Star Readers and Harper Government's Injustice to Sayed Shah Sharifi's

While I rarely excerpt long passages from other sources fro my blog, I am making an exception today to print the reactions of Toronto Star readers to the cruel abandonment by the Harper government of Sayed Shah Sharifi, the brave Afghan interpreter who served our troops so valiantly:

I was appalled, disgusted and angry as I read Paul Watson’s accounts of the Afghan interpreter Sayed Shah Sharifi’s rejection for the special visa programme by our immigration department. The bafflegab response to the Star from Immigration Minister Jason Kenney should not surprise me as it is typical of the Conservative dictatorial approach to governing.

The suspicion that Sharifi was rejected because he had the timerity to speak out to the Star is probably correct. If it is, it demonstrates that Kenney abnd his immigration “henchmen” are morally bankrupt.

This applicant has no fewer than 13 Canadian officials who worked closely with him on the battlefield and all declared him not only an upstanding young man, but also a hero. Their word should certainly trump the unfounded suspicions of a few bureaucrats. Sharifi sounds like exactly the kind of immigrant Canada needs.

Kenney should do the right thing and admit this man to Canada immediately before something happens to him or any of his family at the hands of the Taliban. If it does, I certainly know where I will be laying the blame.

As Watson writes, “The most inconvertible proof of Sharifi’s risk would be his corpse.” We can only hope and pray this does not happen before Kenney et al come to their senses.

Penny Preston, Blue Mountains

The Star is to be highly commended for its coverage of the Afghanistan interpreter’s plight.The position adopted by the Canadian government on this matter is disgraceful and one can only hope that the death threats received by this gentleman do not come to pass. Shame, Shame, Shame on you Canada.

Oh and by the way, the silence emanating from the other two major Toronto daily papers regarding Ottawa’s stance on this matter is deafening.

Peter Blunt, Richmond Hill

While I am surprised neither by the incredible immorality of this decision nor the insouciance of Jason Kenney, I must say that I am somewhat unsettled by the staggering stupidity involved. At the same time as they are spending billions on “national security,” the government is ensuring that it is all for naught.

As a recruitment strategy for the Taliban, there cannot be a more effective tool than being able to exploit the fact that a member-nation of the ISAF abandoned those who risked everything to assist them.

Jason Kenney has never been a minister that any caring Canadian could point to with pride, but he may have surpassed his previous efforts with this unconscionable act. I hope that sufficient Canadians rally around this young man that Kenney will reverse his decision.

Many thanks to Paul Watson and the Star for this excellent article.

Lois A. Airth, Renfrew

We know the current Canadian government is cold hearted and mean, but to leave a friend in danger has to be the most dispicable thing. Our ideal on this mission was to help others including our “friends,” the U.S. and the people of Afghanistan. When we get to the end we now abandom not only the country but also those that believed in us and put their lives at risk for us. I would ask our leader where in his Bible does he find this instruction?

Terry Robert, Winnipeg

The Umbrella Man - A Cautionary Tale

Germane to nothing in particular, I highly recommend this six-minute documentary by Errol Morris, made for the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It explores the story behind the one man seen standing under an open black umbrella on a clear and sunny Dallas day at the exact moment the shots rang out. The resolution of the mystery will surprise you.

Today's Globe Editorial on Occupiers

Ever the arbiter of all things significant, it is hardly surprising that in its latest editorial, The Globe and Mail has the arrogance to assume to speak for all when it says that "the [Occupy] movement has tried everyone's patience." Nonetheless, it should put aside its very conservative prejudices to acknowledge the real achievement of the occupiers, which has been to end the isolation and hopelessness felt by the many who aspire to a better world, despite all of the obstructions posed by those who purport to represent our interests in government.

While I agree that the issue of the right to pitch tents has a diversionary effect on the conversation the movement has sparked, to suggest, as the editorial does, that the occupy protests are only a response to the excesses (not to mention criminality) that contributed to the world financial crisis is to betray a shockingly shallow understanding of the issues the occupiers are drawing attention to worldwide.

But then again, that seems to be the typically blinkered perspective disseminated by the bulk of the mainstream media today (The Toronto Star excepted!), doesn't it?

Bill O'Reilly on UC-Davis Pepper-Spraying: No Big Deal

I don't think the following video needs any commentary on my part:

A Message From the UC -Davis Faculty of English

The following can be found on the UC - Davis website, a followup to the brave letter written by untenured Assistant Professor Nathan Brown.

The faculty of the UC Davis English Department supports the Board of the Davis Faculty Association in calling for Chancellor Katehi’s immediate resignation and for “a policy that will end the practice of forcibly removing non-violent student, faculty, staff, and community protesters by police on the UC Davis campus.” Further, given the demonstrable threat posed by the University of California Police Department and other law enforcement agencies to the safety of students, faculty, staff, and community members on our campus and others in the UC system, we propose that such a policy include the disbanding of the UCPD and the institution of an ordinance against the presence of police forces on the UC Davis campus, unless their presence is specifically requested by a member of the campus community. This will initiate a genuinely collective effort to determine how best to ensure the health and safety of the campus community at UC Davis.

Such fortitude, I suspect, is yet another tangible benefit of the Occupy Movement.

Two Monday Morning Links

There are two pieces on the Occupy Toronto situation that are worth reading in today's paper. The first is the editorial in the Toronto Star examining the possibilities for the future now that the occupiers will soon be decamping from St. James Park due to a judicial decision just handed down. It is a decision that need hardly sound the death knell of a movement that is resonating with millions of people.

The second piece, by Linda McQuaig, accords the Occupy Movement high praise indeed. Says McQuaig:

[T]hey’ve managed to change the public discourse, putting inequality front and centre — something activists and writers, myself included, have failed to accomplish despite decades of trying.

I'm hoping, and betting, that this is only the end of the beginning.

The roots of the UC-Davis pepper-spraying

That's the title of a searing and insightful analysis by Glenn Greenwald as he examines both the mentality and the effects, both intended and unintended, of the excessive and brutal force used against Occupy demonstrators and others.

Amongst his findings are the following:

- excessive police force against non-violent protest is not a new phenomenon;

- that excessive force has been emboldened since 9/11;

- this disproportionate use of force is not having the desired effect, in that it is galvanizing, not deterring people to join in activist acts.

I hope yoiu will take the time to read the entire article, which includes video of Greenwald speaking about Badley Manning and WikiLeaks.