
legitimate objective on the part of government, the province would still be
obliged to pursue the least intrusive method of implementing 
this objective, (such as providing junk food info to students and letting
them make their own food purchase choices.)
Has the MOE given any thought to how it would deal with a TILMA challenge
along these lines, and is there any contingency plan for dealing with such 
an eventuality in presumed efforts to salvage this part of the government’s
stated health promotion agenda?

The deputy Minister stated the following.
The Ministry of Education has already held talks with companies like 
Coca-Cola and others who market offending products like soft drinks,
chocolate bars and chips within our public schools and is seeking their
voluntary compliance in reducing the volume of such products sold, so as to 
meet the MOE/MOH food guidelines.

At this point Ken Denike (of the Vancouver School Board but who is at the
EAC representing the BC Public School Employers’ Association) weighed into
the discussion by reporting a conversation he recently had with former 
Education Minister Christy Clark.  Denike said that Clark told him the
provincial cabinet had discussed the broader implications of the trade deal
on provincial policy in a number of areas (including the ban on junk 
food) and had decided that _seeking voluntary corporate compliance_ with likely TILMA
infractions was the way to go, as opposed to passing laws and regulations.

Landscape: Subject Matter or Technique?

A poem by Charles Wright has entirely captured and enraptured me. Thanks to Lorri for reading it aloud in the Severin Hall lounge at St. Peter’s Abbey one day last week.

THE MINOR ART OF SELF-DEFENSE

Landscape was never a subject matter, it was a technique,

A method of measure,

                    a scaffold for structuring.

I stole its silences, I stepped to its hue and cry.

Language was always the subject matter, the idea of God

The ghost that over my little world

Hovered, my mouthpiece for meaning,

                                   my claw and bright beak…

 

                                              --Charles Wright

 

I’d love to hear what others think of this concept of landscape as technique.

U.S.-trained Iraqi Police Rape Women

http://www.counterpunch.org/susskind02232007.html

February 23, 2007

Armed, Trained and Funded by the US
Iraqi Police Commit Rapes
By YIFAT SUSSKIND

The international news media is flooded with images of a woman in a
pink headscarf recounting a shattering experience of rape by members
of the Iraqi National Police. Most of the coverage has focused on her
taboo-breaking decision to speak publicly about the assault, but has
ignored the context for understanding-and combating-sexual violence by
Iraqi security forces.

As Iraqi women's organizations have documented, sexualized torture is
a routine horror in Iraqi jails. While this woman may be the first
Iraqi rape survivor to appear on television, she is hardly the first
to accuse the Iraqi National Police of sexual assault. At least nine
Iraqi organizations (including Women's Will, Occupation Watch, the
Women's Rights Association , the Iraqi League, the Iraqi National
Association of Human Rights, the Human Rights' Voice of Freedom, the
Association of Muslim Scholars, the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Iraqi
National Media and Culture Organization) as well as Amnesty
International, the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq, and the Brussels
Tribunal have documented the sexualized torture of Iraqi women while
in police custody. And as this case attests, sexual violence is woven
into the fabric of the civil war now raging across Iraq. According to
Iraqi human rights advocate and writer Haifa Zangana, the first
question asked of female detainees in Iraq is, "Are you Sunni or
Shia?" The second is, "Are you a virgin?"

Next week, MADRE, an international women's human rights organization,
will release a report that documents the widespread use of rape and
other forms of torture against women detainees in Iraq by US and Iraqi
forces.* The report includes testimonies of numerous rape survivors,
collected by the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI). Since
November 2005, OWFI has conducted a Women's Prison Watch project and
has found that, "Torture and rape are common procedure of
investigation in police stations run by the militias affiliated with
the government, mostly the Mahdi and Badr militias," according to
their summer 2006 report.

