$1.5-million in seed money

You may notice a general theme - or at least a pattern to these posts: corporate responsibility.

Given the idea that capitalism is the economic model the world has apparently accepted (some lovingly, some grudgingly) then it is within this system that changes need to be made.

Obviously, then, this blog does not enter into the debate as to whether or not capitalism is the only (or the appropriate) economic model for our current status upon this earth.

Rather, this blog is yet another attempt to highlight the faults that capitalism incurs when there are no checks and balances. (We do not presume that any other system would be different in terms of the need to check and balance).

Only, today, we have a good news story on checks and balances.

Today, we are highlighting a check and balance that was orchestrated by high-level players -- players that often get bogged down in ideals rather than producing action-oriented steps.

This week the International Finance Corporation (IFC - a division of the World Bank Group -- an international bank of last resort which is, essentially, owned and operated by the United States of America) joined forces with the International Labour Organization (ILO) to create a plan to improve working conditions in the global supply chain.

The agreement, which is financially backed by a generous $1.5-million grant from the Gates Foundation to be administered by the Grameen Foundation, will help improve labour standards in the global marketplace.

Ironically enough, it was the uber-capitalist IFC that argued for better labour standards stating that better standards promoted better business and this aided the overall economic health of developing nations.

As a result the ILO/IFC agreement will put the $1.5-million grant into microfinance opportunities for people most in need -- helping to stimulate the economy and society from the ground up.

Talk about planting seeds.

For more information on the agreement go to: http://www.socialfunds.com/news/release.cgi/6198.html

For more information on ILO go to: http://www.ilo.org/

For more information on IFC go to: http://www.ifc.org/about

Power to the people with the pesos

In a world obsessed with destination, the process of continuously boycotting and protesting must seem rather tedious.

Didn't we DO that already? Didn't we already boycott XYZ? And what benefit did the boycott produce?

The reality is that boycotts -- effective boycotts -- do bring about significant and dramatic changes. And, often, not because of one protest or one organization.

Often, a strong, well-thought out boycott takes on a life of it's own -- jumping from one dedicated group to another -- but always with one aim in mind: to change a socially/economically unjust policy caused by the company.

This type of political protest (that affects the bottom line through awareness and perception) has worked for Shell (South Africa), Nestle (Africa), Nike (Asian countries), among others.

And just when you thought it was over...another springs up.

Now, it appears Coca-Cola has become the latest in a list of multinationals with poor standards.

I know...hold your horror.

But, according to War on Wants (a non-profit engaged in rebalancing world inequity) Coco-Cola has:

• exhausted community water reserves in India by drilling deep into underground reservoirs, drying up local wells and leaving farmers unable to irrigate their crops;
  contaminated local ecosystems in El Salvador and India through waste effluents discharged from its plants;
• been implicated in human rights abuses in Colombia, including the death and disappearances of trade union activists at Coca-Cola bottling plants;
• adopted union-busting tactics in a wide range of other countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Russia, Peru, Chile, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

The group's Coca-Cola: The Alternative Report is the first full exposé of the company’s activities worldwide, and is the basis for War on Want’s ongoing campaign for corporate directors to be made liable for corporate wrongdoing.

And despite a $2-billion advertising budget, Coca-Cola has not been able to quell the press garnered by War on Want and other groups in South Asia demanding better work and environmental standards.

Nor should the big bank roll be able to. In fact, Coca's response (to counter negative campaigns and rumours) only helps to lend credence to their accusers and helps push the corporation closer to succession. And it is all part of the cycle, explains Jeremy Moon, a professor of corporate social responsibility at Nottingham University. He suggests that Coke is going through the same growing pains as other multinational corporations. As he states in a Guardian interview: "Being a branded company clearly brings opprobrium," he said. "If you look at Nike or Reebok, probably they have better practices than anyone else in their supply chains but because they are branded, they are targeted."

In otherwords, Moon suggests that the noble image of a socially responsible corporation is a result from pressure -- pressure exerted by everyday consumesr through boycotts and campaigns.

As for Coca-Cola, well the impetus of the charges appears to have evidence in a few countries across the world.

In Nigeria, there are allegations that Coca-Cola killed fish by pumping untreated waste in to a lagoon near Lagos. In Italy protestors disrupted the Olympic torch run to protest the inclusion of Coke as a sponsor. In India the corporation has been charged with supplying pop that contains 27 times the permitted levels of pesticides, while depleted a nation's water resources. In Colombia, Guatemala and Nicaragua the corporation has been charged with ignoring anti-union abuses. In Turkey the corpo. has allegedly ignored the intimidation and beatings of union activists and, finally, in the good ol' USofA, universities, postal workers and teachers are voting to remove Coca-Cola products from their facilities.

If history provides us any clue we know that Coke's decision to ignore the current swell will only result in reduced market share and a damaged image. However, as history will also so, the continued pressure by people and organizations may, eventually, prompt Coca-Cola to return some of their ill-gained profits and reinvest that money into socially-responsible corporate operations.

Power to the people (with the pesos)...for they get to set the agenda...eventually.

For more information on the War on Want's campaign go to: http://www.waronwant.org/?lid=12157

To read the Guardian article go to: http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1852635,00.html

To read about Coca-Cola's war on unions go to: http://www.labournet.de/internationales/co/cocacola3.html

The long arm of peace and passion -- from Cape Town to Downtown: Toronto's art activists drop in

"Artists have a special role to play in the global struggle for peace. At their best, artists speak not only to people; they speak for them. Art is a weapon against ignorance and hatred and an agent of public awareness." Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN


Conflict prevention and democratic construction have become prominent issues in international relations within the last few decades. The emphasis on prevention and reconstruction is due, in part, to the changing nature of violent conflict throughout the world. While conflicts and their reconciliation processes are often complex and multi-faceted, the rise in conflicts can be attributed to one underlying reason: identity-based civil wars. These wars are fought over imbalances in the distribution of economic, political or social resources. For that reason, it is essential to take into consideration how identity is constructed, disseminated and used in conflict (and post-conflict) states. It is just important to address the power of identity when designing and implementing peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding initiatives.

Bottom-up peace initiatives are an essential component of peace processes both in conflict and post-conflict zones. Civil society organizations (CSOs) that implement artistic bottom-up peace initiatives are uniquely positioned. Given their proximity to local actors, CSOs can deal directly with issues of identity. Through the medium of art, these CSOs can prompt individuals to challenge their preconceptions, beliefs and roles. This self-examination provides an opportunity for individuals to make a transition -- to go through the process of reconciliation -- by examining and redefining their identity. While this process can and does occur through other methods, the use of art is essential because of certain innate characteristics; characteristics that lend themselves to the reconstruction of identity both at an individual and at a collective level.

An example of a Canadian-inspired transnational artistic peace initiative is the District Six collective. Self described "District Six Music is an arts based collective. The Label and Production company provide resources and opportunities through innovative and alternative means for upcoming artists to showcase their music and become personally empowered within their work."

The collective works out of Toronto, but their passion for music and social responsibility transcends borders and boundaries and has taken their cause across the globe.

Last year, this translated into District Six facilitating the first North American tour of Tumi and the Volume -- a South African hiphop quartet with a passion for diversity and a desire to promote local talent in a globalized world.

To appreciate the connection between the Toronto-based collective and the J'Burg quartet it's important to understand the history of District Six, Cape Town.

