SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
humans rights
A Death in Gaza and a Spiritual Explosion
40,000 (or more) Palestinians have been killed so far; this is one of them.
Aug 18, 2024
I stroke the unknown...
Bear with me as I finish my short walk. I was ambling through my neighborhood the other day, wielding a pair of walking sticks, “forcing myself,” you might say, to enjoy the beautiful afternoon but actually just plodding forward, in a hurry to get back to the house and be done with this bit of exercise.
But then, oh so briefly, I paused in my hurry-upness, took a deep breath, and continued slowly, deliberately on my way. Suddenly I was no longer in a pointless hurry, but, my God, surprisingly awake and present in this beautiful moment of sky and grass and sidewalk concrete. I felt the air fill my lungs and revered every step I took, knowing that one of them—someday—would be my last.
This moment, of what I sometimes call “blue pearl awareness,” lasted—what? Maybe a minute or so. I was almost home. I picked up a small plastic bag on a neighbor’s lawn, relishing the chance to do some good in the world. Then I was home. Now what? The moment was essentially over. I could hear the usual internal voices return—the scolding and worry and giveuptitude—but nevertheless I knew that something wondrous had just happened. I embraced it as best I could: Life is good, right now, at this very spark of time.
Then I went online, started scanning bits of news, which of course is always emotionally difficult. I had just had a moment that seemed “normal” in a way that transcended the usual way in which we (meaning I) shrug normalcy off as no big deal. In the embrace of this awareness, the actual universe is continuing to happen, one nanosecond, or whatever, at a time. In its absence, we have something far less: the news of the day, the limited world defined by collective agreement—a world of winners and losers, good guys and bad guys. A world, you might say, that we must continually put in an emotional cage just because it’s so annoying.
As I updated myself on the state of things, I came upon a scrap of data that suddenly thrust me back into larger awareness—but not joyfully, not willingly. This was just a small bit of “normal” from across the world, a single moment in the far, far larger context of war. Specifically, the hellish war in—on—Gaza.
The story hit me, as I say, at a time when I still felt open and present and, dare I say, connected to the evolving universe. So I couldn’t immediately shove the boy’s death or its surrounding context of horror into the stats bin.
What happened was just another Israeli bombing in Rafah. For some reason, a park had been targeted. Kids were playing in the park. Those killed included four members of one particular family: the mom, her daughter, and two sons, the youngest of whom was 18 months old.
The surviving dad is quoted in the story: “I saw the bodies of my wife Faten, and daughter Huda, my son Arkan, and my baby Ahmad. I was told he was headless. I just peeked inside the body bag and saw his body without a head, and I couldn’t stand to see it anymore.”
The story later informs us: “Ahmad’s head has not been found since his violent death, and Abdul Hafez was forced to bury his son without it. He was buried next to his mother and siblings amid Gaza’s ruins.”
Let me repeat: Ahmed’s head has not been found...
And here are the words of one of the surviving siblings: “I hope to be killed so I can join him in heaven.”
The story hit me, as I say, at a time when I still felt open and present and, dare I say, connected to the evolving universe. So I couldn’t immediately shove the boy’s death or its surrounding context of horror into the stats bin: 40,000 (or more) Palestinians have been killed so far; this is one of them. Instead, I felt a deep spiritual explosion... the Big Bang had just happened again.
I don’t know what more to say, what conclusion to draw. So I conclude, instead, with a somewhat recent poem I wrote, called “The Gods Get in Touch with Their Feminine Side”:
I stroke the unknown,
the dark silence, the
soul of a mother. I
pray, if that’s what
prayer is: to stir the certainties of
pride and flag and brittle
God, to stir
the hollow lost.
I pray open
the big craters
and trenches of
obedience and manhood.
Now is the time
to cherish the apple,
to touch the wound and love even
the turned cheeks and bullet tips,
to swaddle anew
the helpless future
and know
and not know
what happens next.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Stop Green Genocide in Cameroon
Fortress conservation has pushed the Baka people from the rainforests of the Congo Basin into villages bordering the national parks of southern Cameroon, while the logging that truly threatens the forest continues.
Jul 16, 2024
Clouds of red dust rise into the sky and hang in the air as the truck roars past. It's impossible to breathe as the dust gathers in the folds of villagers' clothes, settles on rooftops, and coats the forest's green leaves. The next truck goes by, and another cloud rises up in its wake. They carry massive tree trunks felled in the rainforests of the Congo Basin. The Baka people struggle to breathe every day, as logging companies from China, France, Italy, and Lebanon descend on the tropical forests and cut everything in their path.
The Baka have been pushed into villages bordering the national parks of southern Cameroon. Amid the din of passing trucks, they tell me they have been barred from their forest—they can no longer hunt for food, access their sacred sites, fish, or gather medicinal plants. Government authorities and "nature conservation" organizations say it's not the clear-cutting loggers destroying the forests. They blame the Baka—Indigenous hunter-gatherers who rely on the forests to live.
