8.31.2009

Boycott TIFF to Protest Their Tribute to Tel Aviv

Dear Piers, Cameron and Noah,

I've come to a very difficult decision --I'm withdrawing my film Covered from TIFF, in protest against your inaugural City-to-City Spotlight on Tel Aviv.

In the Canadian Jewish News, Israeli Consul General Amir Gissin described how this Spotlight is the culmination of his year-long Brand Israel campaign, which includes bus/radio/TV ads, the ROM's notorious Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit, and "a major Israeli presence at next year¹s Toronto International Film Festival, with numerous Israeli, Hollywood and Canadian entertainment luminaries on hand." Gissen said Toronto was chosen as a test-city for Brand Israel by Israel's Foreign Ministry, and thanked Astral, MIJO and Canwest for donating the million-dollar budget. (Astral is of course a long-time TIFF sponsor, and Canwest owners' Asper Foundation donated $500,000 to TIFF). "We've got a real product to sell to Canadians... The lessons learned from Toronto will inform the worldwide launch of Brand Israel in the coming years, Gissin said."

This past year has also seen: the devastating Gaza massacre of eight months ago, resulting in over 1000 civilian deaths; the election of a Prime Minister accused of war crimes; the aggressive extension of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands; the accelerated destruction of Palestinian homes and orchards; the viral growth of the totalitarian security wall, and the further enshrining of the check-point system. Such state policies have led diverse figures such as John Berger, Jimmy Carter, and Bishop Desmond Tutu to characterize this 'brand' as apartheid. Your TIFF program book may describe Tel Aviv as a "vibrant young city... of beaches, cafes and cultural ferment... that celebrates its diversity," but it's also been called "a kind of alter-Gaza, the smiling face of Israeli apartheid" (Naomi Klein) and "the only city in the west without Arab residents" (Tel Aviv filmmaker Udi Aloni).

To my mind, this isn't the right year to celebrate Brand Israel, or to demonstrate an ostrich-like indifference to the realities (cinematic and otherwise) of the region, or to pointedly ignore the international economic boycott campaign against Israel. Launched by Palestinian NGO's in 2005, and since joined by thousands inside and outside Israel, the campaign is seen as the last hope for forcing Israel to comply with international law. By ignoring this boycott, TIFF has emphatically taken sides --and in the process, forced every filmmaker and audience member who opposes the occupation to cross a type of picket line.

Let's be clear: my protest isn't against the films or filmmakers you've chosen. I've seen brilliant works of Israeli and Palestinian cinema at past TIFFs, and will again in coming years. My protest is against the Spotlight itself, and the smug business-as-usual aura it promotes of a "vibrant metropolis [and] dynamic young city... commemorating its centennial", seemingly untroubled by other anniversaries, such as the 42nd anniversary of the occupation. Isn't such an uncritical celebration of Tel Aviv right now akin to celebrating Montgomery buses in 1963, California grapes in 1969, Chilean wines in 1973, Nestles infant formula in 1984, or South African fruit in 1991?

You're probably groaning right now --"inflammatory rhetoric!" --but I mention these boycott campaigns because they were specific and strategic to their historic moments, and certainly complex. Like these others, the Israel boycott has been the subject of much debate, with many of us struggling with difficult questions of censorship, constructive engagement and free speech. In our meeting, for instance, you said you supported economic boycotts like South Africa's, but not cultural boycotts. Three points: South Africa was also a cultural boycott (asking singers not to play Sun City); culture is one of Canada's (and Israel's) largest economic sectors (this spotlight is funded by a Canadian Ministry of Industry tourism grant, after all); and the Israel rebrand campaign explicitly targets culture as a priority sector.

Many will still say a boycott prevents much needed dialogue between possible allies. That's why, like Chile, like Nestles, the strategic and specific nature of each case needs to be considered. For instance, I'm helping organize a screening in September for the Toronto Palestinian Film Festival, co-sponsored by Queers Against Israeli Apartheid and the Inside Out Festival. It's a doc that profiles Ezra Nawi, the queer Israeli activist jailed for blocking army bulldozers from destroying Palestinian homes. Technically, the film probably qualifies as meeting the technical criteria of boycott --not because it was directed by an Israeli filmmaker, but because it received Israeli state funding. Yet all concerned have decided that this film should be seen by Toronto audiences, especially Jews and Palestinians --a strategic, specific choice, and one that has triggered many productive discussions.

I'm sorry I can't feel the same way about your Tel Aviv spotlight. Despite this past month of emails and meetings, many questions remain for me about its origins, its funding, its programming, its sponsors. You say it was initiated in November 2008... but then why would Gissen seem to be claiming it as part of his campaign four months earlier? You've told me that TIFF isn't officially a part of Brand Israel --okay --but why haven't you clarified this publicly? Why are only Jewish Israeli filmmakers included? Why are there no voices from the refugee camps and Gaza (or Toronto for that matter), where Tel Aviv's displaced Palestinians now live? Why only big budget Israeli state-funded features --why not a program of shorts/docs/indie works by underground Israeli and Palestinian artists? Why is TIFF accepting and/or encouraging the support of the Israeli government and consulate, a direct flaunting of the boycott, with filmmaker plane tickets, receptions, parties and evidently the Mayor of Tel Aviv opening the spotlight? Why does this feel like a propaganda campaign?

This decision was very tough. For thirty years, TIFF has been my film school and my community, an annual immersion in the best of world cinema. You've helped rewrite the canon through your pioneering support of new voices and difficult ideas, of avant-garde visions and global stories. You've opened many doors and many minds, and made me think critically and politically about cinema, about how film can speak out and make a difference. In particular, you've been extraordinarily supportive of my own work, often presenting the hometown premieres of my films to your legendary audiences. You are three of the smartest, sharpest, skillful and most thoughtful festival heads anywhere --this isn't hyperbole, with all of you I speak from two decades worth of friendship and deep respect --which makes this all the more inexplicable and troubling.

It's wrong that I have to pull out, and wrong that audiences won't see my film. It's unfair to my crew who worked so hard, and unfair to our community, who deserves better. What eventually determined my decision was the subject of Covered itself. It's a doc about the 2008 Sarajevo Queer Festival, which was cancelled due to brutal anti-gay violence. The film focuses on the bravery of the organizers and their supporters, and equally, on the ostriches, on those who remained silent, who refused to speak out: most notoriously, the Sarajevo Film Festival and the Canadian Ambassador. To stand in judgment of these ostriches before a TIFF audience, but then say nothing about this Tel Aviv spotlight --finally, I realized that that was a brand I couldn't stomach.

Peace,

John Greyson
I've posted (http://vimeo.com/6308870) 'Covered' online for the duration of TIFF

Labels: , , ,

8.05.2009

Gap

Labels: ,

7.14.2009

Best Albums of 2009, Thus Far...

10. Metric - Fantasies
9. Filastine - Dirty Bomb
8. Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest
7. Clint Mansell - Moon OST
6. Future of the Left - Travels With Myself And Another
5. Dinosaur Jr. - Farm
4. Miike Snow - Miike Snow
3. Sunset Rubdown - Dragonslayer
2. Phoenix - Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix
1. Woodpigeon - Treasury Library Canada

Labels: ,

7.06.2009

Tariq Ali on Obama and Pakistan

Labels: ,

6.24.2009

Double Standards Much?

Click. Click. Click.

Labels: ,

5.27.2009

Dear Prime Minister Harper: Bar Bush or Prosecute Him for Torture

By Lawyers Against the War

Dear Prime Minister and Ministers Nicholson, Van Loan, Kenney and Cannon;


Bar George W. Bush from entering Canada or prosecute him for torture.


George W. Bush, former President of the United States of America (U.S.) and Commander in Chief of the Armed Force, is reported to be coming to Toronto Ontario on May 29, 2009.


We write to advise you of your duty to immediately take all necessary steps to prevent George W. Bush from entering Canada, in accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), s. 35 (1) (a).


If George W. Bush enters Canada we demand that he be arrested, as being inadmissible under the IRPA and as a person suspected of torture, and then either prosecuted in Canada for torture or extradited to another country that is willing and able to prosecute as required by the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 7 (CAT).


We remind you that the failure to take one of these actions violates Canada’s international law obligations. In addition such inaction denies remedies to victims, ensures impunity for perpetrators and encourages other instances of torture. For example, reports released this month conclude that torture and abuse of prisoners in Iraq remains “routine and commonplace.” (Iraq Ministry of Human Rights and Human Rights Watch)


George W. Bush stands accused of authoring, supervising and directing the most egregious war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture, during his eight year term as President and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. As such he is inadmissible to Canada under the ‘Human Rights and International Law Violations’ sections of the ‘Inadmissibility Division’ of the IRPA.


Inadmissibility under the IRPA, s. 35(1)(a) is established when there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the person seeking to enter Canada has been involved directly or indirectly in one or more of the impugned acts, namely gross human rights violations, war crimes or crimes against humanity. Torture is a war crime, a crime against humanity and a gross violation of non-derogable rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted reasonable grounds as ‘something more than a suspicion and less that proof to the balance of probabilities.’ Evidence of Bush’s involvement in authorizing widespread, long term and brutal torture far exceeds the ‘reasonable grounds’ test.

Evidence that U.S. officials tortured -- sometimes to death -- prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and Bagram prison, already overwhelming, continues to mount. Human rights and legal advocates around the world are unanimous in citing the legal duty under CAT to prosecute Bush and other senior members of the Bush administration. An Appendix to this letter lists some of the evidence of Bush involvement in torture.

As of the date of this letter, over 200 U.S. human rights groups have signed a petition calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to prosecute members of the Bush administration for torture and other war crimes. U.S. groups representing over 1,000,000 people have filed complaints calling for the disbarment of the Bush administration lawyers who participated in planning the widespread gruesome torture used by the Bush administration. (John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Stephen Bradbury, Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, Alice Fisher, William Haynes II, Douglas Feith, Michael Mukasey, Timothy Flanigan, and David Addington). All available evidence, including the public statements of former vice-president Dick Cheney, indicates that G.W. Bush authorized torture, sometimes on a case by case basis. By ratifying CAT in 1987, Canada took on a global duty to prevent and punish torture–a duty owed not just to Canadians but to all humankind. To fulfill this duty, Canada created the jurisdiction to prosecute torture wherever it occurs, when the alleged victim is a Canadian citizens or when the alleged perpetrators enters Canada.


The Criminal Code of Canada and the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act make torture anywhere, by anyone, an indictable criminal offence in Canada. The jurisdiction and the duty to prosecute have, in the case of G.W. Bush, already been triggered. The duty and jurisdiction were triggered when it was learned that U.S. officials tortured Canadian citizen Omar Khadr and when G.W. Bush previously entered Canada. We note that Mr. Justice O’Reilly of the Federal Court in the April 23, 2009 judgment in Khadr v. The Prime Minister et al, confirmed Canada’s obligation to prevent torture within Canada and to prosecute offenders.


As part of the duty to prevent torture, Canada also has an urgent duty to investigate allegations of torture and of other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Rulings of the CAT Committee establish that delay by a state to investigate allegations of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment is itself a violation of CAT. Canada’s duty to investigate G.W. Bush for torture became imperative once it was known that the U.S. torture Omar Khadr -- i.e. by March 2004. The duty to prosecute becomes imperative when G.W. Bush crosses the border. The duty to prosecute Bush for torture (and other war crimes and crimes against humanity) once he is in Canada, arises from many sources including: Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA), Criminal Code of Canada, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) and CAT. The Rome Statute, obliges Canada generally to, “…exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.” Canada’s duty is heightened by refusal of the current U.S. administration to mount investigations and prosecutions of members of the Bush administration.


In the face of overwhelming evidence that Bush and other members of the Bush administration conspired to ensure the widespread use of torture on non-U.S. captives held in Guantánamo Bay and other prisons around the world and in the face of enormous pressure from the legal and human rights advocates around the world, the U.S. is opting not to prosecute G.W. Bush and other senior members of the Bush administration.


The government of Canada has no legal options except to either:1. Bar George W. Bush’s entry to Canada under IRPA s. 35; or,2. Arrest George W. Bush and either prosecute him for torture or extradite him to a state that is willing and able to do so.


We look forward to receiving a timely response to our formal requests for action by the Prime Minister, Minister of Immigration, Attorney General of Canada, Minister of Public Safety and by the Canadian Border Services Agency: actions required by Canadian and by international law.


Sincerely, Gail Davidson, Lawyers Against the War

Labels: ,

5.13.2009

Take That Highway

4.20.2009

Tamil Slaughter Silence

4.08.2009

Slump

If you take a global view, the world slump since early 2008 is as bad or worse than the slump from 1929-30. This shows the monthly decline in volume of world trade.

Labels:

3.26.2009

Lawyers, Law, Dicks

March 23, 2009

Robert J. Orr
Immigration Programme Manager
Immigration Section
Canadian High Commission
38 Grosvenor Street
London W1K 4AA

Dear Mr. Orr:

Re: George Galloway M.P.

Please be advised that we have been contacted by the above mentioned person concerning his planned entry to Canada for a speaking tour commencing at the end of this month.

We have been given a copy of a letter from yourself, dated March 20, 2009, advising Mr. Galloway that a “preliminary determination” has been made by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) that he is inadmissible to Canada and inviting him to make submissions. The letter also indicates that in the event that Mr. Galloway wishes to enter Canada he could make an application for a temporary resident permit (TRP) which would not likely be approved. The delivery of a letter to a person who is not required to obtain a visa prior to arriving at a Canadian port of entry is unusual. It is even more so for Immigration officials to “rely” on a CBSA opinion rather than accept ownership itself. Your Minister, Mr. Kenney, was in fact claiming ownership of it.

We are writing to respond to the invitation to Mr. Galloway to make submissions as to why he should not be determined to be inadmissible to Canada. This invitation does not appear to have been made in good faith, but merely to give the appearance of fairness when it is clear that a decision has been made - not only with respect to admissibility but as well with respect to an exemption from the inadmissibility bar. The letter is misleading because it leaves out reference to the ‘reasonable grounds’ standard which governs the conclusions drawn. An officer need be satisfied that it is possible that Mr. Galloway is a member of the Hamas and engaged in terrorism. Even on this low standard, however, such a conclusion is perverse.

We are surprised (and frankly shocked) that it is the view of the Government of Canada that Mr. Galloway is considered to be a member of a terrorist organization and to have engaged in terrorism. While Canadian courts have applied a broad definition to the concept of “member” to include ‘fellow travelers’ and other associates, the provision has never, to my knowledge, been so broadly interpreted as to include an elected member of Parliament, from a democratic country, because he engaged in symbolic support for a severely oppressed people, the Palestinians of Gaza. Nor has engagement in terrorism been so broadly interpreted. These interpretations are novel and far reaching in their effect.

For the record, as you no doubt know already, Mr. Galloway is not a member of the Hamas. He is an elected British Member of Parliament. He is a member of the Respect Party. Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia cites Respect as being the Unity Coalition “... A left wing political party in England and Wales, founded on 25 January 2004 in London. Its name is an acronym standing for Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environmentalism, Community and Trade Unionism. It is often referred to simply as Respect or as the Respect Party. If you go to the website of the Party it references George Galloway as its Member of Parliament. It characterizes itself as socialist.

While membership in a particular party does not preclude membership in another, Mr. Galloway’s membership in Respect is a clear indication that he is not likely to be a member of the Hamas. Mr. Galloway is not a member of the Hamas. Indeed he has for 30 years described himself as a supporter of the late President Arafat.

The CBSA determination is one based on inference drawn from his involvement in the Viva Palestina aid convoy. It is not a reasonable inference. It is clear that this convoy was what it purported to be: a symbolic gesture by a number of individuals and organizations to support the Palestinians isolated and blockaded in Gaza. The passing of the convoy into Gaza was simply a recognition that the Palestinians of Gaza, who elected Hamas in a democratic election, ought not be punished by withholding from them the means of survival.

The convoy consisted of aid donated by groups and individuals in an act of solidarity with the people of Gaza. The Viva Palestina website 3 indicates that the efforts were directed towards assisting the Palestinian people of Gaza, that a number of organizations, including Stop the War Coalition, the Anglo-Arab Organisation, several British trade unions and a large number of Muslim organizations were involved, and that the aid sent to Gaza was for the Palestinian people, not any faction. The organizers have worked through charitable organizations operating on the ground in Gaza, including the Red Crescent and Unrwa. The directing of aid to the Palestinians in Gaza is apparent in the press coverage of the convoy.

The second part of the inadmissibility determination is that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Galloway engaged in terrorism. It appears that this is based on the convoy as well, implying that the provision of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians in Gaza is an act of terrorism. As with the membership inference this is perverse. It would mean that UNWRA, the Red Crescent Society and other aid organizations are terrorist organizations and the individuals who support them are terrorists.

Accusing a person of being a terrorist is a serious allegation - one of the worst which can be leveled against a person. It is not a one time event- it lasts forever. Mr. Galloway will forever be barred from Canada by this decision unless a specific exemption is granted by the Minister on the basis that it would not be contrary to Canada’s national interest to permit him to enter Canada.