"District Six was named the Sixth Municipal District of Cape Town in 1867. Originally established as a mixed community of freed slaves, merchants, artisans, labourers and immigrants, District Six was a vibrant centre with close links to the city and the port. By the beginning of the twentieth century, however, the history of removals and marginalisation had begun. The first to be 'resettled' were black South Africans, forcibly displaced from the District in 1901. As the more prosperous moved away to the suburbs, the area became the neglected ward of Cape Town.In 1966, it was declared a white area under the Group areas Act of 1950, and by 1982, the life of the community was over. 60,000 people were forcibly removed to barren outlying areas aptly known as the Cape Flats, and their houses in District Six were flattened by bulldozers."

To this day, District Six has not been reclaimed by its original inhabitants -- nor has it been developed for the former intended inhabitants. Instead, a museum now marks the spot to record and bear witness the ramifications of prejudice, racism and hate that once gripped the country of South Africa.

For more information on the District Six music collaboration go to:
http://www.districtsixmusic.com/flash/index.html

For more information on District Six in South Africa go to:
http://www.districtsix.co.za/frames.htm

For more information on art as activism go to:
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/CYIJ/laying_art.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~amerstu/smc/art.html

For an article on Ani DeFranco's input into art as activism go to:
http://www.alternet.org/story/20347/

Women is the N*$%er of the world

A recent editorial from Michael Noer, Executive Director of Forbes Magazine, helps to remind us that 'ism' is still strong and prevalent among the stereotypical male-dominated power centres within the world.

He starts off his article by stating:

"Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career."

Given the reputation Forbes carries as an innovative source for news, views and analysis of the world from a financial perspective, Noer's opinion piece provides a glimpse into the absurd and sexist attitudes that continue to prevail.

The sad fact is, despite any potential tongue-and-cheek naughty opinion piece, these attitudes continue to prevent women from fully and completely accessing their potential. This enforced limitation has a significant impact on the global economy (among other areas).

The fact is, "investing in formal and non-formal education and training for girls and women, with its exceptionally high social and economic return, has proved to be one of the best means of achieving sustainable development and economic growth." -- according to the United Nations World Conference on Women.

One would assume that given the massive impact under-educated and under-employed women have on the world economy, these very same sexist men (and I MEAN sexist) would strive to rectify the situation -- if, for no other reason, than to increase their bottom line.

Yet, men like Noer continue to a) espouse their sexist comments in a public (and formerly respectable forum), b) joke about an issue within a (formerly) respected periodical, thereby diminishing the importance of addressing such issues. Either way, Noer's piece, and Forbes decision to run the piece, is in poor taste and, at least to this feminist, completely unacceptable.

As a result, women across North America are calling on a boycott of Forbes magazine.

I say, go one better, write a letter or piece to Forbes detailing all the reasons why smart, capable and intelligent women no longer need the views and opinions of an outdated, patriarchial periodical such as Forbes -- not when so many other sources are available for news, views and opinions on the financial impact of a free and liberated society.

To read the Forbes article go to: http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html
For more comments on the boycott go to: http://blogher.org/node/9788
For more statistics that actually depict the REAL plight of women across the world go to: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/wwpub.htm

My bottom line is NO child labour

Children are the most vulnerable members of society (followed closely by the elderly, the ill and women -- a collective group that accounts for more than half the world's population and, yet, is subjected to the basest form of deprivation).

As such, over the course of this blog I will be continually revisiting the issue of child labour and exploitation.

As mentioned in a previous posting (Child Labour: It's all relative to me -- http://rkresponsibleliving.blogspot.com/2006/08/child-labour-its-all-relative-to-me.html) I took great exception to the argument that boycotts and calls for increased labour standards in developing nations hurt the economic survival of the poorest familial units (and the children themselves).

While, there is a sharp decline to the number of children forced into labour across the world, the exception to this rule is in sub-Sahara Africa.

In this part of the world (one of the poorest regions on the globe) one in four children below the age of 14 works -- a rate that matches the child labour average of the 1960s. According to the United Nations, there are more than 49 million sub-Saharan children under the age of 14 who are working as either prostitutes, miners, construction workers, pesticide sprayers, haulers, street vendors, and full-time servants.

The sad fact is these tasks demand more than the household chores that are considered a right of passage for most children in developing nations.

In fact, according to a New York Times story, this is "by far the greatest proportion of working children in the world."

Now, a story out of Zambia (a country I have trudged through back in the 90s) proclaims the hardships and atrocities faced by the children of this ravaged nation. While a portion of these children find themselves in forced labour situations -- the result of exploitation by adults -- many in sub-Sahara Africa opt to work because of hard economic realities.

"Overwhelmingly, though, what drives children into work is not greed but privation. Young people here largely work to feed themselves or their parents, or both," states Michael Wines, in the New York Times, August 24, 2006 article.

Of course, as a nation moving towards development, Zambia has laws against child labour and has signed two international conventions to set minimum wage limits for labourers. But the reality is this impoverished nation supports an impoverished population, whose ingenuity and will to survive is surpassed only by the stifling bureaucracy, the grinding poverty and the enormous impact of the AIDS epidemic.

Herein, lies the premise of the argument that child labour is necessary in order to alleviate the overwhelming poverty that is a reality in many developing nations.

However, there is evidence to suggest the possibility of eliminating child labour AND alleviating poverty. For example, Kerala, a southern state in India, was able to eliminate child labour and is considered one of the least wealthy states in a country burdened with overwhelming poverty.

The fact is, "eliminating child labour and getting all children into school are essential steps on the path to social and economic development. Economic development in the countries once commonly known as the "Asian Tigers" only really started after the political decision had been taken to put all children into school, backed up by budgetary allocations from government to build and staff schools...There are some observers who promote the idea of companies (usually subcontractors) employing children and giving them some schooling as well. Evidence shows, however, that such part-time education is no substitute for quality basic education and that anything more than a few hours' work each week has a significant effect on children's learning achievement. Companies should employ adults and allow them to form unions, if they choose, so that they can negotiate decent local wages and conditions. The incomes of families would thus be sufficient to allow them to send their children to school (the evidence we have shows that usually any income from working children makes only a marginal impact on overall household income). [As such] there can be no justification for companies employing children," states the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

If we rely on children -- the most vulnerable members of our society -- to make the greatest economic contribution than we have already bought into a skewed economic system. The fact is, children are intellectually and physically incapable of handling the long, tedious work hours required in manual labour (unskilled jobs). It is not a great leap, then, to see that the exploitation of this proportion of the population artificially keeps wages low -- which perpetuates the cycle of poverty.

There can be no justification for child labour -- forced or not.

If poverty is to be eliminated, we must demand fair and equitable working conditions for ALL workers -- this includes demanding the standards we have set and adhered to in the developed world for those in the developing world. Even if it undermines OUR bottom line.


To read the New York Times article on Africa and child labour go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/world/africa/24zambia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
To read the Washington Post article on children and sexual exploitation go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601402.html?sub=new
To get more information on child labour go to:
http://www.icftu.org/focus.asp?Issue=childlabour&Language=EN

Get tough on crime means getting real about addiction

There are a various ways of treating addiction. Various methods from drug court (out of Vancouver, BC), to treatment centres, to 12-step fellowships and behaviourial modification programs. And then there is jail.

The fact is roughly 10 to 15% of the population is afflicted with a physical and mental disorder that is medically identified as addiction. While these people account for roughly 1/10 of the population, they are disproportionately represented in the legal system.

