Dear Rosann Wowchuk,
I am deeply concerned that Terminator technology (Genetic Use Restriction Technology or GURTS) is being actively developed and promoted by corporations and that the United Nations de facto moratorium on Terminator at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is not strong enough to stop this dangerous technology. I am writing to urge you to establish a national ban on Terminator technology, and to support an international ban on Terminator at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
People all over the world condemn Terminator technology - gene sterilization technology – because of its serious potential impacts for farmers, Indigenous peoples, food security and biodiversity. The technology has no benefits for farmers. Instead, biotechnologists design Terminator to maximize industry profits by preventing farmers from saving and re-using harvested seed. The technology threatens the livelihoods of over 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seeds as their primary seed source.
Seed and biotechnology corporations are promoting the false argument that Terminator could be used to stop unwanted genetic pollution from industry’s genetically modified crops. However, genetic use restriction technology is too complex and unreliable to prevent the movement of genes. Additionally, if commercialized under the guise of a “biosafety” tool to prevent gene flow, Terminator genes would introduce new hazards since they can spread to neighbouring crops via pollen in the first generation. The spreading of sterile genes could result in ecological catastrophe. Furthermore, farmers who save the seeds of contaminated varieties for replanting may find that some of their seeds do not germinate, potentially translating into significant yield losses.
I urge your government to propose and support a strong recommendation prohibiting the field testing and commercialization of Terminator technology when the CBD’s Working Group on Article 8(j) meets January 23-27 in Granada Spain, and when the 8th Conference of the Parties meets in March 20-31 in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
I ask for your support to insure that Canada will disapprove the use of Terminator seeds. I urge you to work towards establishing a national ban on Terminator. I also urge our government delegation attending the March 2006 meeting of the 8th Conference of the Parties to the CBD to support an international ban on Terminator.
I look forward to hearing from you. Please take these steps to prohibit Terminator in order to protect farmer livelihoods, biodiversity and food security in Canada.
Sincerely,
[insert your name and address here]
Friday, October 28, 2005
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
The Ban Terminator Campaign
Greenpeace and the Ban Terminator Campaign revealed today that new patents have been granted in both Canada and Europe for a Terminator technology owned jointly by US seed corporation Delta and Pine Land and the United States Department of Agriculture.
The patents were granted on October 11, 2005 and October 5, 2005, respectively. The move confirms the greatest fears of farmers, Indigenous peoples groups, and social movements around the world that Terminator technology is once again being pushed towards commercialization.
Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to be sterile after first harvest so farmers cannot use the seed in the next season. It would force farmers to buy seed every year; and would also concentrate even more power in the hands of major biotechnology and seed corporations. Intensive global uproar has kept the technology from being field-tested or commercialized, but companies are now pushing for acceptance.
“These new patents confirm that corporations are once again actively pursuing Terminator seeds and an international ban on Terminator is urgently needed,” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the new global Ban Terminator Campaign.
New fears that governments and corporations are working together to push Terminator were first confirmed in February 2005 when the Canadian government shocked the world by trying to overturn the international de facto moratorium on Terminator that exists at the United Nations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Uproar from Canadian and international groups kept the moratorium alive. To address this crisis, the National Farmers Union (NFU) and other Canadian-based groups, including ETC Group, Inter Pres and USC Canada, initiated a global Ban Terminator Campaign (www.banterminator.org).
“The Canadian government must immediately stop promoting corporate Terminator seeds and protect the rights of farmers by banning the technology,” said Terry Boehm, Vice-President of the NFU. “Terminator is a great threat to farmers in developed and developing countries. The
Canadian government should be ashamed to be associated with this technology. Terminator is an attempt to achieve biologically what the government has been unable to do legislatively.”
“Corporate control of seeds is the only goal of Terminator,” said Eric Darier, Greenpeace Canada campaigner. “The corporate attempt to greenwash Terminator by saying it can help prevent genetic contamination is false as the technology itself is not 100% reliable, and it can nevertheless contaminate the environment and threaten biodiversity. This is an outrageous strategy to commercialize a dangerous, anti-farmer and non-ecological technology. Patents on Terminator can and must be denied for the public good.”
The Ban Terminator Campaign is urging governments around the world to establish national bans on Terminator and to ban Terminator at the major meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, March 20-31, 2006 in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
The patents were granted on October 11, 2005 and October 5, 2005, respectively. The move confirms the greatest fears of farmers, Indigenous peoples groups, and social movements around the world that Terminator technology is once again being pushed towards commercialization.
Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to be sterile after first harvest so farmers cannot use the seed in the next season. It would force farmers to buy seed every year; and would also concentrate even more power in the hands of major biotechnology and seed corporations. Intensive global uproar has kept the technology from being field-tested or commercialized, but companies are now pushing for acceptance.
“These new patents confirm that corporations are once again actively pursuing Terminator seeds and an international ban on Terminator is urgently needed,” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the new global Ban Terminator Campaign.
New fears that governments and corporations are working together to push Terminator were first confirmed in February 2005 when the Canadian government shocked the world by trying to overturn the international de facto moratorium on Terminator that exists at the United Nations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Uproar from Canadian and international groups kept the moratorium alive. To address this crisis, the National Farmers Union (NFU) and other Canadian-based groups, including ETC Group, Inter Pres and USC Canada, initiated a global Ban Terminator Campaign (www.banterminator.org
“The Canadian government must immediately stop promoting corporate Terminator seeds and protect the rights of farmers by banning the technology,” said Terry Boehm, Vice-President of the NFU. “Terminator is a great threat to farmers in developed and developing countries. The
Canadian government should be ashamed to be associated with this technology. Terminator is an attempt to achieve biologically what the government has been unable to do legislatively.”
“Corporate control of seeds is the only goal of Terminator,” said Eric Darier, Greenpeace Canada campaigner. “The corporate attempt to greenwash Terminator by saying it can help prevent genetic contamination is false as the technology itself is not 100% reliable, and it can nevertheless contaminate the environment and threaten biodiversity. This is an outrageous strategy to commercialize a dangerous, anti-farmer and non-ecological technology. Patents on Terminator can and must be denied for the public good.”
The Ban Terminator Campaign is urging governments around the world to establish national bans on Terminator and to ban Terminator at the major meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, March 20-31, 2006 in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Friday, October 21, 2005
George W. Bush may face charges in Canada for torture
Lawyers Against the War (LAW) is claiming a victory in its battle to have George W. Bush face charges in Canada for torture.
The charges stem from the notorious cases of torture practiced by U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. They were laid on the occasion of George W. Bush’s controversial visit to Canada in November 2004. The charges were laid under sections of the Canadian Criminal Code enacted pursuant to the United Nations Torture Convention which requires extra-territorial jurisdiction to be exercised against officials, even Heads of State, who authorize or are otherwise responsible for torture.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of BC quashed an order banning publication of everything having to do with the charges imposed when they were first laid. In a secret hearing, held December 6th 2004 in B.C. Provincial Court, the charges against Bush were rejected on the basis of arguments by the Attorney General of British Columbia that the visiting president was shielded from prosecution by diplomatic immunity. A ban on publication of anything to do with the proceedings was also imposed.
The secrecy, the immunity claim, and the ban are vigorously opposed by LAW, who appealed all aspects of the decision.
On Monday, Justice Satanove of the Supreme Court of British Columbia quashed the ban on publication after government lawyers failed to come up with any argument to defend it. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association had intervened on the side of LAW against the ban.
“This is a very important victory”, said Gail Davidson, who laid the charges and, along with Howard Rubin, argued the case for LAW, “because it ensures that the proceedings will be scrutinized by people in Canada and throughout the world, to make sure that the law is applied fairly and properly and, above all, to make sure that Bush doesn’t get away with torture.”
“The American legal system seems incapable of bringing him to justice and there are no international courts with jurisdiction. So it’s up to Canada to enforce the law that everybody has signed on to but nobody else seems willing to apply.”
The next hearing in the case will take place on November 25th 2005, at 10:00 a.m. at the B.C. Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, B.C., when government lawyers have said they will argue that the case is no longer “moot” because the Attorney General of Canada has not yet consented to the prosecution. Toronto law professor Michael Mandel, co-chair of LAW, calls this argument bogus: “He’s still guilty of torture, he’s still on the loose and we still have our obligations under the UN Convention to bring torturers to justice.”
The charges stem from the notorious cases of torture practiced by U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. They were laid on the occasion of George W. Bush’s controversial visit to Canada in November 2004. The charges were laid under sections of the Canadian Criminal Code enacted pursuant to the United Nations Torture Convention which requires extra-territorial jurisdiction to be exercised against officials, even Heads of State, who authorize or are otherwise responsible for torture.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of BC quashed an order banning publication of everything having to do with the charges imposed when they were first laid. In a secret hearing, held December 6th 2004 in B.C. Provincial Court, the charges against Bush were rejected on the basis of arguments by the Attorney General of British Columbia that the visiting president was shielded from prosecution by diplomatic immunity. A ban on publication of anything to do with the proceedings was also imposed.
The secrecy, the immunity claim, and the ban are vigorously opposed by LAW, who appealed all aspects of the decision.
On Monday, Justice Satanove of the Supreme Court of British Columbia quashed the ban on publication after government lawyers failed to come up with any argument to defend it. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association had intervened on the side of LAW against the ban.
“This is a very important victory”, said Gail Davidson, who laid the charges and, along with Howard Rubin, argued the case for LAW, “because it ensures that the proceedings will be scrutinized by people in Canada and throughout the world, to make sure that the law is applied fairly and properly and, above all, to make sure that Bush doesn’t get away with torture.”
“The American legal system seems incapable of bringing him to justice and there are no international courts with jurisdiction. So it’s up to Canada to enforce the law that everybody has signed on to but nobody else seems willing to apply.”
The next hearing in the case will take place on November 25th 2005, at 10:00 a.m. at the B.C. Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, B.C., when government lawyers have said they will argue that the case is no longer “moot” because the Attorney General of Canada has not yet consented to the prosecution. Toronto law professor Michael Mandel, co-chair of LAW, calls this argument bogus: “He’s still guilty of torture, he’s still on the loose and we still have our obligations under the UN Convention to bring torturers to justice.”
Thursday, October 20, 2005
To: pm@pm.gc.ca
cc: Min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Re: Stop Destructive Dragging at Home and on the High Seas
The Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.M.
House of Commons
Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Dear Prime Minister:
I am writing to urge you to put your strong words into action and stop the rape of the world's oceans.
It has come to my attention that Canada has a historic opportunity to take leadership at the United Nations and support a moratorium on high seas dragging this November. On both the east and west coast of Canada, there is increasing evidence of the destruction of sensitive ecosystems by dragging, which is in great need of your attention.
The worldwide scientific evidence that dragging is by far the most destructive fishing method can no longer be ignored by the Canadian government. With this in mind I ask you to acknowledge dragging as the most destructive fishing method, and take urgent concrete measures to restrict dragging activities both at home and on the high seas. Specifically,
Sincerely,
[your name and address]
Re: Stop Destructive Dragging at Home and on the High Seas
The Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.M.
House of Commons
Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Dear Prime Minister:
I am writing to urge you to put your strong words into action and stop the rape of the world's oceans.
It has come to my attention that Canada has a historic opportunity to take leadership at the United Nations and support a moratorium on high seas dragging this November. On both the east and west coast of Canada, there is increasing evidence of the destruction of sensitive ecosystems by dragging, which is in great need of your attention.
The worldwide scientific evidence that dragging is by far the most destructive fishing method can no longer be ignored by the Canadian government. With this in mind I ask you to acknowledge dragging as the most destructive fishing method, and take urgent concrete measures to restrict dragging activities both at home and on the high seas. Specifically,
- Support the U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on high seas trawling.
- Protect sensitive ecosystems from dragging and effect a transition to more sustainable gear types within Canadian waters.
Sincerely,
[your name and address]
The open letter to Trish Jordan and Monsanto
Dear Ms. Jordan,
Glyphosate-based herbicides are important tools for many farmers, so any information about potential problems is important. All research is of interest. On September 29, 2005, the Western Producer reported on a study conducted by publicly-funded Agriculture Canada researchers that found a link between glyphosate herbicides and a costly plant disease called fusarium. The Agriculture Canada study concludes that "previous glyphosate formulation application was the only crop production factor that was significantly associated with higher fusarium head blight levels every year of the study" and that there was "statistically significant and consistent association between previous glyphosate formulation application and fusarium head blight development in spring wheat throughout our 4-year study conducted in producers' fields." Despite calls from Agriculture Canada scientists for more research on the issue, you make the claim, in that same Western Producer article, that there is no need for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to take any further action and no need for further research. You go on to make the following statement: "They [The National Farmers Union] can throw out this study and we can probably throw 50 others back." The purpose of this letter is to issue a public challenge to you and your employer to "throw 50 others back." You have made this statement, which would lead readers to think that there are 50 other studies on the issue. OK. Let's see them. If you do not place "50 other studies" on the table in the next couple of weeks, then readers everywhere will be forced to conclude that your "studies" are no more than a figment of your own imagination designed to mislead the government and the public. You have made a statement regarding scientific fact; this is your chance to back it up.
Yours truly,
Terry Boehm
Vice-President National Farmers Union
Glyphosate-based herbicides are important tools for many farmers, so any information about potential problems is important. All research is of interest. On September 29, 2005, the Western Producer reported on a study conducted by publicly-funded Agriculture Canada researchers that found a link between glyphosate herbicides and a costly plant disease called fusarium. The Agriculture Canada study concludes that "previous glyphosate formulation application was the only crop production factor that was significantly associated with higher fusarium head blight levels every year of the study" and that there was "statistically significant and consistent association between previous glyphosate formulation application and fusarium head blight development in spring wheat throughout our 4-year study conducted in producers' fields." Despite calls from Agriculture Canada scientists for more research on the issue, you make the claim, in that same Western Producer article, that there is no need for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to take any further action and no need for further research. You go on to make the following statement: "They [The National Farmers Union] can throw out this study and we can probably throw 50 others back." The purpose of this letter is to issue a public challenge to you and your employer to "throw 50 others back." You have made this statement, which would lead readers to think that there are 50 other studies on the issue. OK. Let's see them. If you do not place "50 other studies" on the table in the next couple of weeks, then readers everywhere will be forced to conclude that your "studies" are no more than a figment of your own imagination designed to mislead the government and the public. You have made a statement regarding scientific fact; this is your chance to back it up.
Yours truly,
Terry Boehm
Vice-President National Farmers Union
Friday, October 14, 2005
Anarchism
Not the bomb-in-the-pocket stuff, which is terrorism, whatever name it tires to dignify itself with; not the social-Darwinist economic "libertarianism" of the far right; but anarchism, as prefigured in early Taoist thought, and expounded by Shelley and Kropotkin, Goldman and Goodman. Anarchism's principal target is the authoritarian State (capitalist or socialist), its principal moral-practical theme is co-operation (solidarity, mutual aid). It is the most idealistic, and to me the most interesting, of all political theories.
- Ursula K. Le Guin
What is an anarchist? One who, choosing, accepts the responsibility of choice.
- from Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Day Before the Revolution"
- Ursula K. Le Guin
What is an anarchist? One who, choosing, accepts the responsibility of choice.
- from Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Day Before the Revolution"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)