365

http://freethehikers.org/
http://freeourfriends.eu/
Join the Group on Facebook
Follow FreetheHikers on Twitter

Excellent article on the hikers:
Take a Hike: Misconceptions and Machinations Keep Activists Incarcerated in Iran

Boycott Caribana?

I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again. I think they should scrap Caribana.

Before you get all bent out of shape, let me clarify that I don’t mean forever. As a matter of fact, I plan on going to the parade this year. So maybe what I meant was that they should skip Caribana for a year.

I don’t understand how the single largest cultural festival in the city (and the largest street festival in North America), a festival that generated $483 million for the province last year, can consistently struggle to attract funds. $40,000 from the government? Really?!

$400+ million for the province and the organizers have to be taking a 30 percent pay cut and running around looking for $100,000 days before the parade?? Something’s not right.

The government has its reasons for denying funding. They want to spread the cash around so that smaller festivals in smaller cities can get some too. I get that. They denied Pride for the same reason. Their other argument is that both Caribana and Pride are big enough to stand on their own feet and solicit their own funds.

From a Toronto Star editorial:

Neither explanation holds up to scrutiny. Funding was yanked from Caribana and Gay Pride, two major Toronto events. But the Calgary Stampede and the Montreal Jazz Festival are also major events, and they are receiving $1 million and $3 million respectively in federal funding. As for regional balance, the big recipients outside of Toronto remain largely unchanged.

(Personally, I think that Harper wanted to set a precedent whereby he could deny any ‘undesirable’ group and then argue that “the private sector should be stepping in to pick up the slack”, or that “it’s not the government’s job to subsidize the festivals of special interest groups” or some other blah blah blah...)

I do, however, agree that corporations should be kicking something into the pot. At $483 million, it’s clear that they’re getting quite a lot out of it. Years ago I probably would have been against the corporatization of something like Caribana; the idea goes against the very essence of the festival. But let’s face it: it’s already happened and it’s not likely that the tide is going to be turned back. So shouldn’t the companies that stand to make the most money from Caribana be pumping some money into it? Why can’t Enterprise and Budget compete to be the Official Car Sponsor of the parade? Heineken? I’m looking at you… Heh heh heh.

Read through the comments under some of the articles below and it quickly becomes clear that it’s not just the corporations that don’t care so much about Caribana -- except for the money, of course. I’m willing to bet that even the most anti-Caribana commentor would miss some of the services that all those lovely Caribana tax dollars pay for.

So I say walk. It makes no sense to play this game year after year. If the people (and their elected representatives) make it clear that they only want a parasitical relationship with Caribana, then a ‘pause’ should be seriously considered. As much as I love Caribana weekend, I’d be willing to sit one out to show people just how important Caribana is to the City of Toronto.

Anyways, shout out to the sponsors! See y’all on the road!

Links

• Caribana Festival Official Website
• Caribana 2010 Official Sponsors
• Caribana: Cash-strapped, but promises to still deliver
• Toronto gay pride denied federal funds
• Pride Toronto denied federal funding
• Caribana lives despite Ottawa
• Caribana leaders losing sleep before the big parade
• Toronto's Caribana proceeds despite funding cut

Black Russian

Russian Revolution: black man elected to office

I've come across this story a couple of times this week so I figured I'd share it here along with a documentary I caught on TV a couple of months ago.

The Russians love their children too

I saw Sting perform with the Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra on Friday. Absolutely incredible. Before performing ‘Russians’, Sting gave this explanation of its origin:

I imagine like most of you, I was brought up under the shadow of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. In the early Eighties it was a particularly frigid time in the conflict. And at the time I had a friend who was doing research at Columbia University in New York City and he had a piece of technology which doesn’t sound like much nowadays but at the time it was pretty spectacular. He had a machine that could steal the signal from the Russian satellite above the North Pole and we could watch Russian television. So on Saturday night he and I would have a few beers and we’d end up back at the university and climb this little spiral staircase to this tiny attic room at the top of the college. And he’d turn this machine on and low and behold: Russian television! You know it was after midnight in New York City so it’s like 10 in the morning, Sunday morning in Moscow and we were drunk and watching Russian children’ shows. Russian Sesame Street and cartoons and shit like that. But what struck me was how beautifully made these programmes were; with a great deal of love and care and attention. And the obvious logic is that the Russians love their children like we do, which was the basis of détente. The reason we didn’t blow each other up is because all of us had a stake in the future, which was our children.

 

‘Russians’

In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Khrushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It'd be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly of common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us me and you
Is if the Russians love their children too

If you haven’t yet seen The Fog of War, I highly recommend checking it out. As with just about everything, there are lessons for today. I’d say the same goes for Sting’s song. I've included a snippet from The Fog of War below.

Worth checking out:

• The Fog of War (Official Site)
  
  
  
• The Fog of War (Wikipedia Entry)

The Baraq War

From ‘A Problem from Hell’: 

“You don’t want to be Lyndon Johnson, sacrificing your potential for doing good on the domestic front by a destructive, never-ending foreign involvement. It’s the Democrats’ disease to take the same compassion that motivates their domestic policies and let it lure them into heroic but ill-considered foreign wars.” 

