Canada's Role in International Human Rights

     Where is Canada in the promotion and protection of human rights on the international stage?  Being Canadian, and concerned with human rights, this is an area of interest to me.  Historically Canada has had a reputation of being a peacekeeping nation, interested in maintaining peace, not waging war, and a bulwark for the protection of human rights.  We frequently lead the way in the development of charters and treaties for the protection of human rights worldwide and were known as the land of human rights.  Our efforts in these areas earned us a voice on the international stage, a voice well beyond any influence we would have had as a result of size or economic power.  We were granted this voice because not only had we consistently provided contributions of value but we had also demonstrated, through both our financial and human contributions, that we held by what we said.  Many Canadians, myself included, pride ourselves on this reputation. 

     In the last 10 to 20 years, however, Canada’s attitude appears to have changed.  There is less talk about keeping peace and more about waging war.  This has been noteworthy enough to prompt texts such as Noah Richler’s “What we talk about when we talk about war”.  Our attitude towards human rights appears to have changed as well.  To my observations we do not appear to be as concerned with other nations’ behaviours in this area as the reputation which I identify with suggests we should be as we proceed, for instance, in promoting trade agreements with countries known for their human rights offences, think Columbia and China, and refusing support for those suffering from attacks on their basic human rights, think Canada’s November 29, 2012, membership in the group of only 9 nations to not just abstain but to actually vote against Palestine’s application for non-member observer status with the United Nations (UN News Press Document).  This apparent disconnect between the reputation in which I pride myself and our current behaviour disturbs me, so when the opportunity presented itself on Friday evening to hear Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, speak on Canada’s role in international human rights I made sure to attend, interested to hear what someone more involved and with more experience had to say on the topic. 

     What Mr. Neve had to say was not reassuring.  He summarized Canada’s influential history in the development of institutions for the protection of human rights and our historical participation in actions to support these institutions.  He discussed our reputation, sharing with us his experience of 20 years past where, upon learning that one of the representatives sent to help with his country was Canadian, a member of the state in crisis stood up and cried out that all would be well since a Canadian, a representative of the “land of human rights”, was there to help.  Mr. Neve then discussed how this has all changed.  How more recently the reaction of a U.S. marine to hearing that a Canadian was investigating human rights issues was to ask “what the hell are you guys doing?”.  How now Canada is viewed as being a partisan nation siding with Israel, that this influences our approach to human rights issues in this area of the world, and how this partisanship on the part of Canada is being used by some to attempt to explain Canada’s recalcitrance in condemning recent actions by Syria, as well as refusal to support Syria’s referral to the ICC.  He brought up the example of Canada’s lack of intervention with Omar Khadr, an individual taken, as a 15 year old and therefore a child, from the battlefield in Afghanistan, then held and tortured in Guantanamo Bay, as a perplexing example of a serious lack of follow through by a country which had originally been one of the strongest supporters on the charter on the rights of the child and the treatment of child soldiers.  He mentioned how Canada, originally a supporter of the charter on prevention of violence against women, has not yet instituted federal level assessment structures as is mandated by that charter.  He brought up our reaction to the recent exposure of our poor treatment of our aboriginals, and the abrogation of their human rights that this included.  How we have yet to ratify the charter on the rights of aboriginals, and when concerns about our domestic behaviour are brought up as a potential matter for concern our reaction is to deal out personal and/or unrelated insults to the individual delivering the message of concern.  How we have used jurisdictional technicalities as an excuse to afford differential rights as a basis of race stating outright that aboriginal people whose management falls under federal jurisdiction because of this do not have the same rights to education as individuals whose education falls under provincial jurisdiction.  He pointed out that a poor human rights record at home undermines the value of any attempt to contribute to human rights issues worldwide.  He mentioned our decline in participation in peacekeeping missions, and the progressive melding of our approach to human rights issues, aide, and trade, which has culminated now in the most recent federal budget with the relegation of the Canadian International Development Agency to a section within the Department of Trade.  The list of examples of Canada’s declining involvement in the promotion and protection of human rights was not limited by an end to the examples but by a lack of time, presenting a depressing picture of a country once strong in the promotion and protection of human rights now descended to one weak in moral fibre and concerned not with the well being of the human race but more with its own individual, short term, material gain.   This is not the Canada I am proud of, nor the one I wish us to continue to be. 

     So what can we do?  Is it a lost cause?  Should we pack up and run, abandoning the sinking ship?  No, I do not think so.  All is not lost, as Mr. Neve stated at the end of his presentation.  We can still change.  We can, as a country, come back and return our support to human rights.  We did it before, we can do it again, and if we do perhaps this last twenty years or so will be seen simply as a little blip.  But how do we do this?  How do we get the momentum swinging the other way, back towards protection of human rights?  Well, our country is still a democracy.  The citizens do have a voice.  If we raise it loud enough, perhaps the government will start to listen.  But to get that voice raised the population needs to know what’s going on, and they need to have some way to raise it.  So…. follow along with what’s happening, both at home and in the world.  Agencies tracking human rights issues, such as Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, and Amnesty International, often have news centres (Human Rights Watch News, UN News Centre, UN Daily News, Amnesty International News, Amnesty International Canada News) which regularly share international happenings.  The larger Canadian newspapers, such as the Globe and Mail, are a good source for Canadian events, as well as a Canadian perspective on worldwide events.  All of the above have facebook pages which makes it even easier to receive updates…. all a person has to do is “like” the facebook page and the updates are sent directly to the individual’s news feed.  And really, news from Human Rights Watch or the UN is probably a far more valuable contribution to our news feed than the current sales being offered by Future Shop!  If you see something of concern, follow up on it.  What is Canada doing about this?  If the answer is nothing, then write.  Write to your MP, the representatives of other parties (NDP, Liberal Party, Green Party), the Prime Minister's office .  Tell them what the issue is and that you think Canada should be doing something about it.  Or if our country has become involved, and you approve, tell them so, this will encourage them to continue to be involved.  If you haven’t the time to find out what Canada is doing about the issue, write and ask.  Whatever you write the letter doesn’t need to be long, the goal is to indicate a desire for Canada to be involved, not to propose a solution.  Once you have written, talk to your friends.  Share what you’ve found out, what you’ve done, and why (because Canada has been moving away from taking a stand on issues of human rights, and you want that to change).  On your facebook pages provide an easy way for your friends to follow suite – provide the background information, information on what you wrote, and the addresses that they could send letters to if they would like to do the same.  The more letters our government gets, the more likely it is to listen.  Not just on a particular issue, but on the overall approach to human rights issues.  Eventually, if they receive enough letters on enough issues, they might start to get the impression that Canadians care, and we expect our government to care too.  And slowly, perhaps, the momentum will shift, and we may, just may, move that pendulum back to the side of peace, and human rights, and respect for all of earth’s inhabitants.  

India

March 21, 2013, and I have been back home for almost a week, after spending two weeks in India.  For those of you who have been reading my posts from the outset, yes, this is somewhat earlier than planned.  To my Thai friends who are likely laughing at me, no, it was not the heat that chased me away.  Nor was it the lack of ice for my drinks, which would likely have all of you heading back to Thailand within a week.  My son became ill, so it was wise of us to leave, but I was not sad to have to make this decision.  And my lack of regret about this stemmed not from discomfort from heat or lack of cold drinks, but from a source far more subtle, and more meaningful.  It stemmed, I think, from finding myself in an environment where I did not feel safe, in an arena where an aura of hopelessness prevailed, and in a society where one of the most basic assumptions of my society, that of a general concern of the citizens, and government, for the care and well-being of the other members of that society, was not necessarily valid.

We started our visit to India in Mumbai and one of the first things that struck me about this city as we drove towards our hotel was the decrepit nature of the areas through which we were driving.  Buildings looked as if they had been bombed, even though this was not a war zone.  Hollow-shelled multi-story buildings with missing sides were rampant and there were piles of collapsed building materials lining the streets. One and two storey structures looked as though they were about to collapse and were pocketed with holes, even though there were plenty of materials readily available for their repair.  An aura of destitution prevailed, an impression of a certain lack of concern, and lack of pride, with the living environment.  Although I was not in the most well to do areas of Mumbai and the other cities I visited I was not in the slums either, this lack of care was not necessary.  I have been to many other places where poverty is part of the status quo and have witnessed that this does not equate the lack of pride of possession demonstrated here.  That being said, there often is at least some degree of a lack of pride of possession demonstrated somewhere in most larger cities, however, typically this is isolated to specific, relatively small, areas which can be avoided.  In India it was the opposite, with the areas of neglect being the status quo, and areas reflecting pride of ownership or possession being the minority.    

The impression of a lack of care for, well, anything, extended beyond buildings.  People seemed to care little for each other also.  Any interactions involving an individual wanting something, and something else possibly being in the way, involved competition.  People would literally push other people out of the way to get in front of them in “line”.  Non-human obstructions, such as inanimate objects and animals, were routinely kicked out of the way, perhaps because they are typically shorter and more in foot range than hand range.  With regards to interacting with each other, in general people would not offer assistance to others unless there was something in it for them, and there was a strong expectation of payment for any assistance that was rendered, no matter how minor, and regardless of whether or not said assistance was solicited.  The most basic example of this of course is the expectation of payment to the women who hang around the washrooms informing patrons where items such as the water for washing are located.  My son made the mistake of not fulfilling this expectation one time, resulting in a very irate woman waving her broom at him as he hurriedly walked away towards me, in quite a state of confusion.  My impression of the “only for myself” orientation does not result solely from irritation at constantly being expected to pay for minor little niceties of human interaction though, it is well acknowledged by the locals that one of the more counter-productive approaches to interacting with an individual from whom one requires something is to try to plead your case on the basis of need as this will result in an “it’s not my problem” response and is fairly guaranteed to, at best, lengthen, and at worst, completely obstruct, whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.  This I did also witness, between Indian residents, as I was myself waiting very patiently, and unpleadingly, for my request to be evaluated….   

The lack of care for possessions extended beyond the decrepit nature of the more public buildings to the possessions and businesses of the individuals.  As I mentioned, I have travelled to other places populated by people who do not have much; this does not prevent them from exhibiting care for what they have.  The products in their roadside stalls are nicely laid out, and handled with care.  Their shacks are clean, their footwear nicely lined up.  This was not the case in India.  The market products were more often than not displayed in a large jumble.  The products themselves were not transported or moved with care, I saw several times products, including food products, being unceremoniously dumped out of one container onto the ground, and then tossed into the next location, a process which undoubtedly was part of the cause of the poor state of the product.  In Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam, other places I have visited where people make do with more primitive accommodations, those accommodations still somehow exhibited a sense of pride of ownership…. they were whole, one could tell the leaves or other material on the roof were replaced as needed, there were no collapsed building materials next to buildings which could use those materials to shore up the collapsing walls or roof under which the inhabitants were living.  This was not the case in India.  I did not enter any of these dwellings while I was in India, so perhaps the care or pride of possession which is so important for human progress is demonstrated there instead of on the outside, but when one sees countless and repeated instances of living accommodations which are falling apart, which are not whole, when there are materials lying about which could accomplish this right there, there is an impression received of a certain lack of ownership on the part of the inhabitants. 

           In addition to the rather depressing pervasive air of a lack of concern with their environment and with each other, and perhaps resulting at least in part from this attitude, I felt distinct concern about my safety.  It is rather ironic that in the week I have been home there have been several articles in the Times of India relating to just this aspect of Indian society…… India shocked by another gang rape, this time a Swiss tourist, UK tourist jumps from hotel to escape sexual assault, however, my concerns weren’t necessarily related solely to a danger of being raped, or resulting from a concern that I would be singled out because I was a foreigner.  I simply, in general, felt that it was not safe for a female to be out and about on their own.  Period.  I have been to many places in Canada and the United States, to Rome, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Mexico, Costa Rica, Jamaica, and in all of these places I have felt that generally it is not irresponsible of me to think that I can go out and take a look around on my own without running a substantial risk to my safety.  This was not the case in India.  In some places, such as the tourist area of Udaipur when it was daytime and crowded, or along the main, extremely busy, street by our hotel in Mumbai, again when it was daytime and very busy, I felt as though I could wander around with relatively low levels of sensitivity for safety, not because others would look out for me but because everyone is so distracted they don't have the time or attention to devote to mounting an actual attack.  But wandering one street down?  No.  So in general, in India, I felt that I was not safe, whereas in other places I have had the impression that I generally am safe, provided I stay out of “bad” areas.  Furthermore, in other places I have been, I have felt that for the most part I can ask somebody for help and provided I don’t choose to ask someone who appears as though they are on the edges of society it is most likely that they will try to help me.  In India I distinctly felt that I was putting myself in more danger asking for help than I would be in if I were to remain in an anonymous state of needing help.  What is it that made me feel this way?  It is hard to say, but I know of a couple of factors that likely contributed….

          First is the low status of women.  An observant or sensitive person can feel this, it is quite pervasive.  I was somewhat uncomfortable being on my own in an environment where my concerns and state of being were not considered to be of value.  And I was on my own.  I saw virtually no women in the public areas during my time in India, so the usual advice for women travelling to countries with male/female interaction restrictions, of  solicit help and information from the females, was not applicable.  With regards to soliciting aid from a male, well, since males are the primary source of the danger to females in India, the wisdom of this approach was questionable.  Not to mention the societal taboos against a female initiating contact with an unknown male, and the messages doing so would therefore send. 

          Next, and perhaps because of this low status, women appear to be routinely attacked in this society, and this does not appear to generate much concern in the overall populace.  Why do I say this? First off because the attacks are so commonplace, and secondly because when such things are written up in the news the focus is on the oddity of the victim or victim’s family reporting or objecting to the event, not on the event itself, implying that it is the objecting, not the attack, that is newsworthy.  So here you have an environment where women, even the local women, are not considered of value, are routinely victimised, and where there is little concern exhibited over this victimisation.  Not good, especially when one has no local resources.

          One solution of course would have been for me to follow the lead of the local women and disappear from the public environment.  However, this is not how I wanted to spend the next three months of my time, hiding in a house, restricted in my ability to live.  I commend all of those who are in India, both Indians and foreigners, working ever so hard for the freedom of this society, but this was not how I wanted to have my son and I spend the next few months of our lives, regardless of the value of the work we would have been doing.  So I made the decision to leave, and come back to my home where everyone is considered to be of value, and everyone experiences at least relatively equal levels of security.

          Once I had made this decision I discovered yet another bothersome aspect of Indian society, that of restriction to my freedom of movement.  I had entered India on a volunteer Visa which had stamped onto it that I was required to register with the appropriate government agency in the region where I was going to be volunteering within 14 days of arrival in India.  By the time I arrived in my volunteering region, approximately one and a half weeks after arrival in India, I had decided I was going to leave.  It was then that I discovered that before I would be permitted to leave I needed to register and then de-register with the government office in my region of volunteering so that I would have the appropriate permission to leave form.  Without this form I would not be allowed to leave the country.  What a frightening thought, if I had decided to leave at the point where my son started becoming ill, without making the trek up to the volunteering location so that I could at least meet the people I had been in correspondence with, I would have been turned back at passport control.  I would have been stuck in this country, helpless and without recourse.  I am very happy to have avoided that experience.  The experience I did have was to have to make the trek down to the passport office to fill out multitudes of forms, leave and do repeated photocopying, return, wait, fill out more forms, etc. etc.  I was quite fortunate, it was all done in an afternoon, but apparently this is rather unusual and the process can take several days.  Somebody was looking after me I think.      

          So that was my experience in India.  It was a valuable experience, if not exactly what I was expecting. I learned about some of the basic assumptions of my society which are central to my being, such as the assumption of a general concern of the citizens for each other, a pride of self of the majority of the citizens, and respect for the freedoms and dignity of each and every member of the society.  I have experienced to a small degree what life is like without these assumptions, and have a far better understanding of others’ situations than I did before, or would be able to attain without this or a similar experience.  I am thankful that I was able to obtain this experience without significant consequences.  I am also thankful that there are people in India who think differently than the general impressions I received, people who, for instance, will help a mother and son standing alone at a train station find their loading area, and remain close by until said mother and son's train arrives and the two of them are safely aboard, individuals such as those at Sambhali Trust who are dedicating the whole of their lives to improving the situation, and others who I did not encounter but who surely exist.  I am thankful there are people from other countries with better home situations who are willing to travel to India and sacrifice their time and freedoms to demonstrate another way.  There is hope, even if not everyone recognizes it.  But for me,  I am now quite happy to relax into a society where I am considered to be a person and have the general rights associated with this.  It was nice the other day going to the grocery store  knowing I was not risking my sanctity by doing so and that if I were to suddenly require assistance for some reason chances were that the person next to me, male or female, would offer it to me...