Tuesday, August 18, 2009

oh good grief! now stephen harper is eating seal meat to prove a point!

Harper attacks seal hunt critics
'No reason the seal industry should be singled out,' PM says in Iqaluit
Last Updated: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 | 1:46 PM CT Comments364Recommend102
CBC News
Speaking to reporters Tuesday in Iqaluit, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada's seal hunting industry is subject to high standards. (CBC)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper had fighting words on Tuesday for critics of Canada's seal hunt, accusing European countries and others of unfairly discriminating against the industry.

Speaking to reporters in Iqaluit on Tuesday, Harper defended the seal hunt, which recently became the subject of a trade ban by the European Union.

Late last month, the EU banned the import of seal products from Canada and other sealing nations. The ban is expected to take effect in all 27 EU member countries in October.

EU officials have said the ban was the result of public pressure to stop the hunt.

Animal rights groups argue the hunt is inhumane, but Harper told reporters on Tuesday morning he disagrees.

"This industry, you know, has tight standards, the tightest in the world. The standards of this industry, quite frankly, are better than many other industries that deal with animal products," Harper said.

"There is no reason the seal industry should be singled out for discriminatory treatment by Europeans or any other nation."

Shortly after the EU ban was approved, Trade Minister Stockwell Day vowed to challenge it before the World Trade Organization, calling it an unfair trade restriction.

Canada's East Coast seal hunt is the largest of its kind in the world, with an average annual kill of about 300,000 harp seals. Canada exported about $2.5 million worth of seal products to EU countries in 2008.

Canada's Inuit also have a traditional sealing industry in Nunavut. Sealers in that territory harvest about 35,000 seals annually, up to 11,000 of which are sold on the open market.

Seals are also an essential source of food and clothing for Inuit in remote Nunavut communities.

The EU trade ban does provide a limited exemption for seal products derived from traditional Inuit hunts, but sealers say the exemption comes with a number of restrictions.

As well, they've argued that a trade ban would hurt the entire sealing industry regardless of whether exemptions exist for certain sectors.

Raw, cooked seal on lunch menu

Harper is meeting Tuesday afternoon with his inner circle of cabinet ministers, including Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Defence Minister Peter MacKay, to discuss the government's strategy for the fall parliamentary session.

But before the priority and planning committee begins meeting, they are eating seal for lunch, courtesy of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, who is also the Conservative MP for Nunavut.

"Minister Aglukkaq has generously arranged for her colleagues in cabinet to have a lunch of seal," said Andrew MacDougall, Harper's press secretary.

"I understand there will be both raw and cooked seal available, and I know a lot of her colleagues, including the prime minister, were anxious for that."

The priority and planning committee's top priority this fall is to move Canada's economy back on track, MacDougall said.

Monday, August 17, 2009

atrocious anti-female law passed in afghanistan....why are we there again?

Afghanistan's contentious family law quietly enacted
Law lets husbands refuse to support wives if they don't agree to sex
Last Updated: Monday, August 17, 2009 | 3:27 PM ET Comments264Recommend165
The Associated Press
An ethnic Hazara woman walks to a campaign rally for Afghan President Hamid Karzai past a row of his images in Bamiyan, central Afghanistan on Sunday. Women's rights activists allege that Karzai used a constitutional loophole ahead of Thursday's election to enact a law that allows minority Shia Muslim husbands to refuse food and money to their wives if they deny them sex. (Adrees Latif/Reuters)
Women's rights activists alleged Monday that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has used a constitutional loophole to enact a law that allows minority Shia Muslim husbands to refuse food and money to their wives if they deny them sex.

The activists suspect Karzai took the step to appease conservative Shia clergy ahead of Thursday's presidential election. Nearly 20 per cent of Afghans are Shia and could become an influential voting block as Karzai runs for a new five-year term.

The legislation, which governs many aspects of family life for Afghanistan's Shia, has been sparking controversy since Karzai signed an earlier version in March. Critics said the original legislation essentially legalized marital rape and Karzai quickly suspended enforcement after governments around the world condemned it as oppressive and a return to Taliban-era repression of women.

But the revised version, made public in July, riled activists all over again because many restrictive articles remained, including one that appears to give a husband the right to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex with him.

Female parliamentarians said they thought they would get the chance to fight for revisions, only to discover in recent days that Karzai had taken advantage of a legislative recess to approve the law by decree. Parliament has the right to examine and change the law when they reconvene but the law stays in effect in the meantime.

Presidential spokesmen could not be reached for comment.

Financial support can be withheld

Afghanistan's post-Taliban constitution enshrines equal rights for women, but in practice, discrimination is still rife.

Activists alleged Karzai enacted the controversial family law to appease conservative Shia clergy ahead of Thursday's presidential election. (Farzana Wahidy/Associated Press)
The new law includes a section saying that a husband must provide financially for his wife. But it also says that he can withhold this support if she refuses to "submit to her husband's reasonable sexual enjoyment," according to a translation of the article supplied by New York-based Human Rights Watch.

In Afghanistan, where most women are uneducated and depend on their husbands for food and clothing, the article could be used to justify a husband starving a wife who refuses to have sex with him.

The legislation was passed by presidential decree in mid-July and published in Afghanistan's official gazette on July 27, which brings the law into force, according to Human Rights Watch. Lawmakers confirmed the process.

Shinkai Kharokhel, a lawmaker who has been involved in reforming the legislation, said no one from the administration told her that the law was being approved without further debate. Instead, she learned third hand that the law she had been fighting was now in effect.

"I was called by a friend, and then a few people from the embassies. And I said, 'I have to check with the minister.' I was really shocked," she said. "My understanding was that it would be sent to parliament. I never thought it would just be published."

Law unlikely to be amended

With a large backlog of legislation to debate and the sensitivity of the issue, it's unclear if parliament will revisit the Shia marriage law anytime soon.

"I think the chances of this being discussed in parliament in the next year or so are low and the chances of improvements being made are lower. So as far this law, I think we're stuck with it," said Rachel Reid, an Afghanistan researcher with Human Rights Watch.

Kharokhel said she felt as if the women of Afghanistan had been pushed to the side to appease powerful Shia men who were worried that legislation would not get passed if they waited until after Thursday's election.

"I am sure it is [Shia] leaders pushing the president of the country so that as soon as possible they would get a law," she said.

Although the law applies only to Shia, women activists fear the law is a step toward the Taliban's draconian treatment of women.

Women unlikely to cast protest votes

Many of the Shia belong to the Hazara ethnic minority. Influential Shia clerics have thrown their support behind Karzai for this year's vote, and Karzai, who belongs to the largest ethnic group, the Pashtuns, has kept a Hazara leader, Karim Khalili, as his candidate for second vice-president.

Female lawmakers, however, say it's unlikely the enactment of the law will affect women's choice of candidate for the elections, because so few women are aware of the law or how it would apply to their lives.

"They really don't know what the law says and how they will use that law … and we have women who are ashamed to knock on the door of a court to ask for their rights," said Shukria Barakzai, a lawmaker from Kabul.

taser international sues canada...corporations hold all the power

Taser International Inc. sues Canadian government
25 comments by Robert Anglen and Andrew Johnson - Aug. 15, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
Taser International Inc. filed a lawsuit Friday in Canada blasting a government report that prompted severe limitations on how and when law-enforcement officers in British Columbia can use stun guns.

Officials with the Scottsdale-based manufacturer called the Braidwood Inquiry biased and asked the Supreme Court of British Columbia to quash all of its findings and declare those involved in compiling evidence derelict.

"We provided . . . more than 170 studies, periodicals (and) reports with respect to the safety of the device and use-of-force questions," David Neave, an attorney for Taser in Canada, said Friday. "All of that information clearly indicates that when the device is used properly there is not cardiac effect. For reasons unknown to us, that information did not wind its way into the report."


The 18-month-long Braidwood Inquiry, headed by retired Judge Thomas Braidwood, concluded in July that Tasers can cause death.

In his 556-page report, Braidwood criticized law enforcement for putting the stun gun on the street with little or no independent testing and recommended restricting use of Tasers. Within hours, the head of public safety in British Columbia adopted all 19 of Braidwood's recommendations, including a ban on Tasers in non-criminal situations or where there is not an imminent threat of bodily harm.

A spokesman for the Braidwood Inquiry said Friday that officials were surprised by Taser's reaction.

"We didn't expect this type of action to be taken," said Chris Freimond. "Mr. Braidwood is an experienced and respected jurist."

The Braidwood Inquiry was sparked by the 2007 death of a Polish immigrant at Vancouver International Airport who stopped breathing after being shocked five times by Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers.

Braidwood was charged by the provincial government with looking into Taser use in the province, where Tasers were introduced in Canada. Braidwood was also asked to provide a complete record of the circumstances surrounding the airport death, which is still ongoing.

The Braidwood Inquiry involved public testimony by Taser executives, police officers and opponents of the stun gun. It examined medical research, testimony from doctors, and test studies supportive and critical of the stun gun.

In its petition, Taser said it was treated unfairly by the inquiry. It accused officials of overlooking key information, including scientific studies and expert testimony, in favor of the stun gun.

Taser points specifically to the lawyer and to the chief overseer of medical and scientific research, saying any conclusions in the report are tainted by their bias. It asks the court for an injunction restraining Braidwood from making any conclusion about the medical safety or risks of the stun gun. Taser also says the Braidwood Inquiry violated law by releasing the report without first giving Taser the chance to provide a response to the findings.

Type Size: A A APrintEmail

Cry Sea

this is what happens when european trawlers who have overfished their own waters head off to africa. the consequences that we never get to read about.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

bailing out canadian pig farmers???????????? bah!

Hog farmers offered $75M federal buyout
Liberal critic hits out at Ritz, saying package 'too little, too late'
Last Updated: Saturday, August 15, 2009 | 6:42 PM ET Comments167Recommend43
CBC News
The federal government is offering a $75-million buyout fund to help farmers get out of the struggling pork industry, federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said Saturday.

Hog producers say their operations have been hit by high feed prices, a strong Canadian dollar, strict new country-of-origin labelling laws in the United States, as well as the swine flu crisis. (Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press)Canadian hog producers have been losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to a perfect storm of conditions — including H1N1, a stronger Canadian dollar and new American labelling laws.

Speaking at a research farm in rural Manitoba Saturday, Ritz said some hog operations are not viable and those farmers need help.

"We have to face the reality that some producers will leave the industry and we need to reduce our current over-supply," he said.

He also said those who stay in the industry will be able to apply for new long-term loans so they can restructure.

Ritz said the Canadian pork industry will become profitable again but it needs help weathering the current recession.

Pork producers in Canada had been asking for $800 million from the federal government to help the ailing industry.

"Is it what we wanted? Of course, straight cash is always nicer without any strings attached, but the reality is that wasn't going to happen," said Jurgen Preugschas, president of the Canadian Pork Council.

The Liberals also criticized Ottawa's response, calling it "too little and too late." Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter said in a statement that loans do little for hundreds of farmers who are already in debt.

Tough decisions ahead

Sometime this month, Manitoba pork producer Rick Vaags will have to make an tough, emotional decision whether to shut down his family hog farm of 45 years.

He says he's just losing too much money.

"We're living off equity right now," Vaags told CBC News in an interview from his farm in Dugald. "The bottom line right now is, we're losing 40 bucks a hog right now. That's been going on for quite a while, and we can't keep doing that."

Under the plan, farmers will have to bid from the available buyout money, so it is unclear how much cash each individual producer will get.

"Those numbers will be worked out on a case-by-case basis," Ritz said.

The government is also launching new $17-million marketing fund to help boost sales for Canadian pork worldwide.

Converting an indian to christianity - don't let the devil win

OH BOY!!!!!!

more on how the taliban get foreign aid money

article by Jean MacKenzie originally appeared in GlobalPost. This is part of a special series by GlobalPost called Life, Death and The Taliban. Click here for a related article Funding the Pakistani Taliban.

KABUL — It is the open secret no one wants to talk about, the unwelcome truth that most prefer to hide. In Afghanistan, one of the richest sources of Taliban funding is the foreign assistance coming into the country.

Virtually every major project includes a healthy cut for the insurgents. Call it protection money, call it extortion, or, as the Taliban themselves prefer to term it, “spoils of war,” the fact remains that international donors, primarily the United States, are to a large extent financing their own enemy.

“Everyone knows this is going on,” said one U.S. Embassy official, speaking privately.

It is almost impossible to determine how much the insurgents are spending, making it difficult to pinpoint the sources of the funds.

Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, former Taliban minister to Pakistan, was perhaps more than a bit disingenuous when he told GlobalPost that the militants were operating mostly on air.

“The Taliban does not have many expenses,” he said, smiling slightly. “They are barefoot and hungry, with no roof over their heads and a stone for their pillow.” As for weapons, he just shrugged. “Afghanistan is full of guns,” he said. “We have enough guns for years.”