You're probably wondering how such a paradox can be tolerated. This is the heart of what's known as fortress conservation, driven by the erroneous belief that Indigenous people cannot look after their own land.
The Baka are fighting for their own survival, for their way of life, and for the forest they love. We in the West must ensure that our governments, and organizations such as WWF, finally stop supporting these atrocities.
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) supports national parks, including Lobéké, Nki, and Boumba Bek parks. The organization funds heavily armed rangers who prevent the Baka from entering their forest by arresting, beating, and torturing them. The Baka are forced to live in small roadside villages—without access to their own lands. Logging companies' concessions surround the parks. And it's not hard to see that it's their activities—not the Baka—threatening the Congo Basin forest, especially as most of the timber is destined for export to industrialized countries.
The companies sometimes operate within the parks. But WWF and other major conservation NGOs look the other way. Instead, they create partnerships with the companies for "sustainable forest management." But let's be honest: For WWF, it has more to do with the money they receive from the companies than actual conservation. WWF and the companies set up "anti-poaching units," with yet more guards attacking the Baka—all while the trucks keep roaring by. The certification labels on the timber say "sustainable"—so does the companies' advertising. But, watching the trunks trundle past before me, and seeing the destruction of the forest, that is laughable. There's no such thing as sustainable destruction.
National parks are not—as the conservation industry would have us believe—rare islands of unspoiled nature that mitigate the surrounding destruction. Instead, they are an integral part of a strategy designed to maximize profit from the environment and its resources while pointing the finger of blame at local communities—the people who are least responsible for the destruction.
Michel is chief of a Baka village on the edge of Lobéké National Park. He explains: "Our grandparents used the forest at Lobéké, before WWF arrived. Since they came, we don't go there anymore. If you go there, in the park, you won't be able to go home without problems. They're not protecting anything—they just want to kick us out."
For the Baka, the loss of their forest takes all of that away. It's not just losing a place to live or access to food; it's losing their identity. So, it's not just a matter of material hardship, it's also the destruction of a people.
Baka children no longer learn about the forest plants: It's too dangerous to take them into the forest to teach them. The Baka say that for them the forest is absolutely everything. It sustains them and it provides everything that gives meaning to their lives. Without access to their forest, the Baka's future is in jeopardy.
Tragic as it may seem, the situation was much worse just a few years ago. WWF-funded guards waged a veritable war against the Baka. They harassed people, invading their homes, beating and torturing anyone they found—including the elderly who weren't quick enough to flee. Many Baka had to abandon their villages to escape. Some fled to neighboring Congo.
Thanks in large part to the work of Survival International, which catalyzed international support and investigations, the once-extreme level of violence has radically diminished. But the guards still beat Baka people if they try to enter the forest, and the severe trauma of the extreme physical violence of previous years remains. Célestin, a young Baka man in his mid-20s says: "We always think about violence. We go to sleep without having eaten, and we think about it. All the time."
The big conservation organizations are responsible for this chaos and pain. Once they've forced the Baka out of the forest, they offer "alternative livelihood projects" to draw them further away from their ancestral territory and way of life. Though they claim the projects compensate for the loss of the forest, it's just a less obvious way to go about destroying the Baka's lives and their bonds with their forest.
"They want to turn us into villagers," say the Baka. "We stay in the village all day, but we were born to be in the forest." WWF set up a mushroom-growing project in a Baka village. It provided equipment and training and built a warehouse. The Baka followed the instructions to grow and dry the mushrooms. But a year later, no one came to buy them, and WWF never returned. That's just one example among many. NGOs promise people chickens, sheep, ponds for fish farming, saying they'll have a "better" life. But for the Baka, the best life is one at peace in the forest, and the promises never materialize. "So far, we've had nothing. The people to whom these promises were made are dead now," testify the Baka.
The loss of their forest, as described by village chief Michel, leads to a disintegration of the social fabric, and loss of the foundations of the Baka identity and way of life. It is simply the destruction of them as a people: it's a green genocide. Nothing could compensate the Baka for the loss of their forest. The Baka survive by working in neighboring communities' fields, in conditions akin to slavery, paid tiny sums of money or just given alcohol. But it's dependent on the goodwill of those who "employ" them. (There is a big problem now with alcohol dependency among the Baka, not unlike the historical problems of other peoples who were dispossessed of their land, such as those in North America and Australia.)
"We are suffering. Those who make us work in the fields don't consider us human, they want to kill us. They give us so much to do, and if you refuse to work in the fields, they hit you," says Michel.
