CONTEMPLATING THE ANNIVERSARY - MARCH 12, 2004
As we approach the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, my thoughts go back to the litany of lies and propaganda we were treated to this time last year, and to the U.S.A.'s blatant rejection of world opinion in favour of war. We have seen the ostensible justifications for this war proven wrong, time and time again. We have seen, since George W. Bush's ostentatioous pronouncement of the "...END OF MAJOR HOSTILITIES..." that the U.S.A. had no realistic expectation of how this war would proceed, no idea how it would end, and certainly no idea how to maintain control over the country after the easy part (the invasion) was over. Which points up the real problem, namely, that the U.S.A. had no business being there in the first place!The Bush administration seems to have no clue how other cultures operate. What's worse is that they appear to have no clue that they have no such clue. No notion that others might not necessarily wish to adopt American "culture". It's that kind of (or rather lack of) thinking that's brought them to this current morass in the Middle East. Nothing in that part of the world is going according to P.N.A.C. (the Project for a New American Century) plans, and Bush & Co. must be beginning to despair of a solution. What has all their "intelligence" about the Middle East got them? The World Trade Center tragedy - to the extent, of course, that they weren't more directly involved. A nation that is on "high alert" when nothing's happening, and occasionally switches to "extreme alert" (when there's still nothing happening) in order to more thoroughly shoot itself in the foot. A nation prepared to duct-tape itself into asphyxiation. A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and a terrorist lurking around every corner.
The U.S.A. has caused monstrous and entirely needless damage to international relations, and not only to its own. By marginalizing and demonizing (not to mention terrifying) Muslims around the world, peace is jeopardized in many places, not just on the mighty shores of Manhattan. We all see now how easily world opinion can be flagrantly ignored by those with the biggest weapons and the most media control. While Britain and Spain joined the "Coalition of the Willing" they may well regret that choice soon. I believe the U.S.A. could and would have gone ahead with the invasion alone, and now the British and Spanish governments have alienated their own electorates and the world community. And, for what? So Spain can now wonder if terrorist bombings on their soil are related to the Iraq War? So Britons can eye their own Muslim population with suspicion? So both nations can count on the White House to come through next time they need help? Yeah, right!
Countries that might have joined the Coalition, but chose not to have been ostracized by the U.S.A. and now are asked to contribute, diplomatically and financially to the rebuilding of Iraq. Yet we are all paying, and will continue to pay for America's reckless endangerment of the world. Canada occupies a special position. Having galled the Bush administration by refusing to join the coalition, we will probably try to atone by signing on to the Missile Defence Initiative, a plan with perhaps even scarier long-term implications for world peace.
And what of the Middle East itself, the supposed beneficiary of this invasion. Has the lot of one person in the region been improved? Ahmed Chalabi, perhaps. The owners of Al Jazeera. Speaking of Chalabi, he and his cronies were the source of a lot of the "intelligence" upon which the U.S.A. relied in going to war. His response to the news that xxx, the Chief U.S. weapons inspector, now doubts that Weapons of Mass Destruction existed in Iraq prior to the invasion? Essentially, Chalabi says: "So what? We did the right thing for the wrong reasons!"
Iraqis who oppose American occupation face insurmountable weapons with hair triggers, in the itchy-fingered hands of nervous GIs. Iraqis who support the Americans become targets of their own countrymen. Iraqi women and children are killed accidentally(?) for failing to respond appropriately to a road block. Iraqi women are killed intentionally for doing laundry for American administrators. Those who take no side wait nervously in the middle and hope to offend no-one. Interest groups jockey for position as the Bush administration discovers, at the cost of untold lives, that importing American-style democracy to other nations is not necessarily easy or desirable.
Will the U.S.A. pull the plug, cut its losses and abort this failed experiment in "diplomacy" and ersatz empire-building. No. The financial empire-building by Corporate America thrives in the Middle East, and will continue to do so as long as the loss of American lives remains tolerable. Given the way in which this war is being fought, Vietnam-style American casualties are unlikely. Therefore, Halliburton, Raytheon and the like are apt to hang in there for the long run. George W. Bush and his P.N.A.C. cronies will doubtless help them. This must be stopped!
DECLARING A TRUCE IN THE WAR ON DRUGS
"The first casualty when war comes is truth."Hiram Johnson
Now that there is another war to occupy our attention and ever-dwindling resources, perhaps this is an opportune moment to re-examine the so-called "War on Drugs". This intentional misnomer (brought to you by the late king of spin, Richard M. Nixon) begins the entire maelstrom of hypocrisy and propaganda. There is no "War on Drugs", there is only a war against people.
As with any war, the poor are the first and longest-suffering victims. Not because the rich use fewer drugs, but because they are better able to buy "legitimate" prescriptions and drugs, are less likely to be accosted or investigated by police, and are less likely to be punished harshly if and when apprehended.
