Tom Clark

The Summer of My Discontent:
Internments, War and Nuclear Weapons
August 2006

Click square for index

This has been a summer in which governments got away with some excesses with relatively little complaint from concerned citizens and people of faith. Governments, in their better moments, agreed upon some international principles for human affairs. To my mind these also relate to the faith traditions of the world: 1) a preminium on the value of the individual human life 2) compassion towards other people 3) no imprisoning without a judge determining the lawfulness 4) no attacks on cultural sites, civilian buildings and civilians outside a combat 5) no weapons of mass destruction. All these principles are now threatened.

In June, in Canada, a group of terrorist suspects was jailed without hard evidence. Long established legal protections against wrongful imprisonment had been weakened in our laws by legislative change in the name of the war against terrorism. At the end of July, large military attacks by Israel took place in southern Lebanon. Our government's endorsation was complete - as if there are no limits on warfare. Throughout summer we continued to receive grave warnings about the threat from Iran and its possible nuclear weapons.

Canada and its national security have a colourful history. I arrived in Canada in 1971 shortly after the War Measures Act had been used to send the Canadian army into Quebec. Under the Act, safguards were by passed and many believed to be militant separatists were imprisoned. The mood of the 1970s was to question the excesses of that. Now in 2006 there are routine powers under a modified law to arrest on suspicion. Over the centuries, despotic kings found it convenient to incarcerate those suspected of plotting aginst them in hidden jails where they were "questioned" to get names of other potential plotters. It took centuries of work by people with compassion to establish limits on what rulers could get away with. First came the right of anyone imprisoned to be promptly brought before a judge who would rule on the lawfulness. Then in the late 20th century came the absolute ban on the use of torture. I find it hard to belive that our time is so much worse than any earlier time in history so as to justify turning back the clocks on both these limits on the powers of rulers. If we care about vulnerable individuals we need these limits on their rulers.

Israel is part of an international community of nations and is accountable to Geneva Convention standards like any other State. The nations of the world have set limits on the use of military force. Civilians outside a combat are not be be attacked. Cultural and religious buildings are not to be destroyed. Other destruction must be proportionate to the aim. The extent of the military attacks in S. Lebanon seem to have gone beyond these limits. Given that the stated aim was to obtain the release of two kidnapped Israeli soldiers, the attacks appear completely disproportionate. If we care about ordinary individual civilians, we need to call for enforcement of the limits on warfare.

Then there is "evil" Iran. If Islamic countries such as Iran have the kind of religious struggles within them that tore Europe appart in the 17th century, it doesn't mean they are necessarily "evil." Articles from 2002 collected in a book by US foreign affairs writer Thomas Friedman were quite positive about some of Iran's political positions at that time. Of course, people of faith do not need to be naive. The increase in numbers of nuclear weapons and their proliferation among more countries like Iran is a threat to humanity and to life itself. On the other hand, it is difficult to say that Western countries may expand their nuclear arsenals and test more numbers of more potent forms of these weapons while Iran may not have nuclear weapons at all. Surely the just approach is to seek to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons universally?

So I return to the major faith traditions. People of faith need not be swept along with the tide of public opinion. Faith traditions have always questioned the "oughts" and "shoulds" of things. More of us need to do that. And if we do that, we will likely want to tell the powers that be to follow the principles they established.

TOP Click:



The Summer of My Discontent: Internments, War and Nuclear Weapons August 2006 Click square for index This has been a summer in which governments got away with some excesses with relatively little complaint from concerned citizens and people of faith. Governments, in their better moments, agreed upon some international principles for human affairs. To my mind these also relate to the faith traditions of the world: 1) a preminium on the value of the individual human life 2) compassion towards other people 3) no imprisoning without a judge determining the lawfulness 4) no attacks on cultural sites, civilian buildings and civilians outside a combat 5) no weapons of mass destruction. All these principles are now threatened. In June, in Canada, a group of terrorist suspects was jailed without hard evidence. Long established legal protections against wrongful imprisonment had been weakened in our laws by legislative change in the name of the war against terrorism. At the end of July, large military attacks by Israel took place in southern Lebanon. Our government's endorsation was complete - as if there are no limits on warfare. Throughout summer we continued to receive grave warnings about the threat from Iran and its possible nuclear weapons. Canada and its national security have a colourful history. I arrived in Canada in 1971 shortly after the War Measures Act had been used to send the Canadian army into Quebec. Under the Act, safguards were by passed and many believed to be militant separatists were imprisoned. The mood of the 1970s was to question the excesses of that. Now in 2006 there are routine powers under a modified law to arrest on suspicion. Over the centuries, despotic kings found it convenient to incarcerate those suspected of plotting aginst them in hidden jails where they were "questioned" to get names of other potential plotters. It took centuries of work by people with compassion to establish limits on what rulers could get away with. First came the right of anyone imprisoned to be promptly brought before a judge who would rule on the lawfulness. Then in the late 20th century came the absolute ban on the use of torture. I find it hard to belive that our time is so much worse than any earlier time in history so as to justify turning back the clocks on both these limits on the powers of rulers. If we care about vulnerable individuals we need these limits on their rulers. Israel is part of an international community of nations and is accountable to Geneva Convention standards like any other State. The nations of the world have set limits on the use of military force. Civilians outside a combat are not be be attacked. Cultural and religious buildings are not to be destroyed. Other destruction must be proportionate to the aim. The extent of the military attacks in S. Lebanon seem to have gone beyond these limits. Given that the stated aim was to obtain the release of two kidnapped Israeli soldiers, the attacks appear completely disproportionate. If we care about ordinary individual civilians, we need to call for enforcement of the limits on warfare. Then there is "evil" Iran. If Islamic countries such as Iran have the kind of religious struggles within them that tore Europe appart in the 17th century, it doesn't mean they are necessarily "evil." Articles from 2002 collected in a book by US foreign affairs writer Thomas Friedman were quite positive about some of Iran's political positions at that time. Of course, people of faith do not need to be naive. The increase in numbers of nuclear weapons and their proliferation among more countries like Iran is a threat to humanity and to life itself. On the other hand, it is difficult to say that Western countries may expand their nuclear arsenals and test more numbers of more potent forms of these weapons while Iran may not have nuclear weapons at all. Surely the just approach is to seek to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons universally? So I return to the major faith traditions. People of faith need not be swept along with the tide of public opinion. Faith traditions have always questioned the "oughts" and "shoulds" of things. More of us need to do that. And if we do that, we will likely want to tell the powers that be to follow the principles they established. TOP Click:
Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved