NATO’s attempt to shape and silence independent reports.

Well-equipped for independent reporting?

According to Murray Brewster’s article for the Toronto Star, NATO has imposed further restrictions on journalists in Kandahar.  Each par of the report blows a new shotgun wound to the slowly decomposing corpse of independent journalism in conflict zones. Let us count the implications of these new restrictions of this, if we can.

•1)      “The restrictions make it virtually impossible for Canadian journalists to leave Kandahar Airfield on their own to interview local Afghans and return unimpeded to the safety of NATO’s principal base.”

In other words, this forces journalists to embed. The study, A Comparison of Embedded and Nonembedded Print Coverage of the U.S. Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, by Haigh et al, shows that embedded reporters tend to cover conflicts in a more positive way than non-embeds, and convey greater trust in the military forces they travel with. The theory behind this is obvious: you don’t bite the hand that feeds you, or gives you shelter, or protects you, or lets you ride in it’s convoy. The desire for positive reporting s followed up in point three.

•2)      “The new measures, imposed in early March, mirror the way the U.S. military manages reporters in Iraq.”

This is a double-whammy. Firstly, Brewster’s article appeared on April 28, with the restrictions imposed in the beginning of March. It took almost 2 months for these restrictions to appear in the commercial media. Why?  

Secondly, the measures mirror U.S. military management of reporters in Iraq. What we must recognize is that Afghanistan is not Iraq. The conflicts differ in nature, in military presence, and the U.S. media does not manage the reporters in Afghanistan. However, one can assume that if NATO=U.S. then it all seems to fit into place nicely that they want to control the reports coming out about their military men. This leads to my next point…

•3)      “The new rules came as Washington prepared to deliver an additional 21,000 combat soldiers and trainers to the country to confront the revived Taliban insurgency.”

With this many new American troops heading to Afghanistan, any bad press stemming from independent journalists who talk to locals about the military is going to harm the U.S. Government’s (and military’s) image. What better way to control the image of this obese number of troops than control the journalists who report on them?  Controlling the situations, information and surroundings of the journalists (Canadian, American or any other) is a sure fire way of controlling the tone of the reports spat out daily from the press stations at the military bases.

•4)      “Some of the new rules do not apply to American journalists because the measures would violate their rights under the U.S. constitution.”

Ok NATO, we understand that Americans are a far superior race to us, and we don’t deserve any rights. Yeah, right. To carry on with the equation that NATO=U.S., then this is quite an obvious attempt at censorship for international and independent journalists by the U.S. government. The fact that some of the new rules do not apply to American journalist because of their constitutional rights is abhorrent. Wake up NATO, America is not the only country who offers citizens sacred rights and freedoms. Let us take, for example, the Canadians, who have invested time, money, and military in the ‘peace mission’ in Afghanistan since the Taliban fell in 2001. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sites freedom of the press. So much for that because Uncle Sam says “no”.

Brewster’s report is shocking in so many more ways, and far more than four points can be counted, but let us leave this for another time. NATO is shocking for implementing these restrictions and only time will tell how tight their grip around freedom of the press in conflict zones will become. Let us hope that we don’t have to wait until two months after the life is squeezed out of independent journalism forever to find out.

Canada can rehabilitate Khadr, if they try.

Call him what you will: guilty, innocent, murderer, victim, terrorist, terrorized.

Omar Khadr, detained in Guantanamo Bay for over six years, is accused of murdering a U.S. medic in 2002. He was a child, only 15 years old at the time. In the wake of U.S. President Barack Obama’s order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre within the next year, it is one indisputable label that will determine his future. That label is ‘Canadian citizen’.

As the trials of the remaining detainees in Guantanamo will most likely end up in the U.S. federal court, to ease the burden on the system Khadr may be offered back to Canadian custody. Whether the Canadian government likes it or not he will most likely be coming home. But what will be his fate once he returns?

Khadr’s trial by the U.S. military commission was due to begin on Jan. 26, 2009. Now void, the government could choose to emulate the U.S. commission and try him in the Canadian federal justice system for his alleged crime. This is a costly and timely process. With his anguished history, there is a better alternative – reintegration into civilized society.

With a case so controversial, reintegration offers Khadr a life of some normalcy that he has not had for over six years. He was linked to the terrorist group al-Qaeda as a 15-year-old boy, allegedly through his father’s influence. Upon his capture by U.S. military forces he was shot three times. In The Huffington Post on Jan. 8, 2009, Andy Worthington’s report on Khadr’s case suggests his treatment has been with “a heartless disregard for his terrible wounds in the months following his capture, severe isolation in Guantanamo, and prolonged periods of abuse and humiliation.”

The reintegration process has proven successful in similar cases. Australian al-Qaeda terrorist suspect and Guantanamo inmate David Hicks was repatriated from detention in 2007 by then- prime minister John Howard. Following an assessment of his case on home soil, Australian officials deemed it safe for Hicks to be released into society, subject to a 12-month control order.

During his period of reintegration, the control order saw him report to a police station several times a week, adhere to a curfew from midnight to 6a.m., and use a police-approved sim-card for his mobile phone. This monitoring process was successful and Hicks proved his ability to live a calm and compliant life. The control order was not renewed upon its expiry in 2008.

Our government may soon be given power to give Khadr a chance at a relatively normal life. Like Hicks, he has spent a significant portion of his life in detention limbo. Bearing witness to violence and bloodshed from such a young age, what should be focused on now is the rehabilitation of his fragile mental and physical well-being. A Canadian emulation of the U.S. military trials will only hinder this process.

Just because we want it, doesn’t mean we need it.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. However, in this historically long and ongoing battle between the city and the striking OC Transpo workers, both sides are being exposed to such callousness, along with the citizens of Ottawa.

 In the forced vote ordered by Federal Labour Minister Rona Ambrose, members of the Amalgamated Transit Union – some 2, 300 workers – rejected the city’s latest contract offer to return to work by nearly three-to-one. And so, as Ottawa disappears under ice in this bitter winter, a choir of disgruntled voices thunderously calls for OC Transpo to be declared an essential service.

 But this tag of essentiality will limit the workers’ rights on the job far longer than the extent of this strike. Before throwing support behind this motion, people must consider what it will mean for the workers of OC Transpo.

Just as the Charter protects our basic human rights, since June 2007 it also protects the collective bargaining rights of employees – of which striking is a key element. Bargaining agreements between unions and employers give power to employees in regulating to what terms they are willing to work under. And since these rights have been protected, interference with them must be justified against the protection provided by the Charter.

The collective agreements and the bargaining rights of workers are more essential than a public service. Declaring OC Transpo as such a service has consequences for the rights of transit workers that need to be considered beyond the emotion-laden inconvenience felt by those held hostage by the strike.

 According to the Canadian Labour Code, in order to declare the service ‘essential’ it must be necessary to prevent immediate and serious danger to the health or safety of the public. In these instances, the services are maintained to the level required to meet these safety standards. Significantly, for workers in these sectors, striking becomes illegal and the Charter’s protection is disparaged.

Services that qualify as essential differ across the nation. According to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, government programs that may be considered essential include border safety, correctional services, food inspection and health care. In Ontario, firefighters and nurses are both occupations that are considered essential, and they may not lawfully walk off the job. Without these services, the safety of Ontarians would be put in significant danger. The immediate danger of striking transit workers is not so obvious.

 Five weeks in to the strike, Ms. Ambrose asked the Canadian Industrial Relations Board – who have the authority to declare OC Transpo an essential service – to consider the transit strike a danger to public safety. The Board has the power to issue cease and desist orders in cases of unlawful strikes. To make their decision they have called on the stranded citizens to tell their tales of woe detailing the ways in which their health and safety have been impeded.

 To date, the CIRB has received over of 2000 responses since they called for comment. And if these responses resemble the growing online petition supporting the declaration of transport as an essential service, then they will colorfully detail dissatisfaction with the strike. But, the role of the CIRB is to remain neutral and fair in their decision, so elaborative public complaints may not be an effective catalyst in this instance – immediate danger to public safety must be proven.

 Citizens say that without access to public transport they are being denied access to education, necessary health services and in extreme cases have lost their employment. But, since nothing fatal or dangerous has really occurred due to the strike, the suggestion that the safety of the public is in jeopardy may be hard to justify.  In this instance, inconvenience may not equal imperil. Having no public transport to health care services is less significant than having no health care services at all.

Rather than join the chorus to undermine legislature protecting collective bargaining agreements and make a submission to the Board, the city council persist in exploring alternate ways to ease the inconvenience for the stranded. They have made transport allowances in terms of free parking, expanded traffic lanes and taxi vouchers for the elusively defined “vulnerable” citizens of Ottawa. Their reluctance to support this bid shows that it may not be the best solution.

This strike is undeniably inconvenient. But, a workers right to strike is entrenched in Canada’s Charter. It’s a significant right that workers outside of essential services enjoy, along with the right to life and the freedom of expression. To declare OC Transpo an essential service because we want it rather than need it will affect the transport workers’ rights for a long time to come – well beyond the extent of the current strike.

With so much at stake for the protection of OC Transpo rights at work, rather than demand transportation be declared an essential service it might prove best to just ride this one out.

The impact of ignorance to sex education

 

John McCain

There seems to be no greater reason to encourage sex education in schools than this, John McCain’s response to whether or not he thought that contraceptives helped to stop the spread of HIV.

Posed with this very question, according to The Age, McCain eloquently responded: “You’ve stumped me”. He then admitted that he has never looked in to issues of sexually transmitted disease before and did not support government spending on contraception.

The man is 72 years-old and is running for Presidency of the United States, yet he does not know basic information about the benefits of contraceptive. His Vice-President candidate Sarah Palin opposes funding sex-education programs in schools and favours abstinence-only education programs where students are told to be sexually abstinent until marriage and are not taught about contraceptives.

Aside from making Palin seem ignorant and hypocritical on this issue, the announcement that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, and even more controversially, pregnant out of wedlock, seems to highlight just how important sex-education in the school system is. Coming from a Christian family it is assumable that this pregnancy was not planned for, as we know that in following this religion, abstinence is expected from all unmarried people. Maybe, just maybe, if her daughter was provided with the necessary information about being sexual activity, the pregnancy could have been prevented.

Addressing a Planned Parenthood conference on the issue of sexual education in schools, McCain’s Democratic opposition for the Presidency, Barack Obama, summed up my response to this issue perfectly:  ”For us to leave them [students] in ignorance is potentially inciting them to illness, pregnancy, poverty and in some cases death.” Below is his full address to the assemblage.

 

Death, as dramatic as it may seem, is what every child without basic information on issues such as HIV and AIDs may face. If we are to protect ourselves from these epidemics we will need a lot more sense than that of John McCain. This sense comes from sexual education.

It does not suffice merely to pretend that teen pregnancy will not happen. Nor is it moral to chastise a minor in the name of the lord if it does occur. There are two types of sexual education taught in the United States: comprehensive, which encourages abstinence but still teaches about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and infections as a result of sexual activity; and abstinence only, as I previously mentioned.  Unsurprisingly, no published studies to date have found significant abstinence-only program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse.

In Australia, thankfully, the Government recognises that primary school-aged children need information about the biological processes of sex and reproduction to prepare them for what will become an important part of their adult life. This education can promote responsible sexual behaviour, and may assist in preventing sexual problems. More importantly, it can educate children about the importance of consensual sex.

Australian’s are lucky enough to be provided with this invaluable sexual education in schools from an early age. Unfortunately, in America, conservatives such as McCain and Palin cannot recognise just how much of a difference sexual education can make to a persons attitude toward sex. Rather than acknowledge that children will have sex whether or not they are taught about it, they are unwittingly encouraging ignorance and are attempting to deny the youth of America access an education they deserve. And who knows, maybe if McCain had bothered to get an education he may have been able to avoid looking like such a fool.

The promise of the ‘holy’ month.

A mass prayer

As the first day of spring rolled in, promising sunshine and new beginnings, so to did the first day of the holy Islamic month of Ramadan. During the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, Muslims from all nations unify in a period of spiritual reflection. Fasting takes place from sunrise to sunset, with abstinence from food and drink. In the evenings, the followers engage in prayer, reading from the Qu’ran, their holy script. Ramadan is a time to purify the soul, refocus attention on God and practice self-sacrifice, and to re-evaluate life in light of Islamic guidance.
I am no advocate for religion, I must admit. But, after reading OhmyNews’ article ‘Welcome Ramadan: Truce Announced in Pakistan’, my faith in faith was lifted. Pakistan is said to have suspended all military operations against local Talibans for the month of Ramadan. The government has encouraged civilians to return to their homes and celebrate the holy month with clarity in this time of total peace and political calm.

There have also been calls for peace in Sudan. According to the Sudanese Tribune, the peacekeeping mission in Darfur UNIMID has called on Sudanese parties to declare a truce for the occasion of Ramadan. However, in both Sudan and Pakistan, there is no guarantee that these ceasefires will take effect, or that any peace at all will be achieved. Only time will tell in this instance.
This mere call for peace, at least, elicits a sense of hope. What needs to be called in to question here though, is that if the Islam religion so strictly acknowledges the worship of God and spiritual purification during Ramadan, then why not for the remaining months of the year? Why cleans the soul, only to tarnish it again with the ramifications of war?
The internal wars (and I stress the plural) occurring in the middle-east and Africa are more complicated than I could even begin to comprehend myself, let alone try to explain it to anybody else. I am the first to admit that I understand very little about the many aspects of the conflicts or even the intricacies of Ramadan and the Islamic religion.
However, what I will say on the issue is this: faith, in many forms, plays a large role in many peoples lives around the world. But it seems to me that while religious followers are in constant search of gratification and forgiveness from their God, their actions (and I stress that I do not apply this solely to Islamic people, or any specific religions or nations for that matter) during times of war and conflict only contribute to the list of actions for which they must seek forgiveness.
If I were a believer in religion I would pray for peace for the nations affected by violent conflict. But because I am not, I can only hope that those who are believers work toward peace for the long term, and not just in the ‘holy’ hours, days, or months of their religious calendars.

