Guest Bloggers

Torture Can and Must be Stopped

Talking about torture inevitably makes people feel uncomfortable. The tactics, the cruelty, the imagined pain and suffering are terrible to think about. But we need to start discussing torture much more than we do.  Because we have to stop it. And to stop it we need to talk about it. Otherwise it remains hidden, in the shadows. And if left in the shadows torture will never end.

Consider Claudia Medina’s case. Claudia was taken from her home in Veracruz, Mexico in the middle of the night. She was beaten, kicked, sexually assaulted, given electric shocks, and tied to a chair and left in the scorching afternoon sun on a navy base. Accused of being part of a criminal gang, she signed a statement she was not allowed to read and was paraded in front of the media. She later told the court she had been tortured. All but one of the charges were dropped and she was released. Almost two years later, there has been no investigation into her torture.

The global ban on torture is unambiguous. But torture is commonplace; in fact epidemic in many countries.  And sadly, instead of consistently rejecting torture in other countries, too often Canadian policy gives it a nudge and a wink. That complacency must give way to resolute leadership.

It is universally banned; and it is never excused. Yet the new campaign to Stop Torture launched by Amnesty International last month points to torture in 141 countries, on every continent, over the past five years. That extends beyond those countries most readily associated with torture, such as Syria, Iran or China. For instance, during the campaign Amnesty International activists across Canada will push to end high levels of torture in Mexico and the Philippines. Recently Amnesty International has initiated urgent action on torture in Colombia, Angola and Barbados. The wrenching reality is that torture rears its head in so many parts of our world; and not just where it would be most readily expected.

Few human rights protections are stated so unequivocally: in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, numerous other UN treaties, declarations and resolutions, and countless national constitutions and laws. No one shall be subjected to torture. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification for torture. And not just internationally, there are countless national laws and constitutions which firmly reject torture, including Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Governments had good reason for that unconditional ban. Torture strikes at the essence of human dignity that is at the very heart of human rights. Excusing it for any reason – combatting terrorism, fighting crime or waging a war – only deepens the divisions and marginalization, and furthers the cycles of revenge and repression, that fuel human rights abuses and insecurity.

Governments also knew the ban made sense because torture doesn’t work; people will say anything to bring it to an end. And they realized that creating any exceptions was a dangerous slippery slope. There is no such thing as a little torture. Once it is allowed in one situation it’s use only grows.

The reasons it continues are many. People are tortured as punishment. They are tortured to force a confession, implicate someone else or obtain information. Torture is used to spread fear, keep people silent, and terrorize entire communities. It is often an extension of discrimination and misogyny. Torture frequently stems from misunderstanding and hate.

The techniques are multitude. The imagination of cruelty knows no bounds. From brutal physical mistreatment to agonizing psychological methods; torture leaves emotional scars, debilitating injuries and often leads to death. No one is spared: men and women, the young and the elderly.

In all of this, torturers are greatly aided by the secrecy that keeps their crimes hidden and the impunity that shields them from punishment. 

Safeguards are needed to pierce the secrecy, such as by making sure lawyers and doctors can play their role, standing between torturers and their victims. Political will is needed to shatter the impunity that denies justice to Claudia.

To make that happen, we need global champions. Surprisingly, no state truly leads the effort to eradicate torture. Why isn’t Canada playing that role?

Canada should be that champion simply because it is such a vital human rights concern. We should do so also because torture increasingly strikes frighteningly close to home.  It is no longer a faraway issue happening in faraway lands.  A growing number of Canadians have experienced torture around the world, including in Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and Sri Lanka.  On any given day a Canadian is held somewhere in the world where the risk of torture is very real.

And it goes further than that. We also face the disturbing recognition that Canadian actions have contributed to torture in many countries. Numerous judicial inquiries and court rulings have made that very clear, including the cases of Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nureddin, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, Omar Khadr and Abousfian Abdelrazik. It was the central concern with Afghan prisoner transfers. And it remains a glaring human rights loophole in Canadian immigration law, which allows deportations to torture in exceptional cases. Canadians suffer the consequences of torture; but also Canadians are sometimes part of the problem of torture.

The Canadian connection to overseas torture is back in the news this year with further revelations about Ministerial Directions on torture and intelligence information. The directives authorize the use in Canada, in exceptional circumstances, of intelligence that was likely obtained through torture in other countries. And intelligence can be shared with foreign agencies, even when that will likely cause torture. That goes against one of the key recommendations to come out of the judicial inquiry into Maher Arar’s case. The UN’s expert Committee against Torture has called on Canada to bring the Ministerial Directions into line with the international ban on torture. But Canada hasn’t budged and shows no signs of planning to make any changes.

Meanwhile Canada rebuffs a groundbreaking UN treaty that is meant to prevent torture through a system of national and international prison inspections. The treaty, an Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, has been around since 2002. Over 70 countries are on board, including France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and other close Canadian allies. But despite promises at the UN in 2006 and 2009 to consider ratification, Canada has not done so. Last year Canada told the UN that there are no current plans to ratify the Optional Protocol. That makes it difficult to persuade other countries – where torture is rampant – to sign on. Why should they do what we are not prepared to do ourselves?

We must press for the laws and safeguards that will prevent torture. We must refuse to give a nod to torture anywhere, anytime. We must sign on to all relevant international treaties. As long as torture continues, anywhere – we all remain diminished by it; and we all remain vulnerable to it. We must stop torture; now.

Guest Blogger: Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada

(English branch)
312 Laurier Avenue East
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 1H9  Canada
 
tel:          + 1 613 744 7667 ext 234
fax:         + 1 613 746 2411
email:    aneve@amnesty.ca

Amnesty’s life-saving human rights work is independent.
We accept no government money.
We are funded by people like you.
Join us today.

www.amnesty.ca.

Full of Gratitude

I was pleased to have the opportunity to take a two-hour ride home with my daughter, Mary Elizabeth. On the way, she remarked that she had seen one of the shows of the current series on the Tudors. It’s fascinating to watch King Henry and his court, the wealthiest persons on the planet at that time. She was struck by the fact that she, simply by being alive in Canada, in this time of history, had much more wealth than anyone alive at that time. She mentioned flicking on a switch for electricity, safe drinking water from a tap right in our homes, flush toilets, heat and air-conditioning at will, music at the push of a button, all knowledge and entertainment available on the Internet, and Google Earth as a way to voyage from the safety of your armchair, Skype and Face Time to see and talk with loved ones across the world, and nearby hospitals with the miracles of modern medicines and methods free for all in need. She was full of gratitude, and this from a young lady who has wrestled all her life with depression. What lovely moments in time form, her mother.

Donna Crowell (Guest Blogger)

The Mystery Woman-Who was she, anyway?

She must have been important, because according to John’s Gospel (John 4:5-42) she was the one to whom Jesus first admitted that he was the Messiah. Is it really plausible to think that Jesus just blurted out this important news without knowing what he was doing?

Who was she? The Scriptures never even give her name – we just know her as “the woman at the well.”

Why did Jesus choose to speak to her? – after all, a Jewish man was never supposed to address an unaccompanied woman; and the Jews of that time had not been getting along with Samaritans for over 800 years. The conversation took place near midday, when the woman chose to come to the Well of Jacob alone – we’re led to believe she was there to avoid the social opprobrium of her peers. The other village women would have gathered at the well earlier in the day to fetch the water they needed and to socialize. But not this gal…whoever she was, she was an outsider.

The Bible doesn’t exactly overwhelm a reader with a lot of female voices – yet this woman is quoted at length, talking to Jesus, challenging or even contradicting him, and being in turn, challenged so very deeply, herself.

We’re never told why she had had five husbands. The point is, in the account we’re given here, Jesus didn’t condemn her: the conversation that started out as an acknowledgement of right and wrong was really designed to show her that he already knew all about her – and yet still chose to engage with her, in spite of all the religious, cultural and racial barriers.

Jesus saw something in that woman – and moved the conversation to a deeper level.

I think Jesus knew exactly who this person was, just as He knows exactly who each of us is. I think He also knew exactly who she could be – and knows exactly all that we could be, too

More about the Mystery Woman

On this year’s World Day of Prayer, I found myself in a United Church, and the Minister asked if any of us had ever heard of Saint Photini. We were from many Christian traditions – but none of us had heard of her.

I guess we could all be forgiven if we don’t have an icon of Saint Photini hanging from our rear view mirrors…but if you look her up on the internet, you’ll find her all over, and you might discover a new female heroine.

You see, among the Orthodox Churches of the East, it is said that the woman at the well, this woman who went on to evangelize her entire village, was baptized by the Apostles and given the beautiful name Photini, which means, “The Enlightened One.”

In the Eastern traditions, Photini is revered as “the first to proclaim the gospel of Christ.” Even though I had never, ever heard of this anonymous woman, I’ve been trying to reflect on how Photini’s story might give us food for thought this Lent.

You know, it occurs to me that this Gospel story wants us to understand Photini as an example of someone whose encounter with Jesus changed everything.

It seemed that yesterday, the village mocked her…and today, they all listened to her words about Jesus Christ.

This is a story about someone who, by receiving the gift of “living water,” was able to break down the barriers she previously faced. She was given “new life.”

It seems to me that what Photini did after meeting Jesus was much more interesting than what she did before. Isn’t that what Pope Francis is trying to have us understand when he refuses to condemn, but rather asks, “Who am I to judge?”

Every saint has a past; every sinner has a future. If we really believed that, and acted as if we believed that – how different would we, and our faith community, be?

Guest Blogger: Joe Gunn

Text from the Sunday Reflection given at St. Joseph’s Parish & Sanctuary, Ottawa, ON by Joe Gunn.

 

 

London Water Rights Festival

Coming to Museum London on April 4-6, an opportunity for water-lovers to come together to consider the impact of our water use on the next generation. Learn about challenges such as transnational corporate influence on water bodies, the Harper government's 2012 elimination of 99% of rules protecting Canadian rivers and lakes, and effects of climate change, as well as successful community activities to protect water.

Meet special guest, Ashinaabe elder, Josephine Mandamin, who ten years ago began her journey each spring walking the perimeter of the Great Lakes to remind us about the need to care for this sacred element. Josephine, also known as Water Walker, will be present each of the days. On Saturday, Mike Nagy president of Water Watchers will speak about Nestle’s involvement in the Guelph area watershed. 

The films include:

  • Blue Gold (struggle for water rights);
  • Waterlife, (threats to the Great Lakes);
  • Bottled Life (Nestle's global business);
  • Sacred Spirit of Water (First Nations' relation to water, the rise of "Idle No More").

Please refer to the POSTER for more specifics.

Hope to see you there!

Paula Marcotte (Guest Blogger)

 

The Debate: Raising the Minimum Wage

The debate on the minimum wage is heating up in Ontario and getting greater attention across the country.  Pushed by the recent Ontario government panel to offer advice on adjusting the minimum wage, and regional advocacy efforts to see the rate rise to $14/hr, the conversation is shifting towards one of fairness and actual costs of living.  The Ontario government has agreed to raise the wage to $11/hr does little to appease those for an increase (reflective of the costs of living) or against. Regardless, the pressure to make changes that lift people out of poverty remains.

On January 28th the Ontario Minimum Wage Advisory Panel released their recommendations to the Ontario government.  This was following three months of consultations around the province in the fall of 2013 to better understand the views of Ontarians on what the minimum wage should be and how it should be calculated moving forward.

The result was that the Panel felt they could not give an accurate idea of what the minimum wage should be, but concluded it should be tied to the Ontario Consumer Price Index and revised annually. It was also recommended that a 5 year indepth review be instituted as well.

Responding to the report, the Ontario government agreed to a slight increase of $0.75 which will bring the minimum wage to $11/hr – leaving people earning this rate 16% below the poverty line.  The increase, although much smaller than advocates had hoped, reflects the 6.7% in inflation since the last raise to the rate in 2010.  The Premier, Kathleen Wynne, said she took the impact on business into account when considering the increase.

The current minimum wage in Ontario is $10.25 and was scheduled to be increased in 2010 as part of the provincial poverty strategy, but this was put on hold.  Meanwhile, with an increase in low wage work it was estimated that 40% of individuals above the age of 25 are earning a minimum wage.  The problem:  a full-time minimum wage worker is 21% below the poverty line.

Canada Without Poverty presented to the Panel and called for the minimum wage to be set to a living wage, which would reflect actual costs of living in specific regions and ensure individuals and families could cover a bare bones budget.  Included in this calculation would be the costs of housing, childcare, transportation, clothing, nutritious food, and additional health care costs.  Not included are other important financial considerations such as debt repayment and saving for the future.  What is most amazing about the living wage is that it is a partnership between business and government – the living wage would be adjusted according to social service programs offered by government.  For example, if there was a $10/day child care plan, then the amount of the hourly wage needed would drop.

Another key point is that a living wage is a human right – one that should be recognized by governments in Canada as it falls under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which Canada ratified in 1976).  CWP Executive Director noted this in herpresentation to the Minimum Wage Panel last November:

“In this context, Canada has been repeatedly told by the UN human rights system that in order to meet its international human rights obligations, it must raise the minimum wage to a living wage.  For example, in 1998, when Canada was reviewed by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – responsible for monitoring Canada’s compliance with the ICESCR – the Committee stated in its Concluding Observations that it was “concerned that the minimum wage is not sufficient to provide an adequate standard of living for a worker and his or her family.” They reiterated this same concern in 2006 noting that the Government had not sufficiently responded to the 1998 concern.  In 2009, after his Mission to Canada, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing recommended that provinces and territories review their minimum wage rates in light of the homelessness problem in Canada.  And, more recently, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food told governments in Canada in his final report that minimum wage must be “at least a living wage” in keeping with Article 6 and7 of the ICESCR, recommending that governments specifically:

… (c) Set the minimum wage as a living wage, as required under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and consistent with ILO Conventions No. 99 (1951) and No. 131 (1970), particularly as regards the requirement that the minimum wage should be fixed taking into consideration, inter alia, “the needs of workers and their families, taking into account the general level of wages in the country, the cost of living, social security benefits, and the relative living standards of other social groups;””

We are not the only ones to bring this idea forward. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) and CUPE Ontario are supporters of the minimum wage being a living wage.

This month on a special “Project Money” edition of CBC’s The Current, CCPA’s Trish Hennessey made a point of connecting the minimum wage to a living wage.  The CCPA makes the case to have a $14.50/hr minimum wage, which would be 60% of the average industrial wage.

In CUPE Ontario’s submission to the Panel, they note that the minimum wage should be a living wage at $14/hr and moving forward should reflect increases in the cost of living. On their website the union quotes Janice Folk-Dawson who is chair of CUPE Ontario’s University Workers’ Coordinating Committee:

“This is an equality issue. Minimum wage earners are disproportionately women, racialized workers, people with disabilities and new immigrants,” she said. “They are also the people doing difficult, front line service jobs like cleaners, food service workers, the child care workers who look after our kids, the personal support workers who look after our aging parents, and the social service workers who support people with developmental disabilities.”

Ontario has an opportunity to lead the country in terms of minimum wage policy. They will now tie with Nunavut as the province/territory with the highest minimum wage at $11/hr (Alberta has the lowest at $9.95/hr), but remember, this is still well below the poverty line.

As governments and business continue to debate the issue it would be prudent to consider the workers who earn this wage and the impact this has on their life and families.  It is not just about a number, it is about people.

*Updated January 28th, 2014

Reposted with permission.
Canada Without Poverty