These are the same sectarian Shiite militias that are prosecuting
Iraq's civil war, the same militias that stepped into the power vacuum
created by the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and the same militias
that have been systematically attacking women in their bid to
establish an Islamist theocracy. Since 2003, the political leadership
of these militias has been handed control of the Iraqi state by the
US, while the militants themselves have waged a campaign of
assassinations, rapes, abductions, beheadings, acid attacks, and
public beatings targeting women-particularly women who pose a
challenge to the project of turning Iraq into a theocracy. As the
occupying power in Iraq, the US was obligated under the Hague and
Geneva Conventions to provide security to Iraqi civilians, including
protection from gender-based violence. But the US military,
preoccupied with battling the Iraqi insurgency, simply ignored the
reign of terror that Islamist militias have imposed on women.

By early 2005, as the "cakewalk" envisioned by US war planners
devolved into the quagmire that has become the Iraq War, the US began
to cultivate Shiite militias to help battle the Sunni-led insurgency.
According to Newsweek, the plan was dubbed the "Salvador Option,"
recalling the Reagan Administration's use of militias to bolster
right-wing regimes in 1980s Central America. But by late 2005, once
the Iraqi militias had become notorious as thugs and sectarian death
squads, we stopped hearing so much about the military training that
these groups had received under the command of Colonel James Steele
during John Negroponte's stint as US Ambassador to Iraq.

Neither have we heard about how the US allowed the government it
installed in Baghdad to hand control of the country's security forces
to the militias. Today, the Mahdi Army controls the police forces of
Baghdad and Basra , Iraq's two largest cities. The Badr Brigade is
headquartered in Iraq's Ministry of Interior, which directs the
country's national police, intelligence, and paramilitary units. And
the United Nations special investigator on torture is reporting that
torture in Iraq is worse now than under Saddam Hussein.

It's no surprise that we're hearing allegations of rape against the
Iraqi National Police, considering who trained them. DynCorp, the
private contractor that the Bush Administration hired to prepare
Iraq's new police force for duty, has an ugly record of violence
against women. The company was contracted by the federal government in
the 1990s to train police in the Balkans. DynCorp employees were found
to have systematically committed sex crimes against women, including
"owning" young women as slaves. One DynCorp site supervisor videotaped
himself raping two women. Despite strong evidence against them, the
contractors never faced criminal charges and are back on the federal
payroll.

Contrary to its rhetoric and its international legal obligations, the
Bush Administration has refused to protect women's rights in Iraq. In
fact, it has decisively traded women's rights for cooperation from the
Islamists it has helped boost to power. Torture of women by police
recruits armed, trained, and funded with US tax dollars is one symptom
of this broader crisis.

*Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy: Gender-based Violence and
the US War in Iraq will be available at www.MADRE.org after March 6,
2007. For more information about the report, please contact MADRE at
madre@madre.org or 212.627.0444.

Yifat Susskind is communications director of MADRE, an international
women's human rights organization. She is the author of a book on US
foreign policy and women's human rights and a report on US culpability
for violence against women in Iraq, both forthcoming.

A shorter version of this article originally ran on TomPaine.com.

Retreat time

If you are a writer and you want a good place to retreat, check out the Saskatchewan Writers / Artists Colony, held each winter and summer at St. Peter’s Abbey in Muenster, SK and each fall in a northern location.  It is a spectacular time of quiet retreat and of fun with other writers and artists from across the country.  Highly recommended!

To My American Neighbours

Dear Relations to the South,

I know it wasn’t long ago that your nation suffered a terrible blow.  To many of you, it was a wake-up call.  To others of you, it seemed a logical consequence to the century long aggression and empire-building in which your government has been engaged.  No matter, it was a blow.  And that blow instilled fear in the American nation.  That fear allowed for the election and re-election of George W. Bush, currently the leader of the most vicious nation on earth.

Today, on AlterNet, I read an article written by an American, part of which said,

there seems to be a special viciousness that accompanies the current assault on human rights, in this country and in the world. We have had repressive governments before, but none has legislated the end of habeas corpus, nor openly supported torture, nor declared the possibility of war without end. No government has so casually ignored the will of the people, affirmed the right of the president to ignore the Constitution, even to set aside laws passed by Congress.

The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

This is true.  The time is right.  Your country needs you.  The world needs you.  We need you to reverse the tide of viciousness the likes of which the world has not seen since Hitler.   Calling for cross-country impeachment hearings on Bush and Cheney is a brilliant idea.  I am certain that countries around the world, especially those negatively impacted by your brutal foreign and trade policies, would provide you with unlimited support for these actions.  But most importantly, you would be a people better able to control your own destiny, rather than to have it controlled by a not very bright man guided by a dogma deeply rooted in sexism, racism, and oppression of all sorts.

