Afghanistan Archives | Elizabeth May

Protecting Women’s Work and Civil Society in Aghanistan

Elizabeth May — Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:05:00 +0000

Elizabeth May and Mike Morrice signed onto this open letter to address the impacts of the Taliban’s order to suspend women employees from working in local and international NGOs in Afghanistan.

Strategic Advocacy Human Rights (SAHR) is a peer-led network of human rights defenders fueling a worldwide movement of women and diverse human rights defenders working to end gender-based violence through law and policy reform.www.sa-hr.org

For more information about the letter, click here.

Click here to read the Open Letter to Muslim and International Communities.

From SAHR:

“It was painful to tell our female staff not to come to work the following day. We immediately called for an emergency meeting to deal with the operational impact of the ban. It changes everything for us,” said one of our colleagues, an Afghan human rights lawyer.

The NGO sector in Afghanistan was ultimately the last remaining safe place for women to be sustainably employed in. Tens of thousands of Afghan women were employed as educators, advisors, mediators, aid workers, surveyors, midwives, doctors and first responders.

The Taliban’s decree essentially forced women to a state of permanent unemployment and poverty.

“Few months ago, when I was in court helping my client, I got into a discussion with a Taliban judge about women’s work. I challenged him and said: if women cannot work, how are we going to feed our children? He said: either get married, or ask for zakat (charity) but women cannot work,” said one of our colleagues, a human rights lawyer.

Despite international condemnation, Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid indicated no sign that the ban would be reconsidered or lifted:

“All those institutions wanting to operate in Afghanistan are obliged to comply with the rules and regulations of our country. We do not allow anyone to talk rubbish or make threats regarding the decisions of our leaders under the title of humanitarian aid.”

Kabul and other major cities were under high-security and surveillance after the decrees were announced.

“I had a drive around the city today morning to assess the changes and security surveillance. There are small groups of Taliban surveillance moving in the city watching women’s movements in the roads, streets and localities,” said one of our colleagues in Afghanistan.

Our colleagues are affected mentally as they are experiencing an unexpected and sudden change. But the current constraints push us to be more committed, motivated, courageous. We are prepared to work harder and to work with a vision. Such challenges and limitations should not stop us from supporting the women in our community who are the most affected and marginalised in the country.

We are calling on the international community for a more serious coordinated response against the systematic violence and gender persecution of women in Afghanistan and to pressure the Taliban to reverse their decision.

The post Protecting Women’s Work and Civil Society in Aghanistan appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In Afghanistan there is a gender apartheid

Elizabeth May — Mon, 30 May 2022 22:12:15 +0000

Speaker: Ms. May
Time: 30/05/2022 15:12:20
Context: Question

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, understandably, Russia’s assault on Ukraine has dominated our foreign policy agenda, but we know it is not the only crisis. The Taliban has declared war on women and girls. They are not allowed to go to school, they are not allowed to walk down the street and their male family members have become their jailers. This is a regime of gender apartheid.

Will the government confirm that, with a feminist foreign policy, the policy is not to stand back and do nothing? What does “feminist foreign policy” mean for women and girls in Afghanistan?

Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situation Afghans are facing, in particular Afghan women and girls, is absolutely terrible. Canada condemns the Taliban’s oppression of women’s liberty in Afghanistan. As the Taliban continues this act of discrimination, the prospects for a better life are being denied to girls. Access to education is a human right to which every woman and every girl is entitled, and the Taliban will be judged by its actions and not by its words.

The post In Afghanistan there is a gender apartheid appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Canada must stand by its commitment to Afghanistan

Elizabeth May — Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:26:00 +0000

Click here to read Elizabeth May’s letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding the safety of Afghani women and children.

The post Canada must stand by its commitment to Afghanistan appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Question No. 381

Craig Cantin — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:47:45 +0000

Elizabeth May: With regard to each document detailing the capture, transfer, and treatment of Afghan detainees by Canadian and Afghan forces between 2002 and 2009, excluding all matters which are in their nature secret and excluding those documents tabled in the House of Commons on March 25, 2010, April 1, 2011, and June 22, 2011: (a) what are the details of each document; (b) what are the names of the (i) sender, (ii) recipients; and (c) on what date was it sent?

The post Question No. 381 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Question No. 148

Craig Cantin — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:52:27 +0000

Elizabeth May: With regard to the Afghan detainee documents, excluding all matters which are in their nature secret, for each document: (a) what are its contents; (b) what are the names of the (i) sender, (ii) recipients; and (c) on what date was it sent?

Hon. John Baird: Mr. Speaker, on March 25, 2010, and on April 1, 2010, two sets of documents pertaining to Afghan detainees were tabled in the House of Commons. These documents can be accessed through the House of Commons Journals, sessional paper numbers 8530-403-3 and 8530-403-4.

On June 22, 2011, as agreed to by unanimous consent, the Minister of Foreign Affairs tabled an additional 362 documents.

The 362 documents tabled in the House of Commons on June 22, 2011 can be accessed through the Government of Canada’s website on Afghanistan at the following address: http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/documents/362.aspx?lang=eng.

Parliamentarians also have direct access to the June 22, 2011, documents through the Journals in the House of Commons, which can be referenced through sessional paper number 8530-411-3.

The tabling brought to a close a $12 million, 12-month process that reinforced what the government has said all along.

The post Question No. 148 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

9/11

Craig Cantin — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:42:16 +0000

This Sunday is the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks now known simply as “9-11.”

I remember absolutely everything about that day. We were putting the finishing touches on the simultaneous release in press conferences in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver of a Sierra Club and Greenpeace report on biotechnology. I was absorbed at my desk when I noticed that the staff was drifting into the board room. I asked my co-worker Angela what was going on. She said, “Who knows? A plane crash or something. It’s all over the news.”

I left my desk, joined the rest of the team in the board room to watch the cable TV. As I did, the second plane crashed into the twin towers. I went back to my desk, picked up the phone and cancelled all the press conferences. And then I returned to the board room as the towers collapsed. I phoned to make sure my step son was safe. His office was a few blocks away from the WTC. He was uninjured, but devastated, having seen the disaster from his office window.

I lost the rest of the week watching the horror on television. I wept and prayed and kept waiting to see the rescue of survivors. Five days later, my ten year old daughter came into the living room at home and turned off the television. She told me I had to stop watching. That it was not helping me and no one would be saved.

Since that dreadful day I have come to know the brave Maureen Basnicki whose husband Ken was one of the Canadians killed in the attack. The Green Party supports her efforts to see passage of legislation to allow the extra-territorial prosecution of terrorists for damages.

Meanwhile, in the last ten years, in the name of “security,” the United States and its allies have spent hundreds of billions in enhanced security and wars against “terror.” The lives lost include a 100,000 civilians in an illegal war in Iraq, tens of thousands more in Afghanistan.

We also sacrificed long held values and commitments. The Geneva Convention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These documents do not hold up well against Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, water-boarding. Torture as a defensible government practice. And now Stephen Harper wants to bring back those Charter-busting provisions of anti-terrorist legislation. Let’s be done with Habeas corpus, the right to counsel and the right to know the charges against you.

And we have spent in Canada an enormous amount of money. A recent report estimates that Canada alone has spent $92 billion in the last ten years to improve security. (Rideau Institute).

Ironic, isn’t it? We have bridges that are unsafe to be used. Shut down in Montreal and Saskatoon. Too dangerous for cars to continue to drive across – or under. All our infrastructure could have been made safe with what we spent on “security.” First Nations communities have water that is unsafe to drink. A fraction of the $92 billion could have improved the lives of so many Canadians.

In the National Post, columnist Chris Selley wrote what few are willing to say out loud — that the security expenditures represented “staggering opportunity costs.” He suggested that “if Western nations had used the money to pay down debt or cut taxes, their citizens would have been considerably better off.” (Sept 9, 2011)

The biggest security threat, the one that imperils our survival as a civilized world, the climate crisis, has worsened year after year as emissions rise. The wars fought in the name of 9-11 had the uncanny tendency to also involve oil rich countries, with many interesting linkages made in Gore Vidal’s book Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta.

The climate crisis is recognized by many in the military around the world as a clear and present danger that exceeds that of terrorism by a significant margin. (see Gwynne Dyer’s Climate Wars). Yet, the security threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions is never mentioned by the Harper government.

We need balance between sensible precautions against people willing to kill others for crazed political ends — whether fundamentalists (Jewish, Christian or Muslim) or those bearing deluded grudges. And we need police action, coordinated and global, to find and prosecute people who commit crimes.

After ten years, it is time to start setting some realistic costs and benefit tests before continuing to pour money into the unending new requirements of the for-profit security industry.

It is time to stop the insanity. Apparently every country around the world thinks that we cannot risk stopping the increased expenditure of money to fight terrorists. It has taken over like a mania. It reminds me of nothing so much as the 1950s red-baiting of the McCarthy era. To stand against it is to make one subject of suspicion. Are you “soft on terrorism?” Are you giving aid and comfort to Taliban or Al Qaeda to point out that the ice caps are melting and the farm fields are flooded and we need to address the climate threat more urgently?

Ten years on, it is time to mourn those who died so cruelly. On September 11 — and ever since. Whether from further terrorist actions in Bali or Oslo. Or from the bombs that fell on Iraq and Afghanistan.

And ten years on, it is time to say “enough.”

We need reasonable precautions, but we do not need to feed an unreasonable fear that denies us our civil liberties, crowds out more pressing problems and which bankrupts the public purse.

Enough.

The post 9/11 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Whatever happened to the contempt charges? What happened to release of Afghan detainee documents?

Craig Cantin — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:44:54 +0000

One of the most aggravating things about the current state of Canadian journalism is the spotty and fragmented way in which events are reported. When my book detailing the crisis in Canadian democracy was published very little of what I documented was actually new. Still, readers told me frequently that they had had never heard of many of the shocking events included in that book. The narrative arc of accumulating power in the Prime Minister’s Office was manifest in such random and erratic news items, that no one was connecting the dots.

It is happening again with the story of the issue which arguably brought down the Harper government for contempt in March 2011. While Bev Oda’s “NOT” played a role, paramount in several rulings from the former Speaker was the refusal of the Harper government to release documentation of the treatment of Afghan prisoners. Speaker Milliken’s ruling on the matter was historic in confirming that the Prime Minister does not have the right to keep information from the House of Commons. Yet, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, announced in late June 2011 that the government was going to do just that, the issue appeared to die with nary a whimper.

To refresh memories, we go back to the brave diplomat Richard Colvin who was subpoenaed to testify to a House of Commons committee back in November 2009. His evidence was that, “Our detainee practices (were) unCanadian, counterproductive and probably illegal.” He detailed that Canadian forces detained a much larger group of Afghans than our allies, (detaining six times more civilians than the British and twenty times more than the Dutch) with no way to track where these people went or how they were treated. His evidence was that Canadians would take into custody taxi drivers or street vendors and hand them over to Afghan forces for questioning. It was his belief that the probability was high that many of these detainees were subject to torture, or even death.

Colvin was subjected to personal attacks by the government and lambasted as a Taliban dupe. The House of Commons asked (through Liberal MP John MacKay) for the release of all documents so that Colvin’s allegations could be examined. On the grounds of national security, the prime minister refused. The stand-off led to Milliken’s clear ruling in April 2010 that, prima facie, the government was in contempt. Milliken gave both sides the opportunity to negotiate a compromise. The result was the creation of the Panel of Arbiters, based on a Memorandum of Understanding (June 15, 2010) signed by the Prime Minister, the former Leader of the Official Opposition (Michael Ignatieff) and the former head of the Bloc Quebecois (Gilles Duceppe). The NDP refused to participate. The panel was comprised of three retired judges, one of whom died in March 2011, and two who remained to file a report, Claire L’Heureux-Dubé and Frank Iacobucci. The jurists were to frequently consult with an Ad Hoc Committee of Parliamentarians (Conservative, Liberal and Bloc MPs).

What occurred on June 22, 2011 made it to the next day’s front page of the Globe and Mail, but died in the dog-days of summer. The panel released its report, clearly indicating they did not believe their work was wrapped up. Their covering letter made it clear that there had been communication and disputes with the Harper government throughout April and into May. They acknowledged that, with the end of the 40th Parliament and the election, the Speaker’s ruling “ceased to exist.” The judges wrote, “We considered that it would not be appropriate to cease our work before completing what the Panel undertook…” Nevertheless, their letter closed “We understand that no further work is now expected of the Panel.”

With that, 4,000 pages of heavily censored documents were given to every Member of Parliament, leaving an estimated 40,000 more pages still un-reviewed and in the government’s files.

Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird announced that he had no intention of releasing the rest of the documents. Twelve million dollars had been spent and that was quite enough. “I suspect,” he said, “that if we went on for 12 years and spent $120 million that some would say that wasn’t enough.” Certainly Stéphane Dion, who had been a member of the Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee, said it had not been enough, as did Bob Rae, and NDP MP Jack Harris, who called the whole process a “farce.”

Most disturbing to me was Baird’s framing of the issue as the handling of “Taliban prisoners.” Colvin’s testimony had put it clearly in my mind that these were not enemy combatants. They were randomly snatched; men in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then I learned that if Canada had thought the prisoners were Taliban, there was an entirely different detention process. Those detainees identified as possible Taliban were not turned over to Afghan authorities at all; they were delivered to the US forces in Afghanistan. By definition, handing Afghan detainees over to the local authorities for questioning meant we did not think they were Taliban.

So after more than 18 months of controversy, devastating allegations, an historic finding of contempt, the slate has been wiped clean by the election. The order for the production of documents passed by the House has ceased to exist. The Speakers’ order is null and void, and while historic, is history.

As one journalist said to me “Who will care now? No one is going to request the production of the remaining documents now.”

To which, I replied, “I do and I will.” I hope the constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands agree.

The post Whatever happened to the contempt charges? What happened to release of Afghan detainee documents? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Contempt and the Afghan Detainees

Craig Cantin — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:44:39 +0000

Whatever happened to those contempt charges? What happened to release of Afghan detainee documents? One of the most aggravating things about the current state of Canadian journalism is the spotty and fragmented way in which stories are covered—or rather not covered.

When my last book was published, detailing the crisis in Canadian democracy, very little of what I documented was actually new or unknown. But the trend to accumulating power in the Prime Minister’s Office had led to such random and erratic news items, that no-one could connect the dots.

The same thing is happening again with the story of the issue which arguably brought down the Harper government for contempt in March 2011. Although Bev Oda’s ‘Not’ played a role, paramount in several rulings from the former Speaker was the refusal of the Harper government to release documentation of the treatment of Afghan prisoners.

Speaker Milliken’s ruling on the matter was historic in confirming that the Prime Minister does not have the right to keep information from the House of Commons. Yet, when Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird announced in late June that the government was going to do just that, the issue appeared to die with nary a whimper.

To refresh memories, we go back to the brave diplomat Richard Colvin who was subpoenaed to testify to a House of Commons committee back in November 2009. His evidence was that ‘Our detainee practices [were] unCanadian, counterproductive and probably illegal.’

He detailed that Canadian forces detained a much larger group of Afghans than our allies, detaining six times more civilians than the British and 20 times more than the Dutch, with no way to track where these people went or how they were treated. His evidence was that Canadians would take into custody taxidrivers or street vendors and hand them over to Afghan forces for questioning. It was his belief that the probability was high that many of these detainees were subject to torture, or even death.

Colvin was made the subject of personal attacks by the government and held up as a Taliban dupe. The House of Commons asked, through Liberal MP John MacKay, for the release of all documents so that Colvin’s allegations could be examined. On the grounds of national security, the Prime Minister refused. The stand-off led to Speaker Milliken’s clear ruling in April 2010 that, prima facie, the government was in contempt. He gave both sides the opportunity to negotiate a compromise.

The result was the creation of the Panel of Arbiters, based on a Memorandum of Understanding (June 15, 2010) signed by the Prime Minister, the former Leader of the Official Opposition (Michael Ignatieff) and the former head of the Bloc Quebecois (Gilles Duceppe). The NDP refused to participate. The panel was comprised of three retired judges, one of whom died in March 2011, and two who remained to file a report, Claire L’Heureux-Dube and Frank Iacobucci. The jurists were to frequently consult with an Ad Hoc Committee of Parliamentarians (Conservative, Liberal and Bloc MPs).

What occurred on June 22, 2011 did make it to the front page of the Globe and Mail, but seems to have sunk without a trace: the panel released their report, clearly indicating they did not believe their work was wrapped up.

Their covering letter made it clear that there had been some communication with the Harper government throughout April and into May in which it acknowledged that with the end of the 40th Parliament and the election, the Speaker’s ruling ‘ceased to exist.’ The judges wrote, ‘We considered that it would not be appropriate to cease our work before completing what the Panel undertook…’ Nevertheless, their letter closed, ‘We understand that no further work is now expected of the Panel.’

With that, 4,000 pages of heavily censored documents were given to every member of parliament, leaving an estimated 40,000 more pages still unreviewed and in the government’s files.

Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird announced that $12 million had been spent and that was quite enough. ‘I suspect,’ he said, ‘that if we went on for 12 years and spent $120 million that some would say that wasn’t enough.’ Certainly Stephane Dion, who had been a member of the Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee said it had not been enough, as did Bob Rae, and NDP MP Jack Harris, who called the whole process a ‘farce.’

Most disturbing to me was Baird’s framing of the issue as the handling of ‘Taliban prisoners.’ I had the image in my mind so clearly from Colvin’s testimony that these were not enemy combatants. They were random people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then I learned that if Canada had thought the prisoners were Taliban, there was an entirely different detention process. Those detainees identified as possible Taliban were not turned over to Afghan authorities at all; they were delivered to the US forces in Afghanistan. By definition, handing Afghan detainees over to the local authorities for questioning meant Canada did not think they were Taliban.

So, after more than 18 months of controversy, devastating allegations, an historic finding of contempt, the slate is wiped clean by the election. The order for the production of documents passed by the House has ceased to exist. The Speakers’ order is null and void and, while historic, is history.

As one journalist said to me ‘Who will care now? No one is going to request the production of the remaining documents now.’

To which, I replied, ‘I do, and I will.’

The post Contempt and the Afghan Detainees appeared first on Elizabeth May.