Forgive My (Aging) Sins! – Duch, Polanski and all the rest face a jailed future

Former Khmer Rouge regime leader and torturer Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Duch, made front page news today when his trial ended with a plea for acquittal. Prosecution lawyers are striving for a 40-year sentence for the man who was responsible for the torture and killing of some 15,000 people in the S-21 prison in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979.

Duch, now 67, has admittedly had some distance from the situation. About 30 years of distance, in fact. My question is, do you prosecute someone who committed a crime in virtually another lifetime or let him enjoy the last years of his life with the dignity of an elderly man?

Take dear Roman Polanski and his underage lover from the late 70’s. Or French President Jacques Chirac’s embezzlement charges dating back to the 1990’s. And who can forget Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic and his 11 charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity from the early 90’s?

I could fill this page with names of people who are only now facing up to poisonous acts executed decades ago. And there’s an additional, and equally long, list for those we’d like to indict (re: George Bush). But is it fair to send these usually aging and possibly reformed former leaders into the bleakness of prison for what will be, most likely, the remainder of their lives?

For me, it’s partly a question of age. Just as I cannot imagine sending a 12 year-old boy to jail for the rest of his life for shooting off a gun at his neighbor, I have trouble envisioning a grandpa-type withering away his last days in a tiny, steel cell.

Additionally, there is the question of torture, since most of these soon-to-be inmates will face it at some point in their jailed lives, even as hunching old fogeys. Do we say, “you got what you deserved” and leave it at that?

There is something to be said about mental space. Space, in the form of years, in which the brain can reformulate patterns of thinking. Reform. I will be the first to criticize the Born Again Christianity movement, but I have been privy to cases where a person or family unit was ultimately transformed by their renewed belief in Jesus. In effect, Duch of Cambodia has tried to get off scot free using his Born Again status as proof that he’s a changed man. Are we buying it? And if we do, should we?

I’m not saying that we should just let all the bad guys go. Obviously, if no one learns that genocide or rape or torture is inherently wrong, we have no chance of eradicating it in future generations. I just think that when we’re dealing with a combination of old age and years passed since a crime’s occurrence, a little perspective is due. And possibly, maybe, a little humanity as well.

Tibetans protest in Paris against Chinese executions

As the Eiffel Tower glittered behind them, more than one hundred Tibetans and supporters gathered near the Chinese Embassy in Paris to protest against the recent executions of two Tibetans in Lhasa.

Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak, who participated in the deadly protests in the Tibetan capital during last March’s Uprising Day, were sentenced to death in April for allegedly “starting fatal fires.” The executions took place at the end of October and were confirmed by the Chinese government. The Tibetan government in exile, however, maintains that in fact four Tibetans were executed.

Tibetans gathered in Paris on November 21 in protest

In Paris, members of the Tibetan community association led protesters in heated calls of “What do we want? We want Freedom!” and “Hu Jintao: Assasin!” for two hours, while holding candles and national flags. The event was highly personal for many in the crowd, some of whom became teary-eyed amongst the pleas for a free Tibet. Although a small number of Tibetans were born in France, most of the 300-person community grew up in a Chinese-controlled Tibet or in Tibetan settlements in India.

Tibet has been under Chinese rule since 1950, following an invasion in 1949. Since then, the Tibetan people have suffered from religious persecution, forced displacement, assimilation and torture, and have become a minority in their own country. The Chinese continue to withhold the whereabouts of one the most important Tibetan spiritual leaders, the 11th Panchen Lama.

Protesters placed candles in the shape of the "Om"

The Tibetan community will participate in another protest, organized by Paix Sans Frontières, next Tuesday, November 24st, at the Place de la Reine Astrid, near the Alma-Marceau metro stop in Paris.

Human rights on the line: Obama snubs Dalai Lama and meets with Chinese president

I find it interesting that Obama, the man who speaks loathingly about torture, who caused a cafuffle over Guantanamo and denounced Iran’s violent crackdown on protesters last June, is now seemingly devoid of emotion toward human rights abuses caused by China.

The most recent photos of President Barack Obama have him not sitting white-scarved and smiling with the Dalai Lama like most U.S. presidents before him, but shaking hands with Chinese President Hu Jintao. Sure, Obama has every right to meet with the leader of this swiftly developing nation, but the wounds are still fresh from last month when, during the Dalai Lama’s visit to the U.S., President Obama canceled their planned meeting and postponed it to a still unidentified date.

On November 17, Obama and Jintao met to discuss environmental issues and what Obama calls their shared “burden of leadership” (as he put it to a forum of students in Shanghai). The two talked, shook hands like old friends and agreed in advance not to talk about the sticky issues.

