My Blog

NYPD Spy Tactics on Protesters Exposed!

catalystism — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:18:43 GMT

This story will blow your mind, it blow mine away. Police in New York City have been videotaping protesters and Critical Mass Bike rides illegally. They are using technology that you wouldn't believe. $9.8 million helicopters and blimps with 360 degree video rented from FUJI CORPORATION! Below is the transcript from Democracy Now interview about the illegal police action. watch the video, its pretty freaky. link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/19/1545225 Monday, February 19th, 2007 NYPD Spy Tactics Exposed: Democracy Now! Airs Exclusive Police Surveillance Footage Recorded From Blimps, Helicopters and "Lipstick Cams" During Republican National Convention On Thursday a federal judge has ordered the New York Police Department to stop videotaping innocent protesters at political demonstrations. The judge ruled the police have repeatedly violated what is known as the Handschu guidelines that dictate how the police carries out political investigations. Today we broadcast never-before-aired police spy video that show how the police conducted widespread surveillance during the Republican National Convention in 2004. [includes rush transcript] A major ruling restricting police surveillance of public gatherings was just handed down in a Federal court in New York. On Thursday, Judge Charles Haight ruled that police must stop the routine videotaping of people at public gatherings unless there was an indication that unlawful activity may occur. This was the same judge who, after September 11th and at the request of City officials, had given the New York City Police Department greater authority to investigate political, social and religious groups. In the ruling, the judge cited two events that the police videotaped — a march in Harlem and a demonstration by homeless people in front of the Upper East Side home of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The Judge called the police behavior “egregious” - stating that there was no reason to suspect that the participants were involved in unlawful behavior. Lawyers involved in the case said that not only is the ruling a victory in itself, but that it would make it possible to contest other surveillance tactics, including the use of undercover officers at political gatherings. * Martin Stolar, longtime civil rights attorney in New York City who has worked on the Handschu case since 1971. * Eileen Clancy, member of I-Witness Video, a project that assembled hundreds of videotapes shot during the Republican National Convention in 2004. RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more... AMY GOODMAN: Martin Stolar and Eileen Clancy join me now. Martin Stolar is an attorney who has been working on this issue of police surveillance for more than thirty years. Eileen Clancy is a member of I-Witness Video. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Martin Stolar, let's begin with you. Explain exactly the ruling and what the Handschu Agreement is that most people in the country, not to mention the city, don’t even understand. MARTIN STOLAR: Well, the fundamental principles of the Handschu Agreement and the settlement, which was resulted in 1985, basically says, if it’s pure political activity, the police can’t investigate it. AMY GOODMAN: Cannot. MARTIN STOLAR: Cannot. If it’s pure criminal activity, that’s their job. That’s what they're supposed to do. Where there’s a mix of political and criminal activity, they have to get a form of administrative warrant. That is, somebody has to write down the reason why they want to investigate political activity, and some other person has to sign off and say it’s OK. And given the way bureaucracies work, this has put somewhat of a bit of a restraint on the police department. What Judge Haight did in this ruling is to say, given that those are the rules, videotaping and photographing of people involved in First Amendment political demonstration activity is an investigation. And if you’re going to investigate pure political activity, you better have an excuse for it. You’ve got to write down a reason why. And what the judge did is he invited the representatives of the city and the police commissioner to submit examples of where they have gone and gotten the permission and signed off to try to get the administrative warrant to investigate political activity, and they submitted nothing, which the judge said, “Hey, if you’ve submitted nothing, then you’ve obviously been violating the rules. And these are rules that are part of a court order. I’m the judge who’s in charge of this court order, and you better start obeying the rules.” That’s what Judge Haight said. AMY GOODMAN: And what is the Handschu Agreement? What is Handschu? Who is Handschu? MARTIN STOLAR: Handschu happens to be the lead plaintiff, a woman named Barbara Handschu, who was the lawyer, who is a friend of ours who, when we brought the case, she -- AMY GOODMAN: Decades ago. MARTIN STOLAR: Yeah, decades. The case was brought in May of 1971 by myself and Jethro Eisenstein, in collaboration with some other lawyers, and ultimately settled in 1985 as part of a class action. The city decided, rather than risk the idea that we could have the entire Red Squad disbanded -- AMY GOODMAN: The Red Squad is? MARTIN STOLAR: The Red Squad was the political police, the political arm of the police department that began in 1909 as the Anarchist Squad, and they started gathering up files and dossiers on like hundreds of thousands of individuals, thousands of organizations, purely because they were involved in political activity, that whoever happened to be in power at the time disagreed with. So you wind up in police files because you are engaged in political activity. The ruling said, in 1985, we had these guidelines. Rather than litigate the case, the city said, OK, we will be subject to rules and regulations. And they are, as I said before, if it’s political, stay away; if it’s criminal, go for it; if it’s a mix, get a warrant. AMY GOODMAN: But it changed after 2001, the September 11 attacks. MARTIN STOLAR: Well, they came in, in the fall of 2002, with an affidavit from deputy commissioner -- or from the commissioner of intelligence, David Cohen -- AMY GOODMAN: Who came out of the CIA? MARTIN STOLAR: -- who came out of the CIA, who never understood what the Bill of Rights was about, because the CIA was never subject to the Bill of Rights. In any event, he comes in, and he says, “We can’t investigate terrorism with these rules. You're totally binding our ability to do so.” We oppose that, saying that’s ridiculous. You can investigate terrorism, which is a crime, just like any other crime, following the rules. Ultimately, rather than litigate the entire thing again, we settled for essentially a relaxed set of guidelines. What the relaxation was, was rather than get the administrative warrant from an outside authority, which is what it was prior to the change, now there has to be somebody who signs off within the police department. But there still has to be somebody who says, “There is illegal activity, which we suspect is going to happen or has been happening. Therefore, to investigate political activity, give us the rules, give us the right to do so.” That, they hadn’t done. So that’s really what the relaxation was. There still has to be some kind of criminal predicate in order to investigate political activity. If it’s pure political activity that people are engaged in, the police department has absolutely no right to investigate it. Thank you, Judge Haight. AMY GOODMAN: Eileen Clancy, you are with I-Witness -- that’s the letter “I” -- Witness Video, and you have collected a lot of police footage that was taken at the Republican National Convention protests in 2004. Explain how this ruling ties into this videotape. EILEEN CLANCY: Well, I think what’s really important to understand is that the judge didn’t rule on video related to the RNC and wasn’t aware of it in the legal papers. He only looked at three different scenarios. And nonetheless, he issued kind of a stern rebuke to the police department in this matter. What the judge didn’t have access to, and which people might not be aware of, and we can show to your audience today, is that the police department in New York City engaged in an absolutely 360-degree video surveillance of protesters. It’s absolutely extraordinary, the scope of it. It involves during the Republican Convention, hundreds and hundreds of tapes. And so, what we’re going to show you today are some of the techniques that the police used. AMY GOODMAN: And be very descriptive, as we play the videotapes, so for our radio listeners around the country, they will understand the significance of this. And, of course, we’re posting this videotape at our website. It will be on our videocast at democracynow.org. Eileen? EILEEN CLANCY: Right, so what we’re -- I think, first, what we’ll look at is the blimp footage. Is that right? So, the blimp footage was shot in a blimp that was borrowed from Fuji. And what we’re looking at -- AMY GOODMAN: Fuji Corporation? EILEEN CLANCY: Fuji Corporation, film corporation. What we're looking at is people from an antiwar group making an giant “No” with their bodies in Central Park. So they’re in a beautiful sunny day in August, and they’re lying there, and they’re under essentially sort of almost a bomb scope. And now, we’re seeing these pictures of people with giant “No”s, and obviously -- AMY GOODMAN: That’s N-O. EILEEN CLANCY: N-O, thank you. Obviously, they're not doing anything illegal. They’re lounging on the grass, and it’s actually a hundred people or so. The idea that the police are using this level of technology is just, to me, you know, quite extraordinary. And look what they’re getting for it. So, it’s very sophisticated technology, but actually what they’re doing -- is that very sophisticated? AMY GOODMAN: I want to talk about Union Square now, and showing some footage of that. EILEEN CLANCY: Yeah, and the blimp camera also goes down to Union Square. And so, it’s over Union Square. AMY GOODMAN: This is in New York City. EILEEN CLANCY: And this is in -- right -- and this is people gathering for the Critical Mass bike ride. You could actually identify people with the power of this camera. It’s just an extraordinary camera. And again, these are people just hanging out in the park. This is protected activity. This tape is -- it was illegal that the police department took this tape, because it violated the rules. They did not follow the rules, and all the video that they took during the convention essentially was illegal, even if they later arrested people. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to move to spy cameras. EILEEN CLANCY: This is a hidden camera on an undercover police officer’s body that he is wearing at his chest. He is riding to meet other fellow undercover officers. There is audio on this also, so he wears this camera and essentially then meets his friends, mingles with the crowd and takes hidden pictures. I think that this was probably transmitted wirelessly, because there were a couple of pilot projects during the RNC, where they were transmitting live video. AMY GOODMAN: And I want to explain for our radio listeners, what we’re looking at is someone, what looks like they’re almost roller skating through a park. You don’t see them at all, but you just see a person sort of passing smoothly through the park, and you see from the vantage point perhaps of his chest. I don’t know where the spy camera is. EILEEN CLANCY: Yeah, yeah. So he actually -- actually he rides his bicycle illegally. So if anyone saw him they’d think he was a Critical Mass bike rider violating the law. We also had video that was taken from a helicopter with a $ 9.8 million helicopter that was purchased with Department of Justice money, again of the -- this particular footage should be also around Union Square Park or thereabouts, but the video footage -- basically, you have to understand, at the same time, when I say 360-degree video surveillance, in Union Square Park there was a blimp camera, a helicopter camera, and at least one police officer wearing a hidden body camera transmitting video footage. So I don’t think that people really could have imagined that this was the amount of surveillance all this was under. And this was all done illegally. AMY GOODMAN: When you say “illegally,” what do you mean? EILEEN CLANCY: They did not follow the rules. As Martin Stolar just said, they had to get sort of an administrative type of warrant for this surveillance. AMY GOODMAN: So can all of this be challenged, Martin Stolar? MARTIN STOLAR: Well, it is being challenged, and that’s what the challenge was here. The police had implemented what they called Interim Order 47, which authorized them to do the kind of video surveillance and photo surveillance that we challenged in the case -- in the Handschu case. And the judge said that to the extent that Interim Order 47, which authorizes videotaping and photographing of people, violates the rules in Handschu, then it’s enjoined. They can’t do it anymore. And what is amazing is that the judge said, to quote him, “The commissioner of the NYPD is directed to disseminate to all NYPD borough, bureau and unit commanding officers copies of this opinion and ordered with instructions to study them carefully and comply.” AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there, although, Eileen, five seconds: how did you get the videotape? These are secret police videotape? EILEEN CLANCY: These videotapes were turned over in the criminal cases after we exposed police doctoring of the videotapes. AMY GOODMAN: Well, Eileen Clancy, I want to thank you for being with us, member of I-Witness Video, and Martin Stolar, thank you, attorney who has been involved with the Handschu case for some decades. -------------------------------------- A group protecting civil liberties: http://iwitnessvideo.info/index.html

GLOBAL WARMING THREATENS DOUBLE-TROUBLE FOR PERU: SHRINKING GLACIERS AND A WATER SHORTAGE

catalystism — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:55:48 GMT

Global Warming Threatens Double-Trouble for Peru: Shrinking Glaciers and a Water Shortage February 12, 2007 — By Leslie Josephs, Associated Press PASTORURI GLACIER, Peru -- Peru's "White Mountain Range" may soon have to change its name. The ice atop Cordillera Blanca, the largest glacier chain in the tropics, is melting fast because of rising temperatures, and peaks are turning brown. The trend is highlighting fears of global warming and, scientists say, is endangering future water supplies to the arid coast where most Peruvians live. Glaciologists consider the health of the world's glaciers an indicator of global warming and they warn that what is happening in the Andes signals trouble ahead. "To me it's the rate of ice loss that's a real concern," because when melting accelerates, the ice cannot replenish itself, said Lonnie Thompson, a leading glacier expert at Ohio State University. Thompson, a geologist monitoring glacier retreat on the Andes, Himalayas and Kilimanjaro, said tropical glaciers are melting all over the world because of rising temperatures "and where we have the data to prove it, the rate of ice loss is actually accelerating." Quelccaya in southern Peru, the world's largest tropical ice cap, is retreating at about 60 meters (200 feet) a year, up from six meters (20 feet) a year in the 1960s, Thompson said. Melting is also visible in the other Andean countries -- Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. In Peru, home to 70 percent of Earth's tropical glaciers, the Andes mountains have lost at least 22 percent of their glacier area since 1970 and the melt is speeding up, according to Peru's National Resources Institute, INRENA, a government agency. Rock shows through lavishly snow-covered mountains throughout the Peruvian Andes. The Broggi glacier has disappeared altogether. Ice caves once popular with tourists are gone. On Cordillera Blanca, which has 35 percent of Peru's glaciers, Marco Zapata, head of INRENA's glaciology unit, trudges up a barren, rocky mountain slope that until recently was covered by a centuries-old layer of ice. He points to a small, white mound on the retreating Pastoruri glacier, 5,100 meters (17,000 feet) above sea level. A month earlier, that mound was an ice cave -- Pastoruri's last -- until the cavern's crystalline arch collapsed under an unseasonably warm sun. The remnants are melting into a newly formed lagoon. The number of ice caves varies from year to year as temperatures rise and fall. But Pastoruri's ice cap shrank nearly 40 percent between 1995 and 2005, and Zapata, who has studied Peru's glaciers for 36 years, says postcards of the caverns should be taken off the market. Meanwhile, the melt is causing long-term fears of a water shortage. Glaciers feed the rivers that feed the sprawling cities and shantytowns on Peru's bone-dry Pacific coast. They also serve agriculture and hydroelectric plants that generate 70 percent of the country's power. Two-thirds of Peru's 27 million people live on the coast, where just 1.8 percent of the nation's water supply is found. Shantytowns spring up virtually overnight in the steep, sandy dunes around the capital, Lima, and providing them with water is extremely costly, says Julio Garcia of the National Environment Council, CONAM. President Alan Garcia believes the rush of melted water could provide abundant hydroelectric energy to Peru and its neighbors, and CONAM'S Garcia agrees it's feasible, but doesn't think the water bonanza will last beyond 2050. Zapata says the warming of Cordillera Blanca combines with four years of below-average rainfall. "There is no regularity in terms of seasons," he said on a blindingly sunny day in what is traditionally the Andean rainy season. "The farmers are completely confused." Farmers growing potatoes, wheat and artichokes depend entirely on the glacier runoff from the Cordillera Blanca during the dry season, and on rainfall during the wet season, and they say this is changing. "There's less now, not like before," Claudia Villafan Ramos, a farmworker, said of the snows atop the mountain in her native Santa River valley. The peaks are now spotted with bare brown patches. Villafan, whose weathered hands and face make her look older than her 42 years, said it means fewer jobs and "there is nothing to eat." Source: Associated Press pic from: http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_print.cfm?ID=152

2006 Nobel Peace Winner Muhammad Yunus is to form political party in Bangladesh

catalystism — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:42:26 GMT

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1375293.ece 'Banker to Poor' invests in Poor by:Jeremy Page Muhammad Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Peace laureate known as the “banker to the poor”, is to form a political party to try to rescue Bangladesh from a political crisis that has raised the spectre of military rule. The founder of Grameen Bank raised hopes for a new era of democratic rule in an open letter to the Bangladeshi people exactly a month after the army forced the President to cancel an election and impose a state of emergency. A military-backed caretaker government took power on January 12, promising to clean up its notoriously corrupt politics and to organise elections as soon as possible, but it has yet to set a date, raising fears of a return to formal military rule in the world’s third-largest Muslim country. Dr Yunus, 66, who won the Nobel prize for his work of granting small loans to very poor people, lives an austere life in Dhaka, wearing clothes made of a simple cotton cloth that he designed to help poor textile workers. He asked Bangladeshis to send him letters, e-mails and text messages advising him how to build a “Bangladesh we all dream of”. He said: “The way the present caretaker Government is trying to create an acceptable atmosphere by carrying out necessary reforms has made me optimistic, along with all citizens of the country. In this situation, I feel it with my heart that I should, showing due respect to the people’s expectation of me, participate in the mission of taking the nation to the height it deserves . . . I know that joining politics is to become controversial. I am ready to take that risk.” His announcement offered the first real prospect of a democratic alternative to the “battling begums” — the two women who have dominated Bangladeshi politics for the past 16 years. Khaleda Zia, the head of the Bangladesh National Party, and Sheikh Hasina Wajed, who leads the Awami League, have served alternately as prime minister and opposition leader since 1991. The rivalry between the two widows of assassinated former leaders is so fierce that critics say it has turned politics into a violent and corrupt zero-sum contest between private interest groups. The state of emergency was imposed after weeks of fighting between supporters of the two women paralysed the country and left 45 people dead in the run-up to parliamentary elections that had been scheduled for January 22. Since then the army and police have arrested more than 40,000 people, including 25 senior figures from both parties, in what the caretaker Government says is a crackdown on crime and corruption. Yesterday it moved to depoliticise the judiciary by stripping control of lower courts and court appointments from a government ministry. Western officials and many ordinary Bangladeshis were so disillusioned with the BNP and the Awami League that they have welcomed the caretaker Government’s actions. British and American officials in particular feared that further political chaos would have played into the hands of Islamic extremists. It remains unclear whether the Government can push through enough reforms to prevent a return to the destructive feuding. Many people — in and outside Bangladesh — relish the prospect of a third party, especially if it is headed by one of the few unifying figures in the country. However, some analysts say that Dr Yunus is unpopular in the countryside, where farmers complain that Grameen Bank charges too much interest on loans. Others predict that he will struggle to challenge the begums’ influence because of the role that their families played in the formative years of Bangladesh. Another fear is that he will be overwhelmed by the corruption that pervades politics in the country. Some say that he could do more for Bangladesh by expanding Grameen Bank’s work rather than entering politics. Dr Yunus said that he could neither guarantee the success of his party, nor ignore the public pressure to enter politics. “Now I can say that at least I tried,” he told reporters as he left Bangladesh for a trip to India. Grameen Bank - Founded in 1983 by Muhammad Yunus, who had personally lent money to entrepreneurs refused credit since 1976 - First, 42 people rejected by banks borrowed a total of $27 from Dr Yunus. All repaid their loans - At the end of 2006 Grameen Bank had lent a total of $1 billion to about seven million people - Credit is available to 80 per cent of the poor in Bangladesh. The bank plans to reach all by 2010 - 99 per cent of loans have been repaid or refinanced - Almost all customers are destitute village women - The bank’s profits last year exceeded $20 million

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION- FGM

catalystism — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:14:52 GMT

MORE INFOMATION: http://www.stopfgm.org/stopfgm/jump_page.jsp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ARTICLE: Female circumcision not just African issue By Thomas von der Osten-Sacken and Thomas Uwer Originally published February 12, 2007 Among social activists and feminists, combating female genital mutilation, or FGM, is an important policy goal. Sometimes called female circumcision or female genital cutting, FGM is the cutting of the clitoris of girls in order to curb their sexual desire and preserve their sexual "honor" before marriage. The practice, prevalent in some majority Muslim countries, has a tremendous cost: Many girls bleed to death or die of infection. Most are traumatized. Those who survive can suffer adverse health effects during marriage and pregnancy. Advertisement Academics widely regard FGM as an African disease. But information from Iraqi Kurdistan raises the possibility that the problem is more prevalent in the Middle East than previously believed, and that FGM is far more tied into religion than many Western academics and activists admit. In early 2003, WADI, a German nongovernmental organization (NGO) focusing on women's issues, found that close to 60 percent of Kurdish women questioned had undergone genital circumcision. Nearly every woman in the survey declared FGM to be a "normal" practice. Most women referred to the practice as a traditional and a religious obligation. Because the clitoris is considered to be "dirty," women fear that they won't find husbands for their daughters if the girls have not been mutilated, and many believe men prefer sex with a mutilated wife. Others stress the religious necessity of FGM. Islamic scholars disagree on FGM. But the conclusion that FGM is not a problem of Islamic practice is simply wrong as long as a large number of clerics accept or demand it. There is a certain tendency to confuse a liberal interpretation of Islam with the reality women face in many predominantly Islamic regions. To counter FGM as a practice, it is necessary to accept that Islam is more than just a written text. It is not the book that cuts the clitoris, but its interpretations aid and abet the mutilation. Although firsthand medical records are not available for other countries in the region, this does not mean that these areas are free of FGM, only that the societies are not free enough to permit formal study of societal problems. In Iraqi Kurdistan, the reaction of locals to the findings has been instructive. When confronted with the study results, only a few women's activists in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Sulaimaniya expressed surprise, although most said they did not realize just how high a proportion of women were affected. Although many Kurdish authorities were at first reluctant to address the issue for fear that the Kurdish region might appear backward, they have begun to acknowledge the problem and are working to confront it with an awareness campaign and legislation. Perhaps the most important factor enabling an NGO to uncover the problem of FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan was the existence of civil society structures and popular demand for individual rights. Many academics and NGO workers in the region find it objectionable to criticize the predominant Muslim or Arab cultures. But there are indications that FGM might be widespread in the Arab Middle East; the rate is known to be 90 percent or more in Egypt. Arab governments refuse to address the problem, preferring to believe that the lack of statistics will enable international organizations to conclude that the problem does not exist in their jurisdictions. Western countries and human rights organizations need to break the silence. Female genital mutilation is not a cultural issue; it is a crime against the rights of women and girls. Campaigns against this humiliating practice can succeed only if they treat FGM in terms of individual rights and freedoms. Thomas von der Osten-Sacken and Thomas Uwer are, respectively, managing director and a board member of WADI. Their e-mails are thomasvdo@yahoo.de and t.uwer@web.de. This commentary was based on an article in the winter edition of the Middle East Quarterly.