According to a recent Washington Post article, it is estimated that 70% of the people in US state prisons and local jails have abused drugs (including alcohol) regularly, compared with approximately 9% of the general population.

That is a staggering statistic. Yet, all too often, addiction is deemed to be an outside issue when addressing and dealing with offenders in the court system. As a judicial system based upon a punitive model, we are more concerned with incarceration (and debt due to society through loss of physical freedom) then we are in treating and dealing with the underlying causes of crime.

The same Washington Post article also states that a preliminary report released by the FBI in June shows an increase in robberies and violent crime in 2005.

In Canada, a different trajectory is taking shape. Based on data reported by police services across the country, Canada's crime rate fell a marginal 1% last year (a reduction that continues the 15 year reduction of crime since 1991, when rates peaked).

However, despite the overall reduction in crime rates, there is alarming evidence that the rate of incidents involving drug and alcohol abuse increased by 11% in 2005.

Given the direct correlation between drug and alcohol abuse and crime, it is important, as a society and as a judicial system, that we acknowledge the role addiction plays in the lives of offenders.

Crimes associated with drug abuse include sale or possession of drugs; property crimes; prostitution; and violent crimes that reflect out of control behaviour.

As a result reports show that drug abuse is involved in more than half of all violent crimes! And in 60 to 80% of child abuse and neglect cases.

That same FBI report also states that in 2002, approximately 60% of male juvenile detainees and 46% of female detainees tested positive for drug use. As a result, the estimated cost to society for the drug abuse and the subsequent crimes is pegged at $181 billion!

The fact is, when addicts enter the judicial system, it signals a crisis moment. It is at this moment that addicts can become acutely aware of the consequences of their actions and the futility of their dependence. However, the refusal by the majority of our courts, police services and societal systems to acknowledge this moment and treat the addict means that the punitive state of our judicial system takes over and the incarceration of the addict (rather than the rehabilation of the addict) takes precedence.

Again, the Washington Post article states that numerous "studies have consistently shown that comprehensive drug treatment works. It not only reduces drug use but also curtails criminal behavior and recidivism. Moreover, for drug-abusing offenders, treatment facilitates successful reentry into the community. This is true even for people who enter treatment under legal mandate."

Despite strong evidence for the benefits of treatment, our Prime Minister maintains his election platform which includes a get tough on crime mandate (particularly on drug-related crime). Despite how hollow his promises for safety and security appear given the link between socio-economic policy, drug abuse and crime, Mr. Harper appears to be pushing ahead on this tough-on-crime stance.

Now, let's flip back to the evidence: "In a Delaware work-release research study sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, those who participated in prison-based treatment -- followed by ongoing post-release care -- were seven times more likely to be drug-free and three times more likely to be arrest-free after three years than those who received no treatment. Other studies report similar findings. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that substance-abuse treatment cuts drug abuse in half and reduces criminal activity by as much as 80%."

The question, then, is why would our trusted national leader follow tried, tested and FAILED methods of crime reduction when all studies point to the benefits of drug and alcohol treatment in the reduction (and prevention) of crime?

One proferred reason is that "addiction is still often seen as something for the individual to deal with." The other, obvious reason, is cost.

Both reasons play into the Conservative mentality. As with most conservative practitioners, the individual is considered the supreme state of automony. As a result the individual is deemed responsible for dealing with issues, such as addiction.

While this perspective is true in the long run (for example, 12-step fellowships ASSUME that each person is responsible for admitting a problem and for working towards a solution) it does not take into account the necessity for opportunity. In otherwords, without the opportunity to take responsibility an addict is left with little or no solution.

Once a person has a entered into the court system, the opportunity to seek out treatment (either through a program or through a 12-step fellowship) is limited. As a result, it is OUR responsiblity as a society to provide contingency options - options that replace the punitive, self-perpetuating sentences that currently dominate our judicial system.

This means we need to start focusing and implementing treatment and rehabilitation, rather than new, sound-bite "get tough on crime" band-aid solutions.

Because in the end, only rehabilitation (through treatment) helps save lives and protect communities.

To read the Washington Post article go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081800799.html
To read about Canada's crime rate statistics go to:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm
For more stories linking addiction and crime go to:
http://www.treatmentonline.com/treatments.php?id=806
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/goode/bpr9.htm

State of the world: from a women's perspective

There is an old cliche that states a picture is worth a 1000 words. Today, I offer no pictures, only a brief synopsis of the state of the world, from a women's perspective.

Enjoy, if you can.

• 855,000,000 people in the world are illiterate. 70% of them are female.
• Two-thirds of the world's children who receive less than four years of education are girls.
• For every year beyond fourth grade that girls go to school, family size drops 20%, child deaths drop 10%, and wages rise 20%; yet, international aid dedicated to education is declining.
• Worldwide, more than half the population of women over age 15 cannot read or write.
• Girls represent nearly 60% of the children not in school.
• Even when women have equal years of education, it does not translate into economic opportunities or political power.
• While women in Nigeria enjoy 53% literacy, in Morocco 34%, and in Palestine 77%, their participation in politics and the economy lag far behind.
• Worldwide, women suffer greater malnutrition than men.
• 600,000 women -- one every minute -- die each year from pregnancy-related causes. Most of these deaths are preventable.
• As children, girls are often undervalued, fed less, and given inadequate healthcare.
• Parents in countries such as China and India sometimes use sex determination tests to find out if their fetus is a girl. Of 8000 fetuses aborted at a Bombay clinic, 7999 were female.
• In the Global South, women traditionally eat last and least. They do not get more to eat even during pregnancy and nursing.
• Nearly half of all people living with HIV/AIDS are women and girls.
• 510,000 children under the age of 15 died of HIV/AIDS in 1998. Today, almost 1.2 million children under the age of 15 are living with HIV/AIDS.
• In some countries, the HIV/AIDS infection rates for 15- to 19-year old girls are 3 to 6 times higher than for boys.
• Every day 7000 young persons are infected with HIV/AIDS.
• Worldwide, women's work in the home is not counted as work.
• 90% of the rural female labor force are called "housewives" and excluded from the formal definition of economic activity.
• Women work-- on average and across the world-- more hours than men each week, sometimes as much as 35 hours more, but their work is often unpaid and unaccounted for.
• Where women do the same work as men, they are paid 30 to 40 percent less than men.
• There is no country in the world where women's wages are equal to those of men.
  In the U.K., Italy, Germany, and France women are paid 75% of men's wages, whereas in Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Australia women earn 90% of men's wages.
  Women produce nearly 80% of the food on the planet, but receive less than 10% of agricultural assistance.
• In most places in the world, work is segregated by sex. Women tend to be in clerical, sales and domestic services, and men in manufacturing and transport.
• Women occupy only 2% of senior management positions in business.
• Women's participation in managerial and administrative posts is around 33% in the developed world, l5% in Africa, and 13% in Asia and the Pacific. In Africa and Asia-Pacific these percentages, small as they are, reflect a doubling of numbers in the last twenty years.
• Wars today affect civilians most, since they are civil wars, guerrilla actions and ethnic disputes over territory or government. 3 out of 4 fatalities of war are women and children.
• In times of conflict, women and children are sometimes sold into forced servitude and slavery.
• 75% of the refugees and internally displaced in the world are women who have lost their families and their homes.
• In the last decade there were about 300,000 child soldiers.
• There are approximately 250 million child labourers worldwide: Asia accounts for 153 million and Africa for 80 million.
• The majority of the world's women cannot own, inherit, or control property, land, and wealth on an equal basis with men.
  

