Herald Sun: A deathly silence

THE Western world recoiled in horror at the killing of 32 people at Virginia Tech by deranged gunman Cho Seung-Hui.

But there was little reaction to the deaths of more than 240 Iraqis at the hands of car bombers two days later.

A shopkeeper at the Sadriya market, where 127 people died and 148 were wounded, remarked that "the street was a swimming pool of blood".

The inclination to feel for the the victims at Virginia Tech because they were "people like us" and to treat dead Iraqis differently might be understandable, but it is wrong.

We cannot allow the seemingly hopeless situation in Iraq to numb us to the daily blood-letting on the streets of Baghdad.

US and British forces carry the overwhelming burden of trying to bring peace to Iraq but this is Australia's war as well.

We cannot isolate ourselves from the horror being inflicted on ordinary Iraqis by the unremitting internecine violence.

Our humanity should not become just another casualty of the Iraq quagmire.

Prejudice: disease model vs recovery model

The Disease Model for Understanding Prejudice

Assuming we succeed at modifying our behavior, can we eventually be completely free of bias against others? Can we rid ourselves of prejudice in the same way can cure a common cold or some other infection? The answer is no. Because prejudices develop slowly, over many years, they are resistant to instant cures. While we may quickly discover that a long-cherished stereotype is no longer accurate, our fundamental superiority/inferiority belief systems are far more difficult to modify and dismantle.

When it comes to heightening our awareness and changing our individual behavior, it is unrealistic to expect a "total cure" from prejudice. If we make this a personal goal, we are likely to become frustrated with our own progress. Therefore, viewing personal prejudice as a curable disease is an inappropriate metaphor. It sets us up for failure. It also makes us suspect in the eyes of others, who recognize the intractable nature of our bias. Instead of feeling reassured, aware people often shake their heads in disbelief when they hear a person proclaim, "I'm not prejudiced!" The statement itself is a sure sign of one's lack of awareness.

The Recovery Model for Understanding Prejudice

Instead of denying the depth and seriousness of the problem of prejudice, we can manage our own biases in a more productive manner. Each of us can learn to minimize the negative influences of prejudice through continuous discovery, reevaluation and reprogramming - but this awareness development requires ongoing attention. As such, we must view the future as a prolonged period of discovery and recovery.

As our personal awareness of otherness increases, we can look deeper and more objectively at old stereotypes, beliefs, and values. While we cannot rid ourselves of all personal prejudices, we can learn to manage them more productively - so they interfere less with our here-and-now perceptions and expectations of others.

The importance of self-management of prejudice was underscored recently in a major university study. In a series of experiments involving hundreds of participants, researchers found that while all participants were aware of negative racial stereotypes, "low prejudice" subjects were able to censor these inappropriate and negative stereotypes, while participants deemed "highly prejudiced" were strongly influenced by them.

As opposed to achieving a total cure, we can learn to censor stereotypes and prejudices as we increase our personal involvement with others. We can also help institutions change by pointing out ways in which the organizational culture and its systems can disadvantage othersand impede their ability to contribute fully.

Marylin Loden and Judy Rosener, PhD. Workforce America! Managing Employee Diversity as a Vital Resource.

Nagasaki peace declaration

This declaration was made by the murdered mayor of Nagasaki, Iccho Itoh. He was not killed for his nuclear weapons stance; it seems a Yazuka member was enraged that the city refused to compensate him after his car was damaged at a public construction site.




“What can people possibly be thinking?”

At the close of the 61st year following the atomic bombings, voices of anger and frustration are echoing throughout the city of Nagasaki.

At 11:02 a.m. on August 9, 1945, a single atomic bomb destroyed our city, instantly claiming the lives of 74,000 people and injuring 75,000 more. People were burned by the intense heat rays and flung through the air by the horrific blast winds. Their bodies bathed in mordant radiation, many of the survivors continue to suffer from the after-effects even today. How can we ever forget the anguished cries of those whose lives and dreams were so cruelly taken from them?

And yet, some 30,000 nuclear weapons stand ready nonetheless to annihilate humanity.

A decade ago, the International Court of Justice stated that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law, strongly encouraging international society to strive for the elimination of nuclear armaments. Six years ago at the United Nations, the nuclear weapon states committed themselves not merely to prevent proliferation, but to an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

Nuclear weapons are instruments of indiscriminate genocide, and their elimination is a task that mankind must realize without fail.

Last year, the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to which 189 countries are signatories, ended without result, and no progress has been observed since.

The nuclear weapon states have not demonstrated sincerity in their efforts at disarmament; the United States of America in particular has issued tacit approval of nuclear weapons development by India, and is moving forward with the construction of cooperative arrangements for nuclear technology. At the same time, nuclear weapon declarant North Korea is threatening the peace and security of Japan and the world as a whole. In fact, the very structure of non-proliferation is facing a crisis due to nuclear ambitions by various nations including Pakistan, which has announced its possession of nuclear arms; Israel, which is widely considered to possess them; and Iran.

The time has come for those nations that rely on the force of nuclear armaments to respectfully heed the voices of peace-loving people, not least the atomic bomb survivors, to strive in good faith for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and to advance towards the complete abolishment of all such weapons.

It must also be said that nuclear weapons cannot be developed without the cooperation of scientists. We would urge scientists to realize their responsibility for the destiny of all mankind, not just for their own particular countries, and to abandon the development of nuclear arms.

Once again we call upon the Japanese government, representing as it does a nation that has experienced nuclear devastation firsthand, to ground itself in reflection upon history, uphold the peaceful intentions of the constitution, enact into the law the three non-nuclear principles, and work for establishment of a Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, that the tragedy of war may not occur again. We also urge the Japanese government to provide greater assistance to aging atomic bomb survivors, both within Japan and overseas.

For 61 years, the hibakusha atomic bomb survivors have recounted their tragic experiences to succeeding generations. Many have chosen not to hide the keloid scars on their skin, continuing to tell of things that they might rather not remember. Their efforts are indeed a starting point for peace. Their voices reverberate around the world, calling for the deepest compassion of those who are working to ensure that Nagasaki is the last place on our planet to have suffered nuclear destruction.

The 3rd Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons will be held in October of this year. We invite people working for peace to span generations and national boundaries, and gather together to communicate. Let us firmly join hands and foster an even stronger network for nuclear abolition and peace, extending from Nagasaki throughout the world.

We remain confident that the empathy and solidarity of all those who inherit the hopes of the hibakusha atomic bomb survivors will become an even more potent force, one that will surely serve to realize a peaceful world free of nuclear weapons.

In closing, we pray for the undisturbed repose of the souls of those who lost their lives in such misery, we resolve that 2006 should be a new year of departure, and we proclaim our commitment to continue to strive for the establishment of lasting world peace.

[Hibakusha (被爆者) is the Japanese term for the A-bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As of 2005, there were 266,598 survivors, some living abroad. The Nagasaki bomb killed around 70,000 people by the end of 1945, and the Hiroshima bomb killed about 140,000 by that time.]

Mayor Iccho Itoh of Nagasaki

By David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Article dated Apr 18

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation mourns the death of Nagasaki Mayor Iccho Itoh, whose life was cut short by an assassin’s bullet. With this tragedy, the world has lost a great peace leader. As the three-term mayor of the last city to suffer atomic devastation, he became a leading spokesperson for a world free of nuclear weapons.

Mayor Itoh was the vice president of Mayors for Peace and a leader of their global campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons by the year 2020. The Foundation honored Mayors for Peace and the leadership of Mayor Itoh and Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba with our 2004 World Citizenship Award.

Mayor Itoh played a significant role in the three Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assemblies held while he was mayor. The most recent of these took place in fall 2006. In his Opening Address to this Assembly, he underscored his deep commitment, and that of the people of his city, that Nagasaki “must be the last place where an atomic bomb is dropped….” He made this a major goal of his life.

Along with many of my colleagues working for the abolition of nuclear weapons, I had the pleasure and honor of knowing Mayor Itoh. He was a man with an easy smile and open manner, but one with a firm dedication to building a lasting peace. In Nagasaki, he was a gracious host to so many of us who participated in the Nagasaki Citizens’ Assemblies.

In tribute to Mayor Itoh, we have included a link below to a reprint of the Nagasaki Peace Declaration, which he delivered on August 9, 2006. I urge you to read it as the final testament and call to action by a great man. Let its words sink into your heart, particularly these words: “The time has come for those nations that rely on the force of nuclear armaments to respectfully heed the voices of peace-loving people, not least the atomic bomb survivors, to strive in good faith for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and to advance towards the complete abolishment of all such weapons.” To achieve this goal will require an active citizenry. Citizens of the nuclear weapons states, and particularly the United States, will have to lead their political leaders.

In closing his speech, he prayed for the undisturbed repose of those who lost their lives in the atomic bombings and proclaimed Nagasaki’s commitment “to continue to strive for the establishment of lasting world peace.” In honoring Mayor Itoh’s life and commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons, let us add our own commitment to this cause so critical to humanity’s future.

Supreme Court backs ban on "partial birth" abortion

Yesterday, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin, backed a Federal ban on intact dilation and extraction, a later-term abortion method. The conservative 4 plus Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, voted with the majority. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman now serving, wrote in her dissent that the decision was "alarming," and that it "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court." Previously, several states had banned partial birth abortion, not all of them including provisions for use to save the mother's life. Multiple federal courts had found the bans unconstitutional.

Partial birth abortion is better called intact dilation and extraction. It is not used often. The same technique is used to remove a dead fetus (but this would not be banned under any of the state laws). Guttmacher institute reports that in 1996, D&X procedures accounted for only 0.03 to 0.05% of all abortions. The large majority were performed between 20 and 24 weeks gestation. Another procedure is called dilation and evacuation; it involves dismembering the fetus in the womb, and then evacuating the uterus. Most partial birth abortion bans are worded to cover this procedure as well.

It is important to realize that this is a rarely-used procedure. There are other methods of late-term abortion, and abortion in the first and second trimesters is generally legal. However, abortion rights are being eroded gradually, with parental consent laws, South Dakota's complete abortion ban, and now this. Abortion opponents generally intend to reduce abortion access gradually. American opinion is split on the issue, but a complete ban this minute would probably be opposed by a majority.

The Episcopal Church expressed "grave concern" over the use of partial-birth abortion, except in extreme situations. Is is logical to single this procedure out? The other option is inducing birth early; fetuses are generally not or borderline viable at 24 weeks and earlier. There is concern over the fetus experiencing fear and pain in partial birth abortions. And they do basically take the equivalent of a bullet to the brain. It's a quick death, and their nervous systems are rudimentary, but this is a concern. However, fetuses born by induced labor will also experience fear and pain. Should the Episcopal Church not have expressed concern over all late-term abortions? In any case, the Church has also voted to uphold reproductive rights in general; expressing grave concern over one abortion technique is not the same as saying that technique should be banned.

Expressing concern over late-term elective abortions would arguably not be a major infringement on the right to choose. These only account for a small fraction of all abortion cases. A lot of them fall surely into emergency categories, such as mother's or fetus' life in danger, and would be allowable in any case. (It should be noted that currently, most IDX procedures are performed electively, not for medical necessity.)

However, the current political climate is not friendly to the right to choose. Any sort of restriction on the right to choose could be seen as a stepping stone to further restrictions. It would be best if we left the decisions up to the women involved. I think it's also worth remembering that those who support reproductive choice would also rather abortions were used only when medically necessary, not as a means of contraception. That's why they invented the condom and the Pill. State bans on one particular abortion procedure are only one part of the story.

Recent edit: the ban that was found constitutional was a federal ban, not a state ban.

At least 157 killed in series of Baghdad bombings

Let us not forget the tragedies abroad: CBC news of Canada reports that at least 157 were killed and more injured in a series of car bomb attacks in Baghdad.

Lord, grant them eternal rest, and let light perpetual shine upon them.

More on China and Darfur

Sudan's Foreign Minister announced that he had approved a "heavy support" package for the existing African Union peacekeeping force. The existing force is only about 7800 people, and does not have authorization to use military force to defend civilians. National sovereignty is a cardinal concept of the UN, and nations must almost always approve a peacekeeping force being sent in. Sudan has so far resisted, but it seems the Chinese may have pressured them. Read the Xinhua report, dated yesterday, here. And, of course, continue to pray.