Michel, Célestin, and the rest of the Baka are fighting for their own survival, for their way of life, and for the forest they love. We in the West must ensure that our governments, and organizations such as WWF, finally stop supporting these atrocities. It's not too late to prevent the conservation industry suffocating an entire people, just as the red dust suffocates everyone in its path. Let's stop this green genocide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Evidence Is Indisputable: Canada Does Not Uphold International Law
It is up to us to challenge the government's dangerous misinformation and demand that the government support binding international laws that protect the well-being of people and the planet.
Jul 01, 2024
Does Canada uphold binding international law? The answer is No.
The Canadian government repeatedly tells the world that Canada upholds an international rules-based order that is the basis of democracy.
What the Canadian government says is not true. The evidence that it is not true is indisputable.
When the Canadian government says it supports the rule of international law, it is referring to its support for international "free" trade rules that override democracy, increase corporate power, and harm the environment.
There is widespread concern that social media is putting out misinformation, that this practice is dangerous and harmful and should be challenged. What about when our government puts out serious misinformation that is dangerous and harmful? Should that not be challenged? What do you think?
I'm not talking about trivial matters. I'm talking about extremely serious issues where the health and survival of people and the planet are threatened. And I'm not talking about pretty words. The Canadian government excels at that. I'm talking about our actions. When words and actions contradict one another, it is the actions that speak the truth. In fact, it makes Canada's role more destructive because it is dishonest. What do you think?
If the Canadian government told the truth, it would say that Canada does not uphold binding international laws that protect human rights and the environment. What the Canadian government means is that it upholds international trade agreements that enforce the interests of powerful private corporations, override democracy, and harm human rights and the environment.
Does that make sense to you? Does that reflect your values? Is that the world you want for your and everyone's kids and grand-kids?
Or does that trouble you like it troubles me?
Another question. If we are a democracy as we claim to be, do you think this should be talked about? It isn't. Why not? I thought democracy meant accountable government. Do you think we should require our political leaders to state where they stand on this issue and hold an open discussion with Canadians as to whether this is what we, who they supposedly represent, want—i.e. a discussion that is not held behind closed doors and under the influence of powerful vested interests and their paid lobbyists, as is the way that Canada's policy on human rights, the environment and, corporate power is typically decided?
Canada, right now, is blatantly violating binding international human rights law
Binding international human rights laws require that, no matter how much economic, military, or political power you (and your allies) have, you are legally bound to obey that law. There can be no double standards. All lives are valuable, even the most powerless, especially the most powerless. Human rights are for all. Otherwise, it is not human rights law at all. It is a sham.
The most serious binding international laws address horrific crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The International Court of Justice investigates and makes legally binding rulings against countries that have violated these laws, and the International Criminal Court makes rulings against individuals who have violated these laws.
Canada has ratified these international laws. Canada is legally bound to obey them and obey the rulings of these two top world courts. But Canada does not. Canada has sabotaged and continues to violate these laws.
For example, Canada lobbied the International Criminal Court to refuse to investigate documented allegations of war crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians. This effort by Canada to prevent the rule of law failed, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) proceeded with its investigation. On the basis of overwhelming evidence, the court said it had reason to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as three Hamas leaders, had committed war crimes and that the ICC would be seeking arrest warrants for them.
After failing in its attempt to prevent the rule of law, the Canadian government now refuses to say whether it will, as it is legally required to do, obey the court's ruling. Its pretended commitment to international law is nonexistent.
Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, including Jewish organizations, have challenged the Canadian government to obey international law. The government has ignored their appeal.
Please note that binding international laws that protect human rights and the environment have no enforcement mechanisms.
Former Liberal Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and former Liberal Attorney General Allan Rock and a group of 375 prominent former politicians and current academics have sent a letter challenging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to express clear support for the ICC ruling. The government has ignored their appeal.
Prof. Heidi Matthews of Osgoode Hall Law School notes that along with a panel of experts in international law who independently reviewed the evidence, the ICC prosecutor concluded there are reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant are criminally responsible for starvation, murder, intentional attacks against civilians, extermination, and persecution, among other crimes.
As Prof. Matthews points out, "This dramatic development marks the first time leaders of a Western allied state have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity at the ICC." Apparently, Canada believes that binding international law does not apply to Western allied states.
The U.S. government, whether under President Joe Biden or President Donald Trump, believes that binding international human rights law does not apply to the US. In the past and currently Republican and Democrat politicians in the U.S. have threatened to punish and to arrest the ICC prosecutor and ICC officials if they come to the United States.
Human Rights Watch has written to Canada's Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly May 21, 2024, saying, "We urge Canada, as an ICC member committed to a rules-based international order, to protect the court's independence and publicly condemn efforts to intimidate or interfere with the court's work, its officials, and those cooperating with the institution. Canada should also robustly support the ICC's efforts to advance justice for grave international crimes."
The Canadian government stays silent and does nothing. Its proclaimed commitment to the rule of international law is nowhere to be seen.