Murderous or merciful?

Who can decide if she has the right to die?

Euthanasia literally means “good death” in ancient Greek. And true, the death may be peaceful. But, for those individuals who valiantly choose assisted suicide to end their lives, the retort from anti-euthanasia (or religious) groups will surely be furiously loud and unwelcomingly disturbing.

As reported by the ABC, some Australians are spending thousands of dollars to fly to Mexico seeking liquid pentobarbital, a drug which is said to causes a painless death in humans in less than an hour. The drug is used legally across the world, predominantly to anaesthetise and euthanise farm animals and pets.

In Australia, criminal law prohibits active voluntary euthanasia, with considerations made for this law only in the Northern Territory. However, in other developed countries like Holland, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are openly practiced and widely accepted part of medical practice. And why? Because Holland is a secular nation, and although some may ague the opposite, unfortunately Australia is not.

The rationalisation for the practice of euthanasia practice is considered, and completely justified: “I don’t want to die with a total loss of dignity, incontinent, barely able to see and stand up, suffering…”.

                                                                                                                                 -Bron Norman, 65

And why should anyone have to? More importantly, why should they be forced to exploit a drug that is used for animals? This does not seem dignified. Nor does waiting for death.

In discussing the immorality of refusing a person their right to die, John Töns article in Online Opinion is entirely relevant and legitimate. If Veterinarians will put down an animal if it is determined that there will be no hope of recovery, then “dogs get a better deal than us humans”. It is unjust that one man may be forced to die un-expectantly, alone and in pain in Australia, and nurtured and surrounded by loved ones in another, such as Holland.

This issue is sensitive and complicated, but we must address it. Who can decide for others that they have no right to die? Just as there must be a significant context for the assisted suicide to permit, so to should there be respect for the wishes of those who make this difficult decision.

Conservative students beware…

“Unfortunately, some teachers are not subtle in expressing their Left-wing bias, being quite militant in the expression of their views and intolerant of dissent… evidence of blatant bias is far from rare in the school system.”

 

A 'militant' left-wing teacher?

 

 

 

This is an extract from Dr Mark Lopez’s article that was published in The Australian. It is a vehement evaluation of the so-called left-wing political bias of teachers in the Australian education system.  As a humanities tutor himself, it is easy to see his political bias. However, it is hard to believe that his students would not be exposed to his less-than-subtle right-wing stance. His argument stipulates that the teachers of the children of the future are liberal fanatics and that any student who possesses an opposing conservative view does not stand a chance at achieving academically.

A Federal inquiry into academic freedom is underway, and according to The Age, Dr Lopez is not alone in his political bias beliefs regarding the education system. In 2006, acting Education Minister Julie Bishop apparently identified “left-wing ideologues…straight from Chairman Mao”. And in his submission to the inquiry, Kevin Donnelly – a conservative education consultant – suggests that students leave school “culturally illiterate and ethically challenged”, all thanks to pesky liberal repression.  

Dr Lopez has some suggestions to fix this issue of bias. One of which is to cut the VCE text list from 30 to 20, with 10 texts to be selected by the ‘left’, and 10 by the ‘non-left’. What a great idea. Let us reduce the range of literature, and let us hamper diversity. And better yet, why don’t we declare the remaining texts ‘left’ or ‘right’. After all, things really are black and white aren’t they? There is no grey space, no room for students to have convictions on both sides of the political spectrum. And of course, all literature has an identifiable political agenda, doesn’t it?

Students everywhere, prepare to be brainwashed by your left-wing extremist teachers and subversive literature.

Sure, teachers will most probably have their own political beliefs. But, I find it hard to believe that any educator who truly understands ‘education’ will unwittingly crucify a student who expresses an opinion that differs to their own beliefs. In fact, in my own experience, all of my teachers have encouraged free thought and expression, with one rule only: back up your argument. Unfortunately for Dr Lopez can’t seem to do this.