Legislators and their families and friends tend to be among the rich, unmolested drug users, and have little need to ameliorate drug laws, and therefore little inclination to take the courageous steps (and face the inevitable onslaught from various ivory towers) required to craft a realistic drug policy focused on harm reduction rather than prohibition rhetoric.
Drug use, of one kind or another, has been around since time immemorial, in virtually all societies. The current amount of drug use is astounding (especially if one includes, along with pharmaceuticals, such drugs as alcohol and nicotine) and we increasingly become hypocrites by accepting and echoing the philosophy that drug use is the root of most, if not all, evil. It is our collaborative silence in the face of criminalization of largely innocuous behaviour which is truly evil. We appear to have abandoned the "harm" principle of crime and punishment, namely that he who does no-one else harm ought not to be harmed himself. Certainly, crimes committed as a result of or in order to support drug consumption can and should be appropriately punished. However, it is wrong and counter-productive to criminalize the use or possession of the drug itself.
For 30-odd years this war has taxed our police, legal, correctional, and social welfare systems to an extent which is truly alarming, creating staggering fiscal costs and inestimable human costs. Yet most western governments, without the slightest bit of proof to back them, continue to successfully spout the rhetoric that the "War on Drugs" is noble and necessary and that victory is just around the corner. This despite incontrovertible proof from other nations that the war aggravates the very harm it seeks to prevent.
This "War on Drugs" will fail for the same basic reason that its forefather, the 1920's American prohibition of alcohol failed. If demand exists, it will be fed. History has shown that prohibition can temporarily disrupt but never stop the supply of illicit substances. Drug use has seen a steady increase in spite of huge increases in government expenditures to stop the flow of drugs. Ironically, those jurisdictions with the harshest drug penalties tend also to have the highest levels of drug use.
Alcohol prohibition in the U.S.A. was finally repealed because enough concerned citizens were able to compare the relative calm of 1920 (when alcohol was legal) with the various monsters prohibition had created by 1933.
Because society has no living memory of non drug-prohibition days (marijuana, for example, has been illegal almost 80 years) a comparison of prohibition versus more liberal access is unavailable. This lack of a reference point, coupled with mainstream reluctance to rationally discuss drugs, makes government propaganda eminently saleable.
Government rhetoric, always best taken with a grain of salt, becomes especially suspect in the case of drugs. Because they are the only branch of officialdom with any supposedly licit knowledge of drugs, the propaganda is largely dictated by the police. Police, of course, have a large vested interest in the War on Drugs. Drug prosecutions represent a significant proportion of police work. If drugs are legalized, a significant number of police risk becoming redundant. This has led to the conundrum of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police endorsing decriminalization of marijuana while the rank and file Canadian Police Association objects. A cynic might suspect the rank and file officers fear lay-offs while the Chiefs (and the public) would like to see an undisturbed number of police focus on more serious crime.
One of the greatest propaganda tricks of the "War" is to make the drug synonymous with the crime created by its prohibition. Take, as an example, the recent plight of Quebec farmers. They have complained that biker gangs plant marijuana in their corn fields. The bikers then pay an ominous visit to announce their return at harvest time and to promise dire consequences upon the farmer and family if the plants are reported or tampered with. The authorities point to this as a "marijuana problem". That's tantamount to decrying kidnapping as a "child problem". It is, in fact, an organized crime and extortion problem. The only viable path to preventing such crime is to decriminalize the currency and thus deny any significant financial incentive to those prepared risk production and/or sale. Sure, an inevitable illegal market will exist along with a state monitored official market, and drug trafficking will become the kind of relatively insignificant problem that bootlegging of alcohol currently presents.
The War on Drugs has not achieved even a scintilla of success in its avowed goal, the reduction of drug use. It has caused a myriad of negative effects, including loss of life, injuries, stronger and more dangerous drugs (higher potencies equate into higher profits), widespread political and police corruption, disrespect for the law (an inescapable result of enforcement of a law largely disobeyed), inappropriate punishment, untold financial expense (to individuals and society collectively) and the branding of many harmless people as "criminals".
In the name of its crusade, the U.S.A. (through Nixon's brainchild, the Drug Enforcement Administration) has supported political regimes only to do a 180 degree about face when the (American-fuelled) corruption of those regimes is exposed. It has devastated (physically, culturally and politically) large areas of the world. It appears to be prepared to forfeit the civil liberties upon which it was founded, reluctantly within its own borders, and enthusiastically in countries which fail to toe Uncle Sam's policy line. The U.S.A. has, both candidly and covertly, denied foreign aid to otherwise deserving nations whose drug prohibition enforcement efforts were not up to D.E.A. standards.