The International Court of Justice said that South Africa's genocide case against Israel was plausibly brought. The court has ordered a number of provisional measures. Under the Genocide Convention, Canada is legally required to implement these measures and take all action possible to prevent genocide. Instead, Canada is aiding and abetting genocide by not immediately stopping the shipment of any weapons to Israel.
Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights, along with others, have filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government to stop arms exports to Israel.
Please note that, in addition to the horrific human costs, war has a devastatingly destructive environmental impact. See, for example: " Revealed: Repairing Israel's Destruction of Gaza Will Come at Huge Climate Cost."
Canada supports international "free" trade rules that enforce the interests of corporations.
When the Canadian government says it supports the rule of international law, it is referring to its support for international "free" trade rules that override democracy, increase corporate power, and harm the environment. These "free" trade rules are colonialism in a new disguise, giving "freedom" to exploit and dehumanize Indigenous peoples and populations in the Global South.
The government is providing misleading, deceptive information.
Please note that binding international laws that protect human rights and the environment have no enforcement mechanisms. International trade agreements have enforcement mechanisms, such as secretive World Trade Organization tribunals and free trade panels, which can force governments to pay billions of dollars to corporations and get rid of laws the corporations don't like, such as laws that protect the environment and the rights of Indigenous communities.
Think about that. Trade agreements that protect the huge global power and profits of corporations, such as fossil fuel corporations, mining corporations, and agro-chemical corporations, are enforceable.
Legally binding international conventions that protect the health and survival of people and the planet are not enforceable.
Does that make sense to you? Do you think that we should, if we are a democracy, at least have an open discussion about this?
Right now, for example, the Canadian government together with the U.S. government and powerful agro-chemical corporations (" Revealed: Monsanto Owner and U.S. Officials Pressured Mexico to Drop Glyphosate Ban") has threatened to take legal action against Mexico under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (formerly the North America Free Trade Agreement), if the Mexican government does not abandon its decision to place restrictions on the import of GMO corn and glyphosate.
In January 2023, the Council of Canadians and other organizations wrote to Trudeau and government ministers, stating: "We call on the Canadian Government to back Mexico's plan to phase out GMO corn and the use of glyphosate by 2024. We oppose the use of trade agreements to undermine democratic rights and prioritize corporate profit-making ahead of the needs of our communities."
Farmer associations and environmental and social justice organizations sent a petition to the Canadian government, stating: "We oppose Canada's role in the trade dispute that challenges Mexico's restrictions on the use of GM corn. We oppose the use of trade agreements to undermine democratic rights and prioritize corporate profit-making ahead of the needs of our communities." They asked Canada to withdraw from this dispute. Canada continues to act for the interests of the agro-chemical lobby.
The powerful pesticide lobby organization CropLife Canada stated: "CropLife is pleased that Canada is defending rules-based trade and holding Mexico accountable to the free trade agreement."
Contrary to what the Canadian government states, Canada is serving the vested interests of the chemical lobby, not democracy. Environmental organizations have expressed concern that Health Canada, which is supposed to regulate pesticides to protect human and environmental health, has been captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate and ignores inconvenient scientific evidence. In the same way, Health Canada was captured by the asbestos industry and supported the corrupt information of the asbestos lobby that asbestos can be safely used.
Another example of how Canada is undermining democracy, the environment, and human rights and is instead serving the interests of Canadian mining and resource extraction corporations is Canada's support for an "investor-state dispute settlement" regime (yes, this is indeed a pretty phrase intended to put you to sleep, but what it means is giving enforceable power for corporations to override democracy) in the free trade agreement Canada is currently negotiating with Ecuador.
As University of British Columbia professor of law, policy, and sustainability and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, David R. Boyd, stated in a report to the U.N. General Assembly in October 2023, investor-state dispute settlements have catastrophic consequences for the environment and human rights.
Boyd's report provides:
compelling evidence that a secretive international arbitration process called investor-state dispute settlement has become a major obstacle to urgent actions needed to address the planetary environmental and human rights crises. Foreign investors use the dispute settlement process to seek exorbitant compensation from states that strengthen environmental protection, with the fossil fuel and mining industries already winning over $100 billion in awards.
Amnesty International and environmental groups have called on the Canadian government to exclude this investor-state dispute settlement provision, but, as is its practice, the government is serving the financial interests of powerful corporate lobby groups and is violating binding international laws that protect the environment and human rights.
Do you support this? Do you think we should, at least, talk about whether this is the world we want? Does it bother you that the CBC and the establishment media pretend not to see this issue and choose not to challenge the government on it? Supposedly, their role is to hold power accountable, but they do not.
It is up to us to challenge the government's dangerous misinformation and demand that the government support binding international laws that protect the well-being of people and the planet.
We need to care about one another and the planet. We will be happier and safer if we do so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular