Climate Change Road Map
and
www.demanddemocraticdebates.ca.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
To: day.s@parl.gc.ca
Dear Stockwell Day,
My name is Timothy Schwinghamer. I am a graduate student at the University of Manitoba. I am contacting you because I am very concerned for the health of Mahmoud Jaballah, Mohammad Mahjoub, and Hassan Almrei. They are on a hunger strike in protest of the conditions of their detention. All five men were arrested under Security Certificates, a measure of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) that has been described by Amnesty International as fundamentally flawed and unfair. Security certificates and secret evidence reverse the fundamental rule of innocent until proven guilty. Neither the detainee nor his lawyer are informed of the precise allegations or provided with the full information against him. They are imprisoned indefinitely without charges on secret evidence and face deportation to their countries of origin, even if there is a substantial risk of torture or death. Please immediately close the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre; release Canada's secret trial security certificate detainees or provide them with a fair, transparent, open trial; end all proceedings to deport the Secret Trial Five (Mahmoud Jaballah, Mohammad Mahjoub, Hassan Almrei, Mohamed Harkat, Adil Charkaoui); abolish security certificates and end deportation to torture; immediately condemn the illegal Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
Secret trials are a wound to Canadian democracy.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Saturday, January 06, 2007
ICC climate change petition rejected
by Jane George
The effort to link climate change with human rights has suffered a setback.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights won’t consider a petition that alleges that the United States government is violating the human rights of Inuit by refusing to limit its greenhouse gas emissions.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who submitted the petition last December with the support of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in Canada and Alaska, received the news in a letter from the commission last month.
“It was disappointing for sure. Their letter was evasive and dismissive, and that’s the part that disappoints me and angers me more than anything else,” Watt-Cloutier said.
The letter states the commission “will not be able to process your petition at present... the information provided does not enable us to determine whether the alleged facts would tend to characterize a violation of rights protected by the American Declaration.”
But Watt-Cloutier hasn’t given up.
She’s asked the commission for further information on why it isn’t proceeding. She’s also invited commission members to visit the Arctic for a hearing “to provide testimony and documentation on these problems which are seriously affecting Inuit survival.”
Watt-Cloutier has told her 62 co-petitioners that “the issue remains much too important for us not to continue fighting for the world to take serious action against climate change.”
Watt-Cloutier said she isn’t discouraged by this down-turn of events.
“I’m an optimistic by nature. There are things that are happening today,” she said. “There’s some hope coming up now – Stéphane Dion is the Liberal leader.”
Watt-Cloutier unveiled the petition last December at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Montreal, which Dion, then the federal environment minister, chaired.
The petition then went to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington. The commission is an international legal body affiliated with the Organization of American States, but which operates at arms-length from the OAS and its member states.
The outcome of the legal action, supported by the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Alaska and Canada, was expected to have great influence on other courts and other jurisdictions.
The idea behind the petition, said Watt-Cloutier, was to encourage people in the South to realize climate change affects people as well the environment and the economy.
The detailed 175-page petition said climate change threatens the rights of Inuit to use and enjoy their traditional lands and personal property, their rights to health and life, to residence and movement and to their livelihood.
The petition asked for “relief from human rights violations resulting from the impacts of global warming and climate change caused by acts and omission of the U.S.,” which has not supported any mandatory reduction agreements designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and curb global warming.
The petition also asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to visit the Arctic, conduct a hearing, and issue a report recommending the U.S. adopt mandatory measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and cooperate on other international efforts.
The petition wanted the commission to produce plans to protect Inuit culture and resources, which would outline assistance options for adaptation and “any other relief that the commission considers appropriate and just.”
The petition mentioned no amount of money.
Since 1965, the commission has processed about 12,000 human rights cases, many of them involving allegations of mass murder, torture and arbitrary imprisonment made by victims of state terror in countries like Argentina, El Salvador and Guatemala. The body has also dealt with land rights cases brought forward by indigenous peoples throughout the Americas.
The Centre for International Environmental Law and the group Earth Justice provided free services to ICC in launching this petition and continue to provide legal follow-up. James Anaya, an aboriginal lawyer who works at the University of Arizona’s college of law, helped draft the petition, along with Nunavut lawyers Paul Crowley and Sandra Inutiq, and two graduate students from the U.S.
Watt-Cloutier said the next step is to wait and see how the commission reacts to the most recent round of correspondence.
“It is a long battle, but I think the least we expect is respect and some kind of a response.”
No matter what the petition’s fate is, Watt-Cloutier, who finished her tenure as ICC chair last July, intends to keep the focus on what she calls “the human face” of climate change in the Arctic.
Earlier this week, journalist Marianne Pearl, the widow of Daniel Pearl, a reporter murdered four years ago by terrorists in Pakistan, was in Iqaluit to interview Watt-Cloutier for a feature article, which will be published in the widely-circulated magazine, Glamour.
Then, Watt-Cloutier headed to Ottawa, where she was to be invested into the Order of Canada by Governor-General Michaëlle Jean on Friday, Dec. 15.
After Christmas, Watt-Cloutier plans to travel through five U.S. states on an “Arctic Voices” tour to raise awareness about the impact of climate change on Inuit.
The effort to link climate change with human rights has suffered a setback.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights won’t consider a petition that alleges that the United States government is violating the human rights of Inuit by refusing to limit its greenhouse gas emissions.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who submitted the petition last December with the support of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in Canada and Alaska, received the news in a letter from the commission last month.
“It was disappointing for sure. Their letter was evasive and dismissive, and that’s the part that disappoints me and angers me more than anything else,” Watt-Cloutier said.
The letter states the commission “will not be able to process your petition at present... the information provided does not enable us to determine whether the alleged facts would tend to characterize a violation of rights protected by the American Declaration.”
But Watt-Cloutier hasn’t given up.
She’s asked the commission for further information on why it isn’t proceeding. She’s also invited commission members to visit the Arctic for a hearing “to provide testimony and documentation on these problems which are seriously affecting Inuit survival.”
Watt-Cloutier has told her 62 co-petitioners that “the issue remains much too important for us not to continue fighting for the world to take serious action against climate change.”
Watt-Cloutier said she isn’t discouraged by this down-turn of events.
“I’m an optimistic by nature. There are things that are happening today,” she said. “There’s some hope coming up now – Stéphane Dion is the Liberal leader.”
Watt-Cloutier unveiled the petition last December at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Montreal, which Dion, then the federal environment minister, chaired.
The petition then went to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington. The commission is an international legal body affiliated with the Organization of American States, but which operates at arms-length from the OAS and its member states.
The outcome of the legal action, supported by the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Alaska and Canada, was expected to have great influence on other courts and other jurisdictions.
The idea behind the petition, said Watt-Cloutier, was to encourage people in the South to realize climate change affects people as well the environment and the economy.
The detailed 175-page petition said climate change threatens the rights of Inuit to use and enjoy their traditional lands and personal property, their rights to health and life, to residence and movement and to their livelihood.
The petition asked for “relief from human rights violations resulting from the impacts of global warming and climate change caused by acts and omission of the U.S.,” which has not supported any mandatory reduction agreements designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and curb global warming.
The petition also asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to visit the Arctic, conduct a hearing, and issue a report recommending the U.S. adopt mandatory measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and cooperate on other international efforts.
The petition wanted the commission to produce plans to protect Inuit culture and resources, which would outline assistance options for adaptation and “any other relief that the commission considers appropriate and just.”
The petition mentioned no amount of money.
Since 1965, the commission has processed about 12,000 human rights cases, many of them involving allegations of mass murder, torture and arbitrary imprisonment made by victims of state terror in countries like Argentina, El Salvador and Guatemala. The body has also dealt with land rights cases brought forward by indigenous peoples throughout the Americas.
The Centre for International Environmental Law and the group Earth Justice provided free services to ICC in launching this petition and continue to provide legal follow-up. James Anaya, an aboriginal lawyer who works at the University of Arizona’s college of law, helped draft the petition, along with Nunavut lawyers Paul Crowley and Sandra Inutiq, and two graduate students from the U.S.
Watt-Cloutier said the next step is to wait and see how the commission reacts to the most recent round of correspondence.
“It is a long battle, but I think the least we expect is respect and some kind of a response.”
No matter what the petition’s fate is, Watt-Cloutier, who finished her tenure as ICC chair last July, intends to keep the focus on what she calls “the human face” of climate change in the Arctic.
Earlier this week, journalist Marianne Pearl, the widow of Daniel Pearl, a reporter murdered four years ago by terrorists in Pakistan, was in Iqaluit to interview Watt-Cloutier for a feature article, which will be published in the widely-circulated magazine, Glamour.
Then, Watt-Cloutier headed to Ottawa, where she was to be invested into the Order of Canada by Governor-General Michaëlle Jean on Friday, Dec. 15.
After Christmas, Watt-Cloutier plans to travel through five U.S. states on an “Arctic Voices” tour to raise awareness about the impact of climate change on Inuit.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Complicity with pre-Christmas massacre in Haiti?
Montreal Groups call on government to denounce UN violence
MONTREAL, Tuesday, December 26 - At 3am on December 22nd, UN troops entered the Cité Soleil neighbourhood in Haiti's Port-au-Prince, and opened fire with heavy weapons. Reuters reported that at least 13 died, and 30 were wounded in the assault, all "believed to be civilians".
Today, Resistance Haitienne au Québec (RHQ) and Haiti Action Montreal (HAM) condemned the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in one of Haiti's most impoverished neighbourhoods. RHQ and HAM call on the Canadian government to denounce the killing of civilians and ensure that those responsible for this massacre are brought to justice.
"If Stephen Harper wants to distinguish himself from the worst of the Liberal Government, he should work to bring those responsible for the massacre to justice," said Yves Engler of Haiti Action Montreal.
"Canada holds key roles in the UN mission in Haiti--ignoring the most recent Cité Soleil massacre will be another blow to the country's credibility," Engler added.
"This isn't the first time UN troops have killed indiscriminately in Cité Soleil," said Serge Bouchereau. "When UN troops killed 23 civilians on July 6, 2005, the Liberal Government was silent. Will Stephen Harper continue their quiet support for human rights abuses?"
Canada heads up the 1700-member UN police force in Haiti (CIVPOL), and has officers throughout the command structure of the UN military in Haiti. The UN mission in Haiti began after US, French and Canadian forces landed in Port-au-Prince and Marines removed elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide from the country.
"While Hillier was serving Christmas turkey in Afghanistan, UN forces were delivering a different kind of present to Haiti's poor," said Nik Barry-Shaw of Haiti Action Montreal.
"Is this the kind of foreign policy Canadians want?"
MONTREAL, Tuesday, December 26 - At 3am on December 22nd, UN troops entered the Cité Soleil neighbourhood in Haiti's Port-au-Prince, and opened fire with heavy weapons. Reuters reported that at least 13 died, and 30 were wounded in the assault, all "believed to be civilians".
Today, Resistance Haitienne au Québec (RHQ) and Haiti Action Montreal (HAM) condemned the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in one of Haiti's most impoverished neighbourhoods. RHQ and HAM call on the Canadian government to denounce the killing of civilians and ensure that those responsible for this massacre are brought to justice.
"If Stephen Harper wants to distinguish himself from the worst of the Liberal Government, he should work to bring those responsible for the massacre to justice," said Yves Engler of Haiti Action Montreal.
"Canada holds key roles in the UN mission in Haiti--ignoring the most recent Cité Soleil massacre will be another blow to the country's credibility," Engler added.
"This isn't the first time UN troops have killed indiscriminately in Cité Soleil," said Serge Bouchereau. "When UN troops killed 23 civilians on July 6, 2005, the Liberal Government was silent. Will Stephen Harper continue their quiet support for human rights abuses?"
Canada heads up the 1700-member UN police force in Haiti (CIVPOL), and has officers throughout the command structure of the UN military in Haiti. The UN mission in Haiti began after US, French and Canadian forces landed in Port-au-Prince and Marines removed elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide from the country.
"While Hillier was serving Christmas turkey in Afghanistan, UN forces were delivering a different kind of present to Haiti's poor," said Nik Barry-Shaw of Haiti Action Montreal.
"Is this the kind of foreign policy Canadians want?"
Monday, December 18, 2006
To: MacKay.P@parl.gc.ca, gcarrera@ns.sympatico.ca
Dear Peter McKay and Galo Carrera,
My name is Timothy Schwinghamer. I am a graduate student at the Department of Plant Science at the University of Manitoba. I am contacting you because I am deeply concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation in Oaxaca.
A group of 23 people from Huahuapan, Oaxaca, decided to leave a large Popular People's Assembly of Oaxaca (APPO) protest in the city of Oaxaca to avoid confrontation with the police. When they got to the bus station, the Mexican authorities arrested them. Four children were later release, but the government labeled the remaining nineteen "highly dangerous" and sent them to a prison in Nayarit, twenty hours north of Huahuapan. These nineteen people are among over 400 arrested since June 2006 in connection with ongoing APPO protests.
My colleague, Matthew Wiens, a Christian Peacemaker Team Reservist, has heard reports that many prisoners have been abused and beaten. Some have received bail as high as $400,000, an impossible amount to raise for people who earn $1 per day.
I ask you to look into the arrests of these nineteen people from Huahuapan. The prisoners from Huahuapan include: Ciro Pedroza Guadarrama, Jaime Auieliano Martinez Gordillo, Maria Perez Gutierrez, Marta Mandez Perez, Jaime Legaria Ramirez, and Ignacio Legaria Hernandez. These six were all active with CACTUS, FENIC, and other organizations. CACTUS and other organizations involved in APPO believe that their protests comply with Article 39 of the Mexican Constitution that stipulates when a government (in this case Governor Ulises of Oaxaca) is not doing his job, the Mexican people have a right to remove it.
Please urge the Mexican government to free these political prisoners so they can be home for Christmas.
Sincerely and respectfully,
My name is Timothy Schwinghamer. I am a graduate student at the Department of Plant Science at the University of Manitoba. I am contacting you because I am deeply concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation in Oaxaca.
A group of 23 people from Huahuapan, Oaxaca, decided to leave a large Popular People's Assembly of Oaxaca (APPO) protest in the city of Oaxaca to avoid confrontation with the police. When they got to the bus station, the Mexican authorities arrested them. Four children were later release, but the government labeled the remaining nineteen "highly dangerous" and sent them to a prison in Nayarit, twenty hours north of Huahuapan. These nineteen people are among over 400 arrested since June 2006 in connection with ongoing APPO protests.
My colleague, Matthew Wiens, a Christian Peacemaker Team Reservist, has heard reports that many prisoners have been abused and beaten. Some have received bail as high as $400,000, an impossible amount to raise for people who earn $1 per day.
I ask you to look into the arrests of these nineteen people from Huahuapan. The prisoners from Huahuapan include: Ciro Pedroza Guadarrama, Jaime Auieliano Martinez Gordillo, Maria Perez Gutierrez, Marta Mandez Perez, Jaime Legaria Ramirez, and Ignacio Legaria Hernandez. These six were all active with CACTUS, FENIC, and other organizations. CACTUS and other organizations involved in APPO believe that their protests comply with Article 39 of the Mexican Constitution that stipulates when a government (in this case Governor Ulises of Oaxaca) is not doing his job, the Mexican people have a right to remove it.
Please urge the Mexican government to free these political prisoners so they can be home for Christmas.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Sunday, December 17, 2006
2 things
#1
To: Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca
My name is Timothy Schwinghamer. I am a graduate student at the Department of Plant Science at the University of Manitoba. I have chosen to contact you because I believe that the Canadian government should maintain the Canadian Wheat Board and supply-management mechanisms that support family farms. The Canadian government ought to protect the Canadian Wheat Board and supply-management mechanisms from the prejudiced impact of international trade agreements. Canadian farmers have not reaped the benefits of free trade that were promised to them. Since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement came into effect in 1989, exports have doubled but Canadian farmers have seen their net income drop by 24 percent. As the deregulation of agriculture increases and U.S. and Canadian standards meld, independent farmers will suffer even more. While the U.S. government may want you to eliminate the monopoly powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, I support the CWB and its ability to pass along a premium to farmers that would otherwise go to a small handful of agribusiness corporations. As the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board you should defend this valued Canadian institution, not undermine it.
Sincerely and respectfully,
[etc.]
#2
[The following was written by Matt Soltys.]
A while back, an idea came to me. Some people consider this idea clever, others, stupid. Some people even consider it threatening.
The idea was to inject humour into people's lives by spray-painting a politically satirical stencil, and to provoke thought on the use of the word 'terrorism.' I went out with this stencil -- an image of a bulldozer with the word 'eco-terrorist' below -- and at one point during a midsummer night, I turned, mid-spray-paint, to see a police car behind me. As the officer exited his car, I couldn't resist sharing a rare greeting -- "Well, you caught me red-handed." I was using red paint and actually did have some on my hand.
I placed several stencils around town, but only got caught with one. Two days later, after some negative press, my feelings shifted. It's not worth the controversy, I felt, so sought to avoid further problems by covering the remaining stencils. I asked a friend for help, and away we biked. Unknown to us, however, three undercover police were following my every move.
Given Guelph's numerous unsolved acts of sabotage targeting what passes for "development," the cops probably thought they had a lead. According to the police budget, each investigative officer makes approximately $45 an hour, so eight hours amounts to $1,080. Considering there are at least two shifts daily, and that I was likely under surveillance for more than one day, it is conceivable that the cost of following me reached into the tens of thousands of dollars. Surely you can think of numerous ways to more wisely spend your taxes.
The stencil's purpose, ultimately, was to encourage a rethinking of the word "eco-terrorism," and "terrorism" in general. These words are manipulated to suit the perceived needs of those in power, and their misuse has ruined countless innocent lives.
The word "eco-terrorism" has been created and actively promoted by people who are voices for the logging, automobile and chemical industries. Its purpose is to severely criminalize those who seek to stop destructive business practices. Thus, people who rescue animals from tortuous laboratories are called "eco-terrorists." People who, like the heroes in the children's film Hoot, protect forests by damaging construction equipment, are called "eco-terrorists." However, despite the media's labels, they are never charged with anything related to terrorism; the word is legally irrelevant and used solely as a propaganda tool. I am sure 19th-century abolitionists, who risked their lives to free slaves and torch their prisons, were similarly considered terrorists by those in power. What's next? Are the heroes of Captain Planet and Fern Gully eco-terrorists?
The point here is to show that a word's meaning is subject to the person using it. Consider, for example, the amount of terror created when an empty building under construction on the edge of Guelph was set aflame, in an attempt to make destroying nature less profitable. In comparison, how many people are terrified and depressed that their children will get cancer from the air, or that future wars will be fought over water, and recognize that Guelph's development policies are exacerbating an already grim situation? How many wild animals -- who are entirely capable of experiencing fear -- are terrorized by the ever-encroaching machines that destroy their homes and tear apart the earth?
What, really, creates more fear?
Through my ordeal, I have had the opportunity to speak with many people about their feelings regarding such topics. Most see we are heading for catastrophe, yet feel the options presented by those in power grossly under-represent the threats we face. Nearly everyone I speak with is frightened, saddened and angry, if they have not yet shut down due to the pain required by feeling.
I must be clear that I do not wish to undermine any fear felt by people who live near any acts of arson. Nor is this a plea for more people to commit such acts. It is simply a proposal to stop using the word "eco-terrorist," and that we discuss as a community what really does scare us, and that government and business leaders actually do something about it. Certainly, these acts of sabotage are a way of seeking empowerment after being ignored for far too long by those in power.
I am far from alone in recognizing that if we wish to survive this century, we need to drastically change our entire way of life. This will not come easily, but the danger my generation faces is too painful to fathom. The City of Guelph must take a stand and transition out of an industrially dependent way of life. Our lives truly do depend on it.
To: Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca
My name is Timothy Schwinghamer. I am a graduate student at the Department of Plant Science at the University of Manitoba. I have chosen to contact you because I believe that the Canadian government should maintain the Canadian Wheat Board and supply-management mechanisms that support family farms. The Canadian government ought to protect the Canadian Wheat Board and supply-management mechanisms from the prejudiced impact of international trade agreements. Canadian farmers have not reaped the benefits of free trade that were promised to them. Since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement came into effect in 1989, exports have doubled but Canadian farmers have seen their net income drop by 24 percent. As the deregulation of agriculture increases and U.S. and Canadian standards meld, independent farmers will suffer even more. While the U.S. government may want you to eliminate the monopoly powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, I support the CWB and its ability to pass along a premium to farmers that would otherwise go to a small handful of agribusiness corporations. As the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board you should defend this valued Canadian institution, not undermine it.
Sincerely and respectfully,
[etc.]
#2
[The following was written by Matt Soltys.]
A while back, an idea came to me. Some people consider this idea clever, others, stupid. Some people even consider it threatening.
The idea was to inject humour into people's lives by spray-painting a politically satirical stencil, and to provoke thought on the use of the word 'terrorism.' I went out with this stencil -- an image of a bulldozer with the word 'eco-terrorist' below -- and at one point during a midsummer night, I turned, mid-spray-paint, to see a police car behind me. As the officer exited his car, I couldn't resist sharing a rare greeting -- "Well, you caught me red-handed." I was using red paint and actually did have some on my hand.
I placed several stencils around town, but only got caught with one. Two days later, after some negative press, my feelings shifted. It's not worth the controversy, I felt, so sought to avoid further problems by covering the remaining stencils. I asked a friend for help, and away we biked. Unknown to us, however, three undercover police were following my every move.
Given Guelph's numerous unsolved acts of sabotage targeting what passes for "development," the cops probably thought they had a lead. According to the police budget, each investigative officer makes approximately $45 an hour, so eight hours amounts to $1,080. Considering there are at least two shifts daily, and that I was likely under surveillance for more than one day, it is conceivable that the cost of following me reached into the tens of thousands of dollars. Surely you can think of numerous ways to more wisely spend your taxes.
The stencil's purpose, ultimately, was to encourage a rethinking of the word "eco-terrorism," and "terrorism" in general. These words are manipulated to suit the perceived needs of those in power, and their misuse has ruined countless innocent lives.
The word "eco-terrorism" has been created and actively promoted by people who are voices for the logging, automobile and chemical industries. Its purpose is to severely criminalize those who seek to stop destructive business practices. Thus, people who rescue animals from tortuous laboratories are called "eco-terrorists." People who, like the heroes in the children's film Hoot, protect forests by damaging construction equipment, are called "eco-terrorists." However, despite the media's labels, they are never charged with anything related to terrorism; the word is legally irrelevant and used solely as a propaganda tool. I am sure 19th-century abolitionists, who risked their lives to free slaves and torch their prisons, were similarly considered terrorists by those in power. What's next? Are the heroes of Captain Planet and Fern Gully eco-terrorists?
The point here is to show that a word's meaning is subject to the person using it. Consider, for example, the amount of terror created when an empty building under construction on the edge of Guelph was set aflame, in an attempt to make destroying nature less profitable. In comparison, how many people are terrified and depressed that their children will get cancer from the air, or that future wars will be fought over water, and recognize that Guelph's development policies are exacerbating an already grim situation? How many wild animals -- who are entirely capable of experiencing fear -- are terrorized by the ever-encroaching machines that destroy their homes and tear apart the earth?
What, really, creates more fear?
Through my ordeal, I have had the opportunity to speak with many people about their feelings regarding such topics. Most see we are heading for catastrophe, yet feel the options presented by those in power grossly under-represent the threats we face. Nearly everyone I speak with is frightened, saddened and angry, if they have not yet shut down due to the pain required by feeling.
I must be clear that I do not wish to undermine any fear felt by people who live near any acts of arson. Nor is this a plea for more people to commit such acts. It is simply a proposal to stop using the word "eco-terrorist," and that we discuss as a community what really does scare us, and that government and business leaders actually do something about it. Certainly, these acts of sabotage are a way of seeking empowerment after being ignored for far too long by those in power.
I am far from alone in recognizing that if we wish to survive this century, we need to drastically change our entire way of life. This will not come easily, but the danger my generation faces is too painful to fathom. The City of Guelph must take a stand and transition out of an industrially dependent way of life. Our lives truly do depend on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)