The terrorism inadmissibility provision in the IRPA was not meant to permit Canadian officials to sanction individuals because they do not share their beliefs. Mr. Kenney, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and many other members of the Harper government have clear views on Israel and its practices in relation to the territories it has occupied since 1967. Their sympathies are invariably are with the Israeli government, regardless of the kind of conduct in which it engages. These views are not shared by all Canadians. Mr. Harper and Mr. Kenney are involved in the operation of the government of Canada, not the Conservative Party. As such their actions ought to be measured, rational and objective, consistent with their obligation to represent the interests of all Canadians. The decision to exclude Mr. Galloway from Canada because he participated in the symbolic gesture of bringing humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people of Gaza is a political decision. It is perverse and we believe constitutes an abuse of power.

It is an abuse of power for two reasons: first, s. 34(1) of the IRPA was never meant to apply to such situations, and second the refusal to let Mr. Galloway enter Canada to speak infringes the freedoms under s. 2 of the Charter of those within Canada who want to attend and listen to him.

We would ask that you obtain instructions to advise Mr. Galloway that he is not inadmissible to Canada and is free to speak as planned next week. We would appreciate it if you would advise by tomorrow, March 24, 2009, of the outcome of this request. Mr. Galloway was to come to Canada to speak on March 30, 2009. There is little time left to bring the matter before a court, which we expect you knew when you advised that only a ‘preliminary’ decision was made and invited further submissions to further delay Mr. Galloway’s ability to take legal steps to have a court review the government’s decision. We are forced to conclude that if you do not reply by tomorrow that the decision is negative. We cannot wait on a response at any time later than tomorrow afternoon.


Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Yours truly,
________________
Barbara Jackman
_______________
Hadayt Nazami

Solicitors for Mr. Galloway

Labels: , ,

3.23.2009

Allow George Galloway To Speak In Canada

Jason Kenney is a huge dick.

Labels: ,

3.19.2009

A Time for Seething Resentment

Just a thought. Everyone's talking about solutions. What's your solution to the crisis?, people ask. And they are always only too happy to apprise you of their own frankly barking ideas. But it isn't good enough to have solutions. As Dan Hind points out [pdf] in his typically elegant way, this is a time for pointing fingers. We must do all we can to advance the culture of blame, the better to revive the politics of envy.

I know most of you probably saw the news headline last week that said approximately 45% of the world's wealth had been wiped out - this according to the CEO of the Blackstone Group. That is not just shareholders' wealth. Actually the rich are doing a spectacularly good job of defending themselves, shoring up their wealth and bonuses. They are dipping into national treasuries on the premise that governments will happily steal or sell the deferred wages (pensions mainly) of the working class to repay the debt. And believe me - whether it is under Obama or Brown/Cameron, they are coming for your pensions. It is the wealth by and large of those who in America are called "middle class" (what is it they say about being divided by a common language?). A huge part of what has been wiped out has been the wealth of those who depended on their house price soaring so that they could borrow against it. The value of one's house, for a lot of people, made up for stagnant or barely rising wages. Now, in the UK alone, nearly four million homeowners are in, or close to, negative equity. These people do have a pot to piss in, admittedly: they just won't be able to make the payments on it. (And some investors, nostrils filling with the whiff of carrion, are swooping in to take advantage of the collapse in prices, buying up the housing while it's cheap.)


Unemployment is rising faster than expected, as well, which means that income as well as wealth is being rapidly wiped out. We have just seen the fastest increase in the claimant count in the UK since records began. By the end of next year, unemployment is expected to be higher than it was even in the horrible recession of the early 1980s. In the US, the job market continues to deteriorate at an ever-increasing pace. It isn't going to get any better either. Those countries most dependent on the financial sector are about to suffer more, because even the banks that have so far weathered the storm are feeling the pinch. Santander, for example, which has depended on solid investments in Latin America, is about to feel the pinch as the Brazilian economy stagnates. HSBC, hitherto untouchable, has recently had to announce a rights issue. It is all turning to shit, and the last people to suffer from this will be the ruling classes who got us here.


Various left campaign groups are springing into existence in the US and UK, to pressure governments for palliation, with sensible measures like socially-affordable housing, job protection, union rights, etc. They are filling a void created by the absence of an upsurge in working class militancy, and the absence of a left-wing party capable of hegemony. In the US, there is a campaign to lobby the Obama administration from the left (I say 'left', but this includes the ACLU and Moveon.org). In the UK, the latest is the People's Charter, supported by trade unionists, left-wing Labour MPs and campaigning lawyers. This is a positive development, and I encourage people to sign up. Still, I wish it said something about tumbrils. I wish it said, in a word, that the rich are to blame for this crisis and that, as they have benefited most from the circumstances that led to this state of affairs, they ought to pay. We need to tax those bastards, take their businesses into public ownership, close their little tax loopholes, and criminalise their offshore havens. We ought to be resentful about it, too. And petty: let's make them clean the toilets at Spar while we're taking their shit. Enough with the gentrified conventions of bourgeois politics - I demand vengeance.


From Lenin's Tomb.

Labels: ,

2.25.2009

Ever Dream of Hearing Original Music In Your Dreams?

Read the interesting .pdf (linked below)!

There have been very few systematic studies of music in dreams, though one such [pdf], by Valeria Uga and her colleagues at the University of Florence in 2006, compared the dream logs of thirty-five professional musicians and thirty non-musicians. The researchers concluded that "musicians dreams of music more than twice as much as non-musicians [and] musical dream frequency is related to the age of commencement of musical instruction, but not to the daily load of musical activity. Nearly half of all recalled music was non-standard, suggesting that original music can be created in dreams." While there have been many anecdotal stories of composers creating original compositions in dreams, this is the first study to lend support to the idea.