If anyone still remembers, Obama recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. As shocked as I am over this development, I would think that his top advisors, if not the man himself, would want to protect that award and prove to us naysayers that he does indeed deserve it. Slapping butts with the Chinese president – who recently allowed the execution of two Tibetans who participated in the deadly protests against Chinese oppression in Tibet last year – won’t get Obama any closer to winning international approval on his ability to make equal rights a priority. Especially when the Dalai Lama is a fellow Nobel prize winner himself.

The Times of India had this to say on October 6, before the Jintao/Obama meeting even took place:

“The loud sucking noise you hear? That’s President Barack Obama kissing up to the Chinese.

At least that’s what supporters of the Dalai Lama would have you believe after the U.S President passed up a meeting with the Tibetan leader in Washington D.C. this week – ostensibly to not offend Beijing ahead of Obama’s visit to China next month.

It’s the first time in ten visits to the U.S. in 18 years that the Dalai Lama has failed to meet with the American president. The political and diplomatic slight to the man widely admired in the US has brought forth a volley of criticism against Obama, hitherto hailed a champion of human rights.”

The China-Tibet issue is not the only tolerance card Obama has left undealt. He has yet to ban CIA-organized “extraordinary renditions” – in which suspected terrorists are abducted and shipped offshore, interrogated and usually tortured – despite his supposed opposition to the use of coercive cross-examination techniques.

In fact, Obama’s softening backbone also seems to apply to his definition of torture and consequences for those who practice it. His condemnation of waterboarding last year ended in a retraction to press charges against CIA officials who had employed the tactic. He claims that instead of rehashing the past – and squabbling over wrongs committed by the Bush administration – he and his team were better off focusing their energy on the future. That’s all fine and dandy, except that it sets a mean precedent: if Bush’s authorization of torture was acceptable based on legal rationale, then what is stopping Obama’s administration from following suit?

I don’t doubt that Obama, the man, is against torture, is pro-human rights, is looking out for the genuine good will of every man, woman and child in America. Behind all the media and PR hype, there is a strong, intelligent, liberal and effective man who deserves to be leader, president, Nobel prize holder (perhaps).

But without some of that early grit and resolve that made so many vote for Obama, he’s bound to lose his head among the many self-serving and manipulative world leaders hoping to profit from his hyper-egalitarian nature. And there’s simply nothing human or right about that.

The Online Game of Trust

I still remember one of the lessons I learned in my ninth grade French class. It was about cultural differences and what we should be prepared for, assuming we ever A) made it through high school French, thus gaining an only slightly pathetic capacity to speak the language and then B) actually got to the Motherland one day, in which case we could use said pathetic French in our daily interactions with real, actual French people.

Among our required reading, I distinctly remember a three-word phrase that seemed to epitomize the mysterious Français at the time: “Stranger means Danger.” The line in one of our books told us that the French wouldn’t smile at us in line for the bank or sitting on the bus, but that we shouldn’t take it personally. They were just sussing us out before making sure they could trust us.

While I now, years later, try to figure out what sitting on a bus seat has to do with trust, I realize that this little phrase sums up quite a bit about how the French interact, in contrast to us American folk. But while “Stranger means Danger” was, at the time, most likely meant to refer to a trip to the bakery, it has larger implications for how the French live their lives today, specifically regarding the worldwide web.

Take Facebook, for example, which has become the most used social networking website in the world as of January 2009, according to ComScore. While America still wins big, with more than 700 million users, Facebook is steadily gaining momentum in France, where it recently edged out its main competitor Skyrock to become number one. With all these enthusiastic users, virtual friends must be hurtling through cyberspace at warp speed, right? Well…

Go on any American’s Facebook page and they’ve got upwards of 300 friends, maybe even 600. I know a guy who reached the 1000-friend mark last month. Ask him if he regularly sends personal messages or writes on the Wall of all these “friends” and he’ll laugh at you incredulously. But take your average French user, and you’ll find that each of their Facebook friends are real-life friends as well.

“I don’t understand people who accept or add me as a friend and then make no contact with me whatsoever,” spouts my French friend Jean, over a coffee. Our mutual friend Cecile agrees: “I had a guy from high school try to add me as a friend. But it’s been years since he’s contacted me so I ignored his request. If I barely know him then what’s the point?”

The point, for Americans, seems to be the opposite of the French: Add them as a friend first; make them a friend later. Or maybe never. My French co-workers were mildly horrified to hear that I had added many a Facebook friend with the click of my mouse, never to have any contact with them ever again.

So, who’s got it right? The French, who tend to take a guarded view of the intangible internet friend, or the open-armed, smiling American?

Being too trusting can cost more than just the unwanted online pal. In 2007, Katherine Ann Olsen of Minnesota lost her life after innocently responding to a babysitting ad on the online classifieds website, Craigslist, by a woman named “Amy.” However, Amy turned out to be 19-year-old John Michael Anderson, who lived with his parents, and was waiting to shoot Olsen in the back when she turned up. Craigslist again made headlines this past April, when a Boston University medical student allegedly killed a New York City masseuse after responding to her Craigslist ad for massages.