And so, dear friends, I encourage you to proceed with the organization of these hearings.  Push the Democrats to take real leadership.  Insist they work to make a difference for the good of the world, not for might and greed.  I beg of you, do it now!

The world is watching.  And waiting, ever-so patiently.

Sincerely,

Your Canadian Sister

Rabid Anti-Feminist Men

Another from the Inbox, this time it’s a call for solidarity in a lawsuit against a magazine that carried a feminist’s article which criticized an anti-feminist men’s group.

From: Barbara Legault <barbaralegault@yahoo.ca>
Date: February 4, 2007 7:39:44 PM EST (CA)
To: —@—–
Subject: Call for solidarity: Lawsuit against leftist magazine and feminist activist

Dear friends, feminists and pro-feminists organizers and allies,

You will find below and attached a public declaration and call for solidarity concerning a lawsuit filled against A Babord! magazine and myself for an article that I wrote on antifeminism. I also attached the original article translated into English. Please spread the word.

If you would like a copy of the declaration and article in French, please don’t hesitate to contact me at barbaralegault@yahoo.ca .

In solidarity,

Barbara Legault
————-
Please distribute widely!

Public Declaration and Call for Solidarity

Barbara Legault and À Babord! magazine are being sued for libel by
Andy Srougi, coordinator of Fathers4Justice – Québec

Montréal, January 28, 2007 – Activist Barbara Legault and À bâbord ! magazine are being sued for libel by Andy Srougi, a member of the group Fathers4Justice. “Mr. Srougi […] attracted public attention last year when he climbed the Jacques-Cartier bridge.” (La Presse, December 7, 2006). Mr. Srougi is accusing Barbara Legault of having “uttered hateful comments” about him in her article “Des hommes contre le féminisme” (men against feminism), published in the October/November 2006 issue of À bâbord ! magazine (see the attached article).

In his motion, Mr. Srougi claims that Ms. Legault wrote “libellous, false and hateful comments […] that damaged [his] reputation and caused him emotional distress that has led to painful physical consequences, prevented him from sleeping, and caused headaches and enormous stress.” The libel suit can be consulted in French on the Internet site www.papataime.com, coordinated by Mr. Srougi.

Mr. Srougi, who calls himself a “men’s rights activist,” is demanding $20,000 for mental suffering as a result of libel and $4,000 in exemplary damages. In fact, in the article in question, Ms. Legault pointed out that masculinists are increasingly turning to the courts to challenge feminist organizations and activists.

This is not the first time Mr. Srougi has used the courts against feminists and their allies, as well as against various government agencies and politicians. La Presse reported on November 9, 2006 that “exasperated by Fathers4Justice’s ‘abusive’ tactics, the Barreau du Québec went to Superior Court to have the organization and its main spokesperson, Andy Srougi, declared vexatious litigants. The Webster’s Dictionary defines vexatious in a legal context as “legal actions instituted without sufficient grounds and serving only to cause annoyance to the defendant.”

Mr. Srougi recently told La Presse, “The board of directors of F4J has decided to launch lawsuits against any organization or individual who attempts to libel F4J. […] We now have a paid lawyer on board. Other persons cited in À bâbord ! are going to sue the publication. Expect many, many more lawsuits in 2007, especially against radical feminist groups.” (André Noël, La Presse, December 7, 2006).
Legal Defence: A Call for Solidarity

Barbara Legault and all those working for À bâbord !, an independent, bimonthly magazine that receives no subsidies and is produced entirely by volunteers, are calling for solidarity from groups and individuals concerned about this lawsuit.

We believe that Andy Srougi’s actions go far beyond the scope of the present lawsuit, since he has also filed complaints against other feminist and pro-feminist groups and individuals with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, among others. We do not believe that À bâbord ! and its writer are the true targets of the libel allegations; the real target is the feminist analyses contained in the article, ideas that are supported and promoted by the women’s movement and its allies in Québec.