Labels: ,

1.19.2009

Map of Destruction

1.11.2009

London Demo

1.09.2009

Zionist Pigs

Let's bring ourselves up to date. The death toll as of yesterday - certainly a sizeable underestimate, given that there is only a rare interval in which to recover bodies crushed under the flaming rubble - is 758, 42% of which the UN estimates are women and children. Last night the UN Security Council produced a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, unimpeded access for humanitarian and relief workers, and the opening of border crossings. From an 'international community' that has hitherto backed Israel's blockade and regular offensives, this is jaw-dropping. This only happened because the US surprisingly refused to use its veto power, and even stressed that it "fully supports" the resolution in principle - a signal to Israel that its paymasters are not completely happy with how this is going. With that resolution passed, Israeli forces proceeded to pound Gaza into the night, and in the process attacked yet another apartment building, killing seven civilian inhabitants. Israel is consciously and deliberately violating almost every possible human norm in the conduct of its war. Whether it is rounding up families and shelling them to death, attacking schools, shooting up medics, killing aid workers, or bombing hospitals, it is increasingly the case that Israel is struggling to outdo itself.

Arguably, yesterday's news that Israeli forces had been deliberately starving children to death trumps everything else to date. I mean, sealing off a neighbourhood, bombing and shelling it, blocking medical and humanitarian entry, and knowingly leaving children to slowly die next to their already deceased relatives is sick. Forcing wounded adults to lie around dying on blood-soaked mattresses is also sick. And when the Red Cross finally gets in there and discovers some of the dead, to then attempt to expel them and prevent them from doing any more work is, well, sick. And I don't like saying this, but that level of calculated predation and sadism positively invites Nazi comparisons. What does that make the supporters of Israel's war at this moment?

One unexpected result of the travesty is that even some of Israel's more aggressive boosters, such as Roger Cohen in the New York Times, are expressing disgust and shame. Some of those who backed Israel's war in Lebanon are admitting, sometimes with heavy qualification and great reluctance and much ponderous nonsense about how treacherous the pro-Palestinian Left nevertheless is, to similar feelings. But the livid, lunatic fringe of Israel supporters not only have an inexhaustible capacity for sanctimony and hypocrisy, they lack any sense of shame. They are truly at their worst hour, the vilest they have ever been. No excuse can or should be made for such people: they ought to be shunned, and treated as the moral and political degenerates that they are.

From Lenin's Tomb.

Labels: , ,

1.07.2009

More Israeli War Crimes

1.05.2009

The Best of 2008

As seen/tasted/heard/touched by me in '08.
TV

5. Trashy Reality TV
4. Mad Men
3. Summer Heights High
2. Lost
1. Damages
Film
5. Trouble the Water
4. The Dark Knight
3. Slumdog Millionaire
2. The Wrestler
1. Heart of Jenin
Music
5. Fabled City [The Nightwatchman]
4. Vampire Weekend [Vampire Weekend]
3. One Day as a Lion [One Day as a Lion]
2. Rook [Shearwater]
1. O My Heart [Mother Mother]
Video Games
5. GH: World Tour
4. Gears of War II
3. The World Ends With You
2. de Blob
1. World of Goo
Food
5. Sweet Potato Fries
4. Wendy's Spicy Chicken Sandwich
3. Nerds
2. Pizza Pizza Chicken Bites
1. Milestones White Chocolate Espresso Cheesecake

Labels: , , , ,

12.09.2008

Constitutionally Protected

Labels:

12.02.2008

Canada's Soft Left Coup

Why We Need a Coalition Government to Deal with the Economic Crisis:

The Economic and Fiscal Update released by Finance Minister Flaherty on November 27, 2008 demonstrates that the Conservative government has no intention of seriously dealing with the global economic crisis and the prospect of fast rising unemployment.

The recent G-20 Summit meeting called on governments to “take urgent and exceptional measures” to stimulate their economies in a co-ordinated way to stop a slide into a global depression.

The incoming Obama administration in the United States plans to invest $500 to $700 billion in January 2008 to create 2.5 million jobs over the next two years, with a major focus on public infrastructure, the environment and improved unemployment benefits.

The governments of Britain, Australia and China have already followed up on G-20 calls for investments of about 2% of national income, which would amount to $30 billion in the case of Canada. The European Union have just introduced a major package.

Instead of acting here, the Conservative Economic and Fiscal Update pretends that yesterday’s tax cuts have already done the job and says that “the Government is planning on balanced budgets or better for the current and the next five years.”

Instead of investing in jobs and people, the Conservative government plans to cut spending by almost $2 billion next year. That is on top of cuts to equalization payments to the provinces of $1.8 billion next year and $5 billion the year after. The government plans to raise more than $2 billion next year by selling off public assets (at what will be fire sale prices). It also signalled a move to shut down pay equity in the federal jurisdiction.

The Economic and Fiscal statement put forward a rose-coloured economic forecast which completely ignores the reality of large recent job losses and a looming recession. It forecasts economic growth of 0.3% next year, compared to the TD Bank’s forecast of a fall in Gross Domestic Product of 1.1% in 2009. It forecasts an unemployment rate of under 7% next year, while TD Bank forecasts the national unemployment rate will rise from 6.2% today, to 7.6% in 2009, to 7.9% in 2010.

In short, the Conservative government has no positive plan to deal with the crisis and intends to respond to a downturn through cuts rather than needed investments in jobs and people.

Rather than work to bring Canadians together, they chose to use the excuse of a crisis to try and ram through a partisan and mean-spirited agenda.

The Conservatives are unwilling to make Parliament work and refuse to provide Canadians with the leadership they need to weather the deepening economic crisis.

We deserve better.

The Canadian Labour Congress has called for a major package including:

- A multi year public investment program covering basic municipal infrastructure, energy conservation, public transit and renewable energy, twinned to Made in Canada procurement programs;
- Investments in job creating public services like child care;
- Improvements to Employment Insurance benefits and increased investments in training;
- Measures to protect workers’ pensions and improve public pensions;
- Concrete action to save manufacturing and forestry jobs and to help hard hit industries restructure thorough new investments.

We are greatly encouraged that the Opposition parties are prepared to work together around a positive agenda and strongly support efforts to provide Canadians with an alternative that works in the country’s best interests.

From The Progressive Economics Forum.

For more on the potential coalition, and its potential dangers, see here.

Labels: ,

11.30.2008

Nazi Pie

Just who, exactly, makes up neo-Fascists in the UK? Look and see:

Labels:

11.14.2008

No.

