parliament passes war resister motion; galloway appears by telecast

This was a long, nerve-wracking, joyous, frustrating, scary, uplifting evening.

The motion in support of US Iraq War resisters was passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 129 - 125.

We are thrilled and relieved.

George Galloway addressed a packed house in Toronto via internet.

He was incredible.

I'll tell you more tomorrow.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

rtod

Revolutionary thought of the day: I can’t stop looking at Rue, smaller than ever, a baby animal curled up in a nest of netting. I can’t bring myself to leave her like this. Past harm, but seeming utterly defenseless. To hate the boy from District 1, who also appears so vulnerable in death, seems inadequate. It’s the Capitol I hate, for doing this to all of us. Gale’s voice is in my head. His ravings against the Capitol no longer pointless, no longer to be ignored. Rue’s death has forced me to confront my own fury against the cruelty, the injustice they inflict upon us. But here, even more strongly than at home, I feel my impotence. There’s no way to take revenge on the Capitol. Is there? Then I remember Peeta’s words on the roof. “Only I keep wishing I could think of a way to . . . to show the Capital they don’t own me. That I’m more than just a piece in their Games.” And for the first time, I understand what he means. I want to do something, right here, right now, to shame them, to ma...
Read more

the day in court, in brief

Image
About 25 or 30 supporters of war resisters woke up early and bundled against the damp, chilly morning to show their support for Jeremy Hinzman and other war resisters seeking refuge in Canada. This blogger and a friend drove in from Buffalo; my friend M@ was there holding a banner; many Quakers attended, as they always do; plus a few Campaigners who don't work regular hours. Those who could stay made our way through security and sat in the back of the courtroom. The court was kind enough to supply extra chairs, and we all squeezed in. Lawyer Alyssa Manning was masterful. When the Crown rose to respond, you could hear crickets chirping. They had nothing. I took copious notes and can report at length tomorrow if anyone is interested. (Yes? No?) Meanwhile, here's a story from Canadian Press via CBC. [Link has been fixed.] A Canadian immigration official failed to consider the hardships a high-profile American deserter and his family would face if forced to return to the United S...
Read more

"you guys": change language, do no harm, but can we please leave space for learning and growing?

Image
First reactions: the language police I've recently learned that calling a group of people you guys  may be considered insensitive to transgender people.  My first reaction to this was an inner eye-roll, and thoughts along the lines of, "Oh come on, that's going too far."  The same reaction I had to learning that the word crazy  is not to be used -- in any context -- because it's insensitive to people with mental illness. Why are people policing my language this closely? Is this really important? Who determined this is now inappropriate speech? I've always thought of guys  as gender-neutral, and you guys  represents a group of people of any gender -- in the appropriate context. Clearly some people say "guys and girls," and in that context guys means men and boys. But words have different meanings in different contexts, and most speakers of any given language are able to distinguish among those contexts.  Is you guys  really so offensive, to the po...
Read more