Tag Archives: peace

Human rights rally video – counter protestors confront peace walkers

Human rights rally video – end of peace walk

More video from human rights rally – peace walk

My speech from human rights rally

More video from human rights rally

From the Human Rights Rally on Sunday, April 20:
Confrontation at the rally site

Human Rights Rally – Confrontation

Confrontation between both sides of China/Tibet issue, April 20, 2008, Salt Lake City

Human Rights Torch Relay Rally Event

Despite biting northwest winds with extreme wind chill factors, about 150 people came out for the Human Rights Torch Relay Rally today. A peace walk occured around Salt Lake city, followed by a rally with speakers. There was supposed to be music, but it was so cold that the program was cut short. I got to deliver my speech, but I cut it very short due to the temperatures.

The event did not go without incident. “Counter-protestors”, most likely bussed in to SLC and all cities along the route, supporters of the Chinese government, appeared along the peace walk route. I will be posting videos as I get them uploaded to portray what I cannot convey in words.

Here are some photos:
Chinese Government Supporters:


Human Rights Advocates


Continue reading

Human Rights Torch Relay Rally in Salt Lake City

The Human Rights Torch Relay is an international campaign that seeks to bring an end to all human rights abuses against the people of China, while highlighting the persecution of Falun Gong – the most severely persecuted group in China today. During the run up to the 2008 Olympics, the HRTR will host events in 37 countries across six continents to present its message: The Olympics and crimes against humanity cannot coexist in China. The Tibetan, Burmese, and Vietnamese communities, the Darfur Support Network (Sudan), Chinese democracy groups, student groups, former Olympians, and representatives from sports and politics are among the relay participants. The HRTR was initiated by the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFG).

I have been asked to be a speaker on behalf of the Green Party, to address environmental injustice in China.
Sunday, April 20, 10am – Peace Walk followed by Rally
City County Buidling at Washington Square400 South State Street, Salt Lake City
Events starts with a peaceful march followed by speakers and musicians.
Speakers include: Chinese Olympic Basketball player Kai Chen, a Falun Gong former prisoner of conscience (whose speech will be read for her, so that she can remain anonymous for her safety), Tsewang Rinzin, president of Tibetan association, Erika George, U of U law professor, Deanna Taylor of Green Party of Utah Desert Greens and more.
—-
Deanna Taylor is a local peace activist who is also a co-coordinator of the Green Party
of Utah Desert Greens.  Deanna also serves as a delegate to the Green Party of the United
States and participates on several committees.  Deanna was a candidate for Salt Lake
County Council in 2006.  She also co-founder of the Green Party Peace Network.

A public school teacher by profession, Deanna, along with her husband Tom King, is a co-founder of Blue Sky Institute, a grassroots educational non-profit organization that focuses on peace, justice and sustainability issues.  Deanna has been to peace events all over the country and was a
featured speaker at a peace rally last September in Los Angeles.  She has also
participated in several civil resistance events in protest to war and nuclear testing and
has been arrested at the Nevada test site in May, 2006 in the move to stop the Divine
Strake test.

ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE IN CHINA
by Deanna “Dee” Taylor

Greetings from the Green Party of Utah Desert Greens, the Green Party of the UnitedStates, and the Green Party Peace Network.

The count down to the 2008 Olympics in China has brought with it assurances by the Chinese government that the development of human rights would be strengthened. However the Chinese government continues to restrict its citizens? fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. Labor rights, Children?s rights, Women’s rights, and access to health care to patients with HIV/AIDS, a very serious health issue in China, all are also compromised by the restrictions on the people living under the Chinese regime.

I will focus, today, though, on the how the Chinese government engages in human rights abuses by virtue of its unregulated environmental practices.

The BBC in August 2007 reported that some of the Olympic games in the Bejing games in 2008 could be postponed due to pollution. The president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was quoted that “It is an option.?Sports with short durations would not be a problem, but endurance sports like cycling are examples of competitions that might be postponed or delayed.”

Billions have been spent in an attempt to reduce pollution without success.

The Human Rights in China Olympics Campaign, in a February 2007 article called China?s Environment and Situation of Water reported that , and I quote:

With a record high of US$177.47 billion in trade surplus last year, China is one of the world’s economic powerhouses. However, this economic growth comes at the expense of the environment and public health. Researchers estimate that pollution in China causes more than 300,000 premature deaths every year. In addition to human costs, pollution has brought economic losses at an estimated 10 percent of China’s GDP. According to the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), China will need to spend a projected 1.6 percent of its GDP, totaling about 1.3 trillion yuan (US $167 billion) to clean up the environment and prevent further degradation between 2006 and 2010. Extensive environmental damage has also fueled rising social unrests. In 2005, SEPA reported that severe pollution prompted 51,000 public disputes, while the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has identified pollution as one of four social problems linked to social disharmony.

China’s environment is deteriorating on all fronts: air, land and water and is negatively affecting biodiversity and the health and quality of life for individuals. The statistics on air pollution, loss of farmland, toxic waters, and biodiversity are alarming.

The Chinese government’s lack of sustainable water management policies has contributed to water pollution that significantly harms public health, water shortage and contamination, and loss of community livelihood and local income.

Polluted water not only has a significant impact on public health in China, but also the livelihood of farmers and fishermen . Additionally, coastal waters have become polluted to the point of rendering the water uninhabitable for coastal species and organisms. The management of water in china does not reflect the regard for water being used as a communal resource, resulting in several hundred thousand displaced residents.

Under international laws, all people have the right to basic human needs, such as water, health and an adequate standard of living. These rights are protected in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which has been ratified by 155 countries, including China in 2001. Ratification dictates that countries must adopt effective measures to realize, without discrimination, the right to sufficient, safe, acceptable, accessible and affordable water. In China, however, this still remains out of reach for much of its population.

Various human rights organizations have discovered that, while for the 2008 Beijing Olympics Games, China has committed to a “Green Olympics,”  (giving top priority to environmental protection, including preventing air pollution and protecting drinking water sources. A reported $7 billion has been spent on environmental clean-up for the Olympic Games, and the government has committed to replacing coal with clean energies), the overall preparation for the Olympics has been plagued by corruption, forced relocations, and lack of transparency and independent monitoring mechanisms.

In other words, the Chinese government does not walk the talk.

How can we in the United States make a difference in this situation? Get active.

Participate in movements to boycott corporately controlled events like the Olympics. Boycott sponsors that promote the Olympics – especially those that are linked to human rights violation practices. Help support celebrities like Stephen Speilberg who, in a bold move, withdrew from his role as an artistic adviser to the 2008 Olympic Games in Bejing, because of his opposition to China’s support for the Sudanese regime responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. He has accused China of not doing enough to press Sudan to end the “continuing human suffering” in the troubled region. Write to the Chinese embassy to demand the release of political prisoners for exercising the right to speak out against human rights abuses. Support the environmental movement in China. Research, read and absorb all the information you can about environmental human rights violations to become better informed. Support groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, whose missions are to work to defend the rights of humans worldwide. Urge your representatives to defend human rights world wide. When exercising your right to vote, vote for politicians who value human and environmental rights in our world. I became a member of the Green Party because of its key values of non-violence, environmental justice, and advocacy for human rights. Seek out organizations which value life on our planet.

I’d like to end with this Pledge to Life, which my husband, Tom King, wrote:

I pledge allegiance to all life in its interdependent diversity;

and to the Planet upon which it exists,

one World,

under the sky,

undividable with harmony and balance for all.

Congressman Wexler on Petraeus

Here are examples of things I like about Robert Wexler’s voting record:
(info obtained from ON THE ISSUES)

  • Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
  • Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
  • Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
  • Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

Here are examples of t things I don’t like about Robert Wexler’s voting record:

  • Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
  • Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
  • Voted YES on allowing Courts to decide on “God” in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
  • Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

But recently, a colleague of mine forwarded a letter she received from Congressman Robert Wexler, D-FL, who is also up for re-election, regarding the Petraeus Hearings.  Here is his response, which I am pleased to see:

I want to thank you for the overwhelming response we received to my request for questions for General Petraeus. Thousands of emails poured in from all over the nation. My staff and I examined every suggested question and we were truly impressed with the passion, sophistication, and knowledge of the submissions. Choosing a few questions out of so many excellent entries was an extraordinarily difficult task.

One of the most commonly suggested questions centered on how General Petraeus defines victory in Iraq. This question struck a chord with me – as it no doubt did with so many of you – because it demands that the Administration actually define its goals (which, as you’ll see below, are totally unrealistic).

Underscoring the tragedy of the Administration’s failed policy, one of my constituents died in an attack on the Green Zone on Monday. I spoke with his parents yesterday, and they asked me to ask General Petraeus a simple question: For what? For what had they lost their son?

I asked him this question, and then asked him to define “victory.”

I did not expect General Petraeus to answer either directly, but he did.

He stated that we were fighting for national interest, including region’s “importance to the global economy.” (In my mind, a stunning admission of the true motives behind this war.)

He stated that they were trying to achieve a country that is “at peace with itself and its neighbors,” “could defend itself” that was “reasonably representative of and broadly responsive to its citizens.”

These are not reasonable objectives. Half the countries around the world are not able to defend themselves. Many have internal and external conflict – and few – including our own, are broadly responsive to its citizens.

(I find that last objective sadly ironic, as the Bush Administration, by continuing this misguided war, is broadly unresponsive to American citizens.)

I was out of time before I could ask a follow up… but if you read between the lines, his answer is vast in its scope. Clearly, their goals for Iraq and interpretation of “national interest” are wholly at odds with a swift redeployment of forces.

It has been a year and a half since the 2006 elections – more than enough time for us to have required, through provisions attached to funding, a phased withdrawal. At the least, we could have forced a genuine showdown with President Bush that would have forced him to defend his policies.

There is no excuse for even one more American casualty in Iraq.
Our troops must be redeployed. The Bush/Petraeus policy that denies reality must not carry the day.

I urge you to remain active and steadfast in your opposition to this open-ended, vaguely guided war.

Please read my exchange with General Petraeus below.

Congressman Robert Wexler

www.wexlerforcongress.com

TRANSCRIPT

Congressman Wexler:

Thank you.  General Petraeus, last week in anticipation of this hearing I sent an urgent e-mail asking my constituents and other Americans: if they were serving on this committee, what is the one question they would pose to you.

There was an extraordinary response, with more than five thousand questions submitted, these e-mails and phone calls expressed deeply held frustrations about the war in Iraq, and reflect the concerns of millions across the nation who feel their opinions and concerns were cast aside by the Bush Administration.

I want to thank everyone who responded and submitted a question for today’s hearings. While many of the respondents rightfully-highlighted the bravery of our troops, a majority of the e-mails expressed a strong desire to see withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, and an end to this five year war, that has cost our nation so dearly.

Most of the question! s boiled down to this: General we often hear President Bush and Senator McCain say we must win in Iraq. What is the definition of winning? What would a military victory look like, that was sufficient enough, to allow us to begin leaving?

Then, in a horrific turn of events, two of my constituents: Hester and Linn Wolfer of Boca Raton Florida, learned that this past Sunday their son had been killed for this war. Major Stuart Wolfer was a thirty six year reservist on his second tour. He was married with three young children ages five, three, and twenty months. His family was relieved that he was in the green zone, for they hoped he would be safe there. He was not.

I spoke to Mr. Wolfer yesterday last night, who asked me to ask you, simply: For What, for what had he lost his son? So allow me to combine if you will, the questions from the people that responded to me and Mr. Wolfer: What has all this been for? And please, respectfully, don’t tell us as you told Senator Warner yesterday: to remove a brutal dictator. That’s not good enough.

There are many dictators in the world. For what did Stuart Wolfer and the other four thousand and twenty four sons and daughters die for? And how will we define victory, so we can bring this never ending war to a close?

And if I will, when Mr. Burton asks for a definition of what is failure, we get a litany of items. But when Mr. Ackerman asks what is the definition of victory, we get little. Please tell us General, What is winning?

General Petraeus:  First of all, Congress, let me tell you that what we are fighting for is national interest.

It is interest that as I stated have to do with Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States and the free world, has to do with the possible spread of sectarian conflict in Iraq, conflict that had engulfed that country and had it on the brink of Civil War.

It has to do with regional stability, a region that is of critical importance to the global economy, and it has to do with certainly the influence of Iran, another obviously very important element, in that region.

In terms of what it is that we are trying to achieve, I think simply it is a country that is at peace with itself and its neighbors, it is a country that can defend itself, that has a government that is reasonably representative and broadly responsive to its citizens, and a country that is involved in and engaged in, again the global economy.

Ambassador Crocker and I, for what it’s worth, have typically seen ourselves as minimalists, we’re not after the Holy Grail in Iraq and we’re not after Jeffersonian Democracy.

We’re after conditions that would allow our soldiers to disengage, and that is in fact what we are doing. As we achieve progress, as we have with the Surge, and that is what is indeed allowing us to withdraw the Surge forces, again well over one quarter of our ground combat power five of 20 brigade combat teams plus two marine battalions and the marine expeditionary unit by the end of July.

Congressman Wexler: Thank you.

The Freeway Blogger

I found the video below of the Freeway Blogger, who I had the privilege of meeting when Tom and I went to Camp Casey in August, 2006. We attended his workshop at Camp Casey and learned of a great and easy way to get peace messages out.

More videos on the Freeway Blogger can be seen at You Tube.