Showing posts with label Whoremonger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whoremonger. Show all posts

Thursday, 4 June 2009

Barack Obama in Cairo

and Oliver Cromwell addressing the 'Rump' Parliament, April 20 1653
Up, Down, Skip to Cromwell.

Barack Obama BuchenwaldAnd I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith in every country. You more than anyone have the ability to re-imagine the world, and to remake this world.

Barack Obama's speech in Cairo, June 4, 2009, video at the New York Times - which newspaper certainly is the best at making it easy to find full versions of things such as this, better certainly than the Globe & Mail here in k-k-Canada, who supplied links to a two minute clip of the speech preceeded by some stupid #$@!! ad for IBM, and another full text site which i did not bother to verify (i subsequently did have a look - full of extraneous underscores and not true to the spoken version on the thing i was looking for).

Barack Obama's speech in Cairo at YouTube as provided on the White House channel.

Gable, Veterans of Mideast Peace Missions, ObamaResponses: Where's the halal, Obama?, Rick Salutin (Halal), and, the mealy-mouthed, small-minded back-handed compliment-not wizardry of the Globe and Mail editorial board, oh-so typically k-k-Canadian: True belief in the power of words.

Text of president Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University in Egypt, June 4, 2009, As provided by CQ Transcriptions, this CQ Transcriptions, whoever they are, deserve a good word as well - i followed the text as i listened to the speech and found no significant errors or omissions, a definite improvement, good on 'em! just to be clear - i have made a few corrections in the text below

1. Violent extremism, 2. Israel & Palestine, 3. Nuclear weapons, 4. Democracy, 5. Religious freedom, 6. Women's rights, 7. Economic development, Conclusion.

Barack Obama GizaThank you very much. Please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning. And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.

I'm grateful for your hospitality and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the good will of the American people and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalam-alaikum.

(APPLAUSE)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world, tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation but also conflict and religious wars.

More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and western countries but also to human rights.

All this has bred more fear and more mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.

But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground.

As the Holy Quran tells us, Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.

(APPLAUSE)

That is what I will try to do today, to speak the truth as best I can. Humbled by the task before us and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now, part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian. But my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.

As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities ...

(APPLAUSE)

It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

(APPLAUSE)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote,

The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.

They have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They've excelled in our sports arenas. They've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Quran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.

(APPLAUSE)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

(APPLAUSE)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as ...

(APPLAUSE)

Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. And we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words, within our borders and around the world. We are shaped by every culture. Drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept, E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.

Now much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president.

(APPLAUSE)

But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores. And that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it. So let there be no doubt...

(APPLAUSE)

... let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead. And if we understand that the challenges we face are shared and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.

When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.

(APPLAUSE)

That is what it means to share this world in the 21st Century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. This is a difficult responsibility to embrace, for human history has often been a record of nations and tribes, and, yes, religions subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests.

Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership, our progress must be shared.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. We must face these tensions squarely. And so, in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.

(APPLAUSE)

We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject - the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.

These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.

We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.

The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as it if he has killed all mankind.

(APPLAUSE)

And the Holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

(APPLAUSE)

The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion dollars each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced.

That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion dollars to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Now, let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

(APPLAUSE)

Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be." Today America has a dual responsibility to help Iraq forge a better future and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people ...

(APPLAUSE)

I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012.

(APPLAUSE)

We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.

We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States. And I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

(APPLAUSE)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.

Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.

Threatening Israel with destruction or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews is deeply wrong and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people, Muslims and Christians, have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years, they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation.

So let there be no doubt, the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity and a state of their own.

(APPLAUSE)

For decades, then, there has been a stalemate. Two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers. For Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history, from within its borders as well as beyond.

But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth. The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

(APPLAUSE)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest and the world's interest. And that's why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all of the patience and dedication that the task requires.

The obligations — the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them and all of us to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding.

This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia, from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed, that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern with institutions that serve the needs of its people.

Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities, to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

(APPLAUSE)

This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

(APPLAUSE)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security, neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank.

Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace. And Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And, finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs.

We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true. Too many tears have been shed, too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians could, can see their children grow up without fear, when the holy land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be, when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed — peace be upon them — joined in prayer.

(APPLAUSE)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons. This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself, in part, by its opposition to my country. And there is, in fact, a tumultuous history between us.

In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known.

Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against but, rather, what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.

But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

(APPLAUSE)

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.

Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.

But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear. Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power. Once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.

(APPLAUSE)

So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power. You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise. You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.

Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

(AUDIENCE MEMBER SHOUTS)

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia where devout Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.

This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. But it's being challenged in many different ways. Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith.

The richness of religious diversity must be upheld, whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.

(APPLAUSE)

And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.

We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue, and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.

Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service so bridges between peoples lead to action, whether it is combating malaria in Africa or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue - the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. I know...

(APPLAUSE)

I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.

(APPLAUSE)

And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.

Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world. I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons.

(APPLAUSE)

Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.

And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

(APPLAUSE)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity. I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.

Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations, including America, this change can bring fear; fear that, because of modernity, we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly, our identities, those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai.

In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.

Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century. And in too ... And in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America, in the past, has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand change programs and increase scholarships like the one that brought my father to America.

(APPLAUSE)

At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America, invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world and create a new, online network so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new core of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations, and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim majority countries and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.

Today, I'm announcing a new global effort with the organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote - ah duh - child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address, but we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek, a world where extremists no longer threaten our people and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes, a world where governments serve their citizens and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together. I know there are many, Muslim and non-Muslim, who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort, that we are fated to disagree and civilizations are doomed to clash.

Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith in every country. You more than anyone have the ability to reimagine the world, and to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or whether we commit ourselves to an effort, a sustained effort to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path.

There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

(APPLAUSE)

This truth transcends nations and peoples, a belief that isn't new, that isn't black or white or brown, that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people. And it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Quran tells us, O Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.

The Talmud tells us, The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.

The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

(APPLAUSE)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)




Cromwell's speech to the Rump Parliament, April 20, 1653:

Gold is your God.


Version 1, ubiquitous but no clear provenance:

"It is high time for Me to put an End to your Sitting in this Place, which you have dishonoured by your Contempt of all Virtue, and defiled by your Practice of every Vice;

Ye are a factious Crew and Enemies of all good Government; Ye are a Pack of mercenary Wretches and would, like Esau, Sell your Country for a Mess of Pottage; and like Judas, betray your God for a few Pieces of Money; Is there a single Virtue now remaining amongst you?

Is there one Vice that you do not possess? Ye have no more Religion than my horse! Gold is your God: Which of you have not bartered your Conscience for Bribes?

Is there a Man amongst you that has the least care for the Good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes! Have you not defiled this Sacred Place, and turned the Lord's Temple into a Den of Thieves by your immoral Principles and wicked Practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole Nation.

Your Country therefore calls upon me to cleanse the Augean Stable, by putting a final Period to your Iniquitous Proceedings in this House, and which by God's Help, and the strength He has given Me, I now come to do.

I command ye, therefore, upon the Peril of your Lives, to depart immediately out of this Place;

Go! Get out! Make haste, ye Venal Slaves, begone!"


Version 2 - Chambers' Book of Days, April 20, 1653:

"We have had enough of this — I will put an end to your prating. ... It is not fit you should sit here any longer — you have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. You shall now give place to better men. Call them in!

You are no parliament! Some of you are drunkards some of you are whoremongers living in open contempt of God's commandments. Some of you are corrupt, unjust persons — how can you be a parliament for God's people? Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. Go!"


no particular reason to put Obama & Cromwell side by each, just that i had several email chains come my way with Cromwell's speech in the last few days and i didn't want to forget it

as for Obama, it is too bad he did not mention Bahá'í in his speech anywhere for two reasons: they are persecuted in Iran, and, so much of what he was saying resonates integrally with what the Bahá'ís say

and for those curmudgeons who want to see Obama fail ... well, maybe he will fail, and maybe he won't, but i for one support what he is saying wholeheartedly, as does Rick Salutin apparently: Where's the halal, Obama? (Halal)

so ... Version 8 of IE came along to me today, and it does not support links with a trailing # ... doh! one more reason not to use IE, Firefox is the one maybe?

oh yeah ... bought a pack today and already smoked half of it, ai ai ai! same old conundrum same old bad 'trade in the shade' situation ...

Kodachrome, they give us those nice bright colors
they give us the greens of summers
makes you think all the world’s a sunny day, oh yeah
I got a nikon camera, I love to take a photographs
Oh mama don’t take my kodachrome away

***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
Appendices:
Where's the halal, Obama?, Rick Salutin, Thursday, June 04, 2009.
True belief in the power of words, Editorial, Friday June 5, 2009.

***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************


***************************************************************************
Where's the halal, Obama?, Rick Salutin, Thursday, June 04, 2009.

The Cairo speech went about as far it could go

Barack Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday made me nostalgic. The feeling came on as he foresaw a time “when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be.” In my undergrad years, I studied at Brandeis University, near Boston, a secular school but built by American Jews as their contribution to U.S. higher education. Its architectural centrepiece was a set of three chapels around a pool where, as the school catalogue said, “three faiths go their separate ways ... together.”

The three were Catholic, Protestant and Jewish. Muslim wasn't yet on the chart, but that's not the point. The notion of religion was inclusive and humanitarian - that's the point - rather than exclusive and theological. At the synagogue school I'd attended in Toronto, by far the most popular course among us kids had been “comparative religion.” It made us feel worldly and cosmopolitan. At services, the prayer we spoke most solemnly began, Grant us peace (based on a loose translation from the Hebrew). Later, when I took grad courses at a Protestant seminary, earnest students would say things such as, “The church has gotta get where the action is, man.” It was a bit sappy, like the chapels, but the impulses were ethical and universal.

As I slogged deeper into adolescence and beyond, I yearned for harder edges. I was attracted by the paradoxical faith of Kierkegaard (“because it is absurd”) and the Barthian nein of neo-fundamentalist Christianity. Over the years, the liberal version of religiosity receded further, and hard-liners in all religions - not just the biblical ones - advanced. They tended to focus on dogma and sectarian purity, rather than embracing human diversity.

This narrow, anathematizing religiosity, in turn, has provoked recent attacks by nouveau atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. To the extent they condemn all “religion,” I think they miss the mark, since religion is such a broad category. In ways, it is equivalent to the human enterprise itself. One classical sociologist, Émile Durkheim, felt God was virtually the same as society. Canadian historian Harold Innis thought that, in the era of the oral tradition, where the major religions are rooted, culture and religion amounted to pretty much the same thing.

So Barack Obama is on solid ground when he invokes religion as a worldly, unifying force rather than one that's divisive and exclusive, setting the elect against the damned, the right against the wrong. Both impulses exist in religion, sometimes in the same person. But if religion is going to always be with us, contrary to earlier expectations, then it matters which tendency prevails among most people, especially in perilous, nuclear times.

He ended impressively and, I'd say, religiously: “All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time” - reflecting on the tentativeness of our existence and the mystery that it happens at all. He went on: “The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or ... find common ground.” He quoted from the Koran, the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, implicitly challenging those who think they have sole possession of revealed truth, or of its interpretation. What once seemed to me bland and obvious (at the three chapels), looked, in Cairo, rather bold.

Skeptics in the Muslim world, of course, will withhold approval: in Gaza, where an Israeli blockade prevents even bags of cement from entering to rebuild the ruins left by the recent invasion; or in Pakistan/Afghanistan, where U.S. drones tend to bomb wedding parties rather than al-Qaeda. If they were (non-Muslim) guys in a strip bar, they'd say: Never mind that stuff, Obama, just show us your [boobs]. And they'd be right. It was only a speech. But for a speech, it went about as far as it could go.


***************************************************************************
True belief in the power of words, Editorial, Friday June 5, 2009.

President Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world was a brave gesture

President Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world yesterday was a brave gesture that set down, before a world audience, crucial markers to Israeli and Palestinian leaders. To Israel – and in particular its obstinate Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu – he said, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlements.” To Hamas, and Palestinians generally, he said, “Palestinians must abandon violence.” And to the Islamic world beyond, he made clear that “the bond is unbreakable” between the U.S. and Israel. He can hardly go back on these statements now; and all the parties involved know where they stand with the United States.

Mr. Obama is not one to hoard his political capital. He spends it, bravely – this is brave, because a terrorist's airplane could hit New York or Washington next week, or next year, and his conciliatory words would be thrown back at him across the United States. Brave, as well, because addressing an entire people, in all their diversity, with nothing but words, words, words invites accusations of naiveté and weakness. People will ask: Does he think he will win over hearts and minds with a speech? If so, is he prepared to renounce this and apologize for that? What will he give up?

He did not renounce or apologize. The message, similar to that in his inaugural speech, was that he does not accept excuses for inaction; he will not abide being rooted in old grievances. Mr. Obama genuinely believes in words, words, words. He is a writer, after all, and a former law professor. The thread that winds through his major speeches – his race speech, the inaugural and the one yesterday in Cairo – is of the possibility of conciliation. In the U.S., he has made attempts to bridge the divide between white and black; now he is turning to the divides between Palestinians and Israelis, and between Muslims and the United States.

If it is naive to insist before the world that common ground is possible, then he is naive. If it is naive to act as if the U.S. presidency carries some moral weight in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, or as if he himself, by virtue of his background, as the Christian son of a Kenyan father whose family includes generations of Muslims, is worth listening to on the subjects of Islam and women, Islam and tolerance, Islam and the West – then he is naive. If it is naive to think he can compete for the Arab street with the radicals, then he is naive.

A hundred holes, a thousand, could be poked in this speech. But so what? Even if most of it disappears in a puff of smoke, he has distinguished himself, in tone and substance, from his predecessor. He has also made himself accountable on the Middle East, by saying he would “personally pursue” a peace deal between Israel and Palestine (he said Palestine, not the Palestinian Authority). He is asking for the impossible – “a new beginning.” But at least he's asking.

Down.

Thursday, 21 May 2009

shit-house rat

as in, 'crazy as a -'
aka, racist sexist whoremonger & shit-head

Up, Down.

if there were any point to this it would be obvious, au contraire, it is obvious that there is no poimt & no purpose, no use or ornament.

Yoni Yumsomewhere, recently, i was wondering why shit-house rats are crazy? maybe it is envy of granary rats? maybe a diet of shit overcomes their immune systems in subtle ways? like syphilis sufferers go crazy from brain tissue dissolving or Aids sufferers go crazy from internal warts, but these are germs we have never heard of, and there is another range of possibilities here, another 'axis' from anger through ignorance, as well as the regular-old physiology already mentioned, a-and somewhere else recently i was also wondering about whoremongers?

of course no one reads this shit, so no one ever wonders along with me, this is a very lonely situation, and (to make a long story shorter :-) it can leave you feeling as crazy as a (proverbial) shit-house rat

'racist' because my psychology is now soooo fucked up that when i see a brown woman, even a head of curly hair and a tan, my interest circuits kick in, pure accident that my wives were white, accident of birth and so forth

did i say, avocado, mango, maracujá (?)

Spiral Jetty, Robert SmithsonSpiral Jetty, Robert SmithsonSpiral Jetty, Robert SmithsonSpiral Jetty, Robert SmithsonSpiral Jetty, Robert SmithsonSpiral Jetty, Robert Smithson
Robert Smithson, Spiral Jetty.

'sexist' because (and it has been this way for a long time) ... simply consider the word 'woman' in the previous phrase, i am only interested, visually at least, in women, they don't have to be young but they do have to look as if they may still have a bit of juice somewhere, or 'clutch' as John Steinbeck called it (was it Steinbeck?) ... ahh the wonders of Google ... the quote is from East of Eden apparently, “Strawberries don’t taste like they used to, and the thighs of women have lost their clutch,” more of a complaint about ageing really, isn't it? my own, thighs that is, have just about definitely lost what clutch they may have had, enough to father children, there are compensations, some of them seem to like tongue ... but what does anyone know about anything? except what they guess at or complacently assume?

grief with the Globe today, arrogant IT wonks, new grief with Adobe 'improvements' today, new grief with copyright today, grief, grief, grief, .... trouble trouble trouble ... quacks!

Winston Watsonand some good stuff: Bob Dylan, Dignity, & Bob Dylan, Dignity, and then Charles Taylor lecture on FORA TV May 4 2007 (this can be downloaded), source for Yoni Yum image more later maybe

some years ago I had a vision of a piece of music played on a pipe organ and half a dozen saxophones ... at the time I put it to the organist at my church, nevermind who but a well known organist, basically wondering how much it would cost to commission such a piece of music ... and the wanker thought I was a nut-bar and never answered me (doh!) and all these so many years later it turns out I was not crazy after all, there have been a number of quite reputable musicians who have combined brass and pipe organ ... and one of them is this guy, Thomas DiVito, obvious if you think about it, there is a trumpet 'stop' on a pipe organ, qed.

nothing showing here but deficit, short-fall, lack ... "the excess of expenditure or liabilities over income or assets," as a state, and the process, the trajectories, parabolic and otherwise, the rules of plumbing, shit flows down-hill.

did i say i went out at the end of a lonely disheartening day and bought a pack of smokes?

Down.

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

LIARS!

day 16 & losing count
Up, Down.

William/Bill Sweeney, the deputy commissioner (should that be capitalized I wonder? Deputy Commissioner? or should I just capitalize the L on Liar and the D on Dissembler?) of the RCMP goes before a Senate committee and apologizes for what the RCMP did to Robert Dziekanski. He says he is really really sorry and he promises, cross his measely little heart, that he will learn from his mistakes. In the same breath he says he is sorry he cannot say more but ... he doesn't want to prejudice the 'investigation' ... blah blah blah ...
more of the same old FUCKING BULLSHIT LIES from the RCMP!
Bill Sweeney, William Sweeney, RCMPBill Sweeney, William Sweeney, RCMPBill Sweeney, William Sweeney, RCMPBill Sweeney, William Sweeney, RCMPBill Sweeney, William Sweeney, RCMPBill Sweeney, William Sweeney, RCMPBill Sweeney, William Sweeney, RCMP
RCMP deputy commissioner apologizes for Dziekanski's death, Janice Tibbetts, May 11, 2009. I guess I should be surprised that the Globe and Mail praises his lameness: The talking cure, Editorial, May 13, 2009.

Ujjal Dosanjh is finally coming forward and telling some truth, he says:

"By impeding certain witnesses or trying to prevent certain witnesses from coming before the inquiry is preventing the commissioner from coming to a conclusion based on all of the evidence -- that is insulting to Canadians."

(Dziekanski 'would not have died' if spared Taser, expert tells inquiry, Friday, May 8, 2009; Braidwood inquiry 'a battle of experts': lawyer, Sat May 09 2009.)

One could ask why it has taken almost two years for him to do so? Better late than never you could say. That this oh-so-late hand wringing is a way to appear honourable among these despicable rogues ... well, that's the k-k-Canadian way eh? Here he is yukking it up with his buddies, Tom Smith President of Taser International, and Ravi Hira lawyer for Constable Kwesi Millington:
Ujjal Dosanjh, with Tom Smith & Thomas BraidwoodUjjal Dosanjh, with Tom Smith & Thomas BraidwoodUjjal Dosanjh, with Tom Smith & Thomas BraidwoodUjjal Dosanjh, with Ravi+HiraUjjal Dosanjh, with Ravi+HiraUjjal Dosanjh, with Ravi+HiraUjjal Dosanjh, with Ravi+HiraUjjal Dosanjh, with Ravi+Hira
still and all, somebody should tell Ujjal Dosanjh that it is TOO LITTLE TOO LATE!


Brian Mulrooney, Oliphant CommissionBrian Mulrooney, Oliphant Commission, Brian GableA-and Brian Mulrooney is also on the stand lying today. Oh, he is so meek and mild. CTV tells us that, "Former prime minister Brian Mulroney fought back tears at the Oliphant inquiry Wednesday."

"Cry me a river," sez I.


i have been re-reading The Great Code the way i prefer to read it which is to open at some page and carry on till i fall asleep, all this caps-lock angst is no doubt just misplaced something-or-other, being too alone with a language that is 99% culturally conditioned maybe :-) and i wish someone was here who could explain it all to me in terms that i might understand what it is exactly that i have misplaced

something else came to me today, meditating on Michael K and such, a series of reductions, losses, no need to go into the details, things loved: architecture, women, geometry, children, open space, certain kinds of cooperative conversation ... and today, standing at the streetcar stop i saw that very very small things have been arriving just in time to keep me on the thread ... infinitesimal things, a smile on the girl's face in Tims, a laugh overheard in the park, a phone call, an email with almost no message, a promise i do not expect to see fulfilled

i bought a cutting board, then went to the fruit store for avocadoes, ginger and garlic, and the woman saw the board and said to me, "you are cooking," not, "are you cooking?" a chinese woman, i overheard her tell someone whe has four children, and this is like a little chestnut now, a little sprouted seed in my garden of imaginings

and the other thought around whoremonger, Ephesians 5,5: For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. there is some wiggle room here though eh? seems like it needs to be and-ed with idolater? i always thought a whoremonger was a seller, a pimp then, like a monger generally which is a small-scale or petty trafficker, trader, dealer, but when it comes to whores, no, the OED is clear, it is a user, a lecher, a fornicator, a dealer with, not a dealer of or in so it would be a waste of time to hedge on simple penetration ... oh my, well, fuck 'em sez i, and of course immediately tempted to put all of this straight into the toast later in the summer :-)




***************************************************************************
The talking cure, Editorial, May 13, 2009.

The lessons from the needless tasering death of Robert Dziekanski have long been in plain sight. At last, they seem to be sinking in among the Mounties.

The 40-year-old Polish immigrant was zapped five times on Oct. 14, 2007, though he had no weapons, struck or threatened no one, and was in anguish because he had been waiting 10 hours at the Vancouver International Airport for his mother. The Mounties killed him.

William Sweeney, the Senior Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP, told a Senate committee, which is studying reform of the federal police force, that the Mounties are very sorry for his death, the subject of a judicial inquiry at which RCMP officers have repeatedly shown they have learned nothing. Mr. Sweeney, rather than falling back on narrow explanations drawn from the manual on “the use of force,” said the Mounties need to relearn how to talk to people, to avoid harming them.

How true. Time was on the Mounties' side. They could have tried talking to Mr. Dziekanski, offered him a chair and a glass of water. They could have stood back, instead of closing in as a pack on a bewildered man. Why has it been so hard for the Mounties to say so until now?



***************************************************************************
Dziekanski 'would not have died' if spared Taser, expert tells inquiry, Friday, May 8, 2009.

Robert Dziekanski would have lived if he hadn't been stunned by a Taser when confronted by RCMP officers at Vancouver airport in 2007, a medical expert in sudden death testified Friday at a public inquiry.

Dr. Zian Tseng, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California in San Francisco, has studied in-custody sudden deaths, and his work shows that once Tasers were deployed, the rate of those deaths increased six times, though not all were directly attributed to Tasers, the inquiry heard.

In his testimony, Tseng outlined what happens to the heart when a person is stunned by a Taser. In the Dzeikanski case, he concluded that the Polish immigrant would not have died if he hadn't been jolted by a Taser.

"I tried to put myself in that situation and think about if the Taser was not discharged in that case and he simply struggled with police," Tseng said. "In my opinion, in that kind of scenario, he would not have died."

Dziekanski died on the floor of the airport soon after being shocked five times by a police Taser. Four RCMP officers had been sent to the international arrivals lounge in response to reports that Dziekanski was throwing furniture and causing a scene. Within seconds of their arrival, a Taser was deployed to subdue Dziekanski.

Tseng told the inquiry Friday Dziekanski was already in a heightened state of stress, frustrated by the situation he found himself in.

Dziekanski's stress level was made worse by the use of the Taser, which triggered a medical condition known as "ventricular tachycardia," which Tseng described as a dangerous heart rhythm.

The Taser jolts in this case either directly or indirectly led to that condition, which could lead to the heart stopping completely, Tseng testified.

The inquiry heard last month from a cardiology expert, who was paid by Taser International for sitting on its medical advisory board, that Dziekanski's death didn't seem to be related to the stun gun.

Dr. Charles Swerdlow testified Dziekanski's heart didn't stop immediately after the deployment of the Taser, adding that if the heart was affected by electrical current, the resulting heartbeat would be either too fast or irregular.

Not acting in public interest: Dosanjh

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh paid a surprise visit to the inquiry Friday to listen to Tseng's testimony.

Dosanjh, who was B.C.'s attorney general in 1999 and okayed the use of Tasers by police in the province, said he now regrets his decision.

"If I had known all of the information [about Tasers], if I had been given the truth, which I wasn't given, I wouldn't have made the decision I made," Dosanjh said.

He also said lawyers representing the federal government and the Mounties in the inquiry are not acting in the public interest at the inquiry.

The provincial inquiry was called in the wake of Dziekanski's death and is being overseen by Thomas Braidwood, a retired B.C. Court of Appeal justice. Braidwood will make recommendations to prevent similar incidents, and he could make findings of misconduct against the officers or anyone else involved.

Throughout these proceedings, Dosanjh said, the federal lawyers have taken a position of undermining Dziekanski's victimization and defending the role of the RCMP officers and the use of the Taser.

He said the federal lawyers seem to be doing that "because they want to limit the liability of the four officers in the RCMP and the federal government."

"But what they are doing by pursuing that short-term interest is actually preventing the public interest in a larger sense from being served, and that is absolutely not appropriate," Dosanjh said.



***************************************************************************
Braidwood inquiry 'a battle of experts': lawyer, Sat May 09 2009.

Lines have been drawn between Taser supporters on one side and Taser detractors on the other at the Braidwood Inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski. At the centre of the debate are the experts.

Dr. Zian Tseng, a leading cardiac specialist, told the inquiry he believed the Taser was a direct factor in Dziekanski's death at Vancouver International Airport in 2007.

"In my opinion -- in that scenario -- he wouldn't have died in a sudden death, if the Taser was not introduced in this situation," Tseng said.

This is testimony the lawyer for Taser International didn't want the Braidwood Inquiry to hear, saying "the evidence has no value."

On Thursday, in a surprise motion, David Neave asked that the reports by Tseng and several other doctors who were critical of Tasers be blocked, even though the non-critical reports by scientists employed by the manufacturer had already been heard.

"This is devolving into... has become, a battle of experts," he told Judge Thomas Braidwood.

Braidwood later decided the testimony of Tseng and the other medical experts would be allowed.

Taser international's lawyer wasn't the only one critical of Tseng. Counsel for the Government of Canada -- Helen Roberts -- questioned the specialist about every other possible contributing factor of Dziekanski's death.

Tseng agreed that tobacco could have had a negative impact on Dziekanski's body.

Roberts also asked about Dziekanski's lack of food and sleep, his agitation and his fear of flying, but nothing about the Taser's role.

Earlier in the inquest, she tried blocking RCMP officers, like Superintendent Wayne Rideout, from appearing at the inquiry.

This upsets former B.C. Attorney-General Ujjal Dosanjh. He gave political permission to introduce Tasers a decade ago. Dosanjh now believes he wasn't told the truth about the safety of the weapons.

He says the federal government and the RCMP are not serving the public interest.

"By impeding certain witnesses or trying to prevent certain witnesses from coming before the inquiry is preventing the commissioner from coming to a conclusion based on all of the evidence -- that is insulting to Canadians," he said.

Dosanjh believes the most prudent thing Canada could do is take Tasers away from the police until Judge Braidwood makes his final recommendations.



***************************************************************************
RCMP deputy commissioner apologizes for Dziekanski's death, Janice Tibbetts, May 11, 2009.

OTTAWA — The RCMP's second-in-command issued a direct apology Monday for the "tragic death" of Robert Dziekanski, saying the police service wants to learn from its mistakes and refocus training so that officers use force as a last resort.

"We are very sorry for Mr. Dziekanski's death," William Sweeney, the senior deputy commissioner, told a Senate committee studying RCMP reforms.

"We are committed to learning as much as possible from the circumstances surrounding his tragic death."

The Polish immigrant died at the Vancouver International Airport in October 2007 after four RCMP officers Tasered and restrained him after he threw furniture.

Sweeney, when asked what the force has learned from Dziekanski's death, said that Mounties need better training to return to traditional policing methods of diffusing potentially violent situations — such as talking down a suspect — rather than using force.

"We must spend more time with our training to use de-escalation techniques in a much more effective manner than perhaps we have in the past," Sweeney told the national security committee.

"In my day, it was always talking," he said. "We prided ourselves on time, talk and, if necessary, tear gas before we attempted to do any sorts of interventions that would physically cause harm to others."

Sweeney, the former deputy commissioner for the North West Region, which includes Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, cautioned that "Sometimes things happen so quickly that the outcome is not one we would have desired."

Dziekanski had left his home in Poland more than 24 hours before his death to immigrate to Canada to live with his mother in Kamloops, B.C., but they never connected at the airport and she returned home.

The 40-year-old stayed in a secure area, not accessible to the public, for almost nine hours. He eventually became agitated. When RCMP officers gave him conflicting commands, he threw up his hands and grabbed a stapler from a counter. An officer then used a Taser to shock him.

Dziekanski died within minutes and an inquiry in Vancouver is currently hearing evidence on the events surrounding his death.

RCMP senior media spokesman Sgt. Tim Shields said he was sorry two weeks ago after a former media relations officer testified at the inquiry that he provided inaccurate information about the fatal incident.

Sweeney on Monday did not directly discuss the RCMP use of Tasers, and said he would not comment specifically on the events surrounding the public probe.

However, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott has changed the force's policy on Taser use since Dziekanski's death — which was captured on video by a witness and shown worldwide.

Officers are now cautioned to only use the stun guns in situations that pose a safety risk, rather than simply to restrain a suspect.

Elliott has acknowledged that the RCMP has to rebuild public trust. The force has been plagued by scandal in recent years and began a process of reforms, as recommended in a December 2007 task force report on how to fix the embattled institution.

Keith Clark, assistant commissioner in charge of the reforms, told the Senate committee Monday that the force still has a long way to go in terms of a culture change, which he said remains overly bureaucratic.

Sweeney was considered a top contender to head the RCMP, but he was bypassed for Elliott, a civilian and former senior bureaucrat appointed by the Conservative government in July 2007.

Down.