This legal action is, above all, political, because the lawsuit targets freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Masculinism is the focus of a lot of attention, debate and serious concern within the women’s movement. The publication of the article “Des hommes contre le féminisme” is simply one contribution to an ongoing debate. If Mr. Srougi is successful in his lawsuit against Barbara Legault and À bâbord !, there could be serious repercussions for the capacity of feminists and independent publications to publish analyses and opinion and to contribute to a legitimate and crucial public debate on masculinism. Moreover, a victory by Mr. Srougi would seriously threaten the very existence of À bâbord ! magazine.
Creation of a Legal Defence Fund

We are calling on your solidarity to create a legal defence fund that will enable us to defend ourselves against Andy Srougi’s legal offensive. Lawyers Pierre-Louis Fortin-Legris and François Cyr of the firm Ouellet, Nadon & associés, will try to keep the fees and costs associated with the defence as low as possible, however a minimum of $4,000 will be incurred by the suit.

All contributions are welcome, from small donations to more substantial sums from union and community organizations. Please make your cheques payable to “A Bâbord!”, indicate “legal defence” on your donation and send it to:

À bâbord !
To the attention of: Claude Rioux / Legal Defence
P.O. Box 67, Station C
Montréal, Québec H2L 4S7

If Andy Srougi loses this case and is required to pay the legal fees, any donations received will be returned to the groups and individuals concerned. We also appreciate any other form of support and solidarity—do not hesitate to write to us. The first court hearing of the legal proceedings will take place on February 15, 2007 in Montreal. We will keep you informed of any developments in this case. We are grateful for your contributions and support.

In solidarity and in struggle,

Barbara Legault and the À bâbord Collective!

– 30 –

Information: Claude Rioux, crioux@ababord.org / 514-523-6928
Barbara Legault, barbaralegault@yahoo.ca
Document 1 Men Against Feminism

Document 2 Public Declaration and Call for Solidarity

ACJC Condemns Creation of pro-Israel Caucus

From the Inbox:

For immediate dissemination

February 6, 2006

ACJC Condemns Creation of pro-Israel Caucus

The Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians, a national umbrella organization
of progressive Jewish groups and individuals, has condemned the creation of
a parliamentary "Israel Allies Caucus" by the Harper Conservative
government.

The establishment of the new pro-Israel lobby will be officially announced
in Ottawa on Tuesday in the presence of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen
Harper, Canadian and Israeli parliamentarians, including MK Benny Elon
(National Union-National Religious Party) MK Orit Noked (Labor) and MK Ran
Cohen (Meretz), as well as members of the Canadian-Israel Friendship League.

"This move is just another sign of the Harper government¹s complete contempt
for the Canadian public," said Jason Kunin. "It is not in the interest of
most Canadians, and certainly not in the interest of most Jews."

Indeed, a recent Globe and Mail Strategic Counsel poll, showed an
overwhelming majority of Canadians ­ 77 percent ­ favoured a neutral foreign
policy in the Middle East, and a plurality of Canadians ­ 45 percent ­
disagreed with the Harper government¹s favouring of Israel. In Québec, 61
percent disagreed with Canada¹s recent foreign policy tilt towards Israel.
Jewish interests both in Israel and Canada are best served by peace and the
Canadian government throws away its opportunity to be part of any peace
process when it portrays itself as a pro-Israel lobbyist on the
international scene."

"The creation of this caucus will only further discredit Canada in the eyes
of the international community," Jason Kunin insists. "It means condoning a
brutal forty-year occupation of Palestinian civilians. It means condoning
the illegal wall that is imprisoning them in enclosed ghettos. It means
condoning the seizure of their land and water, the strangulation of their
economy, and the daily military assaults against innocent civilians and
makes life in the occupied territories a living hell."

The ACJC believes it speaks for most Canadians, and for most Jews, in
calling for a return to diplomacy and peacemaking. Many of the Israeli
policies that would be uncritically supported by the creation of this new
pro-Israel caucus are not even supported by many Israelis.

The ACJC calls for the Canadian government to demand the dismantling of
Israel¹s illegal "security wall," the end to military occupation of
Palestinian lands, and a just resolution of the Palestinian refugee crisis.