Sources: Joni Seager, The State of Women in the World Atlas (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1997); United Nations, The World's Women 2000: Trends and Statistics (New York: United Nations, 2000); United Nations, The World's Women 1995: Trends and Statistics (New York: United Nations, 1995); United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), Progress of the World's Women 2000: UNIFEM Biennial Report (New York, UNIFEM, 2000); United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

The power of purchasing principles

For those that doubt the power of civil society demands for socially just business practices a new report from Apple should prove the validity (and power) of responsible living.

In June, Apple computers -- the makers of iPod -- was accused by a British tabloid for allegedly allowing the production of iPods in Chinese sweatshops -- sweatshops that are notorious for poor and, at times, dangerous working conditions.

On August 17, Apple went a long way to answering those charges.

The report, released by the multi-national computer company, clearly states that after investigating the accusations a decision was reached to force reforms at their Chinese production affiliates -- namely at the offending plant, owned by Hon Hai Precision Industries in Longhua, China. (These reforms will primarily address housing issues as well as forced overtime).

Apple also recommitted to their socially just/ethical mandate (a mandate that initially poised the company as one of North America's most socially responsible corporations) by committing to ongoing audits of all its factories where products are assembled. This committment will be undertaken by Verite, based in Amherst, Mass., and will allow Apple to constitently monitor affiliate sites for violations.

The reality is, Apple is under no obligation to dictate better working conditions within production plants based in China (or other countries with minimal labour standards). Yet, Apple (and other multi-national corporations, such as Cisco) choose to operate under this ethics rubric.

The rational is that socially just business practices allow the corporation to grow and prosper based on ethical standards -- standards that more and more consumers are demanding.

While a few still bemoan the world's inability to enforce set standards for business and labour, it is important to remind ourselves that many international laws are, in fact, completely unenforceable.

There is no unified world police force (despite what Bush Jr. might say), no international entity that has the authority to enforce standards and principles. However, this does not mean that social justice values cannot be established and maintained.

Like many governmental and commercial standards the enforcement of conventions is through shame and dollar-votes. This method of persuasion and coercian has been in place for centuries and while a few of these standards have been canonized in international law, the practicality is that many of these laws are still enforced through these archaic methods.

Hence, the importance of Apple's report. The accusations of substandard treatment of workers affiliated with the Apple brand was thoroughly and openly investigated and reported on within 45 days. The rapidity of the investigation, the subsequent report and the corporation's committment to enforce it's internally mandated principles shows that shame, dollar-votes and a conscious really do have an impact on corporate policy.

For us, in North America this is a powerful reminder of the Butterfly Effect: one slap of a sawbuck really can buy a form of freedom for another individual on the other side of the world.

For more information on the Apple report on iPod manufacturing go to:
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ipodreport/

For more information on the stories that prompted Apple's investigation into the
production of iPods go to:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14915

Oil is here with bell's on -- the bell curve that is

Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.
Before my father's death he dedicated his career to the oil and gas industry.

While I could spent an entire week on the obvious problems I had with my father's choice, I do appreciate his level of candour regarding his job and his industry.

One of the major lessons I was to learn was that oil really is a finite resource. Before the age of 15 (and because I was a rather haughty teen with fantastic and idealistic ideas) my father sat me down and explained the bell curve.

The bell curve is visual representation of a resource's natural lifespan. Every resource (finite resource) can be charted along a bell curve -- where the resource is cheap and plentiful on the upscope and increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which oil is 50% depleted.

OK, so that is a problem in itself, however add into the mix an increasingly population. As the population of all countries increases, so does the demand for oil and it's derivatives. Hence, as oil becomes scarce, the demand for oil increases.

Not a great equation to be working with.

Yet, our government's do not seem to be serious about dealing with the looming oil shortage (and crisis). Rather than investing in alternative fuel resources, our governments (North America in particular) are attempting to find new oil reserves.

This is in complete contrast to the action's of other nations.

Take, for example, Spain's new law that makes solar panels mandatory in all new buildings. Jose Montilla, Spain's Industry Minister, has announced that from next year, anyone who intends to build a home will be obliged to include solar panels in their plans, with the aim of turning Spain from a straggler to a European leader in the use of renewable energy. Spain calculates that solar energy could produce savings of at least $115 (CAN) a year on fuel to heat domestic water supplies per household. The initiative not only saves homeowners money, but also reduces greenhouse gases. While the construction cost of houses may increase, the government is arguing that both short-term and long-term benefits outweigh any additional construction costs.

For more information on Spain's initiative go to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1350946,00.html

For more information on the oil bell curve go to:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink

Next week is World Water Week -- seven days devoted to the protection of the environment, people's livelihoods and a push to reduce poverty, as they relate to water and accessibility.

To a large extent, what happens to our water is dependent on what decisions and activities are made in other sectors. Trade and economic integration, for instance, can stimulate the use of water and can either deplete or rejuvenate the supply of this global resource. Political decisions can alter the geographical landscape or the accessibility to water. As a result this week long examination of water, in all its facets, will attempt to examine the problem and determine solutions that take into consideration the role of the scientific, business, civil and political communities.

However, a couple of high-profile members of civil society are already coming out with alarming reports and protest-motivated action, in an effort to draw attention to the looming water crisis the world now faces.

The first is a rather depressing report released by the World Wildlife Federation. This report warns that climate change and poor resource management have combined to produce water shortages even in developed countries.

The report states:

"In Europe, countries on the Atlantic are suffering recurring droughts,while water-intensive tourism and irrigated agriculture are endangering water resources in the Mediterranean. In Australia, the world’s driest continent, salinity is a major threat to a large proportion of its key agricultural areas. Despite high rainfall in Japan, contamination of water supplies is an extremely serious issue in many areas. In the United States, large areas are already using substantially more water than can be naturally replenished. This situation will only be exacerbated as global warming brings lower rainfall, increased evaporation and changed nowmelt patterns. Some of the world’s thirstiest cities, such as Houston and Sydney, are using more water than can be replenished. In
London, leakage and loss is estimated at 300 Olympic-size swimming pools daily due to ageing water mains. It is however notable that cities with less severe water issues such as New York tend to have a longer tradition of conserving catchment areas and expansive green areas within their boundaries."

While the report attempts to alert us to how we must rethink our global and local use of water, the United Church of Canada is choosing to focus on another aspect of water. In an effort to protest the commodification of water, the United Church Board is discussing a motion to ask its members to stop buying bottled water. The request is part of a resolution against the privatization of water supplies -- a mandate that is being discussed at the church's general council in Thunder Bay this week.

The rational behind the intended boycott is that water is a human right and that no one should profit from it.

In an interview with CBC News, Richard Chambers, the social policy co-ordinator with the church's national office, said, "We're against the commodification -- privatization is another way to say it -- of water and bottled water, that we see being sold in Canada, is just an example of that. The thin edge of the wedge of the privatization of water."

By calling on United Church members to boycott bottled water, the church hopes to raise awareness that water should be made safe and accessible for all. The church also hopes to pressure corporate and governmental entities to examine the treatment of water as a RIGHT rather than just as a resource.

Delegates are scheduled to vote on the private water resolution tomorrow (Thursday).