The U.S.A. has demonstrated it has no qualms whatsoever about spraying deadly herbicides and poisons over fields and homes in other nations. Such programs benefit the military and the chemical industry. Many innocent drug users in Canada and the U.S. were poisoned by paraquat sprayed on marijuana by the D.E.A. One shudders to think how toxic it must have been to the Mexican farmers.
If, knowing the poison will end up in American lungs, the U.S.A. will spray fields in Columbia and Mexico, can it be long until they do so in Canada and, finally, in their own country? Can we be so naive as to think they will draw an arbitrary line when it comes to our Country? This generation's "shot heard 'round the world" will be George W. Bush's cry that your either "with us or agin' us"! If the Americans continue to prosecute the "War on Drugs" (which appears likely) Canada will ultimately be told by the D.E.A. and White House to crack down on marijuana growers, failing which they'll come in and do it for us. If we don't formulate our own drug policy now, we're likely to be bullied into accepting American policy when that ultimatum comes.
As a matter of course, the War on Drugs necessitates police intrusions on civil liberties. In order to investigate a "crime" that routinely takes place in private between consenting adults (the purchase, sale or use of drugs) the police must be given powers to invade that privacy. In the name of this "War" society tolerates a battery of investigative techniques (wiretapping, strip-searches, the use of paid "snitches", etc.) which are offensive to our basic notions of civil liberty. We trust our police to use these extensive powers rationally and honestly. And what do police do with that sacred trust? At best, throw their weight around. At worst, go into the drug business themselves.
Police officers, by and large, love drug work as it provides a flashy, television-style environment which appears dangerous but is, in reality, relatively safe. The vast majority of drug offences investigated by the police expose them to nothing more dangerous than a car-load of cowed and paranoid teenagers. Drug work permits bullyish police to bully, and greedy police to steal.
We are all victims of this "War on Drugs", when one considers the colossal and unwarranted cost of prosecuting it. Users of illegal drugs must be (and usually are) willing to pay the additional price of being overt targets in this war. Public attitudes have changed to the point that most people now feel users of "soft" drugs shouldn't risk criminal prosecution.
Having reached this point in the drug use debate public support often flounders over the thorny issue of treatment of producers and the ever-nefarious "dealer". One can argue it is hypocritical to continue a war against the producers of such illegal drugs, when the general (and generally accepted) demand for those drugs makes those people guilty of nothing more than capitalism. This is not a popular position. That particular debate is academic since, in the face of state-controlled distribution, such activities will become insignificant. The answer is to recognize that safe and careful distribution must take place, and to regulate that activity.
Almost all "drug-related crimes" are caused not by use of the drug per se but by the illegality of the drug. When drugs are prohibited, they become the domain of criminals. As a result, they are untested, untaxed, and potentially unsafe. Disputes between rival suppliers are more likely to be resolved (as in alcohol Prohibition days) by liquidation rather than litigation. If an inescapable industry is not legally controlled, it will be illegally controlled.
In nations where drug use is decriminalized or tolerated, drug "offences" are, of course, almost non-existent. The amount of drug use might see a slight and temporary increase, but is largely unaffected and ultimately likely lower. The health and productivity of drug users is vastly improved. Drug overdose deaths are almost unheard of. Contrast this with the overdose deaths which routinely occur in our prohibitionist society, and are poignant reminders that this truly is a "War".
Not only drug crimes drop when drug policies are liberalized. Overall crime rates are generally lower, and prison populations per capita are staggeringly lower. In spite of this clear evidence authorities continue to sell the myth that toleration of drug use leads to increased drug use and increased crime. In fact, the exact opposite has been demonstrated. Past experience, and also the limited studies available (governments are reluctant to fund or facilitate research likely to repudiate their avowed policies) consistently show that harsher restrictions on drugs result in increased, not decreased use.
As a convenient excuse for failure to consider lessened restrictions, our legislators point to commitments Canada has made to drug interdiction in various International Conventions and Treaties. This is palpable nonsense. Belgium, the Netherlands and other nations with relaxed drug laws are also signatories. They have shown the courage to buck Uncle Sam's policies and have been, for the most part, left alone because they don't share a large (and largely unprotected) border with the U.S.A. Canada's medical marijuana regime shows the alleged treaty impediment is a red herring. Our government is to be applauded for going that far but should go further.
Canada has at various times flexed its sovereignty and threatened to formulate its own drug policy (remember the LeDain Commission?) but has consistently backed down to American pressure. Like most Western nations, we have harmed our own citizens and interests rather than offend Uncle Sam. It's time for this to stop. Canada has not only the ability but the obligation to demonstrate to the world that the Americans do not dictate drug policy for other sovereign nations. If we show this courage, it will not take long for others to follow, especially with European nations already in the lead.
