2013-06-19T21:13:21-04:00 Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=josh-d-scheinert Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Josh D. Scheinert Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3136056 2013-04-23T08:58:04-04:00 2013-04-23T08:44:05-04:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/ arrest by the RCMP of two individuals who were allegedly planning out a terrorist attack on a VIA Rail train will only heighten our level of anxiety as the scare hits closer to home.

It is in this context that our government is currently debating the Combating Terrorism Act. The Bill reintroduces two provisions of the November 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act that expired in 2007, and were never used while they were in force.

The first provision reintroduced permits investigative hearings, where a judge can compel an individual to testify in secret when there is reason to believe a terrorist act will be committed; refusing to answer can get one locked up for up to 12 months. The second provision reintroduced permits an individual to be arrested and detained without charge for up to three days. That person can then be released into recognizance under obligation to keep conditions for 12 months. If the individual refuses, the judge may order the person imprisoned for up to 12 months.

Both provisions can be employed against people suspected of having information about a terrorist offence; they don't even need to be the alleged terrorists themselves.

These are serious provisions that pose serious questions about what lengths a society should go to in order to keep itself safe. Should someone be compelled to testify before a judge, in investigative hearings, where evidence is secret, unknown to even the individual compelled to testify? In such a context the judge ceases to be a neutral arbiter and becomes an active agent of the investigation, almost an extension of law enforcement, calling into question the independence of our judiciary.

Notwithstanding the violations of liberty and due process, some might say that three days of preventative arrest is a small price to pay for our safety and security. We cannot ignore, however, how the immediate aftermath of the attacks in Boston highlighted for us the perils of being falsely accused of terrorism. Things happen quickly. Anyone's face can be caught by a camera and labelled a terrorist. Lots of people carry bags while wearing baseball hats.

These provisions have the potential to bring us down a very slippery slope, redefining how we view fundamental rights and liberty.

Such an important debate cannot happen in the wake of a terrorist attack, when emotions are ripe for manipulation. The Globe and Mail noted that the surprising timing of this debate "smacks of political opportunism"; strike while the iron is hot.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews says that Boston proves we need stronger anti-terrorism laws. But writing in the National Post, Matt Gurney points out that "indeed, if anything, Boston shows a successful law enforcement response to an act of terror without need of new laws." Here in Canada, one day after Minister Toews went on television the RCMP arrested two individuals accused of planning to conduct a terrorist act, without the aid of these provisions; our laws worked. When the Toronto 18 were arrested, they were arrested without the aid of these tools. Again, our laws worked.

And in the five years when the provisions were available to law enforcement, they went unused. They were nothing but dust-gathering credentials to prove that our government was "tough on terror."

Reintroducing these provisions seems nothing more than an attempt by the Conservative government to further prove its 'tough on terror' credentials; the original provisions having been introduced by the Liberals. Starting the bill's final reading a week after the terrorism in Boston seems a convenient scapegoat from having to actually justify the content of the provisions and their need. As pointed out by numerous rights organizations across the country, law enforcement agencies have never been prevented from conducting surveillance and gathering evidence to further investigations, bring charges, and lock terrorists up.

Maybe our laws aren't effective enough to protect us from the threat of terrorism. Perhaps some liberties should take a back seat at times, even though we now know that too easily any one of us could be the one to lose that liberty. But when our laws appear to be working, and when our terrorists languish in prisons -- results of brave and successful law enforcement operations -- attempting to play on our fears by using emotion over reason does not do justice to the seriousness this discussion this requires.

Terrorism, and keeping us all safe, is too important a subject to be driven by such emotive impulses.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3061651 2013-04-11T12:42:03-04:00 2013-06-11T05:12:02-04:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
"In Canada, do you have problems with these homosexuals?"

This was in the spring of 2007 and it would be a few more years before Uganda would garner international headlines for its now infamous "kill the gays" bill. I had done very little research on Uganda's positions on same-sex relationships before leaving for the trip. All that Brian and I agreed on was to keep my sexuality between us. When Segawa asked about problems with homosexuals, he had no idea he was talking to one.

Brian and I glanced and grinned at each other and Brian's look sent a clear message to me: You can answer the question.

I looked at Segawa and the quorum of villagers and started my answer, pausing so he could translate to what would become a very surprised group:

"Well, Segawa, in Canada we have homosexuals, but we don't consider them a problem. In fact, in Canada homosexuals are part of society like everyone else. We have homosexual doctors, lawyers, politicians, and police officers."

The Ugandans let out a collective "eh?" showing their disbelief.

"In Canada," I continued, "it is possible for two men or two women to marry one another."

After a brief silence Segawa turned to me with his usual big, warm smile and said, "You know what I think? I think that these people, these homosexuals, are disorganized in the head."

Wonderful friends

I've been fortunate enough to spend extended periods of time in both East and West Africa. In the spring of 2007 I spent a month volunteering in Uganda with Segawa's organization, and in the 2010-2011 academic year I was a visiting lecturer with the Faculty of Law at the University of The Gambia. Gambia, like Uganda, does not have the best track-record on LGBT rights. Recently, President Jammeh has said Gambians would rather "eat grass" than accept Western aid that was conditioned on LGBT rights.

On both trips I was in the closet except to a small handful of expats. And on both trips I made wonderful friends with Ugandans and Gambians.

In Uganda I got to know not only Segawa and all the local volunteers (Brian and I were the only foreigners), but also many of the students in their care; we became friends, shared meals and memories, and traded hopes and aspirations. But even more than that, I was their muzungu, Swahili for white person. In that small, Ugandan community and they wanted to make sure I felt welcome and was well cared for, and I was.

When the month in Uganda was over the organization threw us a large thank you and farewell party, with all the children and volunteers attending. With money in more than short supply, it was an incredibly generous gesture. The Fanta was flowing, local dishes were in abundance, speeches of thanks were given, I sang a song, and we all said how much we gained from our time together and that we would not soon forget it. Over 100 people gathered outside for final pictures and hugs.

Back in my African closet

Just over three years later I was back in my African closet, this time in The Gambia. Over the next nine months I would form strong bonds with my students. They had never had permanent lecturers before, so when my friend Danny and I arrived to teach them they were particularly appreciative of the attention we gave them and the efforts we expended on their behalf.

And so I wonder, sitting in Toronto with my boyfriend -- the same boyfriend I had while away in Gambia, what my students would think (though some should have figured it out from seeing my Facebook pictures, which I hid from them while I was their teacher) if they learned that their teacher and friend was gay and in a committed same-sex relationship. Would Segawa, who came to know and like me, say that I was disorganized in the head? Most of our students knew about Danny's girlfriend back home and asked questions about her. Would they have scoffed at me or asked similar questions about my boyfriend like those they asked Danny?

Changing the world

Human relationships change the world. While we cannot emphasize enough the importance of empathy, we have to be honest and admit that it can only go so far. A stranger's identity exists in the abstract. To the Ugandans and Gambians I befriended, homosexuals were just that, different people existing in the abstract. They were distant realities they never had to confront face to face. But I was real, and they liked me. And so I ask, what would happen if you put the two together -- the abstract homosexual, and me.

I'm sure that a few of the people I befriended harbour deep-resentment of gays and lesbians. But for the most part, the prejudices struck me as social conditioning: Gays and lesbians were different; they were not who they as Africans were supposed to be. These were people who had been brought up one way and had never been given a real reason to challenge their beliefs. They weren't bad people, rallying out for continued discrimination and oppression of gays and lesbians. I doubt any of them had ever knowingly met a gay or lesbian person, let alone one they came to respect and befriend. There was simply no impetus, or need, to empathize with gays and lesbians or raise questions when their leaders, priests, imams, and parents all vocally condemned homosexuality.

Did I miss an opportunity by not coming out to my students? Maybe. But I still maintain that it would have been inappropriate, and risky. I was first and foremost there to teach law, not as a gay-pride missionary, and I was not prepared to take risks to my safety to do so.

Nevertheless, my experiences in Uganda and Gambia have convinced me that hope is not lost on the African continent for LGBT rights. Sure, the challenges are serious and the factors that have to be confronted are many. But the experiences I've had and friends I made have convinced me that Africans, just like us, respond to human relationships. As they start to realize that their friends are gay, that some of their community workers are gay, and that some people they respect are gay, their sensitizing to the normalcy of homosexuality can begin a profound rethinking of attitudes and prejudices.

But expectations should be tempered; this will not be a sudden shift.

I'm not asking Segawa or my students to protest for legalizing same-sex marriage in Uganda or Gambia, or lead movements to de-criminalize same-sex sexual activities -- though that would be nice. But I don't think it would be wishful thinking for those who now know that their friend is in fact gay, or for those that would know, to defy African expectations in certain situations.

The next time someone says to them that gays are disorganized in the head, or that we are sub-human, not deserving of the same rights, they could look them in the eye and say that they once knew a gay man, whatever oddities he had were unrelated to his sexuality, that come to think of it, they quite liked and respected this man, and he was their friend.

And from that moment, slowly, slowly, the ripples will start to spread.

This piece was first published in the blog Erasing 76 Crimes.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2988873 2013-04-01T08:00:01-04:00 2013-06-01T05:12:01-04:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
The world is changing rapidly. Around the globe cities are being built, reinvented and redefined. New identities are being forged and pride is growing as cities challenge themselves and their inhabitants to be better. Urban living has taken on a new meaning.

Except in Toronto. Here, we have other things on our mind, a result of the city's current ailment: Rob Ford syndrome.

Was Mayor Ford too drunk at the February gala? Did he really grope Sarah Thompson at the March gala? Did he threaten to punch a reporter on public property? Has he spent too much time coaching his high-school football team? Is he reading and driving, double-downing at KFC, and still refusing to send press releases to the Toronto Star? Let's not even get into his legal woes.

It's distraction after distraction, and Toronto is the biggest loser.

You can be the mayor's biggest supporter or his biggest critic. You can think the Toronto Star is using its resources properly or improperly. And you can favour light rail or subways. But one thing on which there can be no disagreement, as time goes on this city accomplishes less and less. We can't even figure out how to permit food trucks. It's ok though, we have hot dogs.

The saga over transit and temper tantrums about the St. Clair streetcars, whose ramps and platforms are stupidly at different heights, highlighted that those steering this city forward are completely incapable at achieving any semblance of cooperation for the greater good. If it couldn't happen over transit -- perhaps the greatest challenge this city faces, no sense of common purpose, of civic unity, can bind our leaders.

Time will not be kind to Toronto. Our streets will continue to be flooded with cars and until our knight in shining armour, Metrolinx, saves the day, solutions to deal with gridlock will evade our partisan councillors and mayor. The only achievement from these lost years will be that we repaved over the bike lanes on Jarvis.

A casino might go up on the waterfront, or it might not -- again, we have to see how the squabbling goes. But one thing will remain the same, Toronto's waterfront will continue to underperform. Was a Ferris wheel that dumb of an idea, or was it that it was shepherded by the mayor's brother? Have you seen the lines for the London Eye?

He won't, but if Rob Ford really cared for Toronto he would see that so long as he remains mayor, the city will remain ungovernable and, by virtue of the progress happening in cities around the world, regress compared to its peers. Yes, he won an election and he is not the only person misbehaving. But with victory came responsibility and he has proven completely incapable of living up to that responsibility. All ideas, good and bad, are being lost in the shuffle as time keeps ticking away.

The majority of headlines generated by Mayor Ford are not of his achievements, but are products of his own shortcomings, shortcomings that if he cared enough, if he was a little less stubborn, he could address and overcome. But the mayor doesn't care because nothing is ever his fault. It's all some conspiracy and he is the perennial victim. The Integrity Commissioner is wrong; the Toronto Star lies.

What will be next week's story? Or will next week be the week when he admits that oh yes, he was drunk at the gala, he just forgot - much like when he was drunk at a Maple Leafs game or was caught in Florida with a joint and forgot about those incidents, until he remembered.

With Rob Ford you can never know what distraction tomorrow will bring. All you do know is that it will be a distraction -- a distraction that further polarizes an already polarized city council and undermines whatever civic fabric binds this city together as it retreats deeper and deeper into pro-Rob Ford camps and anti-Rob Ford camps, losing sight of the challenges we must all confront together.

It is time to put things into further perspective, in the hopes that it creates a sense of urgency, and common understanding that regardless of where you come down politically, the status quo in Toronto is unacceptable; this joke isn't funny anymore. As these lost years continue, and some see Mayor Ford as victim and others see him as villain, he will continue to suck out more and more energy from this city. There should be no mistaking the fact that it is not he who will emerge the biggest loser from this, but all of us.

And why write this piece now, you ask, when nothing is really new? Because at some point the exhaustion just sets in and you have to say enough is enough, we deserve better.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2946292 2013-03-25T12:34:39-04:00 2013-05-25T05:12:01-04:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
It is a seemingly never-ending struggle about how to protect all of God's children from people who believe that doing so unduly infringes on their ability to follow that same God's teachings.

Last year the challenge was in Ontario, where the province's Catholic schools were required to implement an anti-bullying strategy that included gay-straight alliances. This present debate in Manitoba is similar, but greater. Since Manitoba's religious schools receive over 50 per cent of their funding from the province, they are all being mandated to comply with the proposed legislation: Bill 18 -- The Public Schools Amendment Act (Safe and Inclusive Schools).

Stirring up the debate in Manitoba is whether or not the province can mandate all schools to, in the words of the bill, "accommodate pupils who want to establish and lead activities and organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities; and use the name "gay-straight alliance" or any other name that is consistent with the promotion of a positive school environment that is inclusive and accepting of all pupils."

It seems like a benign request. As it turns out, it is anything but.

Religious leaders all throughout Manitoba are speaking out. In Steinbach, Manitoba the city council has passed a resolution asking the province to reconsider the bill because it will infringe on freedom of religion and "undermine their ability to uphold their faith perspective." Winnipeg's Rabbi Avrohom Altein has written to the Premier arguing that these requirements are akin to students rallying around a "right to eat pork" in an orthodox Jewish school.

It's worth pointing out that religious leaders aren't the only ones speaking out. Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, whose Manitoba riding includes Steinbach, has sent a letter to constituents opposing the bill saying it poses an "unconstitutional infringement upon the freedom of religion."

One wonders why this federal MP -- who in his opposition to same-sex marriage argued it would lead to polygamy -- has decided to use his position and stature as a federal Member of Parliament to speak out on a provincial matter.

The Minister aside, the concerns over an erosion of freedom of religion cannot be ignored. Religious freedom, for all, is part of what makes Canada a bastion of democratic and civic freedoms. But anyone who uses the language of rights to advance a cause cannot be dismissive of other rights.

Our rights cannot exist in a vacuum, isolated from the reality around them. Rights engage with other rights. Not only does our Charter have a built-in provision to permit the limiting of rights in certain situations, but also, the transactional nature of our public lives dictates that different rights will come into contact other rights. Those who oppose Bill 18 should read the Charter in its entirety; it doesn't stop at freedom of religion, nor is there a hierarchy of rights.

In this regard, the advocates of religious freedom are unable to appreciate the full context of this issue and as a result, keep falling short. Legislators, parents, and students who are trying to root out bullying and make schools a place where all students can feel comfortable (is this too much to ask for?) are not trying to undermine religious freedom. No bill or municipal ordinance, as far as I can tell, says that all private-religious schools, that don't receive a majority of their funding from public funds, must "accommodate" students. No one is proposing that different faiths tone down the intolerance that so many of them preach, even in publicly funded schools. Show me one example of a religious institution being curbed because it teaches texts that refer to homosexuality as an abomination, or that woman's testimony in court is worth less than a man's.

This subject is becoming tiresome. Religion is not under attack, only narrow-mindedness is. And I worry that the narrow-mindedness in some corners of religion will only further cement its isolation and irrelevance in our civic space, an unfortunate outcome.

Our society is transforming. Our ability to empathize has expanded and we are re-imagining what it means to be compassionate. A determination to be better is leading us across new bridges that even five years ago were unimaginable. If only Amanda Todd and Jamie Hubely could see us now.

These are changes that all Canadians should be proud of, and all Canadians, including devout Canadians, have a constructive role to play in how we bring about these changes. It's sad that an increasingly small but vocal minority sees this as regression, when in fact it really is one of the truest forms of our society's advancement.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2857008 2013-03-12T08:53:56-04:00 2013-05-12T05:12:01-04:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/ deadliest conflict since World War II, the epicentre has been called the "rape capital of the world," and it has produced a long list of accused before the International Criminal Court charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is a far away conflict in a far away land. But unbeknownst to many readers, it's also in your pocket.

You can take out your cell phone now, open up its web browser and type in "congo coltan" to see how Google finishes the search. The first three search options it gave me ended with "mining," "war," or "conflict."

A plethora of factors exists for the fighting and suffering in the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, one factor that keeps fuelling conflict between warlords and governments (foreign and domestic) is the prospect of enrichment. The DRC may have placed dead last in the 2011 UN Human Development Index, but mineral deposits make it one of the richest places on earth. Valued at $24 trillion, Congolese mineral deposits are invaluable to the production of basic electronics, like the cell phone in your pocket and laptop in front of you.

Minerals -- in particular tin, tantalum (coltan), and tungsten -- are mined in conditions no cell-phone user would ever tolerate in his home country. They are smuggled out of the DRC, often by paying bribes, where they take up their anonymous places in the lucrative global supply chain, perpetuating a cycle of killing, devastation, and corruption at home.

BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW



We cannot live without our laptops and no one is giving up a cell phone anytime soon. But what if you were told that after children mined the minerals in your laptop, those minerals were smuggled to the Congolese border by a group of armed rebels who stopped only to pillage villages, while their comrades raped nearly 200 women and four baby boys? It happened, and continues to happen.

Canada will never fix the DRC alone; it's too broken. It can, however, play a small part in ensuring that our way of life, our cell phones and laptops, are not further fuelling this conflict.

Last August, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission implemented rule 1502 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requiring companies to disclose to shareholders and the SEC the origin of the minerals in their products in an attempt to prevent conflict minerals from entering the supply chain. Since Dodd-Frank, the OECD has also gotten on board, publishing the Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. Germany is leading a certification project.

No legislation or certification program exists in Canada and Canadian consumers are in the dark.

There is no excuse for government inaction. We know too much to do nothing.

Besides our knowledge of the conflict and suffering in DRC, we know that human rights concerns have a rightful place in the global supply chain. From the movement against sweatshops and child labour in Nike factories, to the push against blood diamonds in Sierra Leone and the subsequent global certification program the Kimberley Process, consumers, corporations, and markets have all adjusted accordingly.

It is, therefore, entirely unacceptable for a market-based economy that claims to have moral and ethical standards to continue permitting conflict minerals to enter our products unabated.

This is not about halting or slowing the production of our electronics. Nor, more importantly, is this about denying impoverished Congolese the opportunity to enjoy their potential mineral wealth. It is about saying that there are limits to what we as consumers and human beings will tolerate in our supply chains.

In partnership with the U.S.-based Enough Project, Stand Canada is launching the Conflict Free Canada Initiative in order to address the presence of conflict minerals in Canada. This should be the beginning of a Canadian discussion on how we can become more responsible consumers, learn from other initiatives, and enact our own legislation that addresses the ethical concerns surrounding conflict minerals.

To protect Congolese women from being raped, UN troops began what they termed "night flashes," whereby three trucks of peacekeepers spend the night in the bush with their headlights on in order to signal their presence, deter rebels, and reassure civilians. Jeffrey Gettleman has reported that, "Sometimes, when morning comes, 3,000 villagers are curled up on the ground around them."

The link between the joy our toys bring to us and the suffering they bring to others is irrefutable. Such a reality should be unacceptable.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2666518 2013-02-12T00:24:32-05:00 2013-04-13T05:12:01-04:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
For whatever reason, it never bothered me as much as it should have -- as much as it does now, to hear my rabbinics teachers rail against the ills of homosexuality and the person I realized I was. I guess I knew I didn't want to be like them. They could have their thoughts and I could have mine.

But I know not everyone grew up the way I did.

So I think what it would have been like for my 14-year-old self, when I started to discover that I didn't really like girls in that way. Navigating a maze of confusion that no 14-year-old needs, I imagine the added hardship of sitting in church, one of the pillars of my life (confession, I'm Jewish), listening to that priest, to the father, or papa, as they call the pope in Italian.

What would it have done to me to hear my papa talk of my newfound identity as "manipulation of nature," as this Pope has done? A chorus of "amens" as punishing as a judge's gavel at the conclusion of rendering a guilty verdict.

This past December, in one of his most important speeches of the year, Pope Benedict reiterated his belief that the quest for same-sex marriage destroys the very "essence of the human creature." How many hidden wounds did those words tear open? Scars forever under the surface.

The means may have changed, but the abuse is still there. The assault on the dignity of the person is something that this Pope never saw fit to stop -- not while Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it came to thoroughly investigating the incidents of sex-abuse, and not after he became pope, when it came to halting his offensive, public demonization of gays.

I have no stake in the success of the Catholic Church. I wish its followers joy and meaning, and if their religion is their means, then please, go ahead.

But I do have a stake in the coming generation of young people, boys and girls, men and women, being able to grow up without thinking that because their hearts and minds are leading them down a path different from those around them that they are any less deserving of love and acceptance. We are our brothers' keepers and we cannot tolerate gay youth, or gay adults for that matter, thinking that they are anything less than beautiful.

Religion is in a tough spot. The creeping power of secularism, our obsessions with self-indulgence, and new quests for how we nurture our souls have more than chipped away at its place in our world. So it has to claw back, and pick its battles.

Can we not agree, however, that in this enlightened era, when the basic rights and dignity of each individual cannot be up for discussion, that a dogma that actively seeks to employ a hierarchy of being as one of the ways it insulates and distinguishes itself from the changing world around it is more a relic of the past than a path to the future?

Let me pause and say that yes, I know that no religion can lay claim to being a beacon of tolerance for gays and lesbians.

But while rabbis all over the Jewish world, and Conservative and Reform Judaism, strive to reconcile our faith with our morality, and build a more inclusive religion, this pope made one of his battles, his last stands, against the person who, by virtue of his sexuality, seeks to "create oneself" and is therefore "stripped of his dignity as a creature of God."

Thankfully, sentiments within Catholic communities are proving to be more tolerant and enlightened when it comes to gays than they are within the Church hierarchy. We can only hope that those are the voices reaching gay and lesbian Catholic youth.

My 14-year-old self made it out okay. Too many others do not, and some never heal. That may or may not change. Their fate may lie with their new Papa, and we can only hope he gets it right.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2582810 2013-01-31T07:30:44-05:00 2013-04-02T05:12:01-04:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/ Adel Benhmuda is owed an apology from this country, as are his wife, Aisha, and their four children.

Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, doesn't have a long record of handing out apologies. Proud of his ministry and bureaucrats, more often than not he is praising Canada for having "the fairest asylum system in the world." Yet, when it comes to the Benhmuda family, Minister Kenney might wish to reconsider, or more likely, admit that Canada's refugee determination system made a mistake -- a big one.

Benhmuda came to this country in 2000 with a wife and two children and applied for refugee status after fleeing Moammar Gadhafi's Libya. Over the next few years while their claim proceeded through the bureaucracy, the couple had two more children, Canadian citizens.

During their wait the family integrated into Canadian life. Adel worked two jobs. His children went to public school in Mississauga, where his wife volunteered.

Their refugee claim failed and Benhmuda's assertions that he would be tortured in Libya were dismissed. In 2008 the family was deported. Upon arrival in Libya, Adel was arrested and tortured. Two years later he smuggled the family out again where they took shelter in a shipping container at a refugee camp in the port of Malta.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees submitted a 17-page application formally urging Canada to resettle the Benhmudas as refugees, but Benhmuda's application was denied. This was despite Minister Kenney's promise to give the case "every humanitarian consideration, and [deal] with [it] on an accelerated basis."

BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW



The accelerated basis took a further year and a half, and involved a Federal Court judge's harsh rebuke of a biased immigration officer's mishandling of the case in November 2011. In mid-January of this year, after the case was remitted to a new decision maker, the Benhmudas were told that they would be allowed to return to Canada. They are now awaiting their visas.

For Adel, Aisha and their two Libyan-born children, it is a chance to once again build a life in a country they fled to so that they could be safe, and free. For Adam and Omar, their Canadian born sons, it is an opportunity to come home -- to their country of citizenship. It is a second chance -- for the Benhmudas to rebuild a broken life, and for Canada to right a terrible wrong.

This story should never have happened. The Federal Court judgment and recent granting of a new visa confirm that the government was wrong to deport the Benhmudas and block their return to Canada for over two years.

Minister Kenney now has a choice to make. He can ignore the Benhmudas and hide behind the fact that the bureaucratic process eventually corrected its wrongs. He can say and do nothing. This, unfortunately, is what I expect.

What I would like Minister Kenney to do, what he ought to do, is stand up in the House of Commons, admit that his beloved asylum system made a grave error, pledge to use this as a teachable moment, and most importantly, apologize to the Benhmudas for what their family was forced to go through.

The family's lawyer, Andrew Brouwer, told me this story "was unusual in that for once we got to see what happens to the people we deport after they've left our borders." What we saw, he added, signifies "the importance of getting it right in refugee determination."

We may not always get it right. But let us hope that when we get it wrong, when we get it so wrong, that we try to learn from our mistakes.

Brouwer believes that, notwithstanding the presence of "some excellent, experienced and fair visa officers," all visa officers "need better training and oversight" and that "we need better checks and balances on refugee decisions." Without these changes individuals will continue to be deported in circumstances to places where, according to Brouwer, "Canadian authorities should have known they would be at grave risk."

Minister Kenney could ignore all of this. But if he really does care about defending the fairness of Canada's asylum system he should be more horrified than anyone at the magnitude of the mistake that was made and pledge to look into how this happened and ensure it doesn't happen again.

Mr. Brouwer says he cannot comment now on whether Adel and his family are owed an apology. But he did tell me that the final decision confirmed for Adel what he always suspected, "that in Canada, there is justice."

To make Adel's belief in Canadian justice warranted, instead of letting his family's return to this country be the conclusion of an episode we wish to sweep under the rug, let us honestly confront what we subjected him and his family to, pledge to learn from our mistake, welcome them home, and most importantly, say we're sorry.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2500914 2013-01-18T12:08:47-05:00 2013-03-20T05:12:01-04:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
Almost two years later those words seem so tragic, for they were spoken to me in Mali.

Mali, unfortunately, is all over the news these days. This situation did not happen overnight. The day I landed in its capital Bamako the U.S. embassy put out an emergency terror alert warning of an immediate potential attack on westerners throughout the country. I had known that Islamist extremists and Tuareg militants had made large swaths of Mali too dangerous for me to visit, including the famed Timbuktu. That threat went unchallenged, and today we are witnessing what happens when we fail to confront the obvious.

But I do not wish to use this space to lament where we have been, where we are, or where we are going in Mali. Instead, as many of us struggle to locate this country on a map, or associate it with anything but more images of Africans who can't put their house in order, allow me to digress, and as best I can introduce you to the Mali I saw, one of the most enchanting places on earth.

Ours is a crowded planet. Untouched swaths of nature abound and the solace of the natural world is, for the time being, still quite accessible. Less accessible, however, are swaths of the natural world, as it once was, inhabited by a people living as it once was as if it still is. The ability to witness this was one of the main reasons I went to Mali.

In Djenne, the birthplace of Mali's Islamic history and predecessor to Timbuktu, I strolled its labyrinth of mud lanes until I reached its legendary Monday market at the foot of the even more famous Grand Mosque, the largest mud building the world. I've been to many markets in many countries, but never had I seen something like this. It wasn't the baskets, the spices, dried fish or clothing, but the setting that grabbed me. Strolling Djenne's market with the Grand Mosque staring down at you, as you look into faces of the traders arriving from afar, and vendors selling their goods, you get the impression that you really are staring at faces and scenes frozen in time. But for soccer jerseys, what has really changed?

BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW


My next stop was Mopti, which today is a major strategic town in the war. But two years ago, Mopti, a major trading post on the Bani river was my starting point for a trek into Dogon country, an area of south-central Mali inhabited for nearly 1,000 years by the impoverished but rich Dogon people, who until 90 years ago lived in mud huts perched half-way up a giant rock escarpment. It is a land of barren rock and desert, dotted with mud-bricked villages that turn golden as the sun rises and sets, filled with women grounding millet, men sleeping (let's be honest...), and children who don't always realize that they are playing with nothing.

Walking between the villages during the day, I spent my nights listening to Malian music under the stars before going to sleep under a nearly full moon on the roof of a mud hut, patiently waiting for a breeze. As the sun rose I would make my way over the well to watch the women fetch water, carrying it back home on their heads. I was a witness to a way of life that does not have to be any more, but it carries on. The people were kind, warm and generous. There was Gabriel, the laughingstock of his friends because he helps his wife with the cleaning (I defended him, and while doing so offended my guide). And then there were the children with their smiles, who you wonder what will happen to them and what they're growing up to. And that was yesterday.

After recently suggesting that people listen to Malian music, which is extraordinary, a friend chastised me for drawing attention to something so trivial while the country fell apart, saying music is not a priority. I don't accept that.

As we speak of bombs and intervention, of geopolitics and national interest, we cannot be blind to everything else. Mali is not just a strategic concern; it is a nation and a people. And in Mali, music, which is now banned in areas controlled by the Islamists, is everything. It plays from tapes, CDs, computers, cellphones on their last bar of battery, and vehicles too broken to be driving. Mali's musicians have provided a soundtrack to a spirit. It both breaks and adds to the silence and vastness, to the heartaches and happiness. So for the time being while its soundtrack is muted, let us remember and celebrate Mali for its music.

As I wandered between the Dogon villages, far away, Japan was cracking at the seams after a tsunami threatened its nuclear reactors at Fukushima. When I told one of the village chiefs what was happening there he was stunned. He paused and looked at me, "Life is very challenging." Yes, it is.

Travelling through Mali is a lesson in life. It's a lesson in living history, in resilience in the face of incredible challenges, and of values that refuse to give way. And it's a reminder that in this small world of ours, where we take for granted that our way of life is what matters most, we don't know everything and we certainly do not have a monopoly on being.

When calm is restored I hope you will have the chance to experience all this and more, in Mali, the land before time.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2308470 2012-12-17T08:52:33-05:00 2013-02-16T05:12:01-05:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
If I ever thought about them keeping me safe, it was probably as they lined us up during fire drills.

Now, as I pore over the images and stories out of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut I find myself wondering, would they have taken a bullet for me? If a madman wandered down our halls armed with multiple guns, would these teachers have done all they could to usher me and my classmates to safety, more concerned about someone else's family than their own? Would they have barricaded us behind doors and wiped away our tears, putting our fear before theirs?

And Mrs. Clein, our principal who read us stories every Friday, would she have stormed into the halls instead of hiding under her desk waiting for the police?

These are questions most of us never thought we'd have to consider. My impression of curriculum night and parent-teacher interviews is that they are opportunities for teachers to showcase themselves as educators. I wonder now if some of them reassuringly include the fact that in the event of a parent's worst nightmare -- not being there to protect one's child from imminent danger -- they will step in.

Victoria Soto was a 27-year-old first-grade teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It is reported that upon hearing the gunshots she hid her students in closets and cabinets. When the murderer entered her classroom, she told him the students were at gym; he killed her and moved on. Her students, other people's children, were safe.

As reported by AFP, Mary Ann Jacob and two colleagues barricaded themselves in a library closet with 18 fourth graders. They comforted them, tried to distract them, and kept them safe.

First-grade teacher Kaitlin Roig hid with her 15 first graders in a locked washroom. Hearing the gunfire, thinking they were next and not wanting gunshots to be the last things they heard, she told them she loved them as she hushed their cries. When the police came to rescue them, she refused to unlock the door, insisting they slide their badges underneath and that if they really were the police they would have the keys to the lock. They did. The students were safe.

No one goes to teacher's college because he or she wants to hide with children in a dark closet, or step into the path of an armed madman. But we don't choose the society we live in, and sadly, this comes with the job. So teachers do so rightly (I feel obliged to say) armed not with guns, but with the kindness, compassion, and sense of duty that can only be found in one's heart.

It was recently announced that my elementary and middle school is closing. This inspired a trip down memory lane for me and my friends. Naturally, part of our memories focused on teachers. We recounted teachers we took advantage of, teachers we laughed at because they had funny names or funny voices, and teachers whose idea of discipline (thankfully, in retrospect) was stricter than ours. On the whole, we were very good to our teachers, but not always.