ARE YOU ADDICTED TO OIL??!

catalystism — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 23:41:15 GMT

Take the test: http://www.globalexchange.org/war_peace_democracy/oil/oaa.html

LIVING WITH REFUGEES (SURVIVING SUDAN) - SORIOUS SAMURA

catalystism — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 23:24:21 GMT

http://www.insightnewstv.com/refugees/ Award-winning journalist Sorious Samura is increasingly gaining a reputation for a new kind of journalism which not many others can do. It's 'real' reality TV – stories that offer a unique perspective into the lives of people facing terrible situations. On this journey he set out to become, for all intents and purposes, a refugee. He traveled to Chad to live with a family in a refugee camp for one month. He lived under exactly the same conditions, eating what they ate, drinking what they drank. Sorious built close intimate relationships with the people in this situation sharing their hopes and fears. This film provides a unique insight into what life is really like for a refugee. Adam has 2 wives, 8 children, no money and all his friends have been murdered. Sorious meets Adam at the Chad/Sudan border where he has been living on handouts - but he's outstayed his welcome. Even though he doesn't know how far it is, he's heading for a UN refugee camp further to the west in Chad. He agrees Sorious can follow his family on this journey. "You have come all this way to tell our story, you are our brother." Never before has someone filmed an exodus of people in this way. As the journey progresses more refugees join the group – there's safety in numbers. Sorious is exhausted and cannot keep up. He follows their methods of survival, digging dry riverbeds for water and eating only once. Sorious speaks to Adam about what happened in Darfur, he breaks down "Please don't make me remember what happened, it's just too much." After an epic 3 day journey the family finally reaches the camp, however it isn't what they were expecting. With no food or shelter they are forced to fend for themselves. Staggeringly, even amongst this group of desperate people, Sorious learns there are the "haves" and "have nots". The only aid and assistance they receive comes from other refugees. We follow the family as they try to make some sort of home for themselves. Fatima, Adam and their six kids sleep under a small piece of tarpaulin. Fatima, Adams's wife, is a strong, elegant, tough woman who is holding the family together. For Adam, although tough and resolute, the situation is almost too much to bear: "There's no respect for us in our own country and here they treat us like animals." For Sorious, the time he is spending in the camp is starting to have an effect: "Refugee – I hate the word. I hate the word now more than ever because it robs a man of his identity his status his respect – everything." As we see with Adam and his family the bureaucracy of the aid business sometimes leaves those most vulnerable behind. The UNHCR tell Sorious that "The situation here is a mess." As the film draws to a close Sorious points out that, yet again, situations like this are a damming indictment on all of us. "Too often, too little is done too late." Through Sorious video diaries and the filming of the crew who shadowed him throughout his experiences with Adam and his family we see the life of a refugee as it's never been seen before. It's a first, an exclusive and a must-see film for anyone wishing to truly understand what it is like to be a refugee. Undoubtedly this is one of the most important documentaries of the year. Dispatches: Living with Refugees Directors: Claudio von Planta and Simon Atkins Camera: Claudio von Planta Producer: George Waldrum

BURUNDI FLOODS THREATEN FOOD CRISIS FOR 2 MILLION!!!

catalystism — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:01:24 GMT

Two million people in Burundi need urgent help to prevent a food crisis following devastating flooding, the UN's World Food Programme has warned. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6335833.stm

Raw Foods and Protein

catalystism — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:30:17 GMT

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22raw-food%22

Guinea Declares Martial Law After Months of Protests

catalystism — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:28:26 GMT

Guinea Declares Martial Law After Months of Protests In news from Africa, the president of Guinea has declared martial law in an attempt to squash a series of popular protests against his rule. He has ordered the army to take all necessary measures to restore order. A nationwide curfew has been in place and residents are now only allowed to leave their homes for four hours a days. In addition, demonstrations, marches and protest meetings have been prohibited. For the past month the Guinean government has violently crushed the union-led protest movement. At least 100 demonstrators have been killed. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/154241

HIKING in BC!!!

catalystism — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:48:21 GMT

http://www.trailpeak.com/index.jsp?cat=hike

Things to research and look up:

catalystism — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:03:57 GMT

“Put on the TV and you get sick from it. You see Afghanistan, and it’s a war against the Muslims. Iraq, it’s a war against the Muslims. Palestine, it’s a war against the Muslims. Chechnya, a war against the Muslims. Everywhere you look, it’s the same thing. Now even in the Sudan.” Quote from New York article on the arrest and "terrorist" plot that involed Shahawar Matin Siraj, http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/10559/index2.html Look up: War in Chechnya ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- L.A. Riots in 1992 -----------------------------------------------------------

Iraq Prepares to Open Up Oil Reserves to Foreign Companies

catalystism — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:25:00 GMT

Iraq Prepares to Open Up Oil Reserves to Foreign Companies The Independent of London is reporting the Iraqi government is drafting a new law that would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude. The law is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days. Foreign oil companies would be allowed to take up to 75 percent of the profits until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits -- that is about twice the industry average for such deals." The oil law would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/08/1413238

SHIT pilling on top of SHIT

catalystism — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:30:59 GMT

Ok. The following effects everyone working and living and paying taxes in BC so i am posting everywhere I can. please read. and then email and talk to everyone you know about it and what to do about it. Here is some information about the unheard of Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between BC and Alberta. I want to make two points and then a plee before you read the article. 1)"The Agricultural Land Commission, the Island Trusts, regional districts and land use restrictions in provincial parks will all be vulnerable to a TILMA challenge as of next April (2007)." - This is for any evironmentalist on the culture jamming list and beyond. 2 )"They could then be challenged for regulating the size and location of commercial signs and billboards, imposing height restrictions on buildings, or requiring green space allocations from developers." - For all you cultural jammers out there, you are going to have a lot of work on your hands. all those new billboards, popping up everywhere. My plee: I don't know of any actions/campaigns against this agreement, yet. I hope i will find some to inform you all of. But from where I stand, we need to do something. What? Don't know that part yet. But I think we might be able to angle it from the illegitimacy of the agreement (" no legislation introduced to give it legitimacy") I just really want to get a discussion on this going. So any thoughts would be great. I will attach the original article as well on the bottom. fighting till my last breath, jax ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2006 Murray Dobbin Last April the governments of B.C. and Alberta signed an agreement called the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). There was no public notice, little media coverage, no legislation introduced to give it legitimacy and no debate in the legislature. The Alberta-based think tank, the Canada West Foundation, says TILMA will rid the provinces of barriers that "frustrate business". The most draconian aspect of TILMA is its investment provisions. Once the agreement enters into force on April 1, 2007, individuals and businesses will gain the right to launch complaints and get up to $5 million in awards against governments just because they “restrict” investment. Since pretty much everything a government does in some way restricts investment, the two provinces are in for a wild ride. TILMA claims will be decided by NAFTA-like panels. What are some examples of government restrictions on investment that could be challenged under TILMA? TILMA has some exceptions, but land use planning is not one of them. The Agricultural Land Commission, the Island Trusts, regional districts and land use restrictions in provincial parks will all be vulnerable to a TILMA challenge as of next April. Municipalities will have a two-year grace period before the government extends TILMA to them. They could then be challenged for regulating the size and location of commercial signs and billboards, imposing height restrictions on buildings, or requiring green space allocations from developers. And they can be challenged starting in April if they introduce bylaws that are stricter than their existing ones. We can get some idea of what we might be in for by looking at Oregon. A ballot measure approved in 2004 gives property owners there the right to sue for compensation for anything the state or local governments do that restricts the value of their property. The result is the effective end of land use planning. According to Sheila Martin, Director of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, the ballot measure has resulted in over 6,000 claims totalling over $6 billion. “The biggest impact of the measure,” says Martin, “has been on Oregon’s land use regulations which seek to protect farm and forest land.” Land use deregulation outside the cities has Martin especially worried: “The urban growth boundary will become ‘leaky,’ releasing pressure for higher density in the cities.” Many challenges have been filed against “sign ordinances” regulating the size and location of commercial signs. Like the dilemma BC and Alberta will face under TILMA, Oregon is now having to decide whether to pay compensation to keep their regulations, or waive them for the complainant. The trouble is, there is no limit to the number of claims that can be made against a single regulation - so if you want to keep it, you have to keep paying. How many claims will BC get? Oregon allows anyone with property in the state to sue over land use regulation. TILMA gives Albertans the right to sue BC over restrictions on their BC investments, and vice versa. But Gordon Campbell is hocking TILMA to all the other provinces to get them to sign on, which would expand the potential number of complaints against BC. And under TILMA complaints can be made against a wide range of government regulations or programs, not just land use planning. TILMA allows for a limited number of “Legitimate Objectives” so governments can try to defend themselves before a dispute panel, arguing their regulations were "necessary." But nothing in TILMA recognizes the kind of quality of life objectives served by land use planning. Moreover, a government would also have to demonstrate that its measure is not more restrictive to business than necessary to achieve its objectives. BC officials are making extravagant claims about trade barriers between the provinces, suggesting that TILMA could “save” BC $4.8 billion - an eye-popping figure, equivalent to what BC earns annually from its softwood exports to the US. In October, federal officials told a Senate committee that reliable studies have estimated inter-provincial trade barriers to be about one tenth the amount BC is claiming, and vary depending on what is defined as a trade barrier. Is the removal of land use restrictions part of the "benefits" to be gained by TILMA? What about the drop in property values that could result from uncontrolled development? Alberta cabinet minister Gary Mar told a Richmond business audience the easy process TILMA provides for complaints to be taken against governments is "everything Canadian business asked for." He was right about that. But what about everyone else? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- www.winnipegfreepress.com/westv...c.html Agreement cuts provincial powers to govern Winnipeg Free Press Fri Nov 3 2006 By Murray Dobbin WHAT if a provincial government signed an agreement forcing it to make most of its regulations identical to those of another province? What if this government voluntarily made itself, and every municipality within its borders, open to lawsuits over virtually anything it did that restricted investment? What if it tied its own hands so that, no matter how much a region was suffering economically, it could not provide assistance that might "distort investment decisions?" Well, there are no "what ifs" about it. This past spring, B.C.'s Gordon Campbell and Alberta's Ralph Klein signed an agreement with exactly these sweeping constraints on the ability to govern. It is called the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement. B.C. and Alberta trade officials are now shopping it around to other provinces to get them to sign on. The agreement comes into effect next April. According to Todd Hirsch of the Canada West Foundation, the agreement could erase the borders between B.C. and Alberta so that the only differences between them will be "voting and the colour of the licence plate." Except, once the agreement comes into full force, voting provincially in B.C. and Alberta could be a waste of time. Under the agreement, the B.C. or Alberta government will be barred from doing anything that could "impair or restrict" trade, not only between the provinces but also through them to another province or country. One article just flatly decrees that there shall be "No Obstacles" to this trade. Governments will be prohibited from providing subsidies that either directly or indirectly "distort investment decisions." Click here to find out more! Some exceptions, such as for water, are permitted but even these are to be reviewed annually to get them reduced. The agreement also requires B.C. and Alberta to "mutually recognize or otherwise reconcile their existing standards and regulations" if these "impair or restrict" trade, investment or labour mobility. Then it prohibits new regulations from being introduced that would have these effects. Since regulation always restricts investment in some way, the result will be that all future B.C. and Alberta governments will be prevented from strengthening their regulations. How exactly is this going to work? What would happen, for example, if B.C. voters decided they had had enough of leaky condos and voted for a party committed to tougher construction regulations? A government elected on such a commitment would quickly find it had to betray its promise or be vulnerable to a trade investment challenge. Plus if either province considers any new initiatives, it has to give the other party to the agreement the right to comment in advance and is then obligated to "take the other province's comments into consideration." In sharp contrast, citizens in B.C. and Alberta were never consulted by their own governments on this astonishing agreement. As part of their sales job, Alberta's Gary Mar and B.C.'s Colin Hansen have claimed the agreement will not result in lower provincial standards -- just ones that are "appropriate." In reality, however, the agreement can only lead to deregulation because businesses are only likely to sue governments over regulations they think are too high, not ones that are too weak. In a vastly expanded version of provisions in NAFTA, any resident of B.C. or Alberta will gain extensive new grounds to sue government. A dispute panel will be empowered to make binding decisions and grant compensation of up to $5 million for any government action that violates the agreement. Repeated complaints can be taken about the same government policy or regulation. Governments can go on bended knee to trade investment panels and argue that their regulations were "necessary," but trade dispute panels rarely accept such arguments. Plus, this agreement only recognizes a limited list of regulatory objectives as "legitimate." For example, a city's desire to prevent urban blight is not on the list of legitimate objectives, so municipal bans on billboards would likely be a violation. No wonder Gary Mar could tell a business audience in Richmond that the dispute process is "everything Canadian business asked for." The pact creates endless potential for litigation against government right down to the school board level, without any demonstrable benefit. A 1998 study done for the B.C. government found that: "efforts to liberalize interprovincial trade will have almost no effect on trade flows. The reality is that interprovincial trade barriers are already very low." As for labour mobility, all of provisions for increased labour mobility will already be covered in Premier Gary Doer's initiative to see professional requirements harmonized across Canada. To sum up, the agreement pretty much bans new regulation and government assistance for economic development. Perhaps in anticipation of the pact, the B.C. legislature's fall sitting was cancelled with the government claiming there was not enough to do. When asked about the constitutionality of the agreement, Steven Shrybman, a partner in the law firm of Sack, Goldblatt, and Mitchell, commented that "a basic principle of constitutional law is that a government cannot fetter its own legislative prerogatives by abandoning its authority to govern." Sounds like what the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement is all about. Murray Dobbin is a Vancouver-based writer. fighting till my last breath, jax (jaxfitzgibbon@yahoo.ca)