Prohibition assumes we are a bunch of moral paupers who need legislation to make our choices about potentially dangerous things for us. This is ludicrous. We make such choices for ourselves (with the potential to impact on others) every time we open a package of cigarettes or start a car or walk across a busy highway. Those of us prone to languish in a permanent drug-induced stupour can already do so using any number of legal and readily available intoxicants. Most of us are not so inclined, and the number of those who are does not depend upon the drug choices available to them. Easy access to drugs doesn't turn us into a society of drug addicts any more than easy access to alcohol creates runaway alcoholism.
If society genuinely wishes to reduce the harm created by drug use, it must first accept that drug use always has and always will exist. Second, minimize the harm inherent in the inevitable drug use of the moment. Third, stop attempting to cut off supply. That is a mug's game. Instead, focus on treatment and education which are, dollar for dollar, vastly more effective than interdiction in reducing drug use.
The answers will not be quick or easy or without controversy. Eighty years of prohibition can not and should not be dismantled without careful deliberation. The daunting nature of the task ahead ought not, however, to delay a start. We have daily shot ourselves in the proverbial foot in this war. It's time to stop fighting.
BRAVO, BRAZIL!
HOISTING THE U.S.A. ON ITS OWN STAR-SPANGLED PETARD
On a similar note, a drunken American tourist was recently arrested, held and then summarily deported after throwing a cup of water in the face of a crying Brazilian baby on a flight from Miami to Sao Paulo. His departure from Brazil was delayed only because of difficulty finding an American airline willing to take him home.
Brazilian legislators enacted the identification requirement (which applies only to visitors from the U.S.A.) to conform to a federal court ruling issued in December, 2003. A Brazilian judge decided, on the internationally recognized diplomatic principle of reciprocity, that American visitors to Brazil should be subject to the same identification procedures as a Brazilian traveler would encounter on entry to the U.S.A.
The recently-implemented USA-VISIT program requires that all foreign nationals entering the country be photographed and fingerprinted. Passport holders from 27 countries (including, for the moment, Canada but excluding Brazil) are exempt. As the U.S.A. implements further requirements over time (such as biometric and machine-readable passports) more nations will lose their exempt status. In the name of security, and in the guise of patriotism, American xenophobia will alienate, ostracize and marginalize an ever-greater proportion of the world's population. Ironically, since the World Trade Centre terrorists made their clumsy way into the U.S.A. without detection, perhaps other nations can advance a legitimate interest in giving extra scrutiny to visitors from "Stateside".
Granted, initial Brazilian customs delays of up to nine hours were inappropriate but soon, using American technological know-how, the wait for U.S. visitors was reduced and made comparable to that which foreign nationals face on entry to the U.S.A. So what's wrong with that? Quite simply, America won't tolerate being treated like just any other nation, and certainly won't accept the same treatment it dishes out to others.
The response of the Bush administration has been confusing. Initial support for Brazil's "tough on terrorism" stance quickly turned to cries of discrimination and threats of reduced tourism once enough Yankee complaints made it home. The principle of reciprocity doesn't seem to ring any bells in the White House.
Some Brazilians are worried about the loss of American tourist dollars, some incensed at Washington's perceived hypocrisy. Many are mindful of the hurdles Brazilians face in obtaining visas to visit the U.S. and the treatment their country has so far received in "free trade" negotiations.
Predictably, the Americans minimize their own blame both individually and globally. Both men convicted of giving the finger to customs officials claimed the gesture was meant as a "joke". An embarrassing confession, indeed. You'd think grown men would be ashamed to admit to such a limited and juvenile sense of humour. The drunken airline passenger claimed he'd "spilled" the water in the baby's face, yet his sober fellow passengers had to be restrained from beating him up. Colin Powell says American citizens are being unfairly discriminated against when they are merely being treated to a dose of their own medicine. The Brazilian president has offered to drop his country's restrictions on American tourists if the U.S. will do the same. America will likely decline and stick to its double standards.
For the crime of showing disrespect to customs officers, the two Americans were levied fines of US$13,000.00 and $17,000.00 respectively. Brazil is to be congratulated again for its playful snook at the Americans, hitting them hard in the place they understand best - the wallet.
As he was led to jail (with a decidedly simian look on his face) New Jersey resident Douglas A. Skolnick protested: "I'm an American citizen. I'm not a monkey." As if the two groups were mutually exclusive!
Rick Reimer, February 2004.
WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO HELL IN NOW?
As the saying went, back in the olden days, people could only go ",,,to hell in a handbasket..."Now, thanks to the marvels of modern technology, we have many, many more choices available to us. We can:
GO TO HELL IN A HIERARCHY
It happened to Lady Di, it happened to Edward Kennedy, it happened to the Bush twins (notice how the media don't mention those oh-so-fashionable girls much any more?), and it can happen to you.