For more information on World Water Week go to: http://www.worldwaterweek.org/worldwaterweek/WWWstrategy.asp

For more information on the WWF report go to: http://www.panda.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=77900

For more information on the United Church proposed boycott of bottled water go to:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/08/16/unitedchurch-bottledwater.html

Canada's new tier-system targets justice

Equality for all under the law.

That is the premise of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is NOT what is happening when it comes to Canadians and judicial access.

While arguments can be made to criticize the type of person that crowds our jails (typically low-income, under-educated, addiction-prone, minority types) today's criticism focuses more on an individual's ability to access the judicial system.

An initial thought regarding legal aid often focuses on the criminal justice system. In this system, criminal defendants are afforded an over-worked public defender who may skim the case and opt for the best possible option -- an option that does not always place the defendent first.

However, the criminal system is but one aspect of the judicial system. Access to the judicial system must also include a citizen's ability to utilize family law and civil law.

This is where are judicial system fails. Our continually under-funded and under-represented civil legal aid system -- which attempts to provide legal counsel for low to moderate-income earners across the country -- is not nationally regulated, nor is it uniformly funded.

This inconsistency, along with the lack of support, simply means that the economically disadvantaged do NOT have equitable access to justice. And this is a significant problem.

If everyone is theoretically equal in the eyes of the law, yet 30% (and more) of the population is too economically poor to utilize the system, then we are creating and supporting a two-tier judicial system.

While poverty is not an overt classification for discrimination, it is a social classification and an economic reality that serves to exclude segments of the population. If this exclusion infiltrates the one area of our society that is built upon equality, then we are failing in our duties to protect the most vulnerable. And the fact is poverty and insufficient legal aid funding IS contributing to the exclusion from the judicial system those poor and moderate-income earners that comprise the bottom third of our society.

For an excellent analysis and synopsis of this dilemma please see CBC Online columnist, Michelle Mann's article at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_mann/20060808.html

Make my Prime Minister compassionate -- AIDS and economics infiltrates the PMO

Canada's preeminent national newspaper really does give too much credit to our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. In an editorial yesterday, the proper paper for economically-minded folk declared that it was a regrettable that our nation's leader was unable to attend the 16th International AIDS Conference being held in Toronto. Their rational: "the Prime Minister...missed a chance to display his often-hidden compassionate side."

Yet, the sad fact is, compassion is the enemy of strategy...and we must all agree, Harper is a strategic animal, if nothing else.

While there is no love lost for the PM in this little rant, I do acknowledge his unique ability to assess a situation and then keep a low profile. This strategy proved well for him during the electoral race and served him well during the first six weeks in office. Now, with Bush Jr. adamantly denying common sense solutions (such as condom use) to countries ravaged by AIDS, Harper has thrown his cards on the table.

For our Prime Minister, a better-than-good relationship with Bush Jr. is far more important than our social responsibility to address the AIDS epidemic. Despite the fact that the disease is crippling sub-Saharan Africa (and there is now concern of emerging epidemics in Russia, India and China, while one-third of all new HIV infections in Canada occur in aboriginal populations), Harper does not think it a priority to acknowledge the importance of this disease. To add insult to injury, Harper's personnel have tried to placate the media and the masses by stating that "the federal government is well represented at the conference."

Listen, you could have 100 mandarins running from conference room to conference room, but the reality is when the leader of your nation REFUSES to publically acknowledge the implications of this disease, it is a clear signal that he is NOT concerned with his so-called compassionate side, but rather his economic prowess.

It is well known that US foreign aid policy demands a return to archaic (religiously influenced) birth control regulations. Any country that appears to support the use of condoms or use abortion is cut off from the US trough. Since sub-Sahara Africa can be considered one of the poorest regions in the world, these demands force the governments (and hence the populations) to cow-tow to the ridiculous demands of this pampered first world nation -- which prevents them from arresting and even preventing the spread of the AIDs virus.

The fact is, condoms are a simple, effective and low-cost solution in the prevention and spread of HIV. The fact is, the US government is led by another self-serving agenda and this has resulted in a choice between overall economic hardship OR crippling health concerns -- an unenviable choice for these impoverished nations.

Stephen Harper's refusal to attend the conference was not a missed opportunity, nor a moment of miscalculated concern.

Rather, his refusal to attend (and his ever-so-common low profile) is a direct decision to build bridges with one of the most archaic and self-righteous US governments in contemporary history. Harper's option to not attend the conference sends a clear message to Canadians that our AIDS dilemma is of secondary concern; his absence also sends a clear message that US relations and our subsequent economic ties are much more important than our social responsibility to our own population and to the most vulnerable populations in the world.

As a Canadian, I am so proud to be falsely autonomous, led by the most dismissive and ensconced national leader since...John Turner.

Now THAT is a missed opportunity for compassion.

For an excellent blog on life expectancy from a North American perspective (a young reporter in Africa) go to: http://karenpalmerinafrica.blogspot.com/2006/05/30.html

For the Globe and Mail editorial go to: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20060815.wxeaids15/BNStory/specialComment/home

For a great tongue-in-cheek letter on Harper's no-show go to:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060815.
LETTERS15-1/TPStory/Comment

Child labour -- it's all relative to me

I got a call over the weekend to reignite an old debate. It appears the post on boycotting Chinese products raised concerns over the effect these and other boycotts have on children (and their families). The concern was that a boycott (and thus a reduction in demand) would hurt these unskilled labourers as the reduction in demand would reduce the limited number of jobs available (and the limited amount of money they need for their survival).

In otherwords, it is a debate about relativism. According to those that worry about exploited workers the decrease in demand of a product (through boycotts, or even through 'regular' market conditions) can mean the reduction of labour and the removal of an income. As families that barely exist this downturn can literally mean life and death. Hence, the exploitation of the children (or the worker), though terrible, is justifiable as this exploitation is the only source of sustenance for families living in the margins of poverty.

Yet, the concept that there are no absolutes, no lines to be drawn, enables us to justify the actions -- actions of corporations, who employ and abuse this cheap labour source and our own actions as we purchase that cheap-labour produced toy or lace-covered panty.

While I do not, as a rule, subscribe to absolutes (no concept of Heaven or Hell here!), I do believe that the debate regarding the exploitation of marginalized workers in developing worlds can and should be defined.

To justify the use and abuse of these workers based on their own need to survive is inappropriate -- if, for no other reason, because we do not (overtly) accept this type of justification for substandards working conditions for people in our own society.

In otherwords, if we, in North America, will not tolerate slave or child labour on our own continent, then we cannot tolerate, accept or justify it on another continent. Now, before you argue that the economics of North America are different, may I remind you that we built our economy by exploiting women, children and the marginalized. May I also remind you that as we grew as a society, we began to grow and learn that this exploitation was unacceptable. Eventually laws were passed and standards created. These laws and standards, now, dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable in terms of working conditions.

Yet when these laws and standards were being created there were those that expressed concern over how these changes would impact the poorest workers who rely on the minimal wages produced by these unskilled jobs. They were concerned that the laws and regulations would diminish the ability of corporations to offer unskilled labour jobs and this, then, would impact the most vulnerable that rely on these jobs.

Yet, in reality, the opposite occured. While a minority did experience immediate hardship through loss of job and wages, the overall trend of increased standards and increased wages shows that regulations (when supported and enforced) help to improve conditions BUT do not reduce employment.