Of course, it’s not to say that the French don’t ever get themselves into online trouble. But, it just doesn’t seem to be quite to the same extent as the ol’ Americans. Or maybe, as the old adage goes, everything in France happens ten years later than in America. In this case, I hope not.

The online dating world seems to be the one area where France and the United States are at match point. With millions of users in each country, finding love online is no longer stigmatized as the lonely way to search for a mate.

Marc Simoncini, the founder of popular French site Meetic, says that online dating is different depending on your culture. In a 2007 Times Online article, he said, “There are only two philosophies in this business… the American philosophy and the French one. The Americans try to sell you love. We sell une rencontre [an encounter] and I don’t care what happens afterwards.”

So as French and American internet users attempt to navigate the online world successfully (dodging sexual predators, murderers and casual friends when necessary) it looks like love is still the one thing that connects us. Maybe strangers aren’t so dangerous anymore.

Obama wins the Nobel prize. But will anyone believe it?

Today everyone, even the man himself, seems to be asking…. did Obama deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize?

The header for Yahoo news is actually: “Surprised, humbled Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize.” They might as well have ended the sentence with a large yellow exclamation point and a “so were we” in parentheses.

Is a world leader eligible for this award? Yes, we’ve seen it time and again. But has Obama done enough yet to earn it?

Sure, he’s inspired hope in millions and changed the theme of the race wars in America (and abroad). But should the Nobel prize be based lightly on what the guy’s already done and more so on what is expected of him in the future?

Some past winners of the award include the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Jimmy Carter and Mother Theresa. Now, I love Obama as much as the next liberal, but placing him beside Mother Theresa is a bit of a stretch.

I don’t doubt that in a few years, Obama will have proved his name worthy of being placed next to these world greats. He is already well on his way by improving relations with the Muslim world, pushing for a more comprehensive U.S. healthcare plan, and generally inspiring Americans to do more, care more, and be proud of themselves for once. But view him already worthy of the Prize? No, I can’t.

Depressing Depression in France

As I watched yet another person walk by me in Paris muttering to himself tonight, I was reminded of a conversation I had not long ago with a psychologist friend about the French healthcare system. Considering it has one of the most inclusive and admirable ones in the developed world, I was shocked to find out that the social security – the near-full coverage that is given to all who live in France – does not cover mental health.

A visit with a psychologist in Paris costs around 80 euros for a one-hour session. That equals out to 80 euros once a week, or 320 euros per month – about half a month’s rent. If you’re lucky enough to warrant medication and thus, a psychiatrist (read: “doctor”), you can get your bill mostly covered by the social security. But what about all the others with anxiety, mild depression, or other illnesses that can be treated – oftentimes better – without medication?

Cognitive behavioral therapy, or talk therapy, has been proven effective alongside medication but also all on its own. Talking out problems, finding constructive ways to deal with difficult situations, reversing negative thinking, and learning techniques to calm the body and mind is what CBT is all about. It’s such a shame that the French government would rather pay for someone to pop a pill than to correct what is really at the root of his or her problems.

And the government should take note. According to the NOP World Health’s Western European Depression and Anxiety Physician Study from 2004, France has the highest proportion of depressed people in Western Europe. It says:

“Many sufferers are undiagnosed, however — and even those who are diagnosed are often not treated with prescription medications. This continues to be true, in spite of the fact that many established depression and anxiety therapies are available in Europe — several in generic form or recently re-launched with new formulations.”

Of course this isn’t just a French problem. Mental health is still a hush-hush issue in the most modern countries on the planet. In Japan, where suicide rates are among the highest in the world, killing oneself is seen as an act of nobility linked back to the days of the Samurai. Japanese have even been known to join internet suicide clubs to meet and talk about their planned deaths.

One nation attempting to fade the stigma is the U.S., which has paved the way with bestselling self-help books and pop-psychology. Seeing a therapist in America is trendy and a normal topic of conversation among friends. Billboards for depression and suicide line the highways, and Dr. Phil is a regular on afternoon TV. While the Obama administration struggles to find a solution to the healthcare crisis in the U.S., mental healthcare would most likely be included in a medical insurance plan as it is now under private insurance, with perhaps a slightly higher deductible.

Back in France, the general health insurance outlook is much better. Under the national social security, patients are covered up to about 60%, which is often supplemented by a 30-euro per month mutuelle plan, bringing that coverage to 100%. One would think then, logically, that mental health would be covered by some small percentage, if not the whole 60%.

Sadly, this is not the case. My psychologist friend says that they are working on it. But I wonder, what does that mean? And what needs to happen for the social stigma of mental health to once and for all, finally wear off so that people can get the help they deserve?

Whether it’s the depressing news about mental health in France or the depression itself, I have a feeling I know why the French never smile.