GO TO HELL WITH A HEDONIST
Now that everyone's admitting the lustful longings that Queen Victoria had us deny, everyone's ready to climb aboard the "Club-Med" train and let debauchery be their guide to heaven. Unfortunately, you can't get there from here, and you end up in hell.
GO TO HELL IN A HAPPENING
Remember happenings? They happened back in the sixties and seventies when people had to actually be in the same place to meet. Happenings don't happen anymore. They've been replaced by the Internet.
GO TO HELL WITH A HAND-HELD CELL-PHONE
The batteries in close proximity to our brains may or may not be giving us cancer. That's debatable. There's no doubt, however, that the culture of "why bother living? - do it over the cell-phone!" will slowly kill us. Unfortunately, we'll give them up as we do cigarettes. "As soon as I finish this last pack of user minutes..."
GO TO HELL IN A HARD-DRIVE
Memories don't really exist anymore either. They've been replaced by hard-drives which can take you to hell in a dozen different formats at one time.
GO TO HELL IN A HAMAS HEADQUARTERS
The many locations of Hamas Headquarters vary, depending on who in the Israeli Defence Force you ask. An American-made Apache helicopter can take out dozens of these headquarters in a day - especially if they're cleverly disguised as densely-packed little homes. Lots of Palestinians go to hell (which may, comparatively-speaking, be heaven) in this way.
GO TO HELL WITH A HAMBURGER
If you're not worried about Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, you probably haven't tried to spell it lately. Even Ronald McDonald has seen the writing on the wall and has introduced salads.
GO TO HELL WITH HIS HOLINESS
Pope John Paul II has just become the third-longest serving Pope in history, dozing as he rules. Hallelujah! Welcome back to the twelfth century, Catholics!
GO TO HELL IN A HOCKEY GAME
Similar to 12th-century Catholicism, with slightly less violence, and slightly higher salaries. Now that a heated environment and cold alcoholic beverages are available, it's a comfortable way to go to hell.
GO TO HELL IN A HILFIGER
Perhaps the most ubiquitous and disturbing fashion logo on the face of the planet. Tommy Hilfiger says that he wouldn't have made his clothing designs, had he known that black people would covet them. Ironically, Tommy's racism seems not to harm his sales to any race! Go figger!
GO TO HELL IN HANDCUFFS
In our modern ZERO-TOLERANCE world, innocuous protesters worldwide are being arrested, abused and even KILLED (remember Genoa?) for simply stating a non-mainstream opinion. Our tax dollars at work.
GO TO HELL IN HIGHSCHOOL
Despite having more and more "things" to play with, our youth become more and more disillusioned and distanced. Many teenagers won't look an adult in the eyes these days. We have to reach out to our youth with something other than handcuffs.
GO TO HELL IN A HELICOPTER
Worked great for lots of American soldiers in Vietnam. Now every W.T.O. and I.M.O. meeting needs riot squads and a phalanx of helicopters just to keep the protesters at a distance. Does this mean that most ordinary people have turned into ruthless political assassins, or does it mean that most politicians have turned into loathsome miscreants? You be the judge!
GO TO HELL IN A HILTON
The finest American-style hotels now abound in most major international centres, along with their indispensable accoutrements, K.F.C., McDonald's and the like. Is it any wonder that most people, while they buy into this, know just how lame it is! Time to stop buying.
GO TO HELL ON THE HALF-SHELL
Oysters. The favourite of the guys below when staying in the hotels above. Believed to be an aphrodisiacal way to go to hell.
GO TO HELL WITH HAIR IMPLANTS
Once the ultimate in male vanity, now small change in the world of Botox injections, Viagra and personal trainers.
GO TO HELL ON A HARLEY-DAVIDSON
The favourite of men in mid-life crisis. I know. I've been there. Also used to be the ultimate in male vanity.
GO TO HELL WITH HALLIBURTON
Sounds so appropriate for Cheney and his pipeline chums, doesn't it?
GO TO HELL ON A HANDSHAKE
Alas, nobody seems to do business on a handshake anymore. The Devil wants everything in triplicate. Hell, even the American Mafia have to hire hoodlums from Sicily in order get a few they can trust!
GO TO HELL IN A HOOKAH
In spite of the U.S.A.'s ever-escalating WAR ON DRUGS, many of us seem intent on continued use of so-called "soft" drugs. Well, don't say Nancy Reagan didn't warn you!
GO TO HELL WITH A HANDGUN
Nancy wasn't quite so concerned with these. After all, every American is entitled to carry a gun, even if they're not allowed to carry a spliff or an original thought!
GO TO HELL WITH HEMORRHOIDS
If all the assholes in government aren't giving you a pain...
GO TO HELL IN A HOLOGRAM
The way technology is going these days, we'll soon be able to send our holographic image to hell for us to, you know, scout it out!