As some of my friends become teachers, and I as I keep in touch with some of mine, I have also learned that grief can be delivered equally, or even more harshly, from parents. It has caused a few teachers I know to either switch schools or leave the profession.

Teachers, like all of us, are imperfect. The reality of their job and human nature dictates that sometimes we focus on that imperfection.

But on Friday, in a small corner of the United States, after parents who didn't think twice kissed their children goodbye, entrusting their most precious possession, our most precious possession, into the hands of others, teachers, in the most heroic and tragic ways possible, reminded us why they are so special.






]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2261045 2012-12-07T23:51:50-05:00 2013-02-06T05:12:01-05:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/ spotlight on the International Criminal Court. Statements coming out of Ottawa and Washington have paint the prospect of Palestinian membership in the ICC, which it is now entitled to seek, as unleashing a Pandora's box of "lawfare" against Israel; a new weapon in the Palestinian arsenal that must be stopped at all costs.

However, positions castigating Palestinian membership in the ICC are premised on a flawed understanding of how the Court functions and a failed appreciation for the role it plays in the world.

In seeking to prevent Palestinian membership in the Court, critics are doing the ICC a disservice by tarnishing it as a quasi-nefarious institution, whose powers must be resisted as it seeks to employ its sinister motives. This could not be farther from the truth. The ICC is not a weapon hovering over us, an ideological foe, or a stumbling block to securing our foreign-policy objectives. In fact, it is the opposite.

The ICC is an institution, the culmination of a movement that began in the ashes of the Second World War, whose purpose is to ensure that when it comes to perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, accountability trumps impunity. It is a permanent testament to the idea and pursuit of global justice.

Surveying the cases before the ICC one is confronted by masterminds of the genocide in Darfur, commanders who relied on child soldiers and perfected the use of rape as a weapon of war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and those who engineered post-election violence in Kenya and the Ivory Coast, among others.

Israeli and American fears that the Court would turn into a political institution in how it takes on cases, a primary reason why neither state has joined the Court, have proven to be unfounded. When I was researching this very topic in Israel in 2008, Israeli law professor Yoram Shachar told me, "Has the prosecutor gone completely off or behaved irresponsibly in the way some have predicted? The answer is absolutely not." Its conduct since then is a further affirmation of that statement and there is no reason to think that the ICC's second decade will be any different.

By virtue of it being "international," those attempting to prevent Palestinian membership inherently and misleadingly equate the ICC with the hyper-political UN General Assembly. The Court's opinions are legal, not political.

Another misconception revolves around the ease with which the ICC can launch an investigation, the first step to an Israeli in The Hague. The ICC is meant to be a court of last resort, not one that usurps national jurisdiction. As such, per article 17 of its statute, it can only investigate situations where the home state is either unwilling or unable to carry out its own investigation into the alleged situation.

Israel's robust military investigation system and judicial oversight suggests that this would be a difficult hurdle for the ICC to overcome, posing a major obstacle to any ICC investigation into Israeli conduct.

Another point critics forget is that the ICC is a double-edged sword. Palestinian membership in the ICC also subjects Palestinians to the Court's jurisdiction. Any state party to the Court, including Canada, could refer a situation to the Prosecutor requiring it to investigate the Palestinians' indiscriminate launching of rockets into Israeli towns and cities. It would also be far less difficult to ascertain that the Palestinian Authority is unable or unwilling to conduct its own investigations than its Israeli counterparts.

Last, there is a very simple way for Israelis, or anyone else, to avoid prosecutions before the ICC: don't commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. The ICC does not preclude a state from defending its territory and citizens. It does not prevent Israeli military action.

Those critics who argue against Palestinian membership in the ICC and who view it as a step in the wrong direction undermine the institution and call into question their commitment to its goals and objectives, which deserve support devoid of political considerations.

Palestinian membership in the ICC, and for that matter Israeli and American membership, is further affirmation of the Court's values. That is to be celebrated, not lamented.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2155950 2012-11-19T08:57:56-05:00 2013-01-19T05:12:01-05:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
Yet, I'm starting to realize that high-quality health care might not be enough. If I get the wrong disease, I might also need a marketing team.

It's November. That means that all around the world, thanks to some clever Australians, men are growing moustaches as part of the Movember movement to raise funds and awareness for prostate cancer. It's become so common that I don't even look twice when I see the plethora of unsightly upper-lip lines. The creepy has become charity.

Movember has made a very important contribution to men's health. It has taken a disease that afflicts too many men and used that as a means for starting an international conversation about men's health issues. As important as the $125.7 million that Movember raised around the world last year ($42 million in Canada), is the fact that 75 per cent of participants discussed their health with family, friends or colleagues during the month.

In addition to Movember, November is also Crohn's and Colitis Awareness Month. But most of us probably didn't know that; you can't grow two moustaches at once.

Then there is Epilepsy, which triggers life threatening seizures, and as reported by the Globe and Mail, affects 1 in 100 Canadians, a third of whom aren't receptive to drugs and treatment. Epilepsy Canada is having a difficult time finding a spokesperson though, and in a typical year raises just $500,000. FYI, Epilepsy Awareness Month is in March.

We're all busy. Our time and money is limited. I get that. We can't be heroes to every cause. The current era is one where a brand name is everything (can you even still buy RC Cola?). But what happens when you are diagnosed with an disease that can't come up with a cool marketing campaign? Or can't find celebrity endorsement?

Blog continues below slideshow...



It's inevitable that charitable causes are going to compete for our attention, but the implications are worth considering in a society we don't value someone afflicted with one disease over another. Unsuccessful brands go bankrupt. Are we comfortable if charities start going the same way? Sure, in the past there were some that were more successful than others, but now, with the onset of the super charity, the mega corporation, what happens to the ma and pa shop?

Epilepsy Canada (EC) is trying to compete. Executive Director Gary Collins told me that EC has completely revamped its marketing campaign to be more competitive. He admits that as a result of Movember and the Pink Ribbon campaign, groups like EC "have to be smarter at rallying people around our cause."

An advertising copywriter I know who is participating in Movember for the second time, and wished to remain anonymous, believes that charities can be smarter and that help is available, even for free. "Advertising agencies take advantage of opportunities like this to create something interesting and innovative enough to win them advertising awards."

The copywriter believes that charities have to compete just as regular consumer brands, pointing out they are "fighting for the same dollars from the same pockets." When I asked if he felt this was right, he answered, "Whether this is right or wrong is not up to me to say." Though he continued, "If these campaigns are getting money out of pockets for a good cause, what's wrong with that?"

When you put it that way, it's hard to disagree.

But a part of me still thinks it trivializes who we are. Cancer should not have to be a product. A different friend of mine has suggested another disease might wish to try out 'Febrowary', where we all grow unibrows. It's a joke, but not entirely. After Movember, it's hard to tell what will come next.

Mr. Collins, agreeing with the copywriter, calls it "human nature" that diseases and charities have to compete for our attention like running-shoe brands. But it's important, as we tread down this path, to keep the implications in mind, to try and add some long-term perspective to what's unfolding.

Movember, along with a few other of the more fortunate charitable campaigns, is a behemoth. In its success, which is to be commended, Movember leaves a wake of other, less fortunate charities, patients, doctors and researchers. As this trend will inevitably continue to grow, I'm not entirely sure we should be comfortable with that.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2087949 2012-11-07T09:47:44-05:00 2013-01-07T05:12:01-05:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
Like so many others around the world, I've spent my (young) adult life obsessing over American politics. I grew up watching the West Wing and imagined myself working in President Bartlet's White House. I spent my undergraduate degree studying history, taking as many American history courses as I could.

And now, I am happy.

I am happy because America, or more accurately the idea that is America, the promise that is America, which has captivated me all these years, was given four more years to work itself out under a President I believe in.

Very few nations signify what America does. It is the biggest and most important never-ending experiment in democracy. As our barometer, we non-Americans are in the unique position of being able to project our hopes and aspirations onto American democracy. We see in America what we want to see in the ideas behind it, because we want to believe that those ideas can work as we build our own democracies at home.

It is against this backdrop, against my projection onto America of what democracy can and should be, that I view President Obama's re-election as crucial, but also, thankfully, unremarkable.

President Obama's re-election is crucial because it removes the opportunity for cynics, those who refused to believe in the promise behind his election in 2008, from being able to say 'I told you so'. The young are not as naïve as they'd thought. Sure, President Obama's first term has had its disappointments, but his loss last night would have severely, if not fatally, undermined the promise of 2008 and the message behind the man. Instead it has been affirmed.

More importantly, I see last night's election as unremarkable and would contend that it has to be seen this way. Had Governor Romney and his backers won, that would have been remarkable. The contrast in the campaigns - what each stood for and the values they sought to enshrine, make this election result feel natural. It had to end this way.

The America that emerged last night, however divided, was one that unequivocally declared that those individuals who try to earn the public's trust by demeaning women have no place in that society. The America that emerged last night is one that said it is more about that you love than who you love. And the America that emerged last night is one that recognizes that a photograph of a country club's membership is not representative of the nation. The American tableau has changed in so many ways.

After losing in 2008 and again last night, fear, to me, has come out the biggest loser. The re-affirmation of inclusivity at the expense of the 'other' - an ephemeral unknown that apparently threatens a way of life familiar to only a few, will hopefully decisively put an end to the fear-mongering, race-baiting, homophobia, sexism, anti-immigrant and xenophobia that has become too mainstream in America.

Hate has no place in a nation's civil discourse and anger has no right to poison it.

Had those values won last night (let me state that I do not believe Governor Romney shares those values, only that he so cowardly refused to banish them from his following) that would have been the remarkable, and tragic, turn of events for the world's most important democracy.

There will be debates and division. How the nation brings its fiscal house in order and continues on the path to economic recovery remain to be seen. I for one hope that a more serious discussion over the President's drone policy will ensue, and that climate change, a non-issue until last week, emerges as a priority.

Yet regardless of the expected discord, last night America moved closer to achieving the ideals that I and so many others have projected on it. And while some Americans might rush to dismiss the importance of this conclusion, wanting to retain the exclusive rights to having a say in the direction their country takes, they cannot ignore the important leadership role their country plays - by how it acts, but also in the image it projects.

Thankfully after last night, those Americans need not worry. For when so many of us look from afar, we once again like what we see.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2053118 2012-11-01T12:14:22-04:00 2013-01-01T05:12:01-05:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
On an official visit to Canada last week, the speaker found herself in a bit of a tiff with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird. In a discussion on "Citizenship, Identity and Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in a Globalised World" at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, Minister Baird had the gall to call out Uganda for its persecution of sexual minorities and specifically referred to the murder of gay-rights activist David Kato in 2011.

Speaker Kadaga protested Minister Baird's "arrogance" and "promoting homosexuality." She continued her upbraid, "If homosexuality is a value for the people of Canada they should not seek to force Uganda to embrace it. We are not a colony or a protectorate of Canada," and then requested for the discussion to return to the topic.

This was not before she suggested a double standard among Western activists, by pointing out that 39 American states prohibit gay marriage.

Upon returning to Uganda, Speaker Kadaga pledged to bring Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill back before Parliament and specifically declared, "We are not a colony of Canada."

Uganda is free to invoke sovereignty as much as it likes, as it dismisses what is thankfully becoming a growing chorus of condemnation to its state-sanctioned persecution of its gay population. But it is self-righteous disillusionment to think that by withstanding calls for ceasing the active persecution of a segment of its population it is somehow at the avant-garde of the struggle against neo-colonialism, or neo-imperialism. Sovereignty is not merely a shield, it also brings responsibilities.

There is a reason that the spotlight of LGBT rights is focused on states Uganda, Nigeria, Cameroon, The Gambia and not the United States. I do not want to denigrate at all the struggle for full LGBT equality in the United States. Homophobia is too prevalent in America, and it deserves our condemnation. Next week's election results might even make the cause more urgent. But unfortunately, America is not a worst offender.

There can be no mistaking the difference between a state wrestling with how and to what extent it affords equality to its citizens and the state where there is no debate, only consensus on persecution. And by persecution we are not talking about denials of federal benefits, but of imprisonment.

John Baird did not call out Speaker Kadaga because he wants Kampala to be the next big destination for same-sex weddings. He called out Speaker Kadaga because today, in the community of nations, where we all theoretically equal, it is anathema to the concept of human dignity that a state should sanction the persecution of a group of its own citizens for no reason other than who they are.

Standing up against that is not colonialism; it's decency.

Canada will not be any better off if Uganda stops threatening its gays. There is no colonial national interest here. Securing gay rights is not a means to plunder Ugandan sugar cane. It is time for the bigots in the developing world to stop seeing this issue as a conspiracy theory and accept that their states and communities, like all others, can and must do more to live up to basic ideals of fairness, equality and above all, dignity.

By returning to her country and continuing to spread hateful vitriol while cloaking herself in the language of third-world liberation, Speaker Kadanga proves the sad truth that some of those who have emerged from the shackles of colonialism have failed to learn one of its main lessons: there can be no hierarchy of being.

Uganda has a long way to go and cannot attempt to distract attention on itself by pointing to other nations that can also do more for LGBT equality.

Minister Baird was right to bring up sexuality under the heading "Citizenship, Identity and Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in a Globalised World." In this globalized world diversity must be inclusive. It cannot be a tool that facilitates hate and persecution by allowing governments to invoke it as a means to avoid the responsibility they have to protect their citizens.





]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2023018 2012-10-26T12:06:41-04:00 2012-12-26T05:12:01-05:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
These are not abstract questions. Their answers reflect our understanding of core beliefs and ideals; they reflect our humanity.

This week has seen an upsurge in violence between Israelis and Palestinians. In 24 hours, 79 rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel. Condemnation of the rockets was largely muted.

In a provocative essay in response to the silence on the rockets falling, Arsen Ostrovsky asks, "My country is under attack, do you care?" The responses to his piece have been disturbing.

Many have excoriated Ostrovsky for trying to draw attention to danger of rocket fire from Gaza without alluding to Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands, the humiliation and suffering it brings, as well as Israel's partial siege of Gaza (I say partial because Gaza now has an open crossing with Egypt).

It is almost as if we can only suffer together.

This space does not need to be a lesson in international humanitarian law, otherwise known as the laws of war, or of international criminal law. But let there be no mistake -- the deliberate targeting of civilians by rocket attack is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This conclusion was endorsed by the Goldstone Commission of Inquiry into the 2008-09 war in Gaza.

There is no provision in the Geneva Conventions or the Rome Statute to the effect that one's position as an occupying power comes at the expense of the protection afforded to civilians under international law.

I am a liberal. I am a vehement supporter and defender of international human rights and dignity, and of self-determination. I have written publicly and critically of Israel's treatment of Palestinians; commitment to beliefs and ideals demands I do no less.

Thus, in one sense, I share many sympathies with those who have reacted critically to Ostrovsky's piece. On the other hand, we differ greatly. For my beliefs apply to all peoples. Israelis living under the threat of rocket attack from Gaza, Russians in and around Chechnya, ethnic Sudanese living in Darfur, and others, are no less deserving of rights and protection than are you and I. Those who refuse to accept this, and insist on viewing the world along a continuum of rights and dignity demonstrate a dangerous intellectual cowardice and hypocrisy that threatens to undo an already-stressed foundation of rights and dignity. Two wrongs can exist independent of one another.

Israel's occupation of Palestine is wrong. But a denunciation of illegal-Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians need not be prefaced by a resuscitation of each ill that Israel has inflicted on Palestinians. Unearthing violations of the basic rights and dignity of any group must be a standalone exercise, not an academic symposium.

Our world has become too obsessed with balance. The result has been the neutering of objectivity and abandonment of the rigours demanded by honesty. This fixation on qualifying everything undermines the absolute nature of the rights and dignity that are meant to protect not just Palestinians and Israelis, but also you and I.

Situations as complex and nuanced as Israel-Palestine demand critical engagement and thoughtful analysis. Ostrovsky's piece ventures into the political, and I don't always agree with what he says. However, affirming the right of children to go to school without rocket fire does not require the same level of intellectual curiosity as does pinpointing the 'biggest' impediment to peace.

Attempting to showcase one's penchant for true understanding, by misappropriating nuance -- as do the many who attempt to justify the rocket fire and ignore its illegality and consequences, by rooting it in Israel's occupation, only makes one come across as intellectually primitive and ideologically vindictive. Sometimes there is no grey zone.

Victimhood must be inclusive. To suggest otherwise opens a Pandora's box of physical and intellectual consequences that are unacceptable if we truly believe what we think we do.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1911459 2012-09-26T08:03:09-04:00 2012-11-26T05:12:02-05:00

Josh D. Scheinert http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-d-scheinert/
Unfortunately, with one particular group of world leaders, in an area where they desperately need a makeover, one will probably not be forthcoming.

Paul Biya, the President of Cameroon will not stand before the General Assembly and proclaim that his nation's persistent arrest and imprisonment of homosexuals, and those accused of acts as benign as sending "gay text messages" will come to an end. He will not have the courage to stand up before his fellow African heads of state and proclaim that state-sanctioned bigotry and persecution of gays throughout Africa must become a relic of the past.

Likewise, Yoweri Museveni, the President of Uganda, will not have the courage to declare that his nation's witch-hunts against gays are over.

President Museveni, has stated that he resents the promotion of homosexuality but that he does not support discrimination or persecution of homosexuals. However, as leader of nation where a leading gay activist was murdered, and where a Parliament continues to consider increasing prison sentences for homosexual "offences" from a mere 14 years to life, President Museveni will not have the courage to challenge his fellow African leaders that while they might not favour gay lifestyles, that does not bestow upon them a right to intimidate and imprison their gay citizens.

This is not about an imposition of Western-centric views. Courageous Africans, struggling to live their lives openly and honestly, like those who recently held Uganda's first gay pride, are not infiltrators, spreading a Western-European order to undermine traditional ways of African life. There are people. No more and no less.

Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga are two Malawian men who were arrested in December 2009 after holding an engagement ceremony. An international outcry and a concerted effort by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon led to their release in May 2010. In May of this Malawi's President, Joyce Banda, pledged to overturn her country's anti-homosexuality laws.

Do Presidents Biya and Museveni consider Malawi and President Banda less African now? Has she capitulated to Western demands amidst an erosion of Malawi's African culture? Or has President Banda come to a realization that her African colleagues have, for the most part, failed to arrive at. Perhaps African culture, like Western culture, is able to evolve and humanize itself from a narrow and harsh past.

Zimbabwe recently arrested a male couple and charged them under the state's sodomy laws. Earlier this month a 28-year-old man in Nigeria was sentenced to three months imprisonment for gay sex. And of course there is Operation Bulldozer in The Gambia, currently seeking to eradicate murderers, pedophiles, drug traffickers and of course, homosexuals, from that country.

Are Africans who defend their cultural heritages against Western "cultural imperialism" willing to accept incidents like those above as logical extensions of their own culture and stand by them? Is this a cruelty they are willing to live with? Will they stand not before Western human rights activists but before their fellow Africans and say this is the price they must pay?

One need not look to the distant past to see why African nations have reason to be weary of Western dictates on how to structure societies, and which values are to be protected -- especially while we still struggle with our ongoing national experiments with liberalism.

However, it would not be a betrayal of their heritage if Presidents Biya, Musseveni, and others stood up and declared with the same courage and leadership of President Banda that their nations were no longer going to sanction the persecution of their gay citizens.

In Africa they talk about "ubuntu," the interconnectedness of the self with the community, and the notion that the success of one is tied to the success of the other. It is a beautiful concept that when properly practised can make the world a better and more humane place.

This week certain world leaders have a unique opportunity to do something so unexpected: they can be true leaders, give voices to the voiceless, demonstrating the true value and dignity brought to life by ubuntu.]]>