Originally written Wednesday, December 22, 2004

The mainstream media has finally caught up to independent journalism and the abuse of detainees in Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq is once again making headlines. The latest: memorandums obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reveal that FBI officials learned of the abuse and reported it. From the Times Online:

***

One of the most damning memos, dated June 24 and addressed to Robert Mueller, the FBI director, and other senior bureau officials, gave the account of someone “who observed serious physical abuses of civilian detainees” in Iraq.

The documents — mostly by FBI agents present at interrogations in Iraq and the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and sent to their superiors — indicate that such tactics must have been known to government officials in Washington.

***

But this kind of news is nothing new. The mainstream media outlets report in packs. Someone from a big media outlet needs to lead the pack and break a story before the rest of the slavering horde gets in on it. For weeks, I’ve been reading similar stories of abuse, torture and murder that never make it into the mainstream press.

I have watched interviews on Democracy Now with human rights lawyers and journalists who have documented abuse in Afghanistan, Guantanomo and Iraq. Not just sexual humiliation, stress positions and sleep deprivation, but electric shocks, beatings, and murder. I’ve seen gruesome pictures of the results – a prisoner standing with his face practically crushed, blood running in rivers down his chest as two American soldiers laugh. Soldiers posing next to the bruised and battered bodies of Iraqi prisoners. Numerous photos of the dead, always bruised, often bloody.

I saw an interview with an American soldier who worked in Abu Ghraib who talked about how many of the people there were in for minor offences like public drunkenness and theft. He described how the guards at one point responded to a prisoner protest by opening fire on them, killing 5. His commanding officers took photos of the dead prisoners and posted them in the base as a trophy display.

Months ago, after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, I came across an article entitled “America’s Problem” in the Guardian. Six months later, its relevance is undiminished. Here are some excerpts.

***

It was only last month that the US army formally asserted that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison consisted of “aberrations” that could not be put down to systemic problems. This week, however, two official reports have painted a more disturbing picture. The reports…describe a situation in which the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners was more extensive than previously acknowledged and in which military leadership was found seriously wanting.

The things that happened in Abu Ghraib happened because individual Americans broke the law. But they also happened because too many Americans are prepared to look in the other direction or even actively support such abuses. America is a society with a problem. That problem erupted in Abu Ghraib. America has begun to address it. But it must not slacken off now.

***

I saw parts of a news conference with George Bush yesterday. I once again heard the infantile phrases I’ve heard so many times. The enemies of the United States are the “enemies of freedom”. The United States is a “nation of laws”.

Is that what this is? Freedom? Does freedom mean the abuse, torture and murder of Iraqis in their own country? Is locking up people in Guantanamo Bay without charge or trial and denying them even the basic rights afforded by international law the work of a “nation of laws”? Is killing Iraqi prisoners who throw rocks and then flaunting souvenir pictures of their bodies what “heroes” do?

Welcome to 21st century America, land of the free, home of the brave.

Comment from Alevo:

Freedom from . . . or freedom to? The Bush doctrine has confused the concept of freedom so dramatically that I’m not sure it will ever mean anything to anyone again in our lifetime. It is now a call to arms, much like its sematic cousins liberty and justice, used to sell fear and instability. The Bush doctrine then offers itself as the only logical solution – humanitarian abuses and all – defenders of freedom. The Faustian proportions of this bargain are lost on many in America and abroad. The Bush doctrine has hollowed out some of America’s most profound contributions to the concept of citizenship in the 21st centruy. Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo Bay are symptoms of a larger identity crisis in American politics and purpose. I’m not convinced that any mainstream media outlet in America could even begin to explain why either atrocity is fundamentally wrong. That would involve the double-speak of freedom coming home to roost.

Originally written Monday, December 13, 2004

“Human brain…universe within… 100 billion neurons… each neuron, a tangled web of electric meaning…” – Timothy Leary in “Hell’s Kitchen”, by Etnica

As human knowledge increases, it is tempting to feel as though we have things figured out. Yet the mystery of our existence still eludes us. The question “Why are we here?” has the same potency that it did 5000 years ago, when the human perception of the universe was so much more limited than it is today.

It’s a question we don’t commonly ask ourselves, because we have insulated ourselves from our connection to nature. There is a great distance between the food that we eat and the animals and plants that are that food. Seasons do not affect us as they do wild animals. We often spend the majority of our days inside, with only brief moments outdoors en route to the car, or from the car to work. When it’s cold outside, this only becomes more common.

This lets us avoid hardship, but also hard questions. We do not wish to be confronted by the basics of life and death, because they force us to ask these difficult questions. Killing to eat brings thoughts of death. Shivering in the cold is a reminder of our vulnerability.

Our separation from nature does not just allow us to escape thoughts of mortality, but it also breaks the spiritual connection we have with nature. Avoiding killing our food also lets us forget that it is life that sustains us. Avoiding the chill of the outdoors means we miss out on the reflections about our place in the universe that a star-filled sky can inspire.

In spite of our attempts to make our existence seem commonplace, to make our spirituality something that should be expressed only within the walls of religion, and to sever our ties with the vast interconnected web of nature, the mystery of our existence remains as deep as ever. The 100 billion neurons in our brains are like 100 billion stars in a galaxy, or 100 billion galaxies in our universe. In numbers alone they are beyond our comprehension.

They are connected nonetheless. We are made of atoms created in the nuclear furnace of stars just like the ones that lie across the sky on a cold winter’s night. Molecules in our bodies interact with each other in an intricate, dependent web not so different from the complex ecologies that support us and other creatures on this planet. We share a deep connection with each other, with all life, with the earth, and with the universe.

Comment from Alevo:

Similar musings are given in the opening to Thomas Homer Dixon’s The Ingenguity Gap. Namely, that human kind has deposited itself within an artificial realm of its own devining. The city is an exercise in human creature comfort. As we recede deeper within its walls – we lose touch with a great many things. Humankind’s own narcisim often prevents us from confronting our own worst nightmare – that we are (ring-ring). . . hold on here, I have to take this call.

Originally written Tuesday, November 23, 2004

“Why don’t you post this on your blob?”, Casie’s email said. I chuckled. Evidently my posts were not quite as clear as I thought, if they gave the impression of a messy glutinous ball.

I stopped laughing to myself as I kept reading. The contents of the email attachment she sent me were appalling: a list of women murdered by intimate partners in the last year, along with the circumstances of their deaths.

Here are a few from the list:

Natalie Bobeika, 46. Mother of one child. Natalie was stabbed to death in front of her 13-year-old son, who called police. She had been divorced from her husband for two years and was studying accounting in hopes of getting a job to support herself and her son. She had no relatives in Canada after coming from Russia; her son was placed in the care of friends. Her estranged husband, Iouri Bobeika, was charged with second-degree murder.

Henny Ann McAlpine, 48. Toronto. Henny Ann was found stabbed to death on the lawn of her apartment building and was pronounced dead at hospital. Her husband was found dead 30 minutes later after witnesses said he “hurled himself” into traffic and was struck by a car. Police determined that the deaths were a murder-suicide. Neighbours described the couple as “incredibly loving” and “nice people” but also said they didn’t talk to their neighbours and were “together all the time”.

Susan Kilby, 39. St. Catharines. Mother of two children. Susan was found in the home of her estranged husband with her skull smashed in by blunt force trauma. She had been separated from her ex-husband for over a year and had gone to the house to pick up her children from an access visit. A phone call was placed to 911 and the dispatcher listened to sounds of an argument while sending police. By the time police arrived, however, Susan was dead. The children were nearby when the murdered occurred but police were not sure if they were witnesses to the murder. Patrick Kilby was charged with first-degree murder. Only a few weeks before the murder, community protests arose over a T-shirt being sold locally with the words “She was asking for it” accompanied by a picture of a hammer. Supporters of the T-shirt characterized it as a “joke” and one scoffed at the protests telling media that no one would really smash someone’s head with a hammer.

Because Casie works in a women’s shelter, and because I’m married to her (happily, by the way), I often hear about the abuse inflicted on so many women in our society. These short paragraphs tell the tragic story of murders. They do not tell the stories of the brutal emotional, physical and sexual abuse inflicted on women and children every day.

Murder, as the most extreme outcome of violence, is the tip of the iceberg – the number of murders reveals the mass of the violence that lies underneath, just as the size of the ice above the water indicates what lurks beneath the surface. Here, the numbers reveal a disturbing picture.

A remarkable study undertaken in 2001 by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed that murder by an intimate partner is the leading cause of death among pregnant women. Among the statistics quoted in this article is this one:

“A recent report on female homicide in New York City between 1990 and 1997 revealed that among the 54% of cases that could be categorized according to intimate partner perpetrator status, approximately 40% of the victimes were killed by intimate partners.”

Even worse is the low priority this epidemic of violence is given by the justice system, the government and our society. Take the story of Wyann Ruso, the Toronto woman who warned police about her abusive husband and received an assurance from them that he would be arrested immediately. Instead, they did nothing – that is, until 9/11 was called when her husband attacked her with an axe and a hammer. He is now charged with attempted murder. She survived the attack, but many others do not.

As a society, we classify crimes not just in terms of their severity, but also according to other circumstantial factors like the state of mind of the perpetrator. First-degree murder is the most serious of all murder charges because it is a premeditated act. If premeditation makes murder more serious, how much more seriously should violence against women and children be taken? After all, men do not only have a responsibility to protect and care for their families, but if they are married, they have taken an oath to do so. Their crime is not just one of violence, it is one of betrayal.

More statistics:

* One in four (1/4) women in Canada is sexually or physically abused by a partner.

* Forty percent (40%) of women who turn up in emergency departments of hospitals are there because of abuse.

* Fifty percent (50%) of women admitted to psychiatric hospitals/units are victims of violence.

* Seventy five percent (75%) of children in homes where women are abused are also abused.

This is not just a terrible onslaught against women and children. This is an assault on our society, our communities, against decency, justice and humanity.

Originally written Wednesday, November 24, 2004

What is the point?

What is the point of writing a letter to the editor? What is the point of challenging an assumption or having a discussion? What is the point of me writing this?

Why bother writing about events in Iraq as I have done here? After all, nothing I say will change what is happening there.

Anyone who seeks to change things through knowledge and information is faced with that discouraging question: what’s the point?

I think the answer is simple: the point is to influence a decision, however small, made by somebody in some place at some time.

Change occurs as a consequence of actions. People’s actions are based either wholly or in part on decisions. A key human trait is the ability to make decisions based on knowledge, not just on experience.

So by speaking, writing, and educating, change can happen. The smallest decision can be worth the effort that influencing that decision took.

A case in point: a colleague, Scott, told me he watched Fahrenheit 9/11. He said that he would likely not have watched it were it not for our conversations about current events.

Deciding to watch a particular movie is a minor decision, but change ripples outwards from small events. Decisions to read a particular book or see a certain movie have changed people’s lives.

So if you are out there trying to make a difference and you ask yourself this question, or others ask it of you: don’t be disheartened. The positive effect you have might be far larger than you think!

Originally written Thursday, November 11, 2004

It’s interesting how certain beliefs that seem to be unrelated to each other are combined in very standard ways and adopted by distinct groups of people.

Let me explain. Think about the idea of conservatism. What issues come to mind?

Here are some I can think of off the top of my head:

– corporatism, unbridled capitalism, free markets
– anti-abortion
– in favour of the war in Iraq and the so-called War on Terror
– anti-gun control
– religious
– anti-gay rights

This is a broad range of issues that don’t all have strong connections. For example, conservatives are against abortion because they support what they call a “culture of life”, yet many support needless war, which is all about death. Conservatives support corporatism, capitalism and free markets, yet many are Christians, and Christ said that those who followed him should “go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21).

Why is it that people accept beliefs (conservatism, liberalism) that cover just about every conceivable social and political issue, yet are often unrelated and even contradictory?

The issue of faith is especially important. Most people are religious, or at least claim to be, and there’s no doubt a significant number hold their faith as very important in their lives. The successful merging of faith, especially evangelical and born-again Christianity, with conservatism has become an enormous factor in US politics. The same has happened here in Canada although to a lesser degree.

For any revolution to be successful, it must encompass faith. The change that needs to take place in our society and across the globe cannot happen if religious people are left out. How can this challenge be met? What can be done to separate faith from conservatism?

The optimistic part is that the belief system held by religious conservatives really is self-contradictory. How does Jesus’ instruction to “turn the other cheek” when slapped reconcile with a policy of “pre-emptive” war? How can unrestrained corporatism be defended when Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”? (Mark 10:25)

(This optimism might be unfounded. Maybe a contradictory belief system is actually harder to change than a rational one.)

In a recent conversation I had with an insightful friend (that’s you, Luc), we talked about what could be done to break down barriers between groups of people. Most conservative Christians are strongly opposed to gay marriage and often gay rights in general. I think that for many, the root of this opposition (and hatred in some cases) is based on the primitive human fear of the Other.

Fear of the Other has driven human conflict since the dawn of mankind and that fear still drives international events today. One of the best-known ways to break this barrier is simple: make friends. When the Other becomes familiar and friendly, fear dissolves, taking hatred with it.

Would it be possible to create events that brought different groups of people together in an atmosphere that forced or fostered reliance, teamwork and eventually friendship between them? For example, a survivalist trip in the Northern wilderness. The event could be billed to church groups as a way to experience God’s creation, and to groups of gay activists as a way to get out of the city. ;) Create a stressful event – perhaps the “accidental” destruction of all of the canoes once the camping site had been reached – that forces the group of people to rely on each other.

Is this a recipe for disaster or could it see the outbreak of friendship among people who would not normally ever meet each other? (Perhaps it’s both – people finally break those barriers, then die of starvation.)

When Dorothy lived in Kansas, she experienced a very small world. Kansas is the middle of nowhere by anybody’s judgment, even a Kansan’s. But when a tornado swept her away to Oz, her world changed. She became close friends with people (well, an animal, a scarecrow and a robot) that she would not normally have ever met. They joined each other on the Yellow Brick Road and traveled with a common purpose.

I realize that this idea is not exactly ethical. But it’s just an idea, the product of a wacky brainstorm session. It’s probably not a good idea to mislead people into unexpected situations. But perhaps something similar could be accomplished in a different, better way. Maybe YOU can think of something. So why not leave a comment and let me know? I’d like to hear from you…

Bringing people together under false pretenses is wrong, even if in the end it would be better for everyone involved. It’s worrisome to think, though, that we may all be brought together because of some horrific catastrophe, like nuclear war and the ensuing nuclear winter, if we do not solve our differences. If that happens, we may wish we had tried every stupid idea we came up with to try and solve them.

Comment by Iliafer:

Thoughtful, nay, insightful, but here’s why your plan won’t work:

Quote:

“Would it be possible to create events that brought different groups of people together in an atmosphere that forced or fostered reliance, teamwork and eventually friendship between them? For example, a survivalist trip in the Northern wilderness. The event could be billed to church groups as a way to experience God’s creation, and to groups of gay activists as a way to get out of the city. ;) Create a stressful event – perhaps the “accidental” destruction of all of the canoes once the camping site had been reached – that forces the group of people to rely on each other.”

This won’t work, because one of the Christian conservatives will undoubtedly bring his hunting rifle on the trip to the great white north – our deer are bigger ;o) Then, when the canoes are taken away and the Christians and gays are forced to live in so-called “harmony”, the stress of the situation will surely cause one of the Christians to blow their stack, take the gun and shoot one or more mouthy gay person (because, gays tend to run off at the mouth ;o) j/k). No matter what, there will be power struggles (a la Lord of the Flies) and eventually someone’s gonna lose it. And, the conservatives will likely come out on top because they are the ones with the guns.

Sad, isn’t it?

Comment by Royboy:

Quote: ***This is a broad range of issues that don’t all have strong connections. For example, conservatives are against abortion because they support what they call a “culture of life”, yet many support needless war, which is all about death. Conservatives support corporatism, capitalism and free markets, yet many are Christians, and Christ said that those who followed him should “go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21).***

“Needless war”, that’s editorial… hence the premise isn’t terribly well founded.

From a religious perspective war is entirely necessary to smite the “evildoers”. This is bolstered with the “me” culture of America where ppl are actually encouraged to buy large SUV’s to keep themselves (and families) safe at the expense of the smaller car they smash into. Meaning “take the fight over there instead of here”. It is this ethos that narrowly won the election for Bush despite transparent shortcomings in execution. (meaning I disagree with the conventional wisdom that values issues won Bush the election) That certainly shored up his core support and got them to the poles… but for the undecideds that put him over the top IMO.