GO TO HELL IN A HUMMER
Lots of American soldiers did it in Iraq ("I knew I should have turned left at Albukirkuk!"). Arnold Schwartzenegger could do it half a dozen times, AND NEVER HAVE TO USE THE SAME VEHICLE TWICE!!!
GO TO HELL IN A HURRY?!?!
Let's try to slow things down, right here, righr now!
Rick Reimer - March 14, 2004.
I HAVE A NIGHTMARE
Profound apologies to the Right Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Firstly, for bastardizing his inspirational phrase. Secondly, because humanity has made so little progress, since Dr. King's passing, in achieving his goal of equality for all men. Thirdly, because that lack of progress has, for the most part, been caused by the conduct of the U.S.A., the nation he hoped would evolve into a "symphony of brotherhood".I have a nightmare. It is a nightmare of war. A war waged in the face of overwhelming opposition from most of the world's citizens. A war fought in spite of eloquent pleas for peace from statesmen, religious leaders, and public and private citizens alike. A war in which arguments as to morality, legality, or even efficacy fall upon deaf ears. A war which is likely to destroy whatever little progress the world has made toward creating an international community and a global code of conduct. The United Nations and our prized Geneva Convention may be the first victims, but they won't be the last.
I have a nightmare. It is a nightmare of war. A war in which people become "targets of opportunity" or, even worse, "collateral damage". A war in which an entire nation is subjected to a "shock and awe" campaign (aka: blitzkrieg) in order to punish one man. A war in which a people already embattled, beleaguered and impoverished are being further pummelled in their own name.
I have a nightmare. It is a nightmare of war. A war whose ostensible justification has shifted, like the sands of the desert, from disarmament to regime change to combatting international terrorism to liberation of the Iraqi people. A war whose propriety is touted based upon the G.D.P. of those nations which endorse it, as if wealth denoted morality. A war in which the aggressor makes false claims of support by including, in its "Coalition of the Willing" countries such as Canada, France and Germany, which have clearly distanced themselves and countries such as Micronesia, whose "willingness" is of questionable tangible value.
I have a nightmare. It is a nightmare of war. A war in which catch-phrases and gruesomely ironic euphemisms permit us to discuss death and destruction in antiseptic, technical terms. A war in which suffering is glossed over by our puerile fascination with maps and crosshairs and technology. A war to glorify "precision-guided munitions" as some modern-day marvel, and ignore the fact they are still killing machines, still and sadly only a new version of one of the oldest tools of mankind. A war in which bombs can be smart or dumb or even "friendly". A war in which U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld can say, with a completely straight face: "You should see the care and humanity that goes into precision bombing!" And while such doublespeak garners praise, the sensible words of true patriots are drowned out by the Oscar theme music, one of America's great opiates, in a frenzied effort to avoid sullying Hollywood's narcissistic party night.
I have a nightmare. It is a nightmare of war. A war in which the military, along with its sycophantic "embedded" cohorts obscure and distort the truth. A war founded upon, waged and publicized with hypocrisy. A war in which the Cyclops has been replaced by Psyops and spin doctors are more useful than medics. A war in which we receive more and more information but, as in all wars, less and less truth.
I have a nightmare. It is a nightmare of war. A war predicated upon double standards. A war in which rules remain only when they suit the strong. Where the relative strengths of the two sides are so disparate, one leader is branded a lunatic madman for urging his countrymen to resist. A war in which ordinary Iraqi citizens who understandably defend their country from attack are accused of committing war crimes by secreting their military status. A war in which the aggressor purports to dictate the manner in which the victim is permitted to resist. A war in which one side gleefully televises to the world what it chooses, and then lambastes the other for doing likewise. A war in which the aggressor complains the invaded has put in place human shields, but proceeds with needless bombing nonetheless.
I have a nightmare. It is a nightmare of war. A war waged in the hope that victory will prove a point, in the manner of children engaging in schoolyard fights. Where General Tommy Franks says that if the Iraqis use weapons of mass destruction: "We Win!" In the same breath he reminds us that the U.S.A.'s only ambition is to liberate the Iraqi people. A war in which the innocents can expect brutality from all sides, secure in the knowledge that those who survive will finally be free.
I have a nightmare. It is a nightmare of war. It is the nightmare of the Iraqi child listening to bombs fall around her home. It is the nightmare of the Iraqi mother wondering how to protect her children from whatever danger may come in the future. It is the nightmare that was the last vision of the Iraqi soldier bombed while waving a white flag made to U.S. specifications. The slow motion nightmare of his death hurtling from above, while he checks his air-dropped pamphlet to see why his surrender isn't acceptable. If only one of his "liberators" had dared come close enough to see his flag.
I have a nightmare. It is a nightmare of war. A war which also has its moments of black humour. After all, when was the last time an American President was photographed hugging a Spanish President? Who can escape the humour of the U.S.A.'s proud announcement of a "successful pre-dawn vertical insertion" or the image of lawyers consulting with pilots about proposed targets or scrambling to file the first wartime lawsuit against Iraq? Who can fail to see the comic irony of America's beloved Oscar party stultified by heightened security, when the feature film is entitled "Prisoner of Paradise?"
I don't always have nightmares. Like Dr. King, I also have a dream. It is a dream of world peace.
Rick Reimer
Killaloe, Ont.
DO WE NEED A "PATRIOT ACT" IN CANADA?
"ANYONE WHO WILL TRADE LIBERTY FOR SECURITY DESERVES NEITHER..."Benjamin Franklin.
The Faustian bargain of "liberty for security" has been dangled before mankind since time immemorial. Usually, though, the incremental trade-offs have come in much smaller doses. Never, until Bill C-36, have Canadians been asked for such a colossal surrender of civil rights in exchange for some undetermined quantity of safety. Never before has a society been so unequivocally, overwhelmingly and candidly invited to dance with the devil.
We seem to labour under the misapprehension that the candour of the offer denies the Devil as author, and our democratic system will ensure we remain Masters of our own Destinies. We forget that the greatest trick the Devil ever played was to convince the world he didn't exist!
We should all be concerned and vigilant that our own input into the proposed bargain is heard. If ever there were a decision that one may (and, I submit, must) keep to oneself, it is whether, and for how much, to sell one's soul.
It is alarming in the extreme that the current Government had the effrontery (allegiance to George Bush?) to limit debate on this important issue. The Liberal majority appears bent upon quick passage, and any semblance of debate is merely a charade. What on Earth is the hurry? Can anyone truly believe that speedy reform of our immigration or wiretap laws is the key to preventing aircraft from striking the CN Tower? That some arbitrary Christmas deadline ought to dictate our behaviour?
The civil rights which Bill C-36 seeks to limit are the very cornerstone of the treasured democracy which put our parliamentarians in power. Having won an election, they should not then dismantle or even significantly alter that very democratic system , without probing and sober debate, based upon as much input as the system can reasonably accomodate.
The conduct of our current federal government, since taking power in 1993, speaks of a frightening metamorphosis in their definition of democracy. It now appears that we, the people, are invited to:
a) vote freely when our representatives decide to call an election,
b) accept gracefully the decisions made in our name until the next election, and;
c) in the meantime, keep our mouths shut!
When such a startling abrogation of our civil rights as Bill C-36 is threatened, one would expect the opposition to step into the fray to rationally debate the rights issues, not simply to attack the "Liberal" origins of the bill. Instead, the various opposition parties appear to be determining their respective responses on the basis of political expediency, rather than any zeal to protect democratic rights. Regrettably, the Alliance Party, far from supporting civil rights, instead suggests Bill C-36 does not go far enough in its "anti-terrorism" provisions!
Justice Minister Anne McLellan appears to have successfully outlasted, without answering, the few realistic opposition criticisms, such as questions about why provisions totally unrelated to "terrorism" appear in the Bill. I have scoured the news in vain for answers.
I applaud the Liberal backbenchers who had the courage to speak out against the "closure" motion and I hope their resolve to protect democracy will see them oppose final passage of the bill as currently drafted. It may now be that only the Senate can prevent the Bill becoming law. I hope "...sober second thought..." is more than a motto in this instance.
The recent trend towards criminalization and suppression of dissent (as demonstrated in Quebec City - April 2001, Ottawa - November 2001, etc.) shows that the state can, without significant fear of repercussion, severely restrict our activities in practice, regardless of any violation of our theoretical civil rights. Does it behoove the people now to increase those state powers even further? And then, heaping insult upon injury, to permit the state to determine when and to what extent their actions should remain secret?! We appear to be falling into the Orwellian trap of believing that the state, rather than administering the law, becomes the law.
Proponents of Bill C-36 suggest that "normal" Canadians won't run afoul of our new laws, and therefore have nothing to fear. In fact, in an ironic twist, those who espouse government candour are now themselves suspected of having some hidden personal agenda. I thought the definition of "normal" conduct (ie - what can I do without fear of state interference?) was defined by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and not by the whim of the government of the day.
The amount of "soul" (ie - personal liberty) we offer to Lucifer in Bill C-36 is, in my opinion, monumental, and mandates a microscopic examination of exactly how much safety we're likely to get in the bargain. I defy anyone to persuade me that what is written in Ottawa (and the speed with which it is written) will protect us from anything or anyone! Only with introspection, education, acceptance, discussion and tolerance will we keep ourselves safe. Un monde juste - seul chemin vers le paix.
Mr. Chretien, get thee behind me!
