Your gadget's dirty little secret By Amber MacArthur

Taken from Yahoo news:

Gizmo Diva

Amber Mac

Your gadget's dirty little secret

By Amber Mac

The new iPhone has not one, but two cameras. That digital camera you're sporting this summer has not three, four, or five megapixels, it has 14 megapixels. As for your pocket camcorder? Well, last year it was standard definition but this year it's high definition, complete with more than 200,000 glorious dots of high-res video.

With so many new-and-improved gadgets launching every day in North America, some might say we're neophiliacs, a term I've used now and again to describe a personality type bored with the old and hooked on the new.  

While it's fun to be surrounded with shiny new devices, we often don't think much about where they come from. They're like special little mystery packages, delivered from a tech supplier to an electronics store to our doorstep. But our high-tech addiction comes at a cost. Thanks to a recent op-ed column in The New York Times, there is a sliver of online chatter that is focusing on "death by gadget."

In his article, Nicholas Kristof writes: "An ugly paradox of the 21st century is that some of our elegant symbols of modernity - smartphones, laptops, and digital cameras - are built from materials that seem to be fuelling mass slaughter and rape in the Congo."

The piece goes on to explain the horror of how women and children have been mutilated in the Congo, just to help warlords keep up their selling of "conflict minerals" to big electronics companies.  

One popular YouTube video fighting back against this supply chain is called "I'm a Mac…and I've Got a Dirty Secret." The two actors, a Mac and a PC, talk throughout the video about this conflict and determine at the end that they do have something in common - they're helping to fuel war in the Congo. The Enough Project created this spoof to inform the public about the high cost of our gadget obsession.

 

As Jonathan Huston from The Enough Project says in Kristof's article, "Apple is claiming that their products don't contain conflict minerals because their suppliers say so…people are saying that answer is not enough." Here in Canada, blogger Joey DeVilla has written a compelling post about "blood tech" and what we can do. 

"The Enough Project says that auditing component supply chains at the smelters to see whether the metal was sourced from 'clean' places like Australia or Canada, instead of lining the pockets of Congolese warlords, would add about one cent to the price of a cellphone, and that this figure originates from within the industry. I’d happily pay a thousand times that for each of my devices – a mere ten bucks – to ensure that I wasn’t bankrolling rape and murder."

Nicely said.  I couldn't agree more.  Head on over to http://raisehopeforcongo.com to find out how you can help.

Immigration Minister pulled gay rights from citizenship guide, documents show

Taken from the globe and mail

Immigration Minister pulled gay rights
from citizenship guide, documents show

Early draft noted decriminalization of homosexuality, Charter protection on sexual orientation and legalization of same-sex marriage

Dean Beeby

Ottawa — The Canadian PressPublished on Tuesday, Mar. 02, 2010 1:07PM ESTLast updated on Wednesday, Mar. 03, 2010 8:32AM EST

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney blocked any reference to gay rights in a new study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship, The Canadian Press has learned.

Internal documents show an early draft of the guide contained sections noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005.

But Mr. Kenney, who fought same-sex marriage when it was debated in Parliament, ordered those key sections removed when his office sent its comments to the department last June.

Senior department officials duly cut out the material - but made a last-ditch plea with Mr. Kenney in early August to have it reinstated.

"Recommend the re-insertion of the text boxes related to ... the decriminalization of homosexual sex/recognition of same-sex marriage," says a memorandum to Mr. Kenney from deputy minister Neil Yeates.

"Recommend the addition of 'equality rights' under list of rights. Had noted earlier that this bullet should be reinserted into the list as a means of noting the equality of all based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc ..."

In the end, however, Mr. Kenney's view trumped that of the bureaucrats. The 63-page guide, released with fanfare last November, contains no mention of gay and lesbian rights.

About 500,000 copies were printed and citizenship applicants will start being tested on its contents March 15.

The $400,000 project substantially updated an earlier edition of the guide created in 1995. The new version significantly expands sections on Canada's military past and on aboriginals, drawing on the views of a panel of prominent Canadians.

The new guide got generally positive reviews when it was launched, though some immediately noted the absence of gay rights, including same-sex marriage.

The publication does include a picture of Olympic gold medal swimmer Mark Tewksbury, however, with a caption saying he is a "prominent activist for gay and lesbian Canadians."

People look on from an apartment window during Toronto's annual gay pride parade on June 28, 2009.

Drafts and other internal documents related to the guide were obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

"Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969 and more recently, civil marriage rights to same-sex couples was legalized nationwide in 2005," the earliest draft of the guide says under the section Towards a Modern Canada.

And in the section on citizenship rights, the early draft said: "Equality Rights - Canadians are protected against discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or age."

Neither sentence survived the minister's red marker.

Mr. Kenney has steadfastly opposed same-sex marriage since his time as an opposition MP in the House of Commons.

He spoke against the Civil Marriage Act, or Bill C-38, when it was debated in the Commons in February 2005. And days earlier, Kenney told a session with Toronto-area Punjabi journalists that gays had every right to marry - as long as it wasn't someone of the same sex.

He reaffirmed his stand in 2006 when the newly elected Conservative government attempted without success to revoke the legislation.

And last year, Mr. Kenney appointed a longtime Conservative who opposes same-sex marriage to the Immigration and Refugee Board, which among other things makes decisions about whether gays can be given refugee status in Canada.

When the new guide was released Nov. 12, Mr. Kenney brushed off a reporter's question about why it lacked any reference to same-sex marriage.

"We can't mention every legal decision, every policy of the government of Canada," he said.

"We try to be inclusive and include a summary. I can tell you that if you were to read the old book, you wouldn't even know that there are gay and lesbian Canadians." He then noted the caption under Mr. Tewksbury's photo.

Mr. Kenney's spokesman reiterated that the 1995 guide "produced by the Liberals" did not mention gays and lesbians.

"We can endlessly debate what was included or not included," Alykhan Velshi said in an email last week. "Unavoidably, choices had to be made about content because we had to ensure the guide did not become encyclopedic."

Mr. Velshi also noted the new guide does not refer to marriage at all, whether opposite sex or same sex.

The gay-rights group Egale Canada met with the minister in early December after learning the booklet made no reference to gay and lesbian rights, and is negotiating with the department to have them included in the next printing, about a year away.

Mr. Kenney told the group that gay rights had been "overlooked" when the guide was being prepared, executive director Helen Kennedy said in an interview from Toronto.

"I'm hopeful and optimistic that we're going to get it fixed because we're not happy with it."

Ms. Kennedy expressed surprise when told draft versions of the guide did, in fact, contain references to gay rights and that they were ordered removed.

Liberal MP Scott Brison, who was married in a same-sex ceremony in 2007, said the Conservatives carefully excluded from the guide the Charter rights they don’t agree with.

“It’s becoming very clear that Minister Kenney never intended this to be a Canadian citizenship guide but instead a Conservative citizenship guide,” he said in an interview.

“They have selectively listed the charter decisions that they agree with and have ignored those that they don’t. And the Charter of Rights is not a buffet — you can’t pick from it the rights you like and ignore the rest.”

Mr. Brison added that Canada’s progressive record on human rights has helped make the country a magnet for those escaping oppression around the world.

The NDP’s critic on gay and lesbian issues said new immigrants need to know about basic rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“The minister, Jason Kenney, can’t edit gay and lesbian Canadians out of Canadian history,” Bill Siksay said. “That’s something that newcomers to Canada should know about.”

Liberal MP Marlene Jennings called Kenney’s actions “abhorrent.”

“It’s unfortunate that this government again has driven an ideological wedge on an issue of fundamental Charter rights,” she said.

The Canadian Press previously reported that other sections of the draft version of the guide were excised at the suggestion of the panel of prominent Canadians.

The deleted sections included one reference that said Canadian churches ran Indian residential schools, where aboriginal children were abused
.

Canada wanted Afghan prisoners tortured: lawyer

taken fron CBC news:

Unredacted documents show officials hoped to gather intelligence, expert says

Last Updated: Friday, March 5, 2010 | 11:44 PM ET Comments2254Recommend1283

CBC News

University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran says Canadian officials intentionally handed over Afghan detainees to be tortured in order to gather intelligence. (CBC)

Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.

If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.

"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.

"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That's what's in these documents, and that's why the government is covering up as hard as it can."

Detainee abuse became the subject of national debate last year after heavily redacted versions of the documents were made public after Attaran filed an access to information request. They revealed the Canadian military was not monitoring detainees who had been transferred from Canadian to Afghan custody. It was later alleged that some of those detainees were being mistreated.

Diplomat Richard Colvin says he warned top Canadian officials as early as 2006 that Afghan detainees handed over to Afghans were subsequently being tortured. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Until now, the controversy has centred on whether the government turned a blind eye to abuse of Afghan detainees.

However, Attaran said the full versions of the documents show that Canada went even further in intentionally handing over prisoners to torturers.

"And it wasn't accidental; it was done for a reason," he said. "It was done so that they could be interrogated using harsher methods."

The government maintains that nothing improper happened.

"The Canadian Forces have conducted themselves with the highest performance of all countries," Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons Thursday.

But many facets of the issue remain top secret, such as the role of Canada's elite Joint Task Force 2, or JTF2. There have been hints that JTF2 might be handling so-called high-value prisoners.

"High-value targets would be detained under a completely different mechanism that involved special forces and targeted, intelligence-driven operations," Richard Colvin, a former senior diplomat with Canada's mission in Afghanistan, told a parliamentary committee last November.

Colvin claimed that all detainees transferred by Canadians to Afghan prisons were likely tortured by Afghan officials. He also said that his concerns were ignored by top government officials and that the government might have tried to cover up the issue.

Opposition parties have been trying to get the Conservative government to release the uncensored versions of the documents pertaining to the handling of Afghan detainees.

Retired Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci has been asked to review whether documents pertaining to the transfer of Afghan detainees can be released to Parliament. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The Conservatives insist that releasing uncensored files on the issue would damage national security. On Friday, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson asked former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci to review whether there would be "injurious" effects if some Afghan detainee documents were made public.

Nicholson did not give full details on Iacobucci's assignment or a timetable for when the review might be completed.

However, opposition parties said Parliament is entitled to those documents regardless of what Iacobucci decides.

"Parliament is supreme," said Ontario NDP MP Paul Dewar. "What this is, is a skate around Parliament."

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh said the government still has many questions to answer on the subject of detainees.

"Who knew what and when, and who allowed the continuing saga of Afghan detainees being sent to a potential risk of torture?" Dosanjh said.

It's not clear whether the government will make Iacobucci's advice public. Moreover, he is not a sitting judge and can't legally rule or force the government to do anything.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/05/afghan-attaran005.html#ixzz0iw8pWfNJ

Democracy diminished, accountability avoided

Globe Editorial

Democracy diminished, accountability avoided

By suspending Parliament, Stephen Harper allows the governing party to elude the detainee issue, a move that undermines the democratic rights of the people

From Thursday's Globe and MailPublished on Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2009 11:18PM ESTLast updated on Thursday, Dec. 31, 2009 9:58AM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/democracy-diminished-accountability-avoided/article1415461/

For the second consecutive December, Stephen Harper is putting Parliament on ice. In the act, the Prime Minister is turning prorogation, a sometimes sensible parliamentary procedure, into an underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament. In the interests of political expediency, the government will diminish the democratic rights of Canadians.

Proroguing stops committee work and makes all legislation pending before Parliament vanish. Historically, it has been used when a government has implemented most of its agenda. Until Mr. Harper's innovation, it was not an annual occurrence; the last minority government to use it more than once was Lester B. Pearson's Liberal administration in the 1960s.

Today, the Conservative agenda remains unfulfilled. More than half of all government bills – 37 of 64 – introduced since January, 2009, have yet to be passed into law. Eleven of these are justice bills, dealing with such weighty matters as elimination of the faint-hope clause (which still needs to be taken up by the Senate) and tougher sentencing for white-collar criminals and drug traffickers. These can be re-introduced when the new Parliament resumes in March, but they will need to go through the legislative process anew. In any case, Mr. Harper's decision means Parliament will lose more than 20 days: time that could have been used debating, amending and passing these bills.

There is a tactical political advantage to prorogation. The government temporarily eludes an issue of national importance that is particularly inconvenient: its knowledge of torture of Afghan detainees. Government members have already acted as truants when Afghanistan committee hearings are called. The government failed to provide documents to committee members, and implied it will disregard a parliamentary order to produce those documents. Prorogation is the logical extension of such thinking: shut down parliamentary debate entirely.

Prorogation would also allow the government a freer hand in the Senate: five vacancies need to be filled, and committees can be reconstituted after prorogation, giving Conservatives a “governing majority.”

Political calculation is clearly behind the decision to prorogue. The Conservatives are hoping to bask in the glow of Olympic glory while dodging the mess and scrutiny of lawmaking, Question Period and an outstanding, unprecedented order from Parliament to provide transparency and truth on the detainee file. Then, they hope to return in March, stronger in the Senate and ready to reclaim, they hope, the public agenda.

Canada's democracy should not be conducted solely on the basis of convenience for the governing party. If the debate over detainees cannot be carried out in Parliament, then it should continue among Canadians at large. On this and other important issues, the government cannot delay accountability forever.

Proroguing Parliament – a travesty, yet clever

John Ibbitson

Proroguing Parliament – a travesty, yet clever

Move by Harper a defeat for those who think government should be honest, open and accountable

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/proroguing-parliament-a-travesty-yet-clever/article1415391/

John Ibbitson

Ottawa —Published on Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2009 9:13PM ESTLast updated on Friday, Jan. 01, 2010 1:14AM EST

The Harper government's decision to have Parliament prorogued in the dead of Christmas week sets a record for taking out the trash.

That's the political term for a government dumping unwelcome or unpopular announcements at times when the news is likely to be ignored. Embarrassed by a damning report? Release it on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend.

Determined to short-circuit an investigation into how the government mishandled the treatment of Afghan detainees? Wait until the eve of New Year's Eve – when MPs are in their ridings or down south, readers and viewers are few, and that day's news is dominated by the picks for the men's Olympic hockey team – and suspend Parliament.

For anyone who believes that our governments should be honest, open and accountable, this is a travesty. But it's devilishly clever.

A senior government official, speaking on background, insisted that calculations concerning the Afghan detainees controversy played no part in the decision.

Rather, said the official, the government wanted to give itself time and breathing room to think through how to manage the economy as it emerges from recession and to put in place a long-term strategy for balancing the budget.

Conservatives will tell you that this newspaper, a few other journalists and opposition politicians are the only ones concerned with the detainees issue. It's “old news,” as press secretary Dimitri Soudas put it in a conference call with reporters yesterday.

That government officials or politicians may have been negligent in safeguarding the treatment of Afghan detainees, thus violating the Geneva Conventions, is of no real concern to most Canadians, the Tories maintain.

They are almost certainly right. But the fact remains that proroguing Parliament shuts down the committee that was the source of the most embarrassing revelations about government bungling in Afghanistan. The Military Police Complaints Commission, which was also looking into the affair, is effectively suspended until the government gets around to appointing a new commissioner.

By government design, all official inquiry into this matter has been terminated until March, at least. The Conservatives aren't concerned? They have a strange way of showing it.

There are plenty of other good reasons to prorogue, from the government's perspective. Stephen Harper will be able to rejig Senate committees to reflect the imminent arrival of five party loyalists whom we all expect him to appoint early in the new year. The Throne Speech, now scheduled for March 3, and the budget on March 4 will politically embarrass the opposition parties, forcing them once again to support a government they detest rather than bring on an election that would devastate the Liberals, in particular.

In partisan political terms, proroguing Parliament this week was inspired.

All we lose is a chance to talk. Had Parliament reconvened Jan. 25, as originally planned, MPs could have debated the priorities for the coming budget; the government's plans – oh, sorry, lack of plans – to meet its Copenhagen promise to do something, some day, about fighting global warming; whether and how to reform pensions in both the public and private sector; Canada's future commitments in Afghanistan. That is what Parliament was to have talked about through February, before it was silenced.

“It's no way to run a business,” as NDP Leader Jack Layton put it yesterday. But never mind: The people will have their Olympic circuses, and the government can plan for our future unhindered by oversight.

Mr. Layton remembers when Mr. Harper, as leader of the Official Opposition, lambasting the Chrétien government's plans to prorogue Parliament back in 2003, to prevent the Auditor-General from reporting on possible abuse of the sponsorship program in Quebec.

“The government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record,” Mr. Harper thundered.

But that was so long ago.