Yingluck is right to end use of shackles in Thai prisons

PM Yingluck at Bang Kwang Prison

 Thai Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra (pictured left) is right to end the use of shackles in Thai prisons.  As various sources  have been reporting over the past few days, these shackles can weigh up to 5 kilograms and are known to cause extreme pain, and according to thaimedicalnews.com, sometimes work their way into the skin of the wearer causing skin and bone damage.

Organizations world-wide consider the use of prison shackles to be a form of torture as they are worn permanently by those convicted of serious offences.

I do get that we need a strong prison system, but the use of these shackles, and the conditions overall in the Thai prisons are simply not achieving this.  As the Prime Minister said at the shackle breaking ceremony at Bangkwang prison, society needs to reform criminals.



It's awfully easy for the outside observer to think that a prisoner gets whatever he or she deserves, but think about it for a moment.  What does it say about society when we keep prisoners in such conditions?  It provides no value to society and is cruel and unusual.

Now, I know you are probably thinking that she just want to avoid seeing her brother in shackles in case he ever does serve his prison sentence (joking), on this issue, she has done something long overdue.

Life can be hard, but chances are you've got it better than these people

So, after a really long day I was feeling what I would have described as hunger and exhaustion.  I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I was feeling a bit sorry for myself.  But then I was entering my building and I saw a rather poor looking family moving into my building, with what seemed like the assistance of a few people who were not at all poor-looking and I realized how good I actually have it.  I don't know hunger, and I don't know exhaustion.  I know something close to these, but the solution has always been in sight. I don't know what it's like to be persecuted.  I don't know what it's like to live in a shanty.  I don't know what it's like to not be able to wear clean clothes, shower well, and blend in with general society.  I feel a bit ridiculous now.  

Now, this all came to mind as the family I saw (who I actually held the door open for...I usually don't take much notice of people, so I'm thankful I didn't ignore them) This family looked to me to be Rohingya.  Of course I have no idea if I am correct, but the point is that it reminded me that at this very moment there is an entire group of people who are unwanted in the country they live in, are persecuted by their neighbors, and are about to be hit with by cyclone Mahasen  which is approaching the eastern shore of Myanmar. They live in shelters which have been declared by the U.N to be unfit for human habitation and those shelters couldn't survive much at all.  

Most of these people are not going to leave.  The Burmese government is trying to get them to go to shelters, but considering how badly they have been treated by their government, it's no surprise that these people don't trust them.  Considering that the Burmese military is being used to provide relief (probably the only purpose of the relief is that they know it will look bad for them if they screw up again) and that the Burmese military has been known to rape children and burn down villages, I don't blame them for taking their chances with the storm.  I also would be awfully hesitant to attempt entry to Bangladesh, who also don't want these people, or in Thailand which has sent some off on boats to die with no food or water.  I think I would probably just dig down and pray to God too.

Consider also that only yesterday a hundred Rohingya were found dead after their boat collapsed.  Consider that they have no way to travel.  Consider that they can't get visas, have no passport from the country they live in and don't have an economy anyway.

Would you hop on the back of the army vehicle?  Would you pose for the international media and than just hope the world pays attention long enough so that your daughter doesn't get raped and your son put to work?

This makes my problems seem very minor.

Forget Labrador: Bourassa will be the real test

The Little Prince, and The Bear

The loss of Labrador by Conservative incumbent Peter Penashue marks one of the few times that the Harper government has not been able to retain a seat in a by-election and the first time he has lost a cabinet minister since 2006.  As Sun News' David Akin recently observed, there have been 20 by-elections called by Harper since 2006 and Harper has not only not lost any seats, he has actually gained three.  As the Conservatives are now saying, it is unusual for majority governments to retain seats in by-elections, but for Harper this is rather unusual.

However there are mitigating factors which make this electoral test less interesting and less indicative of things to come.  For starters, Penashue is currently under investigation for receiving illegal campaign contributions, including corporate donations which are illegal in Canada.  That Mr. Penashue went down is also not such a surprise as Labrador has gone Liberal since the riding was established.  In 2008, the Liberals took it with over 70% of the vote.

If recent polls are correct, Harper is in read trouble though.  Harper's Conservatives are at 28% nationally, according to the most recent poll  I could find, which was conducted by Canadian Press-Harris Decima.  But, whether or not the Liberals or NDP will be able to knock Harper out of office in 2015 comes down to the battle between them as much as it does with any change in narrative from Harper.  Harper's ceiling seems to be in the low 30's now.

A much more interesting by-election could very well come in Bourassa Quebec if Denis Coderre fulfills expectations and runs for the Montreal mayoralty.  If this happens, we can expect to see a real battle between the two Quebec leaders, the NDP's Thomas Mulcair and the Liberal's Justin Trudeau.  Though recent polls have shown that the Liberals have surpassed the NDP in most parts of the country, the NDP is still going strong in Quebec and would likely be able to launch a more effective campaign in Bourassa than the Liberals.

The Liberals though are benefiting from the honeymoon period, or at least so says the Winnipeg Free Press, that generally comes with a new leader, and the fact that that leader is a Trudeau doesn't hurt, at least in media exposure.

Mulcair in Quebec:  CBC Photo

But, Mulcair is an incredibly effective campaigner and he has many rising Quebec stars in his caucus.  With the right candidate and the right messaging, he could give Mr. Trudeau a nice little wake-up call.

Very soon, the public is going to want to see more substance from the Liberals and begin to seriously analyze which party really supports the issues they care about.  Since 2004, more and more Canadians have been moving toward the NDP as being that party.

 It's not surprise that the NDP has fallen to third place in the interim, but when people seriously consider who has the experience, the leadership ability and the platform, they will see that it is Mr. Mulcair.  It is Mulcair who has the governing experience, and it is Mulcair who has a grasp on the real issues.  He doesn't speak in platitudes and he keeps his politics professional, away from the personal and exudes dignity and competence.

I think Canadians have had enough of the pettiness of Harper, Pollievre, and the rest of his loud caucus, and have had enough with the gaffe-prone Liberal rump.

I might be wrong, but I know that I'm right on this:  if Coderre steps down, there is going to be one heck of a battle in Bourassa and that battle will be between the bear and the little prince.

Reza Baraheni: "A Minor Mistake in Evin Prison"

If you are anything like me you have read your fair share of really dark literature which outlines the absolute worst in our species.  Often, there is also this stream of light which manages to to break through, but the darkness is very often given the major portion of the story line.  In reality, it seems to me that the kindness in human nature is much more prevalent than the darkness.

I've been reading a book, Another Sky: Voice of Consciences from Around the World.  Though these essays and excerpts from those imprisoned, persecuted and executed for their writings contain unimaginable horror and insight, many of them have such profound moments of compassion.

One essay in particular comes to mind.  Reza Baraheni, the ethnic Azerbaijani Iranian born former head of PEN Canada, and organization devoted to freeing writers held due to their beliefs.  Baraheni was also Professor of English at Tehran University and has taught at a number of other universities in the U.S and the U.K.  He was also imprisoned during the time of the Shah in the 70's and during the Islamic Republic in the 80's.

In this book, he tells a story of a mix-up at Iran's Evin Prison.  Through blindfolded confusion, he ended up in the line of prisoners headed for execution, but he himself had not actually gone to the court yet and was due for further interrogation.  He voiced his confusion to the prisoner walking immediately behind him.  This prisoner realized that Baraheni had no idea he was in the execution line and urged Baraheni to shout to the guards.  After numerous efforts to convince the guards, he was successful.

The prisoner behind Baraheni took enormous risk.  At one point he stated: "Do what you can to stay alive.  We've lost our lives, perhaps for a reason.  But why should you lose yours?" (p. 7).  During this whole event, the guards were continuously shouting for them to be quiet.  The prisoner could have been taken back for further torture or a slower death than the gun would provide.  But, he didn't.

This is an element of human nature worth remembering.  During the worst of disasters, in the worst of circumstances there are always those caring for others.

Cultural Shift will bring a New Galactic Polity

I was watching an interview with Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales on BBC where he spoke about the growth in the diversity of voices now online.  He said that the old paradigm where we, in the developed Western world, create the technology and provide access to people, in the lesser developed world is changing because 'the other', the people of the developing world have their own voices and their own stories to tell. They are using technology to tell their own stories.

This, and a conversation with a friend on Facebook got me thinking about what this sort of change could mean for our future.  There is the very common view that the state, the corporate world, and the media are all in some kind of unholy alliance to deceive and control.  Now, perhaps elements of them are.  But, even if they are, is it really sustainable?

We are entering a period where the message we hear is becoming ever diversified.  A lot of people say that they miss the old days where the news was the news.  It wasn't politicized, it wasn't corporatised, and you could trust it.  They say that these days, you just don't know what to believe.  I think this is a good thing.  We find it hard now, because it is new.  But, it is the way things are going and will continue to go. It wasn't so much that the media used to be more accurate, but that the media was more centralized and more subject to control by a single group of voices and a single narrative.

The message itself is becoming broader, more interactive and diversified.  McLuhan was right. The medium and the message have become ever more interconnected.  The medium and the message have also become much more participatory and cognizant of alterity.  It's not so much that the media has become more corporate, but that we now know that there are other viewpoints and other voices.  As Lyotard wrote, the meta-narratives are breaking down.  We don't all believe in a single version of our own history to the extent that we once did.  But, I'd say that he and McLuhan were really just witnessing the effect of hearing other voices for the first time.  The other voices are becoming closer to our own narrative and are broadening and deepening our perspectives.

So, in a context where the medium is the message and the message is diversified, the message and the medium are increasingly difficult to manufacture or manipulate.  The person listening to the media is no longer confined to simply being a passive audience, but the listener is also now a speaker; an active participant in the structure itself.

I contend that we are heading toward a new galactic polity, a return to the pre-Westphalian order.  The modern nation state is becoming less relevant to our lives.  I'm not saying that it is not relevant now, or that it will cease to exist entirely, but other settings are becoming more important.  This is a long process.  And, this process is being driven by international organizations, technology, social organizations and international kinship.  By the last, I mean the idea that new, international cultures are developing.  Segments of populations in one city, let's say Bangkok have more in common with segments of populations in New York than they do with people in the North-East of Thailand.

The life-style of a migrant worker in Shan state in Burma is more similar to the condition of a migrant worker in China than to the lifestyle of a business person in his own country.  This has always been the case, but with increasing access to tranportation and communication this is increasing.  The old national loyalties are not going to be as important as they once were.  The ability of any nation-state to control the message is not as strong as it once was.  The linkage between members of a single nation are important, but other cultural linkages are also important.

Chinese diaspora in Singapore have strong cultural and familial kinship with the Chinese in China, in Malaysia and in the U.S.  Twitter users in Canada have an audience with people in Iran, and vice-versa.  Members of Rotary international have a kinship with their members from around the world.  These structures are but a few examples.

What is clear is that this is not decreasing, rather it is increasing.  Every year, more and more people now have access to the internet.  In India alone, only 17% of the population have access to the internet.  World wide internet usage increased from hundreds of millions in 1998 to 2.5 billion in 2010.  Means of transportation have also become cheaper and more available to people.  This will not decrease.  The cultural shift that follows this could easily become the most significant change to have ever occurred in human history.

The narrative is shifting, broadening and increasingly happening outside of national contexts.  Supranational loyalties are becoming as important as subnational affiliation.  This is "the global village".

I contend that this will result in a new paradigm where the state will, eventually give way to something new.  Our public life is happening in new places.  Some of it occurs in a corporate environment, some of it occurs in international organizations, some of it occurs online.  This is chaotic in the same way that nature is chaotic.  As nature is stable because of its diversity, a new political structure will also be stable because of its diversity.

Update:

For more reading on what the original galactic polity meant, or the mandala model of governance, visit here.  The part about a strong leader attracting new tributaries is particularly relevant.