The reality is quite different, of course. The militants recruit local fighters by paying for their services. They move about in their traditional 4×4s, they have to feed their troops, pay for transportation and medical treatment for the wounded, and, of course, they have to buy rockets, grenades and their beloved Kalashnikovs.

Up until quite recently, most experts thought that drug money accounted for the bulk of Taliban funding. But even here opinion was divided on actual amounts. Some reports gauged the total annual income at about $100 million, while others placed the figure as high as $300 million — still a small fraction of the $4 billion poppy industry.

Now administration officials have launched a search for Taliban sponsors. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told a press conference in Islamabad last month that drugs accounted for less of a share of Taliban coffers than was previously thought.

“In the past there was a kind of feeling that the money all came from drugs in Afghanistan,” said Holbrooke, according to media reports. “That is simply not true.”

The new feeling is that less than half of the Taliban’s war chest comes from poppy, with a variety of sources, including private contributions from Persian Gulf states, accounting for much of the rest. Holbrooke told reporters that he would add a member of the Treasury Department to his staff to pursue the question of Taliban funding.

But perhaps U.S. officials need look no further than their own backyard.

Anecdotal evidence is mounting that the Taliban are taking a hefty portion of assistance money coming into Afghanistan from the outside.

This goes beyond mere protection money or extortion of “taxes” at the local level — very high-level negotiations take place between the Taliban and major contractors, according to sources close to the process.

A shadowy office in Kabul houses the Taliban contracts officer, who examines proposals and negotiates with organizational hierarchies for a percentage. He will not speak to, or even meet with, a journalist, but sources who have spoken with him and who have seen documents say that the process is quite professional.

The manager of an Afghan firm with lucrative construction contracts with the U.S. government builds in a minimum of 20 percent for the Taliban in his cost estimates. The manager, who will not speak openly, has told friends privately that he makes in the neighborhood of $1 million per month. Out of this, $200,000 is siphoned off for the insurgents.

If negotiations fall through, the project will come to harm — road workers may be attacked or killed, bridges may be blown up, engineers may be assassinated.

The degree of cooperation and coordination between the Taliban and aid workers is surprising, and would most likely make funders extremely uncomfortable.

One Afghan contractor, speaking privately, told friends of one project he was overseeing in the volatile south. The province cannot be mentioned, nor the particular project.

“I was building a bridge,” he said, one evening over drinks. “The local Taliban commander called and said ‘don’t build a bridge there, we’ll have to blow it up.’ I asked him to let me finish the bridge, collect the money — then they could blow it up whenever they wanted. We agreed, and I completed my project.”

In the south, no contract can be implemented without the Taliban taking a cut, sometimes at various steps along the way.

One contractor in the southern province of Helmand was negotiating with a local supplier for a large shipment of pipes. The pipes had to be brought in from Pakistan, so the supplier tacked on about 30 percent extra for the Taliban, to ensure that the pipes reached Lashkar Gah safely.

Once the pipes were given over to the contractor, he had to negotiate with the Taliban again to get the pipes out to the project site. This was added to the transportation costs.

“We assume that our people are paying off the Taliban,” said the foreign contractor in charge of the project.

In Farah province, local officials report that the Taliban are taking up to 40 percent of the money coming in for the National Solidarity Program, one of the country’s most successful community reconstruction projects, which has dispensed hundreds of millions of dollars throughout the country over the past six years.

Many Afghans see little wrong in the militants getting their fair share of foreign assistance.

“This is international money,” said one young Kabul resident. “They are not taking it from the people, they are taking it from their enemy.”

But in areas under Taliban control, the insurgents are extorting funds from the people as well.

In war-ravaged Helmand, where much of the province has been under Taliban control for the past two years, residents grumble about the tariffs.

“It’s a disaster,” said a 50-year-old resident of Marja district. “We have to give them two kilos of poppy paste per jerib during the harvest; then we have to give them ushr (an Islamic tax, amounting to one-tenth of the harvest) from our wheat. Then they insisted on zakat (an Islamic tithe). Now they have come up with something else: 12,000 Pakistani rupee (approximately $150) per household. And they won’t take even one rupee less.”

It all adds up, of course. But all things are relative: if the Taliban are able to raise and spend say $1 billion per year — the outside limit of what anyone has been able to predict — that accounts for what the United States is now spending on 10 days of the war to defeat them.