First Bush launches into an impassioned defense of the free-market, and now the Federal government is 'considering' selling Crown assets to pay for the financial crisis.

As if public bailouts weren't enough, now we're going to privatise what little we have left and hand it over to the very people responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place.

Well, guess what! Fuck you. No.

Labels: ,

11.11.2008

Mumia on Obama

Labels: ,

10.24.2008

Nexus For A Large Scale Robot Attack

The latest request from the Pentagon jars the senses. At least, it did mine. They are looking for contractors to provide a "Multi-Robot Pursuit System" that will let packs of robots "search for and detect a non-cooperative human".

I knew this was going to happen. Even way back when they made 'AMEE' in the movie Red Planet they knew this was going to happen. Everyone knew this was going to happen. Read the rest here.

Labels: , ,

10.22.2008

Smoke and Mirrors

Smoke and Mirrors: An Analysis of Human Rights Watch’s Report on Venezuela


October, 19 2008
>by Gregory Wilpert
Source: Venezuelanalysis.com

President Chavez managed to hand Human Rights Watch a major public relations victory with his recent expulsion of its America's Director José Miguel Vivanco and its Deputy Director Daniel Wilkinson. With the expulsion, which Chavez ordered because Vivanco and Wilkinson are foreigners and did not have a visa that allowed them to engage in political or professional activity in Venezuela, Venezuela seemed to prove Human Rights Watch's point, that the Chavez government does not tolerate dissent. Whether the expulsion was justified is a distraction from the larger issue, though, which is whether the report, "A Decade Under Chávez," which Human Rights Watch (HRW) presented in Venezuela on September 18, is justified.

Another distraction, this time put forward by defenders of the Chavez government, is whether HRW is an agent of the U.S. government and of imperialism. Apparently false arguments about Vivanco's past are brought up, among other things. This, however, also serves to distract from a serious and accurate analysis of whether what HRW writes about Venezuela is valid and worth paying attention to.

Writing an analysis of the HRW report is a challenge, though, because it is tempting to respond to each and every point, which would make the response almost as long as the 236-page report itself. I will thus try to refrain from responding to each and every accusation and will discuss only the most important ones.

In short, the report raises a few problems with regard to the protection of political rights in Venezuela, but the few places where it is on target are almost completely drowned in a sea of de-contextualization, trumped-up accusations, and a clear and obvious bias in favor of the opposition and against the government. I will examine each of HRW's criticisms in the same order as the report itself, which deals with political discrimination, the judicial system, mass media, labor unions, and civil society organizations.

The Report in Context - Meta-Criticism

Before we begin the analysis of the report itself, though, it makes sense to take a brief look at some of the over-arching problems with the report.

First, the report gives the impression of being about human rights violations in general in Venezuela (the subtitle is: "Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela"), but actually narrowly focuses on some political rights (not even all political rights, leaving out electoral rights, for example), to the complete exclusion of social and economic rights. The report itself justifies this narrow focus by saying that the report "does not address all the pressing human rights issues facing [Venezuela] today, many of which pre-date the Chávez presidency. Rather, it focuses on the impact that the Chávez government's policies have had on institutions that play key roles in ensuring that human rights are respected: the courts, the media, organized labor, and civil society." Not only does this statement imply that there are far more human rights violations in Venezuela than the ones cited in this report, but it also implies that the violations it does discuss are the most important ones to focus on because they "ensure that human rights are respected."

Such a one-sided focus completely leaves out any consideration of the well-established human rights norm that human rights are "indivisible." That is, all of the human rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)—whether political, economic, or social—are equally important. In other words, had HRW taken economic and social rights also into consideration, it would have to conclude that the progress made in these areas has been tremendous during the Chavez presidency. Also, if one were to take economic rights seriously, it would be almost silly to claim that attention to courts, media, labor unions, and civil society are more important, since people who do not have their basic economic rights guaranteed, and are thus too busy finding food and shelter, are generally incapable of taking advantage of these institutions. HRW's emphasis on political rights thus reflects its bias towards the better off, who are already able to enjoy their economic and social rights without restriction.

Second, throughout the report HRW fails to present incidents or policies in their proper context, which makes it more difficult to understand how and why certain things happen in Venezuela. As a result, by excluding this context, readers interpret the issues that the report discusses through the lens of their own prejudices or the false media impressions of Venezuela, such as the widespread images of Chavez the "caudillo" or "dictator" of Venezuela.

Third, as almost all critics of the report have noted, the report was launched for maximum effectiveness (with an embargoed press release) just two month before Venezuela's November 23rd regional elections. This is the third time that HRW releases a major report shortly before an electoral contest (the first being in June 2004, just before the presidential recall referendum and the second in late 2007, just before the constitutional reform referendum). Vivanco should thus not be surprised if HRW is suspected of timing its reports to influence Venezuelan electoral contests.

Finally, this is one of the longest (other than its annual reports) special reports that HRW has done on any one topic or country. Vivanco says that the reason for this is that, "Everyone in the world has an opinion about Venezuela. There are very many and very strong opinions, but it is difficult to find concrete facts. We wanted to make the most faithful picture of what is happening here so that the world would know it." In other words, it would seem that the seriousness of human rights violations in Venezuela is not the real motivation for this book-length report, but rather it is the controversy surrounding Venezuela that motivated HRW to conduct this two-year investigation.

For a human rights group to make such a massive investment into a project (just how much did it cost and who paid for it?) not because of the seriousness of human rights violations, but because of the lack of consensus seems odd. This circumstance adds credence to one blogger's sarcastic remark (BoRev.net) that apparently Human Rights Watch believes that it's original mission has been accomplished, of rooting out torture, forced disappearances, and political imprisonments and that now it can afford the luxury of focusing on weak judiciaries and political discrimination in the hiring processes for civil service jobs.

We have yet to see a comparably long report on human rights violations in Colombia, Mexico, or the U.S. war on terror. More than that, there seems to be a political motivation for the report, based on Vivanco's statement, "We did the report because we wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone..." Certainly, if the Venezuelan government were a systematic violator of human rights, no one would say that such practices should be a model. Rather, the model that Chavez and his supporters defend (and Chavez himself has always said that every country should find its own path) are the policies that go against free market capitalism and in favor of redistribution of wealth and of political power.

These meta-criticisms of the report aside, it is nonetheless worthwhile to examine the issues it raises with respect to Venezuela's human rights situation. One just needs to keep in mind that in practically all of the areas it does not examine there have been tremendous advances, whether, for example, in education, in reducing poverty, or in including the previously excluded (such as women and indigenous and afro-Venezuelan populations). One specific measure of this progress is the fact that Venezuela is one of the few countries in Latin America to be on track for reaching the Millennium Development Goals...

Read the rest here.

Labels: ,

10.17.2008

Capital Hits The Fan

Labels: ,

10.16.2008

Only Days Away...

Ahaha.

"Austrian far-right politician Joerg Haider was drunk at the time of his fatal car crash last Saturday, an official from his party has said."

Too bad he had already found the time to breed.

Labels: ,

10.12.2008

Save the Planet: Stop Harper!

Labels: ,

10.11.2008

Unprecedented

10.10.2008

Everyone's A Critic



What was this? New Colours!? Limited Edition 2 of 10!? Bling-like font!?

What it was was a three-pronged attack on my consumer Achilles heel! What I had to do was buy it. Then I had to review it, since some people think this blog was better when I was writing about junk food instead of posting links to boring old articles about capitalism and Israeli war crimes.

Well, they tasted like Smarties, and the 'new' colours, which I didn't even feel the need to take a photo of, were suspiciously like the old colours, but washed out, or faded, as if from being exposed to the sun for too long on the back seat ledge of your car. Except less melted.

I also couldn't help but wonder if these new food colour combinations/concoctions were as safe and thoroughly-tested as the more traditional primary colour set. Then I remembered that red food colouring gives me cancer.

I'd eat more right now though, if someone put them in front of me. Or even just slightly across from me.

Labels: , ,

9.25.2008

The Harper Record

From the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

"This book is one in a series of CCPA publications that have examined the records of Canadian federal governments during the duration of their tenure. As with earlier CCPA reports on the activities of previous governments while in office, this book gives a detailed account of the laws, policies, regulations, and initiatives of the Conservative minority government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper during its 32-month term from January 2006 to September 2008.


The 47 writers, researchers and analysts who have co-written this book probe into every aspect of the Harper minority government’s administration. From the economy to the environment, from social programs to foreign policy, from health care to tax cuts, from the Afghanistan mission to the tar sands, from free trade to deep integration, and to many other areas of this government’s record, the authors have dug out the facts and analyzed them.

The Harper Record was necessarily researched and written long before an election was called, but its publication does coincide with an election campaign and thus may help citizens to make informed choices about the future of their country. Regardless of the election outcome, its contents will continue to be relevant between elections. In detailing what a minority Conservative government really did, or failed to do, it may serve as a guide and model for future elections."

Download the whole book here.

Labels: ,

9.23.2008

Naked

The rich are beautiful people. They never set a foot wrong, and yet everyone is constantly out to get them: the haters, the whiners, the terrorists, the jealous, the hippies, the lefties, the liberals, the protesters, the welfare queens, the quakers, the bakers, the candlestick makers etc. You, hypocrite lecteur, have never actually tried to live their lives, yet you persist in finding them at fault for some putative flaws. You're just jealous of their freedom. The latest challenge faced by the rich is that their mega-welfare-handout might not be processed through the system as rapidly as they had anticipated. The reason is that there might actually be some slight reflex in the state that still demands legislative review and judicial oversight.

Apparently, there are some little flaws to the proposed bail-out that cynics might carp about. For one thing it really does look like a parachute for the empire, in that it will bail out any global financial institution that happens to have what Paulson deems 'significant' investments in the US economy, whether they are in deep trouble already or not. This looks like a move to consolidate America's faltering command of the financial system and to ensure that the global appropriation of labour continues to operate overwhelmingly in the interests of US capital. Secondly, there are no protections for homeowners or taxpayers, no limits on executive remuneration, no plans to stimulate the economy, and no demands for reciprocity (ie, we give you $700bn, you give us...). This is just throwing money at the ruling class. So, as one might have predicted, the crisis is being used to shore up the class power of the rich through a massive act of expropriation. Thirdly, so it seems, the legislation includes a clause ruling out executive or judicial oversight of any part of this wealth transfer. So, the state is taking the opportunity to enhance its ability to act on behalf of capital without accountability.

Obama initially backed the Bush administration, but is offering some opposition to the current plans. A slew of right-wing commentators are also opposed, on the grounds that they thought all this bullshit about the 'free market' and 'moral hazard' and 'accountability' was in some sense meaningful. Only the reactionary statists of the Bush administration could force 'fiscal conservatives' into the same corner as liberals and leftists. No wonder the markets rallied on hearing of the Bush administration's plans: the owners saw a naked attempt to restore profitability by jacking the taxpayer further, thus ensuring a future 'belt-tightening' period of restricted income for Americans workers. And now we have an interesting bit of blackmail to deal with: if the legislation doesn't pass very quickly and without amendment, the markets may tumble again, thus threatening jobs, growth and trade.

From Lenin's Tomb.

Labels: ,

9.19.2008

Where Now For Capitalism?

"The unprecedented intervention of the Fed may be justified or not in narrow terms, but it reveals, once again, the profoundly undemocratic character of state capitalist institutions, designed in large measure to socialise cost and risk and privatize profit, without a public voice." -- Noam Chomsky

The BBC covering 'what's next' for capital? Wow. What IS next, indeed.