"Canada should support international law, period" said Jason Kunin.

* * * *

Media contacts Jason Kunin at jkunin@rogers.com or Abraham Weizfeld
(Administrative Secretary) at 514.284.66.42 / 514.833.29.74 cellular

------------------------------------------------------------------------
J'utilise la version gratuite de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés.
45736 e-mails spam ont été bloqués jusqu'à maintenant.
Les utilisateurs payant n'ont pas ce message dans leurs e-mails.
Essayez SPAMfighter gratuitement maintenant!
__._,_.___ 

Alliance  of  Concerned  Jewish  Canadians
L¹Alliance  de  Canadiens  juifs  concernés
                  ACJC

            ACJC2006@yahoo.ca

     ACJC2006-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACJC2006

     News/nouvelles &discussion List/e:
   JUNITY-CANADA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Mission of Folly

The full piece by Laxer is also posted at Canadian Dimension.  It’s 30 pages long but definitely worth the read.

Mission of Folly: Why Canada should bring its troops home from Afghanistan (James Laxer)

Canadian troops have been fighting in Afghanistan for over five years. This military mission has endured for longer than the First World War and the Korean conflict. If the mission continues for another year, it will exceed the Second World War in duration, to become the lengthiest war in which Canadians have ever fought. To date, 44 Canadians have died in Afghanistan. On a per capita basis, more Canadians have been killed during the mission, than has been the case for any of the other allied countries who have sent forces to Afghanistan.

The Harper government has presented the mission to Canadians as combining a military element with the provision of aid to the people of Afghanistan. In fact, in dollars spent, the mission has been ninety per cent military, and only ten per cent reconstruction aid.

The Chretien government propelled Canada into the Afghan War with little thought in the autumn of 2001. The mission has since been sustained and extended by the Martin and Harper governments. Despite the brief debate and vote on the issue in the House of Commons in May 2006, this country has had no authentic national debate on the Afghanistan mission.

In this 30,000 word long report, I have entered the debate not as an expert on Afghanistan, but as someone with considerable experience analyzing Canadian and American global policies. It is my belief that the Afghanistan mission is a tragic mistake for Canada. If prolonged, the mission will cost many more Canadian lives, without the achievement of the goals Canada and its allies have set for themselves in Afghanistan.

(This report will be published on-line on my blog, at http://www.jameslaxer.com, one chapter at a time, in February 2007. Then the report has a whole will be published there. The report will be available as well in PDF format. You are welcome to reproduce this report in whole or in part. I can be reached at: jlaxer@yorku.ca.

Chapter 1: Canada Went to War in the Absence of an Authentic National Debate

The Nightmare of Afghan Women

According to this, from TomDispatch, our mission in Afghanistan is not a lot different from the USian one in Iraq.  And, women are not better off as a result.

Tomgram: Ann Jones on the Nightmare of Afghan Women

This post can be found at http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=163092

Afghanistan remains the forgotten war and yet, in an eerie lockstep with Iraq, it seems to be following a distinctly Bush administration-style path toward “the gates of hell.” While almost all attention in Washington and the U.S. media has been focused on the President’s new “surge” plan in Iraq — is it for 21,000 or 50,000 American troops? Just how astronomical will the bills be? Just how strong will Congressional opposition prove? Just how bad, according to American intelligence, is the situation? — Afghanistan is experiencing its own quiet surge plan: more U.S. (and NATO) troops, more military aid, more reconstruction funds, more fighting, more casualties, heavier weaponry, more air power, more bad news, and predictions of worse to come.

Big Oil and Big (G)A(s)s Offer Cash for Cred

skdadl’s hammer hit the head of the nail at Peace, Order & Good Government, Eh?

Updated 9:15PM CST to add this which contains a reference to the famed right-wing think tank that recently heaped praise on the Government of Saskatchewan for its “historic transformation of economic policy” and captured front page headlines in the Regina Leader Post as a result.

How interesting that they will now follow-up Tommy Douglas’ rolling over in his grave with an independent report a pack of lies about Climate Change, funded by Exxon-Mobil.

Oh, this is worth a look, too.