– Former political advisor Dick Morris to then-U.S. President Bill Clinton. Morris was advising Clinton against military intervention in Bosnia (the former Yugoslavia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide.

From The Guardian:

"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." 

"If he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan, all right, because everyone who's tried over a thousand years of history has failed?"

– Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele referring to U.S President Barack Obama

From the Washington Post:

Of course, Steele was right from the start. His truth was the larger one, which is that enough time has elapsed so that the war in Afghanistan can be seen as Barack Obama's. It began, as we all know, under the illustrious George W. Bush, who then got distracted by all those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and veered off toward Baghdad. But these are mere details, pesky facts with which we need not concern ourselves. The truth is that Obama found this war on his doorstep, took it in, nursed and even escalated it, and swaddled it in his own clothes: more troops, and still more on the way.

One can appreciate how Steele got his "facts" wrong. It is how possession of the Vietnam War moved from Lyndon Johnson to Richard Nixon even though they both lacked absolute belief in the cause -- whatever exactly that once was. Nixon, in fact, even had a secret plan to end the conflict and was furiously de-escalating, rapidly Vietnamizationing and frantically trying to disentangle himself and the nation from the war. Still, when demonstrators gathered outside the White House, it was not to praise his peace efforts but to denounce him as a warmonger. The rule in all these cases seems pretty apparent: Either end the war or own it.

From A Problem from Hell:

In 1984 President Reagan’s defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, had demanded that armed intervention

1)      Be used only to protect the vital interests of the United States or its allies;

2)      Be carried out wholeheartedly, with the clear intention of winning;

3)      Be in pursuit of clearly defined political and military objectives;

4)      Be accompanied by widespread public and congressional support;

5)      And be waged only as a last resort.

[Colin] Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, […] resurrected this cautious military doctrine and amended it to require a “decisive” force and a clear “exit strategy.” Iraq had eventually threatened U.S. oil supplies, whereas Yugoslavia’s turmoil threatened no obvious U.S. national interests. The war was “tragic,” but the stakes seemed wholly humanitarian. It met very few of the administration’s criteria for intervention.

From 'Violent Politics':

Wars of opinion, [General Antoine Henri] Jomini wrote, come about when one state seeks to propagate its own doctrines or to crush the dogma of another state. He would have placed the current American neoconservative plan forcibly to impose “democracy” on other nations as a war of opinion. It would have horrified him. Such wars, he said, “enlist the worst passions, and become vindictive, cruel and terrible.” They are fearful, he continued, “since the invading force not only is met by the armies of the enemy, but is exposed to the attacks of an exasperated people… History… appears to clearly demonstrate the danger of attacking an intensely-excited nation.” Thus, attack and reprisal without restraint are inevitable.

Perhaps as bad but certainly more problematic are what he call national wars, since the invader has only his army whereas “his adversaries have an army and a people wholly or almost wholly in arms [so that] even the non-combatants have an interest in his ruin and accelerate it by every means in their power.”

From The Guardian:

But even if Steele is a hack, it is worth contemplating whether he may have a point: what started as a specific act of retribution against a terrorist attack on US soil has become an attempt to turn Afghanistan into an at least minimally normal country. By accepting the counterinsurgency plan offered by General Stanley McChrystal (a brave solider whose public relations skills unfortunately rival Steele's), Obama has actually chosen to make Afghan nation-building his war.

 Worth Reading:

• Michael Steele may be right about the war in Afghanistan
• Afghanistan: Barack Obama's war and Michael Steele's truth
• America: hooked on war and getting poorer
• Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism, and Guerrilla War, from the American Revolution to Iraq by William R. Polk
• A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide by Samantha Power

Heather's Pick

I heard from P that Heather Reisman was on the CBC today talking about her campaign to save an Iranian woman from being stoned to death. A noble effort, surely. But I asked if anyone questioned her about Heseg, her lone soldier foundation. The answer was no.

I feel that the CBC dropped the ball on this one. There is a certain hypocrisy that exists when someone portrays them self as a humanitarian; saving a woman's life from the medieval punishment of a brutal regime, and that someone is simultaneously promoting militarism.

She rewards mercenaries with a free education.

The minimum service required before being eligible for a scholarship is 2 years. That means that persons who served in the Gaza war, a war that has been described by numerous human rights organizations as having been excessive and disproportionate; where a UN sponsored report has documented war crimes and crimes against humanity, are being rewarded with scholarships.

I could understand if these persons were defending their homeland. But Heseg is specifically targeting non-Jews and persons with no connection to Israel. This is a recruitment drive for mercenaries.

So excuse me for thinking that Heather should have been made to answer a few questions. If the CBC avoids the tough questions, then the CBC is basically giving Heather a free commercial. Promote what you want to promote, no questions asked.

I'm sorry, but 34 million Canadians have a right to know where the money they spend at Heather's store is ending up. If they know and they still choose to shop there, fine. But a democracy depends on an educated populace. If the CBC doesn't ask those questions, then they've failed Canadians. The CBC mandate is not to protect the interests of the rich.

Pride 2010

“…many heterosexuals supported gay rights when it wasn’t popular. Now that lesbians and gays are empowered, they have a duty to speak for people who need a voice. You’re obliged to help others who need it.”

From an article in the Globe and Mail:

As the parade neared its start, Meir Weinstein, the national director of the Jewish Defence League, marched down the block to stand in front of the idle contingent from Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. With a Bluetooth in his ear and a rainbow flag draped over his shoulder, he waved his Israeli flag at the group – who were only recently permitted to march after parade organizers lifted an earlier ban.

“This is a provocation,” yelled one of the member of QuAIA. The two challenged each other about how many of their members of their respective groups were homosexual. 

“You are like a fly in my ear,” Mr. Weinstein replied.

After a very public battle for inclusion in this year’s Pride parade, QuAIA were able to participate, though not everyone was pleased by their use of the word ‘apartheid’.

If you ask me, I think they should have invited JDL president Meir Weinstein to take a picture with them. This would have allowed them to make it clear that their beef was not with Jews or Israelis or whomever. They could have thanked him for supporting Pride and for supporting the fight for human rights and equality for all LGBTQ people in Canada and around the globe. And as part of their photo op, they could have called for human rights and dignity to be granted to all persons; regardless of where they are; regardless of their nationality, race, gender, religion or creed; regardless of if they live in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or Israel.

The message of Pride is one of inclusion and equality; that each of us is the same; that there is no privileging of some above others. It would have been great opportunity to have Weinstein say whether he supports or rejects that idea.

Links:

• Pride parade can’t be ‘everything to everyone’
• Queers Against Israeli Apartheid refuse to be silenced
• Queers Against Israeli Apartheid
• Jewish Defence League (Canada)

Some thoughts on the G20

It’s now been a week since the major “events” of the Toronto G20 protests (“events” = peaceful march followed by incidents of vandalism followed by mass detentions). 

I’m not going to say much about what took place for two reasons; the first being that I didn’t make it downtown for the protests and instead relied on the mainstream news media as well as minute-by-minute updates from friends who were in the thick of it. And secondly, over the past week so much has been posted online – articles, photos and video – that it makes little sense for me to put any of that here. 

I did, however, make a few observations. Watching (through TV, social media and news aggregators) the protest turn from a peaceful march into the violent mess that it became, I noticed very early that there seemed to be differences in attitude towards the protest based on whether the person commenting was there or not. This is mostly based on Facebook status updates, but it seems that most of the people condemning the destruction of the city were at home, whereas the ones who were more critical of police actions were actually downtown.

A friend of mine was right in the middle of things taking pictures and he was kind enough to let me use some of them here. What interests me more than the pictures are the captions. Like I said, he was right there, so it’s interesting to read what he had to say about where the police were in relation to the vandals. I’ve included his original comments as well as an exchange we had below.

At the very front of a huge parade of peaceful demonstrators was the Black Bloc (seen in the distance). They are marching east along Queen Street, smashing all the windows as they go. Ahead of them are some bicycle cops escorting the crowd. They did not react to the vandalism occurring behind them, probably preferring to avoid escalating the situation and sparking a riot. Property can be replaced; lives cannot.

 A Black Bloc anarchist wearing gloves and a bicycle helmet walks past this Starbucks a moment after his comrades had smashed its windows. Riot police, looking on from the steps of the Much Music building across the street, did not react.

This was taken at the corner of Queen Street and John Street. About 10 feet behind me are more riot police and bicycle cops blocking the street. They did not react to the vandals.

Shattered glass litters the ground.

About 20 feet from me, an anarchist threw a brick through a Starbucks window. I ran back, expecting the riot police on the other side of the street -- 50 feet away, you can see them under the traffic lights in the middle of the photo -- to begin firing tear gas; in fact they didn't flinch. They allowed the anarchists to do as much property damage as they liked, but directed them down a corridor along Queen Street.

I think the police preferred to have insurance cover the property damage, rather than intervening with force which might have sparked a full scale riot. It seemed sensible from my perspective.

To give you a sense of the atmosphere: it felt nothing like mayhem. There was just a calm procession of legitimate demonstrators (and onlookers) while an equally calm group of anarchists at the front of the pack walked down the street smashing windows with impunity. Surreal.

Me: See, what I don't get is: you said that the crowd was mostly peaceful and that the vandals were easily identifiable. So why wouldn't the cops just pick them up and take them out? It's like they waited for things to burn and then arrested all the peaceful protesters en masse. At least that's the impression I get from peoples' accounts. Is that what you were seeing?

Larry: That's exactly what I was seeing. The cops were letting them do the damage. The anarchists walked for many kilometers smashing windows. In my mind this actually makes sense, since it is better to let them do property damage than to provoke a riot where people could get hurt. I think the police hoped that they could keep the damage controlled and channeled down specific corridors.

I can't say for sure, but my speculation is that at about 6:30-7pm, the police were under so much public/media criticism about letting the vandals run amok, that they went ape. They responded with very heavy handed tactics aimed at shutting all further demonstration down.

That's how it felt. Obviously I don't know what actual orders the police were under. There are scattered media reports that also tend to support this conclusion. Without a public inquiry we'll never know.