From the Greater Toronto section of the Wednesday, January 2, 2008, Toronto Star, page A12, an article about 88-year-old Herb Carnegie, a former hockey player:
Hockey Legend
ANOTHER TRIBUTE FOR A 'BLACK ACE'
York Region school named for Herb Carnegie, 88, a star player whose race kept him out of the NHL
Peter Edwards
Staff Reporter
Herb Carnegie loves it when visitors to his apartment in a North York seniors' home "ooh and aah" at the statues, trophies, plaques and photos that fill his living room.
There's his Order of Canada, membership in Canada's Sports Hall of Fame, an honorary law degree from York University and a Planet Africa Lifetime Achievement Award.
There are dozens of other tribunes for his achievements in hockey, golf and community service.
Awards surround him, but some he has never seen.
Carnegie, considered by some as the greatest player never to play in the National Hockey League is 88 years old and blind.
"Basically I'm in the dark," says Carnegie, who lost his sight eight years ago to glaucoma.
And still, the awards keep arriving.
Recently, officials from the York Region District School Board dropped by.
The board is building Herbert H. Carnegie Public School and they wanted to discuss which of his awards should go in the school's trophy case.
"It's so fastastic to have the school," says Carnegie of the building, which is to open in September in the Bathurst St. and Teston Rd. area of Vaughan.
He loves the idea of talking with the 600 students about his "Future Aces Creed," a fair play code of conduct he wrote more than a half century ago to promote co-operation, mutual respect and self-esteem.
"I don't want to be pretty face on the wall (in a photograph) if I have the health to be present in person."
The son of Jamaican immigrants was a hockey star in the 1930s to the early 1950s, a time when there were no non-white NHL players.
When he was 18, he was skating at Maple Leaf Gardens when his coach for the Toronto Young Rangers of Junior A pointed someone out to him.
"That's Conn Smythe," his coach said. "The builder of Maple Leaf Gardens. The owner of the Leafs. He said he would take you tomorrow if somebody could paint you white."
Carnegie couldn't believe Smythe would say such a thing and wondered if his coach was just trying to motivate him.
But in the ensuring years, Carnegie realized his coach had been telling the truth.
He played semi-pro hockey in Quebec with Jean Beliveau and, while Beliveau graduated to the NHL and the Hockey Hall of Fame, Carnegie remained mired in the minors, despite once scoring 127 points in a 40-game season and being named league MVP three times.
He played on an all-black line with brother Ossie and Manny McIntyre.
They were billed as the "Black Aces."
But it wasn't until 1958 that Willie O'Ree of Fredericton, N.B., broke the colour barrier in the NHL, joining the Boston Bruins.
When he finally retired, Carnegie wondered, "What kind of a place is this Canada, that talks about freedom, democracy? ... All of these nice things, that don't apply to me."
That's when he founded Future Aces and wrote its creed.
It says, in part: "I will develop my talents and ability in order that I may be helpful to society."
Carnegie moved on to become a financial consultant with the Investment Group in Toronto.
thestar.com
To see a video interview with Herb Carnegie, visit thestar.com
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
U.S. Not Safe for Refugees
From the Canadian Immigrant, January 2008, page 23, an article about the Canadian federal court deciding that the United States is not a safe place for refugee claimants:
SAFE PLACE?
Canadian courts kick the notion that the United States is safe for refugees
By Guidy Mamann
In a recent stunning decision, our Federal Court struck down our agreement with the United States that renders refugee claimants seeking entry to Canada by land ineligible to make a claim here.
In December 2004, Canada and the United States implemented the Safe Third Country Agreement, in which each declared the other a "safe Country" for refugee claimants.
Canadian refugee advocates became concerned for the fate of asylum seekers destined here who, they believed, would be unfairly denied needed protection down south. The agreement addressed this concern by requiring our federal cabinet to conduct a "continuing review" of the policies and prices of the"safe country" - the United States.
Our cabinet never conducted the review, but Canadian refugee advocacy groups did. They brought their findings to court and alleged that the United States was not, in fact, safe for those seeking safe haven.
Our Federal Court agreed.
The court found the experts presented by the applicants were more credible "both in terms of their expertise and the sufficiency, directness and logic of their reports" than the experts presented by our government.
The court couldn't understand why our government didn't bother to conduct the required review of American refugee practices even after the release of the Maher Arar report, which put into serious question U.S. assurances that it does not deport people to places where they may be tortured.
The court didn't set out to decide which system was better or more generous. Instead, it sought to determine if the United States was meeting the minimum standards required of it.
The court was troubled by many deficiencies. For example, the United States generally bars asylum claims after one year of the claimants' arrival. The court ruled this could disproportionaltely affect homosexuals, who may have to deal with cultural issues of shame, and women, who may be unaware that spousal abuse may give rise to additional protection.
Also, the U.S. Patriot Act renders refugees ineligible for protection if they are deemed to have given "material supoport" to a terrorist organization, even when it is done under duress. In contrast, Canada makes allowances for duress, i.e. when it gave protection to a woman who was forced to cook for the Tamil Tigers.
Evidence was presented to show that U.S. claimants were more likely to be detained and had less access to counsel than claimants up here. The court, however, couldn't find proof that these factors would result in the actual denial of asylum.
The court's 124-page decision is not likely to be the last word on the matter since it has given the parties the opportunity to propose questions for appeal.
Guldy Mamann practises law in Toronto at Mamann & Associates and is certified by theLaw Society of Upper Canada as an immigration specialist. Reach him confidentially at 416-862-0000.
SAFE PLACE?
Canadian courts kick the notion that the United States is safe for refugees
By Guidy Mamann
In a recent stunning decision, our Federal Court struck down our agreement with the United States that renders refugee claimants seeking entry to Canada by land ineligible to make a claim here.
In December 2004, Canada and the United States implemented the Safe Third Country Agreement, in which each declared the other a "safe Country" for refugee claimants.
Canadian refugee advocates became concerned for the fate of asylum seekers destined here who, they believed, would be unfairly denied needed protection down south. The agreement addressed this concern by requiring our federal cabinet to conduct a "continuing review" of the policies and prices of the"safe country" - the United States.
Our cabinet never conducted the review, but Canadian refugee advocacy groups did. They brought their findings to court and alleged that the United States was not, in fact, safe for those seeking safe haven.
Our Federal Court agreed.
The court found the experts presented by the applicants were more credible "both in terms of their expertise and the sufficiency, directness and logic of their reports" than the experts presented by our government.
The court couldn't understand why our government didn't bother to conduct the required review of American refugee practices even after the release of the Maher Arar report, which put into serious question U.S. assurances that it does not deport people to places where they may be tortured.
The court didn't set out to decide which system was better or more generous. Instead, it sought to determine if the United States was meeting the minimum standards required of it.
The court was troubled by many deficiencies. For example, the United States generally bars asylum claims after one year of the claimants' arrival. The court ruled this could disproportionaltely affect homosexuals, who may have to deal with cultural issues of shame, and women, who may be unaware that spousal abuse may give rise to additional protection.
Also, the U.S. Patriot Act renders refugees ineligible for protection if they are deemed to have given "material supoport" to a terrorist organization, even when it is done under duress. In contrast, Canada makes allowances for duress, i.e. when it gave protection to a woman who was forced to cook for the Tamil Tigers.
Evidence was presented to show that U.S. claimants were more likely to be detained and had less access to counsel than claimants up here. The court, however, couldn't find proof that these factors would result in the actual denial of asylum.
The court's 124-page decision is not likely to be the last word on the matter since it has given the parties the opportunity to propose questions for appeal.
Guldy Mamann practises law in Toronto at Mamann & Associates and is certified by theLaw Society of Upper Canada as an immigration specialist. Reach him confidentially at 416-862-0000.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Racial Profiling; Maher Arar and Wife Monia Mazigh
From the Wednesday, October 17, 2007, Toronto Star,Greater Toronto section, page A7, here is an article about racial profiling, featuring the story of Maher Arar and the comments of his wife, Monia Mazigh:
MAHER ARAR'S WIFE CALLS FOR HONEST DEBATE
Racial profiling must be acknowledged before we can eradicate it, Monia Mazigh tells symposium
Debra Black
Staff Reporter
Racial profiling should be acknowledged and discussed so Canadians can actively eliminate it from society, says the wife of Maher Arar, the Canadian who was wrongly arrested by American authorities, interrogated and then sent to Syria where he was tortured.
Sadly, scholars and the media neglect it, Monia Mazigh told a symposium on racial profiling at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education yesterday. "We should raise it, discuss it, eliminate it from our society. But first we need to acknowledge it."
Police and government authorities often deny it, she said. But she knows first hand that it exists, she told the audience. "I experienced it myself.... Five years ago my husband and myself were labelled 'Islamic extremists' by the RCMP and CSIS."
But neither she nor her husband was ever told why. Perhaps it was because she wore a headscarf, her husband had a beard, or because they prayed five times a day, she speculated at the seminar, which was sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
As a consequence of that label, Arar was interrogated by U.S. authorities, arrested, imprisoned, sent to Syria, tortured and, about a year later, freed. A federal inquiry recently cleared his name and Ottawa paid him $10.5 million in compensation. He still remains on a U.S. no-fly list. The reason for that is unknown to either Arar or his wife.
The consequences of racial profiling are severe, said Mazigh. Communities feel marginalized and humiliated and the economic consequences can also be devastating with people losing their jobs simply because they've been interviewed by CSIS, she said.
Law enforcement agencies cannot rely simply on religion or appearance to start an investigation, she said.
"I had courage to speak out and denounce the treatment," she said. But not everyone does. She encouraged anyone who has experienced racial profiling to protest loud and long.
Racial profiling is not new to Toronto or, for that matter, Canada, a series of experts told the symposium. Young, black males have been experiencing racial profiling in Toronto for years, experts said. Indeed they said racial profiling has been an ongoing historical problem in Canada - one that has had and will continue to hae grave ramifications for all Canadians.
Five years ago, the Toronto Star published a special investigation into racial profiling by Toronto police, said Carol Tator , an anti-racism and equity teacher at York University's anthropology department. That series sparked a lot of denial and debate, said Tator, who along with colleague Frances Henry wrote a book about racial profiling in Canada.
The book was triggered by the Star series and examined the practice of racial profiling and how police culture reinforces racism.
In the series, the Star found after analyzing hundreds of thousands of criminal charges that blacks charged with simple drug possession were taken to a police station more often than whites facing the same charge. The data also showed a disproportionate number of black motorists in the database were ticketed for offences that routinely would come to light after a traffic stop.
Racial profiling doesn't keep citizens safe from violence, Tatlor said. "It is violence.... It can be argued that racial profiling by the police is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Racial profiling exists in many of our democratic institutions."
MAHER ARAR'S WIFE CALLS FOR HONEST DEBATE
Racial profiling must be acknowledged before we can eradicate it, Monia Mazigh tells symposium
Debra Black
Staff Reporter
Racial profiling should be acknowledged and discussed so Canadians can actively eliminate it from society, says the wife of Maher Arar, the Canadian who was wrongly arrested by American authorities, interrogated and then sent to Syria where he was tortured.
Sadly, scholars and the media neglect it, Monia Mazigh told a symposium on racial profiling at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education yesterday. "We should raise it, discuss it, eliminate it from our society. But first we need to acknowledge it."
Police and government authorities often deny it, she said. But she knows first hand that it exists, she told the audience. "I experienced it myself.... Five years ago my husband and myself were labelled 'Islamic extremists' by the RCMP and CSIS."
But neither she nor her husband was ever told why. Perhaps it was because she wore a headscarf, her husband had a beard, or because they prayed five times a day, she speculated at the seminar, which was sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
As a consequence of that label, Arar was interrogated by U.S. authorities, arrested, imprisoned, sent to Syria, tortured and, about a year later, freed. A federal inquiry recently cleared his name and Ottawa paid him $10.5 million in compensation. He still remains on a U.S. no-fly list. The reason for that is unknown to either Arar or his wife.
The consequences of racial profiling are severe, said Mazigh. Communities feel marginalized and humiliated and the economic consequences can also be devastating with people losing their jobs simply because they've been interviewed by CSIS, she said.
Law enforcement agencies cannot rely simply on religion or appearance to start an investigation, she said.
"I had courage to speak out and denounce the treatment," she said. But not everyone does. She encouraged anyone who has experienced racial profiling to protest loud and long.
Racial profiling is not new to Toronto or, for that matter, Canada, a series of experts told the symposium. Young, black males have been experiencing racial profiling in Toronto for years, experts said. Indeed they said racial profiling has been an ongoing historical problem in Canada - one that has had and will continue to hae grave ramifications for all Canadians.
Five years ago, the Toronto Star published a special investigation into racial profiling by Toronto police, said Carol Tator , an anti-racism and equity teacher at York University's anthropology department. That series sparked a lot of denial and debate, said Tator, who along with colleague Frances Henry wrote a book about racial profiling in Canada.
The book was triggered by the Star series and examined the practice of racial profiling and how police culture reinforces racism.
In the series, the Star found after analyzing hundreds of thousands of criminal charges that blacks charged with simple drug possession were taken to a police station more often than whites facing the same charge. The data also showed a disproportionate number of black motorists in the database were ticketed for offences that routinely would come to light after a traffic stop.
Racial profiling doesn't keep citizens safe from violence, Tatlor said. "It is violence.... It can be argued that racial profiling by the police is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Racial profiling exists in many of our democratic institutions."
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Changing Laws for Same-Sex Couples in Nova Scotia
From the October 8, 2007, Maclean's, Newsmakers section, page 77, an article about to women in Nova Scotia who could get legally married there but who could not have both names on the birth certificate of their child.
JAMIE AND EMILY O'NEILL
TWO PROUD MOTHERS
Until last week, two women could legally marry in Nova Scotia, but if they wanted to have children together, only one could be listed on official records as the mother. That all changed when the province hastily amended their rules following a human-rights complaint lodged by Emily and Jamie O'Neill. The two women married two years ago and they decided to have a baby through artificial insemination. Emily is the biological mother of a bouncing baby girl, Jordyn, who was born on Aug. 7. But when they registered the birth, Jamie was told by officials that the only way she could be registered as a parent was if she were to adopt Jordyn. A same-sex couple, could in effect, share a marriage certificate, but not a birth certificate. Last week the O'Neills filed a human-rights complaint and within days the government revised the regulations.
JAMIE AND EMILY O'NEILL
TWO PROUD MOTHERS
Until last week, two women could legally marry in Nova Scotia, but if they wanted to have children together, only one could be listed on official records as the mother. That all changed when the province hastily amended their rules following a human-rights complaint lodged by Emily and Jamie O'Neill. The two women married two years ago and they decided to have a baby through artificial insemination. Emily is the biological mother of a bouncing baby girl, Jordyn, who was born on Aug. 7. But when they registered the birth, Jamie was told by officials that the only way she could be registered as a parent was if she were to adopt Jordyn. A same-sex couple, could in effect, share a marriage certificate, but not a birth certificate. Last week the O'Neills filed a human-rights complaint and within days the government revised the regulations.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tasered to Death
It seems unimaginable that a man was tasered to death in an airport, because no one in immigration could figure out that he was Polish speaking and did not speak English and after 10 hours got frustrated and combative. Still there was no need for four RCMP officers, still only speaking English to the man, to Taser him. For a country that prides itself on its multi-culturalism, this seems to be a terrible blot against an RCMP force and immigration and security staff in an international airport.
Here is an article from the Wednesday, November 21, 2007, Toronto Star, Canada section, page A21, about an apology from the Public Safety Minister and information on the incident. The four officers have been assigned elsewhere.
DAY APOLOGIZES FOR 'TRAGIC INCIDENT'
Lawyers' groups calls for Taser moratorium in wake of deaths
Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
Ottawa - Five weeks after a man died after being shot with a Taser at the Vancouver airport, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day followed the British Columbia government's apology with one of his own.
"This was a tragic incident that took place. We never want to see it happen again," Day told reporter yesterday at a news conference.
I'm sorry it took place. I think all Canadians are sorry it took place and we want to make sure it never happens again. That's why there are a number of inquests at a variety of levels."
Later yesterday, Day's office announced he had appointed an independent reviewer to assess the RCMP's use of Tasers.
Paul Kennedy, head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, is to submit an initial report by Dec. 12. Day said Kennedy will review RCMP protocols on how the stun guns are supposed to be used and whether Mounties are following them.
Earlier, Day stopped short of apologizing on behalf of the RCMP, saying "men and women in uniform" deserve the benefit of the presumption of innocence in an incident that would lead to criminal charges.
He noted the officers involved in the Oct. 14 Vancouver incident have been reassigned to other duties while various reviews, including a public inquiry called by the B.C. government, are underway. Day said the Canada Border Services Agency, which has been under fire for its silence, will release a report on the incident in the coming days.
Concerns continue to mount about the use of Tasers in Canada.
The Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario yesterday wrote a letter to the federal public safety minister ot call for an embargo on the use of the stun guns and a national inquiry into their use by law enforcement in Canada.
Lawyer Frank Addario said in an interview a broader inquiry is needed given that there have been 17 deaths over the past few years as a result of Taser use.
On Monday, B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal said his government would launch its own public inquiry because of a "vacuum of information" from all authorities involved in the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski.
Dziekanski, 40, who spoke no English, spent hours in a seure baggage claim area of Vancouver International Airport awaiting his mother, who was not allowed into the secure area. A bystander's videotape shows the final agitated 10 minutes of his life, and his agonizing death after RCMP officers stunned him with a taser less than a minute after approaching him.
Oppal said no explanation was forthcoming from the authorities involved. "We thought someone might step up and offer an explanation about what happened. You think of the repercussions here and the public deserves answers."
Federal Liberal public safety critic Ujjal Dosanjh said while "any apology that comes is appropriate," Ottawa should show "leadership" by consolidating all the reviews into one inquiry.
Meanwhile, RCMP in Chilliwack, BC., face questions over another Taser incident. A 29-year-old man was in critical condition after a violent struggle Monday with police who were trying to subdue him at a Fraser Valley-area store. Police used pepper spray, Taser, batons and finally extra officers to take the man into custody.
RCMP say the unidentified man suffered lacerations to his head.
With files from The Canadian Press
Here is an article from the Wednesday, November 21, 2007, Toronto Star, Canada section, page A21, about an apology from the Public Safety Minister and information on the incident. The four officers have been assigned elsewhere.
DAY APOLOGIZES FOR 'TRAGIC INCIDENT'
Lawyers' groups calls for Taser moratorium in wake of deaths
Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
Ottawa - Five weeks after a man died after being shot with a Taser at the Vancouver airport, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day followed the British Columbia government's apology with one of his own.
"This was a tragic incident that took place. We never want to see it happen again," Day told reporter yesterday at a news conference.
I'm sorry it took place. I think all Canadians are sorry it took place and we want to make sure it never happens again. That's why there are a number of inquests at a variety of levels."
Later yesterday, Day's office announced he had appointed an independent reviewer to assess the RCMP's use of Tasers.
Paul Kennedy, head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, is to submit an initial report by Dec. 12. Day said Kennedy will review RCMP protocols on how the stun guns are supposed to be used and whether Mounties are following them.
Earlier, Day stopped short of apologizing on behalf of the RCMP, saying "men and women in uniform" deserve the benefit of the presumption of innocence in an incident that would lead to criminal charges.
He noted the officers involved in the Oct. 14 Vancouver incident have been reassigned to other duties while various reviews, including a public inquiry called by the B.C. government, are underway. Day said the Canada Border Services Agency, which has been under fire for its silence, will release a report on the incident in the coming days.
Concerns continue to mount about the use of Tasers in Canada.
The Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario yesterday wrote a letter to the federal public safety minister ot call for an embargo on the use of the stun guns and a national inquiry into their use by law enforcement in Canada.
Lawyer Frank Addario said in an interview a broader inquiry is needed given that there have been 17 deaths over the past few years as a result of Taser use.
On Monday, B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal said his government would launch its own public inquiry because of a "vacuum of information" from all authorities involved in the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski.
Dziekanski, 40, who spoke no English, spent hours in a seure baggage claim area of Vancouver International Airport awaiting his mother, who was not allowed into the secure area. A bystander's videotape shows the final agitated 10 minutes of his life, and his agonizing death after RCMP officers stunned him with a taser less than a minute after approaching him.
Oppal said no explanation was forthcoming from the authorities involved. "We thought someone might step up and offer an explanation about what happened. You think of the repercussions here and the public deserves answers."
Federal Liberal public safety critic Ujjal Dosanjh said while "any apology that comes is appropriate," Ottawa should show "leadership" by consolidating all the reviews into one inquiry.
Meanwhile, RCMP in Chilliwack, BC., face questions over another Taser incident. A 29-year-old man was in critical condition after a violent struggle Monday with police who were trying to subdue him at a Fraser Valley-area store. Police used pepper spray, Taser, batons and finally extra officers to take the man into custody.
RCMP say the unidentified man suffered lacerations to his head.
With files from The Canadian Press
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Accomplices to Torture: Stop the Transfer of Detainees
From the Wednesday, November 14, 2007, Toronto Star, Ideas section, page AA8, an article about Amnesty International's report into detainee transfers conducted by Canada and other countries:
Canada's Shame
TRANSFER OF DETAINEES IS COMPLICITY IN TORTURE
Michael Byers
The world's most respected human rights organization has just accused this country of complicity in torture. Canadians should hang their heads in shame.
Yesterday, the London-based International secretariat of Amnesty International released a 38-page report into detainee transfers conducted by Canada and other members of the International security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The report is based upon Amnesty International's own field research, as well as on-the-ground reports from other reputable human rights and media organizations.
Back in December 2005, Canada and Afghanistan concluded an "arrangement" on detainee transfers that lacked basic verification mechanisms, such as the right for Canadian officials to visit transferred detainees. Last May, under the threat of a federal court injunction, the Canadian government negotiated an improved arrangement.
But the new arrangement has failed to work. According to Amnesty International, transferred detainees remain "at substantial risk of torture and other ill-treatment."
The human rights organization cites two reports from the UN secretary general, the most recent from just two months ago, pointing to the use of torture in a "significant number of cases." It collates a number of media reports to the same effect, as well as statements from the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. It highlights the admission, by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade last summer, that Canadian officials had received at least six first-hand reports of torture.
Amnesty International expresses particular concern about Afghanistan's notorious National Directorate of Security (NDS), the secret policy who end up holding most of the transferred detainees.
It writes that it has "received repeated reports of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees by the NDS from alleged victims and their relatives, as well as a range of organizations including UN agencies."
One alleged victim claimed to have been taken to a room in the NDS compound in Kandahar where "the walls were covered with blood." There, he was hung from a hook on the ceiling and repeatedly beaten into unconsciousness.
As Amnesty International explains, Canada's current reliance on occasional verification visits is misplaced. Monitoring "is a technique to detect torture only after it happens, and cannot substitute for prior precautions that prevent torture from happening in the first place."
The human rights organization also criticizes Canada for downplaying the number of transfers that occur. It suggests that as many as 200 detainees may have been moved from Canadian custody, not including the many immediate transfers that take place during joint Canada-Afghan military operations.
And it expresses concerns that the Canadian government's investigation into abuse claims early this year may have been neither "competent" nor "impartial."
Amnesty International then usefully summarizes the applicable law. It points out that torture is a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, "may also constitute a crime against humanity or a war crime under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court," and is absolutely prohibited under international human rights law.
As part of this absolute prohibition, "states must never expel, return or extradite a person to a country where they risk torture or other ill-treatment."
More specifically, under the UN Convention Against Torture, countries may never transfer a person to a situation "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be tortured." Any country that does so is, under universally accepted rules of "state responsibility," is no less culpable than the country directly engaged in the abuse.
An Amnesty International explains, the situation is analogous to a country which knowingly releases detainees in a minefield while claiming that their safety is no longer its responsibility.
The report concludes by calling - quite reasonably - for a temporary moratorium on the transfer of detainees. The moratorium would allow for their rights to be protected while a comprehensive effort was made to reform the Afghan detention system. Such reforms could include "placing staff and trainers within Afghan detention facilities in order to monitor and train Afghan detention officials."
Yesterday, the Canadian Department of National Defense responded to the Amnesty International report by stating that "Afghanistan is a sovereign country with a constitution that requires the protection of human rights, and which has the responsibility for detention of Afghans."
The response misses the point. Canada is a sovereign country, too. We have our own constitutional and international legal responsibilities that are engaged whenever our soldiers act overseas. And we had, until recently, a strong reputation as a human rights respecting state.
Amnesty International is right. It's time to stop the transfer of detainees.
Canada's Shame
TRANSFER OF DETAINEES IS COMPLICITY IN TORTURE
Michael Byers
The world's most respected human rights organization has just accused this country of complicity in torture. Canadians should hang their heads in shame.
Yesterday, the London-based International secretariat of Amnesty International released a 38-page report into detainee transfers conducted by Canada and other members of the International security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The report is based upon Amnesty International's own field research, as well as on-the-ground reports from other reputable human rights and media organizations.
Back in December 2005, Canada and Afghanistan concluded an "arrangement" on detainee transfers that lacked basic verification mechanisms, such as the right for Canadian officials to visit transferred detainees. Last May, under the threat of a federal court injunction, the Canadian government negotiated an improved arrangement.
But the new arrangement has failed to work. According to Amnesty International, transferred detainees remain "at substantial risk of torture and other ill-treatment."
The human rights organization cites two reports from the UN secretary general, the most recent from just two months ago, pointing to the use of torture in a "significant number of cases." It collates a number of media reports to the same effect, as well as statements from the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. It highlights the admission, by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade last summer, that Canadian officials had received at least six first-hand reports of torture.
Amnesty International expresses particular concern about Afghanistan's notorious National Directorate of Security (NDS), the secret policy who end up holding most of the transferred detainees.
It writes that it has "received repeated reports of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees by the NDS from alleged victims and their relatives, as well as a range of organizations including UN agencies."
One alleged victim claimed to have been taken to a room in the NDS compound in Kandahar where "the walls were covered with blood." There, he was hung from a hook on the ceiling and repeatedly beaten into unconsciousness.
As Amnesty International explains, Canada's current reliance on occasional verification visits is misplaced. Monitoring "is a technique to detect torture only after it happens, and cannot substitute for prior precautions that prevent torture from happening in the first place."
The human rights organization also criticizes Canada for downplaying the number of transfers that occur. It suggests that as many as 200 detainees may have been moved from Canadian custody, not including the many immediate transfers that take place during joint Canada-Afghan military operations.
And it expresses concerns that the Canadian government's investigation into abuse claims early this year may have been neither "competent" nor "impartial."
Amnesty International then usefully summarizes the applicable law. It points out that torture is a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, "may also constitute a crime against humanity or a war crime under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court," and is absolutely prohibited under international human rights law.
As part of this absolute prohibition, "states must never expel, return or extradite a person to a country where they risk torture or other ill-treatment."
More specifically, under the UN Convention Against Torture, countries may never transfer a person to a situation "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be tortured." Any country that does so is, under universally accepted rules of "state responsibility," is no less culpable than the country directly engaged in the abuse.
An Amnesty International explains, the situation is analogous to a country which knowingly releases detainees in a minefield while claiming that their safety is no longer its responsibility.
The report concludes by calling - quite reasonably - for a temporary moratorium on the transfer of detainees. The moratorium would allow for their rights to be protected while a comprehensive effort was made to reform the Afghan detention system. Such reforms could include "placing staff and trainers within Afghan detention facilities in order to monitor and train Afghan detention officials."
Yesterday, the Canadian Department of National Defense responded to the Amnesty International report by stating that "Afghanistan is a sovereign country with a constitution that requires the protection of human rights, and which has the responsibility for detention of Afghans."
The response misses the point. Canada is a sovereign country, too. We have our own constitutional and international legal responsibilities that are engaged whenever our soldiers act overseas. And we had, until recently, a strong reputation as a human rights respecting state.
Amnesty International is right. It's time to stop the transfer of detainees.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Women's Equality: The Persons Case
From the Saturday, October 20, 2007, Toronto Star, Ideas section, page ID4, is this article on women's rights in Canada and the famous "persons" court case:
The Persons Case
THE MOTHERS OF CANADIAN EQUALITY
Seventy-eight years ago this week, a group of 'maternal feminists' rewrote the constitution
Tracey Tyler
Legal Affairs Reporter
With wheat ready for threshing and bumblebees on the delphiniums, it was "a perfect day in harvest time," said Nellie McClung, recalling the afternoon she and four other women gathered on Emily Murphy's veranda in Edmonton to sign a petition.
The issue, destined for the Supreme Court of Canada, was whether women were "persons" under the British North America Act - then, in effect, our constitution - and eligible for appointment to the Canadian Senate.
It was the Roaring Twenties and the women were decidedly out-of-sync with Flappers and the intoxicating jazz era. Few could understand why the five, particularly Murphy, who craved a Senate seat, were so determined to win the right to serve in an institution that, even then, was considered outdated and badly in need of reform.
But the women, in some ways unlikely trailblazers, knew they were on to something bigger. And by the time it was resolved 78 years go this week, the Persons Case, as it became known, had acquired huge symbolic importance, establishing the concept of universal personhood" - quite simply, equality for women and every disadvantaged group. It's also one of the most important constitutional cases in Canadian history because it carved out the principle that the Constitution is meant to be "a living tree," growing as the country changes.
More than 50 years later, that would become the foundation for the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions extending new rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The case was celebrated yesterday with annual "Persons Day" breakfasts around the country. This year's event coincided with a new book about the case by Justice Rovert Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Toronto lawyer Patricia McMahon. Entitled The Persons Case, The Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood, it recreates the courtroom drama and delves into the personalities of the ideological compatriots dubbed "The Famous Five."
It's recognition that eluded them at the time. Ten days after the decision, the stock market crashed, triggering the Great Depression, and their momentous victory was quickly forgotten.
While the case and the "living tree" approach to constitutional law would gain significance with the feminist movement of the 1970s and advent of the Charter in 1982, many of the details still aren't widely known.
Ardent prohibitionists, the five were also proponents of "maternal feminism," a progressive social movement that pressed for equality of the sexes but stressed the importance of family and believed that many of society's problems, including poverty, could be solved by applying a woman's perspective.
Three of them, McClung, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby, were in their sixties. Murphy was in her fifties.
The fifth, Henrietta Muir Edwards, was pushing 80. All had deep roots in suffragist campaigns that secured voting rights for women. Battling for entry fo the Senate would be their last hurrah.
"I think it really just irritated them that someone was saying, under our constitution, that a woman can't play that role," Sharpe said in an interview. "It just seemed kind of ridiculous to them."
The case would not have forged ahead without Ontario-born Murphy, the colourful, complex and politicially ambitious Anglican minister's wife, who penned fiction under the name Janey Canuk. The first female magistrate in the British Empire, Murphy, it seems, favoured a hands-on style in everything she did, even corresponding and visiting with inmates she sent to prison.
"I think she would have been quite fun to sit down and talk to," said Sharpe. "Unfortunately, you couldn't have a drink with her. They were all teetotallers."
The constitution gave Murphy no right to complain about sex discrimination and the legal environment was hostile to reform, with a series of English cases denying women the right to hold public office or attend university.
The federal government maintained that women could not sit in the Senate without the almost insurmountable hurdle of a constitutional amendment.
Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King agreed to refer the issue to the Supreme Court, which ultimately took the view the constitution was frozen in time; since women could not hold public office when the British North America Act was written in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation did not mean for women to become senators.
Sailing to England to appear before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, then Canad's final court of appeal, Newton Rowell, "a former Ontario Liberal leader and constitional lawyer who was representing the five, had to convince the law lords to abandon centuries of common law.
On Oct. 18, 1929, it was Lord Chancellor John Sankey, a lifelong bachelor (and, at the time, heartsick over his mother's death) who struck the blow for equality, declaring in his judgment: "The exclusion of women from all public office is a relic of days more barbarous than ours."
Looking back, the case shows how an unpredictable brew of personal and political considerations can shape a landmark court ruling, say McMahon and Sharpe. Individuals do make a difference, for there was nothing inevitable about the decision, the authors say in the book.
"But for the unlikely conincidence of Emily Murphy's unquenchable thirst for a Senate appointment, William Lyon Mackenzie King's fondness for referring difficult questions to the courts, and John Sankey's determination to make his mark as a reforming Lord Chancellor, the result could easily have been quite different."
Five months after the ruling, King appointed a female senator - but it wasn't Murphy. There were no Senate vacancies from Alberta. Instead, the honour went to Ontarian Cairine Wilson.
During her induction ceremony, a sword got caught in Wilson's gown. Still bitterly disappointed at being passed over, Murphy wasn't above a put down. "Isn't it time that both the sword and trailing gowns be put out of the Senate?" she wrote to McClung.
After Wilson, the government showed little commitment to giving equal voice in the upper chamber. In his remaining 18 years in office, King appointed 67 Senators, not one a woman.
Among his successors, Jean Chretien holds the best record, with 33 women among his 75 appointments. Today, women hold 32 of 105 Senate seats.
The Persons Case
THE MOTHERS OF CANADIAN EQUALITY
Seventy-eight years ago this week, a group of 'maternal feminists' rewrote the constitution
Tracey Tyler
Legal Affairs Reporter
With wheat ready for threshing and bumblebees on the delphiniums, it was "a perfect day in harvest time," said Nellie McClung, recalling the afternoon she and four other women gathered on Emily Murphy's veranda in Edmonton to sign a petition.
The issue, destined for the Supreme Court of Canada, was whether women were "persons" under the British North America Act - then, in effect, our constitution - and eligible for appointment to the Canadian Senate.
It was the Roaring Twenties and the women were decidedly out-of-sync with Flappers and the intoxicating jazz era. Few could understand why the five, particularly Murphy, who craved a Senate seat, were so determined to win the right to serve in an institution that, even then, was considered outdated and badly in need of reform.
But the women, in some ways unlikely trailblazers, knew they were on to something bigger. And by the time it was resolved 78 years go this week, the Persons Case, as it became known, had acquired huge symbolic importance, establishing the concept of universal personhood" - quite simply, equality for women and every disadvantaged group. It's also one of the most important constitutional cases in Canadian history because it carved out the principle that the Constitution is meant to be "a living tree," growing as the country changes.
More than 50 years later, that would become the foundation for the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions extending new rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The case was celebrated yesterday with annual "Persons Day" breakfasts around the country. This year's event coincided with a new book about the case by Justice Rovert Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Toronto lawyer Patricia McMahon. Entitled The Persons Case, The Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood, it recreates the courtroom drama and delves into the personalities of the ideological compatriots dubbed "The Famous Five."
It's recognition that eluded them at the time. Ten days after the decision, the stock market crashed, triggering the Great Depression, and their momentous victory was quickly forgotten.
While the case and the "living tree" approach to constitutional law would gain significance with the feminist movement of the 1970s and advent of the Charter in 1982, many of the details still aren't widely known.
Ardent prohibitionists, the five were also proponents of "maternal feminism," a progressive social movement that pressed for equality of the sexes but stressed the importance of family and believed that many of society's problems, including poverty, could be solved by applying a woman's perspective.
Three of them, McClung, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby, were in their sixties. Murphy was in her fifties.
The fifth, Henrietta Muir Edwards, was pushing 80. All had deep roots in suffragist campaigns that secured voting rights for women. Battling for entry fo the Senate would be their last hurrah.
"I think it really just irritated them that someone was saying, under our constitution, that a woman can't play that role," Sharpe said in an interview. "It just seemed kind of ridiculous to them."
The case would not have forged ahead without Ontario-born Murphy, the colourful, complex and politicially ambitious Anglican minister's wife, who penned fiction under the name Janey Canuk. The first female magistrate in the British Empire, Murphy, it seems, favoured a hands-on style in everything she did, even corresponding and visiting with inmates she sent to prison.
"I think she would have been quite fun to sit down and talk to," said Sharpe. "Unfortunately, you couldn't have a drink with her. They were all teetotallers."
The constitution gave Murphy no right to complain about sex discrimination and the legal environment was hostile to reform, with a series of English cases denying women the right to hold public office or attend university.
The federal government maintained that women could not sit in the Senate without the almost insurmountable hurdle of a constitutional amendment.
Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King agreed to refer the issue to the Supreme Court, which ultimately took the view the constitution was frozen in time; since women could not hold public office when the British North America Act was written in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation did not mean for women to become senators.
Sailing to England to appear before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, then Canad's final court of appeal, Newton Rowell, "a former Ontario Liberal leader and constitional lawyer who was representing the five, had to convince the law lords to abandon centuries of common law.
On Oct. 18, 1929, it was Lord Chancellor John Sankey, a lifelong bachelor (and, at the time, heartsick over his mother's death) who struck the blow for equality, declaring in his judgment: "The exclusion of women from all public office is a relic of days more barbarous than ours."
Looking back, the case shows how an unpredictable brew of personal and political considerations can shape a landmark court ruling, say McMahon and Sharpe. Individuals do make a difference, for there was nothing inevitable about the decision, the authors say in the book.
"But for the unlikely conincidence of Emily Murphy's unquenchable thirst for a Senate appointment, William Lyon Mackenzie King's fondness for referring difficult questions to the courts, and John Sankey's determination to make his mark as a reforming Lord Chancellor, the result could easily have been quite different."
Five months after the ruling, King appointed a female senator - but it wasn't Murphy. There were no Senate vacancies from Alberta. Instead, the honour went to Ontarian Cairine Wilson.
During her induction ceremony, a sword got caught in Wilson's gown. Still bitterly disappointed at being passed over, Murphy wasn't above a put down. "Isn't it time that both the sword and trailing gowns be put out of the Senate?" she wrote to McClung.
After Wilson, the government showed little commitment to giving equal voice in the upper chamber. In his remaining 18 years in office, King appointed 67 Senators, not one a woman.
Among his successors, Jean Chretien holds the best record, with 33 women among his 75 appointments. Today, women hold 32 of 105 Senate seats.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Canada's First Nations
It is very disappointing that Canada has joined the U.S. and Australia in not signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Three developed nations, shirking their responsibilities again (think Kyoto agreement as well).
Here is an article dated Monday, November 5, 2007, from theToronto Star, page AA8, Ideas, about Canada's First Nations people:
Canada's 'Dirty Secret'
First Nations still searching for a place to call their home
Sara Mainville
Lately, I have been trying to understand why I cannot live in Ontario's cities comfortably.
For the most part, I notice too much. The "you don't belong here" stare may be part of it. I receive this common "welcome" in restaurants frequented by my lawyer friends. These looks may have more to do with my informal attire than my race. But it is hard to divoce class oppression from racial tension.
One thing is fairly clear - That I grew up economically disadvantaged largely because I grew up Anishinaabe on a reserve. And my personal comfort level on the reserve is much higher than in most Ontario municipalities. This may be why I continually gravitate back to reserve life.
I have had several discussions recently with an old friend. Schooled in mathematics, Chris Belleau also has been an amateur historian of the Garden River First Nation. Chris has actuallly been schooling me. He has told me about four imperatives that our nation - the Ojibway nation - agreed to during the period of first European contact. The imperatives were to find territory to support smaller populations of Anishinaabeg (Ojebway communities); to not let the European gather us together in large members; to not show them the "shiny stuff" lest they gather among us in large numbers; and to never forget that we are Anishinaabe.
So it is no surprise that our ancestors agreed to settle in territory that would support us. Through teaties, "reserves" become our homelands. However, because of continuing land and resource development, on which the economy of Canada continues to be almost solely dependent, Canada's Indian Agents helped to expropriate a large chunk of our reserves. In my treaty, which involves most of northwestern Ontario and a small part of Manitoba, we also agreed to revenue sharing. However, reserves that were to be chosen by our chiefs were disputed by a land-hungry Ontario. In fact, Ontario fought all the way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England to dispute the understanding between Canada and my ancestors. Sadly, Ontario's new interpretation of our solemn treaty won out.
Another sad feature of this reinterpretation of my treaty was that our homelands were to be set aside by agreement and compromise between Ontario and Canada.
In the 19th century, the chief of Whitefish Bay First Nation sent word to Crown representatives that it "agitated his heart" that he was to be placed on lands that were largely rocks and bog. Along with not being able to exploit the lands and revenues that we agreed to share in our treaty, our huting and fishing rights were over-policed, with several wrongful convinctions made by the Ontario government. It is interesting that now I am meeting with the Ontario government as a representative of my people on the "resource sharing file."
And it is especially interesting that arguments of equity and fairness are used against our claims for revenue-sharing arrangements. Either Ontario is forgetting its own history or its politicians are simply ignoring it. It was hoped that Section 35 of the Constituion Act, 1982, would be transformative and right past wrongs done to First Nations. Unfortunately, it has done little but protect rights such as hunting and fishing that already were protected in treaties.
I am particularly troubled at how the concept of euity has been turned on its ear to argue against the "special" rights of treaty-rights holders. Treaties were agreed to exist "forever." Like constitutions, they should be held as the highest law of the land. My ancestors unfortunately never read Adam Smith or Machiavelli to understand the true nature of European-based socities. While my ancestors have tempted to right the failed relationship, I read documents from Indian Affairs' files that reveal athe small evils against "Indians" that were regarded as necessary for the greater good of Canada.
It is no wonder that the call by Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, for self-cricism by Canada over its "aboriginal" policy had so little resonance in the media.
Ontario and Canada need to remove their blinders regarding justice for First Nations. Canada's long-held dirty secret has now been exposed on the world stage. Through the United Nations' Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, we may need to force you to move forward.
Sara Mainville is a member of the Ontario Bar and Assistant Professor at Algoma University in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
Here is an article dated Monday, November 5, 2007, from theToronto Star, page AA8, Ideas, about Canada's First Nations people:
Canada's 'Dirty Secret'
First Nations still searching for a place to call their home
Sara Mainville
Lately, I have been trying to understand why I cannot live in Ontario's cities comfortably.
For the most part, I notice too much. The "you don't belong here" stare may be part of it. I receive this common "welcome" in restaurants frequented by my lawyer friends. These looks may have more to do with my informal attire than my race. But it is hard to divoce class oppression from racial tension.
One thing is fairly clear - That I grew up economically disadvantaged largely because I grew up Anishinaabe on a reserve. And my personal comfort level on the reserve is much higher than in most Ontario municipalities. This may be why I continually gravitate back to reserve life.
I have had several discussions recently with an old friend. Schooled in mathematics, Chris Belleau also has been an amateur historian of the Garden River First Nation. Chris has actuallly been schooling me. He has told me about four imperatives that our nation - the Ojibway nation - agreed to during the period of first European contact. The imperatives were to find territory to support smaller populations of Anishinaabeg (Ojebway communities); to not let the European gather us together in large members; to not show them the "shiny stuff" lest they gather among us in large numbers; and to never forget that we are Anishinaabe.
So it is no surprise that our ancestors agreed to settle in territory that would support us. Through teaties, "reserves" become our homelands. However, because of continuing land and resource development, on which the economy of Canada continues to be almost solely dependent, Canada's Indian Agents helped to expropriate a large chunk of our reserves. In my treaty, which involves most of northwestern Ontario and a small part of Manitoba, we also agreed to revenue sharing. However, reserves that were to be chosen by our chiefs were disputed by a land-hungry Ontario. In fact, Ontario fought all the way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England to dispute the understanding between Canada and my ancestors. Sadly, Ontario's new interpretation of our solemn treaty won out.
Another sad feature of this reinterpretation of my treaty was that our homelands were to be set aside by agreement and compromise between Ontario and Canada.
In the 19th century, the chief of Whitefish Bay First Nation sent word to Crown representatives that it "agitated his heart" that he was to be placed on lands that were largely rocks and bog. Along with not being able to exploit the lands and revenues that we agreed to share in our treaty, our huting and fishing rights were over-policed, with several wrongful convinctions made by the Ontario government. It is interesting that now I am meeting with the Ontario government as a representative of my people on the "resource sharing file."
And it is especially interesting that arguments of equity and fairness are used against our claims for revenue-sharing arrangements. Either Ontario is forgetting its own history or its politicians are simply ignoring it. It was hoped that Section 35 of the Constituion Act, 1982, would be transformative and right past wrongs done to First Nations. Unfortunately, it has done little but protect rights such as hunting and fishing that already were protected in treaties.
I am particularly troubled at how the concept of euity has been turned on its ear to argue against the "special" rights of treaty-rights holders. Treaties were agreed to exist "forever." Like constitutions, they should be held as the highest law of the land. My ancestors unfortunately never read Adam Smith or Machiavelli to understand the true nature of European-based socities. While my ancestors have tempted to right the failed relationship, I read documents from Indian Affairs' files that reveal athe small evils against "Indians" that were regarded as necessary for the greater good of Canada.
It is no wonder that the call by Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, for self-cricism by Canada over its "aboriginal" policy had so little resonance in the media.
Ontario and Canada need to remove their blinders regarding justice for First Nations. Canada's long-held dirty secret has now been exposed on the world stage. Through the United Nations' Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, we may need to force you to move forward.
Sara Mainville is a member of the Ontario Bar and Assistant Professor at Algoma University in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Imprisoned in Iran: Marina Nemat
From the Autumn 2007 issue of the University of Toronto Magazine, pages 45-46, is an article about Marina Nemat, who wrote about her experiences in Iran in Prisoner of Tehran.
THE ROAD TO FREEDOM
One a cold January evening in 1982,two Iranian Revoluntary Guards burst into the Tehran home of 16-year-old Marina Nemat and placed her under arrest. Her crime? She had criticized the Islamic government in her school newspaper and had asked her calculus teacher to teach math instead of propaganda. The young woman was taken to the notorious political prison Evin, where she was blindfolded, handcuffed and tortured, her soles whipped with a cable.
Nemat was also sentenced to execution. Set in front of a firing squad, her life was spared at the last moment by a guard named Ali. He gave her the option of marrying him him and living under house arrest. The alternative, he threatened, was to arrest her parents and execute her boyfriend. The 15-month marriage ended only after a rival political faction assassinated Ali.
Twenty-five years later, Nemat has detailed her experiences in Prisoner of Tehan (Viking Canada). After immigrating to Toronto with her husband, Andrew (the boyfriend Ali had threatened to execute), and son in 1991, the couple had a second son and moved to a house in the suburbs. But after the death of her mother, Nemat experienced nightmares and violent flashbacks. "There was a jumble of images in my head, and I couldn't take it anymore," she says. "I either had to go jump off a bridge or do something really stupid, or I had to make sense of all the memories. Being a reader, the most logical thing that came to mind was putting it on paper."
Nemat found time to write most afternoons after waitressing the lunchtime shift at Swiss Chalet. She would head over to Second Cup, buy a hot chocolate and writer in her notebook for an hour before picking up her sons from school. She didn't intend to publish her writings. But Nemat's nightmares continued, and she realized it was because many of her memories were still secret. (No one in her family - including her parents - had ever asked her about her experiences in prison.) In 2002 Nemat enrolled in U of T's School of Continuing Studies, where she took classes ranging from grammar to non-fiction, and earned a certificate in creative writing over five years. Instructors helped her revise her manuscript (there were seven drafts in total), and introduced her to an agent.
Nemat's book is now a bestseller in Canada, and has been published in 17 languages. She is writing her first novel, about an Iranian woman who has a baby while imprisoned. But her biggest success, perhaps, is creating her own psychological freedom by breaking out of "a cycle of hatred."
"I have watched good people turn into bad people - very bad people," says Nemat. "And I have watched them do terrible things to each other because they hate one another. When you watch that, you feel helpless. And if you are lucky enough, you are able to separate yourself from that hatred, you are able to overcome all the reasons to hate and pull yourself out of it. I don't know how it's done. How does a human being pull himself or herself out of the cycle of hatred? People do it all the time. I'm not the only one."
- Stacey Gibson
THE ROAD TO FREEDOM
One a cold January evening in 1982,two Iranian Revoluntary Guards burst into the Tehran home of 16-year-old Marina Nemat and placed her under arrest. Her crime? She had criticized the Islamic government in her school newspaper and had asked her calculus teacher to teach math instead of propaganda. The young woman was taken to the notorious political prison Evin, where she was blindfolded, handcuffed and tortured, her soles whipped with a cable.
Nemat was also sentenced to execution. Set in front of a firing squad, her life was spared at the last moment by a guard named Ali. He gave her the option of marrying him him and living under house arrest. The alternative, he threatened, was to arrest her parents and execute her boyfriend. The 15-month marriage ended only after a rival political faction assassinated Ali.
Twenty-five years later, Nemat has detailed her experiences in Prisoner of Tehan (Viking Canada). After immigrating to Toronto with her husband, Andrew (the boyfriend Ali had threatened to execute), and son in 1991, the couple had a second son and moved to a house in the suburbs. But after the death of her mother, Nemat experienced nightmares and violent flashbacks. "There was a jumble of images in my head, and I couldn't take it anymore," she says. "I either had to go jump off a bridge or do something really stupid, or I had to make sense of all the memories. Being a reader, the most logical thing that came to mind was putting it on paper."
Nemat found time to write most afternoons after waitressing the lunchtime shift at Swiss Chalet. She would head over to Second Cup, buy a hot chocolate and writer in her notebook for an hour before picking up her sons from school. She didn't intend to publish her writings. But Nemat's nightmares continued, and she realized it was because many of her memories were still secret. (No one in her family - including her parents - had ever asked her about her experiences in prison.) In 2002 Nemat enrolled in U of T's School of Continuing Studies, where she took classes ranging from grammar to non-fiction, and earned a certificate in creative writing over five years. Instructors helped her revise her manuscript (there were seven drafts in total), and introduced her to an agent.
Nemat's book is now a bestseller in Canada, and has been published in 17 languages. She is writing her first novel, about an Iranian woman who has a baby while imprisoned. But her biggest success, perhaps, is creating her own psychological freedom by breaking out of "a cycle of hatred."
"I have watched good people turn into bad people - very bad people," says Nemat. "And I have watched them do terrible things to each other because they hate one another. When you watch that, you feel helpless. And if you are lucky enough, you are able to separate yourself from that hatred, you are able to overcome all the reasons to hate and pull yourself out of it. I don't know how it's done. How does a human being pull himself or herself out of the cycle of hatred? People do it all the time. I'm not the only one."
- Stacey Gibson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