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
These things I firmly believe. I may be right and I may be wrong but I am genuine in my despair for the fate of mankind.The general malaise of our society can, in my opinion, be discerned by a quick perusal of the first section of any mainstream newspaper. One needn't stoop to television-viewing to be loudly and convincingly struck by the hollowness of our collective soul. As an example, I take the December 18 edition of the Ottawa Citizen.
Fully one-quarter of the front page is taken up by a cutesy, irrelevant photo of yet another Hollywood couple. Tom Green's childhood in Ottawa doesn't, in my opinion, alter his current nationality. We are graced with the knowledge that Green wishes the marriage could have lasted longer than six months. Who on earth thinks this information is front-page news? Can't those who lust after entertainment news be trusted to find the appropriate section?
Below Tom and Drew a photo of John Walker, who is currently the subject of illegal interrogation and is likely to be executed by the self-proclaimed "World's Greatest Democracy". Why? Because he had "...been trained in terrorist exercises in al-Qaeda camps and met Osama bin Laden." Why really? Because the U.S. powers-that-be, having had no real martyrs this War (U.S. casualties have been self-inflicted) ironically believe that brutal and swift retaliation against this young man will somehow create a scapegoat (reverse martyr?) to vindicate U.S. actions. The American public and the rest of the world appear unconcerned that the man has committed no crime and is likely to be killed without even the semblance of due process.
Still on page 1 we learn our own Liberal Senate is limiting debate on Bill C-36, probably the second-most important piece of civil-rights legislation in our history. If passed, it will take first place, as our Charter of Rights and Freedoms will become meaningless. The overwhelming majority of input from Canadian citizens has been against the new anti-terrorism law, but it appears the Senate is concerned only with the opinion of the Liberal majority in the Commons, who scornfully toss the rest of us their definition of our democracy, namely:
a) vote freely when our representatives decide to call an election,
b) accept gracefully the decisions made in our name until the next election, and;
c) in the meantime, keep our mouths shut!
On page 4 we learn of our own Passport Catch-22. Your newborn babe can't leave the country without a passport, and Ontario can't provide the prerequisite birth certificate in less than 6 months. So much for showing off the baby to Nana in Manchester. If the fear is that Junior is a cleverly-disguised bomb, perhaps we could modify the airport sip-test into a suckle-test. If the fear is baby's a terrorist, can't we just take away his diaper-pin?
Page 4 provides welcome news of the remission of an E. coli outbreak, but directly across on page 5 we learn even after the Walkerton tragedy, the Ontario government still can't improve water quality.
Page 6 recounts the attempt by C.S.I.S. to deport a suspected terrorist, and we learn our Immigration Act "...lets the government present its evidence in camera, closed even to the defendant and his lawyer." From whence comes their evidence? Some Egyptian newspaper C.S.I.S. can't even identify, and hasn't even attempted to verify. These are the very people to whom we're about to give more power and from whom we're about to demand less candour?
The same page poses the rhetorical question: "Where's bin Laden?" and poignantly points out that America will forever remain wilfully blind to the reality that the possible capture and/or punishment of "the Evil One" will change absolutely nothing.
Another rhetorical question on page 10, courtesy of Bell Mobility. "Is it better to give than receive? Too close to call." Our endlessly greedy Ma Bell discovers that encouraging greed in others is very good for business.
Can we be surprised that North American society has bred the 19-year-old New Yorker (described on page 12) who took bombs and guns to school to kill teachers and fellow students? His peaceful surrender demonstrates we shouldn't give up hope yet.
The debate over John Ralston Saul's freedom of expression is appropriate and merits its space. At least Citizen readers still show an encouraging diversity of opinion and respect for debate.
The Argument & Observation page, normally to be applauded for relevant debate, gives us today's mandatory dose of "Lord of the Rings". The sad truth is that the heading, "Culture", is probably accurate by today's definition. The glorification of a film whose budget would feed a continent for a week is, perhaps, the ultimate example (until next year's film/baseball salary/recording contract figures) of the obscenity of our society. Get yourself a Hollywood-made mechanical canary, and you needn't worry about air quality in the mine.
Granted, there are good editorials and good news stories also, but they become fewer and farther between. Most importantly, it seems that stories involving the public's relationship with government demonstrate we are increasingly paying employees to become our enemies, yet we do virtually nothing to oppose this. A nation of sheep will inevitably breed a government of wolves. As Jeremy Lott reminds us ("Canada, the 51st state") those wolves have to fight off bigger wolves (Chretien squares off with Bush? - not likely!) or, following the path of least resistance, invite the bigger wolves in.
These are only some of the myriad of societal ills plaguing us now. I genuinely believe most sentient beings yearn for a more fulfilling, less avaristic lifestyle, the trouble is nobody wants to make the first sacrifice. If not me, then who? If not now, then when?