the happy mania

According the NY Times, the Frontline documentary 'Torturing Democracy' will not be shown by PBS because a time slot wasn't available. However, PBS affiliates are airing the 90 minute piece.

In fact, I'm watching it right now. Torturing Democracy is the first Frontline documentary I haven't been able to make it through in entirety. Though there are few dramatisations and plenty of photos from Abu Ghraib, the acts of torture are described in graphic detail. And in these descriptions there are no ifs or buts -- it was torture.

Unbelievably, the POTUS' legal team tried to assert that the office can make something illegal (torture) legal during the time of war. Should the orders granting authorisation to use controversial techniques be uncovered, the architects of torture would somehow be exempted from prosecution.

The outrageous thing is that Bush, Rumsfeld, and their cronies will never be prosecuted thanks to the House passing a bill that includes a war crimes immunity clause. This is retroactive immunity to those who may have carried out or sanctioned torture. And Guantanamo still exists, with about a hundred being held without charge or a hope for a trial.

I can't help but be disappointed that during the election neither McCain nor Obama focused on the Bush administration's crimes. McCain because he has been outspoken against torture, in particular waterboarding, and Obama because he's supposed to be a symbol of hope for this nation. And shame on PBS if it's true they backed down from showing the documentary because they wanted to wait until Bush was out of office.

If it weren't for my mother's nagging about me not eating more and therefore destined to live alone forever, I would have forgotten about the HAPPY EVENTS OF LAST WEEKEND.

No, not Gay Pride, however fun that may have been.

I meant this (from The Advocate):

The Reverend V. Gene Robinson said that he “always wanted to be a June bride.” And this weekend he got hitched. Well, not quite.

In a private ceremony that took place five years to the day from when he was elected as the ninth bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church, U.S.A., Robinson and his partner of 20 years, Mark Andrew, said “I do”  in a civil union.

I never cry at weddings, but the news of this made me tear up something fierce and then pretend it was the onions, damnit.

I'm aware Robinson's appointment as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopalian church was seen to have torn the organization apart, but for the life of me I cannot see this union as anything more than joyful. If I weren't such an Atheist, this might be the thing to sign me up to the church right away.

It's just... so freakin' awesome, everyone! I hope California gets the same message come this autumn :D

The Times Online:  Burma's junta leader has agreed to allow access to all foreign aid workers to help with the relief operation after Cyclone Nargis, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has said.

Mr Ban made the announcement after more than two hours of talks with Senior General Than Shwe, the reclusive leader of the country’s military regime, whose refusal to let them in earlier set off international outrage.

About damn time. Remember, the cyclone was on 2-3 May and this belated response has meant several hundreds of thousands were needlessly suffering from lack of support for close to three weeks. The Burmese government do not have the resources -- both in supplies and manpower -- to assist, particularly in the most rural areas. The junta's first moves should be to grant visas for foreign aid workers and allow the ships ladened with aid to dock.

Unfortunately, I'm still a little cynical as to whether the Burmese authorities will not somehow impede the aid workers in providing services. Think diverting aid to certain areas instead of where it may be needed. In this case, ASEAN should be more visible in telling the junta off.

It's a bit disappointing the UN didn't do a forcible humanitarian relief effort. As I've noted before this is extremely unlikely and would wreak havoc in the squabbling International community, but in a perfect world and all that.

In the end (barring the junta going back on its word), this event has shown how successful Ban Ki Moon's diplomatic talks are. I hope this means we might be seeing a Dag Hammarskjöld in the making :) 

The Times estimates the death toll at 50,000 and millions made homeless. The Telegraph has disturbing news that the Junta executed prisoners after the cyclone hit. The Guardian reports Bush has pledged $3 million to Burma, and asks the Burmese authorities to allow foreign aid in. The LA Times reports on the desperate situation within the country and for the expats trying to reach loved ones back home. The BBC has footage of the aid finally trickling into Burma.

There are fears of starvation, disease, and lack of clean drinking water affecting the survivors. Please consider making donations at this Google page towards Unicef or Direct Relief International, or any of the large British charity and aid organisations through the Disasters Emergency Committee.

From the BBC: Mehdi Kazemi has said his life is in danger if he is returned to Iran, where he says his boyfriend named him as a partner before being executed. Homosexual acts are illegal in the Islamic republic. A Dutch spokesman said Mr Kazemi would now be sent to the UK, the first European country he entered. A claim for asylum in the UK had already been turned down.

From what I understand of listening to Radio 4's excellent past series on asylum and asylum seekers, a person wishing to apply for asylum must do so on the first friendly soil. Kazemi was correct in seeking asylum in the UK, but unfortunately the level of success is low. There have been cases where perfectly suited asylum cases were denied. Farhat Khan was trapped in a violent marriage to a man who was planning to marry his young daughters to violent relatives. She argued her return to Pakistan would mean her death, as the men in her family believed in 'honour killings'. The UK's response: Khan would not be in danger if she simply moved away to another part of Pakistan. Eventually she won her case, but she was lucky. What about the women who haven't the education, or the skills to convince the Home Office of their predicament? In this case, they may be detained or imprisoned as failed asylum seekers, before being deporting to their country of origin.

When Kazemi's asylum application was denied, he left for the Netherlands where it's better for LGBT asylum seekers. I say better, because that country has accepted seekers from Iran because of the punishment for homosexual acts: execution.  However the Dutch government will not listen to his case because he had landed on the UK first. There was a similar scandal when controversial former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali admitted she lied on her application from which country she arrived from in order to speed up the process. She came to the Netherlands through Kenya and Germany, two countries where she might have applied for asylum. What's frustrating is that no one is denying homosexuals in Iran are executed, and that two Western countries with all their liberal talk are not willing to protect one man from certain death.

Applying for asylum based on sexuality is tricky. Even in the US there's a strong possibility the application will fail and the seeker will be deported. The UK Home Office haven't given any details of why it turned down Kazemi's application, but a commenter mentioned the stance of the government is that gays and lesbians in Iran may not fear danger if they were 'discreet'. There's no chance of that now for Kazemi, who feared for his life in the first place because his ex-lover outed him before execution. The resulting publicity from Kazemi's fight to stay is only making it worse, basically targeting him for death. Once Kazemi is sent to the UK, that country will begin deportation proceedings.

It's sickening that the current climate is so virulently against asylum seekers. This is not just happening in Europe, but in Asia as well. Australia regularly detains or turn away asylum-seekers, Malaysia imprisons. Why is this? After World War II, millions of refugees left their homes to resettle in the Western world. Has this experience forced some sort of backlash? See this article where an immigrant to the UK says problems in the neighbourhood was caused by asylum seekers who 'waste' tax money on beer. He'd like nothing better than to deport them all. His opinions however are shared by many who believe asylum seekers are really economic migrants who lie on applications in order to gain benefits.

I can't believe anyone who could be so cold-hearted as to refuse help to an asylum seeker who may be subject to abuse, or torture, or death even if you don't agree with their positions.  Could these asylum decisions ever be justified?