Labels: ,

9.17.2008

The Sound of Raining Bullshit

From Lenin's Tomb:

Hank Paulson tells us that the system is sound. The Daily Telegraph is sure that the chimera known as the "free market" is still "our best hope". Anatole Kaletsky of The Times believes that the fundamentals are sound and that the worst of the crisis is to be spent outside the 'real economy' in the surreal financial sector. And, as a special treat for British workers, the governor of the Bank of England says that his Monetary Policy Committee is now "firmer in its belief that a period of muted economic growth is necessary to dampen pressures on wages and prices and return inflation to target." Yes, you read that correctly! They're keeping interest rates high to beat the shit out of wages and depress the economy, right in the middle of a global downturn, right when deflation is the vogue threat. Ten'll get you five, this is driving a further wedge right into the heart of a government that is already collapsing before our eyes. A few days ago, the good governor directly intervened in policymaking by warning the government not to raise spending on public services for fear that this would reduce the credibility of the government's fiscal rules on borrowing in the eyes of investors. Well, isn't he sweet? First thing. I hate to remind everyone, but this crisis is rooted in the fundamentals.

Take an example. One reason why hedge funds aren't hurting so much today is because the credit default swaps on the Lehman Brothers securities brokers soared in value over the last few days before it declared bankruptcy. Why is that? A credit default swap (CDS) is, essentially, insurance taken out on debt you are owed if you think the borrower might default. You then might insure the CDS by taking out a further, derivative, CDS on that, if you think the institution providing the first CDS might itself default. The CDS will end up on the market like everything else, being bought and sold, generally by hedge funds because of their more secure position. The value of the CDS will increase as the company on whom the original protection was taken out becomes more and more likely to default on its debts. So, those who retained investments in Lehman Brothers despite the warning signs (such as George Soros), got burned, but most hedge funds, adhering to catholic investment doctrine, actually withdrew before the climax anyway, and probably even made something from Lehman's collapse. So far, it just looks like the conventional story: the rich man's betting club collapses on itself, with some winners and losers, and the challenge is to prevent the whole thing from "spilling over into the real economy".

But, of course, what caused Lehman Brothers to default on its debts was its exposure to the subprime market, and this is where we get down to those fundamentals. Lehman Brothers brokered in securities - to a large extent, mortgage-backed securities (MBS). A single MBS might consist of thousands of mortgages bundled together, which can be bought and sold on the market at extraordinary profit for as long as there is a boom. The subprime MBS market was always risky, but when the MBS market was worth trillions, having doubled between 2001 and 2003, it looked much more attractive than it does now. And at any rate, in order to generate more value out of relatively sluggish economic growth, many companies turned to the riskier investments because of the promise of greater rewards. But what caused the massively inflated value of the MBS market in the first place also contributed to the stock market bubbles we have seen before and after the 2000-1 recession. Households with incomes depressed on account of the clobbering of labour unions and of neoliberal policies designed to repress wages, had to rely on relatively inexpensive credit to meet their needs. As house prices went up, they could use their homes as collateral for increasing indebtedness. Without the staggering amount of private debt built up by US households through the 1990s and 2000s, the system would have collapsed much earlier, because there would not have been sufficient demand to sustain it. But that debt also provided the basis for a stupendous stock market bubble, and with it a massively inflated MBS market of the kind that tempted poor old Lehman Brothers to sin. The story of the collapse of Lehman Brothers is a story of weak fundamentals. The weaknesses of the 'real economy', far from originating in the financial sector, were conducted into the financial sector and then amplified.

Second thing. The news can't talk sensibly about this, because they can't talk about class. They implicitly favour the capitalist purview in their focus, but they cannot directly address the issues involved. That is why no one relying on the papers and the television for enlightenment is going to have a clue what is going on. You receive one staccato bulletin after another - it's Black Monday in New York, Oh Shit Tuesday in Tokyo, Nuclear Dawn Wednesday in Moscow... You get human interest, dramatic footae, soft focus interviews, political soundbites, wonkery, etc., and if you put it all together, you still walk away befuddled.

In fact, the best explanation you are likely to end up with is that some banks made some horribly bad bets on mortgages for poor people (and, therefore, what? - poor people shouldn't have mortgages?). To talk realistically about this crisis is to talk about what has happened to wages and profits for thirty years, the contours of class struggle and the associated political projects (socialism, social democracy, neoliberalism, etc), as well as the basic mechanism of exploitation behind that. To talk realistically about the issues raised by this crisis is also to talk about class, and particularly the impact on working class people.

You can't understand why those who gain most from the system suffer least when it fails, while those who gain least suffer most unless you at least mention the fact that there is such a thing as highly concentrated class power in the society. You certainly can't understand the government and Bank of England's decision to restrict consumption in response to the crisis without seeing a preemptive strike against the bargaining power of labour (this obsession with wage pressures). This conflict of interests, this class struggle, is expressed a little bit more openly in the German media because the unions there are building up for a big fight to seriously enhance take-home pay and have the resources to combat the dominant narrative about the threat of inflation. One could go on, but at every point where an issue like this comes up, the news media tends to become curiously cryptic. But just because the media doesn't recognise the very distinct working class interests that arise at this juncture doesn't mean that they aren't going to make themselves felt in a very serious way.

The co-ordinated pay revolt planned by unions, provided it is pushed for in a big way by union members, could potentially be massive. And this is not just an 'economic' struggle. This menacing climacteric, with a global economic downturn dovetailing with intensified inter-imperial competition and looming climate chaos, raises all sorts of political questions. In the short term, it demands a clear formulation of what kind of programme we would actually need from the government in contrast to what we're actually getting; in the medium-term, it raises the question of how we are to express our interests politically when the official party of organised labour is busily waging the class war on behalf of capital; and, in the long term, it adds grave import to the much more fundamental questions raised by the anticapitalist movement.

Can we continue to live with this system, given its obvious perils and injustices, or do we have the means to build an alternative kind of society? But who would ask such a question when the system is sound and the free market remains the one and best hope?

Labels: ,

9.10.2008

What Is That Eye On The Subway...

Madballs.

Labels: