"Police cleared in 2 shooting deaths"

The headline above is from today's Toronto Star. It seems every month or so, a headline like this comes up again. These days, I don't even bother looking into the story. Why? Because the story never changes. Police officer kills civilian with gun. SIU (Special Investigations Unit) investigates. SIU finds officer innocent of any wrongdoing. The SIU has never found a police officer guilty of wrongdoing in any shooting in Toronto. Isn't that wonderful?

A couple of years ago, I supported the Justice for Jeffrey Campaign, asking for justice in the case of high school student Jeffrey Reodica, who was shot to death by a plainclothes police officer. The facts in that case were disturbing. Just a few:
- witnesses stated the plainclothes officers never identified themselves as police
- the police claimed Jeffrey had a knife, which is why he was shot
- Jeffrey was shot in the back at close range, when he could have been shot in the legs
- the officer who shot him claimed that he thought he had been stabbed by Jeffrey, but the officer had no wounds
- Jeffrey's friends and family assert he had never had a knife
- a knife was found at the scene; it would have required two hands to open it
- the knife had no fingerprints on it

Despite these troubling facts, and more, in this race-related case, the SIU chose to believe the testimony of a minority of witnesses who supported the dubious police claims.

Aside from the tragedy of Jeffrey Reodica's case, there is a larger issue here: that of trust in our police, and especially in the SIU. When a lawyer, teacher, or doctor is accused of wrongdoing, the law, teaching, and medical communities, respectively, make a quick and intensive investigation of the allegations, and may distance themselves from the accused. But the police always rally around their accused, and refuse to accept even the possibility of guilt. And despite the SIU being decribed as a "civilian" group, its behaviour is suspect; the Reodica case is only one example.

When a shooting occurs in a non-white community and witnesses refuse to come forward, there is often a plea from the chief of police. But how can people be expected to have trust in the police when we see case after case in which police behaviour is suspicious, and the SIU never has so much as a criticism? One of the shootings which the title of this post refers to was that of a man who was shot dead for stealing some lemons from a variety store. Why didn't the officers shoot the man in the legs? The report which cleared the officers said it was icy and the officers were afraid of slipping.

Our police may continue to kill under suspicious circumstances. And the SIU will no doubt clear the officers involved. Just don't expect race-relations between non-white communities and the police to improve, and don't ask us to trust the police until there is real change.

"For Reasons of National Security"

In Canada, every time a Muslim is accused of terrorism (and let's face it: these days, no one else gets accused of terrorism), his human rights are violated, his legal rights are denied, and he is imprisoned - usually indefinitely and without charges. Of course, the rest of Canada is assured that this is all being done for the good of the country and our personal safety. Our authorities are working hard to keep us safe. And when asked for evidence, they will always say that the evidence is classified "for reasons of National Security".

It's never been explained to me what that means, or how National Security (NS) could be endangered by releasing evidence that could convict an accused terrorist. After all, if someone really is a terrorist, wouldn't a swift and solid conviction be best for all? And if our authorities are arresting someone on a terrorism accusation, shouldn't they have solid proof of that person's guilt? A conviction would also go a long way in reassuring the public that a terrorism accusation is justified.

In the case of Mohamed Harkat, who was imprisoned on terrorism allegations under a security certificate, filmmaker Anice Wong produced a documentary which addressed this issue. In the film, using documents from Harkat's lawyer, we get a rare glimpse into how the authorities suppress information:

(Screenshot taken from Anice Wong's documentary, "Whose Rights Anyway? Justice for Mohamed")

Don't you feel better now? The whole country could be in jeopardy if other terrorists find out whether Moe Harkat can speak French.

If that gives you doubts about the competence of CSIS, stay tuned. I have lots more to share.

Comment (and troll) policy

Wow. That was fast. I've already had to delete a couple of comments. Next thing you know - I'll be switching to comment moderation...

The purpose of this blog is to keep a record of events, and hopefully to be able to educate some Canadians as to the real facts behind some of our most important issues today. The purpose of this blog is not to provide a place to get into arguments with people who just want to argue. I don't have time for that.

Someone just posted comments stating that he thought the war resisters should not be allowed to remain in Canada. The thing is, his arguments were refuted in my earlier post as well as on wmtc, which I know the person in question reads (in fact, he found my blog though the wmtc link).

If you're not going to bother reading my posts, you certainly are not going to be given free reign to post opposing viewpoints. Go post on your own blog.

What does it take to get people to act?

I sometimes think it's a shame that most Canadians didn't experience a world war. Not that I want one now - it's just that most of us don't know real hardship. We have never had to ration goods, see a spouse or family member off at the airport with the likelihood that they may return in a coffin, or consider the loss of our freedom. Every single one of us is aware of political problems, social problems, and catastrophes which involve other parts of the world, and some which directly affect us. What do we do about problems? We talk about them. Sometimes we donate money. But for most of us, it ends there. Is that enough?

Tom grew up in New Jersey; his partner, Emilio, left Venezuela to escape discrimination and persecution. In Canada, Tom would have been able to sponsor Emilio, so that immigration would not have been an issue. But because same-sex partnerships are not federally recognized in the US, Emilio was instead under threat of deportation. They took part in a documentary to raise awareness of the plight of bi-national same-sex couples in the US.

Tom recently recounted to me his frustration with people's reactions to the film. Viewers were, of course, sympathetic, and many wanted to offer money. But of course, this particular issue is not a financial one; the problem lies with the ultra-conservative atmosphere which envelopes the US at the moment (the Bush administration, right-wing religious fundamentalism, anti-immigration and anti-gay bigotry). Tom and Emilio don't need anyone's money, nor do they need anyone's pity; what they need is for people to do something about repressive and discriminatory laws, for instance - by calling their elected politicians and pushing them to push for change.

But this is the reality of the society we live in; it is much easier to give money and be done with it. Most people are scared to phone politicians, regardless of how important the reason might be. And we are able to be complacent and apathetic, because this is the only world most of us know: a world of Ipods, high-def television, computers and internet access, and Hollywood blockbuster summer movie releases. For most of us, the biggest crisis is dealing with a broken air-conditioning system, unexpected car repairs, or noisy neighbours.

When I look at campaigns of activism, such as the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada, the Presumption of Innocence Project, and the War Resisters, to name a few, the majority of the people who start, join, and support these campaigns are those who are directly affected, such as relatives of those who have been victimized. Some of the organizers and key members of these campaigns are outsiders - people from the "mainstream", if you will - who dedicate much of their free time to activism. But these people represent a very small minority of the population. Where are the rest of us?

In the last few weeks, the War Resisters Support Campaign asked people to call Stephane Dion to support the call to allow resisters to stay in Canada. Enough people called that the Liberals were convinced to add their support to the Bloc and NDP, so that the Conservatives were defeated in a vote on the motion. People actually took action, and the result was that they made a real difference. But the campaign was long and hard, and the number of people who actually took part was a miniscule part of the majority of the Canadian population which believes in this cause.

In other countries, hundreds of thousands of people turn out for demonstrations. In Canada, it seems that we'd need a miracle (or some kind of disaster) to generate that kind of reaction.

There is still nowhere else in the world I would rather live. But it is precisely because of that that I want this country to clean up its act in terms of the discrimination and human rights violations - which most Canadians are unaware of. I hope this blog can help educate some people to understand what is wrong. But from that point on, it is up to ordinary Canadians to act.

Parliament says: "Let the War Resisters Stay"!

Today is a happy day - the happiest in a long time.

For the first time in my life, I rushed home from work, to turn on... CPAC. Promptly at 3:00 PM, the House of Commons voted on the motion to allow American war resisters to stay in Canada. Although we knew going in that we had majority support for the motion, it ain't over 'til it's over. We simply needed more votes than the bad guys, and the NDP and Bloc were onside, and so were the Liberals (albeit late to the party). But in these votes, what it can come down to is how many MPs actually show up. Because this can be crucial, I'm sure both sides had instructions to show up at all costs. So it was a nail-biter all the way through. The result:

Yea: 137
Nay: 110

It was thrilling, and I wish I'd been able to go to Ottawa with my friends to be able to celebrate. Ten of the war resisters were present, and if it was emotional for me watching on tv, I can imagine the scene in the gallery.

What does this mean? It's now up to Harper to acknowledge the will of the majority, and implement the motion. I don't know enough about the workings of our government and its systems to be able to analyze the situation. Historically, there have been cases in which the Prime Minister has ignored a motion. But from what I hear, it would be foolish for him to do so. Besides the majority vote in the motion, this has majority support among the Canadian population. And Harper has had a lot of bad publicity of late, and he has a minority government. I wonder if ignoring or defying the motion would be the beginning of the end for him.

I do wonder if he can drag his feet on the implementation; time is crucial as Corey Glass was scheduled to be deported in another week or so. I don't know if that can happen now; it would certainly be a travesty of justice. Given today's events, it would also be incredibly petty of the government to allow it, but then that is the type of man Harper is.

Many Canadians are unaware that the Canadian government was not in favour of allowing Vietnam resisters to stay in Canada. It was not until one of them was threatened with deportation that outraged Canadians rallied and forced the government to change its tune. Today, history is repeating itself in a very positive way.

Thanks to everyone who made phone calls and wrote email to Stephane Dion to get the Liberals onside, and to Harper and Diane Finley (immigration). As with voting in elections, every single person can make a difference.

Thanks to all of those involved in the War Resisters Support Campaign. These people are amazing, and I am honoured to call a lot of them my friends.

Thanks most of all to the courageous Americans who have sacrificed and risked much to come to Canada, and especially those who are speaking out and putting a public face on the issue. I feel fortunate to have met many of them in person, and hope that today's events mean their worries are over, and that they can get on with their lives.

It's so ironic that our immigration system requires people to have money, education, and perhaps business or entrepreneurial skills so that they will hopefully add something (perhaps new jobs) to this country. Yet the Conservative government has tried to prevent war resisters from staying. The resisters are people who have the intelligence and the integrity to protest what they have seen and felt to be morally wrong; they have already proven that they belong, by not only showing commitment to Canada's traditional role as peacekeeper, but by forcing our government to renew that role. They are forcing us to redefine Canada as a better place. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

Tell Harper to let the War Resisters stay in Canada!

On Tuesday, June 3, the House of Commons will vote on the motion to allow US war resisters to remain in Canada. This is it - this could be the turning point. The campaign suffered a blow when one of the resisters, Corey Glass, was recently informed he is to be deported in a couple of weeks.

People say, "but they volunteered". And this is supposed to make all the difference between the Vietnam war, when draft dodgers and resisters were given refuge in Canada, and the Iraq war. Some facts in response:

1) It's hard for people in a city like Toronto to imagine, but some of these people are subject to what is called the "economic draft". They volunteered because they lived in a place where the army seemed to be the only option. For some, it was the only way to obtain health care and an education. And while they were pondering that...

2) The army recruits agressively. One young American friend of mine tells of how recruiters would not leave him alone in high school. The military has the right to recruit in high schools (something that is being debated at many Canadian universities right now). Plus...

3) Military recruiters are allowed to lie. They can say anything they want. Many prospective soldiers want to enlist, but only if they can get a non-combat position. Many of the war resisters in Canada report that they were assured this would not be a problem. Corey Glass was even told he would only end up in combat if foreign troops entered the US.

4) Some of these resisters have returned from duty in Iraq, and know what is really going on there. Rather than building bridges or handing out candy to children, they were ordered to fire upon unarmed civilians. Their refusal to return is a moral decision - to refuse to kill, to refuse to fight in an illegal war, and to refuse to take part in war crimes.

5) Knowing what we now know, no reasonable person supports the Iraq invasion. Many who say the Iraq resisters volunteered feel that sheltering Vietnam resisters was ok. So if the Iraq resisters had been drafted, we should offer support, but since they volunteered, we should allow them to be forced to fight in an illegal war of aggression?

6) The resisters will not be treated fairly if they have to return to the US. Many resisters are serving jail time as a result of their conscientious objection to the Iraq invasion. They will receive a "bad conduct discharge", which is a felony, which will forever affect their ability to get a job. And while I don't believe even Dubya would be dumb enough to allow it, desertion in the US can be punishable by death.

7) From a letter to the editor in today's Toronto Star:

This is not just an immigration or moral issue – it is an issue of international law. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the Iraq war illegal, and the war crimes and crimes against humanity that have occurred throughout the war are well-documented.

Canada cannot pretend to support international law while denying sanctuary to those fleeing war crimes and crimes against humanity. If we expect individuals to uphold international law, then it follows that we must support them and provide sanctuary when they believe they are being asked to do something that violates international law.

So what now? Before Tuesday's vote, call or email Diane Finley (immigration minister) and Stephen Harper. Tell them what the majority of Canadians are feeling. Here is what I wrote:

To: Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley


Please support the motion to allow Iraq war resisters to remain in Canada. Rescind the deportation order against US war resister Corey Glass, and immediately cease all deportation proceedings against all war resisters.

We need you to do the right thing. This is the will of the Canadian people!

The other day, I actually called Stephane Dion's office (before the Liberals declared their support for the war resisters). It was my first time phoning. I hate phoning, and was a bit apprehensive. To my surprise, it was easy and pleasant. No one cares who you are; no one asks your name or personal information. They simply take your comments and tell you they will be passed on, and it's all over in 60 seconds.

On Monday, do the right thing, and phone. If you can't, then email. Here is the contact info:

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley
phone 613.996.4974
fax 613.996.9749
email finley.d@parl.gc.ca

Prime Minister Stephen Harper
phone 613.992.4211
fax 613.941.6900
email pm@pm.gc.ca

Tell them you want the Government of Canada to:

rescind the deportation order against US war resister Corey Glass, and immediately cease all deportation proceedings against all war resisters

support the motion to allow Iraq war resisters to remain in Canada, and

support the will of the Canadian people, and not the US's war agenda.

Paintball Terrorists

The case of the "Toronto 18", or "Paintball 18", or "Toronto 11" now that charges against seven have been stayed, has many parallels to the "Project Thread" case which initially got me involved in activism. In that case, "evidence" which looked rock-solid fell apart within a week. In this case, the more we hear, the less reasonable the case appears to be.

Some things don't change, though. The accused were smeared in the media, and the new norm (at least for Muslims) is to presume the accused are guilty until they are proven innocent. Treatment of the accused is tantamount to torture; a few have been held in solitary confinement for almost two years (a breach of international treaties).

A few journalists are giving the case some decent coverage, and I believe this will improve as the case continues to fall apart. But can the accused expect justice? And will it happen before some suffer permanent physical or emotional harm?

Terror case begins to emit ripe aroma

04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom
Toronto Star

Two years ago, this country received a rude shock. On June 2, 2006, the Star reported that police had arrested 17 young Toronto-area Muslim-Canadian males (an 18th would be picked up a few weeks later) on charges of terrorism.

The allegations that dribbled out over the next few weeks were sensational.

Some reports said that the group had planned to attack Parliament and behead Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Others talked of a plot to blow up CBC – or maybe the Canadian Security Intelligence Service – headquarters in Toronto. There were lurid accounts of a jihadist training camp near Orillia.

Police said that some of the accused had tried to purchase enough fertilizer to make three Oklahoma City-style bombs.

In the media, security experts said the arrests proved that Canada was not immune to terrorism, while diversity experts wrung their hands and asked what the country had done wrong.

It was widely assumed that the Toronto 18 were all guilty of plotting heinous crimes.

Two years later, matters are much less clear. The Crown has, in effect, dropped all charges against seven of the 18 – including a man convicted in the original gun-smuggling case that helped bring the group to police attention. The trial of the one remaining minor still charged with an offence is just getting underway.

What has been allowed to emerge from various court hearings (the case is subject to a sweeping publication ban) suggests that whatever was going on may not have been as spectacular as had been first suggested.

The training camp appears to have been a sorry affair in which the alleged jihadists spent most of their time complaining and trekking to a local doughnut shop.

The threats against politicians seem to be based, in part, on a brief, desultory conversation during a 10-hour car ride during which some of the accused debated among themselves just who exactly the Prime Minister was.

Much of the case seems to rest on the testimony of two RCMP moles, one of whom was later criminally charged in an unrelated matter, both of whom received hefty payments for their work.

Curiously, a preliminary hearing to determine whether there was enough evidence to charge the adult accused was abruptly terminated by the Crown just as defence lawyers were preparing to cross-examine one of those moles.

The trial proper of the 10 remaining adult accused has still not started. When it does, most analysts expect a bevy of procedural and perhaps constitutional challenges from defence lawyers attempting, among other things, to ascertain the exact role of CSIS in the case.

Estimates of how long the entire trial could take range from a few months (the government's guess) to several years.

Defence lawyer Paul Slansky, who represents 20-year-old Saad Gaya, says he expects the trial will take five to seven years to finish.

All of this raises questions of timely justice. In the 1990 Askov case, the Supreme Court ruled that unreasonably lengthy criminal proceedings may contravene the Constitution's Charter of Rghts and that, in such situations, defendants are to be released without charge.

The top court set no firm time limit. But seasoned lawyers are already catching a whiff of Askov in the breeze.

"We defence counsel talk about cases getting to be charter-ripe," says Toronto lawyer Paul Copeland, who does not represent any of the 18. "I would think this terror case is getting close to ripe."