Yesterday the 6 Zimbabwean activists (including our friend, Eddson Chakuma) arrested last February for watching videos of the Arab Spring were found guilty of conspiracy to incite public violence (a step down from the original charge of treason). Today they were sentenced to 240 hours of community service, charged a $500 fine and given a 2 year suspended custodial sentence. Basically this means that they are on probation for 24 months (12 months to ensure they complete their community service and 12 to ensure that they do not commit a similar "crime").
We are lucky that Nyazamba (the prosecutor in this trial) did not get his way. Yesterday in court he claimed that the 6 would have faced death by stoning in ancient times, citing the bible. He said that those who disobeyed Moses face the most sever punishment and said "this case reminds me of that story in the bible whereby those who revolt against authority are swallowed up by the earth.
Despite the relatively lenient sentence - no doubt better than old testament stoning or the alternative 10 years in prison - this conviction and sentence are an affront to justice. Amnesty International representatives say that the decision to convict and sentence these activists for simply organizing a video screening is a setback fro freedom and expression in Zimbabwe.
The evidence against the Zim 6 throughout the trial as sparse and unreliable and the ongoing nature of the trial in spite of this suggests someone higher up is pulling the strings. This was clearly a political conviction.
Their lawyer has filed an appeal for both the conviction and sentence with the provincial court and if the court does not show them favour they plan to take it to the High Court.
For more information about this trial visit Human Rights Watch or our other blogs about Eddson and the trial (to your right).
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
The environment and peace
Going along with our nature theme I have been thinking about the connection between the environment and peace. This is an extension, I believe, of our relationship between Nature and Peace...and how our nature is shaped by our treatment of animal and plant food sources.
As noted previously, our our relationship with animals and plants which provide us with food is one of great disconnect. We treat them as though they are objects which in turn shapes us into objects.
The situation is similar in our relationship with the environment. Much like we treat food producing animals and plants as resources, we tend to treat other natural elements as resources as well. Beyond our raping of the oil sands, and destruction of ancient forests for fuel, we must consider the small, every-day ways in which we treat "nature" (here, referring to the outdoor, natural environment) as a resource for our consumption and similarly as ours to destroy as we please.
How can we truly be at peace when we constantly define ourselves in opposition to the environment in which we live?
What do you think? Is our relationship with the environment peaceful? If not, how can we make it more peaceful?
I won't try to answer this question but rather, as before, tell you my first step. Today, instead of taking the bus home I will walk. And rather than ignoring everything and remaining in my mind for the 70 minute walk I will attempt to deconstruct my surroundings - taking into account those elements which can viewed as destructive, violent or non-peaceful and those which are peaceful in order to better understand the human relationship to the outside world.
As noted previously, our our relationship with animals and plants which provide us with food is one of great disconnect. We treat them as though they are objects which in turn shapes us into objects.
The situation is similar in our relationship with the environment. Much like we treat food producing animals and plants as resources, we tend to treat other natural elements as resources as well. Beyond our raping of the oil sands, and destruction of ancient forests for fuel, we must consider the small, every-day ways in which we treat "nature" (here, referring to the outdoor, natural environment) as a resource for our consumption and similarly as ours to destroy as we please.
How can we truly be at peace when we constantly define ourselves in opposition to the environment in which we live?
What do you think? Is our relationship with the environment peaceful? If not, how can we make it more peaceful?
I won't try to answer this question but rather, as before, tell you my first step. Today, instead of taking the bus home I will walk. And rather than ignoring everything and remaining in my mind for the 70 minute walk I will attempt to deconstruct my surroundings - taking into account those elements which can viewed as destructive, violent or non-peaceful and those which are peaceful in order to better understand the human relationship to the outside world.
Friday, 16 March 2012
The contents of peace
Peace is a loaded word. It seems to encompass a whole spectrum of human (and non-human) needs and desires. These in many cases include: happiness, coexistence, human security, shelter, compromise, clean water, communication, agreement, inner peace, knowledge and many more.
Firdaus Kharas on Peace by NUPRI
Metta Spencer on Peace by NUPRI
Here, Firdaus Kharas, an award winning film maker, and Metta Spencer, a writer, academic and activist explain what peace does and does not contain. One thing is clear for both Kharas and Spencer: peace is more than the absence of war.
What do you think? Is the defintion of peace as the absence of war outdated? Is it somehow an anachronism in our intellectually, economically and technologically advanced society? And if it is outdated, then do you agree with these two Agents of Peace as to the contents of peace itself?
Firdaus Kharas on Peace by NUPRI
Metta Spencer on Peace by NUPRI
Here, Firdaus Kharas, an award winning film maker, and Metta Spencer, a writer, academic and activist explain what peace does and does not contain. One thing is clear for both Kharas and Spencer: peace is more than the absence of war.
What do you think? Is the defintion of peace as the absence of war outdated? Is it somehow an anachronism in our intellectually, economically and technologically advanced society? And if it is outdated, then do you agree with these two Agents of Peace as to the contents of peace itself?
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Gender equality and the road to peace
In honour of IWW and IWD:
In November of 2011 I had the pleasure of visiting Ottawa for the Women as Peacemakers Conference at St. Paul University. While there I interviewed a number of amazing, interesting and vibrant women working for peace. Some were educators, others activists, others artists, therapists, mothers, daughters... the list goes on. The one thing that resonated throughout the whole event was this; women's equality is paramount to attaining the goal of global peace.
I honour of International Women's Day I would like to share with you the definition of peace given by one of our wonderful interviewees - educator, academic and activist, Cheshmak Farhoumand-Sims - and urge you to consider the implications of this definition on the plight for global gender equality.
Cheshmak on Peace by NUPRI
For more interviews like this one visit us on youtube.
According to Cheshmak Farhoumand-Sims and most of the other agents of peace we have interviewed, gender equality and social justice are key to achieving peace. Please leave your comments below.
A side note: our Eating on a Budget with a Conscience Challenge ended today. Be sure to check out the submissions and testimonials!
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
What does nature have to do with it?
Having been engaged recently in a number of vivid discussions regarding nature and food, particularly in relation to our ethical eating challenge for International Women's Week 2012, I have begun to think a lot about how our views of nature shape our own nature. In a great conversation with Dr. Toivo Koivukoski (one of NUPRI's fearless leaders) today I was inspired to write about the connection between Peace-building and our relationship with nature.
As part of the Agents of Peace project we have had the pleasure of speaking with a number of activists and professionals (namely, Jessica Wilson of Greenpeace and Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch) who believe that with the plight for peace comes a responsibility to respect the earth. I would also add that with the plight for peace comes a responsibility to nature. I find it necessary to make the distinction between the environment and nature because when we use the word "environment" in those general terms - of "save the environment" and "environmentalism" - the planet becomes something "other than" ourselves. Nature, to me, means something more personal...more connected. The way we interact with nature on this personal level says a lot about who we are as individuals, as a culture, and as a species.
This brings me to the discussion of factory farming and mass production of "food", which is the theme for this week. It is my contention that we must begin truly thinking about what we eat. This is not some rant about eating healthily or becoming vegetarian; rather what I mean to say is that we need to reshape the way that we think about food. When we treat plants and animals as though their soul value lies in our willingness or desire to consume them, we lose something of ourselves. If this is the way that we think about "nature" and its parts then we, being part of nature, become objects for mass consumption ourselves. To paraphrase Dr. Koivukoski, in making our food "other" we are made "other" in turn - through the mass homogenization of our food, we become homogenized.
You know what they say, "you are what you eat".
What does this mean for peace? Well, in fact it means a tremendous amount. Consider the implication of mass consumption of "produce" on our relations with others. We sit in our car outside a "restaurant", we shout our order through a microphone, drive to the window and trade a few coins for a bag of food that does not remotely resemble the animals and plants from whence it came, and then we drive off. Our entire lives are characterized by these faceless, nameless interactions with not only our food, but also the people who produce it. I believe that these daily, mechanical interactions (drive through banking, ordering fast food etc.) are incredibly indicative of our relationship with the rest of the world. We have turned animals and plants into "produce" to be consumed, just as we have turned human beings into instruments through which we are able to consume more "produce" more quickly.
So how do we change this nameless, faceless way of, as Dr. Koivukoski puts it, "being" with the world? Well, to be honest I have no idea, nor would I want to prescribe any overarching solution to such a huge problem. What I am going to do, though, is start interacting more vigorously with my food. Tonight, when I sit down to dinner, I am going to ask myself: what is this made of? What was it before it was food? Is there a better way for me to consume this food that will make my relationship with nature more personal and respectful?
We would love to hear your thoughts on this. How do you interact with your food? Do you buy local food? Do you grow your own?
And please let us know your thoughts on the connection between the way we treat our food and the way we treat our fellow human beings.
Happy eating!
As part of the Agents of Peace project we have had the pleasure of speaking with a number of activists and professionals (namely, Jessica Wilson of Greenpeace and Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch) who believe that with the plight for peace comes a responsibility to respect the earth. I would also add that with the plight for peace comes a responsibility to nature. I find it necessary to make the distinction between the environment and nature because when we use the word "environment" in those general terms - of "save the environment" and "environmentalism" - the planet becomes something "other than" ourselves. Nature, to me, means something more personal...more connected. The way we interact with nature on this personal level says a lot about who we are as individuals, as a culture, and as a species.
This brings me to the discussion of factory farming and mass production of "food", which is the theme for this week. It is my contention that we must begin truly thinking about what we eat. This is not some rant about eating healthily or becoming vegetarian; rather what I mean to say is that we need to reshape the way that we think about food. When we treat plants and animals as though their soul value lies in our willingness or desire to consume them, we lose something of ourselves. If this is the way that we think about "nature" and its parts then we, being part of nature, become objects for mass consumption ourselves. To paraphrase Dr. Koivukoski, in making our food "other" we are made "other" in turn - through the mass homogenization of our food, we become homogenized.
You know what they say, "you are what you eat".
What does this mean for peace? Well, in fact it means a tremendous amount. Consider the implication of mass consumption of "produce" on our relations with others. We sit in our car outside a "restaurant", we shout our order through a microphone, drive to the window and trade a few coins for a bag of food that does not remotely resemble the animals and plants from whence it came, and then we drive off. Our entire lives are characterized by these faceless, nameless interactions with not only our food, but also the people who produce it. I believe that these daily, mechanical interactions (drive through banking, ordering fast food etc.) are incredibly indicative of our relationship with the rest of the world. We have turned animals and plants into "produce" to be consumed, just as we have turned human beings into instruments through which we are able to consume more "produce" more quickly.
So how do we change this nameless, faceless way of, as Dr. Koivukoski puts it, "being" with the world? Well, to be honest I have no idea, nor would I want to prescribe any overarching solution to such a huge problem. What I am going to do, though, is start interacting more vigorously with my food. Tonight, when I sit down to dinner, I am going to ask myself: what is this made of? What was it before it was food? Is there a better way for me to consume this food that will make my relationship with nature more personal and respectful?
We would love to hear your thoughts on this. How do you interact with your food? Do you buy local food? Do you grow your own?
And please let us know your thoughts on the connection between the way we treat our food and the way we treat our fellow human beings.
Happy eating!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)