If the political bias truly does exist in the education system, then I doubt it is anywhere near the level that Dr Lopez will have us believe. However, I suspect that he may be a tutor to avoid if political bias is not your major. Especially if this is one of his convictions:

 “Like the characters Winston Smith and Julia in George Orwell’s classic anti-totalitarian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, students with non-Left views need to learn to outwardly conform to inwardly remain free.”

Hm, okay, does this mean you’ve already claimed this text then Mark?

The attire assault continues…

Clem's Dress

Despite having no law to stipulate dress-codes in a public place in the state of Kentucky, yet another assault on freedom of self-expression, like that of Flint’s, has taken place in a shopping mall.

According to the website Pinoy Showbiz Central, Kimberly Clem, an American college student, has been escorted from the Richmond Mall by a security guard.

Her dress was deemed too revealing and provocative to be worn in public. Ironically, she puchased the dress in that very mall.

This is the latest attack on freedom of expression in America. And as the repression of expression continues, the future of freedom in the nation is called in to question.

Flint, say ‘hello’ to your new sherriff… Joan Rivers.

Criminal or casual?

Fear not citizens of Flint, your streets are now safe. There are no low-slung pants baring boxered bottoms to harm you any longer. Forget about the exceedingly high rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault and robbery in yours, one of America’s most dangerous cities. These can be addressed after the more serious, attire related, issues are tackled.

David Dicks, the new police chief of Flint, Michigan has imposed a ban on low-riding pants. He deems donning this attire to be ‘immoral self expression’ . Failure to adhere to the ban may result in a fine, full-body search or arrest. Admittedly, the thought of wearing pants below your behind is quite ridiculous. But, the idea that what people choose to wear on a daily basis can be governed by the State blatantly contradicts the Star-Spangled Banner ‘land of the free’ ideology.

Flint is not the first town, nor Michigan the first state in America whose leaders have attempted to impose these dress codes on their people. Louisiana, Georgia, Missouri, Virginia and Atlanta (mostly states with a high percentage of African-American people) have each endeavored to rid the streets of the baggy pant trend. Why, this dress-code dilemma has become so relevant that even Dr Phil has weighed in on the issue.

Unsurprisingly, most media commentary on the pants ban, such as Allan Miller’s Sp!ked-Online article, has generally ridiculed this prohibition of self-expression. The low-pants epidemic may be a crime deserving of the highest punishment, but only in trashy magazines or if it is inflicted by Joan Rivers on the red carpet. If low riding jeans are repressed, then what will follow? Stripes and spots? Fluro? Freedom of speech?

In a town that quite clearly has other criminal issues to focus on, why waste police resources hindering a freedom ( in a ‘free country’ ) that preceding generations have fought so hard for?

Religion in Politics: exercise or exorcise?

Bobby Jindal

Before he quashed the guesswork about the future of his political career, Bobby Jindal caused a blip in the Republican’s radar in the lead-up to the American presidential election. He has highlighted how the Church can influence affairs involving the State and the People, which begs the question: what role does religion really play in politics?

As John McCain is yet to choose his vice-president running mate for the election, speculation in The New York Times about who the chosen one might be pointed – albeit briefly – toward Jindal. At 37 years-of-age (which is near infancy in political years), this Indian-American is the current governor of Louisiana and has been elected as a member of the U.S House of Representatives. Born and raised a Hindu, he has since converted to Christianity, the religion with the strongest following in the States. He is a man with great potential you might say.

But alas, in late July Jindal announced that he would not be running for vice-president of the Republican Party. Although, this was not before his 1994 essay detailing the events of an exorcism of his friend – which he participated in – surfaced for public scrutiny. The controversy of this essay lies with Christian law allowing only bonafied exorcists to perform the ritual, and only in the most dire circumstances.

His actions may have broken holy decree over a decade ago, but I am inclined to think that whatever his religious beliefs and actions are and may have been, his political beliefs should be the decider of his suitability to lead such a powerful Western country. Some responses to his essay give thanks to him for his honestly and willingness to share the details of the ritual with the public. Other responses have been rather adverse. This is one of the latter…

Whether or not his essay, and the public’s vehement response to it, lead to Jindal’s renouncing of the VP speculation, David Corn’s suggestion on Mother Jones that he should be required to openly discuss his religious beliefs and practices with the general public poses the question: to what extent can a public figure keep something sacred….well, sacred? And just how much can these sacred beliefs influence a politician’s popularity?

Religion may provide hope and sanctity to those who believe – much like a good policy for a party member in an election battle. But, I suggest the relationship between the two should remain as such: the holy as the water and the politics as the oil. This way they can meet in the same bottle of ideology, but fully never combine to corrupt the status quo.