Up, Down, Appendices, Postscript.
the first time I thought about it all this way, that we are each and every one alone, (that I can remember :-) was in relation to some photographs by Chris Simpson from Madagascar, then this week I watched a suite of movies around the 1994 genocide in Rwanda (listed in the Appendix) and the last few frames of Beyond The Gates (aka Shooting Dogs) as Marie runs for Burundi, a-and noticing that the image completes a Victorian arch with the initial images in the film, gave me this:
Marie's gaze, Claire-Hope Ashitey's gaze ... really I wanted to find a profile of Valentina Iribagiza from Nyarubuye somehow from Frontline's Ghosts Of Rwanda but movies not being 3-D and all ... and using Bill Clinton's smirk was also unsatisfactory given the scale of the denial, and putting the three frames side by each was unsatisfactory ... blah blah blah, whatever ...
my old friend Keith called it 'isolato' ... there was another opposite term but I have forgotten what it was ... 'communal' I think, and of course we differed on who was what and what was what ... later on he came up with a theory that there were in fact two species of human, one with compassion and one without, Kurt Vonnegut had a similar notion with his PPs - Pathological Personalities I think it was ...
if there are special circles in hell then Christine Shelly aka Christine Shelley and her kind should have one, not only close to being gramatically illiterate, she was the epitome of American moral illiteracy, the infamous exchange: "How many acts of genocide does it take to make a genocide? Um, Alan, that's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer" ... it is unkind to speak ill of the dead (they say) and she died of cancer in 2006 at a relatively young age - 54, I thought of doing a montage à la Marilyn Monroe/Andy Warhol, I imagine she said about the same thing many times but I could only find images of her wearing the two dresses shown (April 28 & June 10), and anyway it was a deep and rich vein of evil (or river of shit as the Fugs would call it) that she was swimming in, digging and delving, all the way from Bill Clinton, Warren Christopher, David Rawson, Prudence Bushnell, Madeleine Albright, Anthony Lake, (one two one two and through and through) in the American structure, and perfectly symmetrical at the United Nations: Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Kofi Annan, (the vorpal blade went snicker snack) ... "from the Grand Coulee dam to the Capitol, idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth."They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
Psalm 12.
He has two hearts instead of one. She cried, "Young man, what have ye done?"
The Swallow.
in Ghosts of Rwanda you can see both Bill Clinton and Madelaine Albright mouthing the hollow old saws about hindsight; "if we'd known then what we know now" and "things look different in retrospect" and more ... but it is a lie, they knew, they all knew.
if there is hope it might look something like Valentina Iribagiza, she says, "I do not know why I did not die. But maybe God had a plan for me to live."
... 'maybe' indeed ... the stories (3-1 & 3-2 below) and the pictures make 'too personal a tale' and it is not just a brutal story with a happy ending, the purveyors, including myself, are careless about details, don't really understand it at all ... and so on ...
He's quoted for a most perfidious slave,
With all the spots o' the world tax'd and debosh'd;
Whose nature sickens but to speak a truth.
Am I or that or this for what he'll utter,
That will speak any thing?
speaking about Parolles in All's Well That Ends Well: V, 3.
all of my thinking always brings me back eventually to the good Samaritan and the Golden Rule, God has gone to god for me, de-morphed? but I am still ruminating on the bottom lines laid out by Clive Hamilton and Bill McKibben (here, here, & here) - liminality, community, love.
and it winds back for me to the very end of Coetzee's story of Michael K and his pumpkins, and yeah, if I don't get some shelter soon maybe I'm gonna fade away too, that's ok, bound to happen eventually, all good :-) and 'soon' is a relative term :-)Postscript:
what might be a few minor victories (items 1-1, 1-2, & 2 in the Appendix), as environment ministers begin to at least look in the right direction, and the courts of BC may strike a blow against the robocops, but who can say?
and here's something, my brother-in-law loved to read P.D. James stories ... The Children of Men, 1992 by P.D. James, and Children of Men, 2006 by Alfonso Cuarón (uTorrent).
and an American lawyer with a conscience apparently, Lieutenant-Colonel Jon S. Jackson looks like he is going to bat for Omar Khadr, while on the k-k-Canadian side we have the entirely DIS-Honourable Minister of IN-Justice, Rob Nicholson.
and finally, just a few shots from Bliss:
Helen Jones as Honey Barbara, a detail of Eucalyptus melliodora aka Yellow Box tree that Harry planted in his eight-year love letter, and Barry Otto as Harry Joy,
here is a bit of one of Harry Joy's stories: "In New York, there are towers of glass. It is the most terrible and beautiful city on Earth. All good, all evil exists there. If you know where to look, you can find the Devil, that is where he lives. If you keep your eyes peeled you can see him drive down 42nd Street in a Cadillac."
Peter Carey, the author of the novel Bliss now lives there apparently; nothing is as simple as we would like it to be eh? when I was fossicking about at SlowTV I noticed his closing address at the Sydney Writers' Festival, May of this year ... I just listened to a few minutes of the beginning of it then, sort of went uh? and passed on ... more later maybe ...
Appendices:
Rwanda Genocide films: Wikipedia List (incomplete)
1997: NFB The Rwanda Series;
2004: PBS Frontline, Ghosts of Rwanda, uTorrent;
2004: Hotel Rwanda, uTorrent;
2005: Sometimes in April, uTorrent;
2005: Shooting Dogs/Beyond The Gates, uTorrent;
2006: Un dimanche à Kigali/A Sunday in Kigali, uTorrent;
2007: Shake Hands with the Devil, uTorrent;
2008: NFB Triage: Dr. James Orbinski's Humanitarian Dilemma;
2009: Le jour ou Dieu est parti en voyage/The Day God Stayed/Walked Away, uTorrent.
1-1. A Tale of Two Targets, NYT Editorial, July 15 2010.
1-2. Europe needs to reduce emissions by 30%, FT, July 14 2010.
2. Braidwood commission lawyers refute Taser challenge, CP, July 9 2010.
3-1. Valentine’s Story, Holy Trinity United Methodist Church, Sunday, January 18 2009.
3-2. Testimony of Valentina Izibagiza, SURF.
***************************************************************************
A Tale of Two Targets, NYT Editorial, July 15 2010.
The Senate spent this week searching for ways to water down the modest greenhouse gas emissions targets in the House-passed energy bill, which opponents claim — wrongly and shortsightedly — will injure the economy. The British, French and German environmental ministers showed a lot more sense this week.
They issued a bold call in The Financial Times for all European Union governments to approve stricter emissions targets, arguing that it would encourage private investment in low emissions technology and hone Europe’s export edge in low carbon goods and services.
Ministerial exhortations are one thing; binding legislation is another. Europe has generally talked a better climate-protection game than it has delivered. Yet this week’s contrast in directions is embarrassing for President Obama, who once pledged to fight for the stricter House targets, and for the United States.
At December’s climate conference in Copenhagen, most countries agreed in principle to try to hold global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius, by midcentury, which mainstream scientists regard as the threshold for preventing potentially catastrophic climate changes.
Achieving that will, they believe, require reducing worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by some 80 percent by 2050. Every nation will have to contribute, though not necessarily in equal measure. The House version of this year’s energy bill called for a 17 percent cut from 2005 emissions levels by 2020. The three ministers, by contrast, call for reinstating a European target of 30 percent reductions from much lower 1990 levels by 2020.
The European Union deferred that target, in part because of the economic strains of the global recession. But the ministers point out that the recession, by slowing economic activity across Europe, has actually made the original 30 percent target easier and cheaper to achieve. And they rightly note the potential export benefits for Europe of being a leading low-carbon producer.
Nobody expects the Senate to go as far as the European ministers advocate. But there is no excuse for the Senate’s backward march. We all live on the same planet, and it is getting warmer.
***************************************************************************
Europe needs to reduce emissions by 30%, FT, July 14 2010.
By Chris Huhne/UK climate change secretary, Norbert Röttgen/German federal environment minister and Jean-Louis Borloo/French environment minister.
Europe’s current focus on recovery from recession must not distract us from the question of what kind of economy we want to build. Unless we set our countries on a path to a sustainable low-carbon future, we will face continued uncertainty and significant costs from energy price volatility and a destabilising climate.
This is why we today set out our belief that the European Union should raise its emissions target. A reduction of 30 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 would represent a real incentive for innovation and action in the international context. It would be a genuine attempt to restrict the rise in global temperatures to 2°C – the key climate danger threshold – stiffening the resolve of those already proposing ambitious action and encouraging those waiting in the wings. It would also make good business sense.
The current target of a 20 per cent reduction now seems insufficient to drive the low-carbon transition. The recession by itself has cut emissions in the EU’s traded sector by 11 per cent from pre-crisis levels. Partly as a result, the price of carbon is far too low to stimulate significant investment in green jobs and technologies.
If we stick to a 20 per cent cut, Europe is likely to lose the race to compete in the low-carbon world to countries such as China, Japan or the US – all of which are looking to create a more attractive environment for low-carbon investment.
By moving to a higher target, the EU would have a direct impact on the carbon price through to 2020 and also send a strong signal of our commitment to a low-carbon policy framework in the longer term. We must not forget that building a low-carbon future depends overwhelmingly on the private sector. Moving to a 30 per cent target would provide greater certainty and predictability for investors.
Europe’s companies are poised to take advantage of the new opportunities. They currently have a global market share of 22 per cent of the low-carbon goods and services sector, thanks to Europe’s early leadership in tackling climate change. But the rest of the world is catching up. The Copenhagen commitments, though less ambitious than we had hoped, have triggered widespread action, notably in China, India and Japan.
Because of reduced emissions in the recession, the annual costs in 2020 of meeting the existing 20 per cent target are down a third from €70bn ($89bn, £59bn) to €48bn. A move up to 30 per cent is now estimated to cost only €11bn more than the original cost of achieving a 20 per cent reduction. In addition, delayed action would come with a high price tag: according to the International Energy Agency, every year of delayed investment on low-carbon energy sources costs €300bn to €400bn at the global level.
Furthermore, these costs were calculated on the conservative assumption that oil will cost $88 (€69, £58) a barrel in 2020. Given the current constraints on supply-side investment, rapid growth in consumption in Asia, and the impact of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, oil prices may well rise further; under one IEA scenario, the price could reach a nominal $130 a barrel. Rising oil prices would lower the costs of hitting any targets and, under some scenarios, the direct economic effects of hitting the 30 per cent target by 2020 actually turn positive.
Some energy-intensive sectors will be exposed to greater costs than the average. We already try to safeguard them through free emissions allowances where necessary, and alternative measures might be needed over time. The real threat that such industries face, though, is not carbon prices but collapsing demand in the European construction and infrastructure markets. One sure way to increase demand for the materials these sectors produce is through incentives to boost investment in large-scale low-carbon infrastructure – a voracious user of steel, cement, aluminium and chemicals. Our industry departments are working to ensure that we manage the transition effectively and maximise opportunities for these sectors.
Ducking the argument on 30 per cent will put us in the global slow lane. Early action will provide our industries with a vital head start. That is why we believe the move to 30 per cent is right for Europe. It is a policy for jobs and growth, energy security and climate risk. Most of all, it is a policy for Europe’s future.
***************************************************************************
Braidwood commission lawyers refute Taser challenge, CP, July 9 2010.
VANCOUVER — Taser International's legal challenge of the Braidwood commission is not only baseless, but an abuse of process, a provincial government lawyer told a B.C. Supreme Court judge Friday.
Lawyer Craig Jones said the petition by Taser was such a "waste of precious judicial resources" that he may be making the unusual request for the court to award legal costs to the provincial government.
The weapons maker is "manipulating the courts" by saying its stun gun holds no risk of death in Canada, while asserting the reverse in the United States, Jones said in a written submission to the judge.
Earlier in the week, government lawyers pointed to a Taser training bulletin that recommends users aim the device away from the heart to "avoid the remote potential risk of cardiac effect."
But Taser countered that it has never admitted the weapons are dangerous, and that the phrase was simply inserted to prevent potential lawsuits. Jones alleges the Arizona-based company changes its position to suit its local litigation needs.
"The Braidwood Report is making life difficult for Taser -- it finds itself legally compelled to admit to risks it continues to deny in other contexts," the submission states.
"If it can get the report quashed on technical grounds related to procedural fairness its litigation strategy internationally will be advanced and its marketing efforts protected."
Taser is petitioning B.C. Supreme Court to throw out the portion of Commissioner Thomas Braidwood's report about the safety of the stun guns. The retired judge concluded the weapons can kill.
The public inquiry was called in the months after Robert Dziekanski was repeatedly jolted by an RCMP Taser and died on the floor of the Vancouver airport.
Taser's lawyers argued at the start of the hearing that it was treated unfairly in the inquiry, and conclusions were reached that weren't supported by facts.
Jones argued the affidavit shows the company may have asserted it wanted the opportunity to communicate recent research findings, but instead merely intended to protect its own legal position in U.S. litigation.
He argues it "would be a shame" if the conduct of the company passes "without comment or condemnation," given the expense imposed on the B.C. taxpayers. As such, he requests the court "invite submissions on costs" after the judge issues his decision.
Lawyers for all parties wrapped the week of arguments Friday before Judge Robert Sewell, who reserved his ruling without giving a date for his decision.
"I want to thank all counsel for their most thorough, able and interesting submissions," Sewell said when the proceedings had concluded.
***************************************************************************
Valentine’s Story, Holy Trinity United Methodist Church, Sunday, January 18 2009.
After a short introduction by Daddy Glenn, I will introduce myself also, and will then answer four questions.
INTRODUCTION:
Hello! Good morning. My name is Valentine Iribagiza. I am happy to be here today to tell you my story. I want to thank Pastor Susan and the Outreach Committee for inviting me here. My English is not good. So I hope you will understand me. The languages that I know best are French, and the native language of Rwanda, called Kinyarwanda.
When I speak to people, I like to answer questions. So today I am going to answer four questions about my life:
1. WHAT HAPPENED IN MY VILLAGE, CALLED NYARUBUYE, IN RWANDA, IN APRIL OF 1994?
In 1994 in Rwanda we had Genocide. The government of Rwanda was controlled by some people from the Hutu majority group who wanted to hold all the power.
The Hutu Power group were prepared to kill those of us who belonged to a group, called the Tutsi.
The Genocide began on April 6th, 1994, when the plane carrying the President of the country, who was a Hutu, was shot down. The President was killed.
The Hutu leaders said that the Tutsi people killed their President, so the killing of Tutsi people began immediately after the President’s plane was shot down.
Many Tutsi people died everywhere – in their homes, along the roads, by the rivers, in the mountains, and also in the churches.
The people of my village, and many other people who were running from the killers, went to the church in our village. We all thought THIS IS THE HOUSE OF GOD and they will not kill us in this church.
After two days, the Hutu killers came to the church and asked who was Hutu and who was Tutsi. The Tutsi people were kept in the church, where most all of them were killed over the next few days. We still do not know the number killed. Even today bodies are still being found buried in our village.
The killers used machetes, bombs, and big clubs with nails. I lost my family, friends, neighbors. I didn’t see my Mom, or my brothers or sisters get killed, but I saw my daddy’s body. The killers kept coming back to the church for three days. Those of us who were not dead pretended to be dead. We hid ourselves among the bodies.
The 2 nd question is: WHAT HAPPENED TO ME AT THAT TIME?
I went to the church with my family on the 12th of April. After two days, the killers came. They struck me with a machete on my hip. They thought I was dead. I was one of the children who hiding among the bodies. I could not walk.
The next day the killers came and threw stones at us to see who was still alive. They found about 10 or 15 of us. They made me crawl out of the church into the churchyard. They called us bad names. Snakes.
A man named Antoine, who was my neighbor, asked me WHY DIDN’T YOU DIE? I said nothing. He asked also WHERE IS YOUR BROTHER? I said nothing. I did not know what happened to my brother.
He had long knife and a club, and he struck me on my right shoulder, and on my head.
Then he made me put my right hand out on the ground, and he struck my hand again and
again with the club.
He thought I was dead, like the others. So the killers went away. It was raining, and I could not stand up, but I managed to crawl back into the church.
I was in the church with all the bodies for some more days when two Hutu people came into the church to see if there were any people still alive. These were people from my village, a brother and a sister. I knew them. They had been among the killers.
They said bad things to me. They called me names. They said we don’t have to kill you. You are going to die anyway.
But then they said, what do you want? I could not speak because my mouth and throat were dry. So I motioned with my hand, asking for water.
They came back later with water, but it was dirty, and I could not drink it. They also brought me a sweet potato. I tried to eat it, but I could not swallow.
Then they went away and never came back.
I was in the church for 43 days without food or water.
The 3 rd question is: HOW DID I SURVIVE AND GET BETTER?
I do not know the answer to this question.
I do not know why I did not die. But maybe God had a plan for me to live.
After being in the church for 43 days, the soldiers came, and a French man named Daniel, and they took me to the hospital.
At the hospital the nurses helped me. They treated my wounds. They gave me a new life.
I was in the hospital for 7 months, and then I was taken to an orphanage. There at the orphanage I saw my younger brother, Placide.
He had survived by running away from the church, and hiding in the bush.
Then our uncle came and found us, and he took us to his home. He and my auntie were like
my mama and papa.
I also met a man named Fergal Keane. He is a reporter for the BBC television company. He had seen me in 1994 when I was badly injured, and started making a video of me.
The video, called VALENTINA’S NIGHTMARE, showed who I was when they found me in May of 1994. It also showed me again in 1997, when Fergal came back, and was surprised to see that I was alive and strong.
When I went back to school I had the idea that one day I would become a soldier. I wanted to be a soldier because it was the soldiers who found me and helped me survive. But then I became afraid that I would be killed if I became a soldier.
So I had the idea of becoming a nun. I wanted to give to God. But I had nothing to give, so I wanted to give myself to God. But my uncle said NO. Finally I had the idea of becoming a nurse, because the nurses had helped me recover from my wounds.
The 4 th question is: WHO AM I TODAY? WHAT ARE MY HOPES AND DREAMS TODAY?
I still want to become a nurse; if not a nurse, then perhaps a counselor. When people ask me, “What do you want to do?” I say, “There is one thing above all. I want to help people. Many people in my country still suffer from TRAUMA. I am strong, so I want to help other people. That is the purpose of my life. TO HELP OTHERS.
In 2003 I met Glenn, who is now like a parent to me. Daddy Glenn helped me come to America, to learn English. I am now studying English at the University of New Hampshire. I hope to start my Bachelor of Arts program next September.
I hope that one day there will be a clinic in Rwanda called Valentine’s Clinic. It will be my gift to the people of my home country. It will help heal people, and also tell about my story.
People ask me if I want to return to Rwanda, and I say “Yes, of course. Rwanda is my home. But I like America too. I like being an international citizen.
Again, thank you for welcoming me to this church. Now that I am here with you, I hope you will call me your daughter. It makes me happy to have many mamas and papas. I like having a big family.
That was my short report. If you have questions, please come to the meeting after the service.
***************************************************************************
Testimony of Valentina Izibagiza, SURF.
This is the testimony of Valentina Izibagiza, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide. She was 11 years old in 1994, at the beginning of the Rwandan genocide.
Before the genocide, I lived with my parents, four brothers and three sisters in Kibungo which is near Nyarubuye. We were a happy family and lucky children who didn't want for anything. I was third in the family, and I was in at school in primary three. We are Tutsi and we had many friends and neighbours who were Hutus.
On 7th April, the death of Rwanda's President Habyarimana was announced on the radio which greatly worried my parents. The following days, fires were burning in the neighbourhood, and the army came and killed some Tutsis in the local market place. Then we heard that the killing of Tutsis had begun in Rwanda's capital Kigali. On the 12th April, we heard that one of our Tutsi neighbours was attacked and murdered.
We knew what this meant for us Tutsis. Several people adults went to see the local mayor, Sylvester Gacumbitsi. He was a Hutu mayor but when he advised that Tutsis should go to the Catholic Church for sanctuary, everyone took him at his word. After all this, as my parents told me, this is where Tutsis found sanctuary, in previous attacks, in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
We arrived in the church on the 13th April to find that the priests had left so it was ‘everyone for himself.’ We had no food or water, but at least we had shelter and we were safe. Or so we thought. Now we know that around 3,000 Tutsis sought refuge in this church.
At 3pm on the afternoon of the 15th April we heard the sound of gun shots. Some people ran as soon as they heard the firing, but they were immediately gunned down and killed by the interahamwe, the Hutu militia who were very close. Soon the church was encircled, and the militia was shooting at everyone. Inside the church it was chaos as everyone ran around, screaming, trying to find a place to hide. Originally I'd been with my mother and brother but we became separated in the hysteria which ensued.
The church had lots of little rooms off the main church for storage and for the priests that lived there, so many people hid in here. Just as I'd crouched down in a corner, Gacumbitsi appeared. He had a microphone with him, and he shouted at us, "We are the interahmawe and we're about to eliminate every Tutsi so that in the future no-one will even know what a Tutsi looked like". He added, 'If anyone is hiding in this church because of a mistake, because really he or she is a Hutu, they should tell me now." After a few seconds a boy of about seven or eight stood up. "I am a Hutu," he said. Of course everyone knew that he wasn't Hutu. Two interahmwe soldiers ran forward and beat him with machetes so fiercely that his body went flying up in the air, and came down in several pieces. I sat watching all this terrified, as everyone screamed, begging to be saved.
I'd been hiding in a small cubby hole quite near the entrance of the church. I think it was so small that nobody bothered to check to see if anyone would be hiding there. Sometimes the militia would just take a child and throw it at the wall. Or if they were killing people with machetes they'd throw them so that some fell very close to and almost on top of me as I lay crouched hiding. Towards the end of the day when many people were killed more men came and stuck knives in those who lay wounded to make sure they were dead.
By this time, I was lying underneath several dead people, and they thought that I too was dead. That night all you could hear was people wailing. The survivors wandered around discovering who was dead and who the killers hadn't quite managed to kill. I crawled out from beneath some dead bodies, and tried to find my parents but I couldn't find anyone from my family. The next day, the killers returned and the same slaughter happened all over again. It's impossible to tell you how terrible it was.
Three days after the first killing had begun, on 16th April, another group of killers came, this time led by Antoine who had been our neighbour and a friend of our family. As Antoine and his companions passed me by, I held my breath. Later that day, when it seemed that almost everyone was dead, the interahamwe brought their dogs which began eating the dead. That was horrible. When the dogs came near me, I swiped at them and they went off to someone else. But some soldiers walked around checking exactly who was left, and they dragged out 15 people including me.
I knew one of the soldiers, whose name was Fredina. I begged him, "Can you find it in your heart to forgive me for being Tutsi? Please spare me." He spat at me, and said "Is this a hospital that I should forgive you? But I'm not going to smear myself with your blood. I'm going to ask someone else to kill you." He gestured to Antoine, our other neighbour.
"I'm going to kill you," he said, and I put up my hand to protect my head from his machete. Then he began smashing my hands with a clubbed stick, so that my fingers were broken and my skull was bleeding and the pain was terrible. After that he beat me some more on my shoulders and then again on my head, which was agonising and soon the pain was so terrible, that I knew no more. I had passed out.
I stayed among the dead in the Church at Nyarubuye for 43 days without food and only holy water or rain water. Now I'm not sure how I survived. I do remember that in the first few days I was in terrible pain, from the wounds on my head, but then I became like a log; it was as if I couldn't feel and I could barely move, except to crawl out to drink rain water.
During those days, the dogs would come round to eat people, but they became scared of me, so they never came into the room where I lay.
On the 26th May a man appeared who lived near the church. His name I now know was Caliste and when he caught sight of me, he wasn't sure whether I was dead or alive. He brought some food and threw it to me, and then he returned with a white journalist, a mzungo. He was a Frenchmen who'd been making a documentary, about the genocide and he'd been filming all the dead bodies at what I later learnt was the massacre of Nyarubuye when 3,000 people were killed.
Now I am 19, but I feel a lot older. I live with a cousin, who had gone to Kenya, before the war, but now he's returned, and I'm studying at school. Now the church at Nyarubuye has gone back to being a proper church, and I took part in Fergal Keane's film when he returned to find out what had happened to the survivors.
Last summer I went to Arusha to testify at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), where I could see Gacumbitsi. I knew him but of course he didn't know me. He looked fat and healthy and he wore a smart suit with a tie, and he looked contented. I was terrified, and then I felt very angry. That gave me the courage to speak and tell my story. He didn't seem remotely concerned at what I had to say. Then his lawyer asked me questions which made me both scared and furious. What right had they to question my credibility in this way, after what I had suffered? My testimony at the international court brought me no relief. All it did was to make me relive the horror. To me it didn't feel like justice; it just made me relive the horror of what happened in the Church at Nyarubuye.
ENDS