The fact is, corporations will always need unskilled labour. The fact is, this need SHOULD be used as a leverage point to demand better conditions and wages -- conditions and wages that increase the standard of living for ALL workers -- not just North American workers. The fact is, a demand for better wages and conditions is not new and HAS been accomplished SUCCESSFULLY in other regions of the world...therefore setting a precedence for those currently exploited by profit-driven corporations (the very same corporations that cry foul whenever issues, such as minimum wage, are raised).

The fact is there are enough (current) reports that clearly show how devastating exploited labour really is to the fabric of familial life and national standards. There is also enough (prior) evidence that standards and laws CAN and DO increase the standard of life for all, which does increase and support the economic standards of a nation.

As such, my suggestion is not to give in to relativism. Do not allow one set of standards for those that live in a developing world and another set of standards for those in a developed world. While unskilled labour and the wages it produces are often life-lines for the most marginalized, this necessity should not prevent better standards and justify inexcusable conventions. Rather, it should prompt all of us (consumer, producer and worker) to align standards, thereby elevating everyone's standard of living.


For more information on the impact of the exploitation of children go to:
http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html or
http://hrw.org/children/labor.htm
For more information on the industrial revolution go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Social_effects

WTO rules in favour of GMOs -- benefits Canada, hurts health

Oohhhh, there are problems in paradise.

It appears Eden is about to be taken over by science -- nature is to become the servant of nurture -- a very specifically designed nurture.

A recent World Trade Organization (WTO) interim ruling has determined that the European Union does not have the right to restrict genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The ruling arises from a dispute initiated in 2003 by the United States, Canada and Argentina against the European Community (EC) over its treatment of GMOs and products containing GMOs. These countries claimed that the EC approval system delayed the commercialization of GMOs, and that some European countries had effectively banned certain genetically modified crops.

At the heart of the dispute is the right of countries to control the introduction of GMOs into their food markets. The complainants (Canada among them) argued that under Free Trade, countries did not have a right to ban imports that were genetically modified without scientific support for that decision -- this argument (considered traditional among politicos) rationalizes that in order to ban a substance for health reasons hard scientific proof must show problems. However, the EC have maintained that such proof should not be required. The EC argues that their resistence is based on the "precautionary principle." The precautionary principle suggests that the mere possibility of harm to human health or the environment is enough to justify precautionary measures -- even in the absence of scientific certainty of harm.

The fact is, the precautionary principle has been endorsed in several international treaties, including the recently concluded Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety -- a protocol that specifically deals with "living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology."

However, the US did not sign the Cartegena Protocol. Canada and Argentina, on the other hand, signed the agreement, without actually ratifying the Protocol. And, quite obviously, the EC signed and ratified the agreement.

Either way, the WTO has signalled their preference for science rather the health. The fact is, the WTO did not even consider the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol and opted, instead, to support the requirement for hard science as evidence prior to the restriction of GMOs. As the world's THIRD largest grower and exporter of GMO crops, Canada stands to benefit from the WTO panel's decision. However, the longer implications are the restriction of preventative health measures -- measures that are being usurped by science for monetary gain.

NOTE: Canada et al. are challenging three specific EC regulatory measures. These three measures are:

• an alleged moratorium on GMO approvals
• the alleged failure to consider new applications for GMO approvals; and
• GMO-specific bans or restrictions imposed by several European countries.

While the WTO Panel has initially ruled in favour of Canada, et al., the panel is receiving comments from all parties. It is expected that the Panel's final decision will be released in September. That decision can be appealed, however if the EC fails to comply with the recommendations contained in a Panel report, the USA, Canada and Argentina may seek and obtain WTO authorization to impose trade sanctions against the EC until it complies with the WTO obligations.

For more information on GMOs in Canada go to: http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/campaign/gmo/index.php
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/

For more information on the Cartagena Protocol go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartagena_Protocol_on_Biosafety

For more information on WTO and GMO go to: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060329&articleId=2202
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/pr/wtoruling.html

1 Billion Chinese can't be wrong...or can they?

Yes, this may shock a few: but different cultures eat different meat.

Just take a quick gander through the Gatineaus or a query into Quebec’s cuisine – horse meat, anyone?

However, because of my head’s attachment to my stomach (too sensitive) and because of my love for all my brethren canines (no jokes…seriously, no jokes), I just had to post about a “new” boycott being called to target the Chinese.

First it was little kids slaving over toys in a factory. Then the environment and now dogs. When, oh when, will the Chinese NOT be boycotted.

Ok, so I may sound a little cynical, but there is some shred of dignity to these actions…and hence my promotion of the current movement.

The long and short of it (oh, the puns are fast and furious today) is that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) is asking for a public boycott of ALL goods manufactured in China (not just toys or lacy products).Of course, for many of us, this may mean the reduction or denial of our dollar-store addiction. Gasp!

If you want more info go to: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=vn20060806090302282C563976

Hands off my herbs (and other divine seedlings)

The killer seed is back.

Well, maybe back is not the right word. Perhaps the right word is comeback.

The seed: Monsanto’s genetically modified canola.

The start: their introduction into Canadian farmlands pre-1997, when Agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. sued farmer Percy Schmeiser after they found biotech canola growing in his fields.

The problem: Schmeiser never planted GMO canola.

It appears the GMO Canola migrated to Schmeiser’s fields (airborne pollen, carried by animals and through spillage). Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene; as a result the massive Agribusiness firm is now demanding a Technology Fee of $15./acre from Schmeiser. The 73-year-old farmer contends the contamination of his crops destroyed a lifetime of work improving them.

The case, eventually, went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Canada’s top court ruled that Schmeiser didn't have to pay Monsanto. Anything.

But the purpose of this blog is not to go into the historical details of the Schmeiser case (for that, go on line to: http://www.percyschmeiser.com).

The purpose of this blog is to highlight the NEXT battle in the Frankenstein food monopoly of Monsanto.

As we sit and read our blogs, sipping our soya-lattes, Saskatchewan's certified organic farmers are taking Monsanto and Bayer Crop Science to court. The precedent setting class action lawsuit is being launched in an attempt to stop genetically engineered wheat and to get compensation for losing canola as a crop due to genetic contamination. The class action suit was prompted by Monsanto’s intention to introduce genetically engineered wheat – a crop that produces an average annual yield of 24.5 million tons, making Canada one of the world’s largest wheat producers.

The fact is contamination of our wheat sources WILL result in a reduction of our wheat markets (many European and Asian nation’s have banned all GMO products) – further damaging our already fragile farming economy. This process would also put us in a position of trade reliance on the United States and other GMO friendly sources – an economic position that seems contradict everything, including common sense.

Want to know more? Want to get involved?

For more information go to: http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf/index.html

To sign a petition against Monsanto go to: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monfax.cfm

Make mine minimum wage

For most unions are no longer considered sexy.

Yes, I have said the sacrilegious, but I speak the truth -- unions have fallen out of favour.

But the rational behind the union -- a collective body that could demand fair treatment and fair wages -- is probably more applicable today than ten years ago.

The fact is the average minimum wage in Canada is paltry in comparison to the cost of living. The fact that minimum wage has barely risen over the last decade does not bode well for the working poor -- the people that benefit most from organized labour initiatives.

In Ontario, alone, the minimum wage rate has risen ONLY $0.30 in the last decade. That's right, that's $0.30 in ten years, compared with the rate of inflation which rose 1.7% between 2003 and 2004, alone!!

While unions have garnered negative press since their inception there are still valid and viable reasons why organized labour is a necessity in our (oxymoronic) free-market economy.

And now, with the push towards ethical living and socially responsible corporate policy, it is time to re-examine the role of unions in the skilled and unskilled labour that fuels our nation.

For an example on corporate social responsibility and its exclusion of unions go to: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060807/cm_thenation/15108956
For more information on the rise of minimum wages in Canada go to:
http://www110.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca
(then search minimum wage)
For more information on current minimum wages in Canada look below:
Minimum Wage in Canada
Updated: 07/23/06
Province General Wage
Alberta $7.00
BC $8.00
Manitoba $7.60
New Brunswick $6.70
Newfoundland $6.75
NWT $8.25
Nova Scotia $7.15
Nunavut $8.50
Ontario $7.75
PEI $7.15
Quebec $7.75
Saskatchewan $7.55
Yukon $8.25

Time to re-think war & peace in Afghanistan

The death of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan has renewed the vigour of both sides of the repair and restore foreign policy debate.

On one side, the Harper government and its supporters argue that Canadian involvement in Afghanistan is a necessary component to ensuring this region of the world does not fall into the hands of potential terrorists.

On the other side are the self-professed lefties who condemn our militaristic involvement and our assumption that we should send our citizens to die while imposing our way of life, liberty and freedom.

The reality is (as always) that the truth falls somewhere in between.

It is a fallacy to assume that peacebuilding does not involve some military aspect. As an avowed supporter of non-violence, even I must concede that situations can become so drastic (and the power balance so distorted) that only the gun can re-balance the void. The fact is, I would love to get to a place where the gun is no longer a component in peacebuilding, but, at present, this does not seem to be the case -- and not just in Afghanistan or Iraq.

As such, I must concede that there is validity to our presence in Afghanistan. Having spent time in Kandahar (after the fall of the Taliban and before the withdrawal of American soldiers - see http://www.romanaking.com/links1.html and link to the Kandahar article under Travel & Adventure) I know first hand that nothing changed with the simple retreat of Taliban forces. From the mouths of the very women that live in Kandahar came the reality that the culture of Afghanistan is still patriarchial and oppressive -- a culture where warlords decide the fate of towns and villages and women are considered chattel rather than community members.

This was the impetus for the arrival of those initial Canadian troops. To help a nation ravaged by decades of war to return to peace, while implementing progressive values that would enable all their citizens to participate in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. It was a noble reason and, given the current lawless state, appeared to be a synergistic with the use of the military force.

Now, almost five years later, these Canadian forces are targets rather than liberators.

The argument is that these forces are no longer wanted by the Afghani people, and thus, should withdraw.

Yet, the refusal to accept help comes from Afghan's militant minority - a minority that does not include women. In fact, the women I met in Kandahar WANTED liberation -- and not the simplistic liberation of choosing to wear the burka or not. They wanted a new government and a new set of laws that enabled them to pursue life, liberty and happiness without fear of reprisal (reprisal that could often mean dismemberment or death).

Hence, from this perspective, Canada has an obligation to remain and help in the rebuilding of Aghanistan. While we may not be the nation(s) directly responsible for the deterioration of Afghanistan's infrastructure and social network system, we are a nation noted for our peacebuilding inititiaves and we are nation of have's in a world of have-not's.

Yet, at what point do the wishes of another nation's people become more important than the safety of our own nation's people? At what point should Canadians die in order to liberate another land's people?

Rather than assume that our citizens are more important, I answer this question from the perspective of participation and willingness. If the use of the gun has become a symbol for resistence and terror, than perhaps the gun, itself, should be removed. While Canadian military forces continue to show a presence in that country, we will continue to be targets. And the fact is, military intervention is not the only method for establishing peace.

Yes, a top-down (leader-imposed) peace is preferable -- as it almost implies nation-wide buy-in -- but the fact is that it is not working in Afghanistan.

As such, my vote is to remove our Canadian troops and, instead, send our Canadian expertise.

The Germans are masters of this tactic. All over South Asia (where wars and bloody squirmishes persist) the Germans are a prevalent force as technicians, experts and guides. They concentrate on building the infrastructure that benefits the local population -- infrastructure that is one component in the peacebuilding process.

The rational is that if the local population becomes fed-up with the wars (and this is prompted by a better standard of living, as proferred through the use of German technology and knowledge) then the warlords will no longer find support for their cause.

And there is precedence for this tactic -- just look at Ireland or the Sudan or South Africa. While many factors are involved in the termination of violent conflict in these and other nations, one common component is the use of bottom-up/grassroots peacebuilding initiatives -- initiatives that include the rebuilding of educational facilities, infrastructure and economic communities.

The fact is there are factions within Afghanistan that are vehemently opposed to any intervention by foreign military -- even if this military brings aid and potential hope.

This opposition, then, must prompt us to rethink our role in the peacebuilding process in Afghanistan. Yes, we are obliged to help, but to continue down this militaristic course -- a course marred in blood and violence -- may not be the best tactic.

Instead a withdrawal of our troops and the interjection of Canadian knowledge and expertise may be the best tactic in helping to stablilize this region of the world and develop a long-term, lasting peace.

For a great editorial on rethinking intervention (from a US-Iraq perspective) check out Thomas L. Friedman's article in the New York Times: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/opinion/04friedman.html?th&emc=th

Peter Whitmore highlights a key flaw in judicial system

It is much easier to blame than to solve.

However, this attitude of retribution cannot counter the illnesses that plagues our society today -- as is witnessed in the Peter Whitmore case. And yes, I said illness.

The fact is, Peter Whitmore was a confirmed and avowed pedophile. His parole papers clearly stated that he was at 100% risk for re-offending upon release. Yet, according to our punitive judicial system, he had to be released. You do the crime. You do the time. You get released. That's the way it works.

Of course, the initial reaction is that there should be tougher (read: more retributive) laws and punishments for serious offenders, like Peter Whitmore.

There are a number of problems with this potential solution.

The first is that the burden of proof to determine if a person qualifies for serious offender status is placed upon the prosecution. This additional responsibility, then, requires the prosecution to invest more time, more energy, and more resources to make the case. While, in theory, this sounds workable, a quick discussion with any one of Ontario's over-worked prosecutorial offices, and we realize how over-burdened and under-resourced their system is. Taxing this system could only result in delays and, in the worst case scenario, a breach of justice.

Another dilemma posed by these clamours for longer, stricter judicial sentences is that regardless of how long a potential sentence is a convicted criminal will always receive an opportunity for release. It is a well known fact that the adult judicial system offers little in the way of restoration and healing. It is based solely on the punitive judicial model and, as such, concentrates on restricting rather than rejuvenating the convicted persons. While, a number of arguments can be made for both perspectives, a strong case for restitution (as opposed to penalization) is that the released convicts are in a position to appreciate and understand the ramifications of their actions.

Finally, there are already provisions in the criminal code to designate people as dangerous offenders. This provisions are put into place whenever the burden of proof is met and a person is deemed a danger to reoffend. From what I have read, Whitmore fell into this category. He was required to check in with a parole officer upon his release and did so for a year. However, like any parolee, Whitmore's compliance is the lynch-pin to this system. Hence, his non-compliance to check in with court officials (and his subsequent move across the country) meant little could be done until he reoffended.

The fact is there is a very high rate of recitivism in pedophile. Condemning and locking up pedophiles does little to curb this problem and, in fact, may contribute to the escalation. As such, we need to reexamine how we approach criminal acts that are conducted due to compulsion (as opposed to opportunity).

Peter Whitmore was driven by a compulsion. If his illness was little more than a crime of opportunity, then he would have offended while living in Chilliwack or Newfoundland the year after his release. But the reality is, he did not reoffend at these times and, while I am not expert, my guess is that this lack of action on Whitmore's part was due to his attempts to control a compulsion and desire that consumes him.

To simply ignore the components of Whitmore's illness and lock him does not provide the public any protection against people like Whitmore. Instead, it prolongs the inevitable -- again, pedophiles are high-risk re-offenders.

For that reason, we need to examine how we approach high-risk offences, such as recurrent sex crimes, and try a different approach.

A study of the British Columbia Native judicial options showed that people convicted and sentenced in Native judiciary courts had a lower rate of recitivism than their counterparts in the Canadian judicial system -- particularly sex offenders. These results have been replicated across the nation and the continent. The fact is, the Native systems concentrated on community healing, rather than retributive sentencing. While the criminal was still made to pay for their crimes, the punishment focused on how this payment could benefit the community through healing and restoration.

As such, we need to re-examine our approach in our Canadian judicial system. Rather than focusing on the punitive, we need to start solving the issues.

Unfortunately, it often takes a large profile case, such as Whitmore's, to prompt us to action -- I only hope this action focuses on solutions rather than blame.

For more information on Circles of Support and Accountability (support networks to help sex offenders reintegrate into th community) go to:
http://www.cjiwr.com/resources_article_1.html

Quirky news for the mid-week hump

Part of a responsible life is knowing when to sit back and enjoy the moment. As such, I am not going to post any heavy-handed, issues-based story or opinion today. Instead, here is a sample of the weird and wacky that occurs in our world every day of our lives. Enjoy.

MCD's FLUSHES OUT MOUTH SHAPED URINALS
A Dutch McDonald's has been forced to remove a pair of mouth-shaped urinals after a tourist complained.
The branch in the south east of the Netherlands said it was removing the bright red, mouth-shaped urinals after a disgusted US customer complained to McDonald's head office in America.
Manager of the fast-food outlet Giel Pijper said the urinals, named Kisses, were works of art which he was now going to have to sell off.
The mouth-shaped urinals, designed by Utrecht-based firm Bathroom Mania!, have already caused controversy.
Virgin Airways was forced to scrap plans in 2004 to install two of the Kisses at New York's John F Kennedy airport after complaints they looked like women's mouths.
But designer Meike van Schijndel has denied they were ever conceived as anything rude and said they were designed as a fun cartoon mouth and not as a woman's mouth.

Museum of Broken Hearts goes on tour
The world's first museum dedicated to broken hearts has proved so popular that it is launching a world tour.
Museum founders Olinka Vistica and Drazen Grubisic originally opened their museum for just a few weeks in the Croatian capital Zagreb.
But word soon spread and people from across the globe came to visit the International Museum of Broken Hearts and donated new pieces. The pair have received invitations to hold exhibitions around the world, including Paris, Istanbul and Venice and they are also planning a show in London
Grubisic added: "Every single object on display has a full description of the relationship that was behind it and how that person has moved on. That's why we think it could be therapeutic for those with newly broken hearts.

Hooked on handsets
Eight out of 10 adults are so addicted to their mobiles they can't turn them off during sex.
The majority of adults questioned, in the UK-based survey said they could not get through a day without their phone.
Social anthropologist Kate Fox said: "They have restored our sense of community and provided a highly effective antidote to the pressures and alienation of modern life."

Prehistoric metrosexuals
Scientists examining prehistoric bodies found in the peat bogs of Ireland have discovered evidence of male grooming.
One of the bodies, dug up in 2003 at Clonycavan, near Dublin, had mohawk-style hair, held in place with a gel substance, reports The Times. The other, unearthed three months later 25 miles away in Oldcroghan, had carefully manicured fingernails. The findings on the bodies, which are 2,300 years old, suggest that despite living in the Iron Age, ancient man had some modern concerns.
"The message I'm getting is that although they were living in a different time, a different culture, eating different things and living in a different way, people are people - they're the same in their thinking," said Rolly Read, head of conservation at the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin.
The hair gel used by the men was made of plant oil and pine resin imported from southern France or Spain, showing trade between Ireland and southern Europe was already taking place.

Non-violence in Lebanon requires commitment to peace

Up until now, I have refrained from commenting on the most reported story that has dominated the news in the last few weeks -- the escalation of tensions between Israel and Lebanon.

While I have opinions (we all do!) I have, thus far, refrained from commenting because of a strong commitment not to inject yet another opinion in an already over-analysed, highly-reported situation.

I've also kept silent because I find that my perspective is often unpopular and (dare I say it) not sexy enough.

Peaceful solutions are seldom given press UNLESS they ride the coat-tails of blood and mayhem. Too bad, as it is peace that we all profess to be working towards.

Hence, my silence. Hence, my lack of silence today. Rather than pointing fingers (Israel should....Lebanon should....and so on and so on) I would rather focus on what I consider to be the bigger issue -- the need for a long-term solution that does not place its foundation in our human conceptions of division (including culture, race, history and religion).

Don't get me wrong. I admire those that speak out and those that are diligent enough to explore and determine the nitty-gritty of this current violent confrontation and how it exists in the larger context of the Israel-Palestine situation. However, even their analysis is restricted to their limited human perspective. And, as Einstein once said: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

This "kind of thinking" is the creation and support of man-made divisions. The reality is (as science has proven) we are all created equal -- atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, all swirl within our fabricated bodies and all create the perceptual belief that we exist as individual entities. The fact is, though, we truly are all created with the same matter, the same substance. As such our man-made divisions only serve to reinforce the illusion that we are different, separate, somehow distinct and isolated. Religion and spirituality has deplored this idea for centuries. Science has finally caught up. Humankind, however, is still far off from that truth.

As such, my comments regarding the current Lebanon and Israel situation has little to do with the "he said, she said" routine that continues to plague this conflict, but rather with the conviction that a true and lasting peace can only come from a commitment to solve this problem with a different approach.

Yes, the bombs must stop. Yes, the terrorism must stop. But so must the idea that one's definition of race, religion, culture or nation is more important than the truth that we are all equal. To condemn a nation or state for defensive or offensive acts does not promote an opportunity for reconciliation or peace. Rather it promotes defensive mechanisms, which reinforces the need to rely upon our human-constructions of division. Instead, we must distinguish those acts that must stop without prejudice or jugdement. It is much easier to stop a behaviour if one is not condemned to persecution. If you don't believe me, than examine those processes that focus on condemnation, versus those processes that focus on community building -- for example, there are alarmingly high recitivism rates for convicted criminals in North America (where a judicial system focuses on punishment and stigma) compared to low recitivism rates of Native justice processes (a system that focuses on community healing and building). There are many other examples.

If our true aim is peace then we must align ourselves along this principle and give up the easier, softer way of defining and criticizing based on constructed divisions. Instead, we must focus on those actions and plans that enable us to surpass our limited human perspective and provide an opportunity to build true community. Non-violence, in all its forms, requires a commitment to the whole, and the fact is it takes far more courage to stand up for a principle than to criticize an action.

"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time someone stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, they send forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert Kennedy

For more information on the definition of non-violence go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence
For more information on international non-violence actions go to:
http://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/
For more information on Lebanon and